insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1961','1','41','12','15','15','<p>12:15 <i>Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them: Why do you test me?- </i>Matthew has &quot;their wickedness&quot;. The wickedness could be their hypocrisy, which the Lord goes on to comment upon. But their &quot;wickedness&quot; could refer to their personal sins, and because in that moment the Lord perceived those sins, He thereby perceived their hypocrisy and therefore challenged them about their hypocrisy. He may have been given that perception of their sins by some flash of Divine insight, or it could be that His supreme sensitivity to people led Him to imagine correctly the kind of stuff going on in their secret lives.&nbsp;In what were they hypocritical in this matter? Perhaps they quietly paid the tribute money? Or perhaps it was because in order to answer the question, the Lord made them bring the coin through the temple courts, thus breaking their own laws<i>.&nbsp;</i>They should\'ve been more concerned about the huge gap between their professions and their practice, rather than focusing upon finding error in another. And so it is to this day- fault finding in others over religious matters typically hides serious hypocrisy, the concern with personal sin is transferred into concern about others\' sin. Our sense we ought to be self-examining is converted into an examination of others.</p><p><i>Bring me a denarius, that I may look at it</i>- The Pharisees claimed that pagan coinage should not be brought into the temple courts. This is why the coin had to be brought to the Lord. By so doing, the Lord was purposefully provoking the Pharisees; likely the Herodians brought it, not the Pharisees. In any case, we see yet another powerful evidence that the historical records of the Gospels are true to the very smallest detail.</p><p>The tribute money had the inscription&nbsp;<i>Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus Pontifex Maximus</i>- &ldquo;Tiberius Caesar, august son of the divine Augustus, High Priest&rdquo;. Pedants would&rsquo;ve quickly assumed that such blasphemous language and appropriation of titles appropriate to the Lord Jesus would mean that such coinage should not be used, nor should such tribute be paid to any man on this basis. But the Lord saw a bigger picture. He was quite OK with such token behaviours, but the far bigger issue was giving to God our own bodies and lives which bear His image.</p><p>The coin bore an image which strict Jews considered blasphemous, denoting Tiberius as son of God, the divine Augustus. The Lord doesn&rsquo;t react to this as they expected &ndash; He makes no comment upon the blasphemy. He lets it go, but insists upon a higher principle. &lsquo;If this is what Caesar demands, well give it to him; but give what has the image of God, i.e. yourself, to God&rsquo;. He didn&rsquo;t say &lsquo;Don&rsquo;t touch the coins, they bear false doctrine, to pay the tax could make it appear you are going along with a blasphemous claim&rsquo;. Yet some would say that we must avoid touching anything that might appear to be false or lead to a false implication our endless arguments over Bible versions and words of hymns are all proof of this. The Lord wasn&rsquo;t like that. He lived life as it is and as it was, and re-focused the attention of men upon that which is essential, and away from the minutiae. Staring each of us in the face is our own body, fashioned in God&rsquo;s image &ndash; and thereby the most powerful imperative, to give it over to God. Yet instead God&rsquo;s people preferred to ignore this and argue over the possible implication of giving a coin to Caesar because there was a false message on it. Morally and dialectically the Lord had defeated His questioners; and yet still they would not see the bigger and altogether more vital picture which He presented them with.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1962','1','41','12','16','16','<p>12:16 <i>And they brought it. And he said to them: Whose is this image and inscription? And they said to him: Caesar\'s- </i>He was setting them up for His point that whatever bears God\'s image and superscription is to be given to Him; and that refers to our body and whole lives. We have His signature on us; perhaps the Lord had in mind by this the idea that Israel were God\'s covenant people, His servants bearing His marks.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1963','1','41','12','17','17','<p>12:17 <i>And Jesus said to them: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar\'s, and to God the things that are God\'s. And they marvelled greatly at him</i>- The Jews were looking for immediate deliverance from Caesar. The Lord\'s parody of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem was designed to show that He was not bringing that kind of a Kingdom, that sort of salvation. By saying that tribute must indeed be rendered to Caesar, He was further dashing their Messianic hopes concerning Him, and further demonstrating that He was not the Messiah they were looking for. Thus He was consciously bringing about a situation whereby His popularity was turned into hatred, because of the whole psychology of dashed expectations making love turn to hate. The accusation that &quot;We found this fellow... forbidding to give tribute to Caesar&quot; (Lk. 23:2) was so utterly untrue.</p><p>What bears God\'s image, which is our whole body and mind (Gen. 1:26), is to be given to God. We have God\'s superscription written upon us, moreso if we are in Christ (Rev. 3:12; 7:3; 14:1). &quot;It is he that hath made us, and therefore we are his&quot; (Ps. 100 RV). We must be His in practice&nbsp;<i>because</i>&nbsp;He is our creator. So it is not that we merely believe in creation rather than evolution; more than this, such belief in creation must elicit a life given over to that creator.</p><p>The things which are God\'s are to be \'rendered\' to Him. The Greek word means to pay back, to return; even giving our very bodies only giving back what He has given us.&nbsp; The same word had been used recently by the Lord in teaching that we have a huge debt to God which must be \'rendered\' or paid back to Him (Mt. 18:25,26,28). We can read the Lord\'s words here as meaning that concerns about pedantic issues relating to coinage are irrelevant compared to the paramount issue- that we owe God everything. This would explain why the Lord says this after having accused them of being hypocrites, having perceived the sin they were involved with. Because we are created in God\'s image, the structure of our very bodies is an imperative to give ourselves totally to His cause (Mt. 22:19-21). Whatever bears God\'s image- i.e. our very bodies- must be given to Him. &quot;It is he that hath made us, and therefore we are his&quot; (Ps. 100:3 RV). We must be His in practice&nbsp;<i>because</i>&nbsp;He is our creator. So it is not that we merely believe in creation rather than evolution; more than this, such belief in creation must elicit a life given over to that creator.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1964','1','41','12','18','18','<p>12:18 <i>And there came to him Sadducees (these say that there is no resurrection)-</i> The obvious response to a question from such people about the resurrection would be &lsquo;But you don&rsquo;t believe in a resurrection&rsquo;. Lk. 20:27 says that they&nbsp;<i>antilego,</i>&nbsp;spoke against publicly, the resurrection. Mark&rsquo;s record adds that they also said that &ldquo;In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise&hellip;&rdquo; (Mk. 12:23). But the Lord was not so primitive as to point out their obvious untruth. He took their position as they stated it, and worked to demonstrate that even given that position, they were woefully ignorant of Divine truth. Long term, His approach stood a chance of working. If He had simply denounced them as liars and self-contradictory, there was no chance He would&rsquo;ve ever contributed towards their possible repentance and change of heart. This approach needs to be take to heart by us. For there are large numbers of believers who seem to think that their service to God involves cruising internet forums or endlessly arguing with their neighbours in order to prove them wrong and self-contradictory about doctrinal matters. This may give a slight ego rush for a moment, but it is not in fact any real victory. For the victory we seek is not to tie another up in mental knots, but to lead them to repentance, to the Lord Jesus, and to His Kingdom. We also need to note that recently the Lord had resurrected Lazarus, with the result that He appeared to have won over many who had previously supported the Jewish leadership. They were now trying to prove that resurrection doesn&rsquo;t happen. The Lord could&rsquo;ve called many witnesses to the resurrection of Lazarus, but instead He takes their argument and works from it.</p><p>It has been observed that the Sadducees were generally hedonistic- and this surely was a result of their denial of the future resurrection and judgment. Their belief was that only the Torah was inspired, and it was Israel&rsquo;s duty to live according to it in this life. They were a parade example of the effect of doctrine in practice.</p><p><i>And they asked him</i>- Over 100 times we read in the Gospels of various people coming to Jesus- His enemies, the crowds, His disciples, people in need. Each came with their various motivations, agendas and pre-understandings of Him. His invitation to &lsquo;come to Him&rsquo; was to come&nbsp;<i>in faith</i>. The repeated repetition of the phrase &lsquo;came to Him&rsquo; is perhaps to invite us to see ourselves likewise as amongst those who &lsquo;come to Him&rsquo; as we read or hear the Gospel record, ensuring that we are truly coming to Him and not merely on a surface level as so many did.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1965','1','41','12','19','19','<p>12:19 <i>Teacher, Moses wrote to us- </i>The Lord picks this up in His answer in Mt. 22:31: &ldquo;Have you not read that which was&nbsp;<i>spoken</i>&nbsp;unto you by&nbsp;<i>God</i>&rdquo;. He is telling them that God and not Moses was the ultimate speaker to them; and that the word was not merely&nbsp;<i>written</i>&nbsp;but is a living word, actively&nbsp;<i>speaking</i>&nbsp;unto them. For all their much vaunted belief in Divine inspiration of the Scriptures, these men had failed to perceive that God was speaking to them personally through the human authors. And that criticism needs to be remembered today by those equally wedded to a declared belief in Divine inspiration of the Bible. It is to be to us a word&nbsp;<i>spoken</i>&nbsp;and not a dead letter written on paper.</p><p><i>If a man\'s brother dies and leaves a wife behind him and leaves no children, then his brother should take his wife and raise up seed to his brother</i>- The Lord could have replied that if they read the entire passage in Dt. 25:5-7, they would see that God actually made a concession in this matter; and the whole principle only applied to &ldquo;brethren dwelling together&rdquo;. A man did not&nbsp;<i>have to</i>&nbsp;marry his brother&rsquo;s wife. In any case, as most adult men were married, it would have usually been a case of polygamy. But again, the Lord didn&rsquo;t point out that expositional error, but goes on to develop a far greater and higher principle concerning the nature of His Kingdom, in which such casuistry about marriage will be simply irrelevant. And again, He sets an example to those who have spent their religious lives arguing about divorce and remarriage and fellowship issues. Their arguments could be demonstrated to be expositionally faulty. But the higher principle is that such issues shall be irrelevant in God&rsquo;s Kingdom; and we are to live the essence of the Kingdom life now as far as we can, in spirit at least. The Sadducees made a big deal of the fact that the word translated &ldquo;raise up seed&rdquo; is that used generally in the Septuagint for resurrection. Their idea was that resurrection is not of the body but through family life. To die childless was therefore tragic indeed. The same error is made by many today who effectively believe that family life is the ultimate form of spirituality. It is not, and God seeks to build a personal relationship with each of us, He is the personal God of Abraham, Isaac etc., and we shall experience a personal bodily resurrection at which we shall appear before God stripped of our family, and relate to Him as a single individual.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1966','1','41','12','20','20','<p>12:20 <i>There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died leaving no seed</i>- This must have been a most unfortunate family. The Old Testament speaks of the failure to build up a house / family and the death of men in youth as being a curse from God for disobedience (Job 18:19; Ps. 107:38,39). Again, the Lord could have made capital of this- but He didn&rsquo;t. There was no element of personal attack, but rather an appeal to higher principle.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1967','1','41','12','21','21','<p>12:21 <i>And the second took her, and died leaving no seed behind him, and the third likewise</i>- As noted on :20, this was clearly not a true story.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1968','1','41','12','22','22','<p>12:22 <i>And the seven left no seed. Last of all the woman also died</i>- She would have been judged to be a most unfortunate woman, likely under God&rsquo;s judgment (see on :20). But the Lord doesn&rsquo;t question the very unlikely story nor the contradictions within it- instead He works from what was presented to Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1969','1','41','12','23','23','<p>12:23 <i>In the resurrection, whose wife shall she be? For the seven had her as wife</i>- The Lord could&rsquo;ve pointed out that they were well known for denying / speaking against the resurrection. But He doesn&rsquo;t make that obvious point, instead focusing on the higher principles rather than point scoring.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1970','1','41','12','24','24','<p>12:24 <i>Jesus said to them: Is not the reason you err that you do not know the scriptures, nor the power of God?</i>- Time and again the Lord assaults their pride in knowing the text of Scripture. &ldquo;Have you&nbsp;<i>never</i>&nbsp;read&rdquo; is commonly on His lips. We can read, and yet never really read; know, but never know. Familiarity with Bible phrases is simply not the same as understanding them correctly. The scriptures and God\'s power are paralleled, with every relevance for the Sadducees who denied the Old Testament&rsquo;s inspiration apart from the Torah. Likewise in their audience the Lord pointed out that David in the Psalms spoke &ldquo;in Spirit&rdquo; (Mt. 22:43)- the Psalms were inspired as much as the Torah.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1971','1','41','12','25','25','<p>12:25 <i>For when they shall rise from the dead- </i>Why does the Lord speak of the Kingdom of God as &ldquo;the resurrection&rdquo; (Mt.)? Perhaps it is to pave the way for His teaching that &ldquo;all live unto Him&rdquo;, in the sense that here He is likewise raising the idea that time will have a different dimension then. The joy and freshness of resurrection will last eternally. The Kingdom will be as it were an eternal moment of resurrection, an eternal now, with no fading thrill but an &ldquo;everlasting joy upon our heads&rdquo; that will not fade and morph with familiarity and the passage of time.</p><p><i>They neither marry, nor are given in marriage-</i> Note the present tenses. They are more striking in Lk. 20:36: &ldquo;Neither&nbsp;<i>can they die</i>&hellip; they&nbsp;<i>are</i>&nbsp;equal unto the Angels: and&nbsp;<i>are</i>&nbsp;the children of God, being the children of the resurrection&rdquo;. Greek tenses, unlike Hebrew tenses, are precise. We would expect &lsquo;They shall not die&hellip; shall be equal&hellip; shall be&hellip;&rsquo;. But the present tenses are striking. The Lord is building up to His point that the question about marriage is inappropriate because God is outside of our kind of time; He sees the believers in Him as even now immortal, a point made more strongly in John&rsquo;s Gospel. This is not the same as having an immortal soul, nor does it imply conscious survival of death. Rather is it a reflection of how God from His perspective outside of time sees His children. Jn. 3:3-5 makes the same point, that we are born again of water and spirit even in this life, and thereby are living the life eternal. But that is from God&rsquo;s standpoint outside of time as we experience it. Lk. 20:37 says that Moses &ldquo;calls&rdquo; present tense God &ldquo;the God of Abraham&hellip;&rdquo;. Not only does this imply a living word which speaks to us today, but again the point is made throughout the passage that God is outside of time. This choice of tenses in this passage is purposeful, for elsewhere we read of how Moses said or commanded things in the past tense (e.g. Mt. 8:4 &ldquo;things which Moses commanded&rdquo;, &ldquo;Moses wrote&rdquo;, Lk. 20:28; &ldquo;Moses gave you&hellip;&rdquo;, Jn. 6:32).</p><p><i>But are as the angels in heaven</i>-</p><p>The Sadducees denied their existence (Acts 23:8). The Lord&rsquo;s teaching that Angels do not marry was surely additionally an attack on the Jewish myths becoming popular at the time concerning the supposed marriage of Heavenly Angels with the daughters of men in Gen. 6. These myths are deconstructed in Jude and 2 Peter, but the Lord here is also correcting them. We marvel at how apparently &lsquo;off the cuff&rsquo; He could speak in such a multi-faceted and profound way, addressing various issues simultaneously. Although His intellectual and spiritual ability was doubtless capable of such instant responses, I prefer to imagine the Lord reflecting deeply upon God&rsquo;s word and preparing His ideas throughout the years of spiritual mindedness that preceded His ministry.</p><p>Lk. 20:36 adds that we shall be as &ldquo;the children of God&rdquo;, thereby answering the Sadducees idea that it is a human duty to have children and thereby continue the race, for therein do we have our &lsquo;resurrection&rsquo;. Again the Lord is lifting the whole question to a far higher level. Luke adds that the Lord first said that &ldquo;the children of this world marry&hellip;&rdquo;. The Sadducees were assuming that the Kingdom of God would be a kind of continuation of this present life, just with eternity of nature. Whilst there are similarities and aspects of continuity between who we are and who we shall eternally be, we are mistaken in imagining the future Kingdom of God as some kind of ideal earthly situation, a tropical paradise holiday, which shall last eternally. This is the same mistake as thinking that we shall eternally be doing what &ldquo;the children of&nbsp;<i>this</i>&nbsp;world&rdquo; currently do. Instead of criticizing and exposing the faults in the argument presented, the Lord makes the point that the Kingdom of God will not be about marriage nor about casuistic arguments about the definition of marriage- the very arguments which have occupied the minds of far too many of His children. Paul uses the same logic in reasoning that arguments about food are irrelevant because the Kingdom of God will not be about such behaviour, but about love, peace and joy (Rom. 14:17). Paul, like the Lord here, could have exposed the fallacies of exposition being engaged with, but instead reasons on a higher level- that seeing we shall not be arguing about such things eternally, let us not do it now.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1972','1','41','12','26','26','<p>12:26 <i>But concerning the dead, that they are raised, have you not read in the book of Moses- </i>Of course they had, but the Lord is yet again making the point that we can read Scripture many times but not really read it as intended.</p><p><i>In the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him- </i>Comparing with Matthew\'s record, surely the Lord said something like &lsquo;He spoke unto Moses, unto you, saying&hellip;&rsquo;. What was spoken to Moses was spoken to them personally, just as the living word speaks to every generation. The Lord was equating each secular Jew with none less than Moses himself. This was unthinkable blasphemy in Judaistic thought, to see oneself as receiving God&rsquo;s words, having God reveal Himself directly to us, just as He did to Moses. God of course had wanted to reveal Himself like this to Israel, but they asked not to hear His voice directly, wanting Moses as a mediator. But the Lord says that now, through the medium of God&rsquo;s word, the voice of God comes directly to us too. In the new Israel and the new Judaism of the new covenant, in this sense we are each as Moses.</p><p><i>Saying: I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob?</i>- If the Lord was looking merely for a reference to God being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He had many places He could have quoted from. I suggest He chose Ex. 3:6 partly to show that the supremely intimate, personal revelation of God to Moses was just the same now to all individuals within Israel. It was a living word spoken to them personally. But also because the Lord wants to make the point that God is outside of time- and that passage goes on to climax in the revelation of that same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the &ldquo;I am that I am&rdquo; (Ex. 3:14). The God outside of time, witnessed by the way the tetragrammaton somehow straddles past, present and future tenses, therefore sees the dead as alive &ldquo;unto Him&rdquo;. The question put to the Lord was very much rooted in the assumption that time as we now know it is going to continue in the Kingdom of God, and the Lord is making the point that this is an immature way of looking at it; and therefore the question was irrelevant. The Exodus 3 passage also contains repeated assurance that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will receive what God has promised- which requires bodily resurrection for them. We need to ever remember that the Lord was not merely demonstrating intellectual prowess in all this reasoning and allusion. He considered them as the sheep who erred / were astray, and through all His teaching here He was merely seeking to steer them to Him and ultimate salvation.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1973','1','41','12','27','27','<p>12:27 <i>He is not the God of the dead but of the living- </i>This Greek construction could mean &lsquo;Not only the God of the dead, but also of the living&rsquo;. But the context is the Lord demonstrating that the understanding of the Sadducees was very much a dead religion and their God was effectively dead. They denied the resurrection and considered that we have reward only in this life. In this case, God was the God of Abraham only in the past. The Greek phrase could literally mean &lsquo;Not the God the dead, but the living God&rsquo;, alluding to the well known phrase &ldquo;the living God&rdquo;. If God only acted for Abraham etc. in the past, then the God Abraham knew effectively died when Abraham died. But the living God seeks to impart life to the faithful.</p><p>Lk. 20:38 adds: &ldquo;For all live unto Him&rdquo;. The Lord is critiquing their division between this life and the life to come- by saying that the faithful live on now in God&rsquo;s memory as they will eternally; He speaks of things which are not as though they are (Rom.&nbsp; 4:17), and in this sense whether we live or die we are the Lord&rsquo;s (Rom. 14:8). Although the soul is mortal, the spirit returns to God and will be eternally &ldquo;saved&rdquo; at the last day. And the spirit refers to who a man essentially is, his thinking and character. This is preserved by God in His memory, and in that sense the faithful dead &ldquo;live&rdquo; before Him now. John&rsquo;s Gospel puts this in so many words by saying that we can live the eternal life right now. Whilst bodily resurrection is so significant from our point of view, the God who is outside of our kind of time sees the dead as effectively living as He extends forwards into eternity from the present- in a way we cannot now do. I made the point above that recently the Lord had resurrected Lazarus, with the result that He appeared to have won over many who had previously supported the Jewish leadership. They were now trying to prove that resurrection doesn&rsquo;t happen. The Lord at that time had emphasized that the resurrection of Lazarus was a visual reminder of the new life which those who believed in Him could experience right now: &ldquo;Whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die&rdquo; (Jn. 11:26). Luke&rsquo;s comment that &ldquo;all live unto Him&rdquo; is saying roughly the same thing. If our spirit is focused upon living and thinking the Kingdom life now, then this spirit is preserved by God upon death. And it is this which God sees after our death, and the sense in which we live unto Him.</p><p><i>You do err greatly</i>- The same word used by the Lord in describing how He as the good shepherd was searching for the sheep of Israel who had &ldquo;gone astray&rdquo; (Mt. 18:12,13). Exactly because He was searching for them with a view to saving them, He did not indulge in point scoring or exposing the numerous errors in their claims. The fact the Lord even tried with these types is a huge inspiration to us all to never give up with any group of people.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1974','1','41','12','28','28','<p>12:28 <i>And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing; and knowing that he had answered them well, he asked him: What commandment is the first of all?</i>- It is often claimed that this means &lsquo;Which type of commandment?&rsquo;. But the Lord&rsquo;s answer suggests that He saw it as meaning &lsquo;Which specific commandment&rsquo;.&nbsp; Mk. 12:28 records them asking which is the greatest commandment &ldquo;of all&rdquo;, which requires that they wanted Him to name one specific one. Again, the Lord lifted the question to a higher level, quoting two commandments and speaking of them as one single commandment; and demonstrating that the unity of God is a command rather than a mere piece of fundamental but dead theology (see on Mt. 22:37).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1975','1','41','12','29','29','<p>12:29 <i>Jesus answered: The first is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one</i>- The Lord Jesus taught that the command that God was one and therefore we must love God <i>included </i>the second command: to love our neighbour as ourselves. The first and second commands were in fact one command; they were inseparably part of the first commandment (Mk. 12:29-31). This is why the \'two\' commandments, to love God and neighbour, are spoken of in the singular in Lk. 10:28: &quot;<i>this</i> do&hellip;&quot;. See on Mt. 22:40. <br />The Lord was asked which was the first (i.e. the most important) commandment; we would expect Him to just recite one of them, and to say \'Well, there you are, that\'s my answer; that\'s the first one, either numerically, or in terms of importance\'. But in reply to this request to name just one of the ten commandments, He actually quotes two of them. There is no greater command (singular) than these <i>two</i>. So the Lord saw those two commands as one, the greatest, most important principle of our life before God. Yet He begins by speaking of the unity of God as expressed in His memorial Name, Yahweh your elohim, and says that <i>this</i> is what will lead to us loving God with all we have, and also to our loving our neighbour as ourselves. The Lord is saying that if we really appreciate this idea of the unity of God, that Yahweh is our God, then we will <i>therefore</i> love God, and also our neighbour. So what does it mean, to love our neighbour as ourselves? In the context of the Decalogue, the neighbour of the Israelite would have been his fellow Israelite, not the Gentile who lived next door to him. The command to love our neighbour as ourselves is elsewhere given an equivalent under the new Covenant: to love our brother or sister in the ecclesia as ourselves. Gal. 5:14 and James 2:8 quote this command in the context of ecclesial life.</p><p>The Lord said that the first, the most important, of the commandments was that God is one Yahweh. He didn\'t see this as an abstract doctrine. He saw the doctrine of the unity of God as a command, it demands behaviour in response to it. He saw the unity of God as part and parcel of the command to love our neighbour as ourselves. Why? Surely He saw that the facts that God\'s Name is one, and all His people are in some way <i>in</i> His Name, mean that we must love others in that Name as much as we love ourselves and as much as we love God. Now apply this to the phenomena of Christian disillusion with the church. We are <i>in</i> God, and God is one. So we are all one with each other. Loving our neighbour in Christ as ourselves is placed parallel with loving God with all our heart, strength etc. This means that the main drive of our service to God should be devoted to loving our brother, our neighbour. All those who are baptized into the Name must be loved as we love ourselves. This in itself sinks the possibility of a \'desert island\' existence. We just can\'t live alone. We can\'t quit on the brotherhood if we want to love God. And this tough, far reaching conclusion comes from knowing that God is one, and all in Him are therefore one. &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1976','1','41','12','30','30','<p>12:30 <i>And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength</i>- See on 1 Thess. 1:2. That God is one is a command, an imperative to action. It underlies the whole law and prophets (Mt. 22:40)- it\'s that fundamental. If there were two Gods, Yahweh would only demand half our energies. Nothing can be given to anything else; for there is nothing else to give to. There\'s only one God. There can be no idolatry in our lives, because there is only one God (2 Kings 19:18,19). Because &quot;there is none else, you shall keep&nbsp;<i>therefore</i>&nbsp;his statutes&quot; (Dt. 4:39,40). The Hebrew text of Dt. 6:4 suggests: &quot;The Lord is our God, the Lord is one&quot;, thereby linking Yahweh\'s unity with His being our God, the sole Lord and unrivalled Master of His people. It also links the first principle of the unity of God with that of the covenant to Abraham; for &ldquo;I will be their God&quot; was one of the features of the covenant. The one God has only one people; not all religious systems can lead to the one Hope of Israel.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1977','1','41','12','31','31','<p>12:31 <i>The second is this: You shall love your neighbour as yourself- </i>This is indeed a challenge; not only to love ourselves, but to relate to our neighbour as to ourselves. It suggests a unique unity between us and our neighbour within the Israel of God. That humanly impossible unity is only achievable by loving the one God. To love God and our brother is all part of the same thing. It is indivisible; the two commandments are in fact one commandment in practice. To claim to love God but not love or even be involved with our brother means, therefore, that we don&rsquo;t actually love God. John makes this explicit in 1 Jn. 4:1, and much of the Lord&rsquo;s teaching does likewise. Yet our tendency is to isolate them, claiming to love God whilst ignoring our brother, and maintaining a strong sense of separation from him.</p><p><i>There is no other commandment greater than these</i>- Again, the Lord makes the point. They wanted&nbsp;<i>one</i>&nbsp;commandment isolated as the greatest, and He gave them two, with the further comment that &ldquo;all the law&rdquo;, all the others, hung equally upon those two. The spiritual way of life is not a case of isolating one or two commandments and keeping them, but rather living a spirit of life and thinking. Loving God and our neighbour are seamlessly united, although so many try to do one without the other. On the one extreme is the person who sits at home in splendid isolation with their love for God, on the other is the person who thinks that love for neighbour- some neighbours, anyway- is quite enough, and needs no underpinning in a love for God, which involves keeping His commandments.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1978','1','41','12','32','32','<p>12:32 <i>And the scribe said to him: Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, that He is one and there is no other but He- </i>&nbsp;In the same way as we cannot choose to live in isolation from the Father and Son, so we cannot separate ourselves from others who bear the same Name. The Scribe well understood all this: &quot;There is one God... and to love him... and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices&quot; (Mk. 12:32,33). Those whole offerings represented the whole body of Israel (Lev. 4:7-15). The Scribe understood that those offerings taught that all Israel were unified together on account of their bearing the same Name of Yahweh. We must love others who bear that Name &quot;as ourselves&quot;, so intense is the unity between us. In some ways, we should lose the sense of our own self interest; we should somehow be able to have the same spiritual interest in others (for this is true love) as we do for ourselves. So this sense of true selflessness which we would dearly desire is connected with an appreciation of the doctrine of the intense unity of God and of His Name, and of the glorious principle of God manifestation. By sharing the one Name, we are one together. See on Jn. 5:23.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1979','1','41','12','33','33','<p>12:33 <i>And to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is much more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices</i>- The Scribe said that the most important commandment to love God &ldquo;with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly (Gk. &lsquo;in an intellect-having way&rsquo;), He said unto him, Thou art not far from the Kingdom&rdquo;. Notice how &lsquo;understanding&rsquo; with the intellect is put higher in the list than loving one&rsquo;s neighbour. The fundamental thing is to correctly understand, and this will naturally lead to a life of practical love. Our surrounding &lsquo;Christian&rsquo; world has inverted this order; love of neighbour has been placed above correct understanding of God. Because the Scribe answered in an intellect-having way, the Saviour said that He was near to the Kingdom. To reach the Kingdom therefore involves correct understanding. The words of Mk. 12:33 allude to a number of OT passages which likewise show the superiority of knowledge and practical service over sacrifices (1 Sam. 15:22; Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6-8). Putting them together we find the following parallels:</p><div align=center><table border=0 cellspacing=10 cellpadding=0 width=60%>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td>            <p>            To obey God&rsquo;s word</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>is better than sacrifice</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>To listen to God&rsquo;s word&nbsp;</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>is better than sacrifice</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>To show mercy</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>is better than sacrifice</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>To know God&nbsp;</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>is better than sacrifice</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>To be humble and just</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>is better than sacrifice</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>To understand God&nbsp;</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>is better than sacrifice</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table></div><p>Understanding God, hearing His word, knowing God (all acts of the intellect) are therefore paralleled with practical things like loving out neighbour, showing mercy, justice etc. These practical things are an outcome of our correct knowledge of God.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1980','1','41','12','34','34','<p>12:34 <i>And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him: You are not far from the kingdom of God. And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions</i>- A correct <i>understanding</i> of the Law and the sacrifices meant that a man was near the Kingdom (Mk. 12:34). The principles of the Lord\'s Kingdom, His rulership over men, were taught throughout the Old Testament. These very words about asking no more questions are used of how the disciples after the resurrection dared not ask who Jesus was (Jn. 21:12), which is the very context here. The connection is clearly to show that they too through their being too influenced by Jewish thinking found themselves in the same category as the unbelieving Jews- the difference being that they repented of it. Matthew was appealing to Jews to accept Jesus and repent of their wilful misunderstanding, and he and John are holding themselves up as a role model, just as we should in our appeals for repentance. The Greek for &ldquo;questions&rdquo; isn&rsquo;t in the original; they dared not ask Him again. The implication from the context could be that they dared not ask Him &lsquo;Who are You?&rsquo;, for the answer was clear in their consciences. They knew, on one level, that He was Messiah, that He was the heir to the vineyard, whom they knowingly sought to murder.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1981','1','41','12','35','35','<p>12:35 <i>And Jesus asked, as he taught in the temple: Why do the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?</i>- They were surely aware that Jesus was a son of David, on both the sides of Mary and Joseph. For they would&rsquo;ve done their homework as to His apparent family of origin. Lk. 20:41 records that the Lord addressed a question to the wider audience: &ldquo;How say they that Christ is David&rsquo;s son?&rdquo;. But Matthew says He asked the Pharisees. Having let the Pharisees give the answer, He then asks others how this can be the case. Again, the Lord&rsquo;s dialogues with the Pharisees was not simply to try to convert them, but in order that the audience would learn. Mk. 12:37 concludes the section by observing that &ldquo;the common people heard Him gladly&rdquo;, so again we see how the records seamlessly complement each other.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1982','1','41','12','36','36','<p>12:36 <i>David himself said in the Holy Spirit: The Lord said- </i>Clearly Yahweh. If the Divine Name was to be used in the New Testament, surely this would be the place for it. The fact it is not, when some Hebrew words are used (e.g. &lsquo;Sabaoth&rsquo;), shows clearly enough that the literal usage of the tetragrammaton is not something God sees as important or even required.</p><p><i>To my Lord-</i> Biblically and historically, David&rsquo;s immediate &lsquo;Lord&rsquo; was Saul. Ps. 110 was originally a revelation to David of the potential possible for Saul, who was an anointed &lsquo;Messiah&rsquo; figure. But Saul failed, and so the fulfilment of the prophecy was rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord Jesus.</p><p><i>Sit on My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet</i>- The Lord&rsquo;s enemies stood around Him as He applied this Psalm to Himself.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1983','1','41','12','37','37','<p>12:37 <i>David himself calls him Lord; and how is he therefore his son? And the common people heard him gladly</i>- Judaism&rsquo;s concept of Messiah has always been vague and not commonly agreed, but there was and is the idea that the likes of Abraham, Moses and David are greater than Messiah. The Lord is pointing out that David considered Messiah to be his &ldquo;Lord&rdquo;, just as Messiah was greater than Abraham (Jn. 8:58). The &ldquo;how&rdquo; doesn&rsquo;t imply that David&rsquo;s Lord is not his son, but rather is a rhetorical question. How is the Messianic son of David, David&rsquo;s &ldquo;Lord&rdquo;, to be his son or descendant? The Lord reinforced the question by asking &ldquo;<i>From whence</i>&nbsp;is He his son?&rdquo; (AV). The answer had to be: &lsquo;Through a woman in David&rsquo;s direct line giving birth to Him&rsquo;. And the questioners were fully aware that Jesus was in the direct line of Mary</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1984','1','41','12','38','38','<p>12:38 <i>And in his teaching he said: Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes and to have salutations in the marketplaces</i>- The Lord&rsquo;s reason for going to the market was to invite men to work in the vineyard and receive the penny of salvation (Mt. 20:3); and His people sitting in the markets sought to persuade others of the need to respond to the Gospel (Mt. 11:16). The Pharisees went to the markets to simply flaunt their external spirituality. Again, note how their behaviour was the very inversion of true spirituality.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1985','1','41','12','39','39','<p>12:39 <i>And the chief seats in the synagogues and chief places at feasts</i>- They wanted to be publicly seen as spiritually superior. The whole structure of church life, whereby some must have public roles, is such that people can fall so easily into a love of publicity. The Lord realizes this, and often removes His beloved from such temptations. This explains the otherwise inexplicable way in which the Lord allows some of His most talented and capable servants to be removed from the public eye to serve Him in human obscurity.&nbsp;Note that the Lord here is repeating almost word for word what He has previously said about the Pharisees in Luke 11. To repeat so much text twice in the Gospel records, and for the Lord to give identical word-for-word teaching on two occasions, shows how important these warnings are for all readers. This consideration alone suggests that we each have the same tendency as the Pharisees; they are but epitomes of our own deepest tendencies and desires.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1986','1','41','12','40','40','<p>12:40 <i>They that devour widows\' houses- </i>The language used here about the behaviour of the Scribes and Pharisees is elsewhere used about the righteous behaviour of the Lord and His followers; the Jewish leaders were living a religious life, but it was but a parody of true spirituality. The same words for &ldquo;devour&rdquo; and &ldquo;house&rdquo; are used of how the Lord Jesus was &lsquo;eaten up&rsquo; or &lsquo;devoured&rsquo; with zeal for His Father&rsquo;s &ldquo;house&rdquo;. But by contrast the Scribes thought only of how they could devour the houses of widows, scheming how to get the house of a vulnerable single old woman left to them, and how they could devour that wealth upon themselves. We note that Mark and Luke conclude this section with the account of the widow who gave her entire wealth to the temple coffers (Mk. 12:42; Lk. 21:1). This was surely to add assurance that although her donation was misused, it was carefully noted by God to her eternal credit.</p><p><i>And for a pretence make long prayers- </i>They were hypocrites. The word was used about an actor&rsquo;s cloak, and thus connects with the theatrical term &lsquo;hypocrites&rsquo;, play-actors. The Lord uses the same word in Jn. 15:22: &ldquo;If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no&nbsp;<i>cloak</i>&nbsp;for their sin&rdquo;. When did He come and speak unto the Jews about their hypocrisy? Surely here in Mark 12. Although they did have a cloak for their sin before men, the Lord is saying in John 15 that they have no such cloak before Him.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>These shall receive greater condemnation</i>- There will be degrees of punishment, although it will be self-inflicted.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1987','1','41','12','41','41','<p>12:41 <i>And he sat down over against the treasury, and watched how the crowd threw money into the treasury; and many that were rich threw in a lot</i>- The many small coins they threw in make a loud clanging noise in the collection trumpets. They were literally trumpeting their good deeds before men in God\'s house. The widow threw in the same kind of coins which they threw in in abundance. What she threw in was scarcely audible to men; but the Lord noticed. The only other references to the Lord sitting are to Him sitting in judgment. And that judgment was ongoing even then; it does and will finally take into account the things not audible to men.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1988','1','41','12','42','42','<p>12:42 <i>And there came a poor widow, and she threw in two small copper coins, which make a penny</i>- The Lord taught that one must forsake all that he has in order to truly be His disciple (Mt. 13:44; Lk. 14:33). But at the end of His ministry, He as it were chose to exemplify this aspect of discipleship by drawing attention to a woman who gave to God &ldquo;all the living that she had&rdquo; (Lk. 21:3). Putting the passages together, the Lord is saying that she is to be the model for us all in this aspect of devotion. She could have kept one of the coins; but she threw both of them in.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1989','1','41','12','43','43','<p>12:43 <i>And he gathered his disciples, and said to them: Truly I say to you, this poor widow threw in more than all they that are throwing money into the treasury</i>- See on 2 Cor. 8:11,12. They were needed to be gathered together to hear this teaching; they had not noticed it, or not been impressed by what the woman did. So clearly, God accounts not as man does. We are judged according to our possibilities and not according to volume of achievement. She threw in &quot;more&quot;, literally she \'exceeded\', that the others had thrown in. The same word is used of how our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 5:20). She is again presented as the model disciple. The word has just been used&nbsp;in :33 of how love of God and neighbour is &quot;more&quot; than all sacrifices. She achieved that love not by volume of achievement but in her attitude.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1990','1','41','12','44','44','<p>12:44<i> For they threw in money they didn\'t need, but she though needy threw in all that she had- all her livelihood</i>-The Lord condemned the Pharisees for devouring widow&rsquo;s houses (Mk. 12:40), but then goes on to show how the widow who threw in all her wealth to the treasuries of the corrupt Pharisees had actually gained great approval in God&rsquo;s eyes by doing so (Mk. 12:44). Out of evil, good came. The Lord didn&rsquo;t just lament the cruel selfishness of the Jewish leadership. He pointed out how God worked through even this to enable a poor woman to please Him immensely. There is a wondrous ecology in all this; nothing is lost. Nothing, in the final end, can be done against the Truth, only for the Truth.</p><p>The Lord pointed out to the disciples how the extreme generosity of the widow, giving the two pennies of her business capital, her &quot;living&quot;, to the Lord, was worth far more than the ostentatious giving of the wealthy Jewish leadership (Mk. 12:44); but the next incident recorded by Mark is the disciples marvelling at the ostentatious buildings of the temple, and the Lord explaining that all this needed to be thrown down (Mk. 13:1,2). Their slowness to perceive is such a theme of the gospel records.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1991','1','41','13','1','1','<p>13:1 <i>And as he left the temple-</i> This was a visual depiction of the Lord\'s previous statement that the house of the temple was now left desolate (Mt. 23:38). The Lord surely had in mind how the glory of God, which was Him (2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 1:27; James 2:1), progressively left the temple in Ezekiel\'s time, until the Babylonians came and destroyed the temple (Ez. 10:18), and how the loss of the ark (another symbol of the Lord Jesus) was the glory departing from Israel (1 Sam. 4:21,22).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>One of his disciples said to him: Teacher, look what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings</i>- These words are taken over in the later New Testament to describe the building up often translated \'edifying\' of a new temple, comprised of the believers in Christ. The temple buildings were thrown down&nbsp;<i>in order that</i>&nbsp;a new and spiritual building comprised of believers could be built up through the Lord\'s work in the hearts of His people. The group of believers are &quot;All the building which grows into a holy temple in the Lord&quot; (Eph. 2:21). Paul, writing before AD70, may have had this contrast indirectly in mind when he wrote that when the earthly house is destroyed, we should remember that we have a &quot;house not made with hands&quot; built by God (2 Cor. 5:1). The same struggle and angst at the loss of physical structures of our religion can be seen today; some find it hard to believe that relationship with God is ultimately personal, and that relationship continues even when surrounding, much loved traditional structures are removed.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1992','1','41','13','2','2','<p>13:2 <i>And Jesus said to him: Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another. All will be thrown down</i>- This again expands upon His previous use of this word in Mt. 23:38: &quot;Your house is&nbsp;<i>left</i>&nbsp;unto you desolate&quot;. He is asking the disciples to see with the eye of faith- that effectively, the great stones of the temple were already thrown down, the temple was already &quot;desolate&quot; (Gk. \'a deserted place\').</p><p>The judgment of the leprous house was to be thrown down, stone by stone (Lev. 14:41). At the time of the final assault on Jerusalem in AD69, Titus commanded that the temple was to be spared. But the Lord\'s words came true, just as all prophetic words will, despite every human effort to deny their power. Josephus claims that the gold of the temple melted and therefore each stone was prized apart to remove the gold.</p><p>There was a strong belief in Judaism that the temple would last eternally. Hence the disciples&rsquo; question about &ldquo;the end of the age&rdquo; was because for them, any talk about the end of the temple meant the end of the world. They are not therefore asking about different chronological events when they ask when this shall be, and what sign would indicate the end of the age. This prophecy of the destruction of the temple implied an ending of the Mosaic law. Hence the same word translated &quot;thrown down&quot; is ascribed to Stephen when he was accused of preaching that the Lord Jesus would &quot;<i>destroy</i>&nbsp;this place and therefore change the customs which Moses delivered us&quot; (Acts 6:14). Paul uses the same word about his \'destruction\' of the things of legalistic dependence on the law for salvation, by preaching salvation by grace in Jesus (Gal. 2:18). It is also the word used in 2 Cor. 5:1, a passage which seems to have some reference to the impending destruction of the temple and its replacement with the spiritual house of God\'s building: &quot;Our earthly house of this tabernacle be&nbsp;<i>destroyed</i>&nbsp;s.w. &quot;thrown down&quot;, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands...&quot;. All this would suggest that there was a changeover period envisaged between the Lord\'s death and the final ending of the jurisdiction of the Mosaic law. Seeing the end Lord ended the Law on the cross, this again is to be seen as a concession to the conservatism of the Jews.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1993','1','41','13','3','3','<p>13:3 <i>And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately</i>- The private enquiry was because the Lord had just stated something dangerously illegal. Martin Hengel concludes that the early Gospel records were so radical that they would&rsquo;ve been part of an &ldquo;underground literature&rdquo;. He suggests that the Roman law forbidding oral or written prophecies about the fall of the Roman empire- on pain of death- was enough to make the Olivet prophecy alone a highly illegal document.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1994','1','41','13','4','4','<p>13:4 <i>Tell us, when will these things occur, and what shall be the sign when these things are about to happen?</i>- They clearly expected one particular sign, and&nbsp;<i>semeion</i>&nbsp;is typically used of a miraculous wonder. Instead, the Lord gave them a series of signs which they were to discern. The fulfilment of these signs in our times is no less than a miracle- that such detailed predictions could start to come true before our eyes. Such fulfilment of prophecy is therefore itself a miracle. The disciples repeat the Pharisees\' question about when the end will come- in almost the same words. They were clearly influenced by them (Lk. 17:20 cp. Mk. 13:4). The disciples (in their childish way) showed the Lord the greatness of the temple, and he commented that soon it would be destroyed. They asked the obvious question: When? Usually, the Lord didn\'t reply directly to questions; he gave answers which branched out into something altogether more comprehensive than the original question (Consider Mt. 13:10,11; 15:2,3; Mk. 10:4,5; Lk. 17:20; Jn. 3:4,5; 4:9,10; 6:28,29; 8:53,54; 11:8,9; 14:22,23). <i>Nearly every example of the Lord Jesus answering a question includes this feature.</i> To the disciples, the destruction of the temple meant the end of the age- it was a calamity. They assumed that if the temple was destroyed, it must be replaced immediately by their Jesus coming again with his Messianic Kingdom. Their minds were still not suitably distanced from their Judaist background. They asked <i>one</i> question: &quot;When shall these things (the destruction of the temple) be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?&quot; (Mk. 13:4). Mt. 24:4 can make it seem that they asked two questions: &quot;When shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of they coming, and of the end of the world?&quot;. But the parallel record in Mk. 13:4 makes it clear that actually these were parts of the same question concerning the temple\'s destruction. To the disciples, the coming of Christ, the end of the world and the temple\'s destruction were all the same event. The Lord answered their question by speaking of how there would be the destruction of the temple, but his real coming and the main ending of this world would be at a future date. His answer was therefore fundamentally relevant to his second coming, although built into it was some reference to the destruction of the temple in AD70. As He so often does, the Lord turned round the terms of the question. They thought his &quot;coming&quot; would be at the temple\'s destruction, and so they asked for signs of His &quot;coming&quot;. But Christ shows that this wasn\'t a correct view: His real &quot;coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory&quot; (Mt. 24:30) would not be then, but after all the various signs he described were fulfilled. He was surely saying: \'OK the temple will be destroyed, and many of the signs I\'m giving will have some application to that period; but the destruction of the temple isn\'t the sign of my coming. Note the signs I give you, and watch for their fulfilment: and <i>then</i> you\'ll know when to expect my coming\'. <br />13:5 The persecution of God\'s people was spoken of by the Lord as being one of the clearest signs. And he also emphasized that apostasy within the ecclesia would be the other major sign. When they asked him for the signs, Mk. 13:5 says that Jesus <i>began</i> by warning them of deception from false teachers. The way the NT writers allude to this passage indicates that they saw this deception as not coming from the crazy bogus-Messiahs of the world, but from false teachers <i>within the ecclesia</i>, sometimes supported by apparent possession of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:6; 2 Thess. 2:3; Tit. 1:10; 2 Jn. 7). A state of total ecclesial apostasy was the sign which Jesus <i>began</i> with, according to Mk. 13:5.<br />13:9 When the Lord said that His people would preach before rulers &lsquo;for a witness / testimony against them&rsquo; (Mk. 13:9), we are left wondering when and how exactly this will be. It&rsquo;s hard to come to any other conclusion than that this refers to how our words of preaching will be quoted back to the hearers at the judgment. It&rsquo;s an incidental proof that it is hearing the word of the Gospel that makes a person responsible to the last judgment. But in our context, my point is that our words of preaching in this life will be quoted back to those who heard them, at the day of judgment. The simple point is, our words aren&rsquo;t forgotten. They will be quoted back, in some form, at the day of judgment. And yet it appears we can speak and think how we like in this life. Indeed we can; but all these things will ultimately surface again in the last day.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1995','1','41','13','5','5','<p>13:5 <i>And Jesus began to say to them- </i>The persecution of God\'s people was spoken of by the Lord as being one of the clearest signs. And he also emphasized that apostasy within the ecclesia would be the other major sign. When they asked him for the signs, Mk. 13:5 says that Jesus&nbsp;<i>began</i>&nbsp;by warning them of deception from false teachers. The way the NT writers allude to this passage indicates that they saw this deception as not coming from the crazy bogus-Messiahs of the world, but from false teachers&nbsp;<i>within the ecclesia</i>, sometimes supported by apparent possession of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:6; 2 Thess. 2:3; Tit. 1:10; 2 Jn. 7). A state of total ecclesial apostasy was the sign which Jesus&nbsp;<i>began</i>&nbsp;with, according to Mk. 13:5.</p><p><i>Take heed that no one lead you astray</i>- &ldquo;Be not deceived&quot; is extensively quoted later in the NT concerning the need not be deceived by false teachers <i>within the ecclesia</i> (1 Cor. 6:9,15,33; Gal. 6:17; 2 Tim. 3:13, as Mt. 24:4 = 1 Jn. 3:7). The deceivers the Lord spoke of were not just bogus Messiahs out in the world, but apparently Spirit-gifted brethren who will arise within the ecclesia.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1996','1','41','13','6','6','<p>13:6 <i>Many shall come in my name, saying, I am he- </i>Coming in the name of the Lord, the &quot;I am&quot;, was the formula used in Judaism to describe Messiah (Mt. 21:9; 23:39). The false claims to be Jesus the Christ are hardly persuasive nor vaguely credible. That they should be a source of mass falling away amongst the Lord\'s people seems hardly likely. We must assume, therefore, that such persons will have a credibility or a surrounding context which makes them far more attractive than they currently are. Revelation speaks of false miracles being done in the last days. Perhaps views of prophetic fulfilment will become so dogmatically held, suggesting that Christ&nbsp;<i>must</i>&nbsp;come once certain things happen in the world, that the believers will be open to easy deception. This scenario would be the more likely if a doctrine of&nbsp;<i>parousia</i>, the &quot;coming&quot; of Christ&quot;, is adopted which postulates that His coming will be somehow secret, invisible to the world and perceived only by the faithful.</p><p>Josephus describes the period before AD70 as being when &ldquo;The country was full of robbers, magicians, false prophets, false Messiahs and impostors, who deluded the people with promises of great events&rdquo; <i>Antiquities</i>&nbsp;20.10.13 5,6.</p><p><i>And shall lead many astray</i>- Warnings against being deceived are a major theme in the Lord\'s message here (Mt. 24:5,11,24). Paul read the prophecy of deceivers arising in the last days as referring to deceivers arising within the ecclesia, i.e. people who were already baptized, consciously deceiving the majority of the ecclesia. He repeats this conviction at least three times (Mt. 24:4 = Eph. 5:6; Col. 2:8; 2 Thess. 2:3). The later NT writers make the same appeal using the same Greek words, with reference to not being deceived by the allurements of the fleshly life (1 Cor. 6:9; 15:33; Gal. 6:7; James 1:16). And warnings against &quot;them that deceive you&quot; are common, along with lament that many believers in the first century had indeed been deceived (s.w. 2 Tim. 3:13; James 5:19; 2 Pet. 2:15; 1 Jn. 2:26; 3:7; Rev. 2:20). Indeed, Revelation is full of warnings and judgment against &quot;the devil&quot; who deceives God\'s people (s.w. Rev. 12:9; 13:14; 18:23; 19:20; 20:3). Perhaps this is one reason why the Olivet prophecy was not fulfilled in AD70- the warning with which the Lord opened the prophecy was not heeded by the majority.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1997','1','41','13','7','7','<p>13:7 <i>And when you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be disturbed. These things must take place, but the end is not yet</i>- The dramatic growth of the media and communication will mean that everyone \'hears\' of such things. And our generation as none before is in this situation. We can likewise understand the related word (in the Greek): &quot;<i>rumours</i>&nbsp;of wars&quot;. Lk. 21:9 adds to the other records &quot;and commotions&quot;, disquiet, mental upset and confusion. Hence the appeal not to be &quot;troubled&quot; within our hearts. Lk. 21:26 speaks of human hearts failing them for fear in worry and expectation (AV &quot;looking after&quot;) about the world\'s future. This sign, therefore, is not so much concerning the proliferation of war, but of human worry about the geopolitical situation. And our generation has been the only one capable of fulfilling this situation. Note, however, that&nbsp;<i>you</i>&nbsp;shall hear these things- and the &quot;you&quot; was initially the listening disciples. Clearly the prophecy was intended to have fulfilment in the lifetime of the disciples, but this didn\'t happen. Because the Divine program was rescheduled.</p><p>They were not to be terrified / disturbed. The word is only used outside the Olivet prophecy in 2 Thess. 2:2, where Paul warns that believers should not be &quot;troubled&quot; by any idea that &quot;the day of Christ is at hand&quot;, because the prophecy concerning the great falling away and the man of sin sitting in the temple of God must be fulfilled first. This connection shows that the prophecy of 2 Thess. 2 must have a specific latter day fulfilment on the very eve of the Lord\'s visible return in glory when &quot;the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to nothing by the powerful glory of His coming&quot; (2 Thess. 2:8). The &quot;day of Christ&quot; is therefore the visible return of the Lord, and this, therefore, is the burden of the Olivet prophecy too. For Paul is taking that language and applying it to the second coming of Christ. And that did not happen in AD70. In Lk. 21:11 the Lord spoke of &quot;fearful sights&quot; being seen in latter-day Israel. During their tribulation, Israel will experience intense &quot;terror&quot; (Lev. 26:16), which would be enough to kill them (Dt. 32:24). This extraordinary level of fear will be modelled upon that of Jacob as he faced Esau- representing Israel\'s confrontation with the Arabs in the last days (Jer. 30:5,7). This state of fear will result in many Jews going to live in Jerusalem, as happened during the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions (Jer. 35:11). Ezekiel had prophesied of this time:&nbsp;&quot;Terrors (perhaps an intensive plural - i.e. \'the one great terror\') by reason of the sword shall be upon My people&quot; (Ez. 21:12).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>These things were necessary (Mt.), they must happen (Lk.), must take place (Mk.). Quoting Dan. 2:28 LXX, as if the prophecy of Daniel 2 could have had its fulfilment at the time of the destruction of the temple in AD70. Again we encounter the idea of potential fulfilments of prophecy which in fact didn\'t happen when they could have done. The AV inserts in italics &quot;all these things&quot;, but the Lord has only given the sign of worry about wars at this stage in the discourse. He used the identical phrase in predicting that the &quot;all things&quot; of the Mosaic system were to be fulfilled in His death on the cross (5:18). The same term is used in Jn. 1:3: &quot;All things were fulfilled AV &quot;made&quot; in Him&quot;- surely a reference to the fulfilment of the Mosaic law in Christ. The &quot;old things&quot; of the Mosaic system passed away, and in Christ &quot;all things are fulfilled AV &quot;made&quot; new&quot; (2 Cor. 5:17- same Greek words). There was a changeover period permitted between the Mosaic system and that of Christ, which finished when the temple was destroyed in AD70 and obedience to the Mosaic law thereby became impossible. If this line of interpretation is correct, then we have the Lord hinting that the Mosaic system would be ended, the temple destroyed, but the end was still not to be then. This would again indicate that the events of AD70 were not the &quot;end&quot; which the Lord had in view. &quot;The end&quot; (s.w.) would only come when the Gospel was preached in the entire habitable world (:14) and the believers had been persecuted of all men (Mk. 13:13). But again, the Lord had in mind the possibility that the disciples themselves would endure &quot;unto the end&quot; (10:22; 24:13). It could have come in their lifetime; but it didn\'t. John\'s Gospel replaces the Olivet prophecy with the upper room discourse, in which the Lord spoke of His spiritual presence in the hearts of believers through the Comforter. And John\'s equivalent of &quot;the end&quot; in that discourse is the comment that the Lord Jesus loved His people &quot;unto the end&quot; through dying on the cross (Jn. 13:1 s.w.). This is not to downplay the reality of the second coming, but it is a foil against a mindset that thinks solely in terms of fulfilling prophecy and the literal coming of the Lord. True and wonderful as that is, the essence of the Lord\'s presence is in His abiding presence in the hearts of spiritually minded believers in Him, and the &quot;end&quot; is His death for us, which in one sense is enough for us all regardless of when He will literally return. But again, Paul, like his Lord, felt that &quot;the end&quot; could have come in the first century; for he writes of how the believers then were living at &quot;the end s.w. of the age&quot; (1 Cor. 10:11), when God\'s wrath against Israel was about to burst &quot;unto the end (AV &quot;to the uttermost&quot;; 1 Thess. 2:16).&nbsp; Likewise Peter: &quot;The end s.w. of all things is at hand&quot; (1 Pet. 4:7). Likewise Dan. 9:26 could then have had its fulfilment.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1998','1','41','13','8','8','<p>13:8 <i>For nation shall rise against nation-</i> Any first century fulfilment is unlikely because the&nbsp;<i>Pax Romana</i>&nbsp;meant that the Roman empire was firmly in power and such a situation did not therefore occur.<i>&nbsp;Ethnos</i>&nbsp;is the word commonly translated &quot;Gentiles&quot;. The picture of nations and kingdoms rising up against each other was simply not fulfilled in the run up to AD70- the Roman empire with their&nbsp;<i>Pax Romana</i>&nbsp;did not permit such a situation. And the system of world empires which disintegrated in the 20th Century likewise didn\'t permit much of this in recent times, especially in the area around Israel, or in the land promised to Abraham, which is the focus of all Bible prophecy. Only in our times has this become a reality, especially in the Arab world and amongst the nations located in the territory promised to Abraham. The language of \'rising up\' in revolt is now common amongst them. The picture, however, is of the Gospel going into all those &quot;nations&quot; at this time (Mt. 24:14), all those nations persecuting the believers (Mt. 24:9), and the nations AV &quot;Gentiles&quot; taking Jerusalem and treading it down (Lk. 21:24); despite their internal struggles, these same &quot;all nations&quot; will be confederated under a latter Babylon (Rev. 17:15; 18:3,23). The overall picture is of Gospel preaching going on at a time when the nations are rising up against each other, and at the same time persecuting the believers. This scenario is developing- but is as yet unfulfilled on a global scale. But it is daily fulfilling in the nations surrounding Israel, who are persecuting Christians, rising up against each other, and to whom the Gospel is being powerfully preached. Never before has my own mission organization received such major expression of serious interest from the Muslim nations surrounding Israel, thanks largely to the growth of the internet and the growing disillusion with the existing social and religious situation. People from all nations will be gathered before the Lord for judgment (Mt. 25:32) and people from every nation will be saved (Rev. 5:9; 7:9)- confirming that the Gospel will indeed spread to all nations before the Lord\'s return; it must at least be &quot;proclaimed&quot; to them all, thereby making people amongst them responsible to judgment; the &quot;fullness of the Gentiles&quot; must &quot;come in&quot; to Christ before the end comes and Israel repent (Rom. 11:25). The Lord sent the disciples out to &quot;all nations&quot; (Mt. 28:19 s.w.); the implication is that they failed to take the Gospel to them all, and therefore the intended scenario didn\'t fulfil as initially intended in the first century. Lk. 21:25 speaks of how there will be &quot;upon the earth land- that promised to Abraham distress of nations&quot;, suggesting that the situation amongst the Gentile nations living within the land promised to Abraham is the particular focus of the prophecy. The same language is used of how there were devout Jews in &quot;every nation under Heaven&quot; (Acts 2:5)- and the list of nations in Acts 2 corresponds with the Middle Eastern Moslem world of today. We note that the promise that Abraham should be father of &quot;many nations&quot; was fulfilled in a literal sense in that Abraham is the ancestor of the Arab nations living in the land promised to him (Rom. 4:17). And it is those nations particularly who have stated their desire to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jews, as required in Lk. 21:24.</p><p><i>And kingdom against kingdom- </i>It seems likely from Revelation that &lsquo;Babylon&rsquo; of the last days will rise to political and military dominance in the territory promised to Abraham, the earth/ land of which the Bible speaks so much.&nbsp;The 10 nations / horns / leaders which exist in the land promised to Abraham- the &ldquo;kings of the earth / land&rdquo;- will give their power to Babylon, by force and by political manoeuvre, and this system will then invade Israel. The horns hating the whore implies there will be inter-Arab friction apparent in the beast system throughout its existence. &quot;Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom&quot; (Mt. 24:7) will be a sign of the last days. In the AD70 context, this referred to friction between the Semitic peoples living around Israel; and the Lord\'s words are clearly an allusion to 2 Chron. 15:6, which specifically uses the phrase about inter-Arab friction. The fragile alliance between them will then be broken by the Lord&rsquo;s return, the horns will hate the whore and destroy her. They give their power to the beast for but &ldquo;one hour&rdquo;. Daniel seems to associate a covenant which is then broken with the latter day Antichrist. Is. 30:27-31 speaks of the latter day Assyrian as placing &ldquo;a bridle in the jaw of the people causing them to err&rdquo;, referring to some kind of covenant / agreement which forces others to follow their direction. The Lord&rsquo;s especial fury will be against the individual latter day Nebuchadnezzar who leads the invasion. The future leader of Babylon, the whore riding the beast, will see themselves as Nebuchadnezzar. Isaiah and Micah describe the latter day invader of the land as &ldquo;the Assyrian&rdquo; (Is. 10:5; 14:25; 30:31; Mic. 5:1-6). This itself suggests we are to see the individual who heads up the invasion, the rosh / chief prince of Ez. 38:2, as an ethnic Assyrian / Iraqi. Dan. 8:24,25 invites us to see the same- the &ldquo;king of fierce countenance&rdquo; stands up out of the area of northern Iraq / northern Iran.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>There shall be earthquakes- </i>Just as there was at the crucifixion (Mt. 27:54), yet another reason for thinking that the tribulation of the last days will enable Israel to identify with the sufferings of their crucified Messiah. Again, earthquakes feature in the seals of Rev. 6:12; and in the judgments upon Israel\'s enemies in Rev. 11:13,19; 16:18. Again, it seems that Israel will initially experience the judgments upon their enemies, just as they did in the lead up to their Passover deliverance in Egypt which also prefigures their final salvation. The fig tree nation- Israel- is to be shaken of a mighty wind (Rev. 6:13), and the word &quot;shaken&quot; is a form of that translated &quot;earthquake&quot;. The forcing of fruit from the fig tree will be brought about by the experience of the earthquake.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>In various places- </i>The word &quot;various&quot; is added by the translators to try to make sense of the otherwise obvious statement that earthquakes will occur in &quot;places&quot;. There is no suggestion in the Greek text that earthquakes will occur in various places worldwide where they have not been known to occur. But maybe we have here an intensive plural- the one great place. The same word is used in Mt. 24:15 about &quot;the holy<i> place</i>&quot;. There are rumours that an earthquake hit the temple area around AD70. But seeing that the temple mount is the bone of contention between Israel and her neighbours, an earthquake splitting the mount would be appropriate. And of course this would link directly with the prediction of Zechariah 14, that when Christ returns there will be an earthquake which splits it. And yet this is used by the Lord as a sign of His coming, rather than a statement about what will happen at His return. It could be that this is an example of how the meaning of time will be somehow collapsed around the second coming; a sign of His return is in effect His return. Or it could be that the events described in the Olivet prophecy will all happen in a very short period of time, a matter of days rather than years or decades as is assumed by those who seek to connect the predictions with current world events. Mk. 13:8 and Lk. 21:11 speak of the earthquakes in&nbsp;<i>kata</i>&nbsp;places, but this doesn\'t necessarily mean \'various\' places, but could equally mean \'around\'- earthquakes around the holy place would then be signs and portents of the earthquake under the Holy Place which will happen when Christ returns. In Acts 6:13,14 Stephen\'s enemies appear to have twisted his quotations of the Lord\'s Olivet prophecy to mean that Christ would destroy the &quot;holy place&quot; s.w. &quot;places&quot; here in Mt. 24.</p><p><i>There shall be famines-</i> There was an acute famine in Israel during Elijah\'s ministry of three and a half years, as part of God\'s appeal for Israel to repent and respond to Elijah\'s message (Lk. 4:25). And so it will be in the final three and a half year tribulation. Likewise it was famine which led the prodigal to repent and return to the Father (Lk. 15:14,17), a clear prototype of Israel\'s repentance. And perhaps the greatest prototype of their repentance is in the coming of Joseph\'s brothers to bow before Him; and this too was provoked by famine throughout the region around Israel (Acts 7:11). There will be a purpose in all the sufferings which precede the Lord\'s return- and that purpose is to bring about Israel\'s repentance, which is the key condition required for His second coming. There were indeed major famines in the lead up to AD70 (Acts 11:28 &quot;a great famine throughout all the world&quot;); again, the signs which depended upon Divine intervention were fulfilled in the first century, but those which depended upon Israel and the believers did not, because they chose not to. And thus the second coming was delayed. &ldquo;In the reign of the Emperor Claudius (AD41-54) there were four seasons of great scarcity. In the fourth year of his reign, the famine in Judea was so severe that the price of food became enormous and great numbers perished. Earthquakes occurred in each of the reigns of Caligula and Claudius&rdquo; (R. C. Sproul,&nbsp;<i>The Last Days According to Jesus</i>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids, MI, 2000: Baker Books), p. 36). Paul encourages his first century readers that famine and other elements of the Olivet predictions would not separate believers from the love of God- as if he expected those signs to be fulfilled in their lifetimes (Rom. 8:35). The seals of Revelation 6 are full of reference to the Olivet predictions, as if they could all have been fulfilled in the first century (Rev. 6:8 speaks specifically of &quot;famine&quot;). Famine can come quicker than ever in our modern world, where most countries depend upon imported food; and this is especially the case in the area around Israel, where the climate doesn\'t enable the support of the relatively large population living in the area without food being imported. This explains how Babylon\'s famine comes in one day (Rev. 18:8). This could never have been possible in the ancient world, where famine required a period of time to develop. Just as Israel initially experienced the early plagues upon Egypt, so it may be that the judgments poured out upon the Arab? world at the very end do initially affect Israel too, and lead them to repentance.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>These things are the beginning of the birth pains</i>- The term is used of the Lord\'s suffering, which came to term in His resurrection (Acts 2:24)- another hint that the tribulation is intended to bring those who endure it to an identity with the Lord\'s sufferings, and thus to share in His resurrection. There is therefore a positive intention in the sufferings. They are not merely an angry Deity releasing pent up anger upon the world. The term is also used in 1 Thess. 5:3, in a section full of allusion to the Olivet prophecy: &quot;When they shall say peace and safety, then sudden destruction comes upon them, as&nbsp;<i>travail</i>&nbsp;s.w. &quot;sorrows&quot; upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape&quot;. This suggests that the various trials and tribulations just listed by the Lord are going to come suddenly- they don\'t describe decades of such things leading up to His return. Rather do they therefore describe a sudden situation which comes at a time of &quot;peace and safety&quot;. They may therefore describe the events of days rather than years. The Lord within the Olivet prophecy had spoken of the possibility of &quot;escape&quot; by fleeing, but &quot;they shall&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;escape&quot;- because they will be disobedient to His teaching. The intention of the birth pangs is to forge an identity between the sufferers and the crucified Christ, coming to birth in a resurrection like His. But for these people, the birth pangs are tragic, resulting in death rather than resurrection to life.</p><p>The Lord is surely alluding to the Rabbinic idea of &quot;the birth-pangs of the Messiah&quot; which they used in description of the traumatic situation in Israel before Messiah&rsquo;s appearance. The Jewish public had initially expected Jesus to be Messiah, and felt that their time was indeed the birth-pangs of Messiah. But the Lord is saying that that time is yet to come. Seeing He did not come in AD70, we are again left to understand this as a reference to a situation&nbsp;<i>in Israel</i>&nbsp;which brings about the open manifestation of Messiah.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1999','1','41','13','9','9','<p>13:9 <i>But be warned. For they shall deliver you up to councils, and in synagogues they shall beat you, and before governors and kings shall you stand for my sake, to bear witness before them</i>- The Lord predicted that His people would be cast out of the synagogues, as if He was happy that Christianity remained a sect of Judaism until such time as Judaism wouldn&rsquo;t tolerate it. His prediction that His people would be beaten in synagogues (Mk. 13:9) implies they would still be members, for the synagogues only had power to discipline their own members, not the general public. The Lord had no fear of &lsquo;guilt by association&rsquo; with wrong religious views such as there were within Judaism. They were to be &quot;delivered up&quot; just as the Lord was \'betrayed\' s.w. 10:4; 20:18,19; 26:2,15,16,21,23,24,25,45,46,48; 27:3,4; 17:22 &quot;the Son of Man shall be betrayed&quot; to the Jews and \'delivered up\' to the Gentiles s.w. 27:18,26,2 &quot;delivered Him to Pontius Pilate&quot; for suffering, death- and thereby to resurrection. Again, there is an attempt to make those enduring these things identify with Him in His time of suffering. They too would be delivered up to both Jews and Gentiles- to synagogues Jews; 10:17; Lk. 21:12 and to prisons, rulers and kings Gentiles; Lk. 21:12; Mk. 13:9. Clearly the Lord had in mind a first century fulfilment of His words, but as we have seen, not all the signs fulfilled in the first century and the Lord\'s&nbsp;<i>parousia</i>&nbsp;did not literally happen when the temple was destroyed. We therefore have to look to a re-scheduled fulfilment of these words in the persecution of the disciples in the last days.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2000','1','41','13','10','10','<p>13:10 <i>And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations</i>- This could be read as a commandment, not a mere prediction. In this case, the idea is that&nbsp;<i>when</i>&nbsp;the Gospel is preached to all the world, then &ldquo;the end comes&rdquo;. The marvel is that this amazing preaching will be undertaken by a minority within the believing community, since, according to the preceding verses, the majority will have fallen away. And even amongst those who remain faithful, some will be in prison, others killed. It could be argued that this Gospel preaching occurs specifically during the tribulation period. If we were to take the Gospel to the whole world now, then perhaps this would not be necessary. But in the first century, it was persecution which was necessary to get the disciples to obey their Lord&rsquo;s command to spread the Gospel outwards from Jerusalem to the world. And it was persecution which made the fleeing Jewish Christians rub shoulders with Gentiles, and thus share the Gospel with them.&nbsp;</p><p>&quot;All the nations&quot; is &quot;in the whole world&quot; in Matthew. The first century fulfilment of these words mentioned in Rom. 10:18 and Col. 1:6,23,26 was because there was the potential that the Lord could have come in AD70. But the Greek word literally means &lsquo;the inhabited&rsquo;, and more naturally refers to the whole planet. He envisaged the possibility that the disciples would not have gone preaching over the cities of Israel before the end came (Mt. 10:23). But He did come in AD70, and so the Lord\'s words here about a genuine worldwide witness must come true before He returns. Note the Gospel is to be preached &ldquo;in&rdquo;,&nbsp;<i>en</i>, all the world, and not &lsquo;to&rsquo; the whole world. This may envisage there being believers in all the world who preach where they are. This would nowhere near have been fulfilled in the first century. Also, Col. 1:6 speaks of the Gospel having gone to the&nbsp;<i>kosmos</i>, whereas Mt. 24:14 requires the Gospel to be preached in the&nbsp;<i>oikoumene</i>.&nbsp;<i>Kosmos</i>&nbsp;is frequently used in the NT with reference to the&nbsp;<i>Jewish</i>&nbsp;world.&nbsp;<i>Oikoumene</i>&nbsp;has a more global and universal context and sense. Mk. 13:10 says that the Gospel must be published &ldquo;among all nations&rdquo; (Gk.&nbsp;<i>ethnos</i>), and this hardly occurred by AD70. Some parts of the Olivet prophecy had a limited application in the first century (e.g. Mt. 24:14 = 10:18), but this doesn\'t mean that this is the&nbsp;<i>only</i>&nbsp;fulfilment of it. It is a feature of prophecy that it often has a short term fulfilment in order to validate the prophet in the eyes of his own generation. It would be strange indeed if the Olivet prophecy had&nbsp;<i>only</i>&nbsp;a short term fulfilment.</p><p>The great commission bids us go into all the world with Gospel; note the evident connection with Mt. 24:14: &quot;This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come&quot;.&nbsp; This definitely suggests that the great commission will be mightily obeyed in the last days. There are many other Biblical implications that there will be an unprecedented spread of the Gospel to the whole planet in the last days. Thus Dan. 12:4 speaks of a time in the very last days when &ldquo;many shall run to and fro (an idiom often used concerning response to God\'s word: Ps. 119:32,60; 147:15; Amos 8:11,12; Hab. 2:2; Jn. 8:37 RV; 2 Thess. 3:1 Gk.), and knowledge shall be increased the context is of Daniel wanting to understand about the second coming of Jesus... many shall be purified, and made white, and tried (in the tribulation); but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand&quot; . This increase of knowledge of the Gospel is to be spread world-wide by many running to and fro in the last days. The great commission will be fulfilled then as never before. Dan. 11:32,33 speaks of how in the time of the end &quot;The people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits... instruct many&rdquo;. &nbsp;Before every \'coming\' of the Lord there has been a period of persecution and zealous preaching: Noah preached righteousness before the flood, as Lot probably tried to before the Lord\'s coming down in judgment on Sodom (would God have wrought such wholesale destruction without giving the people a chance to repent? Cp. Nineveh and Jonah). The schools of the prophets preached from the street corners and temple steps to warn of the coming of the day of the Lord at the hand of the Babylonians and Assyrians. And of course the dramatic coming of the Lord in judgment upon Israel in AD70, was heralded by Paul and his committed band of zealots staging the greatest preaching campaigns this world has seen. The crucial question, of course, is whether the Gospel has truly gone into all the world. One perspective to bear in mind is that in the preaching of Paul, ecclesias which he founded are taken as representing a whole area- e.g. Philippi is called &quot;Macedonia&quot; (Phil. 4:15); Thessalonica is &quot;Macedonia and Achaia&quot; (1 Thess. 1:7); Corinth is Achaia (1 Cor. 16:15; 2 Cor. 1:1); Ephesus for Asia (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Cor. 1:8). In this sense Paul felt that he had fully preached the Gospel in a circle, moving from Jerusalem through Asia to Rome, and projecting onwards to Spain. Perhaps the Gospel goes into all the world in the sense that believers, however small in number, are to be found world-wide. And that seems to be where we\'re now up to in the 21st century.</p><p>Paul seems to have seen in Christ\'s prophecy that the Gospel would be fully known world-wide in the last as being a specific, personal command to him (Mt. 24:14 = 2 Tim. 4:17).&nbsp;He saw prophecy as command more than solely prediction; and this is why prophecy has a degree of variation in how and when it is fulfilled. The words of Mk. 16:15,16 are clear: &quot;Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved&quot;. Commands to repent, all men, the Lord&rsquo;s resurrection... these ideas all recur in Acts 17:30, proving they are not solely relevant to those who first heard them; God now commands all men to repent, through our words. These words clearly don\'t apply to the first century only, for they are intended to be linked with Mt 24:14, which uses the same language about the preaching work of the very last days (even though the context may imply that as a community we will only be obedient to this command once egged on by major persecution). What all this means is that the great commission will be fulfilled in the last days. The connection with the great commission means that the Lord sent out the disciples in order to fulfil this aspect of the Olivet prophecy; but their failure to do the job fully meant that the prophecy had to be delayed and rescheduled in fulfilment.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2001','1','41','13','11','11','<p>13:11 <i>Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial- </i>The very language of the Lord\'s final sufferings, which will be fellowshipped / experienced in the latter day tribulation (s.w. Lk. 22:54; 23:1,32; Jn. 18:28; 19:4,13).</p><p><i>Do not worry beforehand about what to say- </i>A major theme of the Sermon on the Mount is not to be anxious; the same word occurs in Mt. 6:25,27,28,31,34. Here the Lord is surely saying that the general principles He had taught there would have specific fulfilment in time of persecution.&nbsp;</p><p><i>Say whatever shall be given you in that hour- </i>&quot;Given you&quot; is language appropriate to Moses and prophets like Jeremiah; it is here applied to the Lord\'s generally secular followers (Ex. 4:10-12; Jer. 1:6-10). He was continually encouraging them to see that ministries which they had never considered possible of realistic emulation were in fact to be their pattern. Time and again, the Lord is saying that His experience under persecution will be ours. For it was&nbsp;<i>given&nbsp;</i>Him what to&nbsp;<i>speak&nbsp;</i>(Jn. 3:34; 12:49 same words) and He wants us to know that if we preach Him and seek to replicate His ministry in our own, then God likewise will strengthen us as He did His own Son. We note that it was likewise&nbsp;<i>given</i>&nbsp;to the apostles what to&nbsp;<i>speak</i>&nbsp;in Acts 2:4; 4:29. They misunderstood the great commission- they twisted it to mean that they must preach to all Jews rather than to all the Gentiles; but by grace, God still kept this aspect of the promise to support obedience to the commission given; even if it was misunderstood.</p><p><i>For it is not you that will speak but the Holy Spirit</i>- Even although &ldquo;we do not know how to pray for as we ought, the Spirit himself intercedes for us&rdquo; (Rom. 8:26). The Spirit of the Father and Son speaks in us when we pray (Rom. 8:15), if our will / spirit is theirs. To put this in more technical but I think very telling terms: &ldquo;The subject-object scheme of &lsquo;talking to somebody&rsquo; is transcended; He who speaks through us is he who is spoken to&rdquo; (Paul Tillich,&nbsp;<i>Systematic Theology</i>&nbsp;Vol. 3 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963) p. 192). It&rsquo;s perhaps the thought behind this idea of not us by the Spirit speaking.</p><p>Mt. 10:20 says that the Spirit will speak &quot;in you&quot;, not, as we might expect, &lsquo;through you&rsquo;. It may be that the Lord is hinting that if we have the Spirit of God within us, if we are thinking in a spiritual way generally in life, then in times of crisis that Spirit which is in us will guide us to say the right things when under pressure. If we are&nbsp;<i>now</i>&nbsp;spiritually minded, with our spirit being God&rsquo;s Spirit, then in that future time of crisis we will know how to speak, the words will come out right, because we have lived now in a spiritually minded way. The idea of the Spirit of God speaking in a person, so that their words are not theirs but God&rsquo;s, was language which Jews would&rsquo;ve associated with the Old Testament prophets. Again we see the Lord inviting His secular, immature followers to see themselves as the prophets, those whom they had been taught were in a class of their own, and to whom they as mere secular men could in no way pretend. But the Lord&rsquo;s followers were to be a new Moses, new prophets, a new priesthood, a new Israel.</p><p>Luke adds here: &quot;For I will give you the words and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to contradict&quot; (Lk. 21:15). This is alluding to Ex. 4:12, where God tells Moses at the time of the Egyptian persecution of God\'s people, &quot;I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say&quot;. This persecution lead to intensified prayer to God, resulting in&nbsp;the deliverance of the suffering saints at Passover time, after a period of especial distress and \'time of trouble\' for the surrounding world due to the plagues. After this deliverance, God\'s people went into the wilderness and were declared God\'s Kingdom. We have earlier shown how all these events form a remarkable latter day prophecy. This verse also suggests that the gifts of the Spirit may be given to some in the Elijah ministry in order to enable them to make a more powerful witness (as in Rev.11:6). The fact they are given personally by Christ would indicate that in some way, Christ is already back at this stage. Time and again we will see how the prophecies of events in the last days are ambiguous as to whether Christ is already back at the time of their fulfilment, or whether they herald his return. Seeing that we will never know the exact time of Christ\'s return, this is understandable. Similarly Joel 2 prophesies the pouring out of the gifts &quot;before the great and terrible day of the Lord&quot; (:31). Malachi surely refers to this passage when prophesying the Elijah ministry &quot;before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord&quot; (Mal. 4:5). This suggests that the three and a half year Elijah ministry of the last days (James 5:17) will be accompanied by Spirit gifts, and will coincide with the time of persecution. Note that the gifts were given &quot;before the day of the Lord&quot; in AD70 too. It is possible that because of this possession of the gifts by \'Elijah\', false teachers within the ecclesia at the end will also claim to possess them (Mt. 24:24), so convincingly that all but the elect within the ecclesia will be duped into following them. Yet it must be stressed that it is a feature of the gifts that they are unmistakable and obvious to identify (cp. Acts 4:16); it will be evident enough if and when they are poured out in the last days.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2002','1','41','13','12','12','<p>13:12 <i>And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children shall rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death</i>- Again, the final sufferings of the Lord Jesus will be experienced within natural and spiritual Israel. Mic. 7:2-9 is a clear prophecy of Christ\'s sufferings. But embedded in it are words which are quoted in Lk. 21:16 and Mt. 10:36 concerning the latter day tribulation of the believers: &quot;The son dishonours the father... a man\'s enemies are the men of his own house&rdquo;. In similar manner, some of the prophecies of Israel\'s latter day sufferings speak in the same context of those of Christ. Mic. 5:1 is an example: &quot;...he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel (Christ) with a rod upon the cheek&quot;. The whole of Amos 5 can be scanned for connections with both the future tribulation of Israel, and also the sufferings of Christ.</p><p>&quot;Deliver up&quot; is a term used about the Lord&rsquo;s delivering to death, just as &lsquo;to cause to be put to death&rsquo; is used of His death (Mt. 26:59; 27:1; Mk. 14:55; 1 Pet. 3:18). Our sufferings in the final tribulation, and for preaching the Gospel generally, grant us a fellowship with our Lord&rsquo;s sufferings. Given the close knit nature of Middle Eastern families, the language of family breakup used here would&rsquo;ve been far harder for the initial hearers to accept than it is for many of us. The family was seen as sacrosanct, somehow your family would always be there for you. But the Lord is teaching that the dislike of Him and His message would be such that it would unleash a social and psychological force of hatred such as had not been known previously. Judaism taught that it was only Gentile families which were like this- only Gentiles betrayed their brother, their parents and their children. But the Lord is teaching that through Israel&rsquo;s rejection of Him and His people, Israel were acting like Gentiles and thus becoming as them in God&rsquo;s sight.</p><p>This prophecy did not have major fulfilment in AD70, at least not betrayal &quot;unto death&quot;. The scale of the rift within families, unto death, was not seen then within the Christian community. We are left to envisage a situation where family members are pressurized to hand over their other family members to death for the sake of their loyalty to Christ. This sounds like Islamist domination of areas, with this demand made; and that is developed further in Revelation.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2003','1','41','13','13','13','<p>13:13 <i>And you shall be hated by all for my name\'s sake; but he that endures to the end, the same shall be saved</i>- Matthew: &quot;hated by all nations&quot;.&nbsp; But the Gospel will then be preached to &ldquo;all nations&rdquo; (Mk. 13:10). It seems that the persecution will result in preaching, perhaps through highly publicized legal cases. If the Gospel is taken to all nations, then this will not need to happen. &quot;For my Name&rsquo;s sake&quot; is a&nbsp;phrase which rarely occurs outside of the Olivet prophecy; one other time is in the upper room discourse, which is John&rsquo;s parallel with the Olivet prophecy as recorded in the synoptic Gospels. Here we read again that the believers will be &ldquo;hated&hellip; for My Name&rsquo;s sake&rdquo; (Jn. 15:18,21). But in John 15 the Lord seems to be angling His words not just to the twelve, but to all in Him; for His reasoning is that the world&rsquo;s attitude to Him will be their attitude to us, and all in Him will suffer as He did. Again we can conclude that John, the latest of the Gospels, was re-adjusting the emphasis of the Olivet prophecy, knowing that it had been rescheduled and would not fully come true in an early coming of Christ in the first century. Those who endure the tribulation to the end will be saved in that they will be part of that unique generation which shall never die, but shall be &quot;saved&quot; by being changed to immortality at the Lord\'s return.</p><p>The Olivet prophecy as recorded in Mark 13 has many allusions to the sufferings of our Lord, thereby suggesting that our sufferings during the coming tribulation will make us fellowship the cross as never before. The whole idea of darkness, earthquake, open graves, rocks shaking etc, which we read of in the Olivet and other last day prophecies is evidently the language of the crucifixion. The description of suffering before &quot;the end&quot; comes (Mk. 13:7,13; Mt. 24:14) invites connection with Christ\'s death also being described as &quot; the end&rdquo;, coming as it did after a period of suffering (Mt. 26:58; Lk. 22:37; Jn. 13:1). This connection is strengthened by the way in which each record of the Olivet prophecy leads straight on into the sufferings of the Lord Jesus. There is to be a &ldquo;little while&rdquo; between the death of those persecuted in the last days, and the coming of the Lord; using the very same word which John uses for the &ldquo;little while&rdquo; of the three days of the Lord&rsquo;s death (Rev. 6:11; Jn. 16:16-19). Rev. 12 speaks of how the dead bodies of the tribulation victims will rest for three and a half days, just as the Lord&rsquo;s body did. They will fully fellowship His death and therefore His resurrection. Similarly, the idea of all God\'s word being fulfilled by the Lord\'s death (Lk. 24:44; Jn. 19:28; Acts 3:18) follows on from the prophecy that all will be fulfilled at the time of suffering which heralds the second coming (Lk. 21:22). Mt. 24:13 commends those who endure to the end- of the great tribulation. The same word occurs in Heb. 12:2,3 about Christ enduring the cross- we fellowship the cross during the last day tribulation. The word in Mt. 24:29 for &ldquo;the tribulation&rdquo; is used in Col. 1:24 about the afflictions of Christ. And as the Lord&rsquo;s critics could not find a way to answer Him, so in our tribulation, all our adversaries will not be able to gainsay us (Lk. 21:15). The Lord in Jn. 16:2,4,32 used the term &ldquo;the hour&rdquo; to refer both to the &lsquo;hour&rsquo; of His own sufferings, and the &lsquo;hour&rsquo; of tribulation for His people. He clearly saw what He was about to endure as being repeated in the latter day tribulation of those for whom He was about to die.</p><p>The other tribulation prophecies, notably in Revelation, are also shot through with allusions to Christ\'s passion.</p><table border=0 cellspacing=3 cellpadding=0>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>&quot;They shall deliver you up to   the councils...</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>As Christ to the Sanhedrin</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>beaten...</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>Christ buffeted</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>rulers and kings for a testimony...</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>Chief priests, Herod, Pilate</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>brother shall betray the brother...</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>Judas; Peter\'s denial?</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>turn back to take up his garment...</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>John Mark\'s linen garment</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>false Christs...</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>Barabbas \'son of the father\'</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>the sun shall be darkened...</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>As at the crucifixion</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>watch and pray...</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>&quot;Watch with me&quot;; Gethsemane</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>at even...</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>Last Supper</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>at midnight...</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>Gethsemane</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>at the cock crowing...</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>Peter\'s denials</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>in the morning...</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>Trial and crucifixion</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>find you sleeping&quot;</p>            </td>            <td width=256 valign=top>            <p>Disciples in Gethsemane</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2004','1','41','13','14','14','<p>13:14 <i>But when you see the abomination- </i>The word is mainly used elsewhere about the abominations of the Babylon system (Rev. 17:4,5). I would suggest that once the rescheduling of Christ\'s return was decided by God, the Gospel of John was issued, with its more spiritual interpretation of the Olivet prophecy in terms of the Comforter, and the teaching that the principles of the tribulation are to be lived out throughout the lives of believers. And John was likewise inspired with the prophecy of Revelation, which is clearly based upon the Olivet prophecy and provides further details as to how the prophecy is to be fulfilled in the last days, with the events of AD70 being a partial fulfilment in order to give the prophecy credibility with the generation that first received it. This would be according to the Mosaic principle that a prophet could be judged as true if his words came true- requiring a primary fulfilment of all long term prophecies.</p><p><i>Of desolation- </i>The placing of the abomination is what will bring about the desolation. On Revelation 17 and 18 I suggest that the whore Babylon will enthrone herself in Jerusalem, through the building of some Islamic and blasphemous religious building or capital there. And this will lead to her desolation. Luke records the Lord as saying that&nbsp;<i>when</i>&nbsp;Jerusalem was surrounded by armies,&nbsp;<i>then</i>&nbsp;His people should know that the &quot;desolation&quot; of it was near. The desolation is therefore of Jerusalem rather than specifically the temple (Lk. 21:20). The abominating desolation could therefore refer to the invading armies. Seeing&nbsp;<i>them&nbsp;</i>was the signal to flee. &quot;Abomination&quot; in the Old Testament typically refers to idolatry or paganism. One interpretation is that the desolator would place some pagan religious symbol in the temple. But this is the sign to flee, and this was only done by the Romans after the city had fallen. That, therefore, doesn&rsquo;t really fit the requirements of the prophecy. The AD70 interpretation notes the pagan standards of the Roman legions, but even they were not placed in the temple. This was defended until the end, until the Romans forced entry, pulled it down and burnt it. As with many details of this prophecy, a future fulfilment is required. And yet we need to note that such desolation was only a visual reflection of the abomination the Jews had committed in the temple: &quot;Because of the evil of your doings, and because of the&nbsp;<i>abominations&nbsp;</i>which ye have committed; therefore is your land a&nbsp;<i>desolation&nbsp;</i>and an astonishment, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at this day&quot; (Jer. 44:22). The abomination which caused desolation may not simply refer to some pagan symbols in the temple area. Josephus records that the Jewish zealots came into the Most Holy place, &quot;placed an imposter in office as high priest, and ordained unqualified misfits to the priesthood&quot; (<i>The Jewish Wars</i>&nbsp;4.3.6&ndash;9; 4.5.4). The pagan Idumeans were invited into the Most Holy by the zealots in order to murder the chief priest Annas.</p><p>The word &quot;desolation&quot; is used again about the desolation of the Babylon system (Rev. 17:16; 18:17,19). Yet Babylon will be judged according to what it did to God\'s people- the judgment for \'desolating\' will be \'desolation\'. Yet the Olivet prophecy clearly intended the Roman armies to be the means of the desolation, but I suggest that Revelation extends the prophecy by giving more detail, and describing the system of desolation as \'Babylon\'. And that system clearly has similarities with Rome- it could have been fulfilled in Rome, but because the fulfilment of the prophecy was rescheduled, we can look for another equivalent of the enigmatic \'Babylon\' of the last days. The &quot;desolation&quot; referred to is clearly to be understood as the fulfilment of Dan. 9:26,27 LXX, which says that the abomination that desolates will come &quot;after the cutting off of Messiah the Prince&quot;. Whilst how long &quot;after&quot; is not defined, we are surely intended to understand that the desolating abomination comes soon after the death of Messiah:&nbsp; &quot;The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and&nbsp;<i>the end&nbsp;</i>thereof (&quot;then shall&nbsp;<i>the end</i>&nbsp;come&quot;, Mt. 24:14) shall be with a flood, (&quot;as the days of Noah...&quot;), and unto&nbsp;<i>the end&nbsp;</i>shall be war;&nbsp;<i>desolations&nbsp;</i>are determined . . . and upon the temple of&nbsp;<i>abominations&nbsp;</i>shall come one that makes&nbsp;<i>desolate&nbsp;</i>(cp. &quot;your house is left unto you desolate&quot;, Mt.23:38),&nbsp; even unto the consummation, and that determined shall be poured out upon the desolated&quot; (LXX). And yet note that that prophecy itself had had various potential fulfilments which didn&rsquo;t come true. So it is fair to think that it could have had a fulfilment in AD70, but this was again deferred- for the same reason as ever, Israel&rsquo;s lack of repentance.</p><p><i>Standing where it should not- </i>In Jerusalem, on the temple mount; &quot;in the holy place&quot; (Mt.). On Revelation 17 and 18 I suggest that the whore Babylon will enthrone herself in Jerusalem, through the building of some Islamic and blasphemous religious building or capital there. And this will lead to her desolation. The contrast is with the Lamb who will descend to the temple mount and &quot;stand&quot; there s.w. Rev. 14:1. This will be the final showdown between the real Christ and the fake one, as likewise foreseen in the prophecy of the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2, where again the place of showdown is the temple. For this to be a sign to the believers to flee to the mountains, any application to the triumphant Roman legions placing their standards in the temple at the&nbsp;<i>end</i>&nbsp;of the Jewish war is precluded. And historically, it is doubtful whether that happened, as the temple was burnt with fire and the legions were told&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;to do this.</p><p><i>(Let him that reads understand)</i>- The vast majority of first century believers were likely illiterate. So this may be an appeal to teachers to correctly understand and teach. The Lord speaks in a latter day context about &ldquo;let him that reads understand&rdquo; Daniel&rsquo;s prophecies- referring to the special gift of understanding them which Daniel himself was told would come in the very end time. But note the parallels in the Lord&rsquo;s teaching here: &ldquo;Let him&hellip; understand&hellip; let him&hellip; not go down&hellip; let him&hellip; not return&hellip; let them&hellip; flee&rdquo;. The understanding He refers to is not merely academic. It is the understanding that will lead to concrete action.</p><p>The Lord\'s Olivet prophecy as recorded by Mark has so many allusions to the Maccabean revolt under Mattathias (&quot;the abomination&quot;, flight to the hills, &quot;let the reader understand&quot; and many other phrases are all quotations from 1 Macc. 1-3). But in this context the Lord warns of false Messiahs- as if He considered the Maccabean heroes to be just that. And interestingly it is Mark more than any other Gospel writer who stresses the Messiahship of Jesus throughout the crucifixion record. A crucified Messiah was to the Jews a contradiction in terms. The idea of Jewish revolutionaries marching triumphantly to Jerusalem to liberate it was common in Jewish thought at the time- but Luke emphasizes that Christ\'s last journey to Jerusalem and triumphant entry to it was in fact in order to die the death of the cross there. The battle had been redefined by the Lord Jesus- not against Rome, but against internal sin and Jewish religious hypocrisy. Victory was by self-crucifixion, not military might. This was just too much for Jewish nationalism, just as legalists today end up baying for the blood of those who preach grace and not works.&nbsp; See on Heb. 5:6.</p><p>There are a number of hints that there will be a progressive growth in Biblical understanding amongst the latter day faithful. In the spirit of Daniel 12:4, Habakkuk was told that the full understanding of his vision concerning the latter day judgment of Babylon was &quot;yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie&quot;, and&nbsp;<i>at that time</i>&nbsp;the one who reads and understands it will &quot;run&quot; - using the same idiom as in Dan. 12:4 concerning the latter day believers \'running\' in response to their understanding of God\'s word (Hab. 2:2,3). The Olivet prophecy repeatedly talks about \'seeing\' or (Gk.) understanding things and then acting upon this knowledge. The English translation somewhat masks this. Thus Mt. 24:15 &quot;Whoso&nbsp;<i>reads</i>&quot; uses a Greek word which really means to recognize, distinguish- and he who recognizes, understands, let him &quot; understand&quot; or, better,&nbsp;<i>meditate</i>. Or again, &quot;When you shall see (Greek, to know, perceive) the abomination that makes desolate...&quot; (Mt. 24:15). This might suggest that the &quot;abomination&quot; isn\'t necessarily something physical. The idea seems to be \'When you understand that the abomination that makes desolate is in place, then...\', rather than \'When you see (physically) on the telly or in the newspaper an abomination in Jerusalem, then... do something about it\'.&nbsp; &quot;When you shall see (Gk. perceive, understand) all these things, (then you will) know that it is near&quot; (Mt. 24:33). &quot;Behold (same Greek: perceive, comprehend) the fig tree...&quot; (Lk. 21:29). The emphasis is undoubtedly on the need for understanding of the signs, not just observing them.</p><p>&ldquo;Let him that reads understand&rdquo; is inviting us to be like Daniel in Dan. 9:22-25, who also wanted to understand the meaning of the &ldquo;abomination&rdquo; prophecy. But he was told that the meaning of that vision about the abomination that desolates would only be revealed in the very last days, i.e. at the time of its fulfilment (Dan. 8:17,26; 12:9). The implication of all this is that there will be believing Jews living in the Jerusalem area at the time of the setting up of the abomination; and they will have special understanding of this prophecy which will lead them to flee. The importance of this for our present study is that this indicates that there will be believers in Israel just before the Lord returns. They will have &ldquo;understanding&rdquo; and will be motivated by this to respond. &ldquo;<i>Let him</i>&hellip; understand&rdquo; is paralleled with &ldquo;<i>let him</i>&nbsp;that is on the housetop flee immediately&hellip;&nbsp;<i>let him&nbsp;</i>that is in the field not return&rdquo;. Understanding leads to action- both then and now.</p><p><i>Then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains</i>- This is the equivalent of the plea in Revelation to flee out of Babylon, the latter day Islamic complex to be built in Jerusalem on the temple mount.</p><p>The same word was used by the Lord in introducing the Olivet prophecy in Mt. 23:33: &quot;How can you&nbsp;<i>escape</i>&nbsp;the condemnation of Gehenna?&quot;. The way of escape was through obedience to His word. Clearly the Lord intended His words to be fulfilled in that immediate generation; but fleeing to the mountains did not bring ultimate salvation because the Lord did not return as intended. His coming has been rescheduled, and perhaps utter salvation for the Jewish remnant in the land will likewise depend upon \'fleeing\'. The Old Covenant had specified that Israel would flee before their enemies if they broke the covenant; the command to \'flee\' may therefore be an invitation to accept guilt for their sin, and thereby be saved through the very act of recognizing the justice of their judgment. For this is the essence of the salvation of every man in Christ. It could be that Rev. 12:6 provides more details, in speaking of the faithful fleeing into the wilderness and thereby being saved. This was the way to flee the coming condemnation (Mt. 23:33; Lk. 3:7). The Lord\'s words required some faith to accept, because if Jerusalem were surrounded by armies, how could the faithful flee? Josephus explains that the Roman legions did in fact withdraw for a time, allowing civilians to flee (B.J.2.19.6,7).</p><p><i>&quot;</i>To the mountains&quot; is better, \'toward\'. Clearly this was capable of fulfilment in the Jewish war, in a fairly literal sense. But what is the latter day equivalent? &quot;The mountains&quot; could be an intensive plural for the one great, special, obvious mountain. The same word is found earlier in the chapter- the Lord is saying these words sitting on &quot;the mount&quot; of Olives (Mt. 24:3). And it is to that mount that He will return, according to Acts 1:12 and Zechariah 14. It could be, therefore, in a literal or figurative sense, an appeal to move towards the mount of Olives to meet Him at His return. Perhaps in a literal, geographical sense, that area will be the only area left by the invading armies, and they will surround the faithful Jewish remnant on that mount- and then the Lord shall come. But such speculation is unhelpful, because the principle of prophecy is that when it happens, then we shall understand. I do not believe we are intended to work out a sequence of events ahead of time. Indeed, given the conditional nature of Bible prophecy, that is impossible to do anyway.&nbsp;</p><p>As the faithful remnant were miraculously allowed to leave Sodom for the mountains, immediately unleashing the Divine judgments by doing so, the faithful Christian remnant were allowed to leave Jerusalem just before the final Roman onslaught of AD70, doubtless spurred on by their Lord\'s command: &quot;Let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it (Jerusalem) depart out&quot; (Lk. 21:21). The reference to fleeing to the mountains would have suggested a conscious allusion back to&nbsp;the command to Lot to flee out of Sodom &quot;to the mountain&quot; (Gen. 19:17).&nbsp;&quot;Then let them which be in Judaea flee to the mountains&quot; may mean that there will be Jewish believers in Jerusalem in the last days, seeing the whole prophecy has yet to be totally fulfilled (the AD70 application of these words was at best limited). Dan. 12:1 says that in the final tribulation of Israel, those Jews who are &quot;written in the book&quot;, i.e. who are acceptable saints (Ex. 32:32; Rev. 21:27) will be delivered. So there will be a minority in latter day natural Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal, as in Elijah\'s time- which is typical of the situation at the latter day Elijah ministry. This is certainly encouragement enough to make witness to and within Israel a priority.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2005','1','41','13','15','15','<p>13:15 <i>And let him that is on the housetop-</i> The idea is that flight could be taken by jumping from housetop to housetop, without going back into the house. Escaping that way would best be done in any case without carrying anything. This is clearly language relevant specifically to first century Palestine, and is a parade example of how the prophecy was ideally intended for fulfilment then. The latter day fulfilment of these words will therefore only be in essence, rather than in detail. That is a principle we must bear in mind when considering many other Bible prophecies; the essence but not necessarily the detail will be fulfilled in the rescheduled and delayed version of their fulfilment. The implication of the language here and in :18 is that the sign to flee will be momentary; the signs are not, therefore, to be perceived over decades or even years, leading slowly towards the Lord&rsquo;s coming. Rather these signs, especially of the abomination, will appear suddenly, to the extent that the believer must flee immediately, quite literally without a moment to lose.</p><p>But this reflection leads us to wonder whether the fleeing away in a split second, be it from the field or housetop, is more likely a reference to the need to respond immediately to the call to leave secular life and go to meet the Lord. The example of a person in the field (Mt. 24:18) needing to leave immediately naturally connects with the words of Mt. 24:40 about the snatching away of the believers at the Lord&rsquo;s return: &ldquo;Two shall be in the field, the one shall be taken, and the other left&rdquo;. This would dovetail well with the implication elsewhere that the immediacy of our response to the knowledge that &lsquo;He&rsquo;s back&rsquo; will effectively be our judgment. Those who themselves want to go to Him will be snatched away and meet Him, whilst those who delay will be rejected, as the foolish virgins who went first to buy oil.</p><p><i>Not go down, nor enter in to take anything out his house</i>- The allusion is clearly to Lot fleeing Sodom, also &ldquo;to the mountains&rdquo;. This is a type of the response of the believers to the call to judgment at the Lord&rsquo;s return. If we don&rsquo;t separate from the world, we will share their judgment. The immediacy of response is so stressed, and will be ultimately indicative of where our heart is. Any desire to gather any material possessions will reveal that our heart is not wholly and solely with the Lord. But the Greek could equally mean &lsquo;to take anyone person out of his house / family&rsquo;. This again is a high demand- the demand of the Sermon on the Mount, to put family in second place behind personal loyalty to the Lord Jesus. All who love the Lord in spirit and in truth will respond to the sign or call to leave with immediacy. They will know that in any case, they are powerless to drag their unbelieving family members with them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2006','1','41','13','16','16','<p>13:16 <i>And let him that is in the field not return back to take his cloak</i>- The immediacy of response is clear. Even grabbing an outer garment, equivalent of a jacket, would lead to unworthiness and destruction. The call to leave must be responded to immediately, with the faith that what clothing we have on is utterly irrelevant. This only really makes sense if the call or sign to escape is the call to judgment- and this verse connects with the words of Mt. 24:40 about the snatching away of the believers at the Lord&rsquo;s return: &ldquo;Two shall be in the field, the one shall be taken, and the other left&rdquo;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2007','1','41','13','17','17','<p>13:17 <i>But alas for women who are pregnant, and for those who are nursing infants in those days</i>- This may well match Paul\'s warning against marrying&nbsp;in the last days in 1 Cor. 7. He understood the Olivet prophecy as having the real prophecy of fulfilment in his generation. As He hung on the cross, our Lord quoted this part of His Olivet prophecy to the women who stood by (Lk. 23:29 &ldquo;blessed are those who never gave suck&rdquo; = Mt. 24:19 &ldquo;Woe to them&hellip; who give suck&rdquo;, s.w.), concerning the sufferings of the believers in the \'last days\'. Here we see His matchless selflessness; going out of His own sufferings, to think, with anguish, how they would be experienced by His followers in the tribulation. &quot;Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves... for if they do these things (to) a green tree (the spiritually healthy Lord Jesus), what shall be done (to) the dry&quot;, the spiritually barren tree of Israel. This is a superb essay in the Lord\'s selflessness and minimizing of his own sufferings: he felt that what he was going through was less than what the spiritually weak would have to go through in the AD70 tribulation (and that of the last days). In the other 11 occurrences of &ldquo;woe&rdquo; in Matthew, the objects of the &ldquo;woe&rdquo; are clearly the unfaithful and the condemned; this category of those &ldquo;with child&rdquo; are therefore not amongst those who obediently &lsquo;flee&rsquo;. Lk. 21:23 states that they would be amongst those who would suffer the &ldquo;wrath upon this people&rdquo;. In Lk. 23:29 the Lord clearly envisaged the women of His generation, the ones who lined the road to Golgotha, as experiencing the trauma He predicted in the Olivet prophecy. And yet it is clear enough that the final fulfilment is yet to come- because His coming was rescheduled.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2008','1','41','13','18','18','<p>13:18 <i>And pray that it is not in the winter</i>- The Lord&rsquo;s request for prayer indicates that the exact timing of events in the tribulation will be changeable in accordance with the fervency of our latter day prayers. Changeable time periods has been a feature of God&rsquo;s prophetic dealings with Israel; and Mt. 22:22 is explicit that the intended number of days will be shortened. An AD70 application for this is hard to find; it may be that the exact timing of the Roman offer of amnesty was dependent on the intensity of prayer by the besieged Jerusalem ecclesia. That ecclesia, rent as they were by&nbsp;schism, false doctrine and materialism (if we accept the evidence that Hebrews was addressed to them) was a type of the faithful remnant of the last days. They were finally sorted out by the events of AD67 - 70, cp. the latter day tribulation.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2009','1','41','13','19','19','<p>13:19 <i>For those days shall cause distress, such as there has never been similar, from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never shall be again</i>- The LXX uses this same word for &quot;distress&quot; or &quot;tribulation2 in several passages pregnant with latter day significance: <br />&ldquo;The day of my Jacob&rsquo;s <i>distress</i>&rdquo; at the hands of Esau (Gen. 35:3)<br />&ldquo;The <i>anguish</i> of his Joseph&rsquo;s soul&rdquo; at the hands of his half brethren and the Ishmaelites (Gen. 42:21)<br />&ldquo;I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and <i>troubles </i>shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?&rdquo; (Dt. 31:17)- a passage in the Song of Moses regarding Israel&rsquo;s latter day tribulations. <br />&ldquo;Thus says Hezekiah, This day is a day of <i>trouble</i>, and of rebuke, and blasphemy&rdquo; (2 Kings 19:3)- Sennacherib&rsquo;s Assyrian invasion at this time was a clear prototype for the latter day invasion described in Ezekiel 38 and elsewhere. <br />&ldquo;The time of Jacob&rsquo;s <i>trouble</i>&rdquo; from which he will be delivered (Jer. 30:7)<br />&ldquo;There shall be a time of <i>trouble</i>, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time your people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book&rdquo; (Dan. 12:1). This time of trouble is specifically for Israel in the last days.</p><p>Mk. 13:19 speaks of how &quot;in those days&quot; those in Judaea should flee to the mountains; &quot;for <i>in those days</i> shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of creation... neither shall be (referring to Dan. 12:1 concerning our last days)... except that the Lord had shortened <i>those days</i>... <i>in those days</i>, after that tribulation... <i>then</i> shall they see the son of man coming&quot;. Surely &ldquo;in those days&quot; shouts for a continuous application to the same &quot;days&quot; - the days of the second coming. At best, &quot;those days&quot; can have a primary reference to the events of AD70, but the <i>main</i> fulfilment of the whole prophecy must be in the last days. This point seems impossible to answer by those who disallow any reference to the second coming.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2010','1','41','13','20','20','<p>13:20 <i>And except the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved- </i>&quot;Saved&quot; here (&quot;there should no flesh be saved&quot;) implies \'delivered\'; it will appear that none of us will survive the tribulation, &quot;but for the elect&rsquo;s sake those days shall be shortened&quot; and we will be saved by the second coming. Thus 2 Pet. 3:12,15 reminds us that by our prayers and spiritual development, the days before the second coming will be shortened. If they were not, even the elect would lose their faith (Mt. 24:22)- showing how those of us who are alive at Christ\'s coming will <i>barely</i> survive the spiritual traumas of the last days. The virgins were sleeping when they should have been watching; and Peter says that the righteous in the last generation (see context) will <i>scarcely</i> be saved (1 Pet. 4:18). So it would appear that the days of the final tribulation will be shortened, although in another sense the coming of the Lord is delayed in order to allow our greater spiritual development (Mt. 25:5). This &lsquo;delay&rsquo; is why the harvest will be &ldquo;over-ripe&rdquo; for reaping (Rev. 14:15 RV)- or is this a reference to the lack of zeal of preachers to Israel in the last days, not harvesting the ready fruit? The Lord likens the final tribulation to the travail of a woman to bring forth her child. But we read in Is. 66:7,8 in this same context of Israel&rsquo;s latter day suffering: &ldquo;Before she travailed, she brought forth: before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing?... for as soon as Zion travailed she brought forth her children&rdquo;. This seems to imply that the expected period of Zion&rsquo;s travail will be cut short, and she will give spiritual birth far quicker than expected. Perhaps the Lord was alluding to this passage when He spoke of how &ldquo;the days&rdquo; of Zion&rsquo;s labour? shall be shortened.</p><p><i>But for the elect\'s sake, which He chose, He shortened the days</i>- Both the Lord Jesus and Israel are called &quot;the elect&quot; (Is. 42:1; 45:4); both are fulfilments of the servant songs in Isaiah. The days will be shortened for the elect\'s sake; for the sake of <i>Christ\'s</i> intercession, as well as ours. It&rsquo;s tempting to understand &ldquo;the elect&rdquo; in the Olivet prophecy as referring specifically to the group of faithful believers or perhaps specifically Jewish ones who are alive and remain until the Lord&rsquo;s coming. They are the ones who resist the temptation to be deceived in the very last days (Mt. 24:24) and who are snatched away at the Lord&rsquo;s coming &ldquo;from the four winds&rdquo;, suggesting they are located worldwide (Mt. 24:31). We note that Christ on the cross was called by the same word&nbsp;<i>eklektos</i>- &ldquo;the elect / chosen of God&rdquo; (Lk. 23:35). This group will indeed have identified with His crucifixion sufferings. Perhaps this is the group of believers who are also specifically called &ldquo;the elect&rdquo; who fight on Mount Zion alongside Jesus against the armies of Israel&rsquo;s enemies (Rev. 17:14). In the immediate context, the elect or chosen ones were perhaps intended by the Lord to refer to the listening disciples. Mk. 13:20 labours the point: &ldquo;For the elect&rsquo;s sake <i>eklektos</i>, whom He has chosen / elected <i>eklegomai</i>&rdquo;. The word is specifically used about the Lord&rsquo;s choosing of the twelve (Lk. 6:13; Jn. 6:70; 13:18; 15:16,19; Acts 1:2). He imagined them being scattered to &ldquo;the four winds&rdquo; in their obedience to the great commission, but thanks to them, the days would be shortened and they themselves would be gathered to Him at His return. That was the Lord&rsquo;s hope and ideal intention. It didn&rsquo;t happen in the first century, and thus has some element of reapplication in a different context in our last days.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>The vision will in one sense &ldquo;not delay / tarry&rdquo; (Hab. 2:3 RV). And yet the same verse speaks of how it does &ldquo;tarry&rdquo;. Perhaps in a human sense it delays, but not from God&rsquo;s perspective. &ldquo;It hasteth toward the end&rdquo; (Hab. 2:3 RV) could imply that things are speeded up in their fulfilment in the very end time; for the elect&rsquo;s sake the days until the second coming are shortened. And yet things are also delayed- the bridegroom tarries / delays, to the point that many realize that the Lord has delayed His coming, and begin to act inappropriately. One reconciliation of these paradoxes could be that some prophecies are speeded up in their fulfilment because of the elect would otherwise lose their faith; and yet other prophecies seem to be delayed in fulfilment because of the unspirituality of others.&nbsp; The possibility of changing the fulfilment of prophetic time periods is to be found in Hab. 3:2: &quot;In the midst of the years revive...&quot;- i.e. please, God, do it immediately rather than waiting until the end of days.<br />The Lord&rsquo;s description of the shortening of the days uses some rather odd past tenses: &ldquo;Except the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved: but for the elect&rsquo;s sake&hellip; he shortened the days&rdquo; (Mk. 13:20 RV). One wonders if we have here an allusion back to the days of Noah, where again there was the possibility that no flesh would have been saved. The 150 days of flooding is perhaps the basis of Rev. 9:10, where Israel is to have 150 days of tribulation at the hands of her Arab enemies in the last days. The connection between the passages would therefore seem to be teaching that the final 150 days tribulation will be shortened due to the repentance of the remnant.</p><p>For the elects\' sake, the days to the second coming <i>will be</i> shortened (Mt. 24:22); but the Lord also said, perhaps in the same sentence, that the days <i>have already</i> been shortened (Mk. 13:20). This shows that God conceives of time in a radically different way to how we do. The shortening of time in a sense hasn\'t take place, but in another sense it has. There can therefore be no trite explanation of how God can hasten the second coming in accordance with our prayers, and yet also have a set time to favour Zion. See on Rom. 9:28,29; 2 Pet. 3:9; Rev. 9:10. This was typified in the Joseph story. &quot;Then Joseph could not refrain himself...&quot; (Gen. 45:1) implies he planned to drag out the process of spiritually refining his brothers, but his love for them caused him to cut it short. &quot;For the elect&rsquo;s sake the days shall be shortened&quot; by Christ (Mt. 24:22). The same Hebrew word in Gen. 45:1 is used in Is. 42:14 about how God can no longer refrain Himself in the last days. The RV has: &ldquo;had been shortened&rdquo;, suggesting that maybe the Lord had already been in dialogue with the Father and secured a decrease in the Father&rsquo;s original time period envisaged.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2011','1','41','13','21','21','<p>13:21 <i>And then if anyone shall say to you- </i>This again, spoken to the disciples, suggests that they were the ones who would see these things associated with the return of Christ. But they did not. And in any case, all twelve of them were being addressed, and one of them would turn away from Christ. So there was in any case a conditionality attached to the Lord&rsquo;s words.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>Look, here is the Christ or Look There he is- do not believe them</i>- &ldquo;Lo&rdquo; AV suggests the actual pointing out of a person. &ldquo;Here&hellip; or there&rdquo; AV is poor translation, because the same original word is behind both &ldquo;here&rdquo; and &ldquo;there&rdquo;. The impression is given of people pointing out actual individuals and claiming that &lsquo;This is Christ&rsquo;. The faithful are to flee once the sign is obvious that Christ is about to be revealed, and in those days and they may literally be days or hours the world will know that Christ&rsquo;s return is imminent, and therefore all manner of charlatans will start claiming &lsquo;It&rsquo;s me&rsquo;. The relatively few claims to be Jesus Christ which are made today are hardly credible, no temptation at all for the faithful, and nearly always the person making the claim is mentally ill. But the Olivet prophecy suggests that these claims by false Christs will be so credible that even the faithful will be sorely tempted to believe them. The risk of deception would be so great that the Lord repeatedly warned against it. If there is some worldwide sign that Christ is about to return, perhaps literally in the sky, as &ldquo;the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven&rdquo;, then in those days, such claimants will have far more credibility. It could be that one claimant is particularly persuasive, leading to the final show down on Mount Zion between the true Christ and the anti-Christ, the fake duplicate of Christ.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2012','1','41','13','22','22','<p>13:22 <i>For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray (if possible) the elect</i>- The Lord is virtually quoting the words of Moses in Dt. 13:1: &ldquo;When Heb.; AV &ldquo;if&rdquo; there arise among you a false prophet&hellip; and gives you a sign or wonder&rdquo;. Even if signs are given, they are not to be believed; apparent miracles are no proof that a man is of God. The Lord is here asserting Himself as the new Moses. The appearance of miraculous &ldquo;signs&rdquo; was important in Judaism in order to identify Messiah- hence they asked the Lord to produce such signs (Mt. 12:38; 16:1; Jn. 2:18; 4:48; 6:30; 1 Cor. 1:22 &ldquo;the Jews require a sign&rdquo;). The Lord had refused to respond, even though He had done many miracles. He said that &ldquo;no sign&rdquo; would be given to that generation apart from that of Jonah- i.e., His resurrection. It was &ldquo;a wicked and adulterous generation that seeks after a sign&rdquo; (Mt. 16:4). The disciples likewise assumed that there was to be such a &ldquo;sign&rdquo; predicting the Lord&rsquo;s coming (Mt. 24:3). On one level it could be argued that the Lord&rsquo;s answer is actually a refusal to give them such a miraculous &ldquo;sign&rdquo; from Him; rather did He give them descriptions of what would happen in the world. He had said the same, in essence, to the Jews when they demanded such a miraculous &ldquo;sign&rdquo; of Him; He said they would be given no such sign, but rather they were to discern the &ldquo;signs s.w. of the times&rdquo; (Mt. 16:3,4). And this effectively is how He answers the disciples when at the beginning of the Olivet prophecy they likewise ask for a &ldquo;sign&rdquo;. He responds by giving them a list of &ldquo;signs of the times&rdquo;. However, it would seem from Mt. 24:30 that there will in fact be the &ldquo;sign&rdquo; of Messiah visible in the sky- but only in the very last few? days before the forcible establishment of His Kingdom. This will be in opposition to the &ldquo;signs&rsquo; shown by the false prophets. More detail is given in Rev. 13:13,14; 16:14; 19:20 where we read of the beast system and false prophet doing signs by which they deceived the people in the earth / land. This is an expansion upon the Lord&rsquo;s warning against being deceived by such signs. And the same scenario is found in 2 Thess. 2:9, where we find the man of sin sitting in the latter day temple doing &ldquo;signs and lying wonders&rdquo; (same words as here in Mt. 24:24), to be destroyed in the final conflict with the real Christ.</p><p>There is ample evidence that in the lead up to the Babylonian invasion which typifies that of the last days, Jeremiah had to work amid considerable opposition from false prophets who mocked his prophecies of impending Arab victory and the need to repent; they will have their counterparts among the ranks of modern Judaism in the last days (Lam. 2:14; Jer. 20:6;&nbsp;28:1-9;&nbsp;29:24-26; Zech. 13:2-5). Perhaps it is such false prophets within Israel which our Lord spoke of in Mt. 24:24.&nbsp;But there&rsquo;s no need to speculate too much- when these things come to pass, it will be crystal clear to those aware of the prophecy that we&rsquo;ve now reached that stage. In the A.D.70 possibility of fulfilment, these people operated under the umbrella of fundamentalist Judaism, as they will in the last days.&nbsp;Their false bearing of the Lord\'s name (Mt. 24:5) alludes back to the pseudo-prophets of Jeremiah\'s time doing the same (Jer. 14:14).&nbsp;Zedekiah\'s trauma of being torn between wanting to accept the words of the false prophets whilst inwardly knowing the truth of Jeremiah\'s words, will perhaps be repeated in the leadership of latter-day Israel, to whom the Elijah ministry will teach the true word of God. The apparent mimicry of Jeremiah\'s style by the false prophets will perhaps be seen in the last days too.</p><p>The possibility of deception may be precluded by the fact that the elect, by reason of being the elect, will not be deceived. But there may also be the suggestion that it is impossible to deceive the elect because they are preserved from such deception. The Father and Son are willing and able to &ldquo;keep you from falling&rdquo; by sealing or preserving the faithful from such deception. The element of God&rsquo;s work over and above human freewill effort is itself indicated by the very term &ldquo;the elect&rdquo;; those chosen, by God and not of themselves.</p><p>A major theme of the prophecy is the danger of being deceived (Mt. 24:4,5,11). The need for this urgent warning requires that the claimants have far more credibility than such persons have today.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2013','1','41','13','23','23','<p>13:23 <i>But be warned, I have told you all things beforehand</i>- In place of the Olivet prophecy, John\'s gospel has the message about the Comforter. Through the gift of the Spirit, the Lord is present in our hearts with such reality that it is as if He were with us. All calls to go out and see Him here or there will therefore intuitively be found false by us. And the connection with the Comforter passages continues in this verse, with a clear link to Jn. 14:29: &quot;And now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe&quot;. The Lord was referring to the predictions of His sufferings and death; but here, the context is of the latter day tribulation. Those tribulations are to enable those who pass through them to fellowship with the sufferings and death of the Lord, that they might share in His immortality.</p><p>The intention of prophecy is that when it is fulfilled, then all is clear to the believers and they are thereby guided and strengthened. This will be particularly true in those last few days when the sign of the Son of Man is in the sky (Mt. 24:30), everyone somehow knows Christ is about to come- and inevitably false claimants will arise, perhaps one particular one will claim to be Christ and will go to battle against the real Christ. Hence the repetition of the Lord&rsquo;s warning about not being deceived by this person or related claims.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2014','1','41','13','24','24','<p>13:24 <i>But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened- </i>After the tribulation, as it was when Jesus died (Lk. 23:45 s.w.). Israel&rsquo;s tribulation will make them understand what He went through. The context has been the Lord&rsquo;s insistence that His coming will be obviously visible, like lightening in the sky, and the reference to &ldquo;the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven&rdquo; / the sky (Mt. 24:30) would suggest that a literal sign in the sky is what the Lord has in mind. The allusion to the crucifixion would also require a literal element of fulfilment. The additional information given in Rev. 8:12; 9:2 suggests that this darkening of sun and stars happens progressively, although that may be over a period of only a few literal days. There are reports of such signs being seen over Jerusalem in the lead up to AD70, the appearance of comets etc. However it seems to me that Josephus had access to the Olivet prophecy and some of the wording of his historical claims is so similar to the Lord&rsquo;s words that I personally doubt the degree of real fulfilment that was going on; rather do I suspect he was consciously alluding to the Lord&rsquo;s words and wishing to see them fulfilled in the history he was recording. That is not the same thing as AD70 actually fulfilling in detail the Olivet prophecy.</p><p><i>And the moon shall not give her light</i>- Joseph\'s dream clearly identifies these symbols as representing Israel. The passages which make this same identification are many: Gen. 37:9,10; 15:5; 22:17; Amos 8:8-10;&nbsp; Micah 3:6; Song of Solomon 6:10; Is. 24:23; Jer. 33:20-26; JoeI 2:10,30-32; 3:15; Acts 2:20; Rev. 6:12; 8:12; 12:1. Jer. 31:35,36 is likely the Old Testament passage the Lord specifically had in mind: &quot;Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, who divides the sea when the waves thereof roar; the Lord of hosts is his name. If those ordinances depart from before me, says the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever&quot;. Only here do we find &quot;sun, moon, and stars&quot; combined with &quot;sea and waves roaring&quot; as in the Olivet prophecy in Luke 21. In Luke He spoke of &quot;On the earth distress of&nbsp;<i>nations&nbsp;</i>(Gentile nations causing distress in the earth / land of Israel) with perplexity&hellip; men\'s hearts failing them for fear and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (or land, of Israel)&rdquo;. The Greek word translated &quot;perplexity&quot; is used in the LXX concerning the final tribulation of Israel (Lev. 26:16; Dt. 28:22; Is. 5:30; 8:20 LXX).&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2015','1','41','13','25','25','<p>13:25 <i>And the stars shall fall from heaven and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken</i>- The Greek phrase is used only elsewhere in Rev. 6:13. This vision is clearly an expansion upon the Olivet prophecy. There, the stars fall &ldquo;as a fig tree casts her unripe figs&rdquo;. This too is the language of the Olivet prophecy (Mt. 24:32). The lack of spiritual maturity in Israel is related to the stars of Israel- see on&nbsp;<i>Sun... moon... stars</i> falling. The appearance of comets would certainly give the impression of falling stars, and I suggest that the main fulfilment will be in terms of things visibly seen in the sky, as hard proof to all the world that the Lord Jesus is returning.</p><p>The events of judgment day will be a &lsquo;shaking&rsquo; of the world, including the faithful (Lk. 6:48 the house built on the rock could not be &ldquo;shaken&rdquo;, s.w.). Heb. 12:26,27 surely allude here, saying that just as the earth shook when the old covenant was instituted, so the &ldquo;heavens&rdquo; would also be shaken. The suggestion of the context is that this day of shaking both heaven and earth was almost upon the readership- who were Hebrews, Jewish Christians.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2016','1','41','13','26','26','<p>13:26 <i>And then shall they see the Son of Man- </i>In Matthew, when &ldquo;all the tribes of the earth / land mourn in repentance&hellip; then shall they see the Son of man coming&rdquo;. Some in Israel must repent before Christ returns. The Lord refers to this in speaking to the Jews who crucified Him: &quot;You shall see s.w. the Son of Man... coming in the clouds of Heaven&quot; (Mt. 26:64). They would see that all too late, as part of the process of their condemnation- to realize it was all true, and it is too late to do anything about it. The Lord had earlier used the same idea, in saying that that group would only &quot;see&quot; Him again when they said &quot;Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord&quot; (Lk. 13:35). They would see that and say that all too late. The Lord\'s words clearly suggest they of that generation would see His return in glory. But His coming was delayed, and they did not. But they will at the last day, for they will be resurrected to face judgment and condemnation. The chronological issues need not worry us too much- i.e. when will they be resurrected, at precisely what point on the timeline of these events. The meaning of time will surely be collapsed around the Lord\'s return. This will be the final fulfilment of the prophecy that they shall look upon Him whom they pierced and mourn (Rev. 1:7; Jn. 19:37; &quot;look&quot; is s.w. &quot;see&quot; in Mt. 24:30). The invitation of course is to look upon the crucified Christ now and mourn in repentance; for we shall have to do this one way or the other, either now in repentance, or too late in condemnation.</p><p><i>Coming in the clouds- </i>Dan. 7:14. The language of clouds and then Angels (Mt. 24:31) is reminiscent of the Lord&rsquo;s ascension, at which the Angels promised His return &ldquo;in like manner&rdquo;; and the same language is used of His return in Acts 1:7. This precludes any invisible &lsquo;coming&rsquo; in AD70. Rather than thinking that the Lord somehow &lsquo;came&rsquo; in AD70 in some metaphorical manner, I would suggest that the literal language is such that we can only conclude that His literal return has been delayed. Otherwise we end up forcing the obviously literal into the metaphorical.</p><p>The moment of the second coming is likened to a flash of lightning and the beginning of rain at the time of Noah\'s flood.&nbsp;&nbsp; This makes any application of&nbsp;<i>parousia</i>&nbsp;to the prolonged series of events in A.D. 69/70 at least tenuous when compared to the obvious application to the moment of the second coming.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are many links between Mt. 24,25 and 1 Thess. 4,5 which have been tabulated by several expositors. According to these connections, the Lord\'s \'parousia\' mentioned in Mt. 24 is interpreted by Paul as referring to the literal second coming (Mt. 24:30,31 = 1 Thess. 4:15,16). In view of all this, it is desirable to interpret the \'coming\' of the Lord in Mt. 24 as referring to the literal presence of Christ at His return, although this is not to rule out any primary reference to the events of A.D. 70.&nbsp;Indeed I would argue that since&nbsp;<i>parousia</i>&nbsp;means a literal presence, it&rsquo;s not the case that the prophecy received a primary fulfilment in AD70; rather is it that the literal return of Christ was intended then, but was rescheduled. At best, the&nbsp;<i>parousia</i>&nbsp;element of the predictions had no partial fulfilment in AD70. The flow of the prophecy is indicated by the repetition of words like &quot;then&quot; : &quot;<i>Then</i>&nbsp;shall they deliver you up...&nbsp;<i>then</i>&nbsp;shall many be offended...&nbsp;<i>then</i>&nbsp;shall the end come...&nbsp;<i>then</i>&nbsp;let them which be in Judea...&nbsp;<i>then</i>&nbsp;shall be great tribulation...&nbsp;<i>then</i>&nbsp;if any man shall say unto you, Here is Christ...&nbsp;<i>immediately after the tribulation of those days</i>&nbsp;(&quot;in<i> those days</i>, after that tribulation&quot;, Mk. 13:24)...&nbsp;<i>then</i>&nbsp;shall appear the sign of the Son of man...&nbsp;<i>then</i>&nbsp;shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the son of man coming&quot; (Mt. 24). There is no suggestion here of any break in application, from AD70 to the last days. If the reference to Christ coming in glory with the Angels is accepted as referring to the last days, but the earlier verses of the prophecy to AD70 alone, we have to find the point where Christ breaks from AD70 to the last days. And I would suggest such a point cannot be found.</p><p><i>&quot;</i>In the clouds&quot; clearly alludes to His ascension in clouds, and the promise that He would return &quot;in like manner&quot; (Acts 1:11), presumably meaning in clouds to the same Mount of Olives. Again we are invited to understand these as literal clouds, just as the signs in the heavenly bodies are likewise to be understood. At His coming, the figurative will pass away and planet earth and those who dwell upon it will be faced with the ultimate reality- the personal, literal coming of God\'s Son to earth.</p><p><i>With great power and glory</i>- The very words used by the Lord in the model prayer of Mt. 6:13 concerning the power and glory of the Kingdom of God. The coming of the Lord to establish the Kingdom is clearly yet future and did not occur in AD70. This is the time when &ldquo;the Son of Man shall come in the glory s.w. of His Father with His angels, and then shall He repay every man according to his deeds&rdquo; (16:27; 25:31). Likewise, this is &ldquo;the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory s.w., and you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel&rdquo; (Mt. 19:28). Such a judgment and coming with Angels never occurred in AD70. John&rsquo;s equivalent of this is to emphasize that in essence, the believers behold Christ&rsquo;s glory now, insofar as they perceive the wonder and moral pinnacle of His achievement for us on the cross (Jn. 17:24). Col. 3:4 teaches that &ldquo;When Christ who is our life i.e. our basis of resurrection shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory&rdquo;. His coming in glory will be ours, in that we will have been snatched away to meet with Him and will come with Him to Zion. And yet the next verse speaks as if now, at this point, the Angels are sent to gather the elect. But these chronological discrepancies are no real issue for the believer if we accept that the meaning of time must be changed around the time of Christ&rsquo;s coming, as must the meaning of space if Einstein&rsquo;s theory of relativity is correct. This would explain all practical concerns about space and time issues relating to the day of judgment. Another window on the apparent chronological discrepancies is the consideration that there are various possible potential scenarios, which will work out according to the speed and nature of the spiritual response of both natural and spiritual Israel.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2017','1','41','13','27','27','<p>13:27 <i>And then shall he send the angels- </i>The preachers of His Gospel are His messengers / &lsquo;angels&rsquo; reaping in the harvest and proclaiming God&rsquo;s victory. And yet these are the very things which the Angels are described as doing in the last day (Mk. 13:27; Rev. 14:6-14). Yet we are doing it right now. In the preaching of the Gospel, we are sharing with the Angels in their work. We&rsquo;re in tandem with them. The nature of our response to the Gospel when we hear it in this life is essentially our response to the call to judgment at the last day. The very same Greek words translated &ldquo;Send&hellip; Angels&rdquo; are to be found in the description of John the Baptist being sent to gather men to the Lord Jesus: &ldquo;I send My messenger before Your face&rdquo; (Mt. 11:10). The idea is clearly that those who had responded to John&rsquo;s message of repentance and faith in Christ&rsquo;s forgiveness have in essence already been gathered for the Kingdom. And yet Israel generally had stoned those sent s.w. unto them (Mt. 23:37- the Lord said this introducing the Olivet prophecy).</p><p>The preachers of His Gospel are His messengers / &lsquo;angels&rsquo; reaping in the harvest and proclaiming God&rsquo;s victory. And yet these are the very things which the Angels are described as doing in the last day (Mk. 13:27; Rev. 14:6-14). Yet we are doing it right now. In the preaching of the Gospel, we are sharing with the Angels in their work. We&rsquo;re in tandem with them.</p><p><i>And shall gather together his elect- </i>Alluded to in 2 Thess. 2:1 &quot;our gathering together unto Him&quot;. However, a case can be made that the believers are already with Christ when He comes in the clouds. Therefore the &ldquo;elect&rdquo; could possibly refer specifically to natural Israel rather than the believers. If the reference is to the believers, this creates a chronological issue- although see on Mt. 24:30&nbsp;<i>Power and great glory</i>. The Angels will be sent out to gather together the elect, but Angels will also be &lsquo;sent forth&rsquo; to &ldquo;gather out of His Kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity&rdquo; (Mt. 13:41). It seems that this &lsquo;gathering out&rsquo; will be achieved by the more positive &lsquo;gathering together&rsquo; of the faithful. The point of gathering is the point of division between good and bad; our response to the certain news that &lsquo;He&rsquo;s back&rsquo; will decide the outcome of our judgment. Those wise virgins who go forth to meet Christ immediately are therefore those who will be &quot;caught up together&quot; with the faithful believers who will have been resurrected. Just as eagles mount up into the air and come down where the carcass is, so we will come to judgment. This will be when the Angels &quot;gather together&nbsp;<i>his elect</i>&quot; (Mt. 24:31). They then &quot;meet the Lord in the air&quot; literally, perhaps connecting with Rev. 11:12:&nbsp; &quot;They (the faithful, persecuted saints of the last days) heard a great voice from heaven (cp. &quot;the voice&quot; of 1 Thess. 4:16) saying unto them, Come up (cp. &quot;caught up...&quot;) hither.&nbsp;&nbsp; And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud (cp. &quot;caught up... in clouds&quot;); and their enemies beheld them&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; It may well be that Rev. 11:12 is speaking of the faithful Jewish remnant of the last days, who will be snatched away along with us.</p><p><i>From the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven</i>- Is this a reference to the believers being &ldquo;caught away in clouds, into the air, for the purpose of meeting the Lord&quot; (1 Thess. 4:17)? It seems also an allusion to the lightning of :27. The Lord&rsquo;s coming and His gathering of the elect is all in the same moment; and yet there are apparently various things which must occur all at the same time. The apparent contradictions in chronology need not worry us- see on Mt. 24:31&nbsp;<i>Power and great glory</i>.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2018','1','41','13','28','28','<p>13:28 <i>Now from the fig tree learn its lesson- </i>Lk. 13:6-9 records another parable of the fig tree, upon which that in the Olivet prophecy is based. Jesus, the dresser of God\'s vineyard of Israel, came seeking spiritual fruit on the fig tree, for the three years of his ministry. Because of the lack of it, the tree was cut down. Christ said &quot;Now (i.e. towards the end of the tribulation period?) learn a parable of the fig tree&quot; (Mt. 24:32). It is tempting to read this as effectively meaning \'Now learn&nbsp;<i>the</i>&nbsp;parable of the fig tree\', seeing that the parable of the Olivet prophecy is so similar to the previous fig tree parable.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>When its branch becomes tender- </i>The obvious connection in Jewish minds would be with Messiah as the pre-eminent branch of Israel (Is. 11:1; Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Ez. 17:22; Zech. 3:8; 6:12). Lk. 21 adds the detail that we are to look also at &ldquo;all the trees&rdquo;. A tender branch, all the trees, the Kingdom of God- these are all themes to be found in Ez. 17:22-24: &ldquo;Thus says the Lord Yahweh: I will also take of the lofty top of the cedar the dynasty of the house of David, and will set it. I will crop off from the topmost of its young twigs a tender one, and I will plant it on a high and lofty mountain. In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it the return of Christ to Mount Zion?; and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar. Under it shall dwell all birds of every wing; in the shade of its branches shall they dwell this is the picture of Christ&rsquo;s Kingdom- Mk. 4:32. All the trees cp. &ldquo;the fig tree and all the trees&rdquo; of the field shall know that I, Yahweh, have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish. I, Yahweh, have spoken and have done it&rdquo;. This last verse was clearly in the Lord&rsquo;s mind as He was led out to Golgotha (Lk. 23:31). This clearly Messianic language is associated by the Lord with the beginnings of spiritual fruit on the fig tree of Israel. The fig tree has to identify with Him as Messiah, become itself the tender branch, before fruit can be seen upon it.</p><p>I mentioned earlier in this exposition the strong parallels between the Olivet prophecy and the upper room discourse. The equivalent of the fig tree parable is in Jn. 15:1-6: &ldquo;I am the true vine and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that carries no fruit, he prunes away; and every branch that carries fruit, he cleanses it, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, so neither can you, except you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He that abides in me and I in him, the same carries much fruit. For severed from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is thrown out as a branch and withers, and these are gathered and thrown into the fire, and they are burned&rdquo;. Rom. 11:19 in turn alludes here by associating the cut off, rejected branches with natural Israel. The branches are the tree, which is Christ. That same identification of the branch and Christ is made here in Mt. 24:32. Putting together these teachings, the implication would be that for the branches of Israel to again be fruitful, they must be grafted back in, seeing they have been cut off. And that is the very teaching of Romans 11. &ldquo;When his branch is yet&hellip;&rdquo; is an attempt to translate a difficult original text. The idea may be &lsquo;If, so long as&hellip; the branch is tender, it can yield fruit&rsquo;. The broken off branches must be grafted back in and only &lsquo;so long as&rsquo; that is the case, they can bear fruit. In the first century context, the Lord may be urging Israel to bring forth spiritual fruit- whilst the branch is still tender, whilst it was still connected to the tree, and had not been broken off and burnt as Romans 11 envisaged happening. And yet Israel would not. Hence the Lord&rsquo;s appeal to His listeners to&nbsp;<i>learn</i>&nbsp;this parable. And hence the manner in which He placed this teaching as the conclusion to the Olivet prophecy, because Israel&rsquo;s repentance is the key precondition in His return. Jn. 15 is saying the same thing by warning that once severed from Christ, then there would be no chance of bearing fruit.</p><p><i>And puts forth its leaves, you know that the summer is near</i>- The fig tree was to &quot;shoot forth&quot; (Lk. 21:30) or \'germinate\' (Young), witnessed by its putting forth of leaves (Mk. 13:28) and tender branches (Mt. 24:32). When the fig tree puts forth leaves there are often immature, unripe figs amongst them. Thus Jesus inspected the fig tree outside Jerusalem to see if it had any fruit, and cursed it because it did not. It had &ldquo;leaves only&rdquo; (Mt. 21:19), but now the Lord seems to be saying that the presence of leaves will be a sign of His return. The obvious point of connection with 21:19 would suggest that He becomes more and more acceptant of&nbsp;<i>any&nbsp;</i>sign of spirituality and response in Israel; rather like the parable of the great supper features an increasing desperation on the part of the King to accept anyone who is willing to say &ldquo;yes&rdquo; to the invitation. &quot;The time of&nbsp;<i>figs</i>&nbsp;was not yet&quot;, i.e. it was not reasonable to find fully developed fruit on it. The fig tree referred to the nation of Israel; Jesus expected to find at least the beginnings of some spiritual fruit, but due to the chronic dearth of response to his message, Jesus cursed the nation and dried it up (Mk. 11:13,14,20). This would lead us to interpret the putting forth of leaves on the fig tree as the signs of an initial repentance and indication that real spiritual fruit is developing. It may well be that the whole of the Olivet prophecy has reference to a final three and a half year tribulation of the believers just prior to the second coming, and that during this time there will be a period of zealous witnessing to both Jews and Gentiles. This fits into place with the fig tree parable; this preaching starts to produce some degree of response from Israel, and then &quot;all (is) fulfilled&quot; in the full manifestation of Christ\'s Kingdom. The parable says that as surely as Summer follows Spring, so those who see the blossoming of the fig tree in the parable, will see the Kingdom. Maybe this is to be taken literally; there may be a literal gap of a few weeks/months (as between Spring and Summer) between the first signs of Jewish repentance, and all being fulfilled. It may well be that the &quot;all&quot; which will be fulfilled in Lk. 21:32 is to be equated with &quot;the times of the Gentiles&quot; being fulfilled (Lk. 21:24). The Greek&nbsp;<i>kairos&nbsp;</i>translated &ldquo;times&rdquo; is also translated &ldquo;opportunity&rdquo;; the Gentiles&rsquo; opportunity to hear the Gospel is fast running out. There will be a call to Israel to repent in the last days, and a remnant will respond. This Elijah ministry and maybe our present witness to Jewry prepares the way for this? must occur &ldquo;before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord&rdquo;. We could interpret the putting forth of leaves on the fig tree as the signs of an initial repentance and indication that real spiritual fruit is developing.</p><p>One way to look at this is that summer stood for harvest, obviously so in this context of fruit on a fig tree. But harvest was clearly a metaphor for judgment upon Israel, which is the context and burden of the Olivet prophecy. The Lord has lamented that the fig tree of Israel has nothing but leaves- and because of that, He had uttered judgment upon her (Mt. 21:19,20). So the Lord could be simply repeating this is parabolic terms. The judgment / harvest / Summer was to come upon the fig tree whilst she had only leaves and not fruit on her tender branch. And yet the language of &lsquo;shooting forth&rsquo; Gk. germinating in Lk. 21:30 suggests that more than mere leaves are in view. Summer will only come once there is fruit to harvest. That seems the point.&nbsp;</p><p>The shooting forth of the fig tree is given as the special sign that the Lord will return (Lk. 21:30). This must be understood in the context of the Lord coming to the fig tree in Mk. 11; He sought for at least the beginnings of fruit shooting forth, but found only leaves. And therefore He cursed the fig tree. He evidently saw the shooting forth of the fig tree as a figure of Israel\'s acceptance of Him, however immaturely. Likewise the parable of Lk. 13:6-9 makes the same connection between fruit on the fig tree and repentance within Israel. &quot;Learn a (the) parable of the fig tree&quot; (Mt. 24:32) may suggest that we are to understand the fig tree parable in the light of these other fig tree parables. And there are several OT links between fruit on the fig and spiritual fruit in Israel (Mic. 7:1 cp. Mt. 7:15,16; Hos. 9:10; Hab. 3:17,18). When the branch of Israel &ldquo;is now become tender&rdquo;, i.e. immediately this happens, we are to know that the eternal Summer of God&rsquo;s Kingdom is nigh (Mt. 24:32 RV). The tenderness of the branch is surely to be connected with the hard heart of Israel becoming tender through their acceptance of Jesus and the new covenant. When we see just the beginnings of Israel&rsquo;s repentance, through a remnant responding, we are to know that &ldquo;He is near, even at the doors&rdquo; (Mt. 24:33 RV). All this evidence steers us away from the idea that the fig tree became tender through the re-establishment of the nation of Israel- and towards an understanding that this is all about Israel&rsquo;s repentance.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2019','1','41','13','29','29','<p>13:29 <i>So you also, when you see these things happening, you will know that he is near- at the doors</i>- Lk. 21 &ldquo;you know in your own selves&rdquo;. Seeing the repentance of Israel will lead to the faithful perceiving that the end is near. This perhaps alludes to the same idea as in 2 Pet. 1:19, that the day star shall arise in the hearts of the believers just before the Lord comes.</p><p>The structure of the argument suggests that &ldquo;these things&rdquo; specifically refers to the shooting forth of the fig tree:</p><table border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Mt. 24:32</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Mt. 24:33</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>When Gk.&nbsp;<i>hotan</i></p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>When Gk.&nbsp;<i>hotan</i></p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>His branch is yet tender and puts forth leaves</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>You see all these things</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>You know Gk.&nbsp;<i>ginosko</i></p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>You know Gk.&nbsp;<i>ginosko</i></p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>That summer is near Gk.&nbsp;<i>eggus</i></p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>That it is near Gk.&nbsp;<i>eggus</i>; Lk.   21:32 &ldquo;That the Kingdom of God is near Gk.&nbsp;<i>eggus</i>&rdquo;.</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table><p>The &ldquo;Summer&rdquo; meant &lsquo;harvest&rsquo;, and that was a metaphor for judgment. Verse 33 parallels this by saying that &ldquo;it&rdquo; is near. The &ldquo;it&rdquo; may well refer to the destruction of the temple, which is the context of the whole discussion; although Lk. 21:32 supplies &ldquo;the Kingdom of God&rdquo;. The Lord is bringing the discourse to a close by returning to the question which provoked it: &ldquo;&rdquo;When shall these things be?&rdquo;. And He appears to be saying in the first century context that so long as only leaves remained on the fig tree of Israel, then the Summer of harvest judgment upon her was going to come. And yet the Lord here is using language with two or more meanings, as Scripture often does. In the latter day context, He seems to be saying that once spiritual fruit is beginning on the Israel fig tree, then this is the ultimate sign that the ultimate end is near.</p><p>The idea of Christ at the door is repeated by the Lord Himself in Rev. 3:19,20- where it means that Jesus is asking others to repent and turn to Him. Opening the door means the Lord has granted forgiveness- His being at the door implies surely that He is asking for repentance.&nbsp;<i>Epi&nbsp;</i>the doors can carry the sense of &lsquo;about&rsquo; or &lsquo;upon&rsquo;, perhaps an allusion to the Angels of Passover night, which is such a strong type of the second coming. That would explain the plural &ldquo;doors&rdquo;. I suggested that Summer / harvest may refer to judgment; being &lsquo;upon the doors&rsquo; may likewise suggest the Angel of Death in judgment. This would certainly fit the first century interpretation offered above- that while only leaves are on the fig tree branch, whilst it is still &lsquo;tender&rsquo; and attached to the tree before it has been broken off in judgment, then Summer / harvest / judgment is coming for sure, in that very generation. But words have multiple meanings, and this fact is not ignored by God in the way the Bible is written, nor by His Son in the way He spoke. The allusion can equally be to the Passover Angel who as it were restrained the Angel of Death by hovering over the blood-sprinkled doors of the faithful. This would continue the &lsquo;other&rsquo; usage of language by the Lord in the fig tree parable, which means that once there is some beginnings of spiritual fruit on the fig tree of Israel, then the repentance of that remnant will mean that the coming of the Lord is literally imminent and He stands&nbsp;<i>epi</i>&nbsp;the doors as the fulfilment of the Passover Angel.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2020','1','41','13','30','30','<p>13:30 <i>Truly I say to you: This generation shall not pass away- </i>This is similar to the Lord&rsquo;s teaching that some of His generation would not die until they had seen the coming of the Kingdom (Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:27). His saying may not be linked directly to the fig tree parable, as if to say &lsquo;The generation that sees the fig tree fruit will not pass away until&hellip;&rsquo;. Rather He may be concluding His message by again making clear that the entire prophecy was going to come true in that generation. Seeing that lifespans were not much over 40 years at that time, even AD70 would not have seen many of that generation alive. He says elsewhere that the actual people He was speaking with would see these things come true and see Him coming in glory. But this potential possibility was disallowed from happening in that generation by the refusal of Israel to repent and the weakness of spirituality and effort to spread the Gospel in those who did apparently believe into Christ. The transfiguration was hardly the main fulfilment of the Lord&rsquo;s words, even though the record of it directly follow the Lord&rsquo;s predictions. Like the events of AD70, it was at best a shadow fulfilment of the final coming of the Kingdom in visible power and glory. The use of &ldquo;<i>this</i>&nbsp;generation&rdquo; rather than &ldquo;<i>that</i>&nbsp;generation&rdquo; surely suggests the Lord hoped for and indeed intended a fulfilment of His words literally in that very generation. But that generation passed- because fruit on the fig tree was not found. Israel did not repent, and there was little spiritual fruit on those Jews who did accept Christ. All 38 NT occurrences of&nbsp;<i>genea</i>, &ldquo;generation&rdquo;, clearly refer to the contemporary generation or group of listeners. Any attempt to interpret&nbsp;<i>genea</i>&nbsp;as referring to the race or nation of Israel becomes impossible because the text would require that the race or nation of Israel pass away at the Lord&rsquo;s second coming, but Israel are clearly envisaged as existing as a separate entity in the Millennial Kingdom.</p><p><i>Until- </i>If the Lord had meant simply \'until\' we would read simply&nbsp;<i>heos</i>. But here we have two Greek words-&nbsp;<i>heos an</i>, which together denote a sense of conditionality and uncertainty. This is understandable if we understand that the Lord is talking of how His coming&nbsp;<i>could be</i>&nbsp;in that generation- but that depended upon some conditions which were beyond Him to fulfil and which depended upon men.</p><p><i>All these things happen</i>- AV &quot;Be fulfilled&quot;. There is surely a word play between&nbsp;<i>ginomai</i>&nbsp;&quot;fulfilled&quot; and&nbsp;<i>genea</i>&nbsp;&quot;generation&quot;. That generation would not pass until all has \'become\'. This is not the usual word used for the fulfilment of prophecies. When Matthew writes of the fulfilment of prophecies (and he does this often), the word&nbsp;<i>pleroo</i>&nbsp;is used. But here a much vaguer and more general word is used. Mark\'s record brings this out- the disciples ask when &quot;all these things&quot; would be &quot;fulfilled&quot; (<i>sunteleo</i>), and the Lord concludes the fig tree parable by saying &quot;all these things&quot; would be&nbsp;<i>ginomai</i>&nbsp;(Mk. 13:4,30). That would appear purposeful; the Lord held out the definite possibility for His return in the first century and the fulfilment of all things He had spoken of. But He was surely aware that this could be rescheduled, and so He used a word pregnant with the possibility that &quot;that generation&quot; would see the \'coming into being\' of the scenario He was presenting. That generation <i>ginomai</i> could have been the fulfilment <i>genea</i> of all things, or they could have been at least the coming into being of that fulfilment; even if they failed to respond, they would not be without significance in bringing into being the ultimate fulfilment.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2021','1','41','13','31','31','<p>13:31 <i>Heaven and earth may pass away</i>- This could simply be saying to the effect \'Even if heaven and earth could pass, which they cannot, there is even less possibility that My words shall not be fulfilled\'. Mt. 5:18 seems to use the term in that sense- &quot;Even until <i>heos</i>, i.e. \'even if\' heaven and earth pass...&quot;. In this case, we are not to even bother trying to understand \'heaven and earth\' as \'a system of things\', although this is certainly how the term is used, especially in the context of the Jewish system. And yet later New Testament allusion to this passage seems to suggest we are justified in seeing some reference to the Jewish, Mosaic system of the first century. Heb. 12:26 speaks as if heaven and earth are to be so shaken by the blood of Christ and the new covenant that they will pass away just as Sinai shook at the inauguration of the old covenant. 2 Pet. 3:7-13 is perhaps the clearest statement- the \'heaven and earth\' which &quot;are now&quot; in the first century were to pass away and be replaced by a new heaven and earth in which righteousness dwells. Clearly \'heaven and earth\' are not literal, because righteousness already dwells in literal Heaven, and the earth shall not be literally destroyed; this passing of \'heaven and earth\' is patterned after the destruction of sinful&nbsp;<i>society&nbsp;</i>in Noah\'s time (2 Pet. 3:5). We note that the Olivet prophecy concludes with a warning that society would become like it was in the days of Noah. Clearly this major changeover did happen in the first century in that the Jewish and Mosaic system did finally pass away in AD70 with the destruction of the temple. And yet Peter\'s words also seem to demand application to the second coming of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Clearly the heaven and earth of the Kingdom could have come in the first century, but \'all\' that happened was that the Jewish and Mosaic systems were ended; this was in itself created a requirement for a&nbsp;<i>new&nbsp;</i>\'heaven and earth\' in which dwells righteousness, but that system has evidently not yet physically come on earth. In this sense, what happened in AD70 was a guarantee and a creation of the requirement for the new Kingdom to come- see on :30&nbsp;<i>Be fulfilled</i>.</p><p>The Greek word&nbsp;<i>Ge</i>&nbsp;&quot;earth&quot; is used often for the &lsquo;land&rsquo; of Israel in the NT. We must remember that although the NT is written in Greek, it strongly reflects Hebrew usage of words. Again, the word commonly refers to the land of Israel. Consider some examples:&nbsp;<br />- &ldquo;But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God&rsquo;s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King&rdquo; (Mt. 5:34,35). This is alluding to the Jewish habit of swearing by their own land.&nbsp;<br />- &ldquo;The kings of the earth take custom or tribute&quot; (Mt. 17:25). The rulers of the earth were those ruling over Israel.&nbsp;<br />- &ldquo;That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth&quot; (Mt. 23:35). The blood shed on the earth means that which was shed in the land.&nbsp;<br />- Heaven and earth passing away (Mt. 24:35) follows on from the Lord speaking of how all tribes of the earth / land would mourn in repentance (:30). He was speaking in the common OT idiom that used &lsquo;heaven and earth&rsquo; for Israel. The nation would pass away in AD70, but His words would not.</p><p><i>But my words shall not pass away</i>- The Lord uses&nbsp;<i>logos&nbsp;</i>here rather than any other term for &lsquo;words&rsquo;, perhaps because He perceived that it was the essence of what He was saying that would be fulfilled, rather than necessarily the very letter.</p><p>There seems a parallel with :30. &quot;My words shall not pass away&quot; is parallel with &quot;This generation shall not pass away&quot;; &quot;Heaven and earth shall pass away&quot; is parallel with &quot;All these things being fulfilled&quot;. \'Heaven and earth\' passing is therefore in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth in fulfilment of all that was prophesied by the Lord. But there is then a parallel between &quot;My words&quot; and &quot;this generation&quot;. The intention may be to show that that generation were to be identified with the Lord\'s words, and thereby with Himself. For whenever He elsewhere uses the term &quot;My words&quot;, it is always in parallel to \'I Myself\' (Mk. 8:38; Jn. 12:48; 14:23; 15:27). He was His words; He was the quintessential logos. And that generation were to be identified with them. If they did so, if the tender branch of the fig tree became one with the Messianic branch of the Old Testament prophecies, then all would be fulfilled in that generation.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2022','1','41','13','32','32','<p>13:32 <i>But of that day or that hour- Hemera&nbsp;</i>can refer to a period rather than a specific calendar day; it occurs often in the Olivet prophecy: &ldquo;Those days&rdquo; (Mt. 24:19), &ldquo;those days should be shortened&rdquo; (Mt. 24:22), &ldquo;the tribulation of those days&rdquo; (Mt. 24:29), &ldquo;the days of Noah&rdquo; (Mt. 24:37), &ldquo;the days that were before the flood&rdquo; (Mt. 24:38). So the Lord isn&rsquo;t necessarily saying that there is a calendar day and hour within that day when He will return. He may even be implying that God has given us conditions to fulfil, and not a calendar date. There is no calendar date discernible from our side, because it is conditional. The Lord repeats this teaching in Mt. 25:13 when He says that we must watch exactly because &ldquo;you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man comes&rdquo;. When the disciples later asked to know this date, the Lord replied that &ldquo;the times or seasons&rdquo; have been &ldquo;set within the Father&rsquo;s own authority&rdquo; (Acts 1:7 RV). This sounds like God has set up required preconditions, and the actual moment of the Lord&rsquo;s return is somehow within frames of reference which His own authority alone has determined. But the Lord goes straight on to remind them of their calling to take the Gospel worldwide (Acts 1:8); for that was one of the major preconditions. Instead of trying to discern a specific date ahead of time, they were instead to refocus upon the spreading of the Gospel. If all the mental effort put into trying to discern the calendar date had been put into simply spreading the Gospel, then perhaps the Lord would be here by now. However, there is also the possibility that in the very last days, the last generation&nbsp;<i>will</i>&nbsp;in fact know the day and hour.</p><p><i>Knows no one except the Father, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son- </i>There&rsquo;s a major theme of knowing / seeing / perceiving in the Olivet prophecy.&nbsp;<i>Eido</i>, translated &ldquo;knows&rdquo;, carries the essential idea of &lsquo;seeing&rsquo; or perceiving. We are to &ldquo;see&rdquo; / know / perceive the abomination of desolation, and when we &ldquo;see&rdquo; / know / perceive &ldquo;all these things, know that it is near&rdquo;. And yet, despite that, we can not know, at least at this stage, the day nor the hour of the Lord&rsquo;s coming. The reason is made crystal clear in Mt. 24:42: &ldquo;Watch&nbsp;<i>therefore</i>&nbsp;because you do not know s.w. what hour your Lord comes&rdquo;. Mt. 25:13 repeats this: &ldquo;Watch&nbsp;<i>therefore</i>&nbsp;because you do not know s.w. neither the day nor the hour in which your Lord comes&rdquo;. The &lsquo;watching&rsquo;, therefore, is the watching of ourselves and for the welfare of others;&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;the activity of seeking to match world events with Bible prophecies. So our watching is exactly because we do not know the day and hour. God in His wisdom made it like this- so that we should watch all the time. If we knew when the Lord were coming, then we would not watch for Him until that time. Such is human nature. If a man knows what day and hour the thief is coming, he will watch for him at that time (Mt. 24:43). But if he doesn&rsquo;t know, then he must watch all the time. So, looking at it from that point of view, it is absolutely necessary that we do&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;know the day and hour. And yet it seems so many have seriously misunderstood this. They think that they&nbsp;<i>can</i>&nbsp;work out the day and hour, and their &lsquo;watching&rsquo; is not so much a personal readiness for the Lord&rsquo;s coming at any moment as an extended scouring of the media in an attempt to slot various international happenings into Bible prophecies. Indeed it is observable that personal watchfulness often apparently comes to be excused because of &lsquo;watching&rsquo; the &ldquo;signs of the times&rdquo;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2023','1','41','13','33','33','<p>13:33 <i>Be warned, watch and pray. For you do not know when the time is</i>- This could be taken as a criticism, rather than stating a truism. It is true that we do not know the time of the Lord\'s return and therefore we should watch constantly. But we should consider the possibility that the last generation, as they pass through the tribulation, will in fact see prophecy fulfilling so accurately that they can foresee the Lord\'s coming. It is commonly thought that even the Lord Jesus doesn\'t know the time of his return, only the Father does. During his mortality, the Lord said exactly this (Mk. 13:32)- at the time he was speaking to the disciples, he himself didn\'t know. But after his resurrection and glorification, the Lord made two statements to the disciples which he surely intended to be connected: &quot;All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth... it is not for you (the inquisitive eleven standing on Olivet) to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power&quot; (Mt. 28:18; Acts 1:7,8). But <i>all</i> the Father\'s power has been given to His glorified Son, and this therefore includes knowledge of the &quot;times and seasons&quot; of the second coming. In the exalted Lord &quot;are hid all the riches of wisdom and knowledge&quot; (Col. 2:3); it is thereby inconceivable that the Father would still keep back some knowledge from the Son. The point of all this is that when the Lord Jesus said that &quot;of that day and that hour knoweth (present tense) no man, no, not the angels... neither the Son&quot; he was not laying down a general principle for all time. He was speaking of the situation at that time: \'You can\'t know now, indeed at the moment even I don\'t know; but these are the signs which will tell the believers when I\'ll come\'. By implication he was saying \'You can\'t understand them, although I\'m giving them to you, but in the future some will understand them, because these signs will accurately pinpoint my return\'. This was exactly the spirit of what the Angel told Daniel when he too wished to know when Messiah would come in glory; he was basically told \'It\'s not for you to understand, but in the last days understanding of these things will be increased among God\'s people; they will know the time, but you can\'t\'. There are so many connections between the Olivet prophecy and Daniel that perhaps it is legitimate to think that the Lord was alluding to the Angel\'s refusal to tell Daniel the time of Messiah\'s coming. That the Lord was primarily referring to the twelve when he spoke of them not knowing &quot;when the time is&quot; (Mk. 13:33) is confirmed if we appreciate that the Lord Jesus sometimes uses &quot;the time&quot; as a reference to the appointed time for his own death (Mt. 26:18; Mk. 14:35; Jn. 7:6,8). The disciples were fascinated with the time of his return, and the Lord was giving them the signs. But knowing his death was only days away, inevitably he had in mind &quot;the time&quot; of his passion. And he knew that as they didn\'t know the time of his return, so they didn\'t understand the time of his death. Having pointed out that they knew not &quot;the time&quot;, in words surely reminiscent of his criticism of Jewry generally for not knowing &quot;the time&quot; of his coming and death (Mt. 16:3; Lk. 19:44), the Lord went on to tell the story of the man (himself) who left his household (the disciples) and told them to watch, with warnings as to what would happen if they didn\'t. Every one of those warnings, and some other language in the Olivet prophecy, came true of the disciples in the next few days, in the context of &quot;the time&quot; being the time of Christ\'s death:</p><table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>            They shall deliver you up to&nbsp;&nbsp; the councils</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>As Christ to the Sanhedrin</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>beaten</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>Christ buffeted</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>rulers and kings for a   testimony&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>Chief priests, Herod, Pilate</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>...brother shall betray the brother&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>Judas; Peter\'s denial?</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>...turn back to take up his garment&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>John Mark\'s linen garment</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>...false   Christs...&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>An echo of \'Barabbas\'?</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>the sun shall be   darkened...&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>As at the crucifixion</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>Watch and   pray...&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;   &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>&quot;Watch with me&quot;; Gethsemane</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>at even...&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>Last Supper</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>at midnight...</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>Gethsemane</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>at the cock crowing</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>Peter\'s denials</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>in the morning</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>trials and crucifixion</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>find you sleeping</p>            </td>            <td width=346 valign=top>            <p>disciples in Gethsemane</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2024','1','41','13','34','34','<p>13:34 <i>Like a man going on a journey; on leaving his house, he puts his servants in charge, each according to his assigned tasks. He also commands the gatekeeper to stay awake</i>- Each has his or her calling, and therefore we should each have a sense of authority because we realize this. We have a job to do, a mission to accomplish, and we have authority from the Lord Himself. For the Son of man gives to <i>each</i> of His servants both &quot;authority&quot; and his or her specific work to do (Mk. 13:34). See on Mt. 21:41.</p><p>His enthusiasm for us comes out in Christ\'s description of Himself as \'taking a far journey\' away from us to Heaven. The Greek strictly means \'to leave one\'s own native people to go abroad\'; with the implication that the Lord feels closer towards us than to the Angels. He is somehow away from home whilst absent from us. This is exactly the line of argument of Hebrews 1 and 2: Christ didn\'t come to save Angels, He came to save us, therefore He had exactly our nature and feelings, not theirs.</p><p>The &quot;porter&quot; was commanded to watch; and he represents us all (:37). Watching over God\'s household is an idea taken from Ez. 3:17; as the prophets in the Old Testament parables of judgment were the watchmen of the house of Israel, so each of us are. When the Lord had earlier told this parable, Peter (like us) asked the obvious question: &quot;Do you speak this parable to us (the twelve in the first century), or even to all?&quot; (Lk. 12:41). The Lord\'s basic reply was &quot;To all&quot;, although He didn\'t say so explicitly. Instead He said that if the Lord of the servant was away and came back unexpectedly, late at night, what a joy it would be to him if he found the lights on and the servant working diligently in caring for the others; <i>any</i> servant doing that is going to give his Lord joy; \'So, Peter, don\'t think about whether others are called to do the job, this is the ideal servant, you\'re all servants, so you get on and try to be like this ideal servant\'. The porter\'s job was to keep out wolves; the Greek for &quot;porter&quot; literally means \'the watcher\' (s.w. Jn. 10:1, another example of how the parables fit together). An apathy in looking out for false teachers means we aren\'t doing the porter\'s job well, we are sleeping rather than looking after the household. Mt. 24:43-45 define watching for Christ\'s return as tending to the needs of our brethren; this is what will lead our hearts towards preparedness for the second coming, rather than the hobby of trying to match current events with Bible prophecy. &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2025','1','41','13','35','35','<p>13:35 <i>Therefore stay awake. For you do not know when the lord of the house comes, whether in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning</i>- The motivation for watching, being away at the Lord\'s coming, is because we have a duty to the rest of the household. Pursuit of personal salvation is not of itself a very strong motivator. And we must be ever alert because we do not know when He shall return; for Bible prophecy is to be understood after the event, or whilst the event occurs, and is not intended to provide a timeline of future events.</p><p>The Lord says that we are <i>all</i>&nbsp;the watchers of the door of the house of the ecclesia (Mk. 13:34,35; Lk. 12:39,40), as the prophets were the watchmen over the city of Zion, God\'s Old Testament ecclesia. We <i>all</i>&nbsp;therefore have a responsibility to guide and warn the ecclesia, not just to scrape out of condemnation for ourselves, but from a genuine, earnest desire to help others to the Kingdom road.<br />We must speak the word as others are able to hear it, expressing the truths of Christ in language and terms which will reach them. There are some differences within the Gospels in the records of the parables. It could be that the different writers, under inspiration, were rendering the Lord&rsquo;s Aramaic words into Greek in different styles of translation. Also, we must bear in mind the different audiences. Mark speaks of the four watches of the night which would have been familiar to Romans (Mk. 13:35 cp. 6:48), whereas Lk. 12:38 speaks of the Jewish division of the night into three watches (cp. Jud. 7:19). See on Lk. 6:47.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2026','1','41','13','36','36','<p>13:36 <i>In case he comes suddenly finding you asleep-</i> The suddenness of the Lord\'s coming will only be felt by those who are asleep and as it were disturbed from their sleep. For those who are alert, His coming will not have this \'sudden\' and \'unexpected\' aspect to it. The connection is clearly with the parable of the virgins; and yet despite this exhortation to stay awake, they are slumbered. The &quot;wise&quot; were only saved by their awareness that they were likely to run out of oil, their spirituality was not so solid, and they recognized that.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2027','1','41','13','37','37','<p>13:37 <i>What I say to you I say to all: Stay awake</i>- Mt. 24:43-45 define watching for Christ\'s return as tending to the needs of our brethren; this is what will lead our hearts towards preparedness for the second coming, this is the result of our awareness of the imminence of the Lord\'s return.</p><p>&ldquo;Watching&quot; is not only a guarding of one\'s own spirituality; the idea of guarding a house and the people and goods inside it suggests that our watching is of our brethren and sisters too. Elders &quot;watch for your souls&quot; (Heb. 13:17) in this sense. Christ\'s parable about the gate-keeper might at first suggest that the duty of watching is only with the elders; it is for <i>them</i> to watch and feed the flock, in the same way as it was the duty of the house manager to guard the house and feed the other servants (Mt. 24:43-51; Mk. 13:33-37). But that parable is intended for <i>all</i> of us; &quot;Watch <i>ye</i> therefore (as intensely as that manager)... and what I say unto you, I say unto <i>all</i>, Watch&quot; (Mk. 13:37). In other words, we are all elders, the command to watch for each other extends to each of us. And yet how really concerned are most of us about each other&rsquo;s salvation?</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2028','1','41','14','1','1','<p>14:1 <i>Now it was two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread; and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might arrest him using trickery and kill him</i>- This could imply that they tried to arrest Him before the feast, but decided to delay their plans until after the feast (:2). But the Lord was master of the situation. His life was not taken from Him but He gave it, and psychologically arranged the situation so that He would die as the Passover lambs were slain. He therefore arranged the situation in Bethany to provoke Judas to go and offer to betray Him to the Jews, knowing they would immediately jump at this opportunity.</p><p>The same word for &quot;arrest&quot; is used four times in Mt. about the &lsquo;taking hold&rsquo; of the Lord Jesus in Gethsemane (Mt. 26:48,50,55,57). This &lsquo;laying on of hands&rsquo; against the Lord is likewise strongly noted by Mark (s.w. Mk. 14:44,46,49,51). The sight of it was burnt into their memories. There are likewise parts and aspects of the Lord&rsquo;s sufferings, and words associated with them, which are likewise burnt in the consciousness of all those who truly love Him.</p><p>&quot;Trickery&quot; is as AV &quot;<i>By subtilty&quot;</i>- an allusion to the Lord&rsquo;s Jewish opposition as the seed of the serpent at whose hands the seed of the woman was wounded (Gen. 3:15). But the word literally refers to a bait, implying some plan to deceive Him into a position in which they could arrest Him. But what were these plans? The Lord fell for no bait. Perhaps the idea was that Judas would come and kiss Him, and lead Him into some isolated ambush or compromising situation. When the Lord made it clear to Judas that He knew what Judas was up to, the plan fell apart and the soldiers simply grabbed the Lord. And they ended killing Him &ldquo;on the feast day&rdquo;, which was exactly what they had planned to avoid (:2).</p><p>The plan made ahead of time to kill Him was clearly typified by the brothers&rsquo; plans to kill Joseph.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2029','1','41','14','2','2','<p>14:2 <i>For they said: Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar from the people</i>- Yet they did arrest the Lord during the feast; another indication that He manipulated the situation so that He gave His life as the Passover lamb. So they did crucify the Lord during the feast, at the same time as the Passover lambs were being killed. Their plan went wrong- see on :1. Try as they might to not kill Him then, the Lord wanted to die as the Passover lamb, and this happened despite the Jews&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;wanting that. The Lord had control over the time of His death, because He gave His life rather than having it taken from Him.</p><p>Their fear of an &quot;uproar&quot; indicates the popularity the Lord enjoyed even at that stage, and the fact He was crucified with the general goodwill of the masses is therefore an essay in the fickleness of human nature. And yet the careful plans of the leaders didn\'t work out- there was &quot;a tumult&quot; about it, the same Greek word translated &quot;uproar&quot; (Mt. 27:24), and likewise they did end up killing Jesus &quot;on the feast day&quot; when it was not their intention to.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2030','1','41','14','3','3','<p>14:3 <i>And while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table- </i>The anointing recorded in Mark 14 is clearly the same as that in Matthew 26. But the anointing in Luke 7 appears to have occurred in the house of a Pharisee called Simon somewhere in Galilee. The anointing recorded in John 12 is very similar, but occurred six days before the Passover and one day&nbsp;<i>before</i>&nbsp;the triumphal entry (Jn. 12:12), whereas the anointing recorded in Matthew and Mark occurred&nbsp;<i>after</i>&nbsp;that. There are other differences, too. In Jn. 12:3 Mary uses &quot;a pound of spikenard&quot; whereas the anointing in Matthew seems to emphasize the use of spikenard as a liquid, in an alabaster flask that had to be broken to release the liquid. The spikenard was worth&nbsp;<i>more</i>&nbsp;than 300 pence (Mk. 14:5), whereas that of Jn. 12:5 was worth 300 pence; it was used to anoint the Lord\'s&nbsp;<i>feet</i>&nbsp;(Jn. 12:3), whereas that of Mt. 26:7 was used to anoint His&nbsp;<i>head</i>. In Jn. 12:4 it is Judas who complains at the apparent waste of the money, whereas in Mt. 26:8 it is the disciples. Mt. 26:11,12 record the Lord\'s word about &quot;You will always have the poor with you&quot; and goes on to record His explanation that the woman had done this for His burial; whereas in Jn. 12:7,8 these two sayings are the other way around. The wiping of His feet with her hair is stressed in Jn. 12:3, but Matthew and Mark are silent about this. Jn. 12 clearly identifies the woman as Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus; whereas Matthew and Mark are careful to preserve her as a nameless &quot;woman&quot; who &quot;came unto Him&quot; (26:7). I therefore have no doubt that Jn. 12 and Mt. 26 / Mk. 14 speak of two separate anointings, both in Bethany, separated from each other by four days. The anointing in Luke 7 is clearly framed as a similar incident, also in the house of a man called Simon.&nbsp;</p><p>The question, of course, is why these three anointings are described in such similar language. Higher critics immediately speak of textual dislocation and mistakes made by the writers in their chronology of events. These kinds of approaches arise from a focus upon the text before our eyes, rather than having a wider perspective on Scripture earned by years of careful Bible reading of the entire Bible text. Those who read the entire Scriptures over a period of time cannot fail to be impressed by the repetition of situations and events. The way Joseph is called out of prison to interpret a King\'s dream and is then exalted to rulership in a pagan land is clearly the basis for the language used about Daniel\'s experience in Babylon. This is not to say that text got dislocated, that Daniel was Joseph or vice versa. Rather do we perceive a single Divine mind behind the production of the Bible as we have it; and God\'s intention was clearly to show that circumstances repeat within and between the lives of His people. And the language He uses in recording history seeks to bring out those repetitions. This is why the lament of Jeremiah in depression is so similar to that of Job in his depression. And of course we are free to assume that Biblical characters were aware of and took inspiration from those who had gone before them. I suggest that this is what we have going on in the records of these three anointings of the Lord by despised and misunderstood women. They were inspired by each other- for the Lord comments that what the women did was to be told worldwide. This was a command, and it was surely obeyed. Mary of Bethany was inspired by the woman of Luke 7, and the anonymous woman of Matthew 26 was inspired by Mary\'s anointing of four days previously. Mary had given spikenard worth 300 pence; this woman used even more expensive ointment. And in this is our lesson- to be inspired by the devotion of others to their Lord. Heaven\'s record of our response is as it were recorded in similar language, in recognition of the inspiration provided by earlier acts of faithfulness by those we know or who have gone before us.</p><p><i>There came a woman with an alabaster vial of ointment of pure nard- very expensive. She broke the vial and poured it over his head</i>- Mary&rsquo;s lavish anointing of the Lord may well have been what inspired Nicodemus to so lavishly prepare the Lord&rsquo;s body for burial. The vast quantities of spices he used was more than that used in the burials of some of the Caesars. He too must have bankrupted himself to anoint the Lord&rsquo;s body. That two people did this within a week of each other is too close a similarity to be co-incidental. Surely Mary inspired him. &nbsp;</p><p>The Greek&nbsp;<i>bar-utimos</i>&nbsp;uses a term,&nbsp;<i>utimos</i>, elsewhere used about the precious, costly blood of Christ. Matthew uses it about the &quot;price&quot; of the Lord\'s blood (Mt. 27:6,9), as does Paul (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23) and Peter (1 Pet. 2:7). The point is simple. The Lord\'s blood shed for us was and is the most valuable thing in existence, in the entire cosmos; and we should feel that when we take the cup which symbolizes it. And our response is to give our most valuable things, materially and otherwise, for Him.</p><p>The woman anointed the Lord&rsquo;s head in order to reflect her belief that He really was the Christ, the anointed one. She gave her life savings for this belief. It can be apparently painless to believe that Jesus is Christ, and yet the implications of accepting this simple fact can transform a life. What she did was surely rooted in her understanding of Song 1:12, where Solomon&rsquo;s lover has spikenard (s.w. LXX Jn. 12:3) which sends forth its smell &ldquo;While the king sitteth at his table&rdquo;. Clearly enough she saw Jesus right there and then as the King- even though His Kingdom was not of that world. Her love for Him, her reflection upon the Old Testament, and her perception of Him as her future Lord and King to the extent that she even then treated Him as such, so certain was her faith in His future victory and worthiness&hellip; this all motivated her to give the quintessence of her life&rsquo;s work for Him. And it should for us too.</p><p>Mary\'s devotion to the Lord, based on the understanding she had, is truly inspirational. The original word translated &quot;nard&quot; is a foreign non Greek word, and appears to have originated far away from Palestine. The suggestion has been made that this bottle of nard belonged to some foreign royalty. The price of &quot;more than three hundred pence&quot; must be understood in terms of a penny-a-day employment rate for labourers (Mt. 20:2). This bottle would typically only be used at the burial of a king. Yet Mary dearly loved her brother Lazarus, and had only recently buried him. But she hadn\'t used the nard for <i>him</i>; hence perhaps the information is added that his body would be stinking after four days- implying such expensive nard had not been used in embalming <i>his</i> body (Jn. 11:39- the fact it\'s Martha who observes this may suggest she resented Mary for not using her nard for Lazarus, just as she resented how Mary didn\'t help her in the kitchen but instead sat at the Lord\'s feet). And the Lord Jesus perceived all this; for He commented to the disciples that Mary had &quot;kept the nard for <i>my</i> burial&quot; (Jn. 12:7). The Lord\'s reference to her \'keeping\' the nard can be powerfully understood in the context of Mary not using it for her brother\'s burial, but rather deciding to keep it for His burial. This not only shows the clarity of Mary\'s understanding of the Lord\'s upcoming death. It also reflects how she would give her most treasured possession in an apparently senseless act of devotion to Him. She anointed Him because she understood Him to be Christ, the anointed one. But this is what we expect of a woman who won the accolade from the Lord that she sought after the &quot;one thing&quot; that really matters- which is Him and His word (Lk. 10:42). Our eyes have been opened to that same &quot;one thing&quot;, and we too claim to have accepted Jesus of Nazareth as Christ; and so to place devotion to Christ above family, above retention of personal wealth and value... is the intended issue of all this for us too.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2031','1','41','14','4','4','<p>14:4 <i>But there were some that had indignation among themselves, saying- </i>The indignation was among or &quot;within&quot; themselves, and so the words they are here recorded as saying were likely within themselves. We wonder how many other times when we read of people \'saying\' something, the \'saying\' was within their own minds. For self-talk is understood by the Lord as our actual words. Whether or not we hold our tongues back is not the ultimate issue. The words have been said within us. See on 26:10&nbsp;<i>When Jesus understood</i>. If the reconstruction of events I offered in commentary on :8, we can better understand their frustration. They would have seen an identical \'waste\' of wealth in the anointing of four days previously in the same village, perhaps in the same home; and they had seen it in Galilee at the incident recorded in Luke 7. And they were doing their math and calculating the total cost \'wasted\'.</p><p><i>For what purpose- </i>The Greek&nbsp;<i>eis tis</i>&nbsp;could equally mean \'For whom?\', the implication being that the poor could have been benefitted far more than the Lord Jesus. Hence the Lord replies that the purpose of the anointing was to embalm Him ahead of time for burial. Just as the woman was inspired by the generous anointing of Mary four days previously and the Galilean prostitute of Luke 7, so the huge amount of spices purchased by Nicodemus in Jn. 19:39 was likely motivated in turn by her example. Critics claim that the amount of spices (&quot;one hundred pound weight&quot;) bought was more than used in the burial of the Caesars. The woman here used a pound of spikenard, worth more than the 300 pence at which Mary\'s anointing liquid was valued. And in turn, Nicodemus was motivated yet more- 100 times more. She gave one pound, he gave 100 pounds\' weight. This is the reason for the deja vu of our lives, of how experiences repeat between human lives- it\'s so that we may be inspired to greater&nbsp;service than even those who went before.</p><p><i>Has this waste of the ointment been made?</i>- &quot;Waste&quot; is the same Greek word used nearly 20 times in the NT for destruction and condemnation; it is the same word used in describing Judas as &quot;the son of&nbsp;<i>perdition</i>&quot;. The tragedy of condemnation is the waste of what could have been. This is the sadness with which God sees condemnation. We note that four days before, it had been Judas who complained about the \'waste\'. His attitude had spread to the disciples. But the paradox was that he was thereby the son of waste, he was condemning himself by complaining about the waste of devotion towards the Lord Jesus. The idea could even be that they were so angry that they thought that the woman was condemning herself by what she had done, because she could have given the money to the poor. This is seen so often in religious experience- those who stand on the sidelines become so bitter at how others actively express their devotions to their Lord that they go so far as to condemn them. We think of how Michal despised David for dancing before the Lord, and was punished with barrenness; and of the Lord&rsquo;s observation: &ldquo;Is your eye evil, because I am good / generous?&rdquo; (Mt. 20:15). The world\'s wealthiest individuals are often very generous to charitable causes- and yet they do so to a chorus of criticism from those who have given little or nothing to such causes.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2032','1','41','14','5','5','<p>14:5<i> For this ointment might have been sold for above three hundred denarii and given to the poor. And they scolded her</i>- The very words used by the Lord to the rich ruler, telling him to sell what he had and give to the poor (Mt. 19:21). Their idea in saying this may have been to accuse the woman of disobedience to the Lord&rsquo;s teachings. We see here how deep are the feelings aroused by spiritual jealousy. This woman had made a stellar commitment to her Lord; and quite unspoken, her devotion challenged the other disciples. And so by all means they had to condemn her, and were happy to misquote the Lord&rsquo;s words to achieve that. This is one simple reason why those most active and sacrificial in church life are often the most viciously attacked by their fellow disciples.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2033','1','41','14','6','6','<p>14:6 <i>But Jesus said: Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work</i>- The Greek has the idea of beauty. The same Greek phrase rendered &ldquo;a good work&rdquo; is found in 1 Tim. 5:10 as something required of a mature spiritual woman, and for which she must be &ldquo;reported&rdquo;- clearly alluding to how this woman&rsquo;s &ldquo;good work&rdquo; was to be told / reported worldwide. She thus became a model for other sisters to follow, in the same way as she herself had copied the examples of Mary four days previously, and the sinful woman of Luke 7. This is the intended power and purpose of good works- they serve as inspiration for others to likewise glorify the Lord. The Greek expression &lsquo;to work a good work&rsquo; is used elsewhere regarding the Lord&rsquo;s working of miracles (Jn. 6:28; 9:41; 10:33). Her response was no less significant than the working of a miracle.</p><p><i>Upon me</i>- The Greek&nbsp;<i>eis eme</i>&nbsp;could as well mean &lsquo;in Me&rsquo;, as if the woman&rsquo;s work gave the Lord huge encouragement within Himself.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2034','1','41','14','7','7','<p>14:7 <i>For you have the poor always with you, and whenever you want you can do them good- </i>Christ\'s love for us, His Father\'s spiritual house, was typified by His being likened to&nbsp;the poor slave under the Law who perpetually dedicated himself to serve his master\'s house. An extension of this idea is revealed by a connection between the Lord saying &quot;Ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always&quot; (Mt. 26:11) and Dt. 15:11 &quot;For the poor shall never cease out of the land&rdquo;. Thus Jesus is associating himself with the &quot;poor man... of thy brethren&quot; of Dt. 15:7. Note how Jesus calls himself a &quot;poor man&quot;, especially on the cross: Ps. 34:6; 35:10; 37:14; 40:17; 69:29,33; 70:5; 86:1; 109:22; 113:7 cp. 2 Cor. 8:9- an impressive list. Christ exercised the rights of the poor to glean in the cornfield on the Sabbath (Lk. 6:1); Dt. 15:7 warned the Israelites not to be hard hearted and refuse help to such a poor brother. Christ is alluding to this passage by saying that the disciples should not be hard hearted by stopping Mary give her rich ointment to Him, the poor. The following Dt. 15:12-17 is also concerning Jesus. Thus Jesus was spiritually poor and hungry, and was so grateful for Mary\'s encouragement.</p><p>Note that the Law also taught that if Israel were obedient, then there would be no poverty. And yet the same Law tacitly recognized the reality of human weakness in noting that &ldquo;the poor shall never cease out of the land&rdquo; (Dt. 15:11). God&rsquo;s law therefore also reflects His grace and understanding of human failure to be fully obedient.</p><p><i>But me you do not have always</i>- We would likely have been tempted to expose the root of the immediate problem- Judas was a thief, and wanted the cash because he would keep some of it and only distribute part to the poor. But the Lord as ever, was wiser than to confront issues in such a primitive way. He brushes past the complaint that this woman had ignored His principle of selling what we have and giving to the poor, and doesn&rsquo;t expose the core reason for Judas&rsquo; trouble stirring about the issue. Rather He focuses upon what the woman&nbsp;<i>had&nbsp;</i>achieved, and bids the disciples look closer at His death and how they should be responding to it. <i>&quot;</i>Always<i>&quot; </i>is literally, &lsquo;at all times&rsquo;. There would always be opportunity, times of opportunity, to do good to the poor.</p><p>We find an example of Paul holding up Mary Magdalene as our example in 2 Cor. 8:12, where he speaks of how the Lord although He was rich became poor for our sakes, and we ought to be inspired by this to generosity towards our poorer brethren. The connection with Mary Magdalene goes back to Mk. 14:7, where Jesus said that Mary <i>had</i> in fact given her wealth to the poor, by anointing Him, the poor one, the one who made Himself poor for our sakes.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2035','1','41','14','8','8','<p>14:8 <i>She has done what she could. She has anointed my body beforehand for the burying</i>- This could be read as the Lord saying that what she did inspired Him to go forward in the path to death which He was treading. The Greek means specifically embalming. It was as if the woman perceived that the Lord was effectively the slain lamb of God even whilst He was alive. It is used only once more in the New Testament, describing the embalming of the Lord\'s body (Jn. 19:40).</p><p>Whether the woman of Mk. 14:8 really understood that she was anointing His body for burial is open to question. But the Lord\'s positivism graciously imputed this motive to her. See on Mk. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:11,12.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2036','1','41','14','9','9','<p>14:9- see on Acts 10:4.</p><p><i>And truly I say to you: Wherever in the whole world the gospel shall be preached, what this woman has done shall be spoken of as a memorial to her</i>- Her generosity was set up as a cameo of the response to the Lord which all who believe the Gospel should make. The Gospel is not just a set of doctrines to be painlessly apprehended. It is a call to action after the pattern of this woman. The good news was to be of the Lord&rsquo;s death and burial, and yet integral to that message was to be the pattern of response which was seen in her- to give our all, our most treasured and hoarded things, for His sake.</p><p>There is evident connection with the Lord\'s prophecy of how the Gospel would be preached in all the world (Mt. 24:14; Mk. 16:15). He seems to have seen the \'Gospel\' that would be preached as a re-telling of His life and incidents in it, such as the woman\'s anointing of Him. It is significant that her anointing is mentioned in all four Gospel records. In Mk. 14:9 we read that wherever the gospel was to be preached, what she had done would be narrated in memory of her. So &lsquo;preaching the Gospel&rsquo; is defined there as a narration of the events and sayings of the Lord Jesus in His ministry. The Gospel records are transcripts of the Gospel preached by e.g. Matthew. The Gospel is therefore in the Gospels. The rest is interpretation and theology, necessary and helpful, but there is no avoiding the fact that the Gospel itself is in the records of the Gospel which we have in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.</p><p>The Lord foresaw that transcripts of His work and words would indeed be made, and He envisaged how the supreme devotion of this anonymous woman would be part of that message. The language is very similar to that of Mt. 24:14: &quot;This Gospel... shall be preached <i>kerusso&nbsp;</i>again in all the world... and then shall the end come&quot;. Matthew may have had in view how his version of the Gospel needed to be spread into all the world.</p><p>This could mean that when the Gospel message is proclaimed in all the world at Messiah&rsquo;s return, then what Mary had done would be told before God that He may mercifully remember her for good at the judgment. This may sound a forced interpretation to Western ears and eyes, but we must remember that the idea of &lsquo;for a memorial&rsquo; denoted being spoken of for good before someone, in this case, the judge of all. What follows from this is that there will be a direct link between our deeds today, and the judgment process of tomorrow or later today. What we have done will be told before God, and He will remember us for good. On one hand, works are irrelevant. We are saved by grace. On the other hand, there will be a certain &lsquo;going through&rsquo; of our deeds before Him. Quite simply, there is a direct link between our behaviour and our future judgment. Nothing will in that sense be forgotten. &nbsp;</p><p>The early preachers would have gone around telling the good news about Jesus Christ, and in so doing would have recited time and again His teaching and life story. Mark records how the Lord commanded the Gospel to be preached world-wide (Mark 16:15); but he surely intends this to be linked with his record of how the generosity of the sinful woman would be told &quot;wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world&quot; (Mk. 14:9). \'The Gospel\' was therefore not just the basic doctrines of the Gospel; it was the whole record of the life and works of Christ. This is why each of the Gospels is somehow personalized to the writer. And the comment that wherever the Gospel was preached, her example would be preached (Mk. 14:9) is tantamount to saying that her action was to be the pattern for all who would afterward believe the Gospel. Note in passing that the Gospel was not intended by the Lord to be a mere set of doctrinal propositions; it was to be a message which included practical patterns of response to it, of which Mary&rsquo;s was to be always mentioned.</p><p>The language of \'memorial\' is typically used in contemporary literature about memorials to the gallant deeds of&nbsp;<i>men</i>. But the Lord was challenging such thinking by saying that the Gospel would include a memorial of an anonymous&nbsp;<i>woman</i>. And her humanly senseless pouring out of her wealth in a ten minute act of devotion to Him was none less than the bravest or noblest act of any man.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2037','1','41','14','10','10','<p>14:10 <i>And Judas Iscariot, he that was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, that he might betray him to them</i>- In all the Gospel records, the decision of Judas to betray the Lord follows on from the anointing incidents. I suggested on :1 that the Lord set up the whole scene, knowing that the apparent waste of so much money would deeply irk Judas and trigger the betrayal. People who are obsessed with money as he was often find such things unbearable to be part of. Judas is repeatedly called &quot;Simon\'s son&quot; at this time. And the anointing took place in Simon\'s house. It could well be that Judas was a member of the family, possibly even a brother of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. To see the family wealth \'wasted\' in this way was unbearable for him. The reasons for his betrayal were surely multi-factorial, but attitudes to money played a large part. &quot;What will you give me, and I will betray Him...?&quot; clearly suggests a financial motive; and the records seem to give the impression that the apparent waste of money, especially if it was money he thought might be coming to him in the inheritance, was the final straw for him. After that, he went to the Jews and opened discussions about betraying the Lord. The way he threw the thirty pieces of silver down on the ground reflects his final realization of how foolish he had been. And yet the lesson is so often never learnt; men and women effectively betray their Lord for money; accumulation of wealth, development of career, take precedence over devotion to Him, and finally lead to betrayal.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2038','1','41','14','11','11','<p>14:11 <i>And they, when they heard it, were glad; and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him</i>- Matthew says they gave him 30 pieces of silver immediately, but this would have been a down payment for a future promise of money. </p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2039','1','41','14','12','12','<p>14:12 <i>And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover, his disciples said to him: Where will you have us prepare for you the Passover to eat?</i>- Lk. 22:8 adds the detail that actually this was said in response to Peter and John being told to go and prepare the Passover. Mk. 14:15 brings out the paradox that the Lord directed them to an upper room that was already &quot;prepared&quot; (s.w.), and there they prepared the Passover. The Lord had taught that the festal meal was already prepared for His people (22:4 s.w.). The Lord was surely using the language of Passover preparation in saying that He was going to the cross to prepare a place for us (Jn. 14:1-3)- and He said that at the very time Passover was being prepared. His request that&nbsp;<i>they</i>&nbsp;prepare Passover was therefore asking for a mutuality in response from them.</p><p>We feel we must <i>do</i> something before we can expect anything from God. And yet in condescension to this, the Father sometimes almost goes along with us in this. Reflect how the disciples, with all the petty pride of the practical man wishing to do something practical for the leader he adores, earnestly asked the Lord where to prepare for Him the Passover. He told them to find a certain man, and ask him where the Master would eat Passover <i>with His disciples</i>. He would show them an upper room furnished and already prepared. \'<i>There\'</i>, the Lord added with His gentle irony, \'prepare for <i>us</i>, not just me but you as well, to eat. Even though I\'ve already arranged it all, and I\'m inviting <i>you</i> to eat with <i>me</i>, well, I understand you must feel you do your little human bit, so there <i>you</i> prepare; although I\'ve already prepared it all\'. \'What love through all his actions ran\'. This was grace and understanding and accommodation of men <i>par excellence</i>.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2040','1','41','14','13','13','<p>14:13 <i>And he sent two of his disciples and said to them: Go into the city and there you shall meet a man bearing a pitcher of water. Follow him</i>- This water was carried upstairs into the upper room, and became, as it were, the wine of the new covenant. Carrying water was woman\'s work, and the Lord surely arranged this special sign in order to show how at His table, there was gender equality. He was so far ahead of His time. The vague &quot;such a man&quot; is perhaps to conceal the identity of the householder, given that the Gospels were distributed at a time of persecution. Or perhaps it was in order to avoid the identifying of the house and turning it into some kind of shrine, or special honour being given to the householder.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2041','1','41','14','14','14','<p>14:14 <i>And wherever he enters, say to the master of the house: The teacher asks, where is the guest room in which I can eat the Passover with my disciples?</i>- The &quot;guest room&quot; is the same concept as in Jn. 14:2, where there in that very guest room which they had &quot;prepared&quot;, the Lord says that He is now going to the cross to prepare <i>them</i> a room, an eternal place in the Father\'s house. He wished them to perceive a mutuality between them and Himself; what they had done, He was now going to do on a far greater scale. And to this day, we sense this mutuality between us and our Lord.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2042','1','41','14','15','15','<p>14:15 <i>And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare it for us</i>- The room was &quot;ready&quot; and yet there they were to &quot;prepare&quot;; &quot;prepare&quot; translates the same Greek word as &quot;ready&quot;. All was prepared; the Lord was the Passover lamb and had prepared Himself for an untimely death, just as they were to keep Passover in advance of the 14th Nissan. They were to show willingness to do their part, but they could not fully do it. It has been done for them already. And we get this impression in all our attempts at labour for the Lord.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2043','1','41','14','16','16','<p>14:16 <i>And the disciples went into the city and found as he had said to them. And they made ready the Passover</i>- As noted on :15, it was already &quot;made ready&quot;, so they just did the cosmetic arrangements. We likewise can add nothing really to the Lord\'s sacrifice.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2044','1','41','14','17','17','<p>14:17 <i>And when it was evening he came with the twelve</i>- There is no actual mention of the slaying of the paschal lamb, which should have been done that evening. It had already been strangely provided for them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2045','1','41','14','18','18','<p>14:18 <i>And as they sat and were eating, Jesus said: Truly I say to you, one of you shall betray me- even he that eats with me</i>- The Lord had repeatedly predicted that He would be \'betrayed\' or \'handed over\'. But He had not defined who would do it, indeed the form in which He had spoken of being \'handed over\' was vague and didn\'t necessarily require that one individual would do it. We must remember that&nbsp;<i>paradidomi</i>&nbsp;means literally \'to hand over\' and doesn\'t carry the sense of personal betrayal which the English word \'betray\' is loaded with. They were there shocked when He stated that &quot;one of&nbsp;<i>you</i>&quot; would do this.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2046','1','41','14','19','19','<p>14:19 <i>They began- </i>The idea is that they all burst out with the same question at the same time. And yet Mk. 14:19 records that they asked this &quot;One by one&quot;. The scene is imaginable- after initially all bursting out with the same question, they try to ask Him the same question personally in order to get an answer. Which is why Judas asks the question somewhat later. Again it is commendable that their very first reaction was to wonder whether they personally could be the betrayer- rather than \'Lord, is it&nbsp;<i>him</i>?\'. But after realizing that it was not them personally, naturally they began to look at one another, wondering whom He was speaking of (Jn. 13:22). Although &quot;doubting of whom He spoke&quot; (Jn. 13:22) really means they were at a loss to know. Clearly they had absolutely no suspicion that it was Judas. And when Judas is told &quot;What you are doing, do quickly&quot; and Judas exits (Jn. 13:27-29), they still assume that he must have been sent out to minister to the poor suggesting there were beggars around the feast, again hinting that the last supper was not held behind closed doors. This again speaks to us who replicate the last supper week by week. Some will indeed betray their Lord, but we have absolutely no idea who they are.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>To be sorrowful- </i>It is commendable that their dominant emotion was of sorrow rather than anger. We perhaps would have expected anger more than sorrow. But their sorrow is a reflection of the degree of their love for the Lord, and their sorrow for the person who would face the awful consequences of doing so.</p><p><i>And to say to him one by one: Is it I?</i>- Some texts read: &quot;And another said, Is it I?&rdquo;. It is easy to assume that this &ldquo;another&rdquo; was Judas. But it has been suggested that in spoken Aramaic, &ldquo;and another said...&rdquo; would be a device for saying &lsquo;And I, I said...&rsquo;. If Mark&rsquo;s Gospel is a verbatim account of Peter&rsquo;s preaching of the Gospel, this would be so appropriate. Peter would be saying: &lsquo;All the disciples couldn&rsquo;t imagine it was them who would betray Jesus; and I, yes I also asked if it was me who would betray Him. I was so sure I wouldn&rsquo;t&rsquo;. The record in Mark 14 then goes on to describe how Peter <i>did</i> effectively betray / deny the Lord.</p><p>The negative implies the answer \'No, you are not the one\'. It was more than a question- it was a declaration of innocence. This is the basis for self-examination at the Lord\'s table; we should be able to do it and conclude that we are not the Lord&rsquo;s betrayer. Some who sit at that table will betray Him, and we are to realize the very real possibility of our own ultimate failure, the eternity of the future we may miss. Perhaps &quot;every one of them&quot; excludes Judas, because he apparently asked the question later, and replaces \'Lord\' with &quot;Master&quot;Gk. \'rabbi\' when he asks: &quot;Master \'rabbi\', is it I?&quot; (Mt. 26:25). His usage of \'rabbi\' to address the Lord may reflect how influenced he was by Judaism, and how he failed to appreciate the utter Lordship of Jesus. Judas maybe persuaded himself that this Jesus was just another itinerant rabbi, who Judaism would be better off without. Note that &quot;Is it I?&quot; is&nbsp;<i>eimi ego</i>, literally \'Am I?\'. This is one of many examples of where&nbsp;<i>ego eimi</i>&nbsp;means simply \'I am\', and contrary to Trinitarian claims the words do not mean that the speaker of them is claiming to be God.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2047','1','41','14','20','20','<p>14:20<i> And he said to them: It is one of the twelve. He that dipped in the dish at the same time with me</i>-The past tense is important, for if the Lord was predicting a future event, then all the disciples would be looking carefully at the dish. &quot;Dipped&quot;,&nbsp;<i>em-bapto</i>, carries the suggestion that there was liquid or water within the dish. Lamb is greasy, and there would have been dishes of water on the table in which the diners dipped their hands. The Lord had done that at the same time as Judas, and must have pressed His fingers against those of Judas. But none of the others had noticed. Jn. 13:26 says that &quot;It is he to whom I gave the morsel of bread after I dipped it&quot;- perhaps meaning that the Lord had put a crumb of bread into Judas\' fingers whilst their hands touched in the bowl. Any other reading of the incident faces the obvious difficulty that if indeed the Lord publicly pointed Judas out as the betrayer, there would have been no confusion as to why he went out into the darkness. And we would expect to read of an outcry amongst the 11 against Judas; but the record instead stresses that they totally didn\'t suspect Judas until he was out of the room. Mk. 14:20 adds that the Lord said that the man was &quot;One of the twelve&quot; who had dipped his hand with the Lord in the dish. This suggests there were others apart from the twelve eating at the table and dipping their hands in the dish. It was not therefore a closed communion. There would have been no need for such a &quot;large&quot; room (Lk. 22:12) if only the twelve were present.</p><p>He lamented that His betrayer was one who had dipped in the dish with Him at the last supper. There was no way that this was meant to be an indication to the disciples that Judas was the betrayer- for they all ate the supper and dipped in the same dish. Hence His point was surely to foreground the awful fact that <i>it was a brother who had broken bread with Him</i> who would now betray Him. Ps. 41:9 laments that it was one who &quot;ate of my bread&quot; who betrayed Him. This is why the challenge &quot;Lord, is it I?&quot; echoes down to every communion service.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2048','1','41','14','21','21','<p>14:21 <i>For the Son of Man goes- </i>The Lord\'s \'going\' was His going to the cross. The Lord used the same word in Mt. 13:44 in describing Himself as the man who \'goes\'&nbsp;<i>with joy&nbsp;</i>and sells all that He has in order to buy / redeem s.w. the field (representing the world) in order to gain for Himself the treasure (the redeemed). His \'going\' to the cross was therefore done with some form of &quot;joy&quot;. Even when the only visible representative of the treasure were that band of mixed up men and a few doubtful women. He uses the word again in telling Peter to \'go\' behind Him and carry His cross (Mt. 16:23). Yet the Lord looked beyond the cross; He saw Himself as \'going\' to the Father (Jn. 7:33; 8:14,21,22 s.w.), in the same way as we do not only \'go\' to our death, but ultimately even death itself is part of an onward journey ultimately towards God and His Kingdom. The Lord\'s attitude to His death was that He&nbsp;<i>knew</i>&nbsp;that He was now \'going to the Father\' (Jn. 13:3; 14:28; 16:5,10,16,17 s.w.). This unique perspective upon death and suffering is only logical for those who have a clear conception of future resurrection and personal fellowship with the Father in His future Kingdom.</p><p><i>Even as it is written of him- </i>Jn. 13:18 is specific: &quot;But the scripture must be fulfilled: He that eats my bread lifted up his heel against me&quot;. The reference to the heel naturally suggests the Gospel promise of Gen. 3:15. But it seems the wrong way around- it is the seed of the woman who lifts up a bruised heel with which to crush the seed of the serpent. There is no lack of evidence that on the cross, the Lord identified totally with sinners, to the point that He felt forsaken just as sinners are forsaken. Or perhaps Judas justified his actions by deciding that Jesus was a false Messiah, the seed of the serpent, and the righteous thing to do was to crush the serpent with his heel.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>But woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed- </i>The Lord typically pronounced \'Woe\' upon the Jewish world and their religious leaders. He classes Judas along with them, because his actions had been inspired by them. The devil, in this context referring to the Jewish opposition to Jesus, had put the idea of betrayal into the heart of Judas (Jn. 13:2). &quot;Woe&quot; translates&nbsp;<i>ouai</i>, an intensified form of&nbsp;<i>ou</i>, &quot;no&quot;. Perhaps in His word choice the Lord was still desperately saying to Judas \'No No Don\'t do it\'. He knew that He had to be betrayed, but His appeals for Judas to repent were therefore rooted in an understanding that the Bible prophecies would come true in some other way than through Judas. For otherwise, Judas would have had no real possibility of repentance, and no real choice but than to do what he did.</p><p><i>It would be better for that man if he had not been born</i>- &quot;Better&quot; shows how the Lord is sympathetically looking at things from the perspective of Judas. For in Jn. 14 He reasons that His departure is good for all concerned. The Lord foresaw Judas\' agony at the last day. But the Greek can bear a retranslation: \'It would be virtuous for that man if he did not conceive / gender\'. In that case, there would be yet another appeal for Judas to stop dead in his heart the conception of sin. The Lord elsewhere uses words with two or more meanings in order to deliver a specific message to an individual, within a statement of general truth which appeared intended for others. The messages He sent back to the imprisoned John the Baptist are a clear example. The Lord\'s last ditch attempts to save Judas, rather than allow himself to be so hurt by him that He just ignored him, are a powerful encouragement to us in dealing with those who harm us and wilfully do evil.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2049','1','41','14','22','22','<p>14:22 <i>And as they were eating- </i>Eating the Passover lamb. The bread and wine were accessories, side dishes, and the Lord takes these things and makes them so significant. He doesn\'t, e.g., take some lamb and divide it between the guests with the message that &quot;This represents My body&quot;. Even though the lamb was the more obvious symbol of Himself than the bread was. He wanted the last supper to be repeated by poor and ordinary people, who had bread but not lamb each week; He used common, readily available bread because that spoke more of His humanity, His ordinariness. He used what was to hand, just as we can for the breaking of bread.</p><p>Note that Judas was still present at this point. Jn. 13:18 makes the point concerning him that &quot;He that eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me&quot;. If Judas broke bread with the Lord, this surely indicates that there is nothing intrinsically sinful in breaking bread with sinners. The quotation from Psalm 41 is interesting in the LXX: &quot;the man of my peace, on whom I set my hope&quot;. There was special potential in Judas, and the Lord on one hand had hopes for him. It has been argued that the giving of the &quot;sop&quot; to him was the sign of special love and fellowship. Jn. 13:20 goes on to say: &quot;He that receiveth whomsoever I shall send, receiveth me&quot;. The \'receiving\' in this context is receiving at the Lord\'s table. To reject others from His table is to reject the Lord.</p><p><i>He took bread- </i>Taking bread, blessing and breaking it and giving to the disciples was exactly what the Lord did at the feeding of the 5000 and 4000 (Mt. 14:19; 15:36), and we are thereby justified in seeing what He did then as having a religious dimension, practicing thereby an extremely open table. To \'take bread\' can mean although not always to actually eat bread. Consider: &quot;The disciples had forgotten to take bread,<i> neither</i>&nbsp;did they have with them more than one loaf&quot; (Mk. 8:14)- the force of &quot;neither...&quot; is that they had not eaten bread, rather than that they had forgotten to bring any with them. Philip complained that there would not be enough bread for each of the crowd to \'take\' even a little, i.e. to eat just a little (Jn. 6:7). So it could be that the Lord took and ate bread, blessed it, and then asked the disciples to eat it. This sequence of events would then make the eating of bread a more conscious doing of what Jesus had done. He took the bread, and then He asks them to take the bread (&quot;Take, eat&quot;). He is inviting them to mimic Him.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>And when he had blessed it- </i>It was usual to bless a meal, especially the Passover lamb, but here the Lord offers a special prayer for the accessory to the meal, the side dish of bread. He wanted to highlight the significance of the most ordinary thing on the table and show that it represented Him.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>He broke it and gave it to them, and said: Take, eat</i>- The use of&nbsp;<i>didomi</i>&nbsp;&quot;gave&quot; is set in the context of all the talk about how the Lord would be&nbsp;<i>para-didomi</i>, betrayed / handed / given over to the Jews. The idea is that what happened was ultimately the Lord\'s choice. He gave Himself, to God and to His people, rather than being given over to death against His will. Lk. 22:29 says that the Lord then used the word&nbsp;<i>didomi</i>&nbsp;again: &quot;This is My body, which is given for you&quot;. The giving of the bread to them was symbolic of how He would give His body to crucifixion, and how the \'giving over\' of Jesus by Judas was not something outside of the Lord\'s control. It was not a misfortune which changed plans, rather was it precisely in line with the Lord\'s own giving of His body.</p><p><i>This is my body-&nbsp;</i>He said &quot;This is My body which is given for you&quot; (Lk. 22:29), and also &quot;This is My body which is broken for you&quot; (1 Cor. 11:24). He surely said both, repeating the words as the disciples ate the bread. He chose bread and not lamb to represent His body because He wished to emphasize His ordinariness and thereby His presence in the human, daily things of life. To give ones&rsquo; body is a very intimate statement, almost to the point of being sexual. This is the sober intensity and extent to which the Lord gave Himself for us.</p><p>When Jesus said &ldquo;this is My body&rdquo; we are to understand that &lsquo;this&nbsp;<i>represents</i>, this is a symbol of my body&rsquo;. Jesus was clearly referring to what was usually said at the Passover: &ldquo;This is the bread&nbsp;of affliction which our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt&rdquo;. It wasn&rsquo;t of course literally the same bread. &ldquo;This is&rdquo; clearly means &lsquo;this represents&rsquo; in Zech. 5:3,8; Mt. 13:19-23,38; 1 Cor. 11:25; 12:27. In some Bible versions, when we read the word &lsquo;means&rsquo;, it is simply a translation of the verb &lsquo;to be&rsquo; (Mt. 9:13; 12:7; Lk. 15:26; Acts 2:12). &lsquo;This is&rsquo; should be read as &lsquo;this means / this represents&rsquo;. The deftness of the way He broke that bread apart and held the cup comes out here in Mt. 26:26. He knew what that breaking of bread was going to mean.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2050','1','41','14','23','23','<p>14:23<i> And he took a cup- </i>This was by no means easy for Him, because in Gethsemane He struggled so deeply in order to take it. Surely Mark was aware of this and wishes us to remember it every time we break bread. He&nbsp;<i>did</i>&nbsp;take the cup- the cup we go on to read about, that was so difficult for Him to accept. Luke\'s record records the taking of the cup twice. This could be a reference to multiple cups of wine drunk at the Passover; or it could be that Luke simply records the incident twice. Or perhaps the Lord was simply drinking from the common table wine, and more than once drew out the symbology.</p><p><i>And when he had given thanks- </i>Here&nbsp;<i>eucharisteo</i>&nbsp;is used, but&nbsp;<i>eulogeo&nbsp;for</i> the \'blessing\' of the bread. The difference may be in that the Lord took the bread, an accessory to the meal, and turned that which was so ordinary into something of spiritual symbolism; and His blessing of the bread was necessary for this. But&nbsp;<i>eucharisteo</i>&nbsp;includes the idea of grace,&nbsp;<i>charis</i>, and suggests more thankfulness for grace- a thought appropriate to the meaning of the Lord\'s blood shed for us by grace. And naturally we wonder whether the wine that was taken was one of the Passover cups, or simply some of the table wine, an accessory to the meal just as the bread was. Whilst there was a taking of four cups of wine at the Passover, this may not be the only explanation for Luke recording the taking of two of them. It could simply be that as they were eating the Passover lamb, they ate bread and drunk weak wine as part of the accompaniments which went with every Palestinian meal. And the Lord twice passed comment on the wine, that it represented His blood. This would be similar to the manner in which He chose the bread, the&nbsp;<i>artos</i>, the ordinary word for bread rather than one referring specifically to unleavened bread, as the symbol for His body- rather than the meat of the Passover lamb. He could have made use of the blood of the Passover lamb as a symbol in some way- e.g. He could have asked a servant to bring the blood of the lamb and asked the disciples to all dip their fingers in it. But instead He uses wine as a symbol of His blood. My hunch is that the wine was the ordinary table wine accompanying the meal, just as the bread was, and was not the ritually significant Passover cup. In any case, the tradition of drinking cups of wine at Passover was non-Biblical, and somehow out of keeping with the original spirit of Passover, which was to remember the haste with which the first Passover was eaten. 1 Cor. 10:16 speaks of &quot;the cup of blessing which&nbsp;<i>we&nbsp;</i>bless&quot;, with the emphasis on the &quot;we&quot;. We are to do what the Lord did that night- not be mere audience figures, but actually do what He did.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>He gave it to them and they all drank from it</i>- The Lord held the memorial meeting as a keeping of a Passover, and yet He changed some elements of it. Joachim Jeremias cites evidence that &ldquo;By the time of Jesus, individual cups were used at the Passover meal&quot;, and yet Mk. 14:23 implies that He used only one cup, which was passed around amongst those at the last supper: &ldquo;He took the cup RV &ldquo;a cup&quot;&hellip; he gave it to them: and they all drank of <i>it</i> singular&quot;. They didn&rsquo;t take up their own cups and drink- the Lord gave them His cup, just as He passes on to all in Him a participation in His &ldquo;cup&quot; of suffering and final joy. Reflect how deftly and determinedly the Lord must have &ldquo;received the cup&quot; (Lk. 22:17 RV), knowing what it represented; imagine His body language. Paul&rsquo;s references to &ldquo;<i>the </i>cup&quot; imply the same. This change was surely to indicate the unity that His death, His blood, His life, was to inspire amongst those who share in it. This, in passing, is behind my undoubted preference for not using individual cups at the memorial meeting. It would seem to be a returning to the Jewish legalistic tradition, however unintentionally. I have elsewhere commented upon the clear link between the death of Jesus and our unity. The memorial meeting is the supreme celebration of that unity between us. To deny a brother or sister participation in it is something serious indeed. Tragically, and it is a tragedy, we have tended to use the memorial meeting as a weapon for exclusion rather than as a celebration of our unity. Yet this was the intention, without doubt. Comparing Lk. 22:20 and Mk. 14:24 we find the Lord saying that the cup of wine was &ldquo;for you poured out, poured out for many&quot;- as if He wanted them to be aware at the memorial meeting that it was not only they who had been redeemed in Him. Likewise the Passover was essentially a remembering of the deliverance of a community, through which the individual worshipper found his or her personal salvation. This is why it is just not good enough to insist on breaking bread alone, or with no thought to the fact that all of us were redeemed together, as one man, as one nation, in Him. Remember that the Hebrew word for covenant, <i>berith</i>, is &quot;derived from a verb meaning \'to eat\'&quot;. That covenant was made with a community, the Israel of God; by eating the covenant meal we recall that collective covenant, that salvation of a community of which we are part- and it is appropriate therefore that it becomes a symbol of our unity within that community. The Old Testament idea of covenant is associated with words like <i>hesed</i> (kindness, love, devotion, grace), <i>emeth</i> (truth, integrity), <i>emunah</i> (faithfulness, allegiance). These are the characteristics associated with being in covenant relationship; and we are to show them to all others who are in covenant relationship, not just some of them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2051','1','41','14','24','24','<p>14:24 <i>And he said to them: This is my blood- </i>Given Jewish obsession with blood and ritual uncleanness arising from contact with it, such language was surely purposefully challenging and radical, just as He had spoken of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in Jn. 6:53. This made many turn away when He said it, but the Lord realized that His followers had to make a total break with Judaism. The drift of some Christian believes back towards the mentality of Judaism is totally missing the Lord\'s point- He was speaking in such challenging terms to make His followers realize that there was no middle path of compromise between Him and Judaism. Although He never commanded them to leave the synagogue system, and assumed they would remain in it until they were thrown out of it, all the same the Lord stated His principles in such a way that it would\'ve been effectively impossible for His followers to remain within that system.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>Of the new covenant, which is poured out for many</i>- The promises to Abraham were effectively the new covenant, even though they were given before the old covenant the law of Moses was given. The Lord\'s death confirmed those promises made to the Jewish fathers (Rom. 15:8). But God\'s word is true as it stands and in that sense needs no confirmation, no guarantee of truthfulness. But in an effort to persuade us of the simple truth and reality of the promises of eternity in the Kingdom which were made to Abraham, God confirmed it through the death of His Son. This was foreseen in the horror of great darkness which Abraham experienced in Genesis 15. Abraham did nothing to confirm his side of the covenant; it was God who passed between the pieces of the slain animal, during a time of Divine darkness as there was on the cross, in order to demonstrate to Abraham and to us all how serious He was about keeping His promise. Through the death of Christ, God commended His love to us (Rom. 5:8), He confirmed the covenant; not that He needed to do so, nor that His love needs any more commendation to us. But He did, in order to seek to persuade us of the truth of the promises which comprise the Gospel (Gal. 3:8). In this sense &quot;the promise was made sure s.w. \'confirmed\' to all the seed&quot; (Rom. 4:16); the extra element of making sure or confirming the promise was in the death of God\'s Son. Our hope is therefore &quot;sure<i>&nbsp;and</i>&nbsp;confirmed AV &quot;steadfast&quot;&quot; (Heb. 6:19). Heb. 9:17 puts it another way in saying that a will or legacy is only confirmed AV &quot;of force&quot; by the death of the one who promised the inheritance, and the death of Christ was God\'s way of confirming the truth of what He had promised. This same word meaning \'confirmed\' is used by Peter in writing of how we have &quot;the word of prophecy made sure / confirmed&quot; (2 Pet. 1:19). The prophesied word is the word of the Gospel, the promise of the Kingdom which began in Genesis, and this has been confirmed to us, made even more sure, by the Lord\'s death. Peter isn\'t referring to prophecy in the sense of future events being predicted in the arena of world geopolitics; the prophesied word is the word of our salvation, of the Gospel- which is how Peter elsewhere uses the idea of &quot;the word&quot;. God can save who He wishes, as, how and when He wishes. He was not somehow duty bound, left with no option, forced by an unpleasant logical bind to suffer the death of His Son. He gave His Son, according to His own plan from the beginning. But He did it that way in order to persuade us of His love and simple desire to give us the Kingdom He has promised from the beginning of His revelation to men. The Lord\'s blood is &quot;of the new covenant&quot; not in that it&nbsp;<i>is itself&nbsp;</i>the new covenant, but rather in that it is the blood associated with the confirmation of that covenant as true. And so it is understandable that the Lord should wish us to understand His blood as the blood of the new covenant, the supreme sign that it is for real, and desire us to regularly take that cup which reminds us of these things. Heb. 6:17,18 carries the same idea- that in order to demonstrate the utter certainty of the things promised to Abraham\'s seed, God confirmed it by an oath so that we might a strong consolation and persuasion of the certainty of the promise. The death of God\'s Son was not therefore unavoidable for Him; He could save us as He wishes. But He chose this most painful way in the ultimate attempt to persuade men of the reality of His Son. With this understanding we can better appreciate the tales of the old missionaries who went to pagan and illiterate tribes and reported a strange response to their message once they explained the idea of the Son of God dying on a cross to show us God\'s love. It must be persuasive to us too, week by week as we reflect on the blood of the covenant.</p><p>&quot;Covenant&quot; literally means that which is to be disposed of or distributed, and was used about the distribution of property upon decease. The Lord\'s parables about the Master who distributes all His wealth and possessions to His servants were surely looking forward to His death, at which He gave us all He had- and that was and is visually symbolized in the breaking of bread, the division even of His body and life blood amongst us, for us to trade with.</p><p>Moses bound the people into covenant relationship with the words: &ldquo;Behold the blood of the covenant&quot; (Ex. 24:8). These very words were used by the Lord in introducing the emblems of the breaking of bread (Mk. 14:24). This is how important it is. We are showing that we are the covenant, special Israel of God amidst a Gentile world. Indeed, &ldquo;the blood of the covenant&quot; in later Judaism came to refer to the blood of circumcision (cp. Gen. 17:10) and it could be that the Lord was seeking to draw a comparison between circumcision and the breaking of bread. For this is how His words would have sounded in the ears of His initial hearers. This is how vital and defining it is to partake of it.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2052','1','41','14','25','25','<p>14:25<i> Truly I say to you: I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine- </i>An allusion to how the priest on duty was not to drink wine during his service. The Lord foresaw His work from then on, beginning with the cross, as an active doing of priestly work for us. This would imply that the essence of His work on the cross is the essence of His work for us today; there is a continuity between Him there and His work for us now, with elements of the same pain and passionate focus upon us and the achievement of our salvation. He is not waiting passively in Heaven for the time to return; He is actively busy for us. There is also the implication in His words that His future \'drinking\' will be literal- He was holding literal wine in His hand, and He said He would not again drink it until the Kingdom. This suggests that at very least, He invites us to understand His future Messianic banquet as being in some ways a literal feast.</p><p><i>Until the day when I drink it anew- </i>This is not \'new\' in the sense of freshly made (a different word is used for that), but new in terms of quality, not time. It speaks of a new quality, a freshness, rather than something \'new\' in chronological terms. The new wine represented the blood of the new covenant which was shed on the cross. It could be argued that the drinking of this new wine became possible not simply at the last day, but in this life too, in the experience of the church after the Lord\'s shedding of that blood on the cross.</p><p><i>In the kingdom of God</i>- The reference is primarily to the literal Kingdom to be established on earth at His return (Lk. 22:29,30 goes on to speak of the disciples eating and drinking in the Kingdom as they sit with Christ on His throne judging Israel), but there is a sense in which His word is fulfilled in the breaking of bread service, where He drinks wine with us as the invisible guest. For His parables of the Kingdom all speak of the experience of God\'s reign / Kingship as a present experience in the lives of His people. Lk. 22:16 adds with reference to the bread: &quot;Until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God&quot;. The fulfilment of Passover deliverance is finally in the last day, and yet the fulfilment of Passover is also to be seen in the breaking of bread service. Note in passing that the Lord\'s predilection for the term \'Kingdom of God\' or \'Father\'s Kingdom\' was perhaps to counterbalance the Jewish emphasis upon the Kingdom as being that of&nbsp;<i>our</i>&nbsp;father&nbsp;<i>David</i>&nbsp;(Mk. 11:10). The Kingdom was God\'s, &quot;<i>Yours</i>&nbsp;is the Kingdom&quot;, rather than simply and solely the re-establishment of Israel\'s Kingdom.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord Jesus clearly saw a link between the breaking of bread and His return. He not only told His people to perform it &ldquo;until he come&quot;, but He said both before and after the last supper putting together the Gospel records that He would not keep this feast until He returned. Our breakings of bread are therefore a foretaste of the final sitting down with Him in His Kingdom- for He had elsewhere used the idea of feasting with Him as a symbol of our fellowship with Him at His return. The Rabbis had repeatedly taught that Messiah would come at Passover; the first century Rabbi Joshua said that &ldquo;In that night they were redeemed and in that night they will be redeemed by Messiah&quot;. Much evidence could be given of this. For this reason Josephus records how the Jewish revolts against Rome repeatedly occurred around Passover time. Yet all the Jewish feasts have some reference to the breaking of bread. The Hebrew writer picks up the image of the High Priest appearing to pronounce the blessing on the people as a type of the Lord&rsquo;s second coming from Heaven bearing our blessing. And yet they also all prefigure judgment in some way. Thus the Mishnah taught: &ldquo;At four times in the year is the world judged&quot;. Because the breaking of bread involves a serious concentration upon the cross, and the cross was in a sense the judgment of this world, it is apparent that the breaking of bread is in some ways a preview of the judgment seat.</p><p>The Lord\'s promise that He would not break bread again until He did it with us in the Kingdom (Mk. 14:25) seems to require a literal fulfilment. In a non-literal sense He breaks bread with His people even now. Therefore His statement that He would not do it again until the Kingdom seems to refer to His literal taking of bread and wine. Likewise His promise that He would literally gird Himself and come forth and serve us at a future banquet has to be linked in with this (Lk. 12:37). If all the faithful are to be gathered together to a meal, and literally eat bread and drink wine with the Lord, this suggests all sorts of logistical and practical \'problems\'. It is easier to understand that space and time will have different meanings at the judgment and after.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2053','1','41','14','26','26','<p>14:26- see on Jn. 17:1.</p><p><i>And when they had sung a hymn</i>- Probably the Passover hallel of Ps. 115-118. It\'s worth reading those Psalms imagining them on the lips of the Lord at the last supper; they are pregnant with relevance for His forthcoming death, especially the reference to &quot;I will take the cup of salvation&quot;. Heb. 2:12 surely has the scene in mind, quoting &quot;In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto You&quot; as being proof of the Lord\'s absolute humanity. The fact He sung praise to&nbsp;<i>God</i>&nbsp;surely reveals a human and not Divine Christ. But doing so amongst His brethren, &quot;the church&quot;, as one of them, is an essay in His unity with us, both in nature and experience.</p><p><i>They went out to the Mount of Olives</i>- The Passover ritual required that nobody should go out of the house until morning (Ex. 12:22). This is clearly teaching that the Passover deliverance had already begun, even before the Lord\'s blood had been shed, and would connect with the usage of present tenses concerning the Passover and shedding of the Lord\'s blood (see on :2,28). This sets the scene for the Lord\'s comment in :32 that He would go before them, and they should follow Him. He was as Moses and as the Angel which went before Israel on Passover night. The allusion to Ex. 12:22 shows that the old legislation had passed away, and in any case the type of Passover being kept by the Lord was not strictly the Mosaic one- for it\'s likely He was celebrating it a day earlier than stipulated. But the point perhaps was that the true Israel of God were now \'going out\' from Egypt; so certain was the Lord that He would achieve deliverance that He could speak of that deliverance as already being achieved. He didn\'t, therefore, see His work on the cross as something which He might or might not successfully achieve- as we should, He went ahead in the certainty of ultimate success and victory.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2054','1','41','14','27','27','<p>14:27 <i>And Jesus said to them: All of you shall fall away. For it is written: I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad</i>- See on Mk. 4:17. They would spiritually stumble and fall because Zech. 13:7 predicted this would happen. But the Lord goes on to urge them to watch and pray so that they do not succumb to temptation. He saw Biblical prophecy as being open ended in fulfilment- the prophecy of spiritual failure didn\'t have to come true. They could resist, sin and failure is never inevitable. He spoke to them in the upper room specifically so that they would&nbsp;<i>not&nbsp;</i>be offended (Jn. 16:1 s.w.); the prophecy didn\'t have to come true in the disciples, and the Lord did His utmost to provide the potential for it not coming true for them.&nbsp;</p><p>His death was to be as that of Moses, which left the Israel of God as sheep without a shepherd (Num. 27:17). And yet the Lord\'s death would gather together the scattered s.w. people of God (Jn. 11:52), His death was as a shepherd giving His life for the sheep (Jn. 10:11). His death and resurrection was to be the means of reviving the lost faith of the disciples- when they meditated upon it. The people of Israel at the Lord\'s time had had no true shepherds and were therefore as scattered sheep (Mt. 9:36).&nbsp; The Lord\'s death would therefore temporarily leave the disciples just like the rest of Israel- they would return to the mentality of Judaism, the \'satan\' of the Jewish system and its thinking would tempt them and they would give in. The wolf of Judaism would scatter the sheep (Jn. 10:12). The disciples were therefore as sheep who scattered because of the thinking of the Jewish world around them, who saw death on a cross as the final defeat for a man; and yet were to be gathered by that very death. Peter was one of those disciples, even though he insisted that&nbsp;<i>he&nbsp;</i>would not be scattered even if others were. He surely had this in mind in appealing to other believers who were falling under the influence of Judaism: &quot;You were as sheep going astray, but are now returned s.w. \'converted\'- just as he was \'converted\' to strengthen his brethren unto the Shepherd... of your souls&quot; (1 Pet. 2:25). Peter was therefore appealing to others to follow his own pattern- of revival and conversion after spiritual failure. This is the basis for all powerful pastoral appeal.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2055','1','41','14','28','28','<p>14:28<i> However, after I am raised up- </i>There is no equivalent of &quot;after&quot; in the Greek text. This is an insertion by translators in order to try to give sense to the three brief Greek words which simply say &quot;And I rise again&quot;. The idea is that \'By My rising again, I will go before you...\'. The Lord\'s plan was that His resurrection would re-ignite faith in His disciples, and He would go before them as a shepherd leads His sheep, into Galilee.</p><p><i>I will go ahead of you into Galilee</i>- This is the language of the shepherd going before the sheep (Jn. 10:4), in obedience to His voice. The Lord is saying that although they will stumble and lose faith, His resurrection will provide them with a credible word from Him which they would obey by following Him into Galilee. This is why the resurrected Lord\'s first instruction to the women was to &quot;Go tell My brothers that they go into Galilee; there shall they see Me&quot; (28:10). But it actually didn\'t work out like that. His meeting with them in Galilee was in fact the third time He revealed Himself to them (Jn. 21:14). He appeared to them twice before that. And the picture we have of the disciples fishing in Galilee in Jn. 21 is of them still relatively faithless, depressed and having returned to their fishing; they are hardly pictured as eagerly awaiting the Lord\'s promised appearance in Galilee. So it seems to me that the Lord changed His intended program with them. Their faith was so weak that He appeared to them in Jerusalem twice, whereas He had originally planned for the women to tell them His word- to go before Him into Galilee, and there He would reveal Himself to them. But in His love for them, His own desire to see them, His awareness of their weakness in faith... He appeared to them twice&nbsp;<i>before</i>&nbsp;Galilee. And even then, we sense from the fishing incident of John 21 that they were still floundering in their faith, and may well have returned to Galilee in order to return to their fishing business, rather than in obedience to His word. Why did He so wish to meet them in Galilee, rather than in Jerusalem? Their journey to Galilee would\'ve been a test of obedience for them, for sure. But surely the Lord reflected by this choice the paramount importance He placed upon the conversion of families. He wanted to appear to them there, surely, because that was where most of them were from, and where their families were. He wanted them too to be persuaded once and for all time of the reality of His resurrection.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>This promise sounds very much like a conscious allusion to the Angel going ahead of Israel; as if Christ felt that He (through the Comforter Angel?) had taken over the role of the Angel that represented Him previously?</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2056','1','41','14','29','29','<p>14:29 <i>But Peter said to him: Although all shall fall away, I will not</i>- Peter three separate times states that he will not fail the Lord (also in Lk. 22:33; Jn. 13:37). Literally, \'not at any time\', i.e. \'not even once\'. Hence the Lord\'s comment that Peter would deny Him not once but three times. Yet he denied the Lord three times, and it was on the Lord\'s third appearance to him (Jn. 21:14) that the Lord undid the three denials by His three questions concerning whether Peter really loves Him, and three times (again by a charcoal fire) re-instates Peter in the work of strengthening his brethren. These tripilisms and repetitions serve to make the record memorable, and also reflect how somehow the Lord worked through Peter\'s failures with some overarching plan; there was a higher hand at work through all of the failure, reflected in these tripilisms which could only have been effected by a Divine, higher hand. The Lord\'s question to Peter &quot;Do you love Me more than these?&quot; surely has reference to the other disciples, whom Peter had thought himself spiritually superior to. He was sure that even if they stumbled, he would not. And the Lord paid special attention to undoing this attitude in Peter and specifically bringing him to realize that he was no better than his brethren. Any sense of spiritual superiority over others is so obnoxious to the Lord. And He will work in our lives to remove it from us, as He did with Job, Jonah and many others. Peter continually alludes to his denials throughout his appeal for Israel\'s repentance in Acts 2 and throughout his pastoral letters; it is our own failures and receipt of such utter grace which serve as the basis for our credible and persuasive appeal to others to repent. He spoke in 1 Pet. 2:8 of how the Lord Jesus is a stone of stumbling \'offence\', s.w. to those who do not believe- and yet he said this fully aware that he had been one of those who stumbled over Jesus. Mt. 21:44 offers us to the choice- to stumble upon the stone and be broken, or for the stone to fall upon us and grind us to powder, in the figure of judgment and condemnation used in Daniel 2. We either stumble in failure upon Christ and rise up as Peter did, broken men and women, to do our best in serving Him- or that stone shall crush us in condemnation. That is the choice before us, and Peter is the parade example in this to all.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2057','1','41','14','30','30','<p>14:30 <i>And Jesus said to him: Truly I say to you, yes to you today, that this night- </i>Much of the Lord\'s knowledge and foreknowledge of events ahead of time can be explained in terms of His incredible sensitivity to others, His understanding of human psychology and behaviour patterns. But there are times when it seems He was given direct foreknowledge from the Father. And this seems one of them- to predict the exact number of denials that would be made that night, and to predict they would happen before the cock crew. This leads to the possibility that whenever He prefaces His words with &quot;Truly I say unto you...&quot;, He is stating something received by direct revelation. Another example is when He uses this rubric to introduce His prediction of how Peter would die (Jn. 21:18). This would be His equivalent of how the Old Testament prophets introduced their directly inspired words with the rubric &quot;Thus says the Lord&quot;. &quot;Truly&quot; (AV &quot;verily&quot;) is literally \'amen\', as if the Lord Jesus is saying that He is aware of the words of His Father and in uttering them from His lips, is giving His personal agreement, stamp or \'Amen\' to them.</p><p><i>Before the cock crows twice- </i>There is no article in the Greek. \'Before cock crow\' is the idea, before the earliest sign of morning when the first cock crew, that very night, before that night even began to come to a close. Crowing &quot;twice&quot; may mean that the cock would not need to crow twice, before Peter thrice denied Him.</p><p><i>You shall deny me three times</i>- There is more detail about the denials in Mark because Mark appears to be writing for Peter; Peter\'s presentation of the Gospel emphasized his own failures. The Roman persecution of Christians required the converts to three times deny the Lord Jesus. Perhaps such emphasis is given to Peter\'s triple denials in order to encourage those who failed that test that their relationship with the Lord was not finished; and in fact they were in good company.</p><p>It\'s been pointed out that chickens couldn\'t have been anywhere near the High Priest\'s house because the priests forbad anyone in Jerusalem from keeping chickens, lest they stray into the temple. The <i>Encyclopaedia Judaica</i> points out that the priest who was the temple crier was called the <i>Gaver</i>, Hebrew for \'cock\' or \'rooster\'. This man opened the temple before dawn and called the priests and people to make the morning sacrifice. And he did this two or three times. Surely the Lord was referring to this when He spoke of the \'cock\' crowing. Each time, Peter was being called to make the sacrifice with Jesus; but instead he denied knowledge of Jesus and the call to the cross which that knowledge entails. The context of the Lord\'s warnings to Peter about his forthcoming denial was that Peter had insisted he <i>would</i> die with Jesus, sharing in His sacrifice. And the Lord was foretelling that when that call came, Peter would deny the knowledge of Jesus.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2058','1','41','14','31','31','<p>14:31 <i>But Peter said emphatically: Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you-</i> Gk. \'If I must die\' or \'If it be necessary that I die, I will\'. And yet the Lord had taught that He was going to die on the cross, and that all who would truly follow Him should likewise die with Him. When the Lord stated this in Mt. 16, Peter had earnestly sought to dissuade the Lord from that course of action because He didn\'t want to die with Him. Peter had a problem accepting the inevitable reality of the cross and its demand that we likewise lose our lives for Him. He considered it the most extreme possibility, rather than an obviously necessary sacrifice which is part and parcel of being a true follower of Jesus. We likewise can consider that extreme self-sacrifice is something we might possibly be called to make. But in fact if we are truly signed up to carrying the Lord\'s cross, it is exactly such radical self-sacrifice which is indeed required of us. The Lord said that Peter was not yet able to die for Him, he would deny Him rather than follow Him, but one day he would be strong enough, and&nbsp;<i>then</i>&nbsp;he would follow Him to the end (Jn. 13:36,37). Peter thought he was strong enough then; for he followed (s.w.) Christ afar off, to the High Priest&rsquo;s house (Mt. 26:58). But in ineffable self-hatred he came to see that the Lord&rsquo;s prediction was right.</p><p><i>&quot;</i>I will not deny you<i>&quot; </i>surely alludes to Mt. 16:24, where the Lord has urged Peter to accept that he must deny&nbsp;<i>himself</i>&nbsp;and take up the Lord\'s cross and die with Him. But instead, because Peter didn\'t want to do that, he would end up denying Jesus. This is the intensity of our choice- if we will not deny ourselves, then we shall deny Jesus. The Lord had clearly taught that whoever denied Him before men would be denied by Him at the last day (Mt. 10:33), and Paul repeats this (2 Tim. 2:12). Peter stood condemned by that denial, and yet we can be condemned in this life and change the verdict if we repent. It is this which releases such fervency into our lives if we go through the experience of condemnation but perceive that the verdict has been mercifully changed. Peter appealed to Israel to recognize that they had denied Jesus (Acts 3:13,14 &quot;You denied Him in the presence of Pilate&quot;); and he made that appeal a stone\'s throw and only a few weeks after his own denials of Jesus in the presence of all. And yet this was why his appeal was so credible, as was his later appeal to believers not to do the worst imaginable thing, namely to deny the Lord who had bought them- for that was exactly what, as everyone knew, Peter had himself done (2 Pet. 2:1). John speaks of denying Christ as the hallmark of the antichrist (1 Jn. 2:22 &quot;He that denies Jesus... is the antichrist&quot;), and he wrote this knowing full well that Peter was the rock upon whom the early church had been built. His point, therefore, is that even those who had done that, the antichrist, could still repent as Peter had done.&nbsp;</p><p><i>And they all said the same- </i>Mt. &quot;Likewise also&quot;, using two words are used when one would suffice, such is the emphasis upon the fact that they all said the same. Peter was the one who went furthest in seeking to live out his claim, and yet he it is whose failure is the most emphasized. And that is how it is often is amongst God\'s people. But it is because we are asked to identify specifically with Peter.<br />&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2059','1','41','14','32','32','<p>14:32- see on Mk. 5:1.</p><p><i>And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples- </i>The Lord often went to this garden (Jn. 18:2), but the record at this point emphasizes its name, meaning \'oil press\', a common metaphor for judgment. There the Lord as it were passed through His judgment, and there the disciples had their judgment- and ran away into the darkness condemned. Even though through repentance they were later saved out of that condemnation.&nbsp;</p><p><i>Sit here while I pray</i>- The Greek can equally mean \'stay here\'. The separation between the Lord and His people, to go away and pray with His senior followers with Him, clearly was based upon Moses going up into the mountain to pray to God, taking Joshua with him, leaving Israel behind. And like Israel, the disciples failed miserably, and were met with the Lord\'s rebuke on His return from prayer. The Lord is clearly making the point that He now replaces Moses, and that the new Israel were comprised of those 11 mixed up men of weak faith and very limited understanding. The Greek text here has the Lord saying to the disciples: &ldquo;Sit in this place <i>kathisate autou</i> until going away, I pray there&rdquo;, and then He takes along with him <i>paralambanein</i> Peter. These are the very words used in the Gen. 22 LXX account of Abraham taking Isaac to &lsquo;the cross&rsquo;. Jesus is seeking to encourage Peter to see himself as Isaac, being taken to share in the cross. Now whether Peter discerned this or not, we don&rsquo;t know. But the Lord gave him the potential possibility to be inspired like this. &nbsp;</p><p>He was seeking to help them perceive the similarity with Moses going away to pray, hence His warnings for them&nbsp;<i>not&nbsp;to</i> give way to temptation were asking them to consciously make the effort to not be like the Israel whom Moses left behind when he went away to pray. Of course the Lord could have baldly drawn the similarities between Himself and Moses, but He acted in this way in order to provoke in them the association with Moses, and to realize that they were as Israel, tempted to fall away. And this is His style to the present day. Instead of flashing red lights and words dropping from Heaven, instead we find ourselves set up in situations which recall Biblical situations, and appeal to us to perceive ourselves within that history. That is why daily Bible reading and continual familiarity with the recorded histories of the Bible is so essential, it is all part of the Lord\'s way of working with us.</p><p>The whole structure of Mark\'s Gospel seems designed for memorization- the material is arranged in triplets, and the sections have chiastic structures e.g. material arranged in the form ABA, ABCBA, ABCDCBA. Even within the triplets, themes often occur in triplets- the three experiences in Gethsemane (Mk. 14:32-42), Peter\'s three denials (Mk. 14:66-72), three wrong answers about the identity of Jesus (Mk. 6:14-16; 8:28). The use of triplets and tripilisms is common in folk stories- to aid memorization. We shouldn\'t be unduly phased by the idea of the early Christians memorizing the Gospels. Even today in the Islamic world, students in religious schools are expected to memorize the entire Koran, which is roughly the same size as the entire New Testament. There are reports of this even being achieved by a seven year old.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2060','1','41','14','33','33','<p>14:33 <i>And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled</i>- As Moses took Joshua with him.&nbsp;AV: &quot;He was amazed&quot;. The amazement was perhaps because He came to realize that His subconscious hopes for a deliverance, akin to Isaac&rsquo;s at the last minute, were not going to come true. This element of surprise is reflected later in His desperate question &ldquo;Why have You forsaken Me?&rdquo;. This crisis of understanding contrasts strongly with His calm assurance and assumption that He must now die and resurrect. And yet to be tempted just as we are, He had to go through the experience of things not working out as expected, of crisis and desperate desiring to understand. For these things are what are at the root of our hardest human experiences.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2061','1','41','14','34','34','<p>14:34 <i>And he said to them: My soul is exceeding sorrowful even to death-</i> This was the fulfilment of Is. 53:3, &quot;a man of sorrows&quot;, an intensive plural, implying \'great sorrow\'. The fact He \'began\' to feel this suggests that the prophecy of Is. 53 is specifically about the Lord in His time of sufferings, rather than generally in His life. It was there, at the end, that there was no beauty that He should be desired. And yet Is. 53:4 defines those \'sorrows\' as the sorrows of our sins. His sorrow was therefore in that He felt His identification with our sins, our sorrows. And He felt that identification very intensely as He prayed. Likewise the weight He felt, in that He began to feel heavy, refers to the weight of human sin which He felt Himself carrying.</p><p>The Lord&rsquo;s psychological struggle was so intense that it was almost killing Him. Yet Peter had said that he was ready to go with the Lord even unto death (Lk. 22:33). But he failed to perceive that the Lord&rsquo;s death involved huge psychological suffering- and Peter opted out of that by falling asleep. To physically die was not so much the issue as sharing the psychological trauma of carrying the cross.</p><p>The fullness of the Lord\'s humanity is of course supremely shown in His death and His quite natural fear of that death. Perhaps on no other point do human beings show they are humans than when it comes to their reaction to and reflection upon their own death. I would go further and suggested that the thought of suicide even entered the Lord\'s mind. It\'s hard to understand His thought about throwing Himself off the top of the temple in any other way. His almost throw away comment that &quot;My soul is very sorrowful, even to death&quot; (<i>heos thanatou</i>) is actually a quotation from the suicidal thoughts of Jonah (Jonah 4:9) and those of the Psalmist in Ps. 42:5,6. Now of course the Lord overcame those thoughts- but their very existence is a window into the depth and reality of His humanity.</p><p>Heb. 5:7,8 clearly refer to the Lord&rsquo;s prayer in Gethsemane. The Lord had a quite genuine &quot;fear of death&quot; (Heb. 5:8). This &quot;fear of death&quot; within the Lord Jesus provides a profound insight into His so genuine humanity. We fear death because our human life is our greatest and most personal possession... and it was just the same with the Lord Jesus. Note that when seeking here to exemplify Christ\'s humanity, the writer to the Hebrews chooses His fear of death in Gethsemane as the epitome of His humanity. Heb. 5:7 comments that&nbsp;Christ prayed &quot;with strong crying and tears&quot;. These words are certainly to be connected with Rom. 8:26, which speaks of Christ making intercession for us now&nbsp;with &quot;groanings which cannot be uttered&quot;. Rom. 8:26 says that his groaning is so intense that it cannot be audibly uttered; the physicality of sound would not do justice to the intensity of mental striving. The point is that the same agonizing depth of prayer which the Lord achieved for us is what he now goes through as he intercedes for us with the Father.</p><p>Oscar Cullmann translates Heb. 5:7: &quot;He was heard in his fear (anxiety)&quot;. That very human anxiety about death is reflected in the way He urges Judas to get over and done the betrayal process &quot;quickly&quot; (Jn. 13:28); He was &quot;straitened until it be accomplished&quot; (Lk. 12:50). He prayed to God just as we would when gripped by the fear of impending death. And He was heard. No wonder He is able therefore and thereby to comfort and save us, who lived all our lives in the same fear of death which He had (Heb. 2:15). This repetition of the \'fear of death\' theme in Hebrews is surely significant- the Lord Jesus had the same fear of death as we do, and He prayed in desperation to God just as we do. And because He overcame, He is able to support us when&nbsp;<i>we</i>&nbsp;in our turn pray in&nbsp;<i>our</i>&nbsp;&quot;time of need&quot;- for He likewise had the very same &quot;time of need&quot; as we have, when He was in Gethsemane (Heb. 4:16). Death was &quot;the last enemy&quot; for the Lord Jesus just as it is for all humanity (1 Cor. 15:26). Reflection on these things not only emphasizes the humanity of the Lord Jesus, but also indicates He had no belief whatsoever in an \'immortal soul\' consciously surviving death.</p><p><i>&quot;</i>Exceeding sorrowful&quot; uses the same word used about the exceeding sorrow of the men of the world (Herod- Mk. 6:26; the rich young man, Lk. 18:23,24). Those who will be rich pierce themselves through with sorrows, they go through the crucifixion pains for the sake of this world (1 Tim. 6:10). So it\'s a cross either way, and it may as well be in identification with the Lord, leading unto eternal life, than unto eternal death. The same point is made in 2 Cor. 7:10, where the same word translated &quot;sorrowful&quot; is found- the sorrow of the world leads to death, but Godly sorrow leads to salvation. The disciples fell asleep, and yet by pure grace the record says that they slept for &quot;sorrow&quot; (Lk. 22:45), using a related but less intense word as used here for the Lord\'s&nbsp;<i>exceeding</i>&nbsp;sorrow; and the Lord attributes such &quot;sorrow&quot; to them repeatedly at this time (Jn. 16:6,20-22). But the point is that His sorrow was of an altogether more intense and higher order than theirs, and yet by grace they are counted as having some part in His sorrow. We speak and read of our sharing in the Lord\'s sufferings, and yet our sufferings are nothing compared to His; yet by grace they are counted as a sharing in those sufferings.</p><p><i>Stay here</i>- This is&nbsp;<i>meno</i>, the word the Lord has just used multiple times in the upper room discourse, translated &quot;abide&quot;. Now He leads them out of the upper room into the real world, and gives them the concrete outworking of abiding in Him- to enter into His struggles, to watch and pray with Him, to share His intensity with the Father. And they fell asleep.&nbsp;</p><p><i>And watch</i>- The Greek means to literally keep awake, but is used about watching in prayer. The fact the disciples physically fell asleep, and three times, is a clear statement of their failure. And it is used by the disciples here in their own account and preaching of the Gospel, of which the Gospel records are transcripts, as if to emphasize their own failure, and on that basis appeal to others to likewise accept the Lord\'s forgiveness and salvation by grace. It is the same word used repeatedly by the Lord in appealing for watchfulness in the very last days before His coming (Mt. 24:42,43; Lk. 12:37 etc.), as if the disciples in Gethsemane were going through their judgment, their last days. Likewise the sufferings and experiences of the very last generation will give them the opportunity to uniquely identify with the Lord\'s crucifixion sufferings. Seeing that generation will never taste of death, this identification with His death will be necessary for them as for no other generation, and the tribulation will be designed to elicit that identification. We are therefore invited to enter into Gethsemane and not repeat the failures of the disciples- the same words are used by Paul in encouraging us all to \'pray and watch\' (Col. 4:2). &quot;Let us not sleep as others, but let us watch&quot; (1 Thess. 5:6) could be asking us to not be as the disciples there, but rather to learn from their failure and watch. And yet the comfort of grace is that whether we watch s.w. or sleep, we shall be accepted by Him (1 Thess. 5:10), just as the disciples were saved by grace despite their failure. Likewise we are asked to watch and keep our garment (Rev. 16:15), unlike the disciple present in Gethsemane who did not watch and fled naked having lost his garment (Mk. 14:52).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2062','1','41','14','35','35','<p>14:35 <i>And he went forward a little- </i>Lk. 22:41 &ldquo;About a stone&rsquo;s cast&rdquo;, pointing us back to David&rsquo;s conflict with Goliath as a type of the Lord&rsquo;s final conflict with sin.</p><p><i>And fell on the ground, and prayed- </i>Paul\'s description of himself on the Damascus road falling down and seeing a Heavenly vision, surrounded by men who did not understand, is framed in exactly the language of Gethsemane (Acts 22:7 = Mt. 26:39); as if right at his conversion, Paul was brought to realize the spirit of Gethsemane. His connection with the Gethsemane spirit continued. He describes himself as &quot;sorrowful&quot; (2 Cor. 6:10), just as Christ was then (Mt. 26:37). His description of how he prayed the same words three times without receiving an answer (2 Cor. 12:8) is clearly linked to Christ\'s experience in the garden (Mt. 26:44); and note that in that context he speaks of being &ldquo;buffeted&rdquo; by Satan&rsquo;s servants, using the very word used of the Lord being &ldquo;buffeted&rdquo; straight after Gethsemane (2 Cor. 12:7 = Mt. 26:67).</p><p>To fall on the face is used in the Old Testament to describe men like Abraham and Moses falling on their face in the visible presence of God, e.g. before an Angel (Gen. 17:3; Num. 16:4; 22:31). Yet there was no visible manifestation of God&rsquo;s presence at this time; so we are to assume that the Lord Jesus intensely perceived the Father&rsquo;s presence even though there was no visible sign of it. It could be that the Angel from Heaven strengthening the Lord had already appeared, but this appears to come&nbsp;<i>after</i>&nbsp;the Lord had fallen on His face.</p><p>The Lord had foreseen how He must be like the grain of the wheat (note the articles in the Greek) which must fall to the ground and die, and then arise in a glorious harvest (Jn. 12:24). But soon after saying that, the Lord fell to the ground (same Greek words) in prayer and asked the Father if the cup might pass from Him (Mk. 14:35). It seems to me that He fell to the ground in full reference to His earlier words, and asked desperately if this might be accepted as the falling to the earth of the grain of the wheat, i.e. Himself, which was vital for the harvest of the world. Don&rsquo;t under-estimate the amount of internal debate which the Lord would have had about these matters. The spirit of Christ in the prophets testified Messiah&rsquo;s sufferings &ldquo;unto Christ&quot; (1 Pet. 1:11 RVmg.), but He still had to figure it all out. And this enabled an element of doubt, even though in the end He knew &ldquo;all the things that were coming upon him&quot; (Jn. 18:4). To doubt is not to sin. Another Messianic Psalm had foretold: &ldquo;In the multitude of my doubts within me, thy comforts delight my soul&quot; (Ps. 94:19 RVmg.). This aspect heightens the agony of His final crisis, when He unexpectedly felt forsaken.</p><p><i>That, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him</i>- See on Lk. 22:46. This may not simply mean \'If it\'s possible, may I not have to die\'. The Lord could have meant: \'If&nbsp;<i>it</i>- some unrecorded possible alternative to the cross- is&nbsp;<i>really</i>&nbsp;possible, then let&nbsp;<i>this</i>&nbsp;cup pass\'- as if to say \'If option A is possible, then let the cup of option B pass from me\'. But He overrode this with a desire to be submissive to the Father\'s preferred will- which was for us to have a part in the greatest, most surpassing salvation, which required the death of the cross. &ldquo;Such&nbsp;<i>great</i>&nbsp;salvation&quot; (Heb. 2:3) might imply that a lesser salvation could have been achieved by Christ, but He achieved the greatest possible. &quot;He is able also&nbsp;<i>to save them to the uttermost</i>&nbsp;that come unto God by him&quot; (Heb. 7:25) may be saying the same thing. Indeed, the&nbsp;<i>excellence</i>&nbsp;of our salvation in Christ is a major NT theme. It was typified by the way Esther interceded for Israel; she could have simply asked for her own life to be spared, but she asked for that of all Israel. And further, she has the courage (and we sense her reticence, how difficult it was for her) to ask the King yet another favour- that the Jews be allowed&nbsp;to slay their enemies for one more day, and also to hang Haman\'s sons (Es. 9:12). She was achieving the maximum possible redemption for Israel rather than the minimum. Paul again seems to comment on this theme when he speaks of how Christ became obedient, &quot;<i>even</i>&nbsp;to the death of the cross&quot; (Phil. 2:8), as if perhaps some kind of salvation could have been achieved without the death&nbsp;<i>of the cross</i>. Perhaps there was no theological necessity for Christ to die&nbsp;<i>such</i>&nbsp;a painful death; if so, doubtless this was in His mind in His agony in the garden.</p><p>The Lord had taught more than once that &ldquo;with God all things are possible&rdquo; (Mt. 19:26; Mk. 9:23), and yet He inserts here a condition: &ldquo;If it be possible&rdquo;. He recognized that God&rsquo;s plan was possible of fulfilment by any means, and yet He recognized that there was a condition to that. This issue is not really resoluble, at least not by any intellectual process. If, or rather when, we struggle with these issues, this balance between God&rsquo;s ultimate possibility and the fact there appear to be terms and conditions attached- then we are there with the Lord in Gethsemane. But we need to note that it was God who was being pushed to the limit here as well- for literally all things are indeed possible to Him, and He could have saved the world any way He wished. In His allowing of this chosen method we see the degree to which the cross was indeed His plan that He so wanted to see worked out.</p><p>Matthew records the Lord\'s prayer that the cup might pass from Him; here, that the hour might pass. Paul uses the same Greek term &quot;from me&quot; in describing how also three times he asked for the thorn in the flesh to &ldquo;depart&nbsp;<i>from me</i>&rdquo; (2 Cor. 12:8). He saw his prayers and desires as a sharing in the Lord&rsquo;s struggle in Gethsemane, just as we can too.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2063','1','41','14','36','36','<p>14:36 <i>And he said: Abba, Father, all things are possible for You; remove this cup from me- </i>&quot;We cry Abba, Father&quot; (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6), as our Lord did then (Mk. 14:36). We can, we really can, it is possible, to enter into something of our Lord\'s intensity then. Paul saw his beloved brother Epaphroditus as &quot;heavy&quot; in spirit (Phil. 2:26), using a word only used elsewhere about the Lord in Gethsemane (Mt. 26:37; Mk. 14:33).&nbsp;Luke and other early brethren seemed to have had the Gethsemane record in mind in their sufferings, as we can also do (Acts 21:14 = Mk. 14:36).</p><p><i>However, not as I will but what You will</i>- Trinitarians need to note that the Lord&rsquo;s will was not totally the same as that of His Father.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2064','1','41','14','37','37','<p>14:37- see on Mk. 14:72.</p><p><i>And he returned and found them sleeping, and said to Peter: Simon, why do you sleep?- &quot;</i>Comes&hellip; and finds&quot; are the very words used of the Lord&rsquo;s coming in judgment to &lsquo;find&rsquo; the state of His people (Mt. 21:19; 24:46 &ldquo;whom his Lord when He&nbsp;<i>comes</i>&nbsp;shall&nbsp;<i>find</i>&nbsp;so doing&rdquo;; Lk. 18:8 &ldquo;When the Son of Man comes, shall He find faith&hellip;?&rdquo;). And His &lsquo;coming&rsquo; to the disciples found them asleep and unprepared. This was exactly the picture of Mk. 13:36 (and Lk. 12:37), using the same Greek words: &ldquo;Watch&hellip; lest coming suddenly, He find you sleeping&rdquo;. We can be condemned in this life, as Peter was when he denied his Lord, and yet be saved out of it by repentance.</p><p>There are good reasons for thinking that Mark&rsquo;s Gospel record is actually Peter&rsquo;s; and in his preaching of the Gospel he makes ample reference to his own failures he contains the most detailed account of the denials of all the Gospels and to the misunderstanding of his fellows. Both Matthew and Luke record that the Lord asked the three disciples &lsquo;Why are you plural sleeping?&rsquo; (Mt. 26:40). It is only Mark who says that the Lord asked this of Peter personally, in the singular (Mk. 14:37). And compare Matthew&rsquo;s &ldquo;Could you plural not watch with me?&rdquo; with Mk. 14:37 to Peter: &ldquo;Could you not singular watch?&rdquo;.</p><p><i>Could you not watch one hour?</i>- Peter later urged his converts to &ldquo;be watchful&rdquo; (1 Pet. 5:8 RV), watching unto prayer as the end approaches (1 Pet. 4:7), as Peter had&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;been watchful in the garden and had earned the Lord&rsquo;s rebuke for going to sleep praying (Mt. 26:40,41). They were to learn from his mistake. Their watchfulness was to be because the devil was prowling around, seeking whom he could desire (1 Pet. 5:8). This was exactly the case with Peter: Satan desired to have him, he should have prayed for strength but didn&rsquo;t do so sufficiently (Lk. 22:31). He was warning his brethren that they were in exactly the situation he had been in, a few hours before he went into that fateful High Priest&rsquo;s house.&nbsp;Paul was deeply moved by the Gethsemane record: 1 Thess. 5:6,7 = &nbsp;Mt. 26:40,41; Eph. 6:18 = 26:4;1 Acts 22:7= 26:39; 2 Cor. 6:10 = 26:37; 2 Cor. 12:8 = 26:44; Rom. 5:6 = 26:41; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6 = &nbsp;Mk. 14:36.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2065','1','41','14','38','38','<p>14:38- see on Acts 20:29,30.</p><p><i>Watch and pray so that you do not fall into temptation- </i>The relationship between prayer and temptation may not simply be that the Holy Spirit will be provided to fortify us against temptation if we pray. If we are in prayer, in the Father\'s presence, then we are less likely to just give in to temptation. However, the connection between prayer and strength against temptation is proof enough that Bible reading is not the only strength against temptation. So much more help and succour of the Holy Spirit is available (Heb. 4:15,16). The repeated emphasis upon their lack of watching contrasts with the Lord&rsquo;s stress upon the need to watch in the last days, and how lack of watching would lead to condemnation (Mt. 24:42,43; 25:13). Their lack of watching meant they were condemned- and yet they were redeemed by their recognition of their state, as evidenced in the Gospel records. <i>&quot;</i>That you do not fall into<i>&quot; </i>isaddressed to Peter in the singular, and yet the &ldquo;you&rdquo; here is plural. The Lord is telling Peter that he is no different to the rest of the disciples, despite his assertion that even if they all denied the Lord, he would not do so. Peter&rsquo;s sense of spiritual superiority was especially displeasing to the Lord.</p><p>Each statement of the apparently simple model prayer needs careful reflection. The Lord told the disciples in Gethsemane to earnestly pray the simple saying: &ldquo;Pray not to fail in the test&rdquo; (Mt. 26:41 cp. 6:13). The prayer that they could gabble mindlessly must be prayed with intense attention to every phrase. They presumably did pray as directed, but the Lord later warns them: &ldquo;Why do you sleep? Get up and pray, so that you will not enter into temptation&rdquo;. He intended them to keep on praying, as He spent an hour praying the same words; and not just rattle off a few words and think we have done our praying. Just as the tribulation of the last days seems to be conditional upon our faith, so the Lord may imply that entering into the time of trial or testing was avoidable by their prayer and faith. Again we see the final time of tribulation as reflective of the Lord&rsquo;s sufferings, enabling the very last generation to identify with the Lord&rsquo;s death so that they might share in His resurrection.</p><p><i>The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak</i>- The Lord took a very positive view of his struggling, stuttering followers, especially in the run up to His death. His teaching had throughout emphasized the importance of the heart, and how thought and action are linked. Yet He appears to have made a temporary exception when He generously excused His disciples&rsquo; sleeping in Gethsemane: &ldquo;The spirit mind truly is ready, but the flesh is weak&rdquo; (Mk. 14:38). The theoretical willingness of the mind does not usually excuse fleshly weakness, according to the Lord&rsquo;s teaching. It seems to me that this statement of His, which for me gets harder to interpret the more one ponders it, is simply the Lord&rsquo;s generous, justifying impulse towards His weak followers. And He was feeling like this towards them at the very time when, in symbol and in essence, they had condemned themselves. For He &lsquo;comes&rsquo; to them, finds them asleep, like the sleepy virgins in His recent parable, they were dumbfounded and unable to answer Him, just as the rejected will be at judgment day, and then they fled, as the rejected likewise will (Mk. 14:40,41,51). If these were His generous feelings for them, then&hellip; what comfort it is to know we follow the same Lord. &nbsp;<br />14:40 The disciples&rsquo; sleepiness is excused in the statement &ldquo;for their eyes were heavy&quot; (Mk. 14:40), even though their falling asleep at that time was utterly shameful. Luke&rsquo;s record excuses them by saying they slept for sorrow- which isn&rsquo;t really possible. It&rsquo;s the grace of inspiration covering up for them. Yet He kindly says that their spirit is willing but their flesh was weak (Mk. 14:38); although elsewhere, the Lord rigorously demonstrates that mental attitudes are inevitably reflected in external behaviour, and therefore the difference between flesh and spirit in this sense is minimal.</p><p>The question is whether the Lord is making a general observation about human nature, or whether He is specifically criticizing them for being spiritually weak at that specific time. He could be saying that they underestimated the power of human nature, and needed to pray that they would not enter into the temptation posed by their own flesh, their humanity. This is a clear demonstration of the source of spiritual weakness- our own flesh, rather than any superhuman being. Or it could be that the Lord has in view the specific weakness of the flesh- to disown Him in the face of opposition and the risk of arrest and death.</p><p>The word &quot;weak&quot; is often used about spiritual weakness. Paul describes all of us as having been saved although we were weak, using the same word used about the disciples asleep in Gethsemane (Mt. 26:41 &ldquo;weak&rdquo; = Rom. 5:6 &ldquo;without strength&rdquo;). He saw the evident similarity between them and us, tragically indifferent in practice to the mental agony of our Lord, failing to share His intensity of striving- although we are so willing in spirit to do this. And yet, Paul implies, be better than them. Don\'t be weak and sleepy as they were when Christ wanted them awake (Mt. 26:40,41 = 1 Thess. 5:6,7). Strive for the imitation of Christ\'s attitude in the garden (Mt. 26:41 = Eph. 6:18). And yet in Romans 7, a depressed but realistic Paul laments that he fails in this; his description of the losing battle he experienced within him between flesh and spirit is couched in the language of Christ\'s rebuke to the disciples in Gethsemane (the spirit was willing, but the flesh weak).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2066','1','41','14','39','39','<p>14:39 <i>And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words</i>- This is saying the same thing twice. We are enabled to imagine the Lord again walking away from them, as if Matthew&rsquo;s camera is located amongst the disciples and focused upon the rear view of the Lord Jesus.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2067','1','41','14','40','40','<p>14:40 <i>And again he returned and found them sleeping. Their eyes were very heavy-</i> It&rsquo;s clear from all the allusions to the need for watchfulness and the moral failure associated with sleeping, that there was really no adequate excuse for their failure. And yet the record gracefully takes note of the human weakness they were facing. We should not dismiss circumstantial ethics too quickly. Whilst sin remains sin, there is every reason for thinking that God does take circumstance into account in His final judgment of human failures. The only other time the Greek word translated &ldquo;heavy&rdquo; occurs in the Gospels is in Lk. 9:32, where again it is used of heaviness with sleep, and again about Peter, James and John sleeping whilst the Lord was involved in active dialogue with the Father about His forthcoming death: &ldquo;Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep&rdquo;. Mk. 14:40 adds that &ldquo;They did not know what to answer Him&rdquo;, and this likewise was the situation at the transfiguration (Mk. 9:6 s.w.). The events of the transfiguration were to prepare Peter, James and John for the events of Gethsemane; they were supposed to see the similarities, and learn. But they didn&rsquo;t. Likewise circumstances repeat in our lives, as the Father seeks to teach us, hoping we shall learn from one event which is then in essence repeated later. The way the situation here repeats three times, and each time they fail and fall asleep, is another example of how circumstances repeat in the hope that we will learn.</p><p><i>And they did not know what to answer him</i>- Not only did the Lord Jesus \'answer\' to the needs of others, but He Himself was a silent, insistent question that had to be responded to. He came and found the disciples sleeping, and they didn\'t know what to <i>answer</i> Him (Mk. 14:40). His look, the fact that when facing super exhaustion and sleep deprivation He endured in prayer... this was something that demanded, and demands, an answer- <i>even if we can\'t give it</i>. He responds / \'answers\' to us, and we have to respond / answer to Him. This is how His piercing sensitivity, coupled with the height of His devotion, compels the building of real relationship between ourselves and this invisible Man.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2068','1','41','14','41','41','<p>14:41 <i>And he returned a third time- </i>The three failures of Peter to keep awake were clearly meant to portend his forthcoming triple failure. The Lord was seeking to educate him as to his own weakness. But he failed to perceive it. After each failure he would\'ve urged himself not to fail again, and he would\'ve gone through the same thoughts as time after time he denied his Lord later that night. We gasp with wonder at how the Lord was not so focused upon His own struggles that He had no thought for desperately trying to educate his beloved Peter. This is surely the mark of spiritual maturity- being able to never be so obsessed with our own struggles that we forget our responsibilities to our brethren. So often we reason that we must sort out our own issues before we can help others, but this kind of self-centredness would\'ve meant that the Lord failed Himself to be the One He needed to be, both for Himself and for others.</p><p><i>And said to them: Sleep on now- </i>The Lord spoke this to them whilst they were asleep, because in :42 He asks them to arise. A lesser man than the Lord would\'ve been bitterly disappointed, full of fear that His entire mission was open to failure if the material He had so especially focused upon saving was so incredibly weak. But instead in tenderness He speaks to them as a loving parent speaks to their sleeping children. For this seems the only credible interpretation of His words- for immediately afterwards He tells them to awake.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>And take your rest- </i>Seeing the Lord proceeds to immediately awake them from sleep, He must have had some other idea in view apart from taking literal rest. Surely He had in view His earlier invitation to His followers to find rest in Him (Mt. 11:28); He knew that He was dying so that they might have this ultimate rest to their souls.&nbsp;</p><p><i>It is enough. The hour comes- </i>Mt.. \'is approaching\'. Perhaps the Lord noticed the approach of Judas and the soldiers. Mk. 14:41 has &quot;the hour is come&quot;. \'It is approaching... it has come\' would be an appropriate thing to say in soliloquy as the Lord saw the men approaching closer.&nbsp;<i>Eggizo</i>, &ldquo;is at hand&rdquo;, is the very word used specifically about Judas in Mt. 26:46: &ldquo;He is at hand that betrays Me&rdquo;.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners</i>- Remember that the Greek word behind \'betrayal\' means simply to be handed over. Earlier the Lord had spoken of being handed over into the hand or power of men (Mt. 17:22), to the chief priests (Mt. 20:18), to the Gentiles (Mk. 10:33). But now the Lord introduces a moral dimension- He was to be handed over into the power of sin, but would break that power by His resurrection. For the resurrection of the Lord was not simply a vindication of Himself against men, but against the power of sin. And this is what opens up the path to deliverance for all likewise under the power of sin. Surely Heb. 2:14 had this in mind when speaking of how the Lord destroyed &quot;him that had the power of death, that is, the devil&quot;- sin manifested in the powers of Rome and Judaism.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2069','1','41','14','42','42','<p>14:42 <i>Arise Let us be going. He that betrays me is nearby</i>- If this were the simple sense of the Greek, another construction would&rsquo;ve been used. The sense is definitely &lsquo;Let us lead on&rsquo;. Although going into the hands of sinners, the Lord was in control, leading Himself to them- for He insisted that His life was not taken from Him, but rather He gave it of Himself. Judas was leading the soldiers (Lk. 22:47); but the Lord was leading Himself toward them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2070','1','41','14','43','43','<p>14:43 <i>And immediately, while he yet spoke, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd-</i> The appearance of Judas is as it were called forth by the Lord, who went to as it were meet Judas before he even appeared (:42). The Lord had set up the whole situation, and Judas was acting according to plan. The repeated use of &ldquo;Behold&rdquo; or &ldquo;Lo&rdquo; (Mt. 26:45,46,47,51) encourage us to play Bible television with these events. The scene was clearly etched upon the memory of the Gospel writers. Mk. 14:43 Gk. puts it all in the present tense: &ldquo;There comes Judas&hellip;&rdquo;, to encourage us to re-live the incident. The crowd with Judas was a tacit recognition of the fanatic loyalty of the eleven; Judas reckoned that they could put up enough of a fight to require this great multitude.</p><p><i>From the chief priests and the scribes and the elders bearing swords and staves</i>-&nbsp; This little detail accords well with the reality of the situation. Although the Chief Priests had some authority to use the Roman guards to control difficult situations in the temple area, they surely didn&rsquo;t have use of Roman soldiers to arrest a civilian in a garden at night. So these were ruffians rustled up by Judas and the Jewish leaders, which explains why they had staves as well as swords. Staves were hardly the military equipment of professional soldiers, but it fits the idea that the leaders gathered together a crowd of hoods to do this dirty work. And it was only later that the Jews handed the Lord over to Gentile power. &ldquo;Staves&rdquo; translates&nbsp;<i>xulon</i>, the word meaning &lsquo;stake&rsquo; or &lsquo;tree&rsquo; which is used about the cross.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2071','1','41','14','44','44','<p>14:44 <i>Now he that betrayed him had given them a signal, saying- </i>These are the very words more commonly used together about signs being given to the Jewish world by the Lord. Judas was in every way a fake Christ, acting as the real disciple and the true Christ, when in fact he was the very opposite. This is why he as the &ldquo;son of perdition&rdquo; becomes the prototype of the antichrist figure in 2 Thess. 2. Note that &lsquo;anti-Christ&rsquo; doesn&rsquo;t mean so much one who is<i> against</i>&nbsp;Christ as one who mimics the real Christ but is in fact a false one and not the original, despite all appearances.</p><p><i>Whomsoever I shall kiss- </i>The Greek&nbsp;<i>phileo</i>&nbsp;literally means &lsquo;to love&rsquo;. I have mentioned several times the essential similarity between the betrayals of Judas and Peter that same night. When the Lord later asks Peter whether Peter has<i> phileo</i>&nbsp;for Him (Jn. 21:17), He is as it were asking &lsquo;Do you kiss Me, as Judas did?&rsquo;. He is probing Peter to see the similarities between himself and Judas, and to recognize that he was not in fact more loyal and devoted to Jesus than any of the others as Peter had once claimed- and that included even Judas.</p><p><i>That is he. Take him and lead him away safely</i>- The Lord was a well known public figure, having taught openly in Jerusalem in the presence of huge crowds. The need to identify Him indicates that the crowd of hoods being used didn&rsquo;t know who He was, because they were not the types to attend teaching sessions in the temple, or perhaps they weren&rsquo;t locals, or maybe not even Jews. Again we find the ring of truth in how these records are written; if they were anything other than Divinely inspired, there would be all manner of lack of congruence in the details and information given.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2072','1','41','14','45','45','<p>14:45 <i>And when he arrived, immediately he came to him and said: Master, Master; and kissed him</i>- But why did Judas address Him in this way? It could be that the crowd of armed men were still hidden, and he came alone to make this act of identification of Jesus- again suggesting that the crowd of hired hoods were unclear as to which one of the group of disciples was Jesus. This is why :46 says that after the kiss, &quot;then came they&quot;- Judas was alone when he first approached the Lord. Although the Lord later protests that He had been with \'them\' in the temple teaching, presumably that comment was directed only at the leadership of the group. Or perhaps it was simply because in the darkness it was not clear who was who, and Judas needed to make the identification for that reason. He needed to be alone to make that identification- he would\'ve been unable to do it if he had approached Jesus and the disciples with the crowd of men next to him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2073','1','41','14','46','46','<p>14:46 <i>And they arrested him</i>- The Lord uses the same expression about the sufferings of the faithful in the very last generation (Lk. 21:12), as He seeks to bring them to know the essence of His death, seeing that that generation will not taste of death but be given immortality at the judgment seat.&nbsp;</p><p><i>And took him away</i>- Literally, they had power over Him. The same word is used in Heb. 2:14 about how the Lord overcame the \'devil\' who had the \'power\' of death. They had the power, apparently, externally. But the paradox was that by willingly giving Himself over to it, He had power over the \'devil\' of sin, both abstractly as sin, and also in all forms of its political manifestation, in this case, the Roman and Jewish authorities.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2074','1','41','14','47','47','<p>14:47 <i>But one of the disciples that was standing nearby drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear</i>- Perhaps the detail is provided as backdrop for the Lord&rsquo;s response- that whoever&nbsp;<i>takes</i>&nbsp;the sword shall perish by it (Mt. 26:52). Peter did indeed take the sword- but by grace was saved from the consequence. He clearly aimed to strike off the man\'s head, but he ducked and Peter only caught his ear.</p><p>The material from Mark is about the same as in Matthew, but Luke and John add various details. Here is Matthew&rsquo;s account of the arrest in the Garden, with the details from Luke 22 and John 18 (on which see commentary) added in square brackets:</p><p>&ldquo;The hour is at hand and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Arise Let us be going. He that betrays me is nearby. And while he yet spoke, Judas, one of the twelve, came; and with him a great crowd with swords and staves, from the chief priest and elders of the people. Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he. Take him. Lk. 22:47,48 He drew near to Jesus to kiss him. But Jesus said to him: Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss? And immediately he came to Jesus, and said, Greetings, Rabbi; and kissed him. And Jesus said to him: Friend, do what you came to do. Lk. 22 And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said: Lord, shall we strike with the sword?. Then they came. Jn. 18:4-9&nbsp;Jesus knowing all the things that must come upon him, went forward and said to them: Whom do you seek? They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said to them: I am he (Judas, the one who betrayed him, was standing with them). When he said to them: I am he, they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them: Whom do you seek? And they said: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered: I told you that I am he. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way- that the word might be fulfilled which he spoke: Of those whom you have given me I lost not one. then they laid hands on Jesus and took him. And one of those with Jesus Jn. 18 Simon Peter stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear Jn. 18 his right ear. Now the servant\'s name was Malchus. Then said Jesus to him: No more of this Lk. 22:51 Put away your sword into its place, into its sheath, Jn. 18 for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Do you think I cannot ask my Father and He shall, even now, send me more than twelve legions of Angels? Jn. 18:11 The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it? Lk. 22:51 And he touched his ear and healed him. But how then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way? In that hour Jesus said to the mob: Have you come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me? I sat daily in the temple teaching and you did not take me. Lk. 22 But this is your hour, and the power of darkness. But all this is happening so that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him and fled. Lk. 22 And they seized him and led him away, and brought him into the high priest\'s house. And Peter followed from a distance&rdquo;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2075','1','41','14','48','48','<p>14:48 <i>And Jesus said to them: Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?</i>- The same word used about Jesus and the disciples &lsquo;going out&rsquo; from the Upper Room to Gethsemane (Mt. 26:30; Jn. 18:1), and Jesus &lsquo;going forth&rsquo; to meet the crowd of armed men (Jn. 18:4). The impression is given of a head on meeting between the forces of light and darkness.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2076','1','41','14','49','49','<p>14:49 <i>I was daily with you in the temple teaching and you did not arrest me- </i>The Lord was addressing the leadership of the group, who had sat daily in the temple over the past week and heard Him. They knew what He looked like, He had sat&nbsp;<i>pros humas,&nbsp;</i>&quot;with you&quot; (AV), not so much &ldquo;with you&rdquo; as &lsquo;directly facing you&rsquo;, sitting down in front of them and therefore at close range. Therefore the need for Judas to identify the Lord with a kiss, to prove &ldquo;that same is He&rdquo;, was because the mass of armed men didn&rsquo;t know who He was, and had therefore not sat in the temple. Again we see the Lord recognizing that men are only who they are, the hired thugs were no more than hired thugs acting in ignorance; but the leaders who were present were the ones He wanted to address. This is confirmed by Lk. 22:52 stating that &ldquo;Jesus said to the chief priests and captains of the temple and elders that had come against him: Have you come as against a robber, with swords and staves?&rdquo;. The priests and elders were in that large crowd, and the Lord directly addresses them. So although He addressed &ldquo;the multitudes&rdquo;, His message was aimed at specific individuals within the crowd. This is true of much of Scripture; perhaps those parts we personally fail to understand are speaking to a particular group in need of that message, perhaps in a previous age, and it may not be as directly intended for us as it was to them. The correspondence between the narratives is detailed and deeply credible. Uninspired writers would surely not only contradict themselves, but lack this artless congruence between each other which we find in the inspired Gospel records. Lk. 22:53 adds that the Lord continued to say: &ldquo;But this is your hour, and the power of darkness&rdquo;. The sense is surely that in broad daylight they dared not lay hold on Him- they had to do it under cover of darkness, because they were of the darkness.</p><p><i>But this is done that the scriptures might be fulfilled</i>- This can be read as part of the Lord&rsquo;s words, or the comment of Matthew. &ldquo;Is happening&rdquo; is translated &ldquo;was done&rdquo; in the AV. See on :54; the emphasis upon the fulfilment of Scripture is not merely noting a correspondence between New Testament event and Old Testament scripture. Rather I suggest is the idea that the Lord chose to be obedient to God&rsquo;s word and will, to make it His own, to the highest possible extent, to the point of total personal identification with it; when by its nature, God&rsquo;s prophetic word has various possibilities of fulfilments on different levels, some of which would have enabled the Lord to bypass the cross. The specific reference may be to Ps. 31:11. This refers to how David\'s family appear to have later disowned him during Saul&rsquo;s persecution, fleeing from him, as the Lord&rsquo;s friends also did.</p><p>There is a sense of compulsion associated with the cross. The Greek word <i>dei</i>, translated &ldquo;must&quot; or &ldquo;ought&quot;, is repeatedly used by the Lord in reference to His death. He spoke of that death as the coming of His hour, as if always and in all things He felt a compulsion that He must die as He was to. Listing the references chronologically gives an impressive list:<br />&ldquo;I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures <i>must be fulfilled</i>&quot; (Mark 14:49). Three times in say 30 minutes, the Lord has stressed the compulsion of the cross. <br />&ldquo;And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so <i>must</i> the Son of man be lifted up&quot; (John 3:14)<br />&ldquo;From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he <i>must</i> go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders&quot; (Mt. 16:21).<br />&ldquo;And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; Saying, The Son of man <i>must suffer </i>many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and <i>must </i>be slain, and be raised the third day&quot; (Luke 9:21-22).<br />&ldquo;And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he<i> must suffer </i>many things, and be set at nought&quot; (Mark 9:12). These last three references all occurred within a day of each other, if not a few hours. The Lord at least three times was emphasizing how He <i>must</i> die the death of the cross.<br />&ldquo;Nevertheless <i>I must</i> walk to day, and tomorrow, and the day following: for <i>it cannot be </i>that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem&quot; (Luke 13:33)<br />&ldquo;But first i.e. most importantly, not just chronologically<i> must he </i>suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation&quot; (Luke 17:25).<br />&ldquo;And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die. The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man <i>must be lifted up</i>? who is this Son of man?&quot; (John 12:32-34). When the Lord spoke of &ldquo;<i>If</i> I be lifted up&quot;, there was no doubt about it. The idiom was correctly understood by the people as meaning: &ldquo;I absolutely <i>must</i>&quot;. And for them this was a contradiction in terms: a &ldquo;son of man&quot; Messiah who <i>must</i> be crucified. <br />&ldquo;Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover <i>must</i> be killed&quot; (Luke 22:7). <br />&ldquo;As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also <i>I must </i>bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again&quot; (John 10:15-17). Embedded in the context of prediction of the cross, the Lord described that act as being how He <i>must</i> bring His sheep unto Himself. <br />&ldquo;But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that <i>thus it must be</i>?... For I say unto you, that this that is written <i>must yet be accomplished </i>in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me <i>have an end</i>&quot; (Matt 26:54; Luke 22:37). See on Lk. 24:6.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2077','1','41','14','50','50','<p>14:50 <i>And all the disciples left him</i>- Although the Lord had set up the opportunity for them to flee by stunning the armed men and telling them to allow the disciples free exit, they were still forsaking Him by doing so. And it still hurt the Lord. He simply knew their spiritual capabilities, and was giving them a lower level escape route. One size simply doesn&rsquo;t fit all; He didn&rsquo;t deal with them on a legalistic level of demanding obedience to a certain standard, failing which they were rejected. Neither does He work like that today. Their forsaking of Him sets the scene for His final agonized cry to the Father: &ldquo;Why have&nbsp;<i>You</i>&nbsp;forsaken Me?&rdquo; (Mt. 27:46). His disciples had, the inner circle of ministering women and His own mother had walked away from the cross- and now He felt even the Father forsaking Him, despite earlier having said that &ldquo;He that sent Me is with Me: the Father has not left Me alone s.w. &lsquo;forsake&rsquo;&rdquo; (Jn. 8:29).</p><p><i>And fled</i>- Their action is emphasized by the usage of both words, forsake and fled. Typically the Gospel writers emphasize their own weakness and failures, all as part of their compelling appeal to others to respond to the message they themselves had been so slow to grasp.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2078','1','41','14','51','51','<p>14:51 <i>And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him</i>- It is possible to argue that the young man who followed Jesus and then ran away was in fact Peter; it was Peter who &quot;followed him&quot; at this time (Mt. 26:58). Mk. 14:54 RV tells us after this incident that &ldquo;<i>Peter</i> had followed him afar off&rdquo;. Peter describes himself in the third person a few verses previously: &ldquo;A certain one of them that stood by drew a sword&hellip;&rdquo; (Mk. 14:47 RV). And then we go on to read in v. 51 of &ldquo;a certain young man&rdquo; (RV). But when speaking of his denials, Peter records them in the first person- he totally owns up to them. All of Mk. 14:27-52 concerns Peter&rsquo;s part in the story, and then vv. 54-72 likewise. So it is likely that the record of the young man following disguised in a linen cloth is in fact referring to Peter too. So Peter followed, ran back, followed again, then ran away to Galilee, and then followed again. This was how hard it was for him to pick up the cross of identification with Jesus and follow Him. And for us too.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2079','1','41','14','52','52','<p>14:52 <i>But he left the linen cloth and fled naked</i>- If indeed the man was Peter, then he was demonstrating that he was not in fact prepared to go to prison and death with his Lord, as he had so confidently claimed. He ought to have taken this as a warning against being so confident that he would not deny his lord.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2080','1','41','14','53','53','<p>14:53 <i>And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and there came together all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes</i>- This recalls Psalm 2; the Gentiles gathered together against the Christ in Jerusalem. Those pious men were no more than Gentiles.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2081','1','41','14','54','54','<p>14:54 <i>And Peter had followed him at a distance- </i>This following of Peter is recorded in the same words by all three Synoptics. It impressed them all as perhaps typical of so much of their &lsquo;following&rsquo; the Lord; it was a following, but far off from Him. His challenge to Peter had been to not just physically follow Him, but to pick up His cross and walk behind Him on His way to His cross (Mt. 16:24 s.w.). Following Jesus in the shadows and avoiding identification with Him was hardly the kind of following which He intended. Yet Peter recognized this, because his appeal for repentance describes his audience as likewise &ldquo;afar off&rdquo; (Acts 2:39 s.w.); he is asking them to make the conversion which he did, and he thereby considers his &lsquo;following afar off&rsquo; as not really following at all, and being in a &lsquo;far off from Christ&rsquo; position from which he repented and thereby &lsquo;came near&rsquo; to Christ in conversion. The Greek words for &lsquo;followed&rsquo; and &lsquo;afar off&rsquo; are also used about how the few remaining disciples stood &lsquo;afar off&rsquo; from Christ on the cross. The sense is perhaps that the Gospel writers recognized how far they were from co-crucifixion with Christ, and this sense is one we can identify with. And we are those likewise described in Ephesians as &ldquo;far off&rdquo; as Peter was, but are now likewise reconciled.</p><p><i>Right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire</i>- &quot;Into&quot; is the same word used by the Lord in warning Peter not to &quot;enter into&quot; temptation (Lk. 22:46). And it is used again of how Satan entered into Judas (Jn. 13:27), again drawing a parallel between the path of both Peter and Judas- the difference finally being simply that Peter believed in the Lord\'s grace whereas Judas could not.</p><p>Mt. <i>&quot;</i>and sat with the officers&quot;. The presence of the definite article suggests that &quot;the servants&quot; the Greek also means &quot;officers&quot; are a group which has already been mentioned, and surely they are the &quot;servants&quot; who comprised the crowd of armed men who arrested Jesus in the Garden. The same word is used three times about them in Jn. 18:3,12,18. The risk Peter was taking was considerable, seeing he had visibly been with the Lord in the Garden and had tried to kill one of the servants. We must give due weight to this- his devotion to his Lord was incomplete but all the same must be recognized for what it was as far as it was. So often those who aim higher than others in their spiritual devotions are those who fall the most publicly, and yet their devotion to their Lord should not be forgotten- for it is higher than the mass of other disciples.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2082','1','41','14','55','55','<p>14:55 <i>Now the chief priests and the whole council-</i> Gk. \'the Sanhedrin\'. All of them participated in desiring or requiring Gk.; AV &quot;sought&quot; false witness against Jesus. And yet within that group was Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews (Jn. 3:1- and &quot;all&quot; the Jewish leaders condemned Jesus to death, 27:1); and Joseph, who is specifically called a member of the Council (Mk. 15:43; Lk. 23:50). Perhaps this is an example of where &quot;all&quot; is used in Biblical languages in a general but not strictly literal sense. Lk. 23:51 says that Joseph had not &quot;consented&quot; with the Council. The Greek can mean specifically to vote, but also to simply \'agree\'. Perhaps he voted against their decision; or perhaps his lack of consent was deeply internal. In any case, it seems that it was only after the Lord was pronounced dead that he \'came out\' publicly in open identification with the Lord (note &quot;after this...&quot;, Jn. 19:38). We see here the grace of God, in not holding against those men the way that they passively went along with the decision to crucify God\'s Son. Their strong internal disagreement was noted. We are reminded of how not all Joseph\'s brothers went along with the plan to kill him, but their silence meant that the plan went ahead. We likewise should show grace to those who go along with decisions which are deeply wrong and hurtful. This is not to say that they were correct in their lack of commitment, but we may well have done the same. And we can take a lesson from the Father\'s gracious attitude to those who would not immediately stand up and be counted for the Lord\'s cause. This affects our decision making in terms of disciplining those who do things like responding to military call up, voting under duress or other things which are against the Lord\'s will, which are failures... and yet ultimately God may very well extend the same grace to them as He did to Joseph and Nicodemus. And He tends to use circumstances to make a person finally come out in the open about their views, because secret discipleship is an oxymoron and His desire is that we are as a city set on a hill which cannot be hid.</p><p><i>Sought evidence against Jesus to put him to death, and did not find it</i>- The word is only used elsewhere in the Gospels about the way that the faithful will experience being \'put to death\' in the final tribulation (Mt. 10:21; Mk. 13:12; Lk. 21:16). The sufferings of the tribulation will enable the last generation to identify with the sufferings of Christ, and thus to share His resurrection life.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2083','1','41','14','56','56','<p>14:56 <i>For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree</i>- This is twice emphasized in this verse. Yet there were many false witnesses made. Presumably their legalistic minds insisted on giving the Lord \'a fair trial\'; part of their minds were clouded by hatred and wickedness, and yet another part of their minds was set on strict legalistic obedience to God and the principles of legal integrity. In this we see the schizophrenic nature of the human mind. No matter what heights of devotion and understanding we may reach, we can never assume that we are totally with the Lord. And likewise we should not assume that others are either perfectly, totally spiritual or totally unspiritual. Sadly the human mind is capable of operating in different directions at once.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2084','1','41','14','57','57','<p>14:57 <i>And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying</i>- Mt.- there were two. The semblance of legal integrity they were following required that at least two and preferably three witnesses made the same accusation. The legalism of the Jews is emphasized, not least in their fear of ritual defilement at Passover time (Jn. 18:28). They held themselves to legal obedience and integrity, whilst committing the ultimate sin, of condemning the Son of God to a cruel death. The hatred they unleashed upon Him was done by men who were rigorously obedient to commandments; their abuse of Him would therefore have been justified by them as some form of obedience to Divine principle. And this is why religious people can be the most abusive and cruel of any- if the principles they are wedded to are wrong, and if they have not perceived grace.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2085','1','41','14','58','58','<p>14:58 <i>We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands</i>- They were misquoting Him, and their witness did not agree, each of the two men reported His words differently (Mk. 14:59). And this lack of agreement between witnesses, &quot;many&quot; of them, was what had delayed proceedings to this point. But finally these evil men gave up all semblance of legal integrity- for time was running out. They thus condemned themselves even by the legal standards they were holding themselves to. The technical reason for His death sentence, therefore, was a supposed plan to destroy the temple, to commit the ultimate sacrilege. But what the Lord had said was that&nbsp;<i>they&nbsp;</i>would destroy the temple, referring to Himself, but after three days He would raise it up (Jn. 2:19). It was in fact they and not Him who were guilty of the crime of destroying the temple; indeed, the literal temple was finally destroyed exactly because of them. They condemned Him for what they themselves were guilty of. Legalists are so often led by the Lord to positions wherein they condemn themselves by their own standards, words and demands. The trial of Jesus is the ultimate expose of legalism.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2086','1','41','14','59','59','<p>14:59 <i>But not even then did their testimony agree</i>- The utter weakness of the case is emphasized. They could not even agree amongst themselves as to what false story to give.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2087','1','41','14','60','60','<p>14:60 <i>And the high priest stood up in their midst and asked Jesus-</i> As a judge arises to give the verdict.</p><p><i>Do you answer nothing?- </i>One reason for the Lord\'s silence was in order to allow them to condemn themselves. But His self-control at His trials caused marvel amongst those who observed it, and it should to us too. For when justice and truth are so obviously not being upheld, all that is within us as humans cries out against it. Campaigns against injustice always gather mass support- it\'s very much a part of our human nature. But the Lord in this context said nothing. He let the unjust condemn themselves.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>What is this that these witnesses say against you?</i>- The Greek could equally be translated \'Who are these that these testify against you?\'. We wonder whether one of them was Judas, and whether the other was some other former disciple. The High Priest\'s point would therefore have been \'Come on, these are Your own men who are testifying You said this. And you remain silent?\'. The pain of betrayal would have been intense. Surely the deal with Judas had involved his being a legal witness at the trial. But the fact his witness did not agree with the other man&rsquo;s witness showed yet again that their careful plans simply didn&rsquo;t work out; see on Mt. 26:5. The Lord Jesus freely gave His life, rather than having it taken from Him by the working out of carefully laid clever plans. Those plans failed. But He gave His life.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2088','1','41','14','61','61','<p>14:61 <i>But he held his peace and said nothing- </i>The High Priest \'answered\' to this silence, according to Matthew. Silence is itself a statement, a word. Is. 57:11 reasons with Israel that despite their sins, God had \'held His peace\' in not judging them, and yet they still did not respect Him. Perhaps the Lord held His peace because all He could really speak in response was judgment against them. And He did not want to do that overmuch, He wanted to give them the maximum time for repentance before having to speak the inevitable judgment upon them. The answer He finally gives is not an answer to the accusations, but rather a pronouncement of judgment. And this is why, it seems to me, that He \'held His peace\'- in order to give them the maximum opportunity to repent, and He was counting almost every second now. This desire for human repentance is a fundamental part of the Lord, as it should be part of our basic personality in Christ. This same Lord works moment by moment with us likewise, to bring us to repentance. This is His earnest desire.</p><p><i>Again the high priest questioned him, saying: Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?</i>- The technical reason for condemning Him was a supposed plot to destroy the temple building, but now the judge moves on to make another accusation, the issue which was most important to him and the Jews, but which was not of itself a criminal accusation which could be then transferred to Roman judgment with a request for a death penalty. But&nbsp;<i>contra</i>&nbsp;this there is the possibility that because Caesar declared himself to be the son of God and the anointed one, any man claiming to be that could be reported to the Romans and be condemned to death. In terms of legal procedure, their behaviour was wrong. The accusation shifted from one count to another, reflecting the clear desire of the judge to secure a condemnation regardless of procedure or witnesses. If this line of thought is correct, then it follows that confession of faith in any person as being &quot;the Christ, the Son of God&quot; was a criminal offence worthy of death. The crucifixion of the Lord for making this claim was therefore creating a legal precedent for the death by crucifixion of anyone else who believed there was such a person alive within the Roman empire. And the Gospels are studded with examples of confession of faith in &quot;the Christ, the Son of God&quot; (16:16; Lk. 4:41; Jn. 6:69; 11:27). The whole intention of the Gospel records was to bring people to make that same profession of faith in &quot;the Christ, the Son of God&quot; (Mk. 1:1; Jn. 20:31). Those parchments and the rehearsing of them would therefore have been forbidden material. In our age it may appear painless to confess faith in &quot;the Christ, the Son of God&quot;, but it is no less radical in the separation it requires from the spirit of the societies in which we live.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2089','1','41','14','62','62','<p>14:62- see on Mt. 24:28.</p><p><i>And Jesus said: I am, and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven</i>-</p><p>The allusion is clearly to Daniel\'s vision of the Son of Man coming in glory to judge the Gentile world. And the Lord is saying that those hyper religious Jews were effectively condemned Gentiles before God. But those men to whom He spoke died in their beds. Lifespans were short in first century Palestine, most males were dead by 40. Most of them wouldn\'t even have lived to experience the calamity of AD67-70. They will only therefore &quot;see the Son of Man sitting...&quot; at His return, when they are resurrected and see Him in His glory. And this will be of itself their condemnation- to see Him there enthroned in glory, and themselves not in His Kingdom. This was exactly His teaching to them in 23:39: &quot;You shall not see Me from this time forward, until you shall say: Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord&quot;. They will then bless Him- but all too tragically late.</p><p>At His trial, the Lord warned them that He would come again as judge (Mt. 26:64,65), as if He realized that they were living out a foretaste of the final judgment. The thief likewise understood the Lord\'s presence as being the presence of the judge who would finally judge him (Lk. 23:44). Harry Whittaker points out that the cross divided men: there were women who followed and mourned insincerely, and the women who really followed. There were soldiers who gambled over the Lord\'s clothes, and one who really repented. There was a thief who repented and one who wouldn\'t. There were those who mocked and others who watched and believed.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2090','1','41','14','63','63','<p>14:63 <i>And the high priest tore his clothes and said- </i>Declaring the end of his priesthood, to be replaced by the Lord Jesus. The Lord was crucified for blasphemy; this was the charge on which He was found guilty at His trial by the Jews, and the basis upon which they demanded His crucifixion. The Mishnah claims that this was only possible if someone actually used the Yahweh Name.&nbsp;<i>Sanhedrin</i>&nbsp;7.5 outlines the protocol for condemning someone for this, in terms which have accurate correspondence with the Lord&rsquo;s trial: &ldquo;The blasphemer is not guilty until he have expressly uttered the Name... When the trial is over... the judges stand up and rend their clothes&quot; (Quoted in F.F. Bruce,&nbsp;<i>The Spreading Flame (</i>Grand Rapids: Eerdmans<i>, </i>1995 ed.), p. 53). So when the Lord responded to their question as to His Messiahship by saying &ldquo;I am&quot;, and went on to appropriate the Messianic words of Dan. 7:13 and Ps. 110:1 to Himself, He must have explicitly used the Yahweh Name about Himself. This is why they were so quick to accuse Him of blasphemy, and why the High Priest rent his clothes. The Lord died because He declared the Yahweh Name, unashamedly, knowing that His declaration of it would take Him to the cross. Our declaration of the essence of Yahweh, by truthfulness, forgiveness... this may cost us, although maybe not so dearly. Yet we can be inspired by the Lord&rsquo;s example.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>What further need have we of witnesses?</i>- Again, legal procedure, which they had tried so carefully to follow, was made a mockery of. They began with a conviction of plotting to destroy the temple buildings, then turned that into an accusation that He was a &quot;Christ, the Son of God&quot;, a rival to Caesar; and now they jump on the charge of blasphemy, for which they gave Him the death penalty. And yet the Jews had no legal power to execute people; they had to present their case to the Roman authorities. And blasphemy was not a capital offence under Roman law. Their careful attempts to follow legal integrity broke down in pathetic collapse, and thereby they condemned themselves. The same word,&nbsp;<i>blasphemeo</i>, is then used of how the Jews &quot;reviled&quot; or blasphemed the Lord as He hung on the cross (27:39; Lk. 22:65). They had earlier accused the Lord of blasphemy at least twice during His ministry (Mt. 9:3; Jn. 10:36 s.w.). So they should have thought of that earlier in the trial, seeing they themselves were the witnesses of that supposed crime. We are left with the impression of a judge and jury increasingly desperate to find the Lord guilty, progressively throwing their integrity and legalism to the winds in their obsession to make Him guilty of death. Little wonder that Pilate later remonstrated with them that Jesus was simply not legally guilty of any capital offence. But the more he made that point to them, the more they screamed for His death.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2091','1','41','14','64','64','<p>14:64 <i>You have heard the blasphemy. What think you?- </i>The spiritual culture of Almighty God is shown by the way in which although <i>all</i> the Council (Mk. 14:64), including Joseph, condemned Christ to death by crucifixion, God overlooks Joseph\'s lack of boldness in not contesting this, and speaks of him in such glowing spiritual terms. His \'not consenting unto\' Christ\'s death was deep within him. I would be inclined to say: \'The <i>least</i> you could have done was to have abstained from the vote\'. But the record is far more positive than that. No note is made of Joseph or Nicodemus speaking out against it. The mob ruled, despite all the appearances of jurisprudence, spiritual and legal integrity. And yet the record speaks so positively of those two men. Perhaps this is because the Gospel records were encouraging those who had offered a pinch of incense to Caesar, or in some other way been silent in the Roman world when they should have stood up and been counted, that God\'s grace was still with them- even though ultimately, providence tends to overrule circumstances so that we do have to stand up openly.</p><p><i>And they all condemned him to be worthy of death</i>- The Lord had earlier taught that whoever calls their brother \'Raca\', worthless, would be &quot;guilty&quot; s.w. before &quot;the Council&quot;, the Sanhedrin (5:21,22). He had in mind that the Sanhedrin of the Jews was not the ultimate court of judgment for God\'s people, but rather the Heavenly council of Angels, presided over by God Almighty. The Lord must surely have been aware of this as the men of that human Sanhedrin condemned and abused Him. Human committees, courts or even groups of friends and family members are not the ultimate Sanhedrin; judge us as they may, the ultimate court is in Heaven. The same word for &quot;guilty&quot; is found in 1 Cor. 11:27, where Paul urges us to self-examination at the Lord\'s table lest we be guilty of His body and blood. The allusion shows that we as baptized believers can be no better than those evil men- unless we perceive Him and His death for what they really are.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2092','1','41','14','65','65','<p>14:65 <i>And some began to spit on him and to cover his face- </i>This was done by men who just minutes beforehand had been carefully upholding some isolated principles of Divine law and general legal integrity. Their appearance of culture vanished. They only could have been so crude and cruel if they first justified it in terms of their religion; spitting and beating would have been justified by them as the punishment due to a heretic. But here we see how they were justifying their own natural anger and jealousy by taking a tiny shard of Biblical precedent- for only in Dt. 25:2 do we have any justification for legal beating, and once it was finished, then there was to be no other punishment. The beating was to be on his back and not on his face; and there was no talk of spitting. But the Jews took that and used it to justify spitting in the Lord\'s<i> face</i>, beating Him with their fists and then further condemning Him to death. The only command to spit in the face of a man was if he refused to raise up children for his dead relative (Dt. 25:9); but this was totally irrelevant to the Lord Jesus. He in any case was the ultimate example of a man who did build up His Father\'s house. There is anger in each of us, and religious people at times give full vent to that anger by justifying it as righteous anger, grabbing hold of the vague implication of some Bible verse and taking it way beyond the obvious meaning of the verse. In doing so, they are behaving no better than these the very worst of men who have ever lived, committing the worst ever crime ever committed in the cosmos. The face of Jesus shone at times with God\'s glory; He was the face of God to men. And they spat in that face, and beat it. The wonder was that the Lord had specifically foreseen this- He had predicted that they would spit at Him (Mk. 10:34). He foresaw how they would fuel their anger against Him with their persuasion that He was a heretic.&nbsp;</p><p><i>Striking him- </i>Slapping Him. A Semitic insult to a heretic. Again, their anger was fuelled by and excused by their religious convictions. This slapping (whilst He was blindfolded, Lk. 22:64) was connected to their question: &quot;Prophesy to us, you Christ Who is he that struck you?&quot; (:68). Clearly they were seeking to test His claim to be the Christ. They thought that the Christ could demonstrate supernatural knowledge; and He had already demonstrated that multiple times. They clearly had in mind a section from the uninspired Psalms of Solomon, where false Messiahs were to be tested in this way. The warning to us is to never allow fragments of Scripture or our religious tradition or beloved writings to justify us in expressing our anger in this way.&nbsp;</p><p><i>And saying to him: Prophesy- </i>They had blindfolded Him, and were challenging Him to exercise the prophetic gift of discernment by saying the name of the soldier who had struck Him. We note that \'prophesy\' is not to be understood solely as the prediction of future events. The fact is, the Lord did know who had struck Him. They were clearly alluding to the fact that the Jews had concluded the Lord was a false prophet and false Christ and were punishing Him as such.</p><p><i>And the guards took him and beat him with their hands</i>- Men smote &ldquo;the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek&quot; (Mic. 5:1). The RVmg. of Mk. 14:65 says that the Lord was hit with &ldquo;strokes of rods&quot;. Perhaps it was in this sense that the rod comforted Messiah (Ps. 23:4) in that He saw immediately that prophecy was being fulfilled in Him. Our darkest moments likewise can be our greatest encouragement if only we perceive them as we should. As men mocked Him and smote Him, thus they were treating their judge at the time of judgment. In His time of dying, the Lord Jesus was the judge of Israel. This explains why when we come before the cross, not only at the breaking of bread but <i>whenever</i> we come into contact with Him, or reflect upon Him and His death, we are in some sense coming before Him in judgment.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2093','1','41','14','66','66','<p>14:66 <i>And as Peter was downstairs in the courtyard, there came- </i>Jn. 18:17 says that the girl was keeping the door and let Peter through. As the door keeper she would have looked carefully at his face in the light of a torch. And then she came to him as he was sitting by the fire (Lk.), say some minutes later, as she realized who he was. This again has the ring of congruence about it, indicating how perfectly the records dovetail.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>One of the maids of the high priest</i>- Gk. \'a servant girl\', &quot;one of the servant girls of the High Priest&quot; (Mk. 14:66). Her claim that &quot;You also were with Jesus&quot; may specifically refer to Peter\'s presence with Jesus in Gethsemane, for&rdquo;&nbsp;the servants&quot; of the High Priest had been there. Perhaps she was one of them. She describes Peter as being&nbsp;<i>meta&nbsp;</i>Jesus &quot;you were with Jesus&quot;, and the same phrase&nbsp;<i>meta&nbsp;</i>Jesus is used to described the disciples being&nbsp;<i>meta </i>Jesus in Gethsemane (Mt. 26:36,51). Or since the Lord was a public figure in Jerusalem, it would be likely that Peter was known as one of those ever to be seen hanging around Him. Jn. 18:17 gives further information about her: &quot;The maid keeping watch at the door said to Peter: Are you also one of this man\'s disciples? He said: I am not&quot;. The only other time we read of a servant girl who was a door keeper is in Acts 12:16, where the servant girl s.w. called Rhoda was the door keeper at the home of the disciples in Jerusalem, and is thrilled when she realizes that it is Peter knocking at the door asking her to let him in. Note that &quot;door keeper&quot; is likely a technical term, a kind of profession. This heightens the similarity between the two characters. The similarities with the scene in Jn. 18:17 are too strong to be passed off as unintentional; for here Peter has to have the door to the courtyard opened by the servant girl, and it is at the gate that she recognizes him. Peter\'s failure, his denials, were the basis of his successful appeals for Israel to follow his pattern of repentance. Thousands heard him make those appeals in Jerusalem, for if a few thousand were baptized in one day, we can be sure that many others heard the message and didn\'t act upon it. It\'s highly likely that that servant girl was in the crowd, and was one who responded. I suggest that Rhoda was that servant girl, converted by Peter\'s failure, repentance and experience of forgiveness. She converted from serving the Jewish High Priest to serving the Heavenly High Priest, the Lord Jesus; from being one of the crowd who went out to arrest Jesus, to being one who glorified His resurrection.&nbsp;</p><table border=1 cellspacing=3 cellpadding=0 width=100%>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Matthew</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Mark</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Luke</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>John</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Accusation 1</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a   maid came to him, saying: You also were with Jesus the Galilean.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And as Peter was downstairs in the courtyard,   there came one of the maids of the high priest.&nbsp; And seeing Peter   warming himself, she looked at him and said: You also were with the Nazarene,   Jesus</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of   the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat among them. And a certain   maid seeing him as he sat in the light of the fire and looking earnestly upon   him, said: This man also was with him.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another   disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest; and he entered with   Jesus into the court of the high priest.&nbsp; But Peter was standing outside   the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out   and spoke to the maid who kept watch at the door. The maid keeping watch at   the door said to Peter: Are you also one of this man\'s disciples?</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Denial 1</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>But he denied before them all, saying: I do not   know what you say.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>But he denied it, saying: I neither know, nor   understand what you say; and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>But he denied it, saying: Woman, I do not know   him.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>He said: I am not</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Accusation 2</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And when he went out to the entrance, another   maid saw him and said to the bystanders: This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And the maid saw him and began again to say to   them that stood by: This is one of them</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And after a little while another person saw him   and said: You also are one of them.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Now the servants and the officers were standing   there, having made a fire of coals. For it was cold, and they were warming   themselves; and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself... Now   Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him: Are you also   one of his disciples?</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Denial 2</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And again he denied with an oath: I do not know   the man.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>But he again denied it.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>But Peter said: Man, I am not.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>He denied and said: I am not</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Accusation 3</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And after a little while they that stood by came   and said to Peter: Of a truth you also are one of them, for your dialect   makes you known.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And after a little while, again they that stood   by said to Peter: Of a truth you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And after the space of about one hour another   confidently affirmed, saying: Of a truth, this man also was with him. For he   is a Galilean.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>One of the servants of the high priest, being a   relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said: Did I not see you in the   garden with him?</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Denial 3</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Then he began to curse and to swear: I do not   know the man And immediately the cock crowed.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>But he began to curse and to swear under oath: I   do not know this man of whom you speak. And immediately the second time the   cock crew</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>But Peter said: Man, I do not know what you say.   And immediately, as he spoke, the cock crew.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Peter denied again; and immediately the   cock crew.</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Peter\'s response 1</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And Peter remembered the words which Jesus had   said: Before the cock crows, you shall deny me three times.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And Peter remembered what Jesus had said to him:   Before the cock crows twice, you shall deny me three times.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And   Peter remembered the word of the Lord that he had said to him: Before the   cock crow this day, you shall deny me three times.&nbsp;</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Peter goes out</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And he went out and wept bitterly.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And as he thought upon it, he wept.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>And he went out and wept bitterly.</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2094','1','41','14','67','67','<p>14:67 <i>And seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said: You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus</i>-</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2095','1','41','14','68','68','<p>14:68 <i>But he denied it, saying-</i> Matthew stresses the denial was before them all. Peter was living out the scene of condemnation at the last day, where the verdict likewise will be manifest &quot;before all&quot;. The Lord had used the same word in saying that whoever denied Him &quot;before men&quot; cp. &quot;before all&quot;, He will deny before the Father at the last day (Mt. 10:33). Peter appealed for Israel to repent on the basis that they had &quot;denied&quot; Christ (Acts 3:13,14 s.w.)- he is appealing for them to realize that they had done what he had done, and yet they could repent, convert and experience the same grace he had done. His appeal, made a stone\'s throw from where the denials were made and only 6 weeks later, was therefore so powerful. Peter likewise used his failure in his pastoral work with his converts, warning them that to even deny the Lord who redeemed us is the worst possible thing we can do (2 Pet. 2:1). Likewise 1 Jn. 2:22,23 speaks of denying Christ as being the characteristic of the AntiChrist. And John wrote in the context of the early church having Peter as its first leader, and John of course was fully aware of Peter\'s failure that night.</p><p>Peter in this life denied his Lord&nbsp;<i>in front of men</i>&nbsp;(Mt. 26:70)- and the record of his failure intentionally looks back to the Lord\'s warning that whoever denies Him&nbsp;<i>before men&nbsp;</i>will be denied by Him at judgment day (Mt. 10:33). He sinned, and in the court of Heaven was condemned. There is a passage in Proverbs 24:11,12 which has a strange relevance to Peter\'s self-condemnation. Having spoken of those being led away to death (the very context of Peter\'s denial), we read: &quot;If thou sayest, Behold we know not this man: doth not he that weigheth the hearts consider it? And shall not he render to every man according to his works?&quot;. This last phrase is quoted in Rev. 22:12 about the final judgment. Paul seems to consciously link Peter&rsquo;s church hypocrisy and legalism with his earlier denials that he had ever known the Lord Jesus. He writes of how he had to reveal Peter&rsquo;s denial of the Lord&rsquo;s grace &ldquo;before them all&rdquo; (Gal. 2:14), using the very same Greek phrase of Mt. 26:70, where &ldquo;before them all&rdquo; Peter made the same essential denial.</p><p><i>I neither know, nor understand what you say; and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew</i>- Again, Peter was acting as the condemned, to whom the Lord will say &quot;I know you not&quot; (Mt. 25:12; Lk. 13:25). The whole idea of &lsquo;I don&rsquo;t know Him&rsquo; must, sadly, be connected with the Lord&rsquo;s words in Mt. 7:23 and 25:41, where He tells the rejected: &ldquo;I never knew you&rdquo;. By denying knowledge of the Saviour, Peter was effectively agreeing that the verdict of condemnation could appropriately be passed upon him.&nbsp; In one of his many allusions to the Gospels, Paul wrote that &ldquo;If we deny him, he also will deny us&rdquo; (2 Tim. 2:12). Peter in this life denied his Lord&nbsp;<i>in front of men</i>&nbsp;(Mt. 26:70)- and the record of his failure intentionally looks back to the Lord&rsquo;s warning that whoever denies Him&nbsp;<i>before men&nbsp;</i>will be denied by Him at judgment day (Mt. 10:33). He sinned, and in the court of Heaven was condemned; and yet he could change the verdict by repentance.</p><p>Bible minded Peter must surely have later reflected that he had said those very words: \'I know not this man\'. He &quot;went out&quot; from the Lord (Mk. 14:68) and then some minutes later further &quot;went out and wept bitterly&quot; (Lk. 22:62), living out the very figure of condemnation- and yet he was able to repent and come back. Peter\'s self condemnation is brought out in yet finer detail by considering what he meant when he thrice denied that he either knew nor understood about Jesus (Mk. 14:68). By that time, everyone had heard about Jesus- after all, the trial of Jesus was going on, and all Jerusalem were waiting with bated breath for the outcome. And there was Peter, standing by the fire in the High Priest\'s house, with everyone talking about the Jesus affair. Peter hardly would\'ve meant \'Jesus? \'Jesus\' who? Never heard of him. Dunno who you\'re talking about\'. What he therefore meant, or wished to be understood as meaning, was that he didn\'t \'know\' Jesus in a close sense, he wasn\'t a disciple of Jesus, he didn\'t know nor understand Jesus, i.e., he wasn\'t a follower of Jesus. When Peter tells the maid: &quot;I know not, neither understand what you say about this Jesus&quot; (Mk. 14:68), the other records interpret this as meaning that Peter said that he didn\'t know Jesus. So we may have to interpret the form of speech being used here; for Semitic speakers don\'t answer questions in the same way and form as we may be accustomed to. The &quot;what you say&quot; was about Jesus; and therefore Peter is saying that he neither knows closely nor understands this Jesus. And yet time and again, Peter\'s Lord had taught that those who did not or would not \'know and understand\' Him were those who were &quot;outside&quot;, unknown by Him, rejected. And Peter was saying, to save his skin, \'Yes, that\'s me\'. And yet... Peter repented, and changed that verdict. Mark&rsquo;s record of the Lord&rsquo;s trial is not merely a historical account. It&rsquo;s framed in terms of our need to testify for our faith too. The Lord&rsquo;s example in His time of suffering was and is intended to be our example and inspiration, in that we are to in a very practical sense enter into His sufferings. Mark records the Lord&rsquo;s prediction that His people would have to witness before both Jewish and Gentile authorities (Mk. 13:9-13)- and then Mark goes on in the next chapter to describe Jesus doing just this. The Lord asked His suffering followers not to prepare speeches of self-defence- perhaps exemplified and patterned for us in the way that He remained silent before His accusers. Peter is recorded as denying Christ three times- just as the Romans interrogated Christians and asked them to three times deny Christ. The Christians were also asked to curse, or <i>anathematizein</i>, Jesus. And when we read of Peter&rsquo;s cursing, the same word is used. We&rsquo;re left with the impression that Peter actually cursed Christ. And so Mark, who was likely writing the Gospel on Peter&rsquo;s behalf, is showing that Peter, the leader of the church, actually pathetically failed to follow his Lord at this time. And yet the Gospel of Mark was being distributed to Christians who were being dragged before Jewish and Roman courts. The idea was surely to give them an example and encouragement from Peter&rsquo;s failure, rather than portray a positive example of a man overcoming the temptation to curse and deny Christ. But this was how the Lord used Peter- as an example from failure for all of us. <br />&quot;Went out&quot; is the language of Judas going out (Jn. 13:30), Cain \'&quot;went out&quot; (Gen. 4:16), as did Zedekiah in the judgment of Jerusalem (Jer. 39:4; 52:7). Esau went out from the land of Canaan into Edom, slinking away from the face of his brother Jacob, sensing his righteousness and his own carnality (Gen. 36:2-8). Even in this life, those who leave the ecclesia \'go out\' after the pattern of Judas, condemning themselves in advance of the judgment by their attitude to the ecclesia (1 Jn. 2:19 cp. Acts 15:24). The unrighteous flee from God now, as they will then (Hos. 7:13). The ungrateful servant &quot;went out&quot; and condemned his brother- thus condemning himself (Mt. 18:28). Yet Peter in this life &quot;went out&quot; from the Lord (Mk. 14:68) and then some minutes later further &quot;went out and wept bitterly&quot; (Lk. 22:62), living out the very figure of rejection at the judgment-&nbsp; and yet was able to repent and come back. In this life we can be judged, condemned, weep...but still repent of it and thereby change our eternal destiny. But at the final judgment: it will be just too late. That \'judgment\' will be a detailed statement of the outcome of the ongoing investigative jud1gment which is going on right now. <br />Mark&rsquo;s Peter&rsquo;s Gospel omits many incidents, but also uses the device of repetition to stress what the writer considers significant. In Mk. 14:68 he records himself as having said: &ldquo;I know, neither understand I what thou sayest&rdquo;. He stresses the nature of his own rejection of knowledge of the Lord. A similar awareness of the weakness of the flesh is found in 7:21: &ldquo;From within, out of the heart of man...&rdquo;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2096','1','41','14','69','69','<p>14:69 <i>And the maid saw him and began again to say to them that stood by: This is one of them</i>-&nbsp; Peter overheard her talking to the men about him, and jumped in with a denial. This is absolutely psychologically credible.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2097','1','41','14','70','70','<p>14:70 <i>But he again denied it. And after a little while, again they that stood by said to Peter- </i>John says that a group of men made the second accusation; see the parallel texts at the commentary on :66. Luke says that Peter replied to the second accusation which Matthew says was made by a<i>&nbsp;woman</i> by saying &ldquo;<i>Man</i>, I am not&rdquo;. Clearly the accusations and denials were in groups- the second &lsquo;denial&rsquo; involved a number of people a man, a woman and plural men making accusations and Peter denying them all. If we put together the various records of Peter&rsquo;s three denials, it seems clear that a number of accusations were made, and he replied slightly differently each time. But there were three groups of accusations and denials. We can imagine the scene- there was a whole group of men and women present, all within earshot, and once one person made the accusation, others would&rsquo;ve chimed in. But the account is stylized to group the denials in three groups, and Peter obviously perceived this after his final oath of denial. But in fact it seems that each denial was a series of separate denials. Indeed the tense of the verb &ldquo;denied&rdquo; suggests he kept on and on denying.</p><p><i>Of a truth you are one of them; for you are a Galilean</i>- <br />From the larynx of a Palestinian Jew there came the words of Almighty God. And yet He spoke them in the accent of a rural Galilean. We know this because Peter was identified as being one of the Lord\'s close disciples because of His accent (Mt. 26:73; Mk. 14:70). The dialect of Aramaic used in Galilee was a permanent topic of sarcasm in Jerusalem circles. There is a story in the Mishnah (bErubin 53b) which mocks how the Galileans pronounced words which began with a guttural deep-throat consonant. It ridicules how a Galilean in Jerusalem tries to buy something in a market but is mocked by the merchant: &quot;You stupid Galilean, do you need something to ride on <i>hamair</i>- a donkey, or something to drink <i>hamar</i>- wine, or something to make a dress with <i>\'amar</i>- wool, or something for a sacrifice <i>immar</i>- lamb&quot;. What an essay in God\'s preference for using the things which man despises- that He should arrange for His Son to speak His words in the most humanly despised dialect of the ecclesia. In this context, it is interesting to note the debate over the original text of Mk. 5:41, where the Lord is recorded as saying the Aramaic words <i>Talitha kum in</i> the oldest manuscripts, but it seems this has been changed to the more grammatically correct <i>Talitha kumi</i> in later codices. <i>Kum</i> would apparently have been the slovenly Galilean way of speaking, whereby the masculine form of the imperative is joined to a feminine subject. It could be that the Lord spoke in the Galilean way, technically incorrect grammatically- as a Londoner might say \'We was waiting for a bus\' rather than \'we were waiting...\'; or an Ulsterman \'how are yous all?\' rather than using the more correct \'you\' for \'you\' plural. If this is so, we have another window into the person of Jesus. There was a naturalness about Him, an expression of the ultimate image of God in totally human form, which was so attractive.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2098','1','41','14','71','71','<p>14:71 <i>But he began-</i> The implication could be that he began to call down the curses of eternal condemnation and rejection at judgment day upon himself, but the crowing of the rooster made him stop.</p><p><i>To curse and to swear under oath: I do not know this man of whom you speak</i>- Not an expletive, but rather a Jewish oath. Many of them wished condemnation on the person making the oath if it were not true. Again, Peter is entering into condemnation, signing himself up for condemnation. James wrote to the very early church, probably to the Jerusalem ecclesia, who were clearly led by Peter. He urged them &ldquo;Above all things, my brethren, swear not&hellip; neither by any other oath&rdquo; (James 5:12). He was clearly saying, in effect: &lsquo;Don&rsquo;t be like Peter&rsquo;. The weakness of Peter, and the way he had repented and been forgiven, was the basis of his success as a preacher and also of his special commission to feed the lambs of the early flock. He did not present himself as the flawless pastor, and neither did his fellow elders like James present him as such. But as with his Lord, it was his humanity which was the basis of his exaltation. This can be read as meaning that Peter actually cursed Christ, as well as taking an oath that he didn\'t know Him. Commenting on the verb form of <i>anathematizein </i>there, Raymond Brown comments: &quot;it should be taken transitively with \'Jesus\' understood as the object: Peter cursed Jesus and took an oath that he had no personal acquaintance with him&quot; - R.E. Brown, <i>The Death Of The Messiah</i> (Garden City: Doubleday, 1994) p. 605. I find it significant that the most awful detail about Peter\'s denials is provided in Mark\'s record, which I have suggested elsewhere is in fact Peter\'s record of the Gospel, written up by Mark.</p><p><i>&quot;</i>This man&quot; suggests he didn\'t even know Jesus\' name. He protested too much, for Jesus was a well known public figure in Jerusalem at the time (Lk. 24:18,19).</p>');
