insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2996','1','42','18','35','35','<p>18:35 <i>And it came to pass, as he drew near to Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging</i>- Matthew\'s account of the healing of the two blind men as they <i>left</i> Jericho must be compared with the healing of Bartimaeus as He left Jericho (Mk. 10:46), and now the healing of a blind man as He <i>approached </i>Jericho (Lk. 18:35). These accounts are not in contradiction. One of the two blind men was Bartimaeus, and he is the one Mark focuses on. The healing of the first blind man is indeed described in the same terms as the healing of the other blind men, but the similarity of the language is in order to demonstrate how the Lord worked in the same way in different lives at slightly different times. And there are other examples of incidents repeating in Biblical history but being described in similar language. We are left with an abiding impression that what happens in our lives has been in essence repeated in other lives. And surely the healing of the first blind man inspired the others to take the same leap of faith, just as we are to be inspired by the way others have responded to the Lord\'s hand in their lives.</p><p>If indeed there are major bloomers in the Gospels and in the Bible generally as the critics suggest regarding these incidents of healing the blind men, then naturally the question arises as to how reliable the Biblical text really is. Liberal Christians tend to argue that some is, other parts aren\'t. But no basis is given for deciding which parts are reliable and which are not. Nor does there seem any reason why God would inspire some parts of the Bible but not others. But the wonder is that the Bible, and the Gospels particularly, can be analysed at depth and found not to contradict but rather to dovetail seamlessly in a way in which no human piece of writing ever could. This is particularly seen in the four Gospels, and it is this seamlessness and lack of contradiction which led sceptics like Frank Morrison in&nbsp;<i>Who Moved the Stone?</i>&nbsp;to become committed believers in the bodily resurrection of Christ. In musical terms, the whole united record reads as a symphony. There is no need to remove one note from it, or a few notes here and there. The overall wonder is lost by doing so, to the point that it is a desecration of the Divine product. If there are passages which we cannot reconcile, the way of humility is surely to accept that we are still waiting for more insight and understanding- rather than arrogantly insisting that Divine inspiration somehow faltered at that point.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2997','1','42','18','36','36','<p>18:36 <i>And hearing a crowd going by, he inquired what this meant</i>- The idea is not \'Whatever is going on?\' but rather is he enquiring of the significance of all this. There is a similar incident in Mt. 21:10,11, where part of the crowd ask: &quot;Who is this?&quot;, and the other part answer back: &quot;This is Jesus the prophet&quot;. They were trying to echo Ps. 24:8,10: &quot;Who is this king of glory?&quot; is answered by &quot;The Lord strong and mighty&quot;. This was understood as how the crowds were to call to each other in the Messianic procession. Perhaps this man was attempting to have a part in what he believed to be a Messianic event; in this case, he would have accepted that the Lord was Messiah. He was inspired by previous healings of blind men in Mt. 9:27, who would have surely spread the message that they considered their healer to be Jesus the Messiah.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2998','1','42','18','37','37','<p>18:37 <i>And they told him, that Jesus of Nazareth passes by</i>- As noted on :36, this could be understood as their participation in some Messianic procession, whereby one shouted &quot;Who is this?&quot; and the answer was then given. This would explain why the man addresses Him as &quot;Son of David&quot;, a title associated with Messiah\'s enthronement.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2999','1','42','18','38','38','<p>18:38 <i>And he cried, saying: Jesus, you son of David, have mercy on me</i>- These were exactly the words of the two blind men of Mt. 9:27, who were likewise cured by the Lord on the outskirts a town, just as here the cure happened as He approached Jericho. They are also similar words to the healing of the blind men recorded after the Lord leaves Jericho. The similarity and connection is obvious. From God\'s side, we see how He works according to pattern in the lives of people. And humanly, the blind man had somehow passed on to other blind men the truth that there was mercy / grace in the Son of David, which could be manifested in the restoration of sight. In this lies the significance of the fact that according to Matthew and Mark, other blind men said exactly these words and made exactly this request as the Lord<i>&nbsp;departed</i> from&nbsp;Jericho. Far from being as supposed by the critics a jumbling up of material by uninspired writers, we see rather the development of a theme- that blind men at various places and times approached the Lord with the same words, and made the same connection between His mercy and Him being the Son of David. They may simply have thought that as the Son of David, He had the characteristics of David- which included remarkable mercy and grace to his enemies. We also see how once a community is broken into with the Gospel, it spreads within that community, expressed in the words and concepts which that community understands, and in the style which originated with the first ones in the community who accepted the Gospel. I have seen this happen in communities of the deaf, Gypsies, HIV patients, ethnic minorities under persecution, language groups etc. And so it happened amongst the blind beggar community in Palestine. Such communities have amazing links to each other and paths of communication.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The connection between &quot;the son of David&quot; and &quot;mercy&quot; is surely rooted in the description of the promises to David as &quot;the mercies <i>chesed</i> of David&quot; (Is. 55:3; Acts 13:34; 1 Kings 3:6; 2 Chron. 1:8; Ps. 89:49 &quot;The mercies which You promised unto David&quot;; Is. 16:5 &quot;In mercy shall the throne be established... in the tent of David&quot;). These promises were utter grace; &quot;mercy&quot; translates&nbsp;<i>chesed,</i> which is about the closest the OT comes to the NT concept of grace. David rejoiced in this&nbsp;<i>chesed&nbsp;</i>/ mercy shown to him (2 Sam. 22:51; 2 Chron. 7:6; Ps. 101:1). Solomon pleaded for grace on the basis of the fact that God had shown such covenant mercies to David (2 Chron. 6:42 &quot;Remember the mercies of David&quot;). The mercies of David surely also refer to God\'s mercy, the mercy of grace, shown to David in forgiving him the sin with Bathsheba and Uriah- he begged for forgiveness on the basis of God\'s &quot;tender mercies&quot; (Ps. 51:1). It could be argued that David\'s forgiveness was on account of his pleading for the mercies shown to him in the Davidic covenant to be continued to him. For in that covenant God had promised that <i>chesed </i>would not depart from David (2 Sam. 7:15), and David therefore begs for forgiveness on the basis that grace /&nbsp;<i>chesed</i> would indeed not be withdrawn from him (Ps. 51:1). From all this, David pleaded in crisis towards the end of his life to fall into God\'s hands because &quot;His mercies are great&quot; (2 Sam. 24:14). In response to the<i> chesed</i>&nbsp;&quot;mercy&quot;, or grace shown David, he too was characterized by humanly senseless&nbsp;<i>chesed</i>&nbsp;to his enemies in the family of Saul (s.w. 1 Sam. 20:15; 2 Sam. 2:5 &quot;you have shewed this kindness /&nbsp;<i>chesed</i>&nbsp;unto Saul&quot;; 2 Sam. 3:8; 9:1,7) and to Hanun his Ammonite enemy (2 Sam. 10:2 &quot;I will shew kindness /&nbsp;<i>chesed</i>&nbsp;unto the Hanun&quot;). What is so impressive is that the network of blind men, from Galilee to Jericho, had figured this out, or at least part of it. They saw the connection between grace and David, and were inspired to throw themselves upon the grace of David\'s Messianic Son. There was in those times as there is in much of the world today a deep belief that blindness was the direct result of sin (Jn. 9:2). These blind men almost certainly felt that their blindness was a result of their sin, and so they felt a moral need for forgiveness, so that the blindness would be lifted. According to Mk. 10:46, one of the blind men was called Bartimaeus, literally \'Son of the unclean\'- doubtless this was what he had been dubbed by others, for no Hebrew mother would have named her son that. And they believed that Jesus could indeed cleanse them, morally forgive them, and thereby restore their sight. This would explain why they screamed Gk. &quot;Have mercy on us&quot;. This was a moral request; they didn\'t simply call out for healing.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3000','1','42','18','39','39','<p>18:39 <i>And those who led the way rebuked him- </i>This is yet another example of where the Lord is presented as eager to accept, when men including disciples are more eager to reject. The same word has just been used for how the disciples rebuked the little ones from coming to the Lord- and were in turn rebuked. The impression is that in the disciples\' exclusivity, they weren\'t being as they supposed more spiritual than the world around them, but rather were they being simply as that world. Soon afterwards, the Pharisees told the Lord to &quot;rebuke&quot; His disciples, and He replied that it was impossible for them to &quot;hold their peace&quot; (Lk. 19:39,40). These are all words and phrases taken from this incident. Now it is the disciples who refuse to be quiet, and it is the Pharisees who want them to be quiet. Again the point is made that the desire to silence and exclude others is from the world, and not of Christ. The Lord\'s acceptance of people is consistently painted by the Gospels as being far more inclusive and extensive than that of men. The human tendency to reject and erect barriers is simply not there in Christ.</p><p><i>Saying that he should be quiet; but he cried out all the more: You son of David, have mercy on me</i>- This could be seen as the result of the Lord\'s piquing their sense of urgency for Christ by not responding immediately. This is also a factor in some of His delayed responses to our own&nbsp;needs.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3001','1','42','18','40','40','<p>18:40 <i>And Jesus stopped and commanded him to be brought to him; and when he came near, he asked him</i>- The Lord could have walked up to the man as He did to others when curing them. But on this occasion He wished to teach that His calling of men to Him for healing often uses a human mechanism. The &quot;call&quot; comes through people bringing others to the Lord. The Lord &quot;calls&quot; just as the people &quot;called&quot; the man. The Lord\'s calling and our calling of men are thereby paralleled. The experience of being called by the Lord is not to be seen as an onerous call to responsibility before Him; rather is it the source of &quot;courage&quot;. His calling is because He wants to do something good for us, rather than saddle us with the weight of responsibility to judgment.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3002','1','42','18','41','41','<p>18:41 <i>What do you want me to do for you? And he said: Lord, that I may receive my sight</i>- The Lord had a way of focusing men upon their need. Thus He would have passed by the desperate disciples as they struggled in the storm, He would have gone further on the road to Emmaus, and He later asked the blind men the obvious question: &ldquo;What will you that I shall do unto you?&rdquo; (Mt. 20:32). He only partially cured another blind man, to focus that man&rsquo;s mind on the faith that was needed for the second and final stage of the cure (Mk. 8:23-25). He elicited from the father of the epileptic child the miserable childhood story of the boy- not that the Lord needed to know it, but to concentrate the man on his need for the Lord&rsquo;s intervention (Mk. 9:21). He wanted them to focus on their need: in this case, for sight. He let Peter start to sink, and only then, when Peter&rsquo;s whole heart and soul were focused on the Lord, did He stretch forth His hand. The Lord deliberately delayed going to see Lazarus until he was dead and buried; to elicit within His followers the acuteness of their need. And was He&nbsp;<i>really&nbsp;</i>sleeping in the boat with the storm all around Him? Was He not waiting there for them to finally quit their human efforts and come running to Him with faith in no other (Mk. 4:38,39)? Only when men were thus focused on their desperate need for the Lord would He answer them. The Lord further focused men&rsquo;s need when he asked the lame man: &ldquo;Do you want to be made whole?&rdquo; (Jn. 5:6). Of course the man wanted healing. But the Lord first of all focused his desire for it.</p><p>The one thing&nbsp;he wanted was to see. The healed blind man is a type of us. True understanding (seeing) should be the one thing we want. &quot;Wisdom is the&nbsp;<i>principal&nbsp;</i>thing; therefore get wisdom&quot; Prov. 4:7). This was obviously a rhetorical question, and it succeeded in the intention of making the men verbalize their dominant desire. Likewise the Lord works with us to make us focus and understand what is our dominant desire- and then seeks to reposition that focus. In this section He has done that by placing all human desires and requests in the shadow of His death for us. For how could we want anything \'extra\' after He has done that for us, with all it enabled.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3003','1','42','18','42','42','<p>18:42 <i>And Jesus said to him: Receive your sight; your faith has made you whole</i>- The Greek term for &quot;receive your sight&quot; is literally \'look up\', and is the word used for how the Lord had a habit of praying to God with open, uplifted eyes. There is surely the hint that the gift of sight was to encourage the man in his relationship with God, and likewise &quot;whole&quot; suggests that the man as a person was now &quot;whole&quot;. The miracle was a gift of spiritual things as well as literal sight; which is why the man now follows the Lord (:43). The \'gift of heavenly health\' is by grace; the Lord is eager to act directly upon willing hearts to give us the spiritual energy to follow Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3004','1','42','18','43','43','<p>18:43 <i>And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God; and when all the people saw it, they gave praise to God</i>- As the Lord left Jericho, two other blind men were healed and they too followed the Lord in the way (Mk. 10:52). So surely they had heard of His healing power from the testimony of this blind man who followed Him throughout Jericho and then out the other side. We notice that he witnessed to blind men; we most powerfully take the gospel to those in our situation, and not to those in far off lands of other cultures. This is to be done; but witness is essentially personal and is to those of our own background and experience. And even before meeting those blind men, this man\'s praise of God influenced &quot;all the people&quot; to do likewise.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3005','1','42','19','1','1','<p>19:1 <i>And he entered Jericho and was passing through</i>- As noted at the end of chapter 18, the blind man healed on the Lord\'s approach to Jericho followed Him through Jericho, and led to the conversion of two other blind men as the Lord left Jericho. So we can imagine this healed blind man following the Lord as He passed through Jericho.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3006','1','42','19','2','2','<p>19:2 <i>And a man named Zacchaeus, who was a chief tax collector, and rich</i>- Meyer suggests there was a profitable balsam trade in Jericho, which would have enriched the tax collectors. Lightfoot quotes evidence that such people were not allowed to be legal witnesses: &quot;These are persons not capable of giving any public testimony, shepherds, exactors, and publicans&quot;. The same was true for women. And yet it was exactly these kinds of people and categories whom the Lord chose to be His witnesses. To this day, He delights in using those who have little human credibility nor ability as witnesses. In this sense our sense of inadequacy to witness is our adequacy; it is in fact the prime qualification. This incident is a natural follow on from the Lord\'s parable about the repentant tax collector and the Pharisee. Only Luke records that, and this historical account is also unique to Luke, so he appears under inspiration to be exemplifying how the parable worked out in practice. \'Zacchaeus\' in Hebrew means \'pure\'; he who was far from pure was justified by faith and grace, as was the tax collector of the parable.</p><p>&quot;And rich&quot; connects with the recently recorded teaching of the Lord that it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom; but with God it is possible, and the conversion of Zacchaeus is again a worked example of this. It is only by deep conviction of sin and fellowship with the Lord personally that the rich can be led to part with their wealth.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3007','1','42','19','3','3','<p>19:3 <i>Was seeking to see who Jesus was; but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small of stature</i>- The fact nobody made way for him is a tacit reflection of how his wealth had not bought him respect. As he was seeking Jesus, so the Lord was seeking him (:10). We see here the mutuality which there is between us and the Lord.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3008','1','42','19','4','4','<p>19:4 <i>And he ran ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was to pass that way</i>- The Lord likewise foreknew Nathanael when he was far off under a tree (Jn. 1:48). The similarity simply shows that the Lord works in similar ways in parallel lives. And this is the basis of our fellowship in Him- shared experience of the same style of the Lord\'s operation with us. Running ahead of a person and association with tree leaves can be seen as heralding the triumphant entry of Messiah. This will be recorded later in this chapter, but perhaps the idea is that the Lord saw His triumphal entries at this stage as being into the homes of sinners rather than into the Jerusalem temple.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3009','1','42','19','5','5','<p>19:5 <i>And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him: Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house</i>- The Lord had taught His preachers to enquire who in a town was &quot;worthy&quot; and stay at their home (Mt. 10:11). He is forcing the conclusion that He can declare the unworthy to be worthy, just as the unjust tax collector of the earlier parable was declared just. This is all Luke\'s way of paving the way for his friend Paul\'s later expression of all this in terms of justification by grace and faith.</p><p>By calling Zacchaeus by name, when apparently they had never before met, the Lord was showing that He knew His sheep and was calling him by name (Jn. 10:3). He urges him to respond quickly, and this fits in with a major theme in Luke of quick response to the Lord, culminating in the apparently \'quick\' baptisms recorded in Acts. Speed of response is not only appropriate to any call from the Lord, but unless we respond quickly, the flesh tends to kick in and reason us out of the response we need to make.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3010','1','42','19','6','6','<p>19:6 <i>And he made haste and came down- </i>The speed of his response is significant. Subconsciously, the message of Jesus which he had heard must have been working within him. When he then encountered the Lord, it all came together. The word was made flesh. There was something in Him which was and is incredibly compelling.</p><p><i>And received him joyfully</i>- Luke is presenting Zacchaeus as the parade example of how whoever receives the Son receives the Father, and Luke in 9:48 recorded Him saying that and immediately commenting that &quot;the least&quot;, the littlest, is the greatest. The &quot;little&quot; height of Zacchaeus may also allude to the Lord\'s recent ultimatum that the Kingdom must be &quot;received&quot; (s.w.) as a little one (18:17). The joy of Zacchaeus is that joy which is so often mentioned in Luke-Acts as accompanying true conversion. We note that the Lord alludes to His parable of seeking and finding the lost sheep in the context of what His \'finding\' Zacchaeus (:10). When the sheep was found, the shepherd rejoices (15:5). This is the same word translated &quot;joyfully&quot;. There is a mutuality between the Lord and His people; His joy is their joy.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3011','1','42','19','7','7','<p>19:7 <i>And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying: He is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner</i>- Presumably Zacchaeus had been disobedient to the teaching of John the Baptist to &ldquo;Exact no more than is appointed&quot;. Here was a totally secular person, uninfluenced by John\'s preparatory work, simply coming to the Lord because he sensed the truth in Him. &quot;Lodge&quot; suggests He spent the night there (s.w. LXX Gen. 24:23). Again we notice the guilt by association mentality of the people. Who you stayed with and ate with was seen as a religious act; and the Lord was doing this without any statement of repentance from Zacchaeus. It was by offering this kind of open, outgoing fellowship that the Lord sought and found Zacchaeus; and the repentance was elicited from that radical acceptance. This was in marked contrast to the attitude that such signs of fellowship should only be granted once a person had cleared certain bars and demonstrated their spiritual level.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3012','1','42','19','8','8','<p>19:8 <i>And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord: Behold Lord, half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have wrongfully exacted something from anyone, I restore fourfold</i>- The rich young ruler has recently been told, recorded by Luke, to sell <i>all</i> he had and give to the poor. Zacchaeus offered half of his wealth to the poor. And this was acceptable. Or it could be that he means that half of his goods would be spent restoring what he had stolen, and the other half would go to the poor. The fourfold restitution seems far above that of the Jewish law (Num. 5:7), but apparently Roman law required fourfold restitution of stolen goods.</p><p>The way he stands and addresses the Lord could perhaps be Luke framing this as a public confession of faith and repentance, of the kind seen before baptism in the early church. Zacchaeus is being set up as a role model.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3013','1','42','19','9','9','<p>19:9 <i>And Jesus said to him: Today salvation has come to this house, as he also is a son of Abraham</i>- See on Acts 16:34. The stress on &quot;house&quot; was presumably to meet the criticism that He had entered the house (:7). But the &quot;house&quot; probably refers to the household. The family would see a huge drop in their wealth- and it was that which converted them to salvation. It was the very inverse of the claims of the prosperity gospel. It is as if Zacchaeus is being set up as the opposite of the rich young man of 18:23. When the synagogue excommunicated a man, he was stated to no longer be a &quot;son of Abraham&quot;. The Lord is demonstrating His authority to utterly override all such statements that excommunication from a religious group means that a person is not in the wider community of God\'s true people. He sets Himself up as the ultimate deciding authority in a new Israel comprised of serious sinners and secular, non-religious types. Zacchaeus presumably continued in his daily work and therefore remained outside the synagogue system- but a &quot;son of Abraham&quot;.</p><p>The Lord predicates salvation upon being a son of Abraham. But this man was Jewish already; the conclusion is that natural descent would not bring salvation, but rather a faith in Messiah as Abraham had, continuing the family characteristic. Perhaps Zacchaeus is called a son of Abraham in that he too repented of his self-centred materialism, walking away from much wealth to become a nomad.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3014','1','42','19','10','10','<p>19:10<i> For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost</i>- See on Mt. 13:46; Lk. 9:54,55; 15:2; 1 Cor. 10:33. As noted on :7, the Lord extended fellowship to sinners in order to bring them to repentance; rather than giving it to them as a reward for attaining some level of understanding or spirituality. And this should be reflected in our open approach to people. The allusion is clearly to the parable of the shepherd seeking the lost sheep; the joy of the shepherd in that parable is described with the same word as the joy of Zacchaeus (:6; 15:5).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3015','1','42','19','11','11','<p>19:11 <i>And as they heard these things, he added and spoke a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear</i>- The question was: \'Will the Kingdom come really soon, like, in our lifetimes?\'. Answer: the parable of the minas. Trade <i>your </i>personal talent- because there is such a thing as people being rejected at the last day because they didn\'t do this. See on Lk. 21:7. The disciples clearly thought that arrival at Jerusalem meant the appearing of the Kingdom of God in its political form. They had totally missed His teaching that Jerusalem meant death on a cross for Him; and that the gospel of the Kingdom is now about life lived under God\'s Kingship and dominion, rather than political freedom from the Romans. They had missed the obvious and basic point of His teachings because they would not budge from their preconceived theological and natural convictions. And this happens with so many today, and in some ways with us all.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3016','1','42','19','12','12','<p>19:12 <i>He therefore said: A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom and then return</i>- The Lord has recently spoken of how <i>we</i> are to \'receive the kingdom\' as a child if we are to enter it (18:17). The nobleman here refers to the Lord Jesus. He doesn\'t ask us to do anything which in essence He has not done. He received the Kingdom as God\'s &quot;holy child&quot; (Acts 4:27,30), and He asks us to do likewise. This makes \'receiving the Kingdom\' mean accepting that really, we shall be there. It is ours, even now. &quot;Yours God\'s is the Kingdom&quot;, but it is given to the Lord Jesus &quot;for himself&quot;, just as it is to us too. For us it is an ongoing experience- &quot;we receiving a Kingdom... let us have grace&quot; (Heb. 12:28).</p><p>The parable has some similarities with events recorded by Josephus. Herod Archelaus travelled to Rome in order to be given his kingdom; the Jews sent an embassy to Augustus, the Caesar, while Archelaus was travelling to Rome, to complain that they did not want Archelaus as their ruler; when Archelaus returned, he arranged for 3000 of his enemies to be brought to him at the temple, where he had them slaughtered. The palace of Archelaus was near Jericho, and as the Lord has just left Jericho, this would explain the allusion to him in this parable- perhaps the Lord was building on a passing discussion about Archelaus, ever eager to turn secular chit chat into spiritual teaching- just as we should be.</p><p>Absentee landlords were unpopular; and the accusation was that they reaped what they had not sown, demanding harvest which they had not laboured for. And the one mina man makes just this complaint. The Lord presents Himself in this parable as a man deemed to be unreasonable and unpopular- when in fact this was not the case.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3017','1','42','19','13','13','<p>19:13 <i>And he called ten servants of his- </i>A picture of how the Lord considers us to be His very own.</p><p><i>Gave them ten minas and said to them- </i>A mina or &quot;talent&quot; was worth 6000 denarii, or pennies. And a penny a day was the going wage for a worker in time of harvest, according to another parable. This is therefore in total about 20 years&rsquo; salary. The element of unreality in this parable is that this was a huge amount of money to entrust in cash to only ten servants. And they are asked to &quot;trade with this&quot;, to take the initiative, apparently without much prior instruction by their master. All is in their court. He has no mechanism in place to check up on them nor practically advise them on a day to day basis. They as slaves would not have been accustomed to taking much initiative. The only pattern they had was the example set by their master in <i>his </i>trading whilst he was with them. All this speaks of the huge and risky delegation that was and is made to God\'s people. In a personal sense, according to the promise of the Comforter in Jn. 14-16, the Lord is no absent from us. He is not distant, He is with us by His Spirit, so that He is just as really present with us as He was during His ministry on earth. But for the purposes of the parable, emphasizing the huge extent of freewill and initiative required from us, He is \'absent\'. He doesn\'t tell them to simply keep his property intact and maintained. He asks them to proactively trade and increase His wealth. This idea vastly broadens our horizons. Such work is to be our career, the ideal, Divinely intended outlet for all our creativity, resources and abilities.</p><p><i>Trade with this until I return</i>- How far His affairs prosper is dependent upon the zeal and initiative of us His stewards (Lk. 19:12,13; 1 Cor. 4:1,2). In this parable, the servants as a group are given the wealth, but they trade with it as individuals. This is a helpful way to view all that has been given to the community of believers. Division and argument between them, arguing over who has what, is a sure way to impede the overall intention of the nobleman who has so trusted us on both a collective and individual level. All the riches are hidden &quot;in Christ&quot; and are displayed in the entire unity of the body of Christ across both Jew and Gentile (Col. 1:27; 2:2). What has been given to the church collectively is the Holy Spirit, in order to build up the church and powerfully witness in the world. The one talent man is in denial of this, without the Spirit, and simply holding onto the mina without using it.</p><p>As a whole, the church of all ages will fully have manifested His character, His total riches. This is why it may be that the true church has been concentrated on different aspects of spirituality at different times. It also explains why the final date of the coming of Christ is in some way dependent upon our spiritual development. And it also explains why the whole body of Christ is told collectively &quot;trade until I return&quot;, using the Greek <i>pragmateuomai</i>, i.e. be pragmatic, be realistic, and develop these characteristics, so you may as a body reach the full reflection of Christ. See on Eph. 4:15.</p><p>The believer is called to his Lord to receive his minas, and yet is also again called to Him in judgment at His return (Lk. 19:13,15). The repetition of the idea of being called to our Lord surely suggests that our calling to Him in the first place is in fact a calling to judgment. We are being gathered to judgment <i>now </i>(Mt. 13:47; 22:10; Jn. 11:52) although we will be gathered then to meet the Lord (s.w. Mt. 3:12; 13:30). The point is, we must act now as men and women will do when they are on their way to judgment, and the meeting with their ultimate destiny. Then we will not be bickering amongst ourselves or worrying about our worldly advantage; then, only one thing will matter. And so now, only one thing matters. The Christian life is likened to a man on his way to his judge along with his adversary (Lk. 12:58); and evidently, he ought to settle his differences with his brother before he arrives, for this judge will be extremely hard upon those who cannot be reconciled to their brethren.</p><p>We notice that in this parable, the Lord hints nothing about His death. He simply says He is going away and shall return. This was a concession to their weakness; He had explained His upcoming death many times, and they had ignored it. He accepted their blindness to His death, and worked with it by not featuring His death as part of the parable. We too need to work with an acceptance of others\' blindness on some points.</p><p>The same word for &quot;trade&quot; is translated &quot;work&quot; in the parable of the sons working in the vineyard (Mt. 21:28). Whilst salvation is on the basis of grace and not works (Rom. 4:4,5), there is all the same a fundamental call to &quot;work&quot; in response to that grace. If we do not, then we have to remember that &quot;faith without works is dead, being alone&quot; (James 2:17). And this is a severe temptation. To believe, to assent to Christian and Biblical ideas, but not to respond further, thinking that the mere possession of the ideas is enough. This was the one talent man; his faith remained &quot;alone&quot;. The &quot;work&quot; was to be done within the vineyard. The ecclesia of Christ, the body of Christ, is merely a structure enabling our response in practice. The &quot;work&quot; was to harvest the fruit of the vine- to work with others bringing them in to the final harvest of salvation. In another metaphor, we ourselves are to bring forth fruit on the vine; but the metaphor of harvesting used in 21:28 and in other parables of the vineyard surely speaks of harvesting others for the Kingdom. The same word will be used by the Lord in saying that the Son of Man has left his house and given to each man in the household his &quot;work&quot; (Mk. 13:34). We each have a specific work or trading to do, tailored personally to what the Lord has given us. Sadly, the structure of church life has often become so developed and defined that the average church member assumes that the work is being done by the specialists. &quot;Get professional help&quot; is the comment made on so many cases of personal need encountered; &quot;Read the book... come to the seminars... to the meetings&quot; can all be a passing up of our personal responsibility to work. The judgment seat is largely about presenting to the Lord our work in this life. And yet John uses the same word in recording the Lord\'s comment that the deeds \'trading\', s.w. of the faithful are even now &quot;made manifest that they are wrought in God&quot; if we come to the light of the cross which is the basis of all self-examination and self-understanding (Jn 3:21).</p><p>We can indeed prove / examine our own work s.w. even in this life (Gal. 6:4). People are never better than when they perceive clearly their calling and the work they are intended to do- and give their lives to doing it. Barnabas and Saul were \'called\' just as the servants here were \'called\' (:13) to do the \'work\' s.w. \'trading\' of spreading the Gospel (Acts 13:2), and experienced the Spirit confirming them in the &quot;work&quot; s.w. they were \'fulfilling\' (Acts 14:26). The idea of \'fulfilling\' a work given suggests that they were fulfilling God\'s intention for them. And again we note that the work was related to bringing others to Christ. Just as the servants \'went\' to \'trade\', so Paul talks of \'going\' to &quot;the work&quot; s.w. \'trade\', again in the context of missionary work (Acts 15:38). God will render to every man according to his &quot;works&quot; (s.w. Rom. 2:6). Our trading is the basis upon which we will be judged. The gift has been given by pure grace, as it was to the servants; but we have to respond to that grace, lest we have believed and accepted in vain. It is the works&nbsp;<i>of the law</i>&nbsp;of Moses which will not justify (Rom. 3:20); rather our works are to be those in response to the Lord\'s great gifts to us. 1 Cor. 3:13-15 uses this same word for \'working / trading\' and again applies it to our work in building others up- and the day of judgment will declare the quality of that work. The Corinthians were therefore Paul\'s &quot;work in the Lord&quot; (1 Cor. 9:1), even though he baptized virtually none of them, his efforts for them were his attempt to trade / work with the talents given him. God clearly has intended works / trading for each of us, &quot;Good works s.w. which God has before ordained that we should walk in them&quot; (Eph. 2:10). And the NT usage of the idea of works / trading is nearly always in the context of preaching or caring for others. Paul may well have himself in mind when he promises the Philippians that &quot;He who began a good work in you Paul\'s initial preaching at Philippi will work at finishing it right up to the day of Jesus Christ&quot; (Phil. 1:6 cp. 22). The key is to be open to God\'s leading. Thus Paul urged Timothy to purge himself from bad company so that he might be prepared or ready &quot;unto every good work&quot; (2 Tim. 2:21), and to devote himself to the Scriptures that he might be &quot;equipped unto all good works&quot; (2 Tim. 3:17). These works are surely those &quot;Good works s.w. which God has before ordained that we should walk in them&quot; (Eph. 2:10). And we should be &quot;ready to every good work... thoughtful to be ready for good works&quot; (Tit. 3:1,8), thoughtfully open to God\'s leading in response to our prayer to be shown what exactly is the work / trading intended for us. A functional church will be a place where the members are all devoted to this principle personally, and thus will &quot;consider one another to provoke unto love and good works&quot; (Heb. 10:24). And God will confirm our openness and willingness; He will &quot;frame you in every good work to do His will&quot; (Heb. 13:21 Gk.).&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3018','1','42','19','14','14','<p>19:14 <i>But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying: We do not want this man to reign over us</i>- &quot;They hated Joseph&quot; because of his dream that one day he would reign over them (Gen. 37:4,8). The Lord Jesus likewise had problems with His brothers (Jn. 7:3); the Jews hated Him and would not have him reign over them even though they were potentially the citizens of His Kingdom. His Kingdom is that of the Father, and Israel at that time were His Kingdom. But because they refused His Son as King, they ceased to be the Kingdom of God (Ez. 21:25-27). The delegation gives no reason for their refusal; for there was and is no credible reason to refuse the Lord\'s kingship over men.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3019','1','42','19','15','15','<p>19:15 <i>And it came to pass, when he had returned, having received the kingdom, that he commanded these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading</i>- If we are to take the judgment figures literally, the question arises: Does the Lord know beforehand who will be accepted, and the degree of their reward? If we take the judgment figures to have a literal meaning, then it sounds as if He doesn\'t know. Lk. 19:15 suggests that perhaps He doesn\'t know; the Lord calls the servants &quot;that he might know how much every man had gained by trading&quot;. He is ordained <i>to be</i> judge of all (Acts 10:42). However, as Lord of Heaven and earth, with all power given to him, this seems unlikely- although it must be remembered that in the same way as God is omnipotent and yet limits His omnipotence, so He may limit His omniscience. The shepherd sees the difference between sheep and goats as totally obvious. It needs no great examination. Surely the idea is that the judge, the omniscient Lord of all, will act at the judgment <i>as if</i> he needs to gather evidence from us and thereby reach his verdict. The parables give this impression because they surely describe how the judgment will feel to us.</p><p>The believer is called to his Lord to receive his pounds, and is called to Him in judgment at His return (Lk. 19:13,15). The repetition of the idea of being called to our Lord surely suggests that our calling to Him in the first place is in fact a calling to judgment. See on Mt. 13:47.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3020','1','42','19','16','16','<p>19:16 <i>And the first came before him- </i>He comes to us and the faithful come to Him. This will have a literal element to it. When we know for sure that the Lord has come, we will have the choice as to whether to go to Him immediately or delay. Those who go immediately will be confirmed in that by being snatched away to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:16,17). One of the great themes of Matthew\'s gospel is that various men and women \'came to Jesus\' at different times and in a variety of situations. The Lord uses the same term to describe how at the last day, people will once again \'come unto\' Him (Mt. 25:20-24). The same Jesus whom they \'came before\' in His ministry is the one to whom they and we shall again come at the last day- to receive a like gracious acceptance. He will judge and reason the same way He did during His mortality.</p><p><i>Saying: Lord, your minas have made ten minas more</i>- The purpose of the judgment is for our benefit, to develop our appreciation and self-knowledge. This is perhaps reflected by the ten pound man saying that the Lord\' minas had gained, had worked to create (Gk.) the ten he could now offer. The man who achieved five pounds uses a different word in describing how the mina given him had made five minas, while the men in&nbsp;Mt. 25:20,22 use yet another word to say the same thing. This is surely a realistic picture, each of the faithful comes to the same conclusion, that what spirituality they have developed and the work of the Spirit which they did is an outcome of the basic Gospel given to each of us at our conversion; yet&nbsp;they have used them in different ways and they express this same basic idea in different words.&nbsp;</p><p>All those who will be in the Kingdom will feel that really we should not be there, we don\'t deserve it, we will be hesitant to enter it and therefore Christ will have to almost make us go into the Kingdom. It\'s the same in the parables of Matthew 25, at the judgment Jesus will praise the righteous for doing so many good things, and then they will disagree with him, they will say \'No, we didn\'t do that, really we didn\'t\', and He will say \'Yes, in my eyes, you did\'. Their good works had not been consciously done. This is surely what the Lord was driving at in saying that our left hand must not know what the right hand does. We aren\'t to be self-consciously brooding on our own generosity. It would seem that with a spirit of amazement and surprise the man says \'Your minas gained more minas\'.&nbsp;It\'s the self-righteous, those who think they have done so much and therefore they must be in the Kingdom, who will be rejected.</p><p>&ldquo;Made&rdquo; translates&nbsp;<i>poieo</i>, a very common word; but it is used by the Lord, again in talking about His servants, in saying that the faithful servant will be found &lsquo;doing&rsquo; care to his brethren (Mt. 24:46). And the word is twice used about &lsquo;doing&rsquo; good unto the least of Christ&rsquo;s brethren, and this being the basis for our judgment (Mt. 25:40,45). Again we see that our work / trading involves fruitfully sharing the spiritual riches we have received with others. It&rsquo;s worth noting that this teaching is alluded to in the record of the woman anointing the Lord&rsquo;s feet; and all the records of it use the same Greek words to describe it. She &ldquo;did it&rdquo; (<i>poieo</i>, Mt. 26:12,13), she &ldquo;worked&rdquo; (s.w. &ldquo;traded&rdquo;) a good work &lsquo;trading&rsquo; on the Lord (Mt. 26:10). It&rsquo;s as if her humanly senseless pouring out of her wealth for the Lord was in fact smart trading in the spiritual sense. The story line implies that we can add to the total wealth of the Lord Jesus. Yet the extension of His glory, the progress of His work, depends upon us, and we are left to our own initiative in this. This is the meaning of the element of &lsquo;absence&rsquo; of the Lord, and the immediacy of His leaving the servants with such huge amounts of silver without instructing them specifically how to use them.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>This idea of using one&rsquo;s own initiative was more startling then than it is now. Today, students are \'trained\' to think for themselves, be creative, develop their own opinions, push forward their own independent research, using question / problem-based learning as a paradigm for their education. \'Education\' in the first century wasn\'t like that at all. The idea was that &quot;every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher&quot; (Lk. 6:40). The idea was that a person born into a certain social situation was trained to take their place in society, given that \'station and place\' into which they had been born. Initiative in that sense was not encouraged; it was all about training up a person to correctly fulfil societies\' expectation of them. The idea of being personally taught by the invisible Master / teacher Jesus, becoming like Him rather than like the person whom society expected, being given talents by Him which we are to trade and multiply at our initiative (Mt. 25:15-28)... this was all totally counter-cultural stuff. What was so vital in the Mediterranean world was that a person achieved conformity to accepted values. Cicero advised that in any good presentation of a legal case or encomium, emotions and passions shouldn\'t be referred to. Individualism was seen as a threat to tradition and the collective society. The huge New Testament emphasis on becoming disciples, learners, of an invisible Lord, Master and teacher located in Heaven, serving Him alone, worried about<i> His</i>&nbsp;standards, perceptions and judgment of us- that was and is so totally opposite to the expectations of society. People were educated to be embedded in society, rather than to come out of their world and live in the new world in which Christ was the light, and all things were made new in a new creation, a new set of values.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3021','1','42','19','17','17','<p>19:17 <i>And he said to him: Well done, you good servant. Because you were found faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities</i>- 1 Cor. 4:2 speaks of us as stewards being &quot;found faithful&quot; in this life by our actions; there is a definite sense in which the Lord\'s judgment and assessment of our stewardship is ongoing in this life. The judgment process, from His perspective, is now. And &quot;we make the answer now&quot;.</p><p>&ldquo;In a very little&rdquo; (<i>elachistos</i>) is the very same word found later in Matthew 25, when we read that the final judgment will be based around how we have treated &ldquo;the very least&rdquo; of the Lord&rsquo;s brethren (Mt. 25:40,45). The minas we have been given relate to them- how we have used them, what we have done for them, how we have served them with the riches given us by the Lord. There is obviously a connection between the manner in which we rule over the &ldquo;few things&rdquo;, and how we shall be given &ldquo;many things&rdquo; to rule over in the Kingdom age. Clearly what we are doing now is in essence what we shall eternally be doing, but on a greater level. If our lives are centred merely around ourselves and doing what we want, developing ourselves, rather than developing the Lord&rsquo;s work and doing&nbsp;<i>His</i>&nbsp;work, then we will be out of step with the life eternal. We are to start living that now. And then we shall live it eternally. Our care for the little one or two individuals now is related to how we shall care for whole cities in the Kingdom.</p><p>The parable describes the reward of the faithful in terms of being given ten or five cities. This idea of dividing up groups of cities was surely meant to send the mind back to the way Israel in their wilderness years were each promised their own individual cities and villages, which they later inherited. The idea of inheriting &quot;ten cities&quot; occurs in Josh. 15:57; 21:5,26; 1 Chron. 6:61 (all of which are in the context of the priests receiving their cities), and &quot;five cities&quot; in 1 Chron. 4:32. As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. The language of inheritance (e.g. 1 Pet. 1:4) and preparation of reward (Mt. 25:34; Jn. 14:1) in the NT is alluding to this OT background of the land being prepared by the Angels for Israel to inherit (Ex. 15:17 Heb.; 23:20; Ps. 68:9,10 Heb.). We must be careful not to think that our promised inheritance is <i>only</i> eternal life; it is something being personally prepared for each of us. The language of preparation seems inappropriate if our reward is only eternal life.</p><p>The reward was way out of proportion, both to what had been given, and to what they had achieved with it: ten cities The Master\'s words almost seem to be a gentle rebuke: &quot;Because you were found faithful in <i>a very little</i>, have authority over ten cities&quot;; &quot;you have been faithful over a <i>few things</i>, I will make you ruler over many things&quot; (Mt. 25:23). The &quot;Truth&quot; we have now (and it is that) is &quot;a very little... a few things&quot;. We mustn\'t see it as an end in itself. Yet because of our humanity, our limited vision, the way we are locked up in our petty paradigms and parameters, we tend to think that the Kingdom will be rather similar to our present experience of &quot;the Truth&rdquo;. Yet the Lord emphasizes, at least twice, that what we have now is pathetically limited compared to the infinitely greater spiritual vision of the Kingdom. We (personally) will then be made ruler over <i>all </i>that Christ has (Mt. 24:47; the &quot;many things&quot; of Mt. 25:23); and in him are hid <i>all </i>the riches of spiritual wisdom (Col. 2:3). &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3022','1','42','19','18','18','<p>19:18 <i>And the second came, saying: Your minas, Lord, have made five minas</i>- The faithful in the parable of the talents / pounds realize that &quot;your minas have made&quot; what spirituality they can now offer Christ at the judgment. They understand that their growth was thanks to that basic deposit of doctrine delivered to them. Each of us have been given different aspects of Christ\'s character to develop from the same basic doctrines, and therefore we will each have an individual discussion with our Lord. We shouldn\'t think of the judgment as being a process which is more or less identical for each of us. This misconception arises from failing to recognize that our meeting with Christ is only <i>likened</i> to a human judgment court. The similarities aren\'t exact.&nbsp;</p><p>We are to &ldquo;gain&rdquo; or \'make\' more for the Lord on the basis of what He first gave us. The Greek word translated &ldquo;made&rdquo; is elsewhere usually used about gaining men and women for Christ- a wife &lsquo;gains&rsquo; her unbelieving husband (1 Pet. 3:1); Paul sought to &lsquo;gain&rsquo; people for the Lord (1 Cor. 9:19-22); we &lsquo;gain&rsquo; a lost brother by pastoral effort with him (Mt. 18:15). Be that going for a coffee with him, sending an email, trying to imagine his feelings and approaching him appropriately.</p><p>Significantly, the other usages of this word translated &lsquo;gain&rsquo; are about the folly of gaining material wealth, even gaining the whole world. We can&rsquo;t be successfully about the Lord&rsquo;s business, of gaining folks for Him, if we are selling our soul to gain material things. That&rsquo;s the point. We were &ldquo;delivered&rdquo; talents by God. It&rsquo;s the same word used about how the Lord Jesus exhaled His last breath on the cross; how &ldquo;that form of doctrine&rdquo; was &lsquo;delivered&rsquo; to us before baptism (Rom. 6:17; 1 Cor. 15:3; Jude 3). We can&rsquo;t say we have no talents. Christ died for you, for me; He bowed His head towards each of us personally and gave us His last breath, the riches of His Spirit within us who stand before His cross.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3023','1','42','19','19','19','<p>19:19 <i>And he said to him: And you are to be over five cities</i>- See on :17. We think of how in the Kingdom, &quot;five cities shall speak the language of Canaan and swear to Yahweh&quot; (Is. 19:18). Such groups will be under the authority of someone who in this life traded their talents well. Again we note the total lack of proportion of the rewards; a faithful slave who took some initiative and was faithful during the master\'s absence becomes a ruler over cities. And this is the lack of proportion we shall experience. What this means is that every moment of human life today has huge and eternal significance, and will have moment far beyond anything we can now imagine. The gross lack of proportion doesn\'t mean that there is no relationship between the trading of this life and the nature of our eternity. There is; and that is the point. Our entire lives therefore should be bent toward spiritual things and the Lord\'s work. No longer can this be mere religion, a Sunday hobby, a social network. We are right now forging the nature of our eternity. The trading of the minas refers to our usage of the Spirit for the benefit of others, to God\'s glory. It is related to what we shall be eternally doing; for our authority over the nations is in order to help them to glorify the Lord.</p><p>We have already been made ruler &quot;over&quot; and in the Lord&rsquo;s household in order to feed the members (Mt. 24:45 s.w.). Our whole church experience, our relations with others and efforts for them, is to prepare us for being made ruler over all the Lord&rsquo;s goods, over whole cities of persons in the Kingdom. We cannot of course accurately imagine what new dimensions await us, but all we can say is that we are in training for them, and that training involves the care of others within the household now; for this is in essence what we shall eternally do on a far grander scale. To separate ourselves from that household, or cast others out of it, is to deny both ourselves and others the environment required for us to prepared for eternity.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>There is an element of unreality in the parable of the minas: wise use of a few coins results in power over several cities. We are left to imagine the men marvelling in disbelief at the reward given to them. They expected at most just a few minas to be given to them. And in their response we see a picture of the almost disbelief of the faithful at their rewards. In that moment we will grasp the deep significance of all we did in this life. And we need to perceive that now. For at times it can appear that we live the lives which our secular neighbours live, smelling, eating, acting, experiencing more or less as they do; just that we have religious beliefs which they don\'t share. But this is an illusion. Our lives, decisions, attitudes, actions and spirit are freighted with an eternal significance which is not so in their lives.</p><p>he Lord gave a related teaching in Lk. 16:10-12: &ldquo;He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another man\'s, who shall give you that which is your own?&rdquo;. What is given to us now is to test our faithfulness. If we don&rsquo;t perceive what we have been given, and so many believers tell me they are unsure about this,&nbsp;<i>then you need to ask the Lord to show you</i>. Urgently. And give your life to developing those things. The Luke 16 passage appears to say that in this life, we are stewards of the Lord&rsquo;s wealth, just as in this parable of the minas; but if we manage that well, then we will be rewarded with wealth which is actually and personally our own. For eternity. That &lsquo;wealth&rsquo; will be of the same nature as that given to us by the Lord initially. Here we have a rare insight into the nature of our eternity. There is nothing that is the Lord&rsquo;s which will not be shared with us and in some sense give to us to exercise our initiative over.</p><p>The &quot;Truth&quot; we have now (and it is that) is &quot;a very little... a few things&quot;. We mustn\'t see it as an end in itself. Yet because of our humanity, our limited vision, the way we are locked up in our petty paradigms, we tend to think that the Kingdom will be rather similar to our present experience of &quot;the Truth&quot;. Yet the Lord emphasizes, at least twice, that what we have now is pathetically limited compared to the infinitely greater spiritual vision of the Kingdom. We (personally) will then be made ruler over&nbsp;<i>all&nbsp;</i>that Christ has (Mt. 24:47; the &quot;cities&quot; of His Kingdom); and in him are hid&nbsp;<i>all&nbsp;</i>the riches of spiritual wisdom (Col. 2:3).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3024','1','42','19','20','20','<p>19:20 <i>And another came, saying: Lord, behold, here is your mina- </i>So many of the parables build up to a final climax which is the essence of the point the Lord was trying to get across; and this &lsquo;end stress&rsquo; is also seen in the talents parable. The warning is not to be like the man who didn&rsquo;t have the vision to do anything with his mina, but returned it unused to the Lord. This perhaps is our greatest temptation in our postmodern age of passivity, of staring at computer screens and clicking a mouse. &ldquo;Behold, here is your mina&rdquo; suggests an air of confidence in this man; he really didn&rsquo;t get it, that he was asked to trade what he&rsquo;d been given. The fact he had retained it pristine appears to have been his reason for thinking that he ought to be accepted, or at least, didn&rsquo;t ought to be condemned. The story line penetrates deep into the mentality of many small time Protestant sects, according to which the ultimate test of loyalty to the Lord is whether we have retained our understanding of whatever curious or specific interpretations were entrusted to us via the charismatic founder of the sect. This man thought that that was all there was to it. He didn&rsquo;t spend it on himself, he wasn&rsquo;t like the prodigal son. But too late he was to learn that sins of omission are the ground for condemnation. To do nothing with God&rsquo;s Truth is described by the Lord as &lsquo;wickedness&rsquo;. The grammar emphasizes personal possession:&nbsp;<i>You&nbsp;</i>have what&nbsp;<i>belongs to You</i>. As if to say &lsquo;I didn&rsquo;t steal it It&rsquo;s yours, and it remains yours&rsquo;. But the whole point was that the Lord had given the talents to the servants and gone away- they had to trade in their own name, as if they were theirs. We&rsquo;re not simply receptacles of intellectual truths which are to be preserved for the sake of it until the end of our days. That would be of itself pointless, a kind of mind game played between God and man for no ultimate purpose. We are given God&rsquo;s Truth, the riches of Christ, in order to use it for others; the whole talk of &lsquo;preserving the Truth in its purity&rsquo; is dangerously close to inculcating the mentality of the one talent man- the mentality that led to his condemnation.</p><p><i>I kept it laid away in a piece of cloth</i>- The judgment of the righteous comes before that of the rejected. The faithful respond first to the news that &lsquo;He&rsquo;s back&rsquo;, and their willingness to go and be with Him is effectively their judgment. Those who delay are the unworthy and are therefore judged slightly later.</p><p>One of the Lord\'s pen pictures of the rejected included that of the man who thought that because he had preserved the mina (the basic doctrines of the Gospel) intact, therefore he was entitled to a place in the Kingdom. We are left to imagine him half-proudly, half sheepishly, holding it out to the Lord (Mt. 25:25). But he should have traded with his pounds (Lk. 19:13 RV)- done something with it all. The crowds hung upon Jesus\' every word and teaching; it was so fascinating for them, so wonderful (Lk. 19:48 RV); and yet they still crucified Him. Those words, those wonderful ideas, didn\'t pierce deep within.</p><p>In the culture of the orient, it was not usual for a person to keep money in a cloth. Their culture was to trade and barter with what they had. That a man should just bury such a talent was therefore unreal for the original hearers. The point of this unreality is surely that spiritual laziness is <i>so</i> bad. It was better to have traded and lost through genuine mistakes, through naivety, through the betrayal and deception of others, than to simply <i>do nothing</i>. I fear, really fear, that our Christian culture has bred for many of us a &lsquo;do nothing&rsquo; culture- which is exactly what this element of unreality is warning against. We can delegate responsibility to church committees, to others, to our leaders; or we can do nothing out of fear, fear of making a mistake, fear of taking a risk, fear of what other brethren may think of us&hellip; all the time denying this principle of Divine delegation. And it might be added that the &lsquo;do nothing&rsquo; man of the parable emphasized that the talent or money was not <i>his</i>; he returned to his Lord what was his &ldquo;your singular mina&rdquo;. In order to trade it, or even to put it in the bank and get interest, he had to take personal ownership of it. And this he failed to do. And it is just this that we are being asked to do by our Lord- that His truth, all that He has given us, is in a sense <i>ours</i> now, to be used on our initiative, for His glory and service. Indeed, the reward of the faithful will be to be given <i>more</i> of their Lord&rsquo;s riches in the Kingdom, with which likewise to use their initiative in order to bring Him glory. We are left to think how the story might have gone on- the faithful were given <i>more</i> talents and they go away and do, in the Kingdom age, what they did in this life- using what they were given for <i>His glory and service, on their own initiative.</i></p><p>We are <i>expected</i> by the Lord to realize that our relationship with Him means total commitment to His cause. In this sense Jesus is a demanding Lord. Thus when He gave the talents to His servants, He doesn\'t tell them to trade with them; it seems that the one talent man is making this point when he says \'You gave me your money to look after, and I looked after it, I didn\'t steal it; you\'re unreasonable to think I should have done anything else with it, you\'re expecting what you didn\'t give\'. And the Lord is; He expects that if we realize we have the honour of knowing His Truth, we should get on and do something with it, not just keep it until He comes back. He doesn\'t have to ask us to do this; He takes it as being obvious. The anger of the rejected man comes over as genuine; he really can\'t understand his Master. He\'s done what he was asked, and now he\'s condemned because he didn\'t do something extra. He was a Lord that man never knew- until all too late. You can imagine how you\'d feel if someone gives you some money to look after, and then expects you to have doubled it, although he didn\'t ask you to do anything with it.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3025','1','42','19','21','21','<p>19:21 <i>For I feared you- </i>Fear of the judgment of others is a source of false guilt. It is this which militates against the true and free life of which the Lord speaks so enthusiastically. We fear showing ourselves for who we really are, because we fear others&rsquo; judgments. This fear makes us uncreative, not bearing the unique spiritual fruits which the Lord so eagerly seeks from us and in us. The Lord said this plainly, when He characterized the man who did nothing with his talents as lamely but truthfully saying: &ldquo;I feared you&quot;. Think about this: What or whom was he afraid of? His fear was not so much of his Lord&rsquo;s judgment, but rather perhaps of the judgments of others, that he might do something wrong, wrongly invest, look stupid, mess it all up... And thus John writes that it is fear that leads to torment of soul now and final condemnation. The Lord&rsquo;s words in the parable are almost exactly those of Adam. The rejected one mina man says &lsquo;I was afraid, and so I hid&nbsp;<i>my mina</i>&rsquo;. Adam said: &lsquo;I was afraid, and I hid&nbsp;<i>myself</i>&rsquo;. The talent God gave that man was therefore himself, his real self. To not use our talent, to not blossom from the experience of God&rsquo;s love and grace, is to not use ourselves, is to not be ourselves, the&nbsp;<i>real</i>&nbsp;self as God intended.</p><p><i>Because you are a hard man- </i>The problem was the man&rsquo;s wrong attitude and laziness to do anything. The prodigal son was given much of his Father&rsquo;s wealth, and he wasted it rather than trading it. But he recognized the Father&rsquo;s grace and was prepared to work just as a servant. And this attitude was his salvation. So this man&rsquo;s rejection wasn&rsquo;t simply because he had failed to do any trading.</p><p>Another take on this is that there is a sense in which the Lord is indeed a &ldquo;hard man&rdquo;, a demanding Lord, His expectations were (and are) high. And yet His parables reveal an immense sympathy and empathy with our weakness. In a normal human situation, it would be difficult to build a relationship with someone who had such apparently contradictory trends in His character. Perhaps we have the same problem in our struggle to know the Lord. He never denied that He came over in some ways as &quot;a hard man&quot; with high expectations; all He said was that seeing this was the case, we ought to act accordingly (Mt. 25:24). And yet He is also a man of grace and understanding far beyond anything reached by anyone else. He is truly the Jesus who understands human weakness. And note that He is described even now as &ldquo;the man Christ Jesus&rdquo;, able to feel the pulse of our humanity. This, in passing, opens a window into what Divine nature will be like: we will be able to completely feel the human experience, to the extent of still bearing the title &lsquo;men&rsquo; even in immortality.</p><p><i>You demand what you did not deposit, and reap that which you did not sow</i>- He clearly didn\'t know nor love his master; or else he would not have had this inappropriate fear. He is accusing him of being a typical absentee landlord. But his master was not away enjoying himself. He had gone to receive a kingdom and to return and share it with his workers. The man who didn\'t develop as he should have done accuses the Lord of reaping what He didn\'t sow. But the Lord does sow the seed of the basic Gospel, as the parable of the sower makes clear. The point is that the unworthy fail to let that seed bring forth fruit, they fail to see that the Lord expects fruit from those&nbsp;doctrines they have been given. But they fail to see the link between the basic Gospel and practical spirituality; they feel he\'s reaping where He didn\'t sow. They are in denial of &quot;the power thereof&quot;, whilst theoretically possessing it. The Lord will require his own, i.e. that which he has sown, the basic Truths of the Gospel, the gift of the riches of His grace, His Spirit, with usury (Lk. 19:23). The parable of the tiny seed moving the great mountain was surely making the same point; the basic Gospel, if properly believed, will result in the most far reaching things (Mt. 17:20 cp. 13:31).</p><p>The moment of conversion is the beginning of the gathering to judgment (Lk. 11:23; Jn. 4:36). The one talent man didn\'t appreciate this; he objected to the Lord reaping and gathering him (Mt. 25:24). But whatever human objections, the responsible from all nations&nbsp;<i>will be gathered&nbsp;</i>to judgment (Mt. 25:32). The servants are called to receive their talents, and then called again to account (Lk. 19;13,15); there is something in common between the calling to know the Gospel, and the calling to judgment. If reaping refers to judgment which it clearly does in the Lord&rsquo;s teaching, then the man could hardly claim to have known the Lord on the basis of how He reaps. Because the man hadn&rsquo;t experienced the Lord&rsquo;s reaping. The man says he &lsquo;knows&rsquo; <i>ginosko</i> the Lord is like this; the Lord answers that if indeed the man has &lsquo;known&rsquo; <i>eido</i>- which more means to see / experience that He is like this, then he should have acted accordingly. The suggestion may be that even if a person&rsquo;s understanding of the Lord Jesus is slightly wrong, the important thing is to live within and according to that understanding, even if it involves breaking some Divine principles lending for interest. If the desire to respond to the Lord&rsquo;s gift was there, the desire to progress His work, then although such response was not ideal and not as good as that achieved by the other two servants, then the Lord would accept it. The language of sowing, reaping and gathering is all described using the same Greek words in the Lord&rsquo;s comment that the birds don&rsquo;t do these three things, and yet God still feeds them (Mt. 6:26). Perhaps the man was making a garbled, incoherent attempt to say that he had understood those words of the Lord to mean that He was somehow going to be an unreasonable judge with unreal expectations, therefore he had done nothing, although he had not spent the talent unlike the prodigal son- who desperately wanted to be with the Father. We may be intended to understand his reasoning as being &lsquo;You created birds who don&rsquo;t sow, reap nor gather into barns, they just expect food. And God thinks that&rsquo;s good. So, He is like what He creates&rsquo;. And perhaps the man also had in view Jn. 4:38: &ldquo;I sent you to reap that whereon you bestowed no labour. Other men laboured&hellip;&rdquo;. The harvest of people was reaped by those who hadn&rsquo;t fully worked for it, and the man desperately tries to turn that around to justify his own lack of action. Such desperate twisting of Bible verses can be seen at every hand today, as people wriggle by all means to justify their inaction and selfishness.</p><p><i>And gathering where you did not scatter seed</i>- The Lord is clearly the sower of seed, the seed of the word of the Kingdom (Mt. 13:3). But the man is complaining that the Lord &lsquo;reaps&rsquo; or calls to judgment those who had not received that seed. That is not the case- for knowledge of the Gospel is what makes responsible to judgment. The Lord could have corrected him by reminding him of the sower parable. But He doesn&rsquo;t. He reasons with the man according to the belief system which he claims to have, assuming for a moment that it is in fact true. His whole style ought to be programmatic for us in our frequent encounters with those who misuse Scripture and the Lord&rsquo;s words. The Lord does&nbsp;<i>not&nbsp;</i>expect a harvest from ground He has not sown; and in any case, the man had heard the word, received the talent. He was ground which had been sown, and the Lord could therefore expect a harvest from him. Like many people today, he started to raise philosophical questions about the fate of those who have not heard, and justified his own inaction as one who definitely&nbsp;<i>had</i>&nbsp;heard and been called on the basis of his doubts as to the Lord&rsquo;s justice in dealing with those who had&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;been called. Truly these ancient teachings speak to the heart of postmodern man today.</p><p>&quot;Gathering&quot; was highly relevant to the man, for the language of &lsquo;gathering&rsquo; is often used about the gathering of God&rsquo;s servants to judgment (Mt. 3:12; 13:30; 25:32). The man was implying that his &lsquo;gathering&rsquo; to judgment was unreasonable because the Lord had not sown in his land, had not strawed where he has. He felt he was being gathered to give an account when the Lord had given him nothing to account for. And yet the obvious fact was, the elephant in the room, that the Lord had given him minas, 20 years&rsquo; wages, 1 million. And yet the man reasoned as if he had not been given anything to account for. He totally refused to perceive the immense value of what he had been given. And this is so true for us- we for whom Christ died, the blood of God&rsquo;s Son shed, we who have been called to eternity, who by status are &ldquo;saved&rdquo; and showered with all spiritual blessings&hellip; can complain that we have not been given anything. Because in our minds we have buried it away, and reason as if we never received it. Here again, the Lord&rsquo;s ancient words pierce to the core of modern Christian self-perception.</p><p>The Greek&nbsp;<i>diaskorpizo</i>&nbsp;can mean &lsquo;to scatter&rsquo; and can therefore be used about sowing; but it also has the specific meaning &lsquo;to winnow&rsquo;. In this case, the picture would be of a man who has not winnowed and yet expects to come and gather up wheat. Again, the man may be attempting to twist the Lord&rsquo;s words about &lsquo;gathering wheat into His barn&rsquo; (Mt. 13:30, repeating John&rsquo;s words of 3:12). His idea would be &lsquo;You expect the wheat to be waiting for You without even winnowing it&rsquo;. But of course the point was that winnowing represented judgment, and this was exactly what the Lord had come to do. But in His grace, the Lord doesn&rsquo;t make that obvious point, but runs with the man&rsquo;s words and reasoning and shows him that however wrong his imaginations were about the Lord, he should have acted according to them if he truly loved his Lord. But he hadn&rsquo;t done so; because he was selfish and lazy.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3026','1','42','19','22','22','<p>19:22 <i>He said to him: Out of your own mouth will I judge you, you wicked servant- </i>The Lord&rsquo;s only other reference to a wicked servant is in the parable of the wicked servant who runs up a huge debt, is forgiven, and then refuses to forgive a far smaller debt, putting the debtor in prison (Mt. 18:32). The two men are clearly intended to be compared. The one of Mt. 18:32 was dishonest with his Lord&rsquo;s money for how else did he amass such a huge debt to his Lord? Was it not that he was found out for dishonesty?; he was materialistic in the extreme; and he was incredibly ungrateful and unforgiving. He committed many sins. The &ldquo;wicked servant&rdquo; here does nothing wrong, is not overtly materialistic; but his sin of omission, meant that in reality he had done just the same as the man who committed so much wrong.</p><p>The Lord&rsquo;s parable was clearly alluding to a contemporary Jewish rabbinic parable later recorded in the Zohar Chadash, folio 47: &ldquo;A certain king gave a deposit to three of his servants: the first kept it; the second lost it; the third spoiled one part of it, and gave the rest to another to keep. After some time, the king came and demanded the deposit. Him who had preserved it, the king praised, and made him governor of his house. Him who had lost it, he delivered to utter destruction, so that both his name and his possessions were blotted out. To the third, who had spoiled a part and given the rest to another to keep, the king said, Keep him, and let him not go out of my house, till we see what the other shall do to whom he has entrusted a part: if he shall make a proper use of it, this man shall be restored to liberty; if not, he also shall be punished&rdquo;. The point of contrast is that the Lord is far more demanding. The Jewish story praised the man who simply preserved the deposit. The Lord Jesus condemned the same man for doing nothing positive with it. The third man in the Jewish parable was given the possibility of repentance. But the third man in the Lord&rsquo;s parable was condemned with no possibility of changing the verdict- for this life is our sole time of responsibility. The Lord is purposefully alluding to this parable, and deconstructing it. Passivity, &lsquo;holding on to the faith&rsquo; in a passive sense, much glorified by both Judaism and Protestant Christianity, is what may be glorified in human religion; but it&rsquo;s exactly this attitude which will be the ground of condemnation.</p><p><i>You thought that I am a hard man, demanding back what I did not deposit, and reaping that which I did not sow?</i>- The Lord&rsquo;s response could actually be translated as meaning: &lsquo;You really? saw Me reap where I did not sow&hellip;?&rsquo;. The process of reaping definitely refers to the last judgment, and so the man had no basis upon which to make this claim, because he had never actually &lsquo;seen&rsquo; the Lord act like that. But I prefer to understand the Lord as taking the man&rsquo;s ideas and working with them, without specifically correcting them- and saying that even if the man&rsquo;s understanding of Him was correct, then He expected him to act appropriately to that understanding. Instead of doing nothing.</p><p>The metaphor of a man travelling into a far country is a sign of His recognition that on one level, that is indeed how it will appear to us. And clearly the idea is based upon the experience of absent landlords, who left their estates in the hands of their servants and went away to enjoy the good life in some better part of the Roman empire. Such landlords were despised as non-patriotic and disinterested in the welfare of their people. And yet the Lord consciously employs this image concerning Himself. He is not ultimately like that, but through this choice of imagery He gives a nod of recognition towards the fact that indeed this is how it will appear to some. Joseph likewise appeared tough and disinterested to his brothers, when beneath that mask his heart was bursting for them; His whole plan of action was simply to lead them to repentance.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3027','1','42','19','23','23','<p>19:23 <i>Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest- </i>The Lord may have in view the money exchangers whom He so despised and whose tables He overthrew in Mt. 21:12. It&rsquo;s as if the Lord is saying that He was willing to make major concessions to the man- if he had done at least something, even if that &lsquo;something&rsquo; was far less than ideal. A Rabbinic teaching claims that bankers should never be trusted and therefore &ldquo;Money can only be kept safe by placing it in the earth&rdquo; (<i>b. B. Mes&rsquo;ia</i>&nbsp;42A, quoted in R.T. France,&nbsp;<i>The Gospel of Matthew</i>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) p. 954). The Lord is consciously deconstructing Rabbinic views. If we had more access to such contemporary texts, we would likely understand many of the more enigmatic and difficult passages of Scripture- probably they are alluding to and deconstructing contemporary writings.</p><p>The Lord will&nbsp;<i>receive&nbsp;or </i>collect back His own. Strong defines this as &quot;to carry off, away from harm&quot; (the same word is used in Heb. 11:19 about&nbsp;Abraham&nbsp;<i>receiving</i>&nbsp;Isaac from the dead). There is the suggestion that the Truth which the Lord has given us is valuable to Him, and He fears our losing it; those who lose the faith lose the personal possession of the Lord Jesus. But at the judgment, when we hand it back to the Lord, He (not to say, we) will have that deep knowledge that now we can\'t fail Him any more, we no longer have the possibility of causing harm and loss to the treasured wealth which has been entrusted to us.&nbsp;We need to remember, however, that there was no banking system as we have today. Lending money to exchangers was a highly risky business and often resulted in the loss of money; money was safer stored in the earth, as the man did. So the Lord&rsquo;s point was that he should have taken a risk; indeed, all such trading requires risk taking which may leave us looking foolish. But the Lord may be implying that if he had taken that risk for the right reasons, all ultimately would have worked out well.</p><p>&quot;My own money&quot;reminds us of the fact that He is Lord&nbsp;<i>of all</i>. This means He is owner of absolutely everything to do with us (Acts 10:36). At the judgment, this fact will be brought home. The Lord will ask for &ldquo;my money... my own&quot;; we will be asked what we have done with our Lord\'s money (Mt. 20:15; 25:27). All we have is God\'s; it is not our own. Therefore if we hold back in our giving and trading, we are&nbsp;<i>robbing God</i>. Israel thought it was absurd to put it like this: But yes, God insisted through Malachi (3:8-12), you are&nbsp;<i>robbing me</i>&nbsp;if you don\'t give back, or even if you don\'t give your heart to Him in faith.&nbsp;<i>And will a man rob God?&nbsp;</i>Will a man...? We must give God what has His image stamped on it: and we, our bodies, are made in His image (Mt. 22:21); therefore we have a duty to give ourselves to Him. We are not our own: how much less is \'our\' money or time our own Like David, we need to realize now,&nbsp;<i>in this life</i>, before the judgment, that all our giving is only a giving back to God of what we have been given by Him: &quot;Of your own have we given you&quot; (1 Chron. 19:14). The danger of materialism is the assumption that we are ultimate owners of what we \'have\'.</p><p>Explaining how the man could have entered the Kingdom is surely the basis for the gnashing of teeth. To have it explained like that&hellip; is harder than any hell fire of classical imagination. He ought to have given the talent to the exchangers. Either he should&rsquo;ve given it to the Gentiles, or he should have at least done something, in lending it to his Jewish brethren- even against the Law. Very possession of the minas meant we have to, we must, share it with others in some way- we are all preachers.&nbsp;</p><p>The man being told how he could have entered the Kingdom is after the pattern of rejected Adam and Eve having the way to the tree of life clearly shown to them after their rejection (Gen. 3:23,24). Again, notice how the judgment is for the education of those judged and those who witness it. He will shew them how they should have given their talent, the basic Gospel, to others, and therefore gained some interest. This has to be connected with the well known prohibition on lending money to fellow Israelites for usury; usury could only be received from Gentiles (Dt. 23:20). Surely the Lord is implying that&nbsp;<i>at the least</i>&nbsp;this person could have shared the Gospel with others, especially (in a Jewish context) the Gentile world. This would have at least&nbsp;brought some usury for the Lord. This would suggest that issues such as apathy in preaching, especially the unwillingness of the Jewish believers to share their hope with the Gentiles, will be raised by the Lord during the judgment process. Of course, the Lord hadn\'t told the servant (in the story) to lend the money to Gentiles; he was expected to use his initiative. The overall picture of the story is that at least the man should have done&nbsp;<i>something</i></p><p>Alternatively, it could be that we are intended to understand that the Lord would even have accepted him if he lent money on usury, something which the Law condemned; if he\'d have done&nbsp;<i>something</i>, even if it involved breaking some aspects of God\'s will... Instead, his attitude was that he had been given the talent of the Gospel, and he saw his duty as to just keep hold on it. He was angry that the Lord should even suggest he ought to have done anything else We really must watch for this attitude in ourselves. He justifies himself by saying that he has &quot;kept&quot; the money (Lk. 19:20), using the word elsewhere used about the need to&nbsp;<i>keep</i>&nbsp;or hold on to the doctrines of the One Faith (1 Tim. 1:19; 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:13; Rev. 6:9). He had done this, he had held on, he hadn\'t left the faith. And he thought this was enough to bring him to the Kingdom. Sadly, many understandings of spirituality has almost glorified this very attitude. Any who show initiative have been seen as mavericks, as likely to go wrong. The emphasis has been on holding on to basic doctrinal teaching, marking your Bible with it, attending weekly meetings about it (even if you snooze through them), regularly attending...&nbsp; And, son, you won\'t go far wrong. The Lord, in designing this parable as he did, had exactly this sort of complacency in mind.&nbsp;In view of the man&rsquo;s beliefs about the Lord, he still should&rsquo;ve acted accordingly.</p><p>Both sheep and goats register their surprise at their Lord\'s comments on various specific actions of theirs which he discusses with them- &quot;When did we see you...?&quot; (Mt. 25:44). The thought that at least some of our deeds will be discussed with us at the judgment should surely make some impact on our present behaviour. Lk. 19:23 implies not only that there will be a discussion with our judge, but that Jesus will point out to the rejected what they should have done to be accepted.</p><p>The parables of the Kingdom speak of the eternal consequences of the judgment. The Lord will require His own at the judgment (Lk. 19:23). This doesn\'t mean, as the one talent man thought, that He will require us to give back to Him the basic doctrines of the Gospel which we were given at conversion. The Greek means to exact regularly, in an ongoing sense (s.w. Lk. 3:13); Strong defines it as meaning &quot;to perform repeatedly... not a single act&quot;. When the Lord examines our lives at the judgment, He will expect to keep on receiving the result of what we have achieved for Him in this life. This is the ultimate encouragement for us in our preaching and encouraging of others, as well as ourselves; what we achieve now will yield eternal, continual fruit to the Lord. &nbsp;See on Mt. 25:27.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3028','1','42','19','24','24','<p>19:24 <i>And he said to those that stood by: Take away from him the mina and give it to him that has the ten minas</i>- &quot;Them that stood by&quot; must surely be a conscious reference by the Lord to Zechariah\'s prophecy of the Angels as &quot;these that stand by&quot; Christ (Zech. 3:4,7); note that he too speaks in a judgment/reward context. If our Lord is referring to the Angels, then we have a fascinating picture of them taking away the opportunities given to the unworthy and granting them to the accepted. Their query of the amount of reward being given fits in with what we know about their limited knowledge, and the fact that our reward will be far greater than their present status (Heb. 1,2). Hence their reverent questioning of the extent of reward being given (:25) suggests that &quot;them that stood by&quot; somehow questioned the Lord\'s judgment; their sense of equality was not that of their Lord. They felt that the gloriously strong brother with his wonderful reward didn\'t need it to be made even more wonderful. &quot;Them that stood by&quot; could refer to the Angels, or to the way in which the judgment will in some sense take place in the presence of all the believers. The fact is, even with God\'s nature, it will be difficult to appreciate the principles of judgment which the Lord uses; and so how much more difficult is it today</p><p>The man \'having\' ten talents as his ownis in sharp contrast with the way the one talent man speaks of how the talent is not his but the Lord&rsquo;s: &ldquo;Here You have what is Yours&rdquo;. The Lord is making the point that the faithful will now personally own the talents they were first given, plus they will be allowed to keep for their personal, eternal possession what talents they made during the trading of this life. The progress achieved in this life will be kept eternally. The Lord&rsquo;s teaching here must be given its due weight.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3029','1','42','19','25','25','<p>19:25<i> And they said to him: Lord, he has ten minas</i>- See on Mt. 20:11. The &quot;they&quot; could be the disciples; or the Angels at judgment; or the faithful at judgment day who still do not fully understand all things. If it was the disciples who interrupted the parable, clearly not understanding it, we must compare this against how the Lord said that His parables were only not understood by the unbelieving Jewish world. So we see His grace towards them, and their slowness to understand. If the &quot;they&quot; refers to saved believers at the last day, then we reflect that some will be in the Kingdom who have big questions about the justice of God (Mt. 20:12,13 &quot;friend&quot;); the elder son is apparently accepted in the Father\'s fellowship, although his attitude to his weak brother is so wrong (Lk. 15:31); the wise virgins, apparently selfishly, won\'t give any oil to the others; some will sit in the Kingdom in &quot;shame&quot; because they thought they were greater than other brethren (Lk. 14:9- cp. the elder brother?); some remonstrate that a highly rewarded brother already has ten pounds, and surely doesn\'t need any more exaltation (Lk. 19:25).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3030','1','42','19','26','26','<p>19:26 <i>I say to you, that to everyone that has, shall be given- </i>This repeats the Lord&rsquo;s earlier teaching in Mt. 13:10-12 about the giving of understanding to those who have some: &ldquo;And the disciples came and said to him: Why do you speak to them in parables? And he answered and said to them: To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.&nbsp; For whoever has, to him shall be given and he shall have abundance, but whoever has not, from him shall be taken away even what he has&rdquo;. Clearly there is an upward spiral in spiritual life, and this will come to ultimate term in the outcomes of judgment day.</p><p><i>But from him that has not, even that which he has shall be taken away from him</i>- This is a paradox. Does the rejected man have minas, or not? He did, of course, have a mina; but as far as the Lord is concerned, we only have what we have developed. If we don\'t develop, we have nothing; the fact we received the talent at baptism won\'t save us. It&rsquo;s only what a man has developed from that in the service of others which counts as truly &ldquo;his&rdquo;. This likewise is the sense of &ldquo;To him that has shall be given&rdquo;; all we have is what we have developed.</p><p><i>&quot;</i>Taken away&quot; is perhaps a special reference to the Kingdom of God being &ldquo;taken away&rdquo; s.w. from Israel and given to the Gentiles (Mt. 21:43). The same Greek word is used about the taking away of the rejected individuals at judgment day (Mt. 22:13; 24:39). But here, it is the unused mina that is &ldquo;taken away&rdquo;. The man was therefore to be identified with the mina- it was to be him. And yet he is most careful to speak of the mina as not his, but the Lord&rsquo;s: &ldquo;Here you have what is yours&rdquo;. The Lord intended that we identify with the mina, rather than see it merely as His.</p><p>At judgment day, the rejected who have nothing will find that even what they have is taken from them. This surely means that the spirituality they appeared to have, what they thought they had, actually they never had, and even the appearance of it will be taken away from them. We can appear to have spirituality, when in fact we have nothing, nothing at all. The man who built his house on the sand had the sensation of spiritual progress; he was building, he was getting somewhere, apparently. Likewise Israel were an empty fruitless vine, but they brought forth fruit- to themselves. In reality they had no fruit; but they went through the fruit-bearing process (Hos. 10:1). In Jer. 5:13, God mocks the false prophets as being &quot;full of wind&quot;, or \'ruach\'- with which His true prophets were filled. This play on words reveals that spirituality is either the real thing, or a being filled with wind in such a way that apes the true spirituality.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3031','1','42','19','27','27','<p>19:27<i> But bring here my enemies, and slay them before me, those who did not want me to reign over them</i>- See on Rev. 14:10. We do well to try to imagine the tone of voice in which the Lord spoke these words. For in :41,42 He weeps over Jerusalem at the thought of her coming judgment. They did not wish to be under His Kingship; and so they will not be in His Kingdom. They made the choice.</p><p>It is fairly certain that time will be compressed at the judgment seat; there will therefore be no problem in such an individual discussion between each of the responsible and Christ. Several Bible passages suggest a going through of <i>works; </i>and yet we know that the basis of acceptability with God is not works but rather faith. The judgment of our works seems not to be related to as it were weighing up our salvation chances. For salvation is a gift, unrelated to works. That\'s what grace is about. But our use of our talents will be related to who and how we will eternally be.</p><p>A case could be made that the word &quot;but&quot; suggests that the one talent man is saved and doesn\'t share in the condemnation of the wicked which will happen at the final judgment. The \'going through\' of works is therefore for our benefit, to teach us- not as a basis upon which the Lord decides worthiness. Salvation itself is not on the basis of our works (Rom. 11:6; Gal. 2:16; Tit. 3:5); indeed, the <i>free gift </i>of salvation by pure grace is contrasted with the <i>wages</i> paid by sin (Rom. 4:4; 6:23).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3032','1','42','19','28','28','<p>19:28 <i>And when he had said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem</i>- It was as if the Lord was determined Himself to trade His wealth, regardless of whether others did. And for Him, this required death in Jerusalem. We note His feature of walking ahead of them; we are left with the image of them following, setting us a pattern.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3033','1','42','19','29','29','<p>19:29 <i>And it came to pass, when he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount that is called Olivet- </i>\'The house of figs\'. There is likely a connection to the incident when the Lord curses the fig tree (:19). Perhaps we are to assume that He hoped for figs in Bethphage too, and was likewise disappointed. Bethphage has even been given the meaning \'House of unripe figs\', which would confirm this impression (See Marcus Jastrow,&nbsp;<i>Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature</i>&nbsp;(Jerusalem: Horeb, 1903, reprint) p. 1132).</p><p><i>He sent two of the disciples</i>- The question arises as to why He didn\'t simply take the two animals Himself. The practical answer would be that if He had gone further into Jerusalem to get them, then he would as it were have entered Jerusalem but not in the way He intended to, which was to consciously fulfil the prophecy about the humble King entering Jerusalem on a donkey. But that explanation throws the question one stage further back. Why was it specifically a donkey from that village and person which was required? Could He not have found one in Bethphage? The effort required to send two disciples ahead of Him to get the animals and then bring them back to Bethphage seems considerable, when donkeys were common enough. The answer is not clear, but it could be that there was an anonymous person who specifically wanted to give those animals to the Lord in order to fulfil that prophecy. The Lord knew this and had obviously discussed it with the owner previously, because the owner would recognize Him as &quot;the Lord&quot; (:31), and would provide them once he perceived the Lord wanted them. In this little incident we see therefore the extent the Lord will go to, now as well as then, in order to take up the initiative of those who love Him. If we take that initiative in service, the Lord will surely use it, and make every effort to do so.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3034','1','42','19','30','30','<p>19:30 <i>Saying: Go into the village in front of you, where on entering you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever yet sat. Untie it and bring it here</i>-</p><p>The Greek words translated &quot;tied&quot; and &quot;untie&quot; occur together several times, usually rendered \'bind\' and \'loose\'. Earlier, the idea of binding and loosing has been used about the way that the decisions and actions of believers can have eternal consequence upon others, and our bind and loosing is to some extent reflected in and confirmed by Heaven (Mt. 16:19; 18:18). This conception of binding and loosing was surely intended by the Lord. Verse 4 makes clear that all this was done in order to fulfil the prophecy of Zech. 9:9 that Messiah would come to Zion riding on a donkey and her foal. But that prophecy had to be consciously fulfilled. Whether or not the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled was therefore left to the initiative of the Lord and His followers. And it\'s the same in our last days- if, e.g., we choose to fulfil the prophecy that the Gospel must go into all the world before the end comes, then in that sense the actual time of Christ\'s coming is left in our hands. There are other Messianic associations with a donkey- Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed on a donkey (Gen. 22:3,5); Solomon rode to his coronation on David\'s donkey (1 Kings 1:33-44).</p><p>The question arises as to why both a donkey and foal were required. He surely didn\'t straddle both at the same time. He rode on the donkey whilst the colt followed. Perhaps this has reference to the way that the Lord\'s final entry into His Kingdom would be on the backs of both Jews and Gentiles; the immature foal with no rider would therefore look forward to the Gentiles. Another possibility is that &quot;A donkey,&nbsp;<i>and</i>&nbsp;on a colt, the foal of a&nbsp;donkey&quot; is a Semitic parallelism effectively meaning \'A donkey, actually, a foal of a donkey\'. If that\'s the case, then the Lord rode the foal of a donkey, not yet broken in. It would\'ve been hard to ride, probably trying to throw Him; His journey into the city would\'ve been almost comical, because He would nearly have been thrown and would\'ve hardly made a sedate, solemn procession. The parallel records stress that no man had ever sat upon it (Mk. 11:2; Lk. 19:30). This would\'ve spoken clearly of the difficulty of the Lord\'s entry to His Kingdom whilst riding on Israel. However, Mt. 21:2 speaks in the plural, of loosing the animals and bringing&nbsp;<i>them</i>&nbsp;to the Lord. It may simply be that a donkey nursing her foal, distracted by this, was the most unmilitary, non-glorious form upon which the Lord could\'ve entered Jerusalem. Perhaps it was a parody of how triumphal entries require a King to be on a charger pulling a chariot. The Lord had a donkey instead of a charger, and instead of a chariot being pulled by the charger, the foal was in tow behind the donkey.&nbsp;</p><p>Mk. 11:4 says that the donkey was tied at a gate, at &quot;a place where two ways met<i>&quot;.&nbsp;</i>This translates the word&nbsp;<i>amphedon&nbsp;</i>which in the LXX (e.g. Jer. 17:27) is used for a palace. Herod had a palace on the Mount of Olives and maybe this is what is being referenced. It could be that the donkey and foal were provided by Herod\'s servants, because Joanna was a disciple of Jesus who provided for Jesus from her &quot;substance&quot;- and she was the wife of Chuza, Herod\'s steward (Lk. 8:3). In this case, the Lord was further parodying a King\'s triumphant entry by riding upon Herod\'s donkey.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3035','1','42','19','31','31','<p>19:31 <i>And if anyone asks you: Why do you untie him? You are to say: The Lord has need of him</i>- God in a sense is in need of man, just as Jesus was, or allowed Himself to be.&nbsp;See on :30.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3036','1','42','19','32','32','<p>19:32 <i>And they that were sent went away and found as he had said to them</i>- This is to note their obedience to an otherwise very strange command. They surely secretly hoped that He would achieve a dramatic Messianic salvation. And He was teaching them that that salvation was not now, and He was deconstructing the whole idea of a triumphal entry, as noted on :30. It is to their credit that they humbled themselves beneath this idea.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3037','1','42','19','33','33','<p>19:33 <i>And as they were untying the colt, the owners of it said to them: Why do you untie the colt?</i>- This was all clearly part of a prearranged plan, as noted on :30. But there was a purpose in it. The Lord wanted them to ask the question as to why ever He was making a triumphal entry on a colt and not a charger. Perhaps the stress was on the word &quot;colt&quot;, when perhaps a finer horse stood there. He wanted them to realize that He was deconstructing a triumphal entry.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3038','1','42','19','34','34','<p>19:34 <i>And they said: The Lord has need of him</i>- The usage of the term &quot;the Lord&quot; suggests that the owners were also believers. I suggested on :30 that they were believing members of Herod\'s household.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3039','1','42','19','35','35','<p>19:35 <i>And they brought it to Jesus, and they threw their garments upon the colt and sat Jesus on it</i>- Using their garments as saddles. The fact both animals were saddled (Matthew) was to make the point that one rider was missing. For according to the other Gospels, the Lord sat upon the colt. The mother donkey was saddled, but without a rider. This added to the strangeness of the spectacle. The missing rider was perhaps a reference to how Israel had not as a whole responded in bringing Messiah to Zion. Maybe it referred to the Gentiles who had yet to be converted. Or perhaps to the fact that Israel had rejected John the Baptist and he had been killed- and therefore there was no Elijah prophet bringing Messiah into Zion. Elijah was the great horseman of the Divine chariot (2 Kings 2:12; 13:14; he is called the &ldquo;horsemen&rdquo; plural, but this is an intensive plural for &lsquo;the one great horseman&rsquo;). Elijah was the chariot horseman, the one who was to ride on the horse which pulled the chariot in which there was Messiah this was a Rabbinic understanding of the Elijah prophet. But he was strangely absent in this acted parable. The saddle was there for him, provided by the few disciples who had responded to John / Elijah; but he wasn&rsquo;t there. This absence of the Elijah prophet was surely indicative of the fact that John had not been the Elijah prophet for most of Israel- they hadn&rsquo;t responded properly to his message. Therefore the true triumphant entry of Messiah was yet future. This is why the phrase &ldquo;bringing salvation&rdquo; is excluded from the quotation of Zech. 9:9. It was not so much a &lsquo;triumphant entry&rsquo;, but a&nbsp;<i>parody</i>&nbsp;of a triumphant entry.</p><p>When they put their clothes on the colt and started mistakenly proclaiming Jesus as the triumphal Messiah entering Jerusalem to begin His political Kingdom, the Lord doesn&rsquo;t rebuke their misunderstanding. Instead, He defends them to the critical Pharisees (Lk. 19:35-37,40).&nbsp;He imputed righteousness to them, as He does to us today.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3040','1','42','19','36','36','<p>19:36 <i>And as he went, they spread their garments on the road</i>- Matthew says that &quot;the crowd&quot; did this. The crowds who accepted Him in the wrong way very soon rejected Him; so in a sense, they cut themselves off. And they did this because they misunderstood Him, expecting Him to give immediate deliverance.</p><p>Jn. 12:13 says they waved palm branches. But palms and the shout of &quot;Hosanna&quot; (Mt.) are associated with the feast of Tabernacles. And this was Passover, not Tabernacles. All the way through this brilliant visual stunt by the Lord, there was the message that He was not as they had imagined, He had come to die as the Passover Lamb, not to immediately give them the Tabernacles celebration which they wanted to see there and then.</p><p>The behaviour in this verse was exactly that associated with the triumphant entry of a victorious king. The much laboured account of the Lord&rsquo;s obtaining a donkey and her foal and thus riding into the city was really a studied parody of that whole conception of Messianic victory. For Him, the victory would be to hang lifeless upon a cross. True greatness was in humility. And instead of beaming with pride, Lk. 19:41 adds the detail that He wept over the city, knowing how they had rejected Him. According to Harry Whittaker,&nbsp;<i>Studies in the Gospels, &quot;</i>The rabbis had a saying: &quot;If Israel be worthy, Messiah comes with the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7:13); if unworthy, riding upon an ass&quot; (Zech. 9:9)&quot;. So the entire triumphant entry was indeed a parody which sooner or later the Jews came to grasp. Hence their anger- for the whole incident declared them unworthy.</p><p>Whilst what the Lord arranged was indeed a parody of a triumphant entry, designed to highlight the importance of humility and sacrifice, He was surely conscious that He was acting out, however dimly, the prophesied future and ultimate triumphal entry of Messiah into Jerusalem and the temple, coming from the Mount of Olives (Zech. 14:4; Is. 62:11).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3041','1','42','19','37','37','<p>19:37 <i>And as he was now drawing near, at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen, saying</i>- Jn. 12:16 specifically states that they misunderstood at this point. They were so ecstatic because they really believed that He was going to establish the Kingdom there and then. His previous parable about going away to receive the Kingdom had fallen upon deaf ears. The gospel records are transcripts of how the disciples preached the Gospel; and continually they emphasize their own weakness and slowness to understand, thereby reaching out to their hearers, urging them as it were to do better than they had done.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3042','1','42','19','38','38','<p>19:38 <i>Blessed is the King that comes in the name of the Lord Peace in heaven and glory in the highest</i>- As noted on :37, they thought that finally the Kingdom was being established. They failed to perceive that the Lord was mocking and deconstructing the whole idea of a triumphal entry, instead glorying in humility and the need to die on a cross in order to establish His Kingdom.</p><p>The Lord didn&rsquo;t turn round and correct them for their misapplication of Scripture. Neither did He reject them or call fire down from Heaven upon them because of their misunderstanding. He said nothing, and let the crowd live on in their misunderstanding and see His death &ndash; in order to teach them something about what was needed in order to enable the Kingdom. And the same &lsquo;long term&rsquo; approach of the Lord is found in His dealing with the demons issue. The elder son in the parable falsely claims to God that he has never broken one of His commands; but although this is evidently untrue, the father (representing God) does not correct him in so many words (Lk. 15:29&ndash;31). </p><p>God has inspired His word in order to interpret certain facts to us. This is further proof that we are not intended to insist on a strictly literal meaning to everything we read (for example, that the sun literally rises). Thus Matthew records that the people cried &lsquo;Hosanna&rsquo; at Christ&rsquo;s entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9). Seeing that first century Israel spoke Aramaic, this is doubtless what did actually come out of their lips. But Luke says that the same group of people shouted &ldquo;Glory&rdquo; (Lk. 19:38). Luke&rsquo;s Gospel seems to be designed for the Greek speaking world, and so he uses the Greek equivalent of &lsquo;Hosanna&rsquo;, even though they did not actually say that word. The way the New Testament quotes the Old with slight changes without pointing this out is another example of how God&rsquo;s word mixes interpretation with direct transmission of facts (e.g. Ps. 32:1-2 cp. Rom. 4:6-7). This fact is not irrelevant to the issue of demons. We have seen that the accounts of demons being cast out are framed in such a way as to show the supremacy of God&rsquo;s power over the vain traditions of the first century world.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3043','1','42','19','39','39','<p>19:39 <i>And some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him: Teacher, rebuke your disciples</i>- Even though the disciples were so deeply mistaken and inappropriate, as explained above, the Lord always takes their side when they are under criticism. The same defensive, justifying Lord is ours too, and looks at our weaknesses and refusals to understand in the same way.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3044','1','42','19','40','40','<p>19:40 <i>And he answered and said: I tell you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out</i>- See on :39. Often Scripture alludes to or quotes other Scripture which may seem out of context, if we insist on seeing everything from our viewpoint of time. Thus Lk. 19:40 quotes Hab. 2:11 concerning the stones of apostate Israel crying out, and apparently applies it to the misguided acclamation of faithful men. Matthew particularly seems to quote Scripture which is relevant to the Lord\'s second coming as applying to His first coming. Indeed, the way the NT quotes the OT apparently out of context is a sizeable problem. There are times when we may quote or allude to the words of a Bible passage quite out of context, just because the words seem appropriate. And it seems the NT sometimes does just the same. Search and try as we may, the context seems just inappropriate. This may be explicable by understanding God to have the ability to take words from one time-context and insert them into another, in a way which to us is not contextual. <i>We </i>have no authority to do this; but He can. <i>He </i>can speak as if &quot;the resurrection is past already&quot;; but for us to do so is to deny the Faith.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3045','1','42','19','41','41','<p>19:41 <i>And when he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it</i>- His previous parable about slaying those who refused Him was therefore said with deep sadness in His voice. 1 Pet. 2:12 defines the &quot;day of visitation&quot; as that of the Lord\'s return to earth to establish His Kingdom. But a similar idea is to be found in Lk. 19:41-44, where the Lord \'sees\' or visits / views the city on \'this day\'. See on Lk. 21:20-24.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3046','1','42','19','42','42','<p>19:42 <i>Saying: If you had known in this day, even you, the things which belong to your peace But now they are hid from your eyes- </i>On :44 I will observe that the Lord has the potentials in view. The whole planned program of His death and the AD70 judgments could have been averted. The time of Zion\'s peace could have come there and then if they accepted Him on His true terms.</p><p>The pain that arises from knowing what might have been is so poignantly brought out by the grief of Martha and Mary over their brother\'s death- they knew that if Jesus had have been there, Lazarus wouldn\'t have died (Jn. 11:21,32). Jesus as God\'s Son had something of this ability to see what might have been- hence He could state with absolute confidence that if Gentile Tyre and Sidon had witnessed His miracles, they would\'ve repented in sackcloth and ashes (Lk. 10:13). He lamented with pain over the fact that things would have been so much better for Jerusalem if she had only known / apprehended the things which would bring her ultimate peace (Lk. 19:42). The Lord Jesus was deeply pained at what might have been, if the things of God\'s Kingdom had not remained wilfully hidden from Israel\'s perception. His pain was because of realizing what might have been. In this He was directly reflecting the mind of His Father, who had previously lamented over Jerusalem: &quot;O that you had hearkened to my commandments Then your peace would have been like a river&quot; (Is. 48:18).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3047','1','42','19','43','43','<p>19:43 <i>For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies shall set up a barricade around you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side</i>- These were the days that would come, when instead if they had accepted the Lord, there would have been days of peace, the Messianic Kingdom, when Israel would not be fenced in by Gentiles but would instead remove the barriers and go forth to the Gentiles with peace &quot;on every side&quot;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3048','1','42','19','44','44','<p>19:44 <i>And shall dash you to the ground, and your children within you; and they shall not leave in you one stone upon another- </i>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. This prophecy of the destruction of the temple implied an ending of the Mosaic law.&nbsp;</p><p><i>All this will happen because you did not perceive the time of your visitation</i>- Because Jerusalem knew not &quot;the time of your visitation&quot;, she didn\'t perceive the things of &quot;her peace&quot; &quot;in this day&quot; (:42), <i>therefore</i> days of destruction would come upon her in AD70. The implication surely is that had Jerusalem accepted Jesus as Messiah, the events of AD70 need never have happened, and His first coming could have been the day of &quot;visitation&quot; to establish God\'s Kingdom. Of course God\'s program functioned differently because this never happened; but that doesn\'t take away from the fact that it was truly possible.</p><p>All major events in God\'s purpose have occurred within the approximate period when true students of the word expected them to - the Flood, the desolation of Jerusalem and its rebuilding, the Lord\'s first coming, the events of A.D. 70 etc. are all good examples.&nbsp;&nbsp; How much more then with the time of the second coming and the consummation of God\'s purpose?&nbsp;&quot;The Lord God will do nothing, but he reveals his secret unto His... prophets&quot; (Amos 3:7), and the purpose of their writing was so that we might understand. The Lord rebuked the Jews because they couldn\'t discern the signs that Messiah\'s first advent was with them (Mt. 16:3; Lk. 19:44); and his first advent was a type of his second. The coming of judgment through the Babylonians was another type of the last days; and Israel were criticized for not perceiving the approach of that day, whereas &quot;the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed time; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming&quot; (Jer. 8:7). This means that as the natural creation have an inherent knowledge of the seasons, so God\'s people should have a sense of the time of the Lord\'s coming. The Lord said the same when he spoke of how our internal awareness of the approach of Summer should correspond to our certain knowledge of the Kingdom\'s approach.</p><p>The grace of Jesus and His Father, so great, <i>so</i> free, was a challenge for even the Lord to express in any verbal medium. The way He spoke was grace itself. He wept over the men of Jerusalem, sorrowing that their destruction must come because &quot;you knew not the time of your visitation&quot;. He could have quite well said: &quot;because you have rejected me...&quot;. But His grace was greater than to say that. The utter inappropriacy of our salvation is brought out time and again in His teaching. The oil lamp with the bruised reed and smoking flax which annoyingly filled the house with smoke was nurtured and tolerated in hope by this Lord of ours.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3049','1','42','19','45','45','<p>19:45 <i>And he entered into the temple- </i>This again was a conscious parody of Judaism&rsquo;s Messianic hopes. Their idea was that Messiah would enter Jerusalem in triumph against their Gentile enemies, and enter the temple. This was based upon their reading of Mal. 3:1: &ldquo;The Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to His temple&rdquo;. But the context of Malachi 3 required a positive response by Israel to the herald of Messiah, i.e. John the Baptist. And this had not been forthcoming. And the next verse goes on to suggest that this coming of Messiah will not be of much blessing to Israel- &ldquo;But who may abide the day of His coming i.e., &ldquo;to His temple&rdquo;? And who shall stand when He appears?&rdquo; (Mal. 3:2).</p><p>Mark&rsquo;s record appears to state that the Lord first entered the temple, looked around and walked out (Mk. 11:11) and the next day returned to cleanse the temple of traders. It could be that He cleansed the temple twice. Or it could be that this silent looking around and walking away, returning to Bethany, &lsquo;the house of the poor&rsquo;, was another intentional creation of an anti-climax. The Jews expected Him to do something dramatic- and He simply looked around in sadness and left for &lsquo;the house of the poor&rsquo;- to return and cast out the traders and thus make the performance of sacrifice impossible there.</p><p><i>And began to throw out those that were selling there</i>- A verb elsewhere used by the Lord about condemnation (Mt. 8:12;&nbsp;21:39; 22:13; 25:30). Instead of bringing salvation to Israel\'s temple, He entered it and condemned the orthodox, casting them out of God\'s house and forbidding them to enter it to carry things through it (Mk., Lk.). Instead of them, the Lord in their place welcomed children and the handicapped into God\'s house. Sacred space was a major concept in Judaism; the Lord\'s expulsion of the Orthodox from it and replacing them with those considered unworthy of entry was a highly significant thing to do.</p><p>The Lord had not long earlier described Sodom as the place where the wrong kind of buying and selling went on, and He had likened His generation to Sodom (Lk. 17:28). This, again, was hardly what the crowds expected to hear- a likening of their most sacred place to Sodom, and a prophecy of its destruction at the hands of the Gentiles. The Lord was thereby proclaiming the court of the Gentiles, where such trading was allowed to be conducted, as being as holy as the rest of the temple building. Note that in Matthew the Lord also expelled those who were&nbsp;<i>buying</i>&nbsp;the animals for sacrifice- ordinary Jews wanting to offer sacrifice. Sacrifices were therefore unavailable, because the Lord stopped the sale of them. This surely hinted at an ending of the Mosaic law in view of the Lord\'s upcoming sacrifice. This was all so much what the Jewish masses did&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;want to hear. There needed to be no more sale of animals for sacrifice; for the Lord was paying the price, and was the final sacrifice.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3050','1','42','19','46','46','<p>19:46 <i>Saying to them- </i>The Lord several times quoted an Old Testament passage which if quoted further would have made a telling point. Thus here He quoted Is. 56:7: &ldquo;My house shall be called a house of prayer&rdquo;, leaving His hearers to continue: &ldquo;...for&nbsp;<i>all</i>&nbsp;people&rdquo;. He recited Ps. 8:2: &ldquo;Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise&rdquo;, leaving them to complete: &ldquo;...that you might still through their witness the enemy and the avenger&rdquo;. For the Bible minded, these things ought to have taught them. There is reason to think, in the subsequent response of a Jewish minority after Pentecost, that at least some did make these connections. They made use of the spiritual potential they had been given.</p><p><i>It is written</i>- The Lord quotes from Is. 56:7, but the surrounding context of the quotation is relevant to the Jewish leadership who were present and deeply critical of the Lord\'s actions. Is. 56:10,11 condemns Israel\'s elders as &quot;blind watchmen... dumb dogs... greedy dogs which can never have enough, shepherds that cannot understand, every one looking for gain&quot;. &quot;Dogs&quot; was understood as a reference to the Gentiles- and the Lord is saying that they are effectively Gentiles. Significantly, Is. 56:6 has spoken of &quot;the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, and to love the name of the Lord... taking hold of His covenant&quot;. This is often how God works- for those who are sensitive to His word, the quotations given speak far more deeply. The potential for greater understanding is thereby given to those familiar with His word. This is one reason why I encourage perseverance in reading the Bible even if at the point of reading we feel we are not understanding much and simply building up a familiarity with the text. That familiarity can be a basis for later revelation to us.</p><p><i>My house</i>- Just as the &quot;feasts&nbsp;<i>of the Lord</i>&quot; are described as &quot;feasts&nbsp;<i>of the Jews</i>&quot;,&nbsp;<i>God\'s</i>&nbsp;house becomes &quot;<i>your</i>&nbsp;house&quot; (Mt. 23:38). They had hijacked God\'s religion for their own ends, just as so many do today.</p><p><i>Shall be a house of prayer</i>- Luke uses the present tense, implying &quot;<i>is</i>&nbsp;called&quot;. The Lord surely said both, His point being that prophecies of the future Kingdom are to be lived out by us in essence today.&nbsp;</p><p><i>But you have made it a den of thieves</i>- The Kingdom prophecy of Zech. 14:21 that there will no longer be a trafficker in the Lord\'s house was fulfilled by the Lord\'s casting out the traders from the temple. Many of the Kingdom prophecies of healing were it seems consciously fulfilled in the Lord&rsquo;s healings: Is. 35:6 LXX the stammerer healed = Mk. 7:32-35; Is. 35:3 = Mk. 2:3-12; 3:1-6; Is. 35:8,10 = Mk. 11:1 Bartimaeus following on the Jerusalem road. This doesn&rsquo;t mean that these passages will not have a glorious future fulfilment. But in the person of Jesus and in the record of His life we see the &ldquo;Kingdom come nigh&rdquo;, as He Himself said it did. We can so focus on the future fulfilment that we can forget that He was the Kingdom in the midst of men; the essence of our eternal future, of the coming political Kingdom of God, was and is to seen in Him. Satan fell from Heaven during His ministry ((Lk. 10:18), as it will at the second coming (Rev. 12).</p><p>This invites us to see the thieves who robbed the man in the Samaritan parable as the Jewish leadership, whose priests and Levites refused to help people after the damage they themselves had caused (Lk. 10:30). The thieves &quot;stripped him of His clothing&quot; just as they later did to the Lord Jesus. The Lord uses the same figure of thieves for the Jewish leadership in Jn. 10:1,8. The Lord quotes here from Jer. 7:11, which speaks of the temple being profaned by adultery and Baal worship, resulting in the Babylonian invasion. He is saying that Israel\'s hypocritical piety in His day was none less than Baal worship, and therefore the Gentiles would come and destroy that place.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3051','1','42','19','47','47','<p>19:47 <i>And he was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men of the people sought to destroy him</i>- I have argued elsewhere that the Lord gave His life, in the way and at the time He wished. It was not taken from Him. The role of His mock \'triumphal entry\' was to whip up enthusiasm for Him- and then purposefully self-deflate it, so that the people would turn against Him and empower the Jewish leaders to do what they wished, in getting him crucified that Passover. This verse notes the success of His plans. He really was the master psychologist, the chess grandmaster who foresaw every possible move, and accommodate them all within a program and progression of events which He was supremely in control of. This is one reason why He could predict with such detail the events to be associated with His death that Passover.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3052','1','42','19','48','48','<p>19:48 <i>But they could not figure out what they might do, because all the people so hung upon his words</i>- See on Lk. 19:13. The Lord\'s mass popular support is what had apparently stymied their desire to murder Him on previous occasions. I suggest His purpose behind the mock \'triumphal entry\' was to whip up that support to a crescendo, and then bitterly disappoint it. In this way, He left the Jewish leadership free to pursue their long held plans to destroy Him. And we observe too how unstable is human nature, how fickle is apparent devotion to the Lord... that the crowds could turn so quickly.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3053','1','42','20','1','1','<p>20:1 <i>And it came to pass, on one of the days he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, there came to him the chief priests and the scribes with the elders</i>- Matthew says the Lord &quot;entered&quot; the temple to teach. &quot;Entered&quot; is&nbsp;<i>erchomai</i>, and is matched by the priests and elders \'coming\' to Him,&nbsp;<i>proserchomai</i>. The impression is created of direct confrontation, head on.&nbsp;His teaching was the preaching of the Gospel- of the Kingdom of God. But His take on the good news of the Kingdom, as witnessed by multiple parables about the Kingdom, was that the principles of the future political Kingdom on earth must be lived now. All the people wanted was to see the Messianic Kingdom come literally. In chapter 19 we saw how He set up a mock triumphal entry to explain that this was not for now. And now He backs that up by explaining what &quot;the Kingdom&quot; at this stage was really all about in personal terms. Indeed, His view of the Kingdom was totally opposed to theirs. And so in His next parable, He explains that actually Israel must kill their king as they killed their prophets, in order for the Kingdom to come as they wished.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3054','1','42','20','2','2','<p>20:2 <i>And they spoke, saying to him: Tell us. By what authority do you do these things?- </i>Presumably they thought they had Him caught out, because&nbsp;<i>exousia</i>&nbsp;was supposedly solely with Rome. He could hardly say the Romans had given Him such authority. And yet if He said anything other than \'Rome\', then He could be reported to the Roman authorities. However, their reference may have been to what we noted at Mt. 21:14- the Lord had held back the temple guard from arresting Him and stopping His forceful overthrowing of the temple traders. This question was quite to be expected of a man who had recently used violence to overthrow tables and force men off the premises. Who had given Him such authority?&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>Or, who is he that gave you this authority?</i>- To this day this question is heard. People, especially religious people, find it so hard to accept that somebody can have a personal relationship with God which enables and empowers them to operate as sovereign free agents amongst mere men. This cry is especially heard from those who themselves think they have authority and seek to hold on to their petty power at all costs. It is the typical cry when someone obeys their Lord\'s command to baptize people, takes the initiative to extend fellowship to another etc.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3055','1','42','20','3','3','<p>20:3 <i>And he answered and said to them: I also will ask you a question. Now tell me</i>- It is not necessarily wrong to avoid answering a question- although few of us could do so in the spiritually and logically flawless way the Lord did here, let alone at a moment\'s notice.</p><p>The AV is mistaken in translating &quot;If you tell me, I will tell you&quot;. The sense rather is: \'If you answer this question, then in that answer you will have My telling you the answer to your question\'. They finally answered in :7 that \'We cannot know\' (Gk.).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3056','1','42','20','4','4','<p>20:4 <i>The baptism of John- </i>Perhaps John\'s message was so centred around the appeal for baptism that &quot;the baptism of John&quot; is being put for \'the teaching and ministry of John\'. Or maybe the Lord has in view His own baptism by John. In this case, His reasoning would be that His authority came from the fact that He had been baptized by John. Seeing John\'s work was from God and had Divine authority, this meant therefore that the Lord was empowered by that baptism to operate with God\'s authority. If that is indeed what the Lord intended, then we have another window onto the perplexing question of why the Lord was baptized by John.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>Was it from heaven, or from men?</i>- Gamaliel uses the same logic in Acts 5:38,39 in urging the Jews to boil all the personal feelings and doubts down to a simple issue: Are these men and their work of God or man? This approach is helpful to us too, assailed as we are by unclarity about others. Is a man in Christ or not? Does God work through him or not? Is he of God or men? There is no middle ground here. This is what I submit concerning myself to those who doubt me, and it is the approach I seek to take with others with whom I have to engage in spiritual life. And Gamaliel rightly concluded that if something is of man and not of God, then we have little to worry about. Finally it will come to nothing. We should be concerned rather with the eternal consequence of refusing those who are clearly of God. If of God, we must accept them.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3057','1','42','20','5','5','<p>20:5 <i>And they discussed it among themselves, saying: If we shall say from heaven, he will say, why did you not believe him?</i>- This could imply they withdrew for discussion amongst themselves. But such a withdrawal would\'ve been a sign of weakness. More likely we have here an insight into their own internal reasonings. In this case, the statement in :7 that they answered that they couldn\'t tell was uttered by each of them in turn as the Lord asked them individually.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3058','1','42','20','6','6','<p>20:6 <i>But if we shall say, from men, all the people will stone us- </i>The punishment for religious heretics. They all considered John as a prophet, whereas the chief priests and elders did not. We see here a marked difference between the people and their religious leaders. Indeed, the leaders despised the common people: &quot;This people who know not the Law are cursed&quot; (Jn. 7:49). And yet very soon now, the leaders would be apparently controlling the people to cry for the blood of Jesus. But this chapter so far has shown that this was not really the reason why the masses turned against Jesus. They turned against Him because of His dashing of their hopes and refusal to pander to their expectations, exemplified by His wilful parody of a triumphal entry into the city and temple. The huge gap between the elders and the masses was so great that it cannot be credible that the elders managed to manipulate them so quickly to turn 180 degrees and to reject the Jesus whom their hero John had insisted was the Messiah.</p><p><i>For they are persuaded that John was a prophet</i>- And yet the Lord had said that &ldquo;the men of this generation&rdquo; held John to be demon possessed, i.e. crazy (Lk. 7:33). We can on one hand feel and state respect for someone, whilst in reality not accepting them as any authority at all, and effectively considering them as if they are mad, not to be taken seriously.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3059','1','42','20','7','7','<p>20:7 <i>And they answered that they did not know</i>- They had set themselves up as defenders of the Faith, whose duty it was to analyse the claims of teachers and decide whether or not they were false prophets. But now they are beaten in fair intellectual fight. They can give no answer, and yet by saying they could not judge John\'s claim to be a prophet, they were abdicating the very role of assessors of teachers which they claimed to have, and which they were using against the Lord.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3060','1','42','20','8','8','<p>20:8 <i>And Jesus said to them: Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things</i>- He meant that they knew in their consciences and did not need Him to spell it out to them in words. This was again His style in His silence before His judges, and in His brief answer to Pilate: &quot;You are saying it&quot; (Lk. 23:3). The answer was in Pilate\'s own words rather than the Lord\'s.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3061','1','42','20','9','9','<p>20:9 <i>And he began to speak to the people this parable- </i>\'From where do you get your authority? What is your exact nature and relationship to God?\' was answered by the parable of the servants who refused to receive the Son and give fruit to the owner (Lk. 20:9-16). The Lord could\'ve answered: \'My authority? From God, He\'s my Father, I had a virgin birth, you know\'. But He wasn\'t so primitive. Instead He appealed to them to realize their own responsibilities to their creator and to accept His authority by giving fruit to the Father. The absentee landlords at times demanded fruit in lieu of repayment of debt. Perhaps the idea was that Israel were deeply in debt to God. Matthew 21 prefaces this parable with the one about the son who refused to even work in the vineyard.</p><p>There are strong similarities between the Lord\'s parable and the song of the vineyard of Isaiah 5:1-7, especially in the LXX:<br />&quot;<i>Let me sing for my well beloved a song of my beloved about His vineyard</i>&nbsp;The genre is significant; what begins as a joyful, idyllic harvest song turns into bitter disappointment and declaration of judgment<i>. My beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill&nbsp;</i>The environment was ideal<i>. He dug it up&nbsp;</i>to dig was the work of the lowest servant, but God did this<i>, gathered out its stones&nbsp;</i>the effects of the curse were ameliorated<i>, planted it with the choicest vine&nbsp;</i>&quot;the men of Judah&quot;<i>, built a tower in its midst, and also cut out a wine press therein. He looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes. Now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, please judge between Me and My vineyard. What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?&nbsp;</i>Absolutely all has been done to enable our fruitfulness. The Father wants fruit above all- in the Lk. 20 parable, the owner seeks the actual fruit, rather than cash payment. This element of unreality serves to show His passionate interest in fruit&nbsp;<i>Why, when I looked for it to yield grapes, did it yield wild grapes? Now I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard. I will take away its hedge, and it will be eaten up. I will break down its wall of it, and it will be trampled down&nbsp;</i>The downtreading of the temple at the hands of the Gentiles<i>.&nbsp; I will lay it a wasteland. It won&rsquo;t be pruned nor hoed, but it will grow briers and thorns&nbsp;</i>The language of the curse in Eden. The land was as the Garden of Eden, but Israel sinned &quot;as Adam&quot;<i>. I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain on it&nbsp;</i>the language of Elijah, prototype of John the Baptist<i>. For the vineyard of Yahweh of Armies is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant: and He looked for justice, but, behold, oppression; for righteousness&nbsp;</i>the fruit required was justice and righteousness- instead, as Isaiah 5 goes on to explain, there was materialistic selfishness<i>, but, behold, a cry of distress</i>&quot;.</p><p><i>A man planted a vineyard- </i>The language of planting a vineyard and eating the fruit of it is used in 1 Cor. 3:6; 9:7 about&nbsp;<i>our</i>&nbsp;work of preaching. Paul was unafraid to interpret the parable on multiple levels. We are to be fruitful; but in our work of sharing the Gospel with others we are also the planters who come seeking fruit on our converts. The suggestion could be that the owner personally did the planting and preparing. I say this because Isaiah 5, upon which the parable is based, includes this feature- of the owner doing so much personally. Matthew\'s version stresses that all has been done so that we can produce spiritual fruit; but so often we excuse our lack of fruitfulness by blaming environment factors. The situation in our country, our town, workplace, marriage, family, health etc. And we can put huge effort into trying to change environment because we consider that we can be more fruitful for God in a different environment. But whilst passivity and fatalism are just as wrong, it must be accepted that our environment in the bigger picture has been uniquely and thoughtfully prepared by God so that we might be fruitful. For it is clear from the parable that our fruitfulness is God&rsquo;s most passionate desire and intention for us. He would hardly place us in any other environment, therefore, than one ideally prepared by Him in order to enable and enhance our fruitfulness.</p><p><i>And rented it to husbandmen, and went into another country for a long time</i>- Not necessarily the ascension of the Lord Jesus. It could be a reference to God&rsquo;s entry of covenant with Israel, at which &quot;God came down on mount Sinai&quot; (Ex. 19:20; 20:19) and then &quot;ascended up on high&quot; (Ps. 68:18).&nbsp; The Greek specifically means to go into a foreign, i.e. Gentile, country. It is used of the prodigal son going into a far country (Lk. 15:13). Let us remember that the Son in the parable represents the Lord Jesus, the owner is clearly God. This going away is not therefore representative of the Lord\'s ascension to Heaven, although it appears to be used that way in Mt. 25:14,15; Mk. 13:34 &quot;the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey&quot;. This may just be the furniture of the parable, alluding to the common experience of absentee landlords. These were often characterized by being uncaring for their land; but this owner was particular careful for his project to the point of obsession. He wanted the fruit, not money. It therefore may be part of the impression given, that the owner appears to be absent and disinterested- but in reality He is passionately interested. And this is exactly the position with God, who is perceived as somehow distant and passionless about His project on earth. There may also be the hint that even before He considered giving His precious vineyard to the Gentiles, which appears at the end of the parable, He had in fact initially envisaged this, and had in some form gone to the Gentiles right from the start of His project with Israel.</p><p>Initially, the parable would\'ve got the hearers on the side of the labourers; because it was a frequent complaint that absentee landlords abused their tenants, who worked hard just to send cash off to the landlord in another country. But the parable twists around, so that after initially identifying with this group, the people came to see that it was they who stood condemned.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3062','1','42','20','10','10','<p>20:10<i> And when the time came- </i>A phrase used by Matthew about the drawing near of the Kingdom at Christ\'s time (Mt. 3:2; 4:17). But by the end of His ministry, the Lord was warning that false teachers would wrongly claim that &quot;the time draws near&quot; (Lk. 21:8). Clearly He taught that the time had drawn near, but not come. He taught at the end of His ministry how He was as a man who had gone to&nbsp;a far country for a long time. This invites us to understand that with each appeal of the prophets, and of John as the last prophet, the time potentially could have come. God\'s purpose is thus open ended. Peter uses the same word to speak of how the end of all things is drawing near (1 Pet. 4:7), and Paul likewise (Rom. 13:12). It could have come in AD70- but again, a great delay, until our last days. This is why setting any date for the second coming is inappropriate- for it is a case of fulfilling preconditions, rather than awaiting a day fixed on a calendar. &quot;The season&quot; for fruit (Mk. 12:2) had indeed come, many times- all was potentially ready for it, but human failure meant there was no harvest.</p><p><i>He sent- </i>The Greek&nbsp;<i>apostello</i>&nbsp;again encourages the apostles to see themselves as the equivalent of the Old Testament \'sent ones\'- the prophets.</p><p><i>To the husbandmen a servant, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard; but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty handed</i>- The prophets (2 Kings 9:7 and often). Note that the prophets were sent from God, as the Lord Jesus was; but this doesn\'t imply they were in Heaven with God before their sending, and neither was the Lord.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3063','1','42','20','11','11','<p>20:11 <i>And he sent yet another servant, and him also they beat, and handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty handed</i>- When the world reviled him, Paul saw himself as the beaten prophets Jesus had spoken about (2 Cor. 11:24,25). The first servant could be the former prophets, the second servant the latter prophets; for Judaism strongly recognized this distinction. Beating, shaming, stoning and killing according to Matthew\'s version are Mosaic punishments for apostasy, and so the idea may be that Israel excused their lack of spiritual fruitfulness by judging as apostate the prophets who demanded this of them. This is typical- the unspiritual transfer their own anger with themselves and awareness of their own coming judgment onto others, whom they condemn as worthy of judgment and punishment.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3064','1','42','20','12','12','<p>20:12 <i>And he sent yet a third, and him also they wounded and threw him out</i>- Mk. 12:4 adds that the last servant was &ldquo;wounded in the head&rdquo;, surely a reference to the beheading of John the Baptist and shameful treatment of his severed head. He was the last of the prophets; their ministry was until John the Baptist. Although we have just read that the crowds recognized John as a prophet (:6), in reality they didn\'t. They rejected his message of the true nature of Messiah. Mass enthusiasm for a Christian teacher is not the same as real belief and spirituality, and acceptance of the real spirit of Christ.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3065','1','42','20','13','13','<p>20:13 <i>And the lord of the vineyard said: What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. It may be they will respect him</i>-God sent His Son to Israel, thinking &quot;they will reverence him when they see him&quot; (Lk. 20:13 AV). But Isaiah 53 had prophesied that when Israel saw Him, they would see no beauty in Him and crucify Him. Yet God restrained that knowledge, in His love and positive hope for His people. Likewise Jesus, it seems to me limited His foreknowledge of Judas. He knew from the beginning who would betray him. One of the 12 was a traitor. Yet Judas was His own familiar friend in whom He trusted. &quot;It may be they...&quot;, Gk. <i>isos,</i>&nbsp;is tantalizingly hard to understand. It could mean \'Perhaps\'; or equally it could mean \'They will, surely\'. We wonder of course how the Father could truly feel like this if He is omniscient. My suggestion is that He limits His omniscience in order to enter fully into our human experience; which means that His expressions of shock and disappointment are legitimate reflections of how He actually feels.</p><p>&ldquo;My beloved Son&rdquo; means that the joyful harvest song of Is. 5:1, the &quot;song of my beloved&rdquo;, becomes the tragedy of &quot;My beloved son&quot;.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3066','1','42','20','14','14','<p>20:14 <i>But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned one with another, saying- </i>That is, they conspired. This is quoting the LXX of Gen. 37:18. And the allusion is also to&nbsp;<i>&quot;When they shall see him,&nbsp;</i>there is no beauty that they should desire him&quot; (ls. 53:2). &quot;Shamefully handled&quot; (Mk. 12:4) is s.w. Is. 53:3 LXX &quot;despised&quot;.</p><p><i>This is the heir-</i> The leaders of first century Israel initially recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (cp. Gen. 37:20; Jn. 7:28). They saw (i.e. understood, recognized) him, but then they were made blind by Christ (Jn. 9:39). It was because they &quot;saw&quot; Jesus as the Messiah that the sin of rejecting him was counted to them (Jn. 9:41). This explains why the Roman / Italian nation was not held guilty for crucifying Christ, although they did it, whereas the Jewish nation was. And yet there is ample Biblical evidence to suggest that these same people who &quot;saw&quot; / recognized Jesus as the Christ were also ignorant of his Messiahship. &quot;You both know me, and you know whence I am... You neither know me, nor my Father... when you have lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know that I am he&quot; (Jn. 7:28; 8:19,28) were all addressed to the same group of Jews. Did they know / recognize Jesus as Messiah, or not? As they jeered at him on the cross, and asked Pilate to change the nameplate from &quot;Jesus, King of the Jews&quot;, did they see him as their Messiah? It seems to me that they didn\'t. In ignorance the Jewish leaders and people crucified their Messiah (Acts 3:17 RV). And yet they knew him for who he was, they saw him coming as the heir. I would suggest the resolution to all this is that they did recognize him first of all, but because they didn\'t want to accept him, their eyes were blinded, so that they honestly thought that he was an impostor, and therefore in ignorance they crucified him. And yet, it must be noted, what they did in this ignorance, they were seriously accountable for before God.</p><p><i>Let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours</i>- Their assumption therefore was that the landlord must have died, for otherwise, killing the son would not have given them the inheritance. They acted, as we can, as if God is dead; although they would never have admitted that. The apparent non-action of God can likewise lead to the wrong impression that He is effectively dead. Seizing a vineyard for personal possession reminds us of Ahab&rsquo;s actions in 1 Kings 21:15,16- making Naboth a type of Christ, and associating the Jewish religious leadership with wicked Ahab. However, Ahab did repent- and one wonders whether the Lord built in this allusion in reflection of His amazing hopefulness for Israel&rsquo;s repentance. The allusion to Ahab may have been born in the Lord\'s Bible-saturated mind by the way that Isaiah 5:6 spoke of rain being withheld from the vineyard, as happened in Ahab and Elijah\'s time. The confirmation of Israel in their evil way was brought to its climax in the crucifixion of Christ.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3067','1','42','20','15','15','<p>20:15 <i>And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them?</i>-Surely a reference to the Lord being crucified outside Jerusalem. In this case, the vineyard specifically speaks of Jerusalem and the temple. Mk. 12:8 appears in English to suggest a different order: Took, killed, cast out of the vineyard. But the Greek text doesn&rsquo;t have to be read strictly chronologically. The killed-and-cast-out need not be chronological. Or it could be that the Lord is teaching that effectively, they had killed Him before casting Him out and crucifying; the essence of the cross was ongoing in His life. That is clear enough in a number of Gospel passages.</p><p><i>&quot;</i>Cast Him out<i>&quot;</i> has obvious connection to the way in which the Lord was crucified outside the city limits of Jerusalem. But \'cast him out\' is parallel with the stone being &quot;rejected&quot; by the builders (:17). The \'casting out\' therefore speaks of religious rejection from the community. The same word is used of how the Lord was cast out of Nazareth (Lk. 4:29), and how believers would be cast out from Judaism (Lk. 6:22) and the synagogue (Jn. 9:34); and even from the legalistic church (3 Jn. 10 &quot;casts them out of the church&quot;). Any who experience being cast out of the visible body of God\'s people are thereby fellowshipping the Lord\'s crucifixion sufferings. Yet sadly the experience destroys many- when it can be taken as a share in His sufferings, knowing that if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him. It is the same word used for the casting out of the rejected from the Kingdom to final condemnation (8:12; 22:13; 25:30; Lk. 13:28); those who cast out of the vineyard, which is the Kingdom, will themselves be cast out of the Kingdom at the last day.</p><p>The invitation &quot;O inhabitants of Jerusalem&hellip; judge, I pray you, between me and my vineyard&quot; (Is. 5:3) is matched by the rhetorical question: &quot;What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them?&quot; (Lk. 20:15). This too was addressed by the Lord to Jerusalem&rsquo;s inhabitants.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3068','1','42','20','16','16','<p>20:16 <i>He will come and destroy these husbandmen-</i> The Lord spoke of how the owner Himself would &ldquo;come and destroy these husbandmen&rdquo;. This is a shocking change in tempo- the owner has appeared impotent, distant and naive, to the point that the husbandmen considered He was effectively dead.&nbsp; They reasoned that if they killed the Son, then the vineyard would be theirs. But this is exactly the nature of Divine judgment. The God who appears effectively dead, at least impotent, distant and na&iuml;ve, will suddenly reveal Himself in direct judgment. We believe that now by faith, but it shall surely happen.</p><p><i>And will give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said: God forbid</i>- The Lord will&nbsp;<i>give&nbsp;</i>the vineyard to the others. And yet He will come and destroy the vineyard, and the new nation He will choose will not just give Him some of the fruit, but will themselves become part of the vine, and themselves bear fruit to Him (Mt. 21:43; Jn. 15).</p><p>The Lord&rsquo;s initial Palestinian hearers were well used to the scenario of absentee landlords. The parables of Israel would have been easily understood by them. The landlords lived far away, were never seen, and sometimes their workers took over the whole show for themselves. The Lord&rsquo;s parable of the absentee landlord in Lk. 20:9-16 alludes to this situation. He sends messengers seeking fruit from the vineyard, but the tenants abuse or kill them, and he does nothing. When his son shows up, they assume that he&rsquo;s going to do just as before- ignore whatever they do to him. After all, they&rsquo;d got away with not giving him any fruit and ignoring his messengers for so long, why would he change his attitude? He was so far away, he&rsquo;d been in a &ldquo;far country&rdquo; for a very long time (Lk. 20:9), they didn&rsquo;t really know him. The Lord asked the question: &ldquo;What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?&rdquo; (Lk. 20:15). The obvious answer, from the context provided within the story, would be: &ldquo;Judging on past experience, not much at all&rdquo;. But then the Lord presented the element of unreality in the story, as a sudden, biting trick of the tail: No, the lord of the vineyard would actually personally come and destroy them, and give the vineyard to other tenants. Even though his experience of having tenants farm his land had been a fruitless and painful experience that had cost him the life of his son. And it was that element of unreality that brings home to us the whole point of the story. The Father does appear distant and unresponsive to our selfishness, our rebellion, and our refusal to hear his servants the prophets. But there is a real judgment to come, in which He will personally be involved. And yet even His destruction of the Jewish tenants hasn&rsquo;t taken away His almost manic desire to have workers, in His desperate desire for true spiritual fruit. The parables of Israel surely speak encouragement to each of us. The parable of the absentee landlord has a telling twist to it. Absentee landlords who had never visited their land for ages, and found the people they sent to the property beaten up, would usually just forget it. They wouldn&rsquo;t bother. In the parable which draws on this, the Lord asks what the landlord will do (Lk. 20:15). The expected answer was: &lsquo;Not much. He got what he could, he was never bothered to go there for years anyway&rsquo;. But <i>this</i> landlord is odd. He keeps on sending messengers when any other landlord would have given up or got mad earlier on. But God&rsquo;s patience through the prophets was likewise unusual. And then, when the tenants thought they must surely be able to get away with it because the Lord seemed so distant and out of touch&hellip; He suddenly comes Himself in person and destroys them. He doesn&rsquo;t hire a bunch of people to do it. He comes in person, as the Lord will in judgment. And instead of deciding he&rsquo;d had his fingers burnt and giving up vineyards as a bad job, this Lord gives the vineyard to others- He tries again. And so the Lord is doing with the Gentiles.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3069','1','42','20','17','17','<p>20:17 <i>But he looked upon them, and said: What then is this that is written- </i>Mt. 21:42 &quot;Did you never read in the scriptures&quot;. They spent their whole lives reading Scripture, and Ps. 118 was a well known Passover Hallel. But we can read and yet never really read as God intends.</p><p><i>The stone which the builders rejected- </i>The Lord would be &quot;rejected of the elders, chief priests and scribes&quot; (Mk. 8:31 s.w.); indeed, &quot;rejected by this generation&quot; (Lk. 17:25).</p><p><i>The same was made the headstone of the corner?</i>- If the builders rejected this stone, the implication is that another set of builders used it in another building, which became the temple of God. This is precisely the situation with the vineyard being taken away from the Jewish tenants and another group of workers being taken on. The quotation is seamlessly in context with the parable.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3070','1','42','20','18','18','<p>20:18 <i>Everyone that falls on that stone shall be broken to pieces, but on whoever it shall fall, it will grind him to dust</i>- There is an unmistakable allusion here to the stone destroying the image, the Kingdoms of men, in Dan. 2:44. The choice we have is to fall upon Christ and break our bones, to get up and stumble on with our natural self broken in every bone; or to be ground to powder by the Lord at his return, to share the judgments of this surrounding evil world- being&nbsp;&ldquo;condemned with the world...&rdquo;. Yet strangely (at first sight) the figure of stumbling on the stone of Christ often describes the person who stumbles at his word,&nbsp;who rejects it (Is. 8:14,15; Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:7,8). In other words, through our spiritual failures we come to break ourselves, we become a community of broken men and women; broken in that we have broken our inner soul in conformity to God\'s will. As Simeon cuddled that beautiful, innocent baby Jesus, he foresaw all this: &quot;Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again (resurrection) of many in Israel... that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed&quot; (Lk. 2:34). If we are to share his resurrection, if we are to experience such newness of life in this life, we must fall upon him, really feel the cutting edge of his word. We must be broken now; or be broken and ground to powder at the judgment. See on Mt. 3:11.&nbsp;</p><p>A passage in Ps. 118 is referred to in Lk. 20:18; Acts 4:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6-8. One wonders if this was a proof text which the early believers would have known by heart. And one wonders likewise about Psalm 2- it is referred to so often.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3071','1','42','20','19','19','<p>20:19 <i>And the scribes and the chief priests sought to arrest him in that very hour, but they feared the people. For they perceived that he spoke this parable against them</i>- The connection with Isaiah 5 was so clear, and that song of the vineyard was a well known passage understood as the justification for the destruction of the first temple. The fear of the people was the reason why they didn\'t take the Lord. He realized this, and I suggested on chapter 19 that His mockery of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem was calculated to turn the people violently against Him. He was the psychologist <i>extraordinaire</i>. By manipulating things in this way, the Lord held total control over His death and the timing and manner of it, so that His arrest and crucifixion were in fact His giving of His life, rather than it being taken away from Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3072','1','42','20','20','20','<p>20:20 <i>And they watched him and sent out spies, who pretended to be sincere- </i>Rightly had the Lord called them hypocrites. Their attempt at acting as sincere enquirers would have been laughable. All the way through, the Lord is presented as the one totally in control, with the Jews and Romans acting exactly as He had set them up to act.</p><p><i>So that they might catch him in something he said; so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the Roman governor</i>- The same word used of how&nbsp;<i>they</i>&nbsp;were to be entangled in condemnation (Lk. 21:35; Rom. 11:9). As they treated the Lord, so they were treated. Our attitude to Him is in a way our attitude to ourselves and our eternal destiny. We note they could <i>not</i> in fact catch hold of His words (:26). His death was not going to be because they outsmarted Him, but rather because He willingly set up a situation through which He willingly gave His life rather than it being taken from Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3073','1','42','20','21','21','<p>20:21 <i>And they asked him, saying: Teacher, we know you say and teach rightly- </i>Gk.&nbsp;<i>orthos</i>, from whence \'orthodox\'. They were thereby trying to lead Him to make a right wing, conservative answer, namely, that tribute should be given to God and not Caesar. And then the Herodians with whom they were working in this plan (see Matthew) could legally swoop upon Him and have Him arrested for disloyalty to the empire.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>And show no favouritism to any person- </i>This was an appeal to Jewish orthodoxy, whereby the righteous Jew was supposed to be obedient to God regardless of what others thought. They were trying to lead the Lord into a position whereby He said \'No\' to the question about giving the tribute money. And the Herodians were ready to pounce on Him if He did; for according to Matthew, they were working together with the Pharisees in this. We can reconstruct how the Pharisees and Herodians worked together in this; the Pharisees were trying to lead the Lord by a path of theology and logic to a position whereby He denied the need to pay tribute- and then Herod\'s supporters could pounce on Him. The verisimilitude and internal agreement of the record is again strong encouragement to accept this as the inspired word of God, recording he actual words spoken rather than giving a mere summary or imagination of them from a distance of time and space.</p><p><i>But in truth teach the way of God</i>- John the Baptist had attempted to prepare the way or path over which God\'s glory in Messiah could come to Zion. The only other occurrence of &quot;the way of God&quot; is when we read that Apollos, who knew only John\'s teaching, had to have &quot;the way of God&quot;, i.e. John\'s message about the way, explained more fully to him (Acts 18:26). It may be that John had been so unworldly that he had not paid tribute to Caesar, or at least, he had been interpreted that way; and so now the Pharisees were commenting that if the Lord truly upheld John\'s teaching, then what was his answer about paying the tribute money? Because it was perceived, at very least, that John had advocated not paying it.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3074','1','42','20','22','22','<p>20:22 <i>Is it lawful- </i>This was purposefully vague, because they didn\'t clarify whether they meant the law of Moses or that of Rome. This was part of the trap. If the Lord said it was lawful according to Roman law, then they could accuse Him of breaking the law of Moses. If He said it was lawful according to the Law of Moses, and therefore that law must surely be obeyed, then He was breaking the law of Rome. But the Lord majestically rises above the trap, by (as usual) taking the whole issue to a far higher level.</p><p><i>For us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?</i>- The word translated &quot;tribute&quot; was used by the Jews for the poll tax of Ex. 30:12-16; the argument was that this should be paid to the temple and not to Gentiles. By pushing the Lord for a yes / no answer, they thought they would force Him into an untenable position. Judas of Galilee had agitated about not paying the tribute money to the Romans (Acts 5:37) and had been executed for this in around AD6, in recent memory. The Lord as always appealed to higher principle- if it has Caesar\'s image, then give it to him; but what has God\'s image, your own body, then give it to God. The giving of our entire person to God made paying an annual tax to the temple seem cheap and irrelevant.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3075','1','42','20','23','23','<p>20:23 <i>But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them</i>- Mt. 22:18 says He perceived their wickedness. The wickedness could be their hypocrisy. 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;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3076','1','42','20','24','24','<p>20:24 <i>Show me a denarius- </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, according to Matthew. By so doing, the Lord was purposefully provoking the Pharisees; likely the Herodians (Mt. 22:16) brought it, not the Pharisees.</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><p><i>Whose image and superscription has it? And they said: 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 (:25); 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('3077','1','42','20','25','25','<p>20:25 <i>And he said to them: Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar\'s- </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>The memories of the Maccabean heroes and their rebellion were strongly in the minds and consciousness of first century Israel. Their exploits were recited yearly at the feast of Hanukkah. Yet the Lord purposefully subverts the history of the Maccabees. Mattathias had taught violent resistance to Gentile occupation in the slogan: &quot;Repay the Gentiles in their own coin&quot; (1 Macc. 2:68 N.E.B.). But the Lord alludes to this, at least to the LXX form of the saying, when He advocated paying the Roman temple tax, giving the coin to them, and not violently resisting. See on Heb. 5:6.</p><p><i>And to God the things that are God\'s</i>- The Lord taught that whatever bear\'s God\'s image must be \'rendered\' to God, just as what bore Caesar\'s image must be rendered to Caesar (Lk. 20:25). Seeing that the human body bears God\'s image, He was clearly teaching that we should \'render\' to God our whole being in the course of our human lives. But the same idea of rendering to God is picked up in 1 Pet. 4:5, where we are told that in the final judgment, we will \'render\' s.w. ourselves to God. By the way we live now, the manner in which we render to God all that is not Caesar\'s, we are effectively rendering to Him our judgment account. And so we also find this Greek word for \'to render\' in Rev. 22:12; Mt. 16:27; 20:8; 2 Tim. 4:8 and Rom. 2:6- at the day of judgment, where we render ourselves to God, He will &quot;give&quot; s.w. \'render\' to every man according as his works have been. We\'re rendering ourselves to God right now, here in this life. And He will render that back to us in the last day- for we are right now giving our account to God. And there are times in life where perhaps God specifically intervenes in order to give us a taste of that final day of \'rendering\' of ourselves to God- hence in the parable of Lk. 16:2, the man is asked to \'render an account\' of his stewardship s.w.. It may be through illness, tragedy, loss, the intense introspection of depression, conviction of sin... in these things we are led to a specific preview of the \'rendering an account\' which lies ahead. And we should be grateful that we have such opportunities.</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. 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><p>&quot;Should we give tribute to Caesar?&quot; was answered with the comment that whatever has God\'s image on it should be given to God- and seeing we\'re made in God\'s image, the Lord was asking that they gave their very personal selves to God, every part of their mind and body- rather than worrying about the \'guilt by association\' that might come from paying your taxes to Caesar (Lk. 20:23-25).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3078','1','42','20','26','26','<p>20:26 <i>And they were not able to catch him in what he said in the presence of the people, so they marvelled at his answer and held their peace</i>- The Greek for &ldquo;catch him&rdquo; is elsewhere used about the Jews finally taking hold of the Lord in arrest and crucifixion. The Jews are also recorded as not being able to do this physically to Him in public, &ldquo;before the people&rdquo;. But Luke speaks of the Jews doing these things in relation to &ldquo;His words&rdquo;. This is Luke&rsquo;s way of saying what John says in so many words- that the Lord Jesus was so identified with His words, which were God&rsquo;s words, that He was &ldquo;the word made flesh&rdquo;, the living personification of His own words, in whom there was perfect congruence between His essential self and His words.</p><p>They perceived what He was saying- for they &quot;marvelled&quot;. Just as in the parable, the Jews heard the invitation to the banquet, and perceived that &quot;this is the heir&quot;. But Matthew records that they went their way- and that way was the way to crucifying the Lord, killing the messenger of God.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3079','1','42','20','27','27','<p>20:27 <i>And there came to 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><p><i>Certain of the Sadducees, they that 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;. They <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>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3080','1','42','20','28','28','<p>20:28 <i>And they asked him, saying: Teacher, Moses wrote to us- </i>Matthew: &ldquo;Moses <i>spoke </i>unto us&rdquo;. 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>That if a man\'s brother dies, having a wife but he is childless, his brother should take the 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('3081','1','42','20','29','29','<p>20:29 <i>There were therefore seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died childless</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('3082','1','42','20','30','30','<p>20:30 <i>And the second</i>- As noted on :29, this was clearly not a true story.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3083','1','42','20','31','31','<p>20:31 <i>And the third took her, and likewise the seventh also left no children, and died</i>- Instead of asking \'And who and where was this family?\', picking up the obvious contradictions within the story, the Lord let all that go. He wanted to focus upon essential principles, rather than getting caught up in proving that His opponents were lying. He sets an example which so many of His followers have not well followed.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3084','1','42','20','32','32','<p>20:32<i> Afterward the woman also died</i>- She would have been judged to be a most unfortunate woman, likely under God&rsquo;s judgment (see on :29). 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('3085','1','42','20','33','33','<p>20:33 <i>In the resurrection, whose wife of these 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><p>\'Who will be married to whom in the Kingdom?\' was well answered by the Lord, but His final cut was that God is the God of the living and &quot;all live unto Him&quot;, i.e. the fact <i>we</i> are alive means we are responsible for our actions to Him right now- and we must be moved by that, rather than by speculation about the physicalities of how <i>others</i> may be in God\'s Kingdom (Lk. 20:33-38).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3086','1','42','20','34','34','<p>20:34 <i>And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry and are given in marriage</i>- The Lord attacks their assumption that the Kingdom will be a continuation of life as it is in this world, just minus some of the limitations and complications. That is not the case; &quot;this world&quot; is contrasted radically to &quot;that world&quot; (:35). Whilst we rightly look forward to seeing beloved family members again who were believers, we have to be aware that family relationships as we now know them are for &quot;this world&quot;. The age to come will not be &quot;this world&quot; and its relationships somehow revived in a human sense. The question of the Jews was therefore a reflection of deep immaturity. And this was the context at the time- the Lord was being asked to set up a literal Kingdom in Israel, with Israel \'marrying and giving in marriage\' in their own kingdom, totally independent of Rome. But His message was far beyond that. His Kingdom was to come in an age where all such things would be no more. The world of Lot and Noah\'s time married and gave in marriage right up until the day of judgment- and no longer, after that.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3087','1','42','20','35','35','<p>20:35 <i>But they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage</i>- See on :34. &quot;Accounted worthy&quot; means to be counted totally without blame and thereby totally worthy. I suggest this is another example of where Luke is preparing his readers for the Pauline explanations in Romans- that only through imputed righteousness, by faith through grace, can anyone be saved. The same word is used when Paul prays that God would count the Thessalonians &quot;worthy&quot; of their calling (2 Thess. 1:11). The Jews were assuming that they would be in the age to come, on account of their relation to Abraham by the flesh; and the Lord is saying that the only ones who shall be there are those counted totally worthy. The thoughtful hearer would have realized that this would mean that worthiness and righteousness had to somehow be imputed.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3088','1','42','20','36','36','<p>20:36 <i>Neither can they die any more; for they are equal to the angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection</i>- Note the present tenses. They are most striking in Greek: &ldquo;Neither&nbsp;<i>can they die</i>&hellip; they&nbsp;<i>are</i>&nbsp;equal to the Angels: and&nbsp;<i>are</i>&nbsp;sons of God, being sons 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.</p><p>The Sadducees denied the existence of Angels (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>&quot;We shall be as &ldquo;the sons / 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><p>The fact Angels cannot die means they can\'t sin, for sin brings death (Rom. 6:23). This is therefore a fairly strong argument against immortal Angels being sinful.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3089','1','42','20','37','37','<p>20:37 <i>But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, when he called the Lord: The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob</i>- The Greek here 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>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><p>At the time of the burning bush, Moses seems to have forgotten God\'s covenant name, he didn\'t immediately take off his shoes in respect as he should have done, he feared to come close to God due to a bad conscience, and he resisted God\'s invitation for him to go forth and do His work (Ex. 3:5-7,10,11,18; 4:1,10-14). And yet at this very time, the Lord says that Moses showed faith in the way he perceived God. This is indeed imputed righteousness.</p><p>God is His word (Jn. 1:2). Moses is likewise spoken of as if he is his word (Acts 15:21; 21:21; 26:22; 2 Cor. 3:18), so close was his association with it; just as we shall be judged by our words. The words and commands of Moses were those of God. &ldquo;In the bush God spoke unto (Moses), saying, I am the God of Abraham... Isaac and Jacob&rdquo; (Mk. 12:26; Mt. 22:31; Ex. 3:6). Yet Lk. 20:37 says that &ldquo;that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when <i>he calls the Lord the God of Abraham</i>&rdquo; etc. Yet this was what God said of Himself.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3090','1','42','20','38','38','<p>20:38 <i>Now He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. For all live to Him</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>&quot;All live to Him&rdquo; is 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. See on Rom. 14:8,9.</p><p>&quot;All live to him&quot; is a phrase used by the Rabbis concerning the existence of the faithful Jews as immortal souls in Heaven; Adam Clarke quotes several examples from Jewish writings. It seems the Lord uses their phrase in order to deconstruct it. Salvation is through being \'counted worthy\' by grace (:35), the same idea as being counted as live &quot;to Him&quot;, and depends upon the resurrection of the body (:35). It is not at all automatic, as would be required by the idea of immortal souls.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3091','1','42','20','39','39','<p>20:39 <i>And certain of the scribes answering said: Teacher, you have said well</i>- This was the kind of admission of defeat which was not typical of the Lord\'s enemies; perhaps these were the scribes of the Pharisees who did later believe in the Lord Jesus (Acts 15:15).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3092','1','42','20','40','40','<p>20:40 <i>And after that they dared not question him anymore</i>- They dared not even try to engage Him in debate because He was as it were winning, and the crowds were realizing this.&nbsp; These very words 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. 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('3093','1','42','20','41','41','<p>20:41 <i>And he said to them: Why do they say that the Christ is David\'s son?</i>- The Lord had clearly done well in answering the questions, and it&rsquo;s easy to misinterpret this as Him now going onto the thrust of an offensive, having successfully parried the attacks. But He was trying to steer them to Him, to repentance and salvation, and not to merely win an intellectual battle for its own sake. All the same, He capitalized upon their continued presence to seek to correct another major misunderstanding. His desire to save them is breathtaking. The fact there were Pharisees who later converted to Christ is proof enough that His strategy worked, at least for some (Acts 15:5). And remember that Saul the Pharisee was living in Jerusalem at the time, and may well have been listening carefully.</p><p>They were surely aware that Jesus was a son of David, on both the sides of Mary and Joseph. For the Jewish leaders would&rsquo;ve done their homework as to His apparent family of origin.</p><p>Matthew records that the Lord addressed a question to the Pharisees about Messiah as David\'s son. 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. See on Mt. 22:33&nbsp;<i>When the multitude heard this.&nbsp;</i>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('3094','1','42','20','42','42','<p>20:42 <i>For David himself said in the book of Psalms: 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, Sit on My right hand- </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. 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? Mk. 12:37 says the Lord reinforced the question by asking &ldquo;<i>From whence</i>&nbsp;is He his son?&rdquo;. 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 David through Mary.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3095','1','42','20','43','43','<p>20:43 <i>Until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet</i>- The Lord&rsquo;s enemies stood around Him as He applied this Psalm to Himself. And yet being at the footstool of the Lord doesn\'t have to mean being dominated by Him in judgment. It can refer to the great paradox whereby the Lord\'s enemies become His loyalest and most humble citizens, at His feet in submission, and thereby also at the Father\'s right hand of acceptance.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3096','1','42','20','44','44','<p>20:44 <i>David therefore calls him Lord, so, how is he his son?</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).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3097','1','42','20','45','45','<p>20:45 <i>And in the hearing of all the people, he said to his disciples</i>- This is typical of how the Lord intentionally focused upon the disciples. The accounts of the sermons on the mount and on the plain have the same feature; the crowds are gathered, but the Lord addresses the disciples. He realized they were His only hope; the masses were fickle, and He focused upon those who were open to His real teaching.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3098','1','42','20','46','46','<p>20:46 <i>Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes and love greetings 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><p><i>And 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('3099','1','42','20','47','47','<p>20:47 <i>Who 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('3100','1','42','21','1','1','<p>21:1 <i>And he looked up and saw the rich men that were casting their gifts into the treasury</i>- He &quot;looked up&quot; because Mark notes He was sitting. As he looked up and saw Zacchaeus, so the same term is used here of how He looked upon this poor widow; who was clearly another one of His people known to Him ahead of time. The many small coins the rich 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('3101','1','42','21','2','2','<p>21:2 <i>And he saw a certain poor widow throwing in there two small coins</i>- She could have kept one of the coins; but she threw both of them in. The thin coins (Mk.) were what were typically thrown to beggars; we are left to conclude that she gave to God all that was given to her.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3102','1','42','21','3','3','<p>21:3 <i>And he said: Of a truth I say to you: This poor widow threw in more than all of them</i>- The Lord condemned how the Pharisees &ldquo;devoured widow&rsquo;s houses&rdquo;- and then straight away we read of Him commending the widow who threw in her whole living to the coffers of the Pharisees. It wasn&rsquo;t important that the widow saw through the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and didn&rsquo;t &lsquo;waste&rsquo; her few pennies; her generosity was accepted for what it was, even though it didn&rsquo;t achieve what it might have done, indeed, it only abetted the work of evil men.</p><p>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.</p><p>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 Mk. 12:33 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('3103','1','42','21','4','4','<p>21:4 <i>For all these out of their abundance have put in offerings, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on</i>- 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. To give from that which is over and above and remaining, &quot;abundance&quot;, is not giving much at all really. &quot;Out of her poverty&quot; could suggest that it was her poverty which motivated her gift, as if to say that her greater generosity was not surprising, because she was poor; and in her case, total giving was motivated by her poverty. So it is poverty and not wealth which, as the Lord observed, motivates to the kind of radical giving which He seeks.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3104','1','42','21','5','5','<p>21:5 <i>And as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and offerings, he said</i>- These words are taken over in the later New Testament to describe the adorning of a new temple with precious stones, comprised of the believers in Christ (Rev. 21:2,19). Their praise of the ostentatious &quot;offerings&quot; reflects how they had apparently failed to grasp the lesson about the real nature of offerings just given by the incident with the widow woman (:1-4).</p><p>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('3105','1','42','21','6','6','<p>21:6 <i>As for these things which you behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be left here one stone upon another; all shall be thrown down</i>- This 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\'). 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, an 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('3106','1','42','21','7','7','<p>21:7 <i>And they asked him, saying: Teacher, when shall these things be? 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). &nbsp;</p><p>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><p>If none of us can know the time of the Lord\'s return, the whole spirit of the Olivet Prophecy is hard to come to terms with. When the disciples asked &quot;When shall these things be, and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?&quot; (Lk. 21:7), the Lord didn\'t cut short the conversation by saying \'Well actually you can\'t know, so your question isn\'t appropriate\'. He gave them just what they asked for: signs whereby the faithful would know &quot;when these things shall come to pass&quot;. The primary application of all this was that the faithful knew exactly the approaching end of the Jewish age in AD70- everything went according to plan, for those who correctly understood the prophecies. Therefore James, Peter and Paul could assuredly teach that &quot;the judge stands before the door&quot; (James 5:9) etc. And it is apparent that the situation in the run up to AD70 was typical of that in our last days. Likewise, the position of the faithful remnant in Babylon at the time of the restoration is another type of latter day events. And they too had an opening of their eyes to the prophetic word, resulting in an ability to clearly see where they were, and that the time of restoration of Israel\'s Kingdom was imminent.</p><p>\'What will be the signs of the last days?\' was indeed answered quite directly, but building up to a personal, incisive appeal to pray constantly that we will be preserved from those horrors and be accepted before the final judgment seat of God\'s Son (Lk. 21:7,36). It was as if the Lord was adding a powerful caveat- as if to say \'Now don\'t go and get obsessed and distracted trying to match these signs to current events- worry about how <i>you</i> will survive the last days, and whether, when you stand before Me in the very end, you will stand or fall before Me\'. And \'Are you really the Messiah? Do you really fulfil all the Old Testament prophecies?\' was met by an appeal to not stumble in faith (Lk. 7:21-23). See on Lk. 19:11.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3107','1','42','21','8','8','<p>21:8 <i>And he said: Take heed you are not led astray. For many shall come in my name, saying: I am he, and, The time is at hand- </i>Coming in the name of the Lord 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>Do not be led astray by them</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><p>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('3108','1','42','21','9','9','<p>21:9 <i>And when you shall hear of wars and revolutions, do not be terrified. For these things are necessary and must happen first, but the end will not be immediately</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;&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 (Mt. 24:14) 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.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3109','1','42','21','10','10','<p>21:10 <i>Then said he to them: 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;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3110','1','42','21','11','11','<p>21:11 <i>And there shall be great 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>And 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>Famines and pestilences- </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>And there shall be terrors and great signs from heaven</i>- During their tribulation, Israel will experience intense &quot;terror&quot; (Lev. 26:16), which would be enough to kill them (Dt. 32:24).&nbsp;This extraordinary level of paranoia 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).&nbsp;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: &quot;Terrors (an intensive plural - i.e. \'the one great terror\') by reason of the sword shall be upon my people&quot; (Ezek. 21:12).&nbsp;Likewise our Lord spoke of &quot;fearful sights&quot; being seen in latter-day Israel (Luke 21:11).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3111','1','42','21','12','12','<p>21:12 <i>But more significantly than all these things, they shall lay their hands on you and shall persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my name\'s sake</i>- &quot;The synagogues... the prisons&quot; - implying both a religious and civil persecution of the saints? 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.</p><p>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. Mark adds &quot;They shall deliver you up to councils and in the synagogues you shall be beaten&quot;. 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><p>The &quot;persecution&quot; is in Matthew &quot;to tribulation&quot;, the &quot;great&nbsp;<i>tribulation</i>&quot; (Mt. 24:21,29). The Lord was addressing the disciples, and yet their sufferings were not completely in line with the picture presented here, whereby their suffering was at the same time as Jerusalem was surrounded by armies. Clearly the intended program was delayed. John\'s equivalent of the Olivet prophecy is the upper room discourse, and the same idea of a woman in the sorrows of labour is to be found there, and also this same word for \'afflicted\' is found, translated &quot;anguish&quot; and &quot;tribulation&quot;: &quot;A woman when she is in labour has...&nbsp;<i>anguish</i>... in the world you shall have&nbsp;<i>tribulation</i>&quot; (Jn. 16:21,33). The Lord seems to speak as if these experiences will be those of all His true followers, but just as His anguish and sorrow came to term in His triumphant resurrection, so for all who are in Him. John uses the language of the Olivet prophecy but seems to apply it in more general terms to the suffering of the believer in all ages. Surely this was consciously done as a response to the fact that the Olivet prophecy had been rescheduled in fulfilment. Again we find the idea of \'affliction\' associated with the Lord\'s sufferings. Joseph, His clearest prototype, was \'afflicted\' (Acts 7:10 s.w.), just as his brothers were \'afflicted\' to lead them to repentance and acceptance of how badly they had treated Joseph / Jesus (Acts 7:11 s.w.). Stephen\'s use of the same word for the sufferings of both Joseph and his brothers was surely to teach that Israel\'s affliction was in order to teach them what they had done to Joseph, and to thereby identify with Him and repent. And this is exactly the purpose of Israel\'s latter day afflictions as outlined in the Olivet prophecy, and likewise the reason for the new Israel experiencing them- to help us identify with our crucified Lord. The same word is used in Rom. 8:35: &quot;Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?&quot;. Here Paul lists the kinds of tribulation outlined in the Olivet prophecy and assures his first century readers that these will never separate them from God\'s love- he clearly expected the prophecy to have a first century fulfilment. Likewise the Lord foresaw the possibility of the &quot;great tribulation&quot; coming upon the first century church (Rev. 2:22), and uses the same term &quot;great tribulation&quot; to describe the experiences of those Jewish Christians who would finally be saved (Rev. 7:14).&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3112','1','42','21','13','13','<p>21:13 <i>It shall turn out to be your opportunity to give a witness</i>- This is Luke\'s equivalent of Matthew and Mark predicting that the Gospel will be preached to all nations. Luke\'s angle on this is that the preaching will arise out of persecution and fleeing from it- which is just what happened in the first century.&nbsp;</p><p>But the AV speaks of how when a believer is persecuted, &ldquo;it shall turn to you for a testimony&rdquo;. What does this really mean? For me, the most satisfactory explanation would be that the Angels give a positive testimony of the faithful believer in the court of Heaven. Or could it mean that the way we respond to our trials during the tribulation will determine our verdict at the judgment? It will be a testimony in our favour at the day of judgment. In view of this, &quot;Settle it <i>therefore</i> in your hearts&quot; to make this witness in God\'s strength (Lk. 21:14). &quot;In the endurance of you (in the tribulation), ye will gain the souls of you&quot; (Lk. 21:19 Marshall\'s Interlinear). The run up to the tribulation will provoke a &quot;praying always, that ye may be accounted worthy... to stand before the Son of man&quot; (Lk. 21:36). Peter describes the tribulation of the believers in the run up to AD70 (and therefore the last days too) as judgment taking place on the house of God, in which even the righteous are &quot;scarcely saved&quot; (1 Pet.4:17,18). This suggests that the last generation of believers will only be saved due to their response to the tribulation which comes upon them; but even then, only by the skin of their teeth. Lot in Sodom and the parable of the virgins, among others, are hints that the last generation of believers will be in a weak state.<br />For those who suffer persecution, prison etc. for the Lord\'s sake, &quot;it shall turn to you for a testimony&quot; (Lk. 21:13). When? How? Surely in that these things will be \'gone through\' with them at judgment as a testimony to their faithfulness.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3113','1','42','21','14','14','<p>21:14 <i>Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate beforehand how to answer</i>- They were to decide so definitely not to work out their answer ahead of time, because their answer or testimony was with God (:13). He had made an answer / testimony for them in the court of Heaven; and He would put that in their mouths at the right time.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3114','1','42','21','15','15','<p>21:15 <i>For I will give you the words and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to contradict</i>- 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('3115','1','42','21','16','16','<p>21:16 <i>But you shall be delivered up even by your parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they shall kill some of you</i>- This indicates that the persecuting power will infiltrate the ecclesias, as the Jews and Romans did to the early church in order to bring about their persecution. 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 dishonoureth 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. See on Mk. 13:13.<br />&quot;Some of you shall they cause to be put to death... but there shall not an hair of your head perish&quot; can only be reconciled by appreciating how miraculously the disciples were preserved in order to inspire and co-ordinate the rest of the body. Perhaps a similar group of elders (&quot;the two witnesses&quot;?) will be preserved in the last days too.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3116','1','42','21','17','17','<p>21:17<i> And you shall be hated of all men for my name\'s sake-</i>&nbsp;&nbsp; This hating by all men may imply a world-wide persecution. 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.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3117','1','42','21','18','18','<p>21:18 <i>But not a hair of your head shall perish</i>- Primarily concerning the disciples, seeing that some believers were to die for their faith in the period around AD70 (cp. :16). The figure of not a hair of the head perishing is used in the Old Testament concerning sudden deliverance from what seemed like certain death, e.g. Jonathan in 1 Sam. 14:45. This is fitting, seeing that &quot;except those days should be shortened there should no flesh be saved&quot; (Mt. 24:22). It is also the language of the faithful few among an Israel who wouldn\'t stand up and be counted being miraculously preserved from Babylonian tribulation (Dan. 3:27). There are many instructive parallels here with the latter day tribulation, which the majority of natural and spiritual Israel may try to avoid by some tokenistic acquiescence to the dictates of the King of Babylon.</p><p>We must lose our lives, one way or the other. If we lose them for Christ, we will find eternal life. If we keep them for ourselves, we will lose that eternal life. This teaching is picked up by the Lord in Lk. 21:16-18, in stating that some of His people would be put to death, but actually, not a hair of their heads would perish. Surely He was saying that yes, they would lose their lives, but in reality they would find eternal life. Those men and women who died on crosses, were burnt as human torches, were thrown to the lions... the Lord foresaw them, and implied that their sacrifice was <i>in principle</i> the process that must be gone through by each of us: a losing, a resigning, of our life and all the things that life consists of in everyday experience. Either we die to sin now, living out in practice the theory of baptism, or we will die to sin in rejection at judgment day; sin has it&rsquo;s end in death (Ez. 21:25; Dan. 9:24), either now, or then. So we may as well die to the things of sin in this life.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3118','1','42','21','19','19','<p>21:19 <i>In your patience, you shall win your souls</i>- The idea may be that those who endure the final tribulation will be saved; they will be the only generation who will not die. For they will be immortalized at the Lord\'s return. The same group are in view in Mt. 10:22: &quot;He that endures to the end shall be saved&quot;. Although it is the Lord who purchases / redeems &quot;wins&quot; our souls, we must play our part in this. It is our endurance in faith in His work for us which enables all this to become true for us in reality.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3119','1','42','21','20','20','<p>21:20 <i>But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that her desolation is at hand</i>- Jerusalem was truly &ldquo;compassed with armies&rdquo; in Hezekiah&rsquo;s time, and perhaps the Lord has this in mind when He predicted that Jerusalem would again be like this in the last days. His subsequent warning to those in the country areas not running into Jerusalem for refuge is also an allusion to the situation in Hezekiah&rsquo;s time- for this was exactly what happened then.</p><p>We need not get overly worried about the supposed discrepancies between prophecy and its historical fulfilment. Such differences don\'t negate the Divine inspiration of the original prophecy- rather do they show how God\'s intentions can be worked out in different ways because of the open-ended approach He takes to human response. Thus it\'s been observed that the siege of Jerusalem in AD66-70 doesn\'t exactly follow the descriptions in Lk. 19:41-44 and 21:20-24. This would be because there were within the Olivet prophecy a number of possible scenarios of what could happen <i>if</i> the believers fled the city as commanded; and of course, <i>if</i> Israel repented and accepted Christ at His AD70 \'coming\' in judgment. Additionally we must remember that this prophecy was only having its initial fulfilment in AD70- the final fulfilment will be in our last days.</p><p>The placing of the abomination is what will bring about the desolation, according to Mk. and 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. 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>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3120','1','42','21','21','21','<p>21:21- see on Rev. 11:1.</p><p><i>Then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let them that are in the midst of her depart, and do not let them that are in the countryside enter therein</i>- As the faithful remnant were miraculously allowed to leave Sodom, 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; means that there will be Jewish believers in Jerusalem in the last days, seeing the whole prophecy has a latter day application. 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.</p><p>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>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3121','1','42','21','22','22','<p>21:22 <i>For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled</i>- This is the day &quot;days&quot; may be an intensive plural referring to the one great day when vengeance will be poured out; God will take revenge on the system which has persecuted His natural and spiritual people (2 Thess. 1:8 s.w.). Revelation puts this in terms of the beast system receiving revenge for all she has recently done to the Lord\'s people. In a sense, &quot;all&quot; the written prophecies and words of God shall come to their final fulfilment in the Lord\'s return.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3122','1','42','21','23','23','<p>21:23 <i>Woe to them that are with child in those days, and to those nursing babies- </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><p><i>For there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath upon this people</i>- Paul\'s later comment that &quot;Wrath is come upon them to the uttermost&quot; (1 Thess. 2:16) suggests he believed that these words were being fulfilled completely at his time. But the Lord did not come, many aspects of the prophecy were left unfulfilled, and the complete fulfilment has yet to come.</p><p>&quot;Great distress&quot; could mean \'the greatest ever distress\'. This would connect with Dan. 12:1- that immediately prior to the Lord\'s return, there will be a time of distress for Israel such as they have never experienced- far worse than the holocaust. 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>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3123','1','42','21','24','24','<p>21:24 <i>And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations- </i>The downtreading of Jerusalem during the tribulation, the &quot;times&quot; of the Gentiles, the three and a half year 1260 days, 42 months, &quot;time, times and a half&quot; domination of the land, will be long enough for some Jews to led captive into the &quot;all nations&quot; surrounding Israel who form the coalition of the beast. Such mass deportations would be performed in conscious imitation of the Babylonian and Assyrian dominations. The Greek word for &quot;sword&quot; is literally a dagger; we would have expected the more common word for sword to be used. But we recall images of Islamist extremists killing those whom they consider apostate by cutting their throats with the edge of a knife / dagger; and it seems this is what we can expect. The phrase is alluding to Jer. 21:7 LXX, where those in Judah who escaped the plagues and other calamities which have also been mentioned here in Lk. 21 are then slain by the edge of the sword of the Babylonians. The Babylonian invasion clearly is the prototype of Jerusalem\'s latter day tribulation.</p><p><i>And Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled</i>- The &quot;times of the Gentiles&quot; (Lk. 21:24) appears to refer to the time of Gentile opportunity to learn the Gospel, according to how Paul alludes to it in Rom. 11:25. This however is going to be particularly true of the final period when Jerusalem falls to the Gentiles and is trodden underfoot. When that downtreading is completed, then likewise the opportunity for Gentile response will close.</p><p>Zech. 12:3is being alluded to:&quot;In that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people (i.e. all around Israel, as this often means): all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it&quot;. The Septuagint renders the first phrase as &quot;a stone trodden down by the Gentiles&quot;, clearly alluded to here. Those who are \'gathered together\' against Jerusalem must be the Arab neighbours of Israel, according to the Zechariah context. The rejected likewise will be burdened with a heavy stone (Mt. 18:6), showing that they will share the judgments of Israel\'s enemies.</p><p>The allusion is to Dan. 8:13: &quot;The transgression of desolation gave both the sanctuary and the host (i.e. the people of Israel) to be&nbsp;<i>trodden underfoot&quot;.&nbsp;</i>This part of Luke 21 is clearly alluding to Zechariah 14, a prophecy about the final desolation of Jerusalem:</p><table border=0 cellspacing=3 cellpadding=0 width=95%>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p><b>Luke 21</b></p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p><b>Zechariah 14</b></p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>20.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Jerusalem surrounded by armies</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>2.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>All nations against Jerusalem to battle</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>20.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>The desolation of Jerusalem is near</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>2.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>The city shall be taken</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>21.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>5.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>You shall flee to the ... mountains</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>22.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Great distress in the land</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>2.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Houses ransacked, women raped.</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>24.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Led away captive into all nations</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>2.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Half the city shall go into captivity</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>24.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Jerusalem trodden down by the Gentiles.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>12:3</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>LXX Jerusalem a stone trodden down by the Gentiles.</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table><p>The context of Zechariah 14 is clearly concerning the last days and the literal appearance of Messiah in Israel. The way the Olivet Prophecy alludes to it, indeed is based upon it, shows that it too requires reference to the last days. Any limited fulfilment in AD70 was only a partial foretaste of the final outworking of the prophecy. Dan. 8:13 itself was a prophecy which had already had various possible fulfilments and had already had its fulfilment rescheduled a few times. It is therefore unsurprising if its intended, or possible, fulfilment in AD70 was again rescheduled.</p><p>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). &quot;Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles&quot; for three and a half years, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. \'Jebus\', the old name for Jerusalem, means \'downtrodden\'. This&nbsp;hints that the liberation of Jebus at the beginning of David\'s reign was seen by Christ as typical of the time when He would liberate Jerusalem from downtreading, at his return. This suggests that the times of Gentile domination of Jerusalem are to be ended by the establishment of the Kingdom at Christ\'s second coming; we are yet to see, therefore, a Gentile domination of Jerusalem before Christ\'s coming.</p><p>&quot;The times of the Gentiles&quot; are often taken to have finished in 1967. But at least three major problems arise with this: <br />1) The temple site, Biblical \'Zion\', is still not totally under Jewish control due to the presence of the Mosque there. <br />2) &quot;Trodden down&quot; has clear links with Dan. 8:13 and Rev. 11:2, which describe the temple being blasphemously desecrated for certain periods of time. How can they have ended in 1967, seeing the \'Dome of the Rock\' still stands there? And 1967 minus 2300 day/years (Dan. 8:13) or 1260 day/years (Rev. 11:2) do not appear to yield any significant starting points. <br />3) The times of Gentile opportunity, as some read it, are still with us now as much as they were in 1967. If anything, numbers of baptisms have mushroomed <i>since</i> 1967, notably in distant Gentile lands.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3124','1','42','21','25','25','<p>21:25 <i>And there shall be signs in sun, moon and stars- </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 saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divides the sea when the waves thereof roar; the Lord of hosts is his name. If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever&quot;.</p><p><i>And upon the earth distress of nations- </i>The reference is to distress amongst the nations within the earth / land promised to Abraham. There are many prophecies in Jeremiah and Ezekiel of Babylon being at war with the neighbouring nations who supported her in the attack on Jerusalem, e.g. concerning Ammon (Ez. 21:20) and Tyre (Ez. 26:7).&nbsp;Ammon is mentioned as <i>escaping </i>out of the hand of the king of the North during his invasion of Israel and Jerusalem (Dan. 11:41). This shows that there will be much inter-Arab conflict both before and during Israel\'s prolonged desolation period. &quot;The sea and the waves roaring&quot; at the time of Israel\'s final suffering is a figure taken from Jer. 49:23 concerning the nations around Israel being like the troubled sea in their fighting with each other. However, the outstanding inter-Arab conflicts will be temporarily forgotten in the last days to concentrate on a combined push against Jerusalem.&nbsp;But once this is captured, the old rivalries will suddenly violently surface, which is how God will destroy the invaders and save the righteous remnant who are still barely alive in the sewers and basements of Jerusalem.</p><p><i>In perplexity for the roaring of the sea and the waves- </i>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;It seems that the beasts of Dan. 7 are only different aspects of the one great beast which finally emerges. Daniel sees them all come up together after the waves of the sea are troubled (Dan. 7:3), connecting with the Lord\'s description of the last day powers around Israel in the same way (Lk. 21:25).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3125','1','42','21','26','26','<p>21:26 <i>Men will be fainting for fear in expectation of the things which are coming on the world- </i>We are to be in expectation of the Lord\'s return (s.w. 2 Pet. 3:12,13,14); the Lord comes on the unworthy when they are not expecting Him (Lk. 12:46 s.w.). The magnitude of the world\'s problems will block the vision of worldly people, so that they refuse or are rendered unable to look beyond them to the things of the Lord and His Kingdom &quot;coming on the world&quot;.</p><p><i>For the powers of 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. And it is this which provokes chronic fear in the hearts of the worldly. 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('3126','1','42','21','27','27','<p>21:27 <i>And then shall they see- </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>The Son of Man coming in a cloud- </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 power and great 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('3127','1','42','21','28','28','<p>21:28 <i>But when these things begin to happen, look up, lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near</i>- Ps. 24:9 clearly states that when the gatekeepers of Zion lift up their heads to God in truth, then the King of glory will come in. And the Lord here applies these words to His true people of the last days- they are to likewise lift up their heads so that their redemption will draw nigh, or be hastened.</p><p>&quot;When these things begin to come to pass, then look up (Gk. un-bend), and lift up your heads&quot; may suggest that the believers will be bowed down in bondage in some sense. Alternatively, we can read it simply as a command to stand up (as NIV), which would connect with the slumbering virgins, <i>none</i> of them standing ready to welcome their Lord as they should have been. It is evident from a close reading of the Olivet prophecy that the Lord is using his pronouns carefully. Sometimes He speaks of &quot;ye&quot;, sometimes of &quot;they&quot;. It seems that the &ldquo;ye&quot; refer to the disciples and the faithful remnant in the latter day ecclesia, and the &quot;they&quot; either to the natural Jews or to &quot;the many&quot; (majority) in the ecclesia who will fall away. &quot;<i>They</i> shall see the Son of man coming in a cloud... when these things (leading up to the Son of man coming) begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up <i>your</i> heads&quot; (Lk. 21:27,28). This may suggest that the majority, the &quot;they&quot; category, are shocked by the coming of the Lord, but the faithful minority stand up from their slumber and are expecting his coming.</p><p>&ldquo;When these things begin to come to pass, then look up (Gk. \'unbend\'- as if the depression of the faithful is partly lifted by discerning the nearness of Christ\'s return), and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh&quot;. These are words which can only apply to the last generation; and they self-evidently imply that therefore that last generation does know for sure that Christ is about to come. Just two verses later, the Lord spoke of how in the Spring &quot;Ye see and know <i>of your own selves</i> that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the Kingdom of God is nigh&quot; (Lk. 21:30,31). There is an instinctive sense within us concerning the change of the seasons; and this will be the same in the minds of the faithful as they sense the Lord\'s return approaching. There will be no need for magazine articles expounding &quot;signs of the times&quot;; we will not need any man to say unto us &quot;The time draweth near&quot; because we will know <i>of our own selves</i> that the coming of Christ is near (Lk. 21:7,8 should be read in the context of v.30,31). The relationship between Solomon and his bride in the Song of Solomon is typical of that between Christ and His church; and significantly, therefore, she senses his approach, she hears his voice telling her that he is coming, even before she sees him (Song 2:8).</p><p>We were redeemed by the blood of Jesus; and yet His return and judgment of us is also our &ldquo;day of redemption&quot; (Lk. 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 4:30). Yet that day was essentially the cross; but it is also in the day of judgment. Likewise, we are &ldquo;justified&quot; by the blood of Jesus. Yet the idea of justification is a declaring righteous after a judgment; as if the cross was our judgment, and through our belief in the Lord we were subsequently declared justified, as we will be in the Last Day.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3128','1','42','21','29','29','<p>21:29 <i>And he told them a parable: Behold the fig tree and all the trees</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;Spiritual fruit on the fig tree of Israel is to be associated with spiritual fruit on &quot;all the trees&quot; within the Eden / earth / land promised to Abraham; this will be the fruit of the witness made to them all by the Elijah ministry and the two witnesses of Rev. 11.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3129','1','42','21','30','30','<p>21:30 <i>When they shoot forth, you see it, and know of yourselves that the summer is now near</i>- Or, &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>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><p>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. &quot;The time of <i>figs</i> 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 <i>kairos </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>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3130','1','42','21','31','31','<p>21:31 <i>Even so, you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near</i>- 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;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 Lord introduces his Olivet prophecy by saying that it was no use listening to those who said &quot;The time draws near&quot;- instead, he went on to say, \'You must personally match the spiritual and physical situation you find yourself in with what I\'m describing\'. And at the end of the prophecy, he hammered this home again: &quot;When (the trees) now shoot forth, ye see it, and know of your own selves that Summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things... know ye&quot; (Lk. 21:30,31 RV). The very personal feeling within us that Summer is near is likened to our knowledge of the imminence of the Lord\'s coming; you can\'t be told by anyone else that Summer\'s coming, you see the signs, and you know within your own self. &nbsp;</p><p>Perhaps the very last generation <i>will</i> know the time of Christ\'s return. &quot;Likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, <i>know ye</i> that the Kingdom of God is nigh at hand&quot; (Lk. 21:31). As surely as trees bud and then Summer comes, so when we see the signs of Lk. 21:24-26 in Israel, we will know that the Lord is really at hand. It is only to the unworthy that the Lord comes unexpectedly. The majority of generations, including the disciples to whom Christ primarily spoke those words concerning not knowing the hour, have of course not known the day or hour. But there seems absolutely no point in the Lord giving us <i>any</i> signs if in fact the last generation cannot foresee with some certainty the time of His coming. Surely Yahweh has revealed all His plans to His servants the prophets? As a woman knows within herself the approximate time of childbirth although not the day or hour, so we should know that the day of new birth is approaching- so Paul\'s reasoning goes in 1 Thess. 5. He warns that for those who do not watch, the day of Christ\'s coming will be a day of &quot;sudden destruction... as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape&quot; (1 Thess. 5:3). Surely the picture here is of a woman whose time of delivery comes unexpectedly upon her, with complications that result in her dying in childbirth. As a woman who knows the time of delivery is very near will behave in an appropriately careful way, so will the faithful of the last generation who likewise know that the Lord\'s coming is nigh. The same mixture of seriousness and joyful anticipation will be seen in us too, who are watching and loving the appearing of Christ.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3131','1','42','21','32','32','<p>21:32 <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 things are accomplished</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('3132','1','42','21','33','33','<p>21:33 <i>Heaven and earth shall 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 :32&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('3133','1','42','21','34','34','<p>21:34 <i>But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with partying, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day come on you unexpectedly</i>- It could fairly be asked \'Why is there this warning, if the believers of the last days are to be actively persecuted?\'. This verse implies that the world will be in a materially prosperous state in the last days; it will be possible for us to become so preoccupied with it that we do not prepare for the time of tribulation, so that it comes as a sudden surprise. Of if &quot;that day&quot; is the day of Christ\'s coming, then it may be that by opting out of the persecution, we will be able to continue to enjoy the materialism of the world, in which case we will be caught unawares by the second coming. Thus while the saints are persecuted, the world enjoys a time of prosperity as it did in the times of Lot and Noah.</p><p>Even in the first century context, Paul has to use these same Greek words in warning the believers not to be caught up in drunkenness (Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:21). And &quot;cares&quot; is the word used in the parable of the sower; the thorns represented the cares of this life (Mt. 13:22). The appeal is therefore to those who have received the seed of the word, and have responded. Attempting to enjoy the good life will make believers no longer expectant of the Lord\'s return. &quot;Unexpectedly&quot; translates a Greek word only found elsewhere in 1 Thess. 5:3, of the &quot;sudden destruction&quot; which is to come upon those within the church who are saying &quot;peace and safety&quot;. The attitude of &quot;peace and safety&quot; is therefore within the church rather than in the world; for it is here paralleled with eating and drinking without awareness of the imminence of the Lord\'s return. The state of the world in the very last days is going to be crying out for interpretation as a fulfilment of prophecy predicting the Lord\'s coming. And yet, it seems many within the church will be spiritually asleep and so&nbsp;engrossed with the good life that they do not perceive it. This is the distracting power of materialism and self-indulgence.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3134','1','42','21','35','35','<p>21:35 <i>For so shall it come upon all those that dwell on the face of all the earth</i>- As noted on :34, the unexpected nature of the Lord\'s coming is pertinent specifically to the believers who are engrossed with the good life and not aware of the imminence of His return. But they are associated here with all dwellers on the earth / land, for whom the Lord\'s coming will likewise be an abrupt, unexpected interruption. The dwellers on the earth / land in Revelation appear to specifically refer to those within the territory of the land promised to Abraham.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3135','1','42','21','36','36','<p>21:36 <i>But watch continually, praying that you may have strength to prevail against all these things that are going to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man</i>- See on Lk. 18:5; Rev. 8:1. It is by being continually aware of the Lord\'s presence, and the closeness of His coming, that we find moral strength to overcome. And this will be especially true of the final generation. Spiritual strength is clearly given in response to prayer and desire. The Lord doesn\'t simply advocate Bible study as the method for gaining strength.</p><p>&quot;Prevail&quot; or &quot;escape&quot; can mean \'to suddenly flee away from\'- the same idea of sudden deliverance from persecution which cropped up in our notes on :18. Those who do not watch and pray will be unable to flee out of the tribulation, as Lot\'s wife was unable to. This idea of escaping connects with 1 Thess. 5:3 (this is just one of many links between the Olivet prophecy and Thessalonians): &quot;When they shall say (in the ecclesia) Peace and safety, then sudden destruction comes upon them... and they shall not escape&quot;. The language of &quot;peace and safety&quot; is often used in the Old Testament to describe the calm words of Israel\'s false teachers, as they confidently asserted that all was spiritually well within Israel (Jer. 6:14; 5:12; 14:13; Mic. 3:5; Ez. 13:10; Dt. 29:19). Those who do not think that there is peace and safety in the ecclesia and who face up to the reality of \'watching and praying\' to spiritually survive the last days, are those who will \'escape\'.</p><p>Jacob\'s wrestling with the Angel was really a clinging on to him, pleading with tears for the blessing of forgiveness; and in this he was our example (Hos. 12:4-6). Lk. 21:36 RV speaks of the believer \'prevailing\' with God in prayer. The \'struggles\' of Moses in prayer are an example of this; through the desperation and spiritual culture of his pleading, he brought about a change even in God\'s stated purpose. See on Col. 2:1.</p><p>If our prayers really can help others on their salvation road- how we should use this Remember Lot\'s deliverance for the sake of Abraham\'s prayers, whilst he unknowingly went about his daily life in those last hours. Reflect too how the Lord told us: &ldquo;Pray <i>ye</i> may be accounted worthy to&hellip; be stood before the son of man&quot;. Not \'pray for thyself\', singular, but for the whole community of the last days.</p><p>Angelic appearances to men have so often included an encouragement to &quot;fear not&quot; that we have every reason to imagine that those same words will be repeated to us when the angel calls. The Greek text of Lk. 21:36 further fills out the place of the angels in our judgment: &quot;Pray always, that you may be accounted worthy... to be stood before the Son of man&quot;. This creates the picture of our guardian angel literally standing us up in acceptance before our Lord, as happened to Daniel. Ps. 1:5 can now take on a literal aspect: &quot;The ungodly shall not stand up in the judgment&quot;. It is so fitting that the angel who is with us now in our every situation, will be with us in that supreme moment too.</p><p>Throughout Christ\'s discourses concerning his return, &quot;watch&quot; is the key-word (Mt. 24:42; 25:13; Mk. 13:33-37; Lk. 12:37; 21:36). There are at least ten New Testament allusions to Christ\'s command for us to &quot;watch&quot; in the last days, and thus be found loving the appearing of Christ; this alone indicates how our lives should be characterized by this spirit of watching. I would go so far as to say that generally we seem almost unaware of this emphasis. &quot;Watch... watch... watch&quot; is the cry that comes out from our Lord himself. It seems almost unknown to us that we are <i>commanded</i> by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, with a great sense of urgency, to live in this spirit of watchfulness for His return. It is easy to think that the command to watch means that we should scan Bible prophecies and compare them with current world events, and thereby see the coming of Christ approaching. However, this is not the idea behind the word &quot;watch&quot;. We are told to watch precisely because we do <i>not</i> know the time of Christ\'s appearing; therefore Jesus cannot be telling us (in this command) to watch political developments as pointers towards the date of His return. &quot;Watch&quot; nearly always refers to watching our personal spirituality, and concerning ourselves with that of others&rsquo;. The Hebrew word translated &quot;watch&quot; carries the idea of defending, holding on as a matter of life or death, enduring with stamina, being awake. Thus Habakkuk speaks of &quot;watching&quot;, i.e. being spiritually sensitive, to what God is going to tell him (Hab. 2:1). Doing a study of New Testament allusions to Christ\'s command to &quot;watch&quot; yields conclusions which may seem unpleasantly negative to some. In Greek, the verb \'to watch\' is related to the noun \'watch\', referring to soldiers guarding something, or the period of guard duty. The idea behind \'watching\' is definitely defensive rather than aggressive. In the same way as the gate keeper of a large house has to watch, to guard and protect, so should we in the last days (Mk. 13:34-37). Lk. 21:36 defines watching as praying always, concentrating our faith upon the fact that ultimately we will stand acceptably before the Lord Jesus at the day of judgment, and by His grace be saved from the great judgments which will surely come upon this world. The ideas of watching and praying often occur together (Lk. 21:36; Mk. 14:38; Mt. 26:41; Eph. 6:18; 1 Pet. 4:7). Prayer for our forgiveness, for acceptance by our Lord, must therefore characterize our watching in these last days. We must &quot; watch&quot; in the sense of being on our guard against the possibility of personal and communal apostasy from the faith (Acts 20:31); &quot;watching&quot; is standing fast in the doctrines of the one faith (1 Cor. 16:31), exhorting and encouraging others in the household of faith (1 Thess. 5:6,11), holding fast in ecclesias swamped by apathy and apostasy, strengthening what remains (Rev. 3:2,3; 2 Tim. 4:3-5), keeping the oil of the word burning in our lamps even though others have let it burn out (Mt. 25:13).<br />&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3136','1','42','21','37','37','<p>21:37 <i>And every day he was teaching in the temple, and every night he went and stayed on the mount that is called Olivet</i>- Perhaps He didn\'t wish to draw attention to the Bethany home. Or perhaps He found Gethsemane especially conducive to the prayer which filled His final nights. Maybe He wanted to reduce His journey time each day to the temple, in order to provide maximum teaching and final appeal to Israel. He must surely have had sympathizers within the city who would have let Him spend the night there. But He didn\'t wish to make them a target for the Jews, nor give them the appearance of some special blessing after all the grief was over and He was glorified. He likely wanted to have the 12 with Him as much as possible, and it\'s unlikely such a large group could have been accommodated under one roof. And so they slept rough for those final nights, with Him using every moment in prayer, teaching and appeal.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3137','1','42','21','38','38','<p>21:38 <i>And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, to hear him</i>- The &quot;early morning&quot; eagerness for His teaching explains why He reduced His journey time to the temple each day by sleeping rough on Olivet rather than in Bethany (:37). Their attraction to His teaching was deep; for He carefully avoided doing miracles at this stage.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3138','1','42','22','1','1','<p>22:1 <i>Now the feast of unleavened bread drew near, which is called the Passover</i>- This clarification would have been unnecessary for a Jewish audience, so we can see that Luke was aiming at preaching to the Gentiles even before generally this was acceptable within the church. Taking the Gospel to those whom the main body of believers hold to be unacceptable is a lonely and visionary task.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3139','1','42','22','2','2','<p>22:2 <i>And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put him to death, for they feared the people</i>- This \'seeking\' to kill the Lord connects these orthodox Jews with Herod, who \'sought\' to kill the Lord at His birth (s.w. Mt. 2:13,20). The seeking of the Jews to kill the Lord coincided with the seeking of Judas to betray Him to them (s.w. Mt. 26:16). In this sense the Jewish satan entered into Judas (:3). And the Lord was aware of all this; as noted on Mk. 14:1, He brought about the circumstances so that He died as the Passover lamb at that feast. He did so by provoking Judas to \'seek\' to betray Him through the incident of the \'waste\' of wealth at Bethany; when He knew that the Jews were also \'seeking\' His death.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3140','1','42','22','3','3','<p>22:3 <i>And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve</i>- It was the Jewish &lsquo;satan&rsquo; that put the idea of betraying Jesus into Judas&rsquo; mind, so Lk. 22:2,3 implies: &ldquo;the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him...then entered Satan into Judas&rdquo;. See on :2. The Jewish ideas of an immediate Kingdom and the throwing off of the Roman yoke by a glamorous, heroic Messiah entered Judas, and caused him to become so bitter against Christ&rsquo;s Messiahship that he betrayed Him. The Jewish Satan, in the form of both the Jews and their ideology, was at work on the other disciples too: &ldquo;Satan has desired to have you&rdquo; (plural), Jesus warned them. Especially was the High Priest seeking Peter: &ldquo;I have prayed for you (Peter &ndash; singular), that your&nbsp;faith doesn\'t fail you&rdquo; (Lk. 22:31,32). Could Jesus foresee the Satan &ndash; High Priest later arresting Peter and his subsequent trial in prison? Throughout the first century, the Jewish and Roman Devil sought &ldquo;whom he may devour&rdquo; (1 Pet. 5:8).</p><p>Note how &ldquo;enter&rdquo; is used in a non-physical sense in Mt. 25:21: &ldquo;Enter into the joy of your Lord&rdquo;, entering in at the narrow gate (Mt. 7:13), entering into another&rsquo;s labours (Jn. 4:38). &lsquo;Satan&rsquo; enters a man&rsquo;s heart in the sense that &ldquo;the lusts of other things enter in&rdquo; (Mk. 4:19); in this sense we can &ldquo;enter into temptation&rdquo; (Lk. 22:46).</p><p>The link between Judas and the &lsquo;Devil&rsquo; is brought out by a consideration of Luke&rsquo;s comment that Judas &ldquo;sought an opportune time <i>eukairan</i> to betray Jesus&rdquo; (Lk. 22:6). But Luke earlier used this word in Lk. 4:13 to describe how the &ldquo;Devil&rdquo; in the wilderness departed from the Lord &ldquo;until an opportune time&rdquo; <i>achri kairou</i>. The Lord&rsquo;s victory in the wilderness prepared Him for the victory over the &lsquo;Devil&rsquo; which He achieved in His final passion. Just as the temptation to &lsquo;come down from the cross&rsquo; was a repetition of the temptation to throw Himself down from the temple. John&rsquo;s Gospel often repeats the history of the other Gospels, but in different language. In Mt. 26:46, the Lord comments upon the arrival of Judas: &ldquo;Rise, let us be going; my betrayer is coming&rdquo;. But Jn. 14:30,31 puts it like this: &ldquo;The prince of this world a phrase understood as meaning &lsquo;the evil one&rsquo;, the Devil is coming&hellip; Rise, let us be going&rdquo;. John is picking up the mythological language of the &lsquo;Satan&rsquo; figure, and applying it to a real person with real attitudes and sinful intentions &ndash; i.e. Judas, who is presented as a personification of the &lsquo;Satan&rsquo; / &lsquo;Devil&rsquo; / &lsquo;Prince of this world&rsquo; principle.</p><p>We can easily overlook the huge significance of Mk. 14:21 recording the Lord&rsquo;s words that Judas personally was guilty for betraying Him, and would suffer accordingly &ndash; even though Lk. 22:22 says that Judas did this because the Satan i.e. the Jews &lsquo;entered him&rsquo;. <i>Whatever</i> that means, it doesn&rsquo;t mean that Judas nor anyone is thereby not personally responsible for their actions.</p><p>The translation of the Greek text in Jn. 13:2 has been problematic. &ldquo;The Devil having put into the heart of Judas&rdquo; doesn&rsquo;t quite do justice to what the Greek is really saying. The respected expositor and Greek student C.K. Barratt insists that strictly, the Greek means &lsquo;the Devil had put into his own i.e. the Devil&rsquo;s heart, that Judas should betray Jesus&rsquo; (C.K. Barratt, <i>The Gospel According to St. John</i> (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) p. 365. Barratt&rsquo;s view of the Greek is confirmed in D.A. Carson, <i>Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility</i> (London: Marshall, Morgan &amp; Scott, 1981) p. 131). This translation is almost impossible to make any sense of given the orthodox understanding of the &lsquo;Devil&rsquo;. And so most popular translations ignore the obvious difficulty by glossing over the strict meaning of the Greek. Understanding the &lsquo;Devil&rsquo; as the innate source of temptation within the human heart, the picture becomes clearer. The idea is surely that the thought of betraying Jesus began within the Devil&ndash;mind of Judas; he &lsquo;put the thought in his own mind&rsquo;, as if to stress how Judas conceived this thought totally of himself and within his own mind, just as later Ananias and Sapphira in an analogous incident &lsquo;conceived this thing within their heart&rsquo;. So properly translated, Jn. 13:2 actually supports our general thesis about the Devil &ndash; it is stressing that the heart of Judas was itself responsible, that heart put the idea of betraying Jesus into itself &ndash; and nobody else was responsible. Note how the Lord addresses Judas as if Judas had full responsibility for his actions and control over them &ndash; e.g. &ldquo;What you are going to do, do quickly&rdquo; (Jn. 13:27), and Mk. 14:21 &ldquo;Woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed Good were it for that man if he had never been born&rdquo;. Those two passages alone surely make it clear that Judas was no robot, no puppet on a satanic string. He had full responsibility and choice over his actions, hence these words of the Lord to him. Summing up, we are left with the question: Did <i>Judas</i> betray Jesus, or did <i>Satan</i>, working through Judas, betray Jesus? The answer, surely, is that it was Judas, and he must bear full responsibility for that.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3141','1','42','22','4','4','<p>22:4 <i>And he went away, and discussed with the chief priests and captains how he might betray him to them</i>- The Jews discussed amongst themselves how they might arrest and kill Jesus: &quot;And they plotted together how they might seize Jesus using trickery and kill him<i>&quot;</i> (Mt. 26:4). Again we see a parallel between the Jews and Judas; the Jewish \'satan\' entered into him (:3).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3142','1','42','22','5','5','<p>22:5 <i>And they were glad, and agreed to give him money</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('3143','1','42','22','6','6','<p>22:6 <i>And he consented- </i>This Greek word is usually translated &quot;confessed&quot;, in the sense of repenting of sin. He may have assured them that He felt the Lord\'s movement was wrong and that he had been sinful to support it.</p><p><i>And looked for an opportunity to betray him to them in the absence of the crowd</i>- Perhaps this was why the Lord chose to spend His nights sleeping rough on Olivet rather than in the home at Bethany or of sympathizers in Jerusalem. He was giving Judas the chance to betray Him. If we look for an opportunity to sin, the Lord in a way provides it in that He can \'lead into temptation\' unless we pray not to be so led.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3144','1','42','22','7','7','<p>22:7 <i>And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the Passover must be sacrificed</i>- The Lord was aware that the Passover sacrifice was Himself. He wanted to die when the lambs were killed. And He did. His psychological manipulation of it all went perfectly. We can read &quot;the day&quot; of unleavened bread as meaning &quot;the time&quot;, rather than referring to a particular period of 24 hours.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3145','1','42','22','8','8','<p>22:8 <i>And he sent Peter and John on an errand, saying: Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover</i>- This is the language of the \'preparing\' of the Marriage Supper (s.w. Mt. 22:4). And yet at that meal, He explained to them how in fact He had been sent by God on a mission to &quot;prepare&quot; a place in God\'s Kingdom for them, and this preparation required His death on the cross (Jn. 14:2,3). They would later have reflected that their journey and efforts to prepare were representative of His own work for them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3146','1','42','22','9','9','<p>22:9 <i>And they asked him: Where do you want us to prepare for it?</i>- Perhaps we are intended to see a veiled allusion to Dt. 16:2, where we learn that the Passover was to be kept in the place which Yahweh chose. And they are asking the Lord where He has chosen to eat the Passover. Whilst He was and is not God, He functions as God and manifested Him in flesh.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3147','1','42','22','10','10','<p>22:10 <i>And he said to them: When you enter into the city, there you shall meet a man carrying a pitcher of water. Follow him into the house to which he goes</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('3148','1','42','22','11','11','<p>22:11 <i>And you shall say to the master of the house: The Teacher says to you- </i>The anonymous man, unnamed perhaps for security reasons, was presumably a believer for this title to mean anything to the man. Likewise the reference to the Lord\'s time being at hand (Mt.) would\'ve only been understandable by a disciple. The Lord wishes to assume that the man will appreciate that if the Lord\'s time of death was at hand, then He must first keep the Passover.</p><p><i>Where is the guest room, in which I shall 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('3149','1','42','22','12','12','<p>22:12 <i>And he will show you a large furnished upper room. There make ready</i>- Mk. 14:15 brings out the paradox more strongly. 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('3150','1','42','22','13','13','<p>22:13 <i>And they went and found as he had said to them, and they made ready the Passover</i>- As noted on :12, 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('3151','1','42','22','14','14','<p>22:14 <i>And when the hour had arrived, he sat down with the apostles</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. &quot;Sat down&quot; is &quot;dining&quot; in Matthew; the idea is of reclining.</p><p>Joachim Jeremias gives a whole string of quotes from Rabbinic and historical writings that indicate that &ldquo;At the time of Jesus the diners sat down&quot; to eat. Yet the Gospel records are insistent that Jesus and the disciples&nbsp;<i>reclined</i>&nbsp;at the last supper (Mt. 26:20; Mk. 14:18; Lk. 22:14; Jn. 13:12,23,25,28). Yet at the Passover, it was apparently common to recline, because as Rabbi Levi commented &ldquo;slaves eat standing, but here at the Passover meal people should recline to eat, to signify that they have passed from slavery to freedom&quot;. The breaking of bread is thus stressed in the records as being a symbol of our freedom from slavery. It should not in that sense be a worrying experience, taking us on a guilt trip. It is to celebrate the salvation and release from bondage which has truly been achieved for us in Christ our Passover.</p><p>&quot;With the apostles&quot; doesn\'t mean that only the twelve partook or were present. There are reasons to think that there were others present too.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3152','1','42','22','15','15','<p>22:15 <i>And he said to them: I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer</i>- It was \'with desire that He desired\' a real emphasis to eat the Passover with His men. He so wants us to break bread with Him; He so wants us to partake of and with Him. He abides in us and we in Him; see on Jn. 17:24.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3153','1','42','22','16','16','<p>22:16 <i>For I say to you, I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God</i>- The Lord told us that the Passover feast would &quot;be fulfilled in (i.e. by?) the Kingdom of God&quot;. This is confirmed by the description of &quot;the marriage supper of the lamb&quot; in Rev. 19:9. Likewise the parable of Lk. 14 speaks of &quot;a great supper&quot; at the beginning of the Millennium. As we share this feast together now, we are acting out a parable of the feast to be kept at the Lord\'s return. In the light of this, how important it is to ensure that there is no bitterness and disunity at the breaking of bread meeting To be invited to sit at the King\'s table is an honour indeed (cp. 2 Sam. 19:28). Remember that we are reaffirming our covenant. &quot;This is the blood of the covenant&quot; is a reference back to the blood of the Old Covenant being sprinkled upon the people, with their response of vowing obedience unto the end (Ex. 24:7). The solemnity of that distant moment should be ours, weekly.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3154','1','42','22','17','17','<p>22:17- see on Mk. 14:23.</p><p><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 Luke 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 said: Take this and share it among yourselves</i>- &quot;Among yourselves&quot; carries the idea of \'among all of you\'; Mt. <i>&quot;</i>All of you, drink it&quot;. The appeal for all to drink it was surely said because some were doubtful as to whether they should take it. Perhaps there were others in the room apart from the twelve. But most likely this was yet another appeal to Judas- to drink the cup of salvation and forgiveness. He gave the reason in Mt. 26:28- &quot;For&quot;, or because, this was the symbol of the means for the forgiveness of sins. The Lord\'s attitude to Judas leaves us realizing we should never give up with the lost. Even the very worst of them. And given the Lord\'s eagerness that Judas break bread, we can hardly conclude that any sinner is thereby unworthy of participation at the breaking of bread. It is after all His table and not ours. This isn\'t to say that forms of discipline may not be required at times, but welcome at the Lord\'s table should never be withdrawn.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3155','1','42','22','18','18','<p>22:18 <i>For I say to you, I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine from this time forward- </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>The Lord clearly taught the continuity between the breaking of bread and the future marriage supper by observing that He would not again drink the cup until He drinks it with us in the Kingdom. The parables of how the Gospel invites people as it were to a meal are suggesting that we should see the Kingdom as a meal, a supper, of which our memorial service is but a foretaste. We are commanded to enter the supper and take the lowest seat (Lk. 14:10), strongly aware that others are present more honourable than ourselves. Those with this spirit are simply never going to dream of telling another guest \'Leave Don\'t partake of the meal\'. But this is the spirit of those who are exclusive and who use the Lord\'s table as a weapon in their hands to wage their petty church wars. The very early church didn\'t behave like this, but instead sought to incarnate and continue the pattern of the meals of the Lord Jesus during His ministry. And this is one major reason why their unity drew such attention, and they grew. To exclude someone from the Lord&rsquo;s table is to judge them as excluded from the Kingdom banquet. And those who make such judgment will themselves be rejected from it.</p><p><i>Until the kingdom of God shall come</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;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3156','1','42','22','19','19','<p>22:19 <i>And 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 (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 given thanks- </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- </i>Not referring to any breaking of His body, for not a bone of Him was broken, but rather to the sharing of every part of Himself with us all; one aspect of Him to this one, another to that one.&nbsp;</p><p><i>And gave it to them- </i>The use of&nbsp;<i>didomi</i>&nbsp;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. 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>Saying: This is my body which is given for you- </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><p><i>Do this in remembrance of me</i>- By inviting the disciples to share His cup and His baptism, He was offering them there and then a part in the life of self-crucifixion, which found its natural and final articulation in the death of the cross. He deftly poured out the wine as a symbol that His life was even then being poured out (Lk. 22:19).</p><p>The breaking of bread is intended as a special gift to us. Let it have its intended power. &ldquo;Do this in remembrance of me&rdquo; (Lk. 22:19) is an inadequate translation of the Greek text &ndash; &ldquo;the words do not indicate a mere memorial meal in memory of a man now dead, but strictly mean &ldquo;making present reality&rdquo; of Christ&rsquo;s saving death&rdquo;. So let the bread and wine truly be an <i>aide memoire</i>. That on a Friday afternoon, on a day in April, on a hill outside Jerusalem, around 2000 years ago, Jesus died for me. Three days later, a man dressed as a working man, a humble gardener, walked out of a tomb, perhaps folded His grave clothes first, and saw the lights of early morning Jerusalem twinkling in the distance. And 40 days later ascended through cotton wool clouds and blue sky, with the necks and throats of watching disciples moving backwards as they gaped at the sight; and will just as surely come again, to take you and me unto Himself. These things, and the endless implications of them, are what will fill our minds if they impress us as having really happened. If we believe the Bible is inspired, it will have the result of what Harry Whittaker called &ldquo;Bible television&rdquo;; we will see these things as if they happened before our eyes.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3157','1','42','22','20','20','<p>22:20- see on Mk. 14:23.</p><p><i>And the cup in like manner after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood- </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><p><i>Which is poured out for you</i>- He perhaps followed this by saying &quot;Shed for you&quot; (Lk. 22:20). This is often the way with Biblical statements- the general and global is stated, and then the scale is focused down to you personally. His blood was shed for many... but for you. However we may also have here a similar idea to that expressed in the parable of the man Christ who finds treasure us in the field of the world, and therefore gives all in order to redeem the field, in order to get us as His own (13:44). Likewise His blood was shed for many, the redemption price was paid for humanity, that He might redeem us. Putting Lk. 22:20 and Mt. 26:28 together, the Lord may have said: &quot;...&nbsp; My blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins of you / for the remission of&nbsp;<i>your</i>&nbsp;sins&quot;. One wonders whether the Lord actually was pouring out the wine as He spoke the word &quot;shed&quot;. The same word for &quot;shed&quot; is used of how the new wine put into old bottles &quot;runs out&quot;. The idea may be that if we don\'t change, then we crucify Christ afresh. But the Lord may also have in mind that if Israel had accepted the wine of the new covenant which He preached, then the shedding of His blood could have been avoidable. The fact it could have been avoidable- for Israel didn\'t&nbsp;<i>have</i>&nbsp;to crucify their King- doesn\'t mean that God was not behind it, using it to confirm the covenant with us, nor that Christ did not of Himself give His own life. &quot;Poured out&quot; is ongoing, Gk. \'is being shed\', another hint at the ongoing nature of His death.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3158','1','42','22','21','21','<p>22:21 <i>But behold, the hand of him that betrays me is with me at this table</i>- To be together at table meant to be in fellowship and mutual acceptance of each other; one ought to trust those with whom he sat at table. This was the huge significance of the Lord\'s open table policy, dining with questionable and unholy characters, thereby overturning all the religious hang-ups about guilt by association.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3159','1','42','22','22','22','<p>22:22 <i>For the Son of Man indeed 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>As it has been determined- </i>Mt. &quot;as it is written&quot;.</p><p><i>But woe to that man through whom he 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>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3160','1','42','22','23','23','<p>22:23 <i>And they began to question among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing</i>- &quot;Is it I, Lord?&quot; lead to them asking each other rather than being satisfied with the Lord\'s cryptic response. 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('3161','1','42','22','24','24','<p>22:24 <i>And there arose also a dispute among them, as to which of them would be counted as greatest</i>- Even after the acted parable of the feet washing, there was still a strife amongst them about who should be greatest. They&rsquo;d clearly not grasped the Lord&rsquo;s teaching and example about not worrying about what place we take at a dinner. It could be that they accepted the Lord\'s upcoming death, and were wondering which of them ought to replace Him. They had thereby clearly missed His teaching in Jn. 14-16, that although He was going away, He was coming again and would permanently be with them as Lord, master and leader through the gift of the Spirit.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3162','1','42','22','25','25','<p>22:25 <i>And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them, and they that have authority over them are called Benefactors</i>- We must be aware that in helping people, be it in teaching them the Truth of Christ, or in materially supporting them in their needs, we must never allow our position of &lsquo;superiority&rsquo; become a vehicle for abusing their person, however unintentionally. The Lord in Lk. 22:25 spoke of how in the world, &ldquo;benefactors&rdquo; have power over people. His idea seems to have been: &lsquo;If you show generosity in the world, you have authority over others; but you, after my example, must show generosity to others in humble acts of service but not expect authority over others as a result of this&rsquo;. The giving of help or welfare in any form should therefore never become a source of control over another person. Their integrity and independence as a person must never be in this sense &lsquo;abused&rsquo; by us or simply lost sight of, because we have helped them. Peter took due note of this teaching, repeating it in 1 Pet. 5:3.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3163','1','42','22','26','26','<p>22:26 <i>But you shall not be so, but he that is the elder among you, let him become as the younger, and he that is chief, as he that does serve</i>- Again, these words remained in Peter\'s mind and he faithfully teaches them to his converts in his letters. Perhaps Peter was especially sensitive to these words (see on :25) because he was the eldest among the group, and also the one who had been given a chief role at various times in the ministry. The Lord\'s words here were specifically directed at him.</p><p>The Lord was addressed as &lsquo;Rabbi&rsquo; and to some extent acted like one. It was the well known duty of a rabbi&rsquo;s pupils to serve their teacher and do menial chores for him; the Jewish writings of the time and the Mishnah are full of references to this. Yet the Lord treated His &lsquo;servants&rsquo; radically differently- His behaviour at the Last Supper was just the opposite. And He even taught that He, the Lord of all, would be so happy that His servants were waiting for Him that He would &ldquo;come forth and serve them&rdquo; (Lk. 12:37). He was a most unusual &ldquo;Lord and Master&rdquo;, one who served His servants, and whose death for them was His ultimate act of service.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3164','1','42','22','27','27','<p>22:27 <i>For which is greater, he that sits at the table, or he that serves? Is not he that sits at the table? But among you, I am he that serves</i>- The parallel record in Jn. 13:4-17 describes the Lord actually serving as a servant, when He was the greatest. This was John\'s way of showing how the word in this case, the Lord\'s own words as recorded here by Luke became flesh in Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3165','1','42','22','28','28','<p>22:28 <i>But you are those who have stayed with me in my time of trial</i>- The disciples\' persistent failure to grasp our Lord\'s teaching must have been a great source of trial and frustration for Him. Despite His warnings about His coming sufferings, the disciples failed to comprehend this; perhaps partly due to Jesus Himself fluctuating between talking of his death in both literal and then figurative terms. In His time of greatest need of encouragement He found them sadly lacking in any real degree of spirituality beyond a fanatic allegiance to Him. And yet He graciously thanked them for continuing with Him in His temptations, even though they fell asleep. We can under-estimate how sensitive He is to our feeble spirituality, and how even the basic will to be loyal, no matter how much we fail in practice, means so much to Him. Yet their lack of comprehension must have been especially tragic, since one of the reasons for the gift of the disciples was to help Jesus through the pain of His ministry, and this was to culminate in the cross. After the Jews\' first council of war against Christ, He prayed for strength and was answered by being given the twelve (Lk. 6:11-13).</p><p>The disciples slept in Gethsemane, despite being asked to stay awake and encourage the Lord in His hour of need (Lk. 22:45). Yet He thanks them for being those who continued with them in His temptations. When the Jews agreed at a council to kill Him, the Lord went to be alone with the twelve (Jn. 11:53,54). He took such comfort from them even though they did not or would not understand the reality of His upcoming death. He, like us, could only take such comfort from His brethren if He viewed them positively.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3166','1','42','22','29','29','<p>22:29 <i>And I appoint to you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed me</i>- The Greek for &quot;appoint&quot; is always elsewhere used about a covenant. They had just celebrated the new covenant in the Lord\'s blood. Participation in that new covenant meant that for sure, a Kingdom had been covenanted to them. The cup of the covenant speaks the same assurance to us today. All that is true of the Son becomes true for all those in Him. As He has been covenanted a Kingdom, so have we. The certainty of the Kingdom for Him is as sure as it is for we who are in Him. This takes some believing, but it is all part of our status &quot;in Christ&quot;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3167','1','42','22','30','30','<p>22:30 <i>So that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel</i>- This is an allusion to the happiness of Solomon\'s servants as they sat down to food and wine; they listened to Solomon\'s wisdom as they ate. Lk. 14:15 speaks of us as happy servants. The idea is that the eating and drinking at the Lord\'s Passover table was to be repeated in the Kingdom to come. Joseph celebrated his brothers&rsquo; repentance with a meal together, at which they sat in their proper places (Gen. 43:16). Likewise at the marriage supper of the lamb, with each in his proper place (Lk. 14:10; 22:30; Rev. 19:9).</p><p>It was apparent that in the breaking of bread meetings, there had to be a host. The host was a vital figure. And yet herein lay the huge significance of breaking of bread meetings being held in homes- presumably the home of a richer believer- and yet it was the table <i>of the Lord</i>. <i>He</i> and not the master of the house was the host of that meeting. It\'s for this reason that it was unthinkable for any invited by grace to their Lord\'s table to turn away other guests- for it wasn\'t <i>their</i> table, it was the table of another One, and they were but guests. Attempts to bar others from the Lord\'s table in our own time are equally rude and deeply lacking in basic spiritual understanding. There are evident similarities between the breaking of bread experience and the marriage supper which we shall eat with the Lord Jesus in His Kingdom. The breaking of bread assembly is called &quot;the table of the Lord&quot;- and yet He says that we shall eat at &quot;My table&quot; at His return.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3168','1','42','22','31','31','<p>22:31 <i>And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, Satan has asked for you that he might sift you as wheat</i>- The fact an Angel was called \'satan\' in Num. 22 and in Job\'s case means we can maybe have another look at Luke 22:31, where Jesus tells the disciples &quot;satan has desired to have you (lit. \'demanded you for trial\') that he may sift you as wheat&quot;. Wheat is normally a symbol of the righteous after a process of tribulation or judgement. The satan here could be an Angel, demanding them for trial from God, as Job\'s satan Angel did. The Lord&rsquo;s comment that satan had demanded to have the disciples, especially Peter is clearly based upon the experience of Job, whom satan also demanded.&nbsp;The Lord saw a similarity between Job and Peter, in that Job&rsquo;s sufferings were to be repeated in their essence in the experience of Peter. Only through that bitter weeping and reflection upon it, corresponding in the Lord&rsquo;s analogy to all that Job went through, would Peter like Job emerge triumphant.<br />The Old Testament prophecies also give insight into the actual process of the betrayal. The Hebrew for &quot;equal&quot; in &quot;a man my equal&quot; (Ps. 55:13) is invariably translated elsewhere as \'price\' or \'estimation\'; possibly implying that the Jews had set the same price on Judas\' head (in the sense of a bribe offered to them) at one stage as they had on Jesus. The Jewish satan seeking Peter and the other disciples (&quot;Simon, Satan has desired to have you&quot;, plural) implies an organized attempt to subvert each of the twelve, perhaps by offering a financial reward for becoming a secret agent for the Jews. Judas having an equal price in the Jews\' eyes as Jesus indicates how highly he was seen to rank among the disciples in the public eye- as important to the Jews as Jesus himself. This further strengthens the impression that Judas was highly esteemed by both Christ and the other disciples. It would appear that the love of this money was a significant factor in Judas\' downfall; in the same way as Joseph\'s brethren were blinded by a money motive in betraying him rather than being interested in his death for its own sake. In addition, Judas\' motives seem to have also been from being influenced by the thinking of the Jewish satan, offering the chance of an immediate Kingdom. He is alluded to in 1 Jn. 2:19 (cp. Jn. 13:30) as the prototype of all who left the true faith to be influenced by Judaist doctrine.&nbsp;See on 1 Pet. 5:8.</p><p>It is noteworthy that the Lord had previously warned that the Jewish Satan / world would be actively trying to influence the disciples to stumble: &ldquo;Woe unto the world (often referring to the Jewish world in the Gospels) because of the offences... but woe to that man by whom the offence comes... whoso shall offend one of these little ones (the disciples &ndash; Zech. 13:7 cp. Mt. 26:31) which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned&rdquo; (Mt. 18:6,7). This invites comparison with &ldquo;Woe unto that man by whom the son of man is betrayed... it had been good for that man if he had not been born&rdquo; (Mt. 26:24). Notice that this stumbling of the disciples at the hand of the Jewish world and its servant Judas was to be around the time of Christ&rsquo;s capture (Mt. 26:31); which is what Luke 22:31 is warning the disciples (&ldquo;you&rdquo; plural) about, and which proved to be so relevant to Peter in the hours after the Lord&rsquo;s capture. Further proof that &ldquo;the world&rdquo; that was to cause these offences was the Jewish world is found by comparing Mt. 13:38,41. It&rsquo;s also been pointed out that &lsquo;Satan desires to sift you as wheat&rsquo; &ldquo;is a proverbial expression&rdquo; (H.A. Kelly, <i>Satan: A Biography</i> (Cambridge: C.U.P., 2006) p. 312). Schleiermacher therefore observes about this passage: &ldquo;There is no intention to teach anything with regard to Satan or to confirm that older belief&rdquo; (F.E. Schleiermacher, <i>The Christian Faith</i> (London: Clark, 1999 ed.) p. 165).</p><p>There&rsquo;s also some evident allusion back to the record of Job in the Septuagint version. &ldquo;The Lord said to the Devil, &lsquo;Behold I give him over <i>paradidonai</i> to you; only preserve his life&rdquo; (Job 2:6 LXX). <i>Paradidonai</i> and related words are very frequently used of how the Lord Jesus was &lsquo;handed over&rsquo; to the systems of the Roman and Jewish Satan (e.g. Mk. 14:41), and yet ultimately His life was preserved by God. Here in Lk. 22:31 we have the Jewish Satan desiring to have the disciples, just as Job&rsquo;s &lsquo;Satan&rsquo; desired. If the disciples grasped the allusion, they would perceive that they were to be as Job, and believe that ultimately the &lsquo;Satan&rsquo; was under God&rsquo;s control, and through prayerful endurance they would come to victory as Job did.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3169','1','42','22','32','32','<p>22:32- see on Mt. 16:18; Lk. 22:3; Acts 3:19; 8:24; 2 Cor. 13:7; 2 Pet. 1:12.</p><p><i>But I prayed for you, that your faith should not fail- </i>Not only did the Lord pray that Peter&rsquo;s faith wouldn&rsquo;t fail. He repeatedly made the point in the lead up to Peter&rsquo;s temptations that His disciples really <i>did </i>know Him, therefore they should never deny this (Jn. 14:7,17; 15:21; 17:3), and He taught them that all men <i>must</i> know they were His disciples, if they truly were (Jn. 13:35). He was trying to strengthen Peter against the trial He knew would come: to deny that he knew Him. Likewise we may try to strengthen those prone to specific temptation, but the power of it depends on their recognition of their own weakness, and whether they have ears to hear. It would seem Peter didn&rsquo;t, so confident was he of his own strength. Moses of his own freewill chose to intercede for Israel, concerning things which at the time they knew nothing about; things which were almost against their will, in fact. And this is the prototype of the Lord\'s mediation for us who know not what to pray for as we ought. Consider how he prayed for Peter when Peter didn\'t realize he was being prayed for.</p><p><i>And when you have been converted, strengthen your brothers</i>- Paul referred to the Jews to whom he preached as his &ldquo;brothers&rdquo; (Acts 13:26), and it may be that Peter at least initially understood his commission to &ldquo;strengthen your brothers&rdquo; as meaning preaching to his unbelieving Jewish brethren (although the same Greek word is used by Peter regarding his work of upbuilding the converts, 1 Pet. 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:12). Gal. 2:8-10 informs us that Peter had a ministry to the Jews of the diaspora in the Roman empire just as much as Paul did to the Gentiles living in the same area (Gal. 2:8-10). Because the Acts record focuses more on Paul&rsquo;s work rather than Peter&rsquo;s doesn&rsquo;t mean that Peter was inactive. 1 Peter is addressed to Jewish converts living in the provinces of Asia Minor, and we can assume that Peter had spent years travelling around building up groups of believers based around the families of the individual Jews he had converted in Jerusalem at Pentecost. It would seem from 1 Cor. 1:12 that Peter had made a number of converts in Corinth, and 1 Pet. 5:13 strongly suggests Peter lived for a while in &ldquo;Babylon&rdquo; and had begun an ecclesia there. Whether this be taken as a code name for Rome or as literal Babylon (where there was a sizeable Jewish community), this was somewhere else Peter reached. All through this remarkable life of witness, he was motivated by his own experience of the Lord&rsquo;s greatness, and His all sufficient grace toward him in his weakness. And a similar life of powerful witness lies before any who are touched likewise.&nbsp;</p><p>The command to strengthen brothers is given again in the Lord&rsquo;s interview with Peter in Jn. 21. Three times He asks him: &lsquo;do you love me?&rsquo;, and three times he invites Peter to care for the lambs and sheep- to strengthen his brethren. The triple denial and the triple re-instatement and triple confession of love both occurred by a fire, a <i>charcoal</i> fire on each occasion (Jn. 18:18; 21:9) just to heighten the evident connection. Peter&rsquo;s conversion can therefore be equated with his response to the denials- the repentance, the realization of his own frailty, and desperate acceptance of the Lord&rsquo;s gracious pardon. Yet Peter invites his fellow elders: &ldquo;feed the flock of God&rdquo;, repeating the Lord&rsquo;s commission to him, as if he saw in himself a pattern for each man who would take any pastoral role in Christ&rsquo;s ecclesia. The implication is that each man must go through a like conversion. And Peter points out that we are &ldquo;a royal priesthood&rdquo;, as if he saw each believer as a priest / pastor. Peter is our example. We all deny our Lord, camouflage it and justify it as we may. We all stand in Peter&rsquo;s uncomfortable shoes. We do in principle what Judas did.</p><p>&ldquo;When you are converted...&quot; elicits the obvious response that Peter was converted already The Lord had spoken of conversion as really seeing, really hearing, really understanding, and commented that the disciples (including Peter) had reached this point (Mt. 13:15,16). But He also told them that they needed to be converted and become as children, knowing they knew nothing as they ought to know (Mt. 18:3). Quite simply, there are different levels of conversion. Baptism isn&rsquo;t conversion: it&rsquo;s a beginning, not an end.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3170','1','42','22','33','33','<p>22:33 <i>And he said to him: Lord, with you I am ready to go both to prison and to death</i>- Peter imagined himself going to prison and death &quot;with you&quot;, walking alongside the Lord. But the reality of prison and death is that these things are faced alone. Walking with the Lord on the water, Peter could do it. But not alone. His impetuosity is indeed noticeable, but this should not make us unimpressed by his genuine level of dedication to his Lord. Peter did indeed go to prison and death with his Lord, but he was not then &quot;ready&quot; for that. That process of preparation was still ongoing.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3171','1','42','22','34','34','<p>22:34 <i>And he said: I tell you Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, until you shall deny three times that you know me</i>- Peter\'s problem with the cross was perhaps at the root of his denials of the Lord. Before the cock crowed twice, he denied Jesus twice (Lk. 22:34). 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('3172','1','42','22','35','35','<p>22:35 <i>And he said to them: When I sent you out without purse and wallet and shoes, did you lack anything? And they said: Nothing</i>- We are to realistically grasp the fact that His mission and ministry is in fact ours. And the total insecurity, exposure to danger, misunderstanding, slander, sudden calls of God to change direction and move way out of our comfort zone etc. are all part of participating in the short term fate and eternal victory of the One whom we follow. His call to each of us to preach Him is radical. He sent out His preachers with <i>no </i>money, <i>no </i>food etc. He didn&rsquo;t tell them to go out without <i>extra</i> money, <i>extra</i> food nor clothes etc. He instead told them to take <i>none</i> of these things. Why? Surely because He wanted them &ndash; and us- to understand that the preacher of Christ is to be <i>totally</i> dependent upon His provision for them. It was a high challenge. When the disciples faltered at the Last Supper, the Lord told them that OK, if you have a purse, take it; if you want a sword for protection, then buy one. Surely He was saying, as He is to us today: &lsquo;OK, I want you to rise up to the spirit of My &lsquo;Let the dead bury their dead&rsquo; and &lsquo;Take no money with you&rsquo; exhortations. But if you can&rsquo;t, OK, take a lower level, but all the same, go forth and be My witnesses. <i>Please</i>&rsquo;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3173','1','42','22','36','36','<p>22:36 <i>And he said to them: But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet, and he that has none, let him sell his cloak and buy a sword</i>- As noted on :35, the Lord could be saying that He had intended them to learn from their experience when sent out on the preaching tour by Him; but they had not. He clearly didn\'t intended them to take Him literally, because there and then they had no chance to go buy swords. And then Peter pulled out a dagger the Lord tells him that that is quite enough. I take this verse as a lament that they had not retained the lessons learnt; for the Lord foresaw how they were going to all dramatically fail in Gethsemane and the subsequent events.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('3174','1','42','22','37','37','<p>22:37 <i>For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors- </i>The Lord was reckoned &quot;with&quot; sinners, but not as a sinner. And therefore there was no point in the disciples fighting to stop Him being numbered with the transgressors. The prophecy had its specific fulfilment at the crucifixion (Mk. 15:28).</p><p><i>For what is written about me must have its fulfilment</i>- &quot;Fulfilment&quot; is not the best translation. AV &quot;have an end&quot; struggles towards expressing the idea of &quot;to be finally settled&quot; (Vine). We may have here another insight into the open nature of prophecy. The exact outcome and nature of events was variable to some extent; it depended to what extent the Lord wished to fulfil them. The prophecies came to be &quot;finally settled&quot;; and were then &quot;fulfilled in me&quot;.</p>');
