insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1802','1','41','8','30','30','<p>8:30 <i>And he ordered them that they should tell no one about him</i>- The Greek word is used five times in Mark, but never in the other Gospels. This has the ring of truth to it- a group of people observing one man would each be struck by different things He did, and their records would reflect that. And that\'s just what we see in the Gospels.&nbsp;&quot;Tell&quot; translates&nbsp;<i>epo</i>, to say, and it has just been used in recording how Peter&nbsp;<i>said</i>&nbsp;that Jesus was the Christ. The Lord is progressing with the revised plan of operation which He began to make public at the end of Matthew 12. He was effectively giving up on the masses, and instead focusing upon the disciples as the method through which He would after His death be able to appeal to the masses. In order to not be distracted, to spent time more intensely with them, He asks them not to fuel the kind of Messianic speculation which was then rife in Palestine.&nbsp;</p><p>Matthew has: &quot;That he was the Christ&quot;, or as AV &quot;Jesusthe Christ&quot;- an unusual phrase. \'Jesus\' was one of the most common names in Palestine at the time. The Lord\'s idea was perhaps that they were not to tell people that He, the man named with the common name \'Jesus\', was in very truth the Christ. They were allow people to continue to merely see \'Jesus\' rather than \'the Christ\'. By the very silence of the disciples about what they firmly believed and so wanted to share, they would have been driven to discuss the Messiahship of&nbsp;Jesus&nbsp;<i>amongst</i>&nbsp;<i>themselves</i>&nbsp;and also to reflect personally within themselves about the Lord\'s Messiahship.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1803','1','41','8','31','31','<p>8:31 <i>And he began to teach them that-</i> The sense of&nbsp;<i>hoti</i>&nbsp;in the context is definitely causative. The idea is that He showed them&nbsp;<i>why</i>&nbsp;these things must happen. He didn\'t just foretell the events of the passion, but explained why they must be.</p><p><i>The Son of Man must suffer many things- </i>The phrase is used elsewhere of the sick woman who had &quot;suffered many things&quot; at the hands of &quot;many physicians&quot; (Mk. 5:26), and yet is used elsewhere about the Lord\'s \'many\' sufferings at the hands of the Jewish leaders (also in Mk. 9:12). Surely the Lord perceived in her someone who was sharing something of His final sufferings. All our sufferings are likewise part of His crucifixion sufferings, and if we suffer with Him, we shall also therefore experience His resurrection. That woman was therefore set up as an example of us all.</p><p><i>And be rejected- </i>The same word is used about the stone of Christ being &quot;rejected&quot; by themselves, the builders (Mt. 21:42). The word carries the sense of legally condemning. They rejected the sinless Son of God as a condemned sinner and demanded His death. If nothing else we learn some basic psychology- that when a person touches the conscience of less spiritual people, they are likely to intensely slander the person and effectively demand their death, which in our day may be the social death of rejection.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>By the elders- Presbuteros</i>&nbsp;is specifically used of the Sanhedrin members. The Lord\'s predictions here are highly specific and detailed.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>And the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again</i>- Literally, \'High Priests\'. There was only supposed to be one High Priest, but the position was so lucrative and argued over that there were a group called the \'High Priests\'- so far had Judaism fallen away from basic Biblical teachings, despite their zeal to keep the details.</p><p>Mark, who as we have suggested was effectively Peter writing, records three instances of where the Lord&rsquo;s prediction of the cross was met by the disciples&rsquo; misunderstanding, and His subsequent efforts to teach them the real meaning of discipleship, and the paradoxes which this involves:</p><table border=0 cellspacing=3 cellpadding=0 width=100%>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td>                        </td>            <td>            <p>Mark 8</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>Mark 9</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>Mark 10</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>Geographical description</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>Mk. 8:27</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>Mk. 9:30</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>10:32</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>Note that the incident took place whilst they   were on the road walking</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>8:27</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>9:31</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>10:33,34</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>Misunderstanding by the disciples</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>8:32,33</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>9:32</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>10:35-41</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>Jesus calls the disciples to Him, implying they   were no longer following behind Him</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>8:34</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>9:35</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>10:42</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>Teaching about true cross-carrying discipleship</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>8:34-9:1</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>9:33-37</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>10:42-45</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>Paradox</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>Save life / lose life</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>First / last</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>Great / least</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table><p>The point is, that following Jesus in the way involves picking up and carrying His cross. But this repeatedly wasn&rsquo;t understood by the disciples, and they seem to have stopped walking behind Him as they should&rsquo;ve done. Be aware that Mark is a transcript of Peter&rsquo;s preaching of the Gospel message; He&rsquo;s surely pointing out how terribly slow he had been himself to pick up the fact that walking behind Jesus is a call to carry a cross. And of course a glance back at our own discipleship and walk behind Jesus indicates just the same with us; and perhaps we should admit that more freely in our preaching, in order to like Peter make a stronger appeal for men to follow Jesus with no misunderstanding of what this involves.</p><p>Qualms of conscience about &lsquo;wasting time&rsquo; can so often be part of a guilty fear of not having &lsquo;done&rsquo; enough. The Lord Jesus was not beset by guilt, and a sensitive reading of the Gospels reflects the way that this ultimately zealous servant of the Lord never appeared to be in hurry. He had ample time to speak to the woman He met at the well (Jn. 4:1-26), to take time out with the disciples (Mk. 8:27), He had the leisure time to admire wild flowers (Mt. 6:28), comment upon a sunset (Mt. 16:2), to go through the lengthy process of washing the feet of His men (Jn. 13:5) and to be able to answer their naive questions without the slightest hint of impatience (Jn. 14:5-10)&hellip; and of course to walk some distance to find a place conducive to prayer (Lk. 5:16).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1804','1','41','8','32','32','<p>8:32 <i>And he spoke these things openly- </i>Mk. 8:32 adds to Matthew\'s record in saying that &quot;He spake that saying openly&quot;. But He has just given the impression in Mt. 16:20 that these things were private; He showed them &quot;to His disciples&quot;. &quot;Openly&quot; in Mk. 8:32 is a poor translation; the word is elsewhere rendered \'boldly\' or \'confidently\'. The words He spoke about His forthcoming death and resurrection He spoke with a boldness of spirit that came only from total faith.</p><p><i>And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him</i>- When He spoke of the cross and His sacrifice, His followers either changed the subject or turned away. They were even against the idea of crucifixion (Mk. 8:32; 9:32-4; 10:35-40). They failed to see the centrality of the cross. And these reactions can characterize our response to the cross, both in terms of turning away from considering its physicalities, and also in our own cross-carrying. And yet there is a sense of inevitability about the cross. We <i>must</i> face these things. Circle all the times in John 19 words like &quot;therefore&quot; occur (and cp. Acts 2:23). Consider how Luke records the indefatigable determination in the Lord\'s face during the final journey up to Jerusalem. There is the same inevitability about our cross carrying; even if we flunk it all the way through our lives, we eventually come to death. My name chiselled by some disinterested artist on a gravestone, with the radio playing in the background as he sits hunched up in his workshop.</p><p>If Peter understood that Jesus was the Old Testament Messiah, he surely understood, in theory at least, that the Old Testament required a suffering Messiah. For him, of all men, to discourage Jesus from fulfilling this was serious indeed; hence Christ\'s stiff rebuke, likening him to the satan of His wilderness temptations, in that Peter too misquoted Scripture to provide an easy way out.&nbsp;If, as we have discussed elsewhere, Mark is really Peter&rsquo;s Gospel, it is surely significant that Mark especially emphasizes how Peter especially didn&rsquo;t understand the need for Jesus to suffer crucifixion (Mk. 8:17-21,27-33; 9:6,32; 14:37). Showing the chinks in our own armour is surely the way to be a credible warrior for the Gospel. &nbsp;</p><p>Mark\'s record brings out the sustained mutuality between the Lord and Peter- for Peter rebukes the Lord, and then the Lord rebukes Peter (Mk. 8:32,33). About twenty times in the Gospels we read of the Lord rebuking or charging (s.w.); but whenever the disciples do it, they seem to rebuke the wrong person over the wrong issues. Again, the Gospel writers bring out the distance and mismatch between the disciples and their Lord.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1805','1','41','8','33','33','<p>8:33<i> But he, turning about and seeing his disciples- </i>The very same words are used in Lk. 22:61 where the Lord turns and&nbsp;<i>looks</i>&nbsp;upon Peter. The repetition of such visual images serves to teach how circumstances are repeated in human lives, each bearing the same Divine hallmark. The way the Lord &quot;turned&quot; and addressed people is recorded often in the Gospels, especially noticed by Luke (Lk. 7:9,44; 9:55; 10:23; 14:25; 22:61; 23:28; Jn. 1:38). Again this is exactly what we would expect from eyewitness testimony- a certain physical characteristic or aspect of body language noticed, remembered and reflected in a write up of those memories.</p><p>The Gospel records, Luke especially, often record how the Lord turned and spoke to His followers- as if He was in the habit of walking ahead of them, with them following (Lk. 7:9,44,55; 10:23; 14:25; 23:28; Mt. 9:22; Jn. 1:38). As we saw above, Peter thought that following the Lord was not so hard, because he was literally following Jesus around first century Israel, and identifying himself with His cause. But he simply failed to make the connection between following and cross carrying. And we too can agree to follow the Lord without realizing that it means laying down our lives. The Lord brought Peter to face this with a jolt in Mt. 16:22-25. Peter was following Jesus, after He had predicted His crucifixion (for Jesus &ldquo;turned, and said unto Peter&rdquo;). He thought he was following Jesus. But he was told: &ldquo;Get thee&nbsp;<i>behind me</i>&hellip; if any man will come&nbsp;<i>after me</i>&nbsp;(s.w. &lsquo;behind me&rsquo;), let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and&nbsp;<i>follow me</i>&nbsp;(s.w.)&rdquo;. The italicized words are all the same in the original. Peter didn&rsquo;t want the Lord to die by crucifixion at Jerusalem, because he saw that as a follower of Jesus this required that he too must die a like death. Peter needed to get behind Jesus in reality and really follow, in the sense of following to the cross, although he was there physically behind Jesus, physically following at that time. The Lord was saying: &lsquo;Don&rsquo;t think of trying to stop me dying. I will, of course. But concentrate instead on&nbsp;<i>really</i>&nbsp;getting behind me in the sense of carrying my cross&rsquo;. John&rsquo;s record stresses that the key to following Jesus to the cross is to hear His word, which beckons us onwards (Jn. 10:4,27). All our Bible study must lead us onwards in the life of self-sacrifice. But Peter loved the Lord&rsquo;s words; but, as pointed out to him at the transfiguration, he didn&rsquo;t hear those words of Christ deeply. And so he missed the call to the cross. He had just stated that Jesus was Messiah; but soon afterwards he is recorded as saying that it was intrinsic within Jesus&rsquo; Messiahship that He&nbsp;<i>mustn&rsquo;t</i>&nbsp;die or suffer.</p><p><i>Rebuked Peter, and said to him: Get behind me, Satan- </i>When the Lord said He was going up to Jerusalem to die, Peter asked him not to. &ldquo;Get behind me, Satan&quot; was not the Lord wishing temptation to get behind him. He was telling Peter, whom He here calls &lsquo;Satan&rsquo;, to get behind Him and follow Him up there to Jerusalem, carrying His cross with Him (Mt. 16:23). Peter didn&rsquo;t want the Lord to go up there, to die like that, because he knew that this meant that he too must carry the cross. Here lies the reason for our recoiling at the cross. We realize that it implies all too much for us, if this is truly what the Lord went through.</p><p>&quot;Get&quot; is the same word translated &quot;Get hence Satan&quot; in Mt. 4:10. The temptation here was to take Peter\'s position and think that the Kingdom was possible without the death of the cross. And clearly the situation here is reminiscent of the wilderness temptation, which was in essence the same- to think of ways around the cross. And again, the Lord told the Satan to &quot;get hence&quot;. In essence, this is the sum of all human temptation, hence the Lord\'s very clear statement in the next two verses about the absolutely unavoidable necessity of the cross. The Lord was therefore speaking to Himself when He envisaged a person wishing to &quot;save his life&quot;, to avoid death, yet wanting to &quot;gain the whole world&quot;. This had been exactly the temptation of 4:8, to try to take &quot;the whole world&quot; without the death of the cross (Mt. 16:26). The command to \'get away behind\' the Lord and follow Him is expanded upon in Mt. 16:24,25 to mean \'to follow to the cross\'. But by the time of His death, the Lord knew that Peter just wasn\'t going to make it. For the Lord uses the same word translated &quot;Get&quot; here in Jn. 13:36 in telling Peter: &quot;Where I am now<i>&nbsp;going</i>&nbsp;s.w. &quot;get&quot;, you cannot follow Me s.w. Mt. 16:24 &quot;follow Me&quot; now&quot;. It seems it was the Lord\'s particular desire that Peter should die with Him on the cross - Peter\'s willingness to do this was therefore partly a desire to follow his Lord\'s intention for him, rather than the mere language of bravado. But finally He realized that Peter wasn\'t going to make it, at least not at that time: &quot;But you shall follow Me eventually&quot; (Jn. 13:36). We can usefully meditate upon the Lord\'s intentions for us, and at what times He intended us to rise up to them... and how even when we fail to mature as we should, He still holds out hope that we shall eventually get there. And this is to be reflected in our patience with our likewise developing brethren.</p><p><i>&quot;</i>Behind Me&quot; is the same word translated &quot;come after Me&quot; in Mt. 16:24. This is a command to Peter to stop trying to dissuade Christ from the cross, but rather to get behind Him and carry that cross. Note how following behind the Lord and carrying His cross are identified in Mt. 10:38; Lk. 9:23; 14:27. Instead of just literally walking behind Him, the Lord is saying that real discipleship is to carry a cross behind Him.</p><p>The Lord &ldquo;rebuked&rdquo; Peter for seeking to stop Him die on the cross. But the very same Greek word has occurred just prior in the narrative, when Peter has just declared Jesus to be &ldquo;the Christ of God&rdquo;. The Lord responded by commending Peter for his blessed insight, but the record continues: &ldquo;And Jesus straitly charged them s.w. &ldquo;rebuked&rdquo; them, and commanded them to tell i.e. preach to no man that thing&rdquo;, and He goes on to underline to them how He must suffer on the cross (Lk. 9:21). Why did the Lord both commend and rebuke Peter for discerning that He was indeed the Christ of God? Surely because, in the context, Peter understood Messiah to be someone who would there and then bring salvation without the cross. Again we see how there was something in Peter as there is in us all which somehow revolted at the idea of real cross carrying. And it was for the same reason that the Lord &ldquo;straitly charged&rdquo; s.w. rebuked those who wanted to blaze around the news that He was Messiah- because they didn&rsquo;t perceive that the Messiah must first suffer and rise again before being declared in fullness &ldquo;Lord and Christ&rdquo;.&nbsp;</p><p><i>For you are mindful of the things of men instead of the things of God</i>- Being a \'satan\' referred therefore to a state of mind, centred upon human rather than Godly things. The idea of \'Satan\' is therefore part of a huge parable, presenting carnal thinking as the great satan / adversary of men.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1806','1','41','8','34','34','<p>8:34- see on Gal. 6:10.</p><p><i>And he called to him the crowd with his disciples, and said to them: If any of you wants to be my follower, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me</i>- The Lord was addressing all, but He clearly had Peter particularly in mind. For Peter was the one who was going to deny the Lord, rather than deny Himself (s.w. 14:30,31,72). The Lord may have intended them to understand that carrying the cross, dying with Him, was going to mean in practice not denying Him, but rather denying themselves. And Peter failed to perceive this; and Mark is Peter\'s account of how he preached the Gospel, always pointing out his own failings.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1807','1','41','8','35','35','<p>8:35 <i>For whoever would save his life shall lose it, and whoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel\'s, he shall save it</i>- I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that it is the process of our engagement with God\'s word, our love of it, our integrity in considering it etc., which is more important to God than our grasping the final \'truth\' of each clause in a final, Euclidean sense. By saying this I take nothing away from the fact that &quot;the truth&quot; is &quot;in Jesus&quot;, that there is a wonderful personal reality of salvation for each of us in Christ, a living personal relationship with Him. My point is simply that God\'s intention in giving us His word is surely not to relay to us a heap of individual specific truths- for the written word isn\'t the best way to convey such things to simple, illiterate folk, nor indeed to computer-assisted students of our own times. Rather does He seek us to enter into <i>relationship</i> with Him and His Son, and He uses His word and its ambiguities as a way of achieving this. The Lord Jesus used language like this- consider how He uses the word <i>psuche</i>, life, in Mk. 8:34-37. We are to lose our life in order to find life... and &quot;what does a man gain by winning the whole world at the cost of his true self? What can he give to buy that self back?&quot; (NEB). The ambiguous usage of <i>psuche</i> is surely in order to get us thinking about our relationship with Him. And thus the Lord\'s parables often end with questions which have open-ended, ambiguous answers, through which we reveal and develop our relationship with Jesus- e.g. &quot;What will the owner of the vineyard do?&quot; (Mk. 12:9- kill them? be gracious to them? give them yet another chance? keep them as His people anyway?). I am not saying that correct interpretation of Scripture doesn\'t matter; rather am I saying that in <i>some</i> ways, in some places, in some aspects, interpreting the Lord\'s words is designed by Him to be open-ended rather than intended to lead us all to identical conclusions.</p><p>The Lord Jesus paralleled &quot;my sake and the gospel\'s&quot; with &quot;me and my words&quot; (Mk. 8:35,38). He Himself thus understood the Gospel to be His words.&nbsp;Preaching, in whatever form, is not glamorous. It is a sacrifice of self, a not saying and doing as we feel, a surrendering of our own rights- for the sake of others&rsquo; salvation, both in the preaching of the Gospel and in helping our brethren to salvation. To lose life is paralleled with the Lord to unashamedly witnessing to Him in an unbelieving world; and He calls us each one to lose our lives in this way (Mk. 8:35).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1808','1','41','8','36','36','<p>8:36 <i>For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?</i>- As noted on :35, the context is of carrying the cross in preaching the Gospel. The world to be won is the world for Christ, rather than seeking to gain the world for ourselves.</p><p>Mt. 16:26 records the Lord as teaching: &ldquo;What will it profit a man i.e. at the future judgment, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?&rdquo;. Mk. 8:36 has: &ldquo;What does it right now profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?&rdquo;. Could it be that the Lord said both these things at the same time- to make His point, that the essence of judgment day is being decided right now by our decisions today? And the Lord&rsquo;s next words make the same point: &ldquo;What shall at judgment day a man give in return for his life?&rdquo; (Mt. 16:26) is matched by Mk. 8:37: &ldquo;What can right now a man give in return for his life?&rdquo;. The question we will face at judgment day, the obvious issue between winning for a moment and losing eternally, or losing now and winning eternally&hellip; this is being worked out right now. The choice is ours, hour by hour, decision by decision.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1809','1','41','8','37','37','<p>8:37<i> For what should a man give in exchange for his life?</i>- Having spoken of the need to take up the cross daily, the Lord Jesus employed this form of logic to encourage people to really take on board what He was suggesting: &quot; Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross...<i> for</i>&nbsp;whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, and the gospel\'s, the same shall find it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own life (AV &quot; soul&rdquo;)? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?&quot; (Mk. 8:34-37). If we follow Christ, we must lose our natural life. If we don\'t, even if we gain the whole world, we will lose our natural life. <i>I must lose my life, one way or the other</i>. We need to go through life muttering that to ourselves. God asks our life, our all. If we hold it back in this life because we want to keep it for ourselves, He will take it anyway. The cross was a symbol of shame (Heb. 12:2 speaks of the shame of the cross). In this context verse 38 continues: &quot; Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed&quot; at the day of judgment. We either go through the shame of carrying the cross now, especially in our personal witnessing to those around us; or we will suffer the eternal shame of rejection (Dan. 12:2); our shame will then be evident to all (Rev. 16:15).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1810','1','41','8','38','38','<p>8:38 <i>For whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man also shall be ashamed of him, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels</i>- See on Rom. 1:16. Being ashamed of the Lord\'s words doesn\'t just apply to not speaking up for the Truth when someone invites us to a topless bar after work. It\'s equally true, and the punishment for it just the same, in the context of not speaking out Christ\'s word in the ecclesia, to our very own brethren (Mk. 8:38 = 2 Tim. 1:8).</p><p>The Lord Jesus will be ashamed of the rejected when He comes in the glory of the Father. There is a telling juxtaposition of ideas here- shame and glory. Amidst the utter glory of the Father\'s throne, surrounded by Angels, the Lord will be sitting there with eyes downwards in shame as the rejected stand before Him and walk away. The Proverbs speak of how shame is to be the ultimate end of the wicked, and glory the end of the righteous. Yet it is <i>the rejected who</i> go away &quot;into shame&quot;. <i>They</i> will be &quot;ashamed before him at his coming&quot;. Yet the Lord will so feel for even the rejected, that He feels for them and reflects their feelings. This is no stern-faced judge chasing away those He is angry with. This is a window into the Lord\'s ineffable love and feelings even for those for whom it truly is too late, for whom the way to the tree of life is now barred.</p><p>The way the Lord Jesus says that He will be &quot;ashamed&quot; of those He has to reject (Mk. 8:38) opens an interesting window into what it means to have Divine nature. It doesn\'t mean that we will not then know the range of emotions which we have as humans today- for we are made in God\'s image. To think of the Lord of Heaven and earth, on the throne of His glory, sitting or standing there &quot;ashamed&quot;... because of His people. And shame is really a concept relevant to the presence of others- and the others who will be present will be the Angels and ourselves. Before us, we who are ourselves <i>so</i> weak and saved by His grace alone, He will feel shame because of those He has to reject. But there\'s another way of looking at the Lord\'s \'shame\'. It is the rejected who will have shame in that day (Dan. 12:2). Such is the nature of the Lord\'s love and empathy that He will somehow feel their shame, feel embarrassed for them as it were. Which thought in itself should banish for ever any idea that we are coming before an angry Master. The Lord of grace is the One who will be, and is, our judge. And even in His condemnation of men, His essential love shines through. His condemnation of Israel involved them wandering for years in the wilderness; but during that wandering, &quot;in all their affliction, he was afflicted&quot; (Is. 63:9). God shared in their feelings and suffering of rejection; just as the Lord Jesus will share in the shame of those who walk away from Him at the last day in shame. God\'s being with Israel during their wilderness wanderings is cited in Am. 2:10 as an example of His especial love for His people.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1811','1','41','9','1','1','<p>9:1<em> And he said to them: Truly I say to you: There are some standing here, who shall in no way taste death, before they see the kingdom of God come with power</em>-The Lord will essentially be the same as the Gospels present Him when we see Him again. This is why Jesus even in His earthly life could be called &quot;the Kingdom of God&quot;, so close was the link between the man who walked Palestine and the One who will come again in glory. &ldquo;They see the Kingdom of God come&rdquo; (Mk. 9:1) is paralleled by &ldquo;They see the Son of man coming&rdquo; (Mt. 16:28). Indeed it would seem that the references in the Synoptic Gospels to the &lsquo;coming&rsquo; of the Kingdom are interpreted in the rest of the New Testament as referring to the personal &lsquo;coming&rsquo; of the Lord Jesus (e.g. 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). In that very context of referring to Himself as &quot;the Kingdom of God&quot;, the Lord speaks of His return as \'the days of the Son of man\'- the human Jesus. And yet He also speaks in that context of how after His death, men will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, i.e. how He had been in His mortal life (Lk. 17:20-26). As He was in His mortal days, so He will essentially be in the day of His final glory.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1812','1','41','9','2','2','<p>9:2 <em>And after six days- </em>Lk. 9:28 speaks of &ldquo;about an eight days after&rdquo;, reckoning inclusively and perhaps wishing to express the idea of &lsquo;About a week later&rsquo;.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Jesus took with him Peter, James and John- </em>Peter is mentioned first. An over-reaction against Catholic views of Peter can lead us to under-estimate the undoubted supremacy of Peter in the early ecclesia. He was in the inner three along with James and John, and in incidents involving them he is always mentioned first, as the leader (Mt. 17:1,2; 26:37; Mk. 5:37). He is the first to confess Jesus as Messiah (Mt. 16:13-17), the first apostle to see the risen Christ (Lk. 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5), the first to preach to the Gentiles. Being given the keys of the Kingdom is language which would have been understood at the time as the Lord making Peter the Chief Rabbi of His new ecclesia. The Acts record without doubt gives primacy to Peter as the leader and chief representative of Christ&rsquo;s fledgling church. But, humanly speaking, he was the most unlikely choice. The one who in the eyes of the world and brotherhood should have sat a fair while on the back burner, done the honourable thing&hellip; in fact, many honourable things, in just keeping a respectful and bashful silence. And there is no lack of evidence that Peter himself would have preferred that. But no, he was commissioned by the Lord to specifically lead the church. The early church was to be built on the rock of Peter. Whether we like to read this as meaning the rock of Peter&rsquo;s confession that Christ was the Son of God, or as simply meaning Peter&rsquo;s work as the manifestation of Christ,&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>rock, the Acts record shows clearly that the early church was built upon the specific work of Peter.</p><p><em>And brought them to a high mountain where they could be alone- </em>Being led up Gk. a high mountain by the leader to be present at a theophany is very much the language of Moses taking Joshua and earlier another trio of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu) with him part way up Mount Sinai, and likewise experiencing a shining face (Ex. 34:29-35) and God&rsquo;s voice from a cloud (Ex. 34:5). Moses returned from the Mount with shining face and the people were afraid- just as happened here (Mk. 9:6). Perhaps Peter vaguely comprehended all this when he wanted to build &lsquo;tabernacles&rsquo;, because this was the task given to Moses for Israel to complete. Lk. 9:32 speaks of the&nbsp;<em>exodus&nbsp;</em>which the Lord was to make at Jerusalem- a reference to His death. It was the Passover lamb which died at the Exodus- the implication is that now God&rsquo;s people were free to leave Egypt. Again, those secular fishermen were being shown (through the obvious parallel) that they were none less than Joshua in this new Israel which was being created; and after the Lord&rsquo;s departure, they were to take His place and lead God&rsquo;s Israel into the Kingdom.&nbsp;</p><p>The idea seems to be that just as He had taken the twelve into Gentile areas for a period of intense teaching of them, so even within the twelve He focused upon these three and wanted to spend time alone with them. He &ldquo;took&rdquo; them means to desire association with, to come close to. This was His intention, and one wonders whether the transfiguration was therefore unexpected for Him. Previously when He had tried to get the twelve away by themselves, there had been unexpected events which hampered that, such as the crowds following them, and even in Gentile areas the Lord seems to have been surprised by the faith and need to perform miracles which He encountered. In this case, it would be unintentional that the transfiguration is recorded as following straight after His words about His coming in His Kingdom; it wasn&rsquo;t as if the Lord said those words knowing that some would witness the transfiguration. According to Lk. 9:28, the Lord&rsquo;s intention was to go up the mountain &ldquo;to pray&rdquo;, but whilst He prayed, the transfiguration occurred. See on 16:28.&nbsp;</p><p>Luke mentions that the Lord took Peter, James and John, started praying and then there was a theophany; but in their human weakness they missed much of it because they fell asleep. This was exactly the situation in the Garden of Gethsemane, with the same three involved; it was as if He was seeking to train them for it. They were &ldquo;heavy&rdquo; with sleep (Lk. 9:32), and the word is only used elsewhere in the Gospels to describe how the same three were &ldquo;heavy&rdquo; with sleep in Gethsemane (Mt. 26:43; Mk. 14:40). Even if Jesus Himself wasn&rsquo;t consciously doing this, we have here an example of how the Divine hand leads us through experiences in order to prepare us for others which are to come later in similar form.&nbsp;</p><p><em>And he was transfigured before them</em>- The Lord\'s transfiguration was a cameo of the change that should be apparent deep within us, for Paul says that&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>should likewise be transformed (Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18 s.w.), and he uses a related word in speaking of how Christ is to be &ldquo;formed&rdquo; within us (Gal. 4:19).&nbsp;<em>Metamorphoo</em>&nbsp;means a change of&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>; not necessarily of essential nature, because we too are to be transformed in this life, and have a new&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;develop in us (Gal. 4:19). But it could be that the &lsquo;other form&rsquo; in which the Lord now appeared was in the form in which He will be in the Kingdom. The idea of a change of&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;of the Lord Jesus recurs only one other time- in the hymn concerning the Lord&rsquo;s death in Phil. 2:6,7 where we read that although Had the&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;of God, He went through a seven stage progressive humiliation until He took on the&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;of a slave in the final death of the cross. One purpose of the transfiguration was for Moses and Elijah (who had both had Divinely arranged deaths or departures from ministry) to encourage the Lord concerning His upcoming death (Lk. 9:31). And yet He appeared as He will in the Kingdom, with shining Kingdom glory. The suffering and the glory were thereby manifested to and upon Him at the very same time, to show how inextricably linked they are. Perhaps too the point was being made that when He would hang there with the&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;of a dying and rejected slave, in Heaven&rsquo;s eyes, He was in Kingdom glory. John&rsquo;s equivalent of this is to record how the Lord spoke of His death as a &lsquo;lifting up&rsquo;, an idea which in Hebrew has connotations of &lsquo;glory&rsquo;. The shame of the cross was only from the world&rsquo;s viewpoint, whereas from a spiritual viewpoint, His death was the very acme of spiritual glory. The blood drenched garment became in God&rsquo;s eyes a glistering white raiment (Lk. 9:29). This would explain why in one sense the transfiguration was a Kingdom vision, and yet it was also about the Lord&rsquo;s death. Peter later reflected that he could preach with conviction about the coming of Christ because he was present at the transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:16-18). The Kingdom element of the experience cannot be divorced from the fact it was also an encouragement from Moses and Elijah concerning the cross. Note that John was also powerfully inspired by the transfiguration, opening his Gospel with an allusion to it in saying that &ldquo;We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father&rdquo; (Jn. 1:14). James likewise appears to reference the transfiguration when he writes of how the Lord\'s glory is so surpassing that there should be no jostling for human glory amongst us His people (James 2:1). The descriptions of the Lord Jesus are very similar to the language used about the scene at His resurrection- Angels in shining garments (28:3; Lk. 24:4), frightened and uncomprehending disciples (28:5). And yet the theme of the conversation was the Lord&rsquo;s death (Lk. 9:31)- but it took place with a preview of the resurrection scene.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1813','1','41','9','3','3','<p>9:3 <em>And his garments became radiant, exceedingly white, whiter than any launderer could whiten them</em>- The same word used about the white clothing of the Angels at the resurrection (&quot;white as snow&quot;, Mt. 28:3, just as in Mk. 9:3; Mk. 16:5; Jn. 20:12). In the midst of the conversation about His upcoming death (Lk. 9:31), there was the encouragement of what the resurrection glory would be like. The same word is also used about the Lord\'s current appearance in Heavenly glory with clothes &quot;as white as snow&quot; (Rev. 1:14- the very phrased used in Mk. 9:3). Indeed, the description of the risen Lord in Rev. 1 has many connections with the language used about His appearance at the transfiguration. Again the idea was to show Him how He would be after His glorification, to motivate Him to go through with the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;at the cross which He must fulfil at Jerusalem.&nbsp; &ldquo;As the light&rdquo; (Mt.) is hard to understand, but the Codex Bezae reads &ldquo;as the snow&rdquo;, in line with Mk. 9:3.</p><p>Mark adds that the Lord\'s clothing was &quot;white as snow, such that no fuller on earth can white them&quot;. The Hebrew mind would have obviously thought of the clothing of God Himself, the &quot;ancient of days&quot; of Dan. 7:9, which is described likewise. The comment that no&nbsp;<em>man</em>&nbsp;could ever make them so white is also a hint in that direction. He was clothed with the clothing of God. This doesn\'t make Him God, for Revelation has many descriptions of the faithful having the same kind of clothing. Against this background, the promise of Is. 1:18 becomes the more awesome- that even although our sins are red as crimson, yet they can become white as snow. This can only be achieved by the wearing of God\'s own clothing, the gift of His imputed righteousness, which Paul extensively glories in throughout Romans 1-8. Rev. 7:14 speaks of plunging our robes in the blood of the lamb, and them becoming white. It\'s all so paradoxical- that this whiteness cannot be achieved by man, no fuller on earth could do this, but by plunging surely an allusion to baptism into the red blood of Christ. This is the challenge of faith- to believe that the promised whiteness can be achieved through Christ. It was possible even in Isaiah\'s time, on the basis that God looked ahead to the work of Christ which as it were enabled Him to do this. Therefore the reference to &quot;no fuller on earth&quot; suggests that there is a fuller in Heaven who can do this. And Mal. 3:2 is specific that the Messiah heralded by the Elijah prophet, John the Baptist, would be like &quot;fuller\'s soap&quot; in cleansing men through the judgment of their sins. David in the depth of his sin appealed to God to \'full\' him (&quot;wash me&quot;, but s.w. \'fuller\'- Ps. 51:2,7); and this was done for him, on account of the future work of Christ which the Father then held in view.&nbsp; The Lord\'s glistering garments are therefore available for all of us. And it is with that connection that the scene there becomes no mere spectacle to behold in awe from afar, but a real picture of our own possibility before God.</p><p>Luke adds that the disciples &ldquo;saw his glory&rdquo; (Lk. 9:32). This is absolutely the language of Moses and the Old Testament heroes seeing Divine glory in theophanies, and like the disciples, hearing God&rsquo;s voice (Ex. 33:18 Heb. &ndash; &ldquo;shew&rdquo; is the same word translated &lsquo;to see&rsquo;&rsquo; Isaiah- Jn. 12:41; Ezekiel- Ez. 1:28). Yet again the Lord was seeking to show those secular men that they were called to work on the level of Moses and the prophets in the new Israel which the Lord Jesus was creating out of manual labourers, prostitutes, tax collectors, swindlers and sinners. See on Mt. 17:5&nbsp;<em>cloud</em>.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1814','1','41','9','4','4','<p>9:4 <em>And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus</em>- It was a &quot;vision&quot; (Mt. 17:9). They appeared &ldquo;in glory&rdquo; (Lk. 9:31), as the Lord did- this is clearly a vision of the Kingdom. The Lord Jesus was the firstfruits from the dead, who opened the way to immortality. So there is no way that they were already glorified before His death and resurrection. It was a vision (Mt. 17:9), of the Kingdom. Just as Jesus was not then glorified Himself at that time, neither were they. They spoke of how the Lord was going to &ldquo;fulfil&rdquo; the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;in His death at Jerusalem (Lk. 9:31). It was Moses who could supremely explain this to the Lord, having himself slain the Passover lamb and experienced the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;made possible thereby.</p><p>The transfiguration follows straight on from the Lord&rsquo;s talk about the Kingdom at the end of chapter 8. It was a foretaste of the Kingdom. Yet the Kingdom is fundamentally a&nbsp;<em>relationship</em>&nbsp;with God. Thus the foretaste of the Kingdom presented at the transfiguration was of faithful men in spiritual conversation with the glorified Lord Jesus, with His face shining as the sun as it will in the Kingdom, as the &ldquo;sun of righteousness&rdquo; (Mal. 4:2).&nbsp;</p><p>Luke adds that the disciples&rsquo; eyes were heavy and they fell asleep at the critical moment. But earlier, &ldquo;having remained awake&rdquo;, the same disciples were blessed with a vision of the Lord&rsquo;s glory (Lk. 9:32 RVmg.). If they had remained awake in the garden, they would have seen the Lord being glorified by Angelic visitation. But they didn\'t perceive how the circumstances were repeating, and thus didn&rsquo;t find the strength and inspiration which was potentially prepared for them through the similarity of circumstance.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1815','1','41','9','5','5','<p>9:5 <em>And Peter said to Jesus: Rabbi, it is good that we are here Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah</em>- Peter, who appears to be the one behind Mark\'s gospel, is not emphasizing his own superiority here, but rather commenting upon his own distance from the Lord\'s spirituality. For he presents his offer to put up a tent as being so inappropriate, now he perceived the glory of God which tabernacled in the flesh of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>Throughout the Lord\'s ministry, Peter had a mental barrier to the idea of his Lord suffering and dying. It could be argued that his desire to build tents and remain in the mountain of transfiguration was rooted in this- Moses and Elijah had just spoken with the Lord Jesus about the path He must take to death, and Peter somehow wants the Lord to stay there in the mountain (Mk. 9:5). And yet Peter\'s later preaching has so much to say about the Lord\'s death. And his letters contain quotations and allusions from Isaiah\'s suffering servant prophecies (1 Pet. 2:21 etc.). Further, if we accept the idea elsewhere discussed that Mark\'s Gospel is a transcript of Peter\'s preaching of the Gospel, it becomes significant that Mark\'s version of the Gospel likewise emphasizes Jesus as the suffering servant. Thus what Peter was once blind to, he made a special point of preaching. The content of his witness reflected his deep awareness of his past blindness- and therefore his appeal to others to \'get it\' was the more powerful seeing that he himself had patently \'not got it\' for some years. And it shouldn\'t be hard to translate his example into our daily experience, speaking of our weaknesses and former blindnesses rather than coming over as the self-congratulatory religious guy.</p><p>It may have taken much of the day to climb the mountain, and Peter was maybe thinking of where they were going to sleep for the night. Or was did he also have in mind a celebration of the feast of Tabernacles at that time? Later, Peter came to see his death as a taking down of a tent (2 Pet. 1:13), using the same word for the tabernacle he had wanted to build for his Lord at the transfiguration. Then, he had wanted the tent to be set up so that the time of the Lord&rsquo;s departure wouldn&rsquo;t come; so that the Lord would stay with them there, with Moses and Elijah, in what must have seemed like the Kingdom of God. Again, Peter didn&rsquo;t want the cross, neither for his Lord nor for himself. But by the time he wrote 2 Peter, he had learnt his lesson; he saw that his tent must be taken down. The vision of the glory of the Lord Jesus, the words of His coming death and future Kingdom, these were quite enough. There had been no need of the tent on the mountain, and now he saw there was no need for the tent of his body either. We are all the same. Our death will literally be a death with the Lord, in that our resurrection will be after the pattern of His (Rom. 6:5). Peter learnt this lesson from the transfiguration because he describes his coming death as his&nbsp;<em>exodus&nbsp;</em>(2 Pet. 1:15), just as Moses and Elijah had spoken then of the Lord&rsquo;s coming death (Lk. 9:31).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1816','1','41','9','6','6','<p>9:6 <em>For he did not know what to say, for they were greatly afraid</em>- It is also possible to understand Peter&rsquo;s suggestion simply as the kind of inappropriate thing a man would say who wants to make a response to spirituality, but doesn&rsquo;t know how to. He wanted to do something material and physical- he simply didn&rsquo;t know what to say. The response was the voice from Heaven telling Peter to&nbsp;<em>hear</em>&nbsp;Jesus, to respond to His word, rather than run around doing inappropriate works just because we feel we have to&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;something.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1817','1','41','9','7','7','<p>9:7 <em>And there came a cloud overshadowing them- </em>Moses had previously entered the cloud of glory, seen God&rsquo;s glory and heard God&rsquo;s voice- on the top of a mountain. Moses&rsquo; ascent into the mountain and into the very cloud of Divine glory was understood in Judaism as the very zenith of human spiritual achievement of all time, coming so close to the very personal presence of God, never to be repeated amongst men. And now, three fishermen were having the very same experience. No wonder they feared as they themselves entered into that cloud (Lk. 9:34).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And there came a voice out of the cloud: This is My beloved Son. Hear him</em>- This was literally the word of God, and yet it was actually a string of three quotations from God&rsquo;s word in the Old Testament: &ldquo;You are My Son&rdquo; (Ps. 2:7), &ldquo;In whom My soul delights&rdquo; (Is. 42:1), &ldquo;Hear Him&rdquo; (Dt. 18:15). It must have been a profound evidence of the Bible&rsquo;s Divine inspiration. The very voice of God repeating His own words as found in the Law, Psalms and Prophets- the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures.&nbsp;&quot;Hear him&quot; was intended to take the mind back to Dt. 18:15, where it was written that Messiah would be &lsquo;heard&rsquo; by the faithful. But Peter fell down paralyzed with fear; he didn&rsquo;t really hear the son of God then. Yet in Acts 3:22, Peter quotes Dt. 18:15 and asks his hearers to obey the passage by hearing Jesus, through his preaching of Him. He was asking his audience to do what he himself hadn&rsquo;t done. &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1818','1','41','9','8','8','<p>9:8 <em>And suddenly, looking round about-</em> &quot;Looking round&quot; is in Matthew &quot;lifting up their eyes&quot;. &lsquo;Lifted up&rsquo;,&nbsp;<em>epairo</em>, is surely intended to resonate with&nbsp;<em>egeiro</em>&nbsp;&ldquo;arise&rdquo; / &lsquo;get up&rsquo; of Mt. 17:7. The picture is given of the Lord bending down and touching them, as if they are children, and urging them to rise up. Instead, they just raise up their eyes, and see only Jesus. We really are invited to play &lsquo;Bible television&rsquo; here. The scene is so imaginable. And again, the Gospel writers and speakers were emphasizing the weakness of even the three leading disciples. Peter spoke inappropriately, offering to make booths when instead God wanted him to &lsquo;hear&rsquo; His Son; their fear is likened to the fear of unspiritual Israel at the theophany on Sinai; they are scared to get up in obedience to Jesus&rsquo; touch, raising their large childlike eyes to Him instead&hellip; Indeed the record of the transfiguration really stresses the disciples&rsquo; weakness, exhibited in the face of the Kingdom glory of their Lord and the earnest encouragement of Him by more spiritual men to go through with the cross- whilst they slept.</p><p><em>They no longer saw anyone with them, except Jesus</em>- In the Greek as well as in translation, this is really labouring the point. The &ldquo;save / only&rdquo;,&nbsp;<em>monos</em>, is redundant- they saw &lsquo;nobody except Jesus&rsquo; is a statement which needs no further qualification, indeed grammatically it almost&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;be given further qualification, and reads awkwardly because of the&nbsp;<em>monos</em>, &ldquo;only&rdquo;, that is added. But the word &ldquo;only&rdquo; is added to emphasize that their focus was solely upon Him. That was the purpose of the event, and it had been achieved. Christ centeredness is the ultimate, final and total issue of our experience of Him, the Law and the prophets. The transfiguration ends with this total focus&nbsp;<em>monos</em>&nbsp;upon Christ; this was the practical effect of the theophany. John&rsquo;s Gospel doesn&rsquo;t record the transfiguration, but as so often, it is indeed alluded to. For John&rsquo;s Gospel is full of references to seeing glory, to hearing the Son. It&rsquo;s as if John presents Jesus to us a constant theophany, not one that three of the best disciples go up a mountain to see for a short period, but one which is continually before each of us, and which according to Paul&rsquo;s allusions to it, draws us into its very process. For we too are transfigured as we like the disciples behold the Lord&rsquo;s transfiguration (Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18 s.w.).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1819','1','41','9','9','9','<p>9:9 <em>And as they came down from the mountain, he ordered them that they should tell no one about the things they had seen, until the Son of Man should have risen from the dead</em>- The things &quot;seen&quot; are called a &quot;vision&quot; in Mt. 17:9. Whilst this literally means &lsquo;the thing seen&rsquo;, the transfiguration was indeed a vision. Seeing that Christ is the firstfruits from the dead and that there is no conscious survival of death, it follows that at best Moses and Elijah were resurrected especially for the occasion. But they &ldquo;appeared in glory&rdquo; (Lk. 9:31), as if they were in the Kingdom. The Greek translated &ldquo;appeared&rdquo; has the strong sense of &lsquo;being seen / observed&rsquo;. This is how they were seen- another hint at a vision. When the event finished, Lk. 9:36 says that Jesus was &ldquo;found alone&rdquo;- but that is a poor translation of&nbsp;<em>heurisko</em>. He was seen, perceived alone- again hinting that the entire experience was a vision rather than occurring in reality. The way that &ldquo;Suddenly, when they had looked round about&rdquo; they saw only Jesus, finding Moses and Elijah had disappeared (Mk. 9:8) would also hint at a visionary experience. Note that there is no suggestion that Moses and Elijah went off anywhere, let alone &lsquo;returned&rsquo; to Heaven. The vision of them simply abruptly ended. They saw nobody &ldquo;except Jesus only with themselves&rdquo; or &ldquo;they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus&rdquo; (Mk. 9:8) would suggest that they were as it were looking at themselves from outside of themselves- again, ideas appropriate to a visionary experience rather than an actual personal encounter. And this is how the incident with Moses and Elijah began, for &ldquo;there&nbsp;<em>appeared unto them</em>&nbsp;Moses and Elijah talking with Him&rdquo;. It was an appearance&nbsp;<em>unto them</em>, a vision which ended when they saw themselves from outside themselves and realized they were actually alone with Jesus. The language of &lsquo;appearance&rsquo; used throughout the records of the transfiguration would also suggest that the incident with Moses and Elijah was an appearance&nbsp;<em>to them</em>, in their eyes and perception, rather than necessarily in reality.</p><p><em>&quot;</em>To no one&quot; maybe connects with the fact that they saw &ldquo;no man&rdquo; except Jesus (:8); and so they are asked to tell the vision to &ldquo;no man&rdquo; until after the Lord&rsquo;s resurrection. It could be that the Lord wanted them to retain their focus upon Him by not telling others but instead meditating personally upon what they had seen. The vision had been of the Lord&rsquo;s resurrection glory- we noted above the similarities in language to the shining garments of the Angels at the resurrection scene. The Lord didn&rsquo;t want people to think that He had already attained that glory without the cross. Even though in prospect He had that glory, He was insistent that no impression be given that He could attain it without passing through the cross. This was particularly important for Peter to appreciate, who several times entertained a hope that glory was possible for the Lord without the cross.</p><p>The Synoptics each record the transfiguration. But did John? He saw it, and here he was commanded to tell it to others after the resurrection. It would be almost impossible for his Gospel record to not mention it. I have suggested that he actually begins his Gospel with the recollection of how he had seen the Lord&rsquo;s glory at the transfiguration (Jn. 1:14 &ldquo;we beheld His glory&rdquo;), and that the whole Gospel presents Jesus in &ldquo;glory&rdquo; and being &ldquo;beheld&rdquo; or &lsquo;seen&rsquo; in that glory.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1820','1','41','9','10','10','<p>9:10 <em>So they kept these words to themselves, questioning what the rising from the dead meant</em>- As noted on :1, Peter is again bringing out his own slowness to understand the Lord\'s most obvious teaching about His death; and on that basis, appeals to his audience to do better than him, and comprehend and respond far quicker than he had. This comment indicates how secular they were; for the idea of bodily resurrection was well known within Judaism- the Pharisees believed that the dead would rise, although the Sadducees denied it. But the disciples were clearly unfamiliar with the idea, because they simply hadn&rsquo;t been seriously religious people. The word for &lsquo;questioning&rsquo; is used 10 times in the NT and always in a negative sense, mainly of the unbelieving Jews questioning the things of Christ. Thus it is used twice later in Mk. 9 (Mk. 9:14,16) about the Jews questioning about Jesus. Such questioning is so often an excuse for lack of faith, pressing for over-definition of everything as an excuse for disbelief. Instead of focusing on the glory of Jesus, they got distracted (wilfully) by semantics, words and meanings.</p><p>Their question provides another insight into the shallowness of their understanding. The transfiguration had persuaded them, at least for the moment, that Jesus was Messiah. But they were confused as to why the Elijah prophet hadn&rsquo;t come first. John the Baptist, whom they had followed and believed, had clearly cast himself in the role of Elijah. But it seems that they hadn&rsquo;t really grasped the significance of John&rsquo;s ministry at all.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1821','1','41','9','11','11','<p>9:11 <em>And they asked him: Why do the scribes say that Elijah must first come?</em>- The disciples were evidently still under the influence of Judaism and the religious world around them, and this background died hard for them. &ldquo;Why say the scribes&hellip;?&rdquo;, they reasoned (Mk. 9:11), implying that their view was of at least equal if not greater weight when compared with that of the Lord Jesus as they also did in Mt. 17:9,10. He had to specifically warn them against the Scribes in Lk. 20:45,46; He had to specifically tell them not to address the Rabbis as &lsquo;father&rsquo; (Mt. 23:8,9), implying they had too much respect for them. The way the disciples speak of the Scribes as if they have such a valid theological position reflects their upbringing and respect for the ruling elite of the synagogue (Mt. 17:10), with whom the Lord was at such total variance. They were concerned that the Pharisees had been offended by the Lord&rsquo;s words (Mt. 15:12). We again see here how the disciples were out of step with the Lord&rsquo;s thinking, pursuing their own mental agenda, and not doing that they had just been told- to &lsquo;hear Him&rsquo;. For the Lord has just told them very seriously (&ldquo;charged them&rdquo;) to not say anything about this experience until He was resurrected. But instead they are grappling with another issue- if this Jesus was really Messiah, well why hadn&rsquo;t Elijah come first, as the Scribes taught? Clearly we see them pursuing a line of thought which precluded their attention to what the Lord was so earnestly seeking to tell them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1822','1','41','9','12','12','<p>9:12 <em>And he said to them: Elijah indeed comes first- </em>&nbsp;There can be no doubt that \'Elijah\' will come in some form:&nbsp; &quot;I will send you Elijah the prophet before the&nbsp;<em>coming&nbsp;</em>of the great and dreadful day of the Lord... lest I&nbsp;<em>come</em>&nbsp;and smite the earth&quot; (Malachi 4:5,6). The coming of the Lord must therefore be preceded by Elijah\'s work. His mission will be to direct Israel\'s attention to God\'s Word, &quot;lest I come and smite the earth with a curse&quot; (Malachi 4:4,6).&nbsp;This was evidently not totally fulfilled by John the Baptist, seeing that the land was smitten after A.D. 70 due to Israel\'s failure to repent.&nbsp;&quot;Lest I come...&quot; is clearly referring to God\'s manifestation in Christ\'s second coming - it is associated with the arising of &quot;the sun of righteousness&quot; (Malachi 4:2,6). Whilst John fulfilled the role of the Elijah prophet to those who truly repented (Mt. 11:14), he emphatically denied that he was \'Elijah\' (John 1:21,23).&nbsp;This can only mean that the Elijah prophet is yet to come.&nbsp;&nbsp; Our Lord silences all doubt about this: &quot;Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things&quot;. Elijah\'s work will be to turn the hearts of Israel back to the patriarchs in repentance (Malachi 4:6 cp. 1 Kings 18:37), so that Christ comes to an Israel who have turned away from unGodliness (Is. 59:20). John being a mini-Elijah prophet, it is to be expected that the broad features of his ministry will be repeated in the work of the final Elijah prophet. John was called &quot;the Baptist&quot;, so evident was his emphasis on water baptism. Indeed, the name \'John\' and the image of water baptism are hard to separate. There is fair reason to think that \'Elijah\' will also literally baptize. &quot;That (Christ) should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water&quot; (Jn. 1:31) seems to make baptism a pre-requisite for accepting Christ. Indeed, Jewish theology expects baptism to be associated with the coming of Messiah and the Elijah prophet. Therefore the Jews asked John: &quot;Why do you baptize then, if you are not that Christ, nor Elijah?&quot; (Jn. 1:25).</p><p><em>And restores all things- </em>The restoration of the Kingdom is ultimately Messiah&rsquo;s work (Acts 1:9-11). The restoring referred to here would therefore mean spiritual restoration. Mark&rsquo;s account of John&rsquo;s activities clearly alludes to the Malachi passages about the Elijah prophet, and the descriptions of Elijah&rsquo;s clothing, appearance and diet are clearly intended to help us identify him with a prophet like Elijah. The LXX in Mal. 4:5 speaks of how the prophet will&nbsp;<em>restore</em>&nbsp;the hearts of the fathers to the children. This confirms that the restoration to be achieved by the Elijah prophet is largely spiritual, psychological and internal. The more physical restoration of the Kingdom on earth is Messiah&rsquo;s work. But the Lord is placing Elijah&rsquo;s work in the future- because Israel had failed to respond to it. And yet what are we to make of the repeated descriptions in the Gospels of &ldquo;all&rdquo; Israel going out to John and repenting? My suggestion is that they were eager for a Messiah to come and save them from the Romans; John appeared looking like and alluding to Elijah, and so they were eager to accept him as an Elijah prophet, knowing that this heralded Messiah. They &lsquo;repented&rsquo; because there was a clear connection made in Judaism between Jewish repentance, and the Elijah prophet and Messiah&rsquo;s coming. Thus: &ldquo;Israel will fulfil the great repentance when the Elijah of blessed memory comes&rdquo; (Pirqe R. Eliezer 43 25a); and many other examples are quoted by Walter Wink (<em>John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C.U.P. 2006) p. 3). The Qumran documents even claim that the faithful would go out into the wilderness to the Elijah prophet and separate themselves from the unholy in Israel (1 QS 8:12-16) (More examples are given in Carl Kazmierski,&nbsp;<em>John the Baptist: Prophet and Evangelist&nbsp;</em>(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999) p. 26). Hence the intended sarcasm of the idea that in fact &ldquo;all&rdquo; Israel went out to the wilderness to John Therefore their repentance was as it were self-induced and merely symbolic, because they believed it was part of a sequence of events which would lead to Messiah&rsquo;s coming and liberation from Rome. This would be a classic example of surface level spirituality and response to God&rsquo;s word, when in fact the response was motivated by selfish and unspiritual motives. No wonder John appealed to them to&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;repent. The Lord says that Elijah comes &ldquo;first&rdquo;,&nbsp;<em>proton</em>, above all, most importantly, to achieve this restoration- the implication being that the fact John&rsquo;s ministry had failed to bring &ldquo;all&rdquo; Israel to this position, meant that there must therefore be another Elijah ministry which would succeed before Messiah could come in glory. And this would indeed &ldquo;restore&rdquo; the&nbsp;<em>hearts</em>&nbsp;of Israel, as Mal. 4:5 LXX requires.</p><p><em>And how is it written of the Son of Man, that he should suffer many things and be set at nothing?</em>- Significantly, the same Greek word is used in Lk. 23:11 to describe how Herod &ldquo;set at nought&rdquo; Jesus at His trial; and it was the same Herod who had John the Baptist murdered.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1823','1','41','9','13','13','<p>9:13 <em>But I say to you, that Elijah came, and they have also done to him whatever they wanted, even as it is written of him</em>- The Lord accused the Jews of rejecting John the Baptist (Mt. 17:12; Lk. 7:32&ndash;35), and on other occasions He commented on the fact that they had accepted his teaching, with the result that spiritually their house was swept and garnished (Mt. 12:44; Jn. 5:35). We can conclude from this that their&nbsp;<em>appearance</em>&nbsp;of accepting John&rsquo;s message was spoken of by Jesus as if they had accepted it. Likewise Christ called the Jews both children of hell (Mt. 23:15) and children of the Kingdom (Mt. 8:12); the latter was how they perceived themselves. The things &ldquo;done&rdquo; to John surely include his death for the Lord goes on to say that He will &ldquo;likewise suffer of them&rdquo;, &ldquo;of this generation&rdquo; (Lk. 17:25). But it was the despised Herod who had John murdered. And yet Jesus here says that that generation had done that to John- despite the fact that he remained, it seems, immensely popular amongst that generation. Again the Lord is stressing that all the apparent response to John had not been sincere- the Jews who had seemingly responded to him were in fact as bad as apostate Herod and it was effectively&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;who had killed him. Naturally such language begged the response that no, it was Herod and his courtiers who killed John, not the mass of people. But the Lord is saying that effectively, it was that generation who had locked John up and killed him.</p><p>His question (as it is framed in Matthew) was (as so often with Him) in answer and response to their unexpressed question- that surely Elijah is to have a successful ministry and then the Messiah would begin His Kingdom in glory. The Lord was asking them the question about the prophesied sufferings and rejection of Messiah in order to answer the question He could see in their minds. So often &ldquo;He answered and said&hellip;&rdquo; something, when no question was verbalized. But He perceived the question in the minds of His audience, such was His sensitivity. Only a week or so ago He had told them how messiah must &ldquo;suffer many things&rdquo; (Mt. 16:21) and now he uses the same phrase again- although it seems they had forgotten or not appreciated what He had then told them.</p><p>Mk. 9:12 adds to Matthew by adding: &ldquo;As it is written of him&rdquo;. There seems no specific prophecy stating that the Elijah prophet would be unsuccessful, unless one really reads between the lines of Malachi&rsquo;s prophecy about the Elijah prophet. More likely is that the &ldquo;him&rdquo; refers to the historical Elijah. All that was written of&nbsp;<em>him</em>&nbsp;had come true of John the Baptist, in that the alliance between Ahab and the manipulative Jezebel which led to Elijah&rsquo;s persecution was mirrored in that between Herod and the equally manipulative Herodias, which led to John&rsquo;s demise.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1824','1','41','9','14','14','<p>9:14 <em>And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd about them, and scribes arguing with them</em>- This meeting with the crowd occurred the day after the transfiguration (Lk. 9:37)- presumably they slept up the mountain for the night. The transfiguration record is replete with references to the theophany on Sinai. Moses\' return from the mount was to a faithless people of God, and the same is found here, in that the disciples had been unable to perform a healing which they had potentially been given the power to do.</p><p>Note how the three accounts dovetail so nicely: Jesus and the three with Him moved towards the crowd (Mt.), Jesus having noticed them from a distance (Mk.), and the crowd came towards them (Lk.). And as Jesus came (<em>erchomai</em>) towards the crowd, there came out of the crowd towards Him (<em>pros-erchomai</em>) the man who wanted a healing for his son (Mt.). Mark records that the people ran towards Jesus when they saw Him (Mk. 9:15- presumably His face was shining after the encounter, after the pattern of Moses), which explains why Luke says that the man had to &lsquo;cry out&rsquo; from out of the crowd (Lk. 9:38- Gk. &lsquo;to holler&rsquo;, to get attention amidst the rush of all the others towards Jesus) and that Jesus firstly asked the Scribes what they were questioning His disciples about. We really can powerfully reconstruct the scene by putting the three different viewpoints together. Matthew focuses upon the man who came to Jesus wanting healing for his son. The best analogy is to cameramen. Matthew focuses close up upon one man; Mark is taking a broader view of the crowd as a whole, and therefore picks up the brief question to the Scribes first of all- they made no answer that is recorded, and the Lord&rsquo;s answer to whatever questions they were asking was given in the healing miracle. That there are no actual contradictions of fact or chronology is to me a profound internal evidence of an inspired record, with a common Divine hand behind all the authors. If these were three uninspired men writing their recollections some time after the event, or uninspired people writing down what had been passed down to them as originating with those men, then for sure there would be contradictions. Because misremembering of detail is just part of our human condition, and the supposed lengthy process of oral tradition would inevitably have meant there was further corruption and unclarity added. The lack of contradiction in the accounts and the way they complement each other so perfectly has to me the hallmark of the Divine. Even witnesses who agree together to lie in court and rehearse their stories many times over- still end up contradicting each other. But that is not the case with the Gospels.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1825','1','41','9','15','15','<p>9:15 <em>And immediately all the crowd, when they saw him, were greatly amazed; and running to him saluted him</em>- They ran up to Him- and He had Peter, James and John with Him. Perhaps His face was shining with the glory He had been exposed to, as the face of Moses did. It is therefore commendable that the people ran to Him rather than shying away from Him as they did from Moses when His face shone, and as the soldiers did when His face likewise shone at His arrest in Gethsemane. This sentence in Greek is intentionally similar to the account of Acts 3:11, where again &ldquo;All the people cp. &ldquo;all the crowd&rdquo; ran s.w. &ldquo;running to Him&rdquo; together unto them&hellip; greatly wondering s.w. &ldquo;greatly amazed&rdquo;. The response of the crowd to Peter and John in Acts 3:11 could not possibly have been contrived by them. Their experience at the return from the transfiguration was to prepare them for their own later witness, when without the physical presence of Jesus, they were Him to the world. And the same kind of carefully, sensitively planned education of us is ongoing now. Not only do situations occur and then repeat in essence later in our lives, but what we go through in this life will only have understood meaning in the Kingdom, when we shall put into eternal practice what we are learning now. But for now, there is an inevitable difficulty in attaching meaning to event, because we cannot foresee the billion situations in our eternities where we will put into practice what we are now learning.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1826','1','41','9','16','16','<p>9:16 <em>And he asked them: What are you arguing about with them?</em>- The Lord knew, but He wanted to highlight the inappropriacy of any arguments when in the presence of the Father\'s glory reflected in His Son. And we can take that lesson. The Greek for &quot;arguing&quot; occurs ten times in the New Testament, nearly always in the context of argument with the Jews. All such legalistic argument ought to fade away in the context of the Lord\'s glory and the certain hope of the Kingdom, of which the transfiguration had spoken- with the intimation of present transformation towards that end right now.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1827','1','41','9','17','17','<p>9:17 <em>And one of the crowd answered him: Teacher, I brought to you my son, who has a dumb spirit</em>- When the father of the dumb child brought him to <em>the disciples</em>, he tells Jesus that &ldquo;I brought to <em>you</em> my son&rdquo;, but the disciples couldn&rsquo;t cure him; he perceived Jesus as His followers, just as folk do today. The Lord had earlier given them power over &ldquo;unclean spirits&rdquo; (Mt. 10:8)- but still they couldn&rsquo;t heal him. The power given to them was therefore potential power, but it was no guarantee that they would actually do the works. Alternatively, we could conclude that that power was only given to them temporarily. Or, that there is a difference between the twelve, and the more general &ldquo;disciples&rdquo; / followers of Jesus. However it would have been strange indeed if the man had not brought his son to the group of the twelve in the hope of healing. And it is the disciples, presumably the twelve, who then come to the Lord and ask why they could not perform the cure (:28).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1828','1','41','9','18','18','<p>9:18 <em>And wherever it takes him, it dashes him down and he foams and grinds his teeth and pines away- </em>Descriptions of the rejected as gnashing teeth, cast into fire and water, wallowing helpless... is all the language of the demoniac (Mk. 9:18-22). The child was obsessed with fear of condemnation, just as we noted Legion had been. His problem was therefore psychologically rooted, and the language of demons is simply the language of the day to describe his actions and their apparent cure. This connection shows at least two things: that there will be a madness in the rejected, the tragic aimlessness of the demented. And secondly, that because the demoniac was cured, it is possible for a man whose behaviour leads to his condemnation&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>to still repent, before it\'s too late. And yet although the rejected may appear demented, they may well not feel like this. They will gnash their teeth with anger, not least against themselves. Being cast into fire or water (Mt.) were both figures of condemnation. The young man felt he was worthy of condemnation- hence conviction of the Lord\'s saving mercy would have been enough to cure him of the deep sense of unworthiness which he had.</p><p><em>And I spoke to your disciples that they should cast it out, and they were not able</em>- They had no&nbsp;<em>dunamai&nbsp;</em>(possibility), in Matthew\'s record; Mk. 9:18 uses a different word- according to Mark, the man said that they &ldquo;could not&rdquo; using&nbsp;<em>ischuo&nbsp;</em>(more carrying the sense of physical power). The man therefore bewailed at least twice that the disciples couldn&rsquo;t help; and he asks the Lord Jesus to help &ldquo;if You can&rdquo; (Mk. 9:22-&nbsp;<em>dunamai</em>). They did have the possibility; but they lacked the faith to actualize it (Mt. 10:8; Lk. 10:19,20 &ldquo;I give unto you power&hellip; over all the power of the enemy&hellip; the spirits are subject unto you&rdquo;). We too have been given potentials which require faith to exploit, and our failures to do so leave people with the impression that the Lord Himself is limited- for, like the disciples, we are His representatives in this world, and people coming to us are effectively coming to Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1829','1','41','9','19','19','<p>9:19 <em>And he answered them saying: O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I tolerate you?- </em>As noted on :17, the &quot;faithless&quot; here were the disciples, not the man; for he had some measure of faith. The disciples were at this point caught up in the faithless spirit of their generation, the world around them; just as we can be. When the Lord returned from the Mount of Transfiguration, He found that the disciples had failed to do a cure because of their lack of faith. He describes them as part of a &ldquo;faithless generation&rdquo; again indicating how the disciples were all too influenced by Judaism, the &ldquo;generation&rdquo; or world around them. The disciples and Judaism / the Jewish world are paralleled in Jn. 7:3,4: &ldquo;Let your disciples see your work&hellip; show yourself to the world&rdquo;.</p><p>An example of the Lord&rsquo;s perhaps unconscious usage of His Father&rsquo;s words is to be found in this exasperated comment.&nbsp; Of course the Lord would have spoken those words and expressed those ideas in Aramaic- but the similarity is striking with His Father&rsquo;s Hebrew words of Num. 14:27: &ldquo;How long shall I bear with this evil congregation&hellip;?&rdquo;. As a son comes out with phrases and word usages which &lsquo;Could be his father speaking&rsquo;, so the Lord Jesus did the same thing. What I am saying is that the Lord was not merely quoting or alluding to the Father&rsquo;s Old Testament words, in the way that, say, Paul or Peter did. As the Father&rsquo;s Son, He was speaking in the same way as His Father, no doubt saturated with the written record of the Father&rsquo;s words, but all the same, there were those similarities of wording and underlying thinking which are only seen between fathers and sons. And His words of Mt. 17:17 = Num. 14:27 seem to me to be an example of this. It was the disciples who were faithless. In Matthew chapters 12 and 13, the Lord had drawn a clear difference between the disciples, and the unbelieving surrounding generation. It seems that He now despaired of whether that distinction was valid; He sees them, in the heat of that moment of bitter disappointment, as no better than the masses who did not believe. The &quot;faithless&quot; will be condemned (Lk. 12:46 &quot;his portion with the unbelievers&quot;, s.w.), and this is the term used about the world generally (1 Cor. 6:6; 7:12); or as the Lord puts it, this &quot;generation&quot;. And yet the Lord uses it here about the disciples and again in Jn. 20:27. The very phrase &quot;perverse generation&quot; is used by Paul about the unbelieving world (Phil. 2:15). To use this term about the disciples is therefore significant; the Lord really felt that His faith and hope that they were different from the Jewish world had been misplaced. After His encounter with Elijah and Moses, he doubtless expected more of God\'s people.</p><p>This fits in with a Biblical theme- of people being confronted with acute spiritual temptation immediately after a highly spiritual experience. And this is true to life- so often, merely hours after a highly intense spiritual experience e.g. at a breaking of bread meeting we find ourselves assailed by temptation and spiritual depression. It\'s not that we are encountered by a physical person called \'Satan\' immediately after our spiritual \'high\'; rather it is a feature of human nature that the closer we come to God, the stronger is the tidal backwash of&nbsp;<em>internal</em>&nbsp;temptation immediately afterwards. Consider some examples:</p><p>- Noah walks off the ark, a superb triumph of faith, into a cleansed and pristine world, with the rainbow arch of God\'s grace above him- and gets dead drunk (Gen. 9:21-24).<br />- Moses renounced greatness, stood up for God\'s people and then left Egypt by faith, &quot;not fearing the wrath of the king&quot; (Heb. 11:27); and yet ended up fleeing in fear from Pharaoh (Ex. 2:14,15).<br />- Moses returned from the awesome meeting with God on Sinai and gave in to a flash of anger, during which he smashed the tables of the covenant- a covenant which had also been made with him personally.<br />- Israel were ecstatic with joy and confidence in God as they stood on the other side of the Red Sea- but very soon afterwards they were giving in to temptation in the wilderness, accusing God of intending to kill them and being careless for them.<br />- Judas went from the spiritual height of being present at the first &quot;breaking of bread&quot; meeting with the Lord Jesus, just prior to His death, directly into temptation from &quot;the Devil&quot; and then went out into the darkness of that night (Lk. 22:3).&nbsp;<br />- Soon after his spiritual triumph on Carmel, Elijah is to be found suicidal and bitter with God, and considering that the other faithful in Israel are in fact also apostate (1 Kings 19:4-11).<br />- Samson\'s life was full of giving in to spiritual temptation immediately after he had been empowered by God to do some great miracle.<br />- Immediately after having been saved by God\'s grace from a huge invasion (2 Sam. 11), David sins with Bathsheba and murders Uriah (2 Sam. 12).<br />- After the wonder of having a terminal illness delayed by 15 years in response to prayer, Hezekiah gives in to the temptation to be proud and selfish in the events of Is. 39.<br />- Soon after the wonder of the miracles of the loaves and fishes, the disciples hardened their heart to it and accused Jesus of not caring for them (Mk. 4:38; 6:52).<br />- Paul straight after his wonderful vision of &quot;the third heaven&quot; finds himself struggling with a &quot;thorn in the flesh&quot;, a term I have elsewhere suggested may refer to a spiritual weakness or temptation (2 Cor. 12:7).<br />- After the wonder of baptism and the confirming voice from Heaven, Jesus was immediately assaulted by major temptation in the wilderness.</p><p>This is surely the most graphic and intense expression of frustration in the entire recorded history of the Lord Jesus. His frustration was with how His disciples were not living up to their potential, and how faithless they were. And we daily exhibit the same terribly disappointing characteristics. But&nbsp;<em>how long</em>&nbsp;may not necessarily be a cry of exasperation- although it could be that. There can also be the sense of \'Until when?\', and the time in view was the Lord\'s death. John\'s Gospel records the Lord several times speaking of how His hour or time had not yet come, and how He agonized until it did. That end point was clearly the moment when He cried from the cross &quot;It is finished&quot;.</p><p><em>Bring him to me</em>- The man had brought s.w. &quot;bring&quot; his son to the disciples, they couldn\'t heal him, and so the Lord asks for the child to be brought to Him personally. And yet He had taught that in their witness, the disciples were Him to this world. Coming to them was coming to Him. But He despaired that in this case, there was now a difference between them and Him. They were unable to manifest Him as they should because of their lack of faith. And there are times when our status as \'brethren in Christ\' likewise fails, and we fail to be Him to this world and He has to intervene and reveal Himself more directly to men.</p><p>Mk. 9:19 records how He asked for the son to be brought&nbsp;<em>pros</em>&nbsp;Me, literally, \'here with Me\'; but this is the same term used in the Lord\'s lament: &quot;How long shall I be with <em>pros</em> you?&quot;. The Lord\'s physical presence was required for this miracle- the son must be &quot;here&quot; (Mt.), &quot;with Me&quot; (Mk.). But the Lord was making the point that He would not always be literally with them, and then such cures would have to be done by the disciples without His physical presence. And it seems He despaired as to whether they were ready for this.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1830','1','41','9','20','20','<p>9:20 <em>And they brought him to him, and when he saw him, immediately the spirit tore at him grievously and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth</em>- As noted on :18, the young man was obsessed with fear of condemnation. When he realized he was in the presence of the Lord, his condition therefore worsened considerably; he felt he really had arrived at judgment day, and wanted to destroy himself. Again we note that the underlying problem with him was psychological and spiritual, rather than being literally attacked by a demon.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1831','1','41','9','21','21','<p>9:21 <em>And he asked his father: How long has this been happening to him? And he said: From a child</em>- See on Mt. 20:32. This question was perhaps to provoke the man to remember back through those difficult and tragic years, in order to elicit stronger faith and desire from him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1832','1','41','9','22','22','<p>9:22<em> And often it has cast him both into the fire and into the waters to destroy him; but if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us</em>-Descriptions of the rejected as gnashing teeth, cast into fire and water, wallowing helpless... is all the language of the demoniac (Mk. 9:18-22). This connection shows at least two things: that there will be a madness in the rejected, the tragic aimlessness of the demented. And secondly, that because the demoniac was cured, it is possible for a man whose behaviour leads to his condemnation <em>now </em>to still repent, before it\'s too late. And yet although the rejected may appear demented, they may well not feel like this. They will gnash their teeth with anger, not least against themselves.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1833','1','41','9','23','23','<p>9:23 <em>And Jesus said to him: Rather, if you can All things are possible to him that believes</em>- The father of the child was asked whether he could believe i.e., that Jesus could cast out the demon. The man replied that yes, although his faith was weak, he believed that Jesus could cast out the demon. His faith was focused on by Jesus, rather than his wrong beliefs. Faith above all was what the Lord was focusing on <em>in the first instance</em>. We frequently commit the horror of limiting God in our attitude to prayer. All too often we see ourselves in the man who believed and yet still had unbelief: &quot;If thou (Jesus) canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us. Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible&quot; (Mk. 9:22,23 AV). The man thought that Christ\'s power to help was limited: \'If you can do anything to help, well, please do\'. The Lord Jesus turned things right round: \'If you can believe, anything\'s possible\' - in other words, God can&nbsp;do anything, but His ability to directly respond to some particular need is limited by our faith, not by any intrinsic lack of ability within Himself. The man hadn\'t thought about this. He saw God as sometimes able to help a bit; Christ turned the man\'s words round to show that God\'s power is infinite, limited only by our faith. The same message is taught by putting together the fact that with God nothing is impossible (Lk. 1:37), and the fact that nothing is impossible <em>unto us</em> (Mt. 17:20). God&rsquo;s possibility is our possibility; and this is what the Lord was teaching the man who thought that it all depended upon the Lord&rsquo;s possibility alone. There are other instances where the extent and nature of the Lord\'s healing seems to have been limited by the faith of the recipient (Mt. 8:13 &quot;as...so&quot;; 9:29 &quot;according to&rdquo;; 12:22 &quot;inasmuch&quot;).</p><p>The word &quot;believe&quot; is omitted from many texts and from the NEV. Thus we could paraphrase: &ldquo;Regarding that &quot; If you can...&quot; which you said- as regards that, well, all things are possible&rdquo;. This is&nbsp;the view of F.B. Meyer and Marvin Vincent. The RV reads: &ldquo;And Jesus said unto him, If thou canst All things are possible to him that believeth&rdquo;.</p><p>It is clear enough that God at times limits His power. He <em>could</em> save everybody, indeed He wishes to do this, yet He allows human freewill to be genuine and meaningful, to the extent that not all will be saved. Israel in the wilderness &ldquo;limited the Holy One of Israel&quot;. He was left by Israel as a mighty man powerless to save. The Greek word <em>dunatos</em> translated 16 times &quot;mighty&quot; is also 13 times translated &quot;possible&quot;. God\'s might is His possibility. But our freewill can limit that might. All things are possible to God, and therefore all things are possible to the believer- but if the believer has no faith, then, those possibilities of God will not occur (Lk. 1:49; Mk. 9:23; 10:27). And so I have no problem with a God who limits His omniscience.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1834','1','41','9','24','24','<p>9:24<em> Immediately the father of the child cried out, and said: I believe Help my disbelief</em>- See on Lk. 1:13. It is a feature of our nature that we can believe and yet disbelieve at the same time. The father of the epileptic boy is the clearest example. He had asked: &quot;help us&quot; (:22), i.e. \'cure the child\'. But he understood that this &quot;help&quot; depended partly upon his faith; he believed, as we should, that the faith of third parties can radically affect others (see on 2:5). And yet he realized that his faith was weak, and he asked the Lord to &quot;help&quot; that faith to be stronger than the native &quot;unbelief&quot; which is part of the human condition. Even faith itself can be &quot;helped&quot;. We are not left unaided in climbing the mountain of belief. Faith in that sense is partially a gift from the Lord through the gift of His Spirit (Eph. 2:8; 2 Thess. 3:2). The Lord can succour s.w. &quot;help&quot; (Heb. 2:18), through the gift of His Spirit.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1835','1','41','9','25','25','<p>9:25<em> And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it: You dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and enter no more into him</em>-There are a number of parallels between the language used of &lsquo;casting out&rsquo; demons, and that used about healings. Jesus &ldquo;rebuked&rdquo; demons in Mk. 9:25, and yet He &ldquo;rebuked&rdquo; a fever (Lk. 4:39) and the wind (Mt. 8:26). Demons are spoken of as having &ldquo;departed&rdquo; (Mt. 17:18), yet we read of leprosy &lsquo;departing&rsquo; (Mk. 1:42) and diseases &lsquo;departing&rsquo; after cure (Acts 19:12). I&rsquo;d go so far as to say that every case of a person being spoken of as demon possessed has its equivalent in diseases which we can identify today&ndash; e.g. epilepsy, schizophrenia.</p><p>The peoples of the first century, and their predecessors, believed that demons and the Satan monster were somehow associated with water- that was why, they figured, the water mysteriously kept moving, and at times blew up into storms. When we read of God \'rebuking\' the waters and making them calm or do what He wished (Ps. 18:16; 104:7; 106:9), we\'re effectively being told that Yahweh of Israel is so infinitely superior to those supposed demons and sea monsters that for God\'s people, they have no effective existence. The Lord Jesus taught the same lesson when He \'rebuked\' the sea and wind during the storm on the lake (Mt. 8:26). The same Greek word is used to described how He \'rebuked\' demons (Mt. 17:18 etc.). I have no doubt that the Lord Jesus didn\'t believe there was a Loch Ness-type monster lurking in Galilee which He had to rebuke in order to save the disciples from the storm; and likewise He spoke of \'rebuking\' demons as a similar way of teaching others that&nbsp;<em>whatever</em>&nbsp;ideas they had about demons, He was greater and was in a position to \'rebuke\' them. Likewise He assured His men that they had the power to tread on snakes, scorpions, and all their enemies (Lk. 10:17-20). The image of a victorious god trampling his foes and snakes underfoot was well established in the surrounding cultures, and had entered Judaism. The Lord is teaching those fearful men that OK, if that\'s your perception of things, well, in your terms, you have ultimate victory through working \'in My name\'. It must be noted that the man had previously described the boy&rsquo;s condition as being due to how &ldquo;A spirit seizes him&hellip; and it&nbsp;<em>departs</em>&nbsp;from him with great difficulty&rdquo; (Lk. 9:39). The condition was intermittent (consistent with viewing the condition as epilepsy rather than actual, literal manipulation by a spirit or demon). Trying various remedies, probably including beating him, the condition &lsquo;departed&rsquo;. The Lord&rsquo;s cure is described in the same terms, with the implication that it was total and permanent, rather than partial and temporary, as their &lsquo;healings&rsquo; were. The Lord said that the &lsquo;spirit&rsquo; would never again enter the boy (Mk. 9:25).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1836','1','41','9','26','26','<p>9:26 <em>And having cried out and torn him much, it came out; and the boy became as one dead. So much so that the many said: He is dead</em>- I suggested on :18 and :20 that the young man was obsessed with fear of condemnation at the last day. He now is as it were dead. He goes very still. He feels as if he has died. An then the Lord as it were resurrects him (:27). The whole essence of baptism was being lived out in him at this moment; he was dying to sin, taking its condemnation; and then arising with the Lord Jesus to new life.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1837','1','41','9','27','27','<p>9:27 <em>But Jesus took him by the hand and raised him up, and he arose</em>- See on :26. This is exactly what He had done to the terrified disciples on the mount of transfiguration (Mt. 17:7 s.w.). By doing so, it was made apparent that the disciples (even the three best of them) needed healing themselves rather than being in a position to perform the miracles, as the Lord had hoped they could; and as indeed they could.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1838','1','41','9','28','28','<p>9:28 <em>And when he had come into the house, his disciples privately asked him: Why could we not cast it out?</em>- They were surprised at their inability, which suggests they had performed such cures before and had faith that they could do miracles. The Lord\'s explanation in the next verse (in Matthew\'s record) that they had no faith (&quot;unbelief&quot;,&nbsp;<em>a-pisteo</em>, no faith) would therefore have been hard for them to initially accept. His idea was that we either believe or do not believe, and often what seems to us as faith, even if it is admittedly small faith, is ultimately not faith. John\'s Gospel even more clearly presents faith as something one either has or doesn\'t have. And yet in reality there are gradations of faith, and the Bible recognizes this. The Lord\'s next comment in Matthew that &quot;<em>If&nbsp;</em>you really, as you think have faith as a grain of mustard seed...&quot; was therefore speaking to their assumption that although their faith was small, they did actually believe. Again we see how the Lord sees to the inner, unexpressed thoughts and positions of His audiences, and addresses them. This presentation of faith as an absolute, a black or white position (and John\'s Gospel stresses this even more), is a huge challenge to examine our faith.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1839','1','41','9','29','29','<p>9:29 <em>And he said to them: This kind- </em>This kind of demon? In this case, the Lord is again using their wrong ideas (in this case, about some demons being stronger than others) without really believing them, talking to them in terms which they understood.</p><p><em>Can come out by nothing except by prayer and fasting</em>- They tried to do miracles without even praying about it. Only intense prayer could send forth this kind of answer from God; He does not act on emotional grounds, just because He feels sorry for somebody. It needs to be noted that initially the man\'s child was not cured because the disciples didn\'t have the faith to do it. This teaches that God\'s activity for others is partly dependent on the prayers of a third party and the extent of their faith- both that of the man, and of the disciples.</p><p>The Lord wasn&rsquo;t naive, although He was so positive. He told the disciples quite frankly here that they were full of &ldquo;unbelief&rdquo;, and couldn&rsquo;t do miracles which He expected them to because they didn&rsquo;t pray and fast (Mt. 17:19-21). And yet when quizzed by the Pharisees as to why His disciples didn&rsquo;t fast, He said it was because they were so happy to be with Him, the bridegroom (Mt. 9:15). Here surely He was seeing the best in them. They come over as confused, mixed up men who wanted the Kingdom there and then and were frustrated at the Lord&rsquo;s inaction in establishing it. But He saw that they recognized Him as the bridegroom, as Messiah, and He exalted in this, and saw their lack of fasting as partly due to the deep-down joy which He knew they had. Perhaps they tried to do this miracle without even praying about it. Or maybe they prayed only on a surface level, and it was not counted as real prayer. Only intense prayer could send forth this kind of answer from God; He does not act on emotional grounds, just because He feels sorry for somebody. It needs to be noted that initially the man\'s child was not cured because the disciples didn\'t have the faith to do it. This teaches that God\'s activity for others is partly dependent on the prayers of a third party. These words are applied to us all in 1 Cor. 7:5, the only other place in the NT where they occur together; we are to give ourselves to prayer and fasting in domestic married life with the passion and intensity required to perform a miracle.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1840','1','41','9','30','30','<p>9:30 <em>And they went from there and passed through Galilee; and he did not want anyone to know it</em>- See on Mt. 27:26; Lk. 9:44. He earnestly wanted time alone with the disciples in order to explain His death to them. This is why when He saw a crowd gathering, He quickly cured the child in order to stop further distraction (:25). We sense throughout the Gospels the Lord\'s dislike of crowds and His desire to privately teach those who wished to be close to Him; and how the essential burden of His message was of the need to share in His death, rather than getting cures and seeing miracles.</p><p>The note that He reminded them about His passion whilst they were still in Galilee is another hint at the Lord&rsquo;s structured approach to training the twelve. Before they went back to Jerusalem, He wanted them to be aware well ahead of time that He was going to His death. Mark adds that He didn&rsquo;t want people to know of His presence because He was teaching the disciples about His death. Once again we encounter the theme of the Lord intensely focusing upon His disciples rather than upon the masses of Israel. It could be argued that He could have healed far more people had He not had this policy; but His long term intention was to create a solid body of followers who would bring His message to the world after His death. And we must likewise achieve a balance between good deeds for the world, and the need for strengthening the body of believers.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1841','1','41','9','31','31','<p>9:31 <em>For he taught his disciples, and said to them: The Son of Man is delivered up into the hands of men- </em>Matthew uses the present tense- He&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;betrayed / delivered s.w.. The Lord likely said both- He shall be betrayed, in fact He is being betrayed / delivered. His sufferings were ongoing, His crucifixion sufferings were a seamless continuance of His whole way of life and being during His ministry. This is the sense recorded in John, of &ldquo;the time comes but now is&rdquo; (Jn. 4:23; 16:32). He knew that the essence of the delivering over to the Jews /&nbsp; Romans was happening right then, although the final delivering / handing over was when in Gethsemane He said that &ldquo;the hour is come&hellip; the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners&rdquo; (Mk. 14:41). The word for &lsquo;betrayed&rsquo; means literally to be handed over or delivered, and so the Lord&rsquo;s statement wouldn&rsquo;t have necessarily implied to them that there was to be a betrayal from amongst their own number.</p><p><em>And they shall kill him, and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again</em>- Clearly the rising again was at a specific moment, &ldquo;the third day&rdquo;. This is proof enough that the Bible intends us to see the Lord&rsquo;s rising again as bodily resurrection and not some spiritual reincarnation over a period of time.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1842','1','41','9','32','32','<p>9:32 <em>But they did not understand the saying and were afraid to ask him</em>- Luke notes that the saying about the cross was &ldquo;hidden&rdquo; from them (Lk. 9:45), in confirmation of their own refusal to understand it because it demanded that they too suffer with their Lord. And yet in prayer to the Father, He rejoices that these things are not hidden from them (Lk. 10:21,23). This gives insight into the Lord&rsquo;s present mediation for us in prayer- speaking of us as far better than we are. The message of Christ crucified was &ldquo;hid&rdquo; from them (Lk. 9:45; 18:34)- and Paul surely alludes to this when he says that this message is hid by the veil of Judaism from those who are lost (2 Cor. 4:3). Luke adds that straight afterwards, &ldquo;there arose a dispute among them, which of them was the greatest&rdquo; (Lk. 9:46). Time and again we see this in the Gospels- when the Lord speaks of His upcoming death, the disciples change the subject. This explains our own problem with mind wandering at the breaking of bread or in the study or even reading of the crucifixion accounts. This difficulty on focusing upon Him there is likely because His death requires our death and suffering, and subconsciously we realize that- and would rather not.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1843','1','41','9','33','33','<p>9:33 <em>And they went to Capernaum, and when he was in the house he asked them: What were you reasoning about on the way here?</em>- The Lord knew already; He had very keen natural perception as well as God\'s Spirit without measure. Lk. 5:22 records another incident where the Lord asked men what they were reasoning about exactly because He &quot;perceived their thoughts&quot;. He realized the value of verbalizing things. He wanted them to confess; to admit that in the light of Him explaining His death, they had been arguing about who should be the greatest, and who was the greatest. Perhaps the Lord\'s obvious interest in Peter led them to discuss whether Peter was in fact the greatest, commenting upon his evident impetuosity and other human weaknesses.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1844','1','41','9','34','34','<p>9:34 <em>But they kept quiet. For they had disputed one with another on the way about who was the greatest</em>- Whenever the Lord taught them about His death, they always seem to have started arguing amongst themselves; the tremendous significance of what He was saying was evidently lost on them (Mk. 9:31-34; 10:34-38). The power of the cross is likewise lost on the hearts of many because of their obsession with petty argument.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1845','1','41','9','35','35','<p>9:35 <em>And he sat down and called the twelve; and he said to them: If anyone would be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all</em>- This \'sitting down\' may have been some time later than the discussion in :33,34, because at this point Matthew says (Mt. 18:1) that it was they who came to the Lord with the question about who should be the greatest. The Lord had asked what they had been talking about, knowing this had been the topic. They were silent. And He remained silent. That mutual silence was deafening. They thereby knew that He knew, and that they were wrong. And it was that lack of response from Him which prompted them to finally bring the question out into the open. He was indeed the master psychologist.</p><p>He was the &quot;servant of all&quot; because He <em>desired</em> to be the greatest in the Kingdom.&nbsp;It was this ambition which motivated His endurance of the daily cross of His life: &quot;Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:&nbsp; <em>even as</em> the Son of man came... to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many&quot; (Mt. 20:27,28). He was drawing on the ideas of Hos. 13:1, where Ephraim exalted himself when he humbled himself to speak to God with the trembling of a true humility. The Lord Jesus was not esteemed by men in His death (Is. 53:3); the same word occurs in Dan. 4:17, concerning how Yahweh will exalt the <em>basest</em>, the least esteemed, to be King over the kingdoms of this world. That made-basest man was a reference to the Lord Jesus. He humbled Himself on the cross, that He might be exalted. Peter had his eye on this fact when he asks us to humble ourselves, after the pattern of the Lord, that we might be exalted in due time (1 Pet. 5:6).&nbsp;The Lord desired greatness in the Kingdom, and so can we; for the brighter stars only reflect more glory of the Sun (1 Cor. 15:41).&nbsp;This very thought alone should lift us up on the eagle wings of Spirit above whatever monotony or grief we now endure.</p><p>The Lord Himself on the cross was the ultimate &quot;servant of all&quot;, and therefore was the first of all. This may explain the Lord\'s comment that the last shall be first and the first last (Mt. 19:30)- He may have intended us to read in an ellipsis to the effect that he who&nbsp;<em>wants to be&nbsp;</em>first shall be last, and he who&nbsp;<em>wants to be&nbsp;</em>last shall be first. There was to be a glorying in being the last, the servant of all- exemplified in the Lord\'s washing of the disciples\' feet.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1846','1','41','9','36','36','<p>9:36<em> And he took a little child and set him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them- </em>In <em>Against Celsus </em>3.55, Origen defends Christianity against the allegation that it requires men to leave the world of men and go mix with women and children in &ldquo;the washerwoman&rsquo;s shop&rdquo;- presumably a house church Celsus knew. Lucian of Samosata even mocked Christianity as being largely comprised of children and &ldquo;old hags called widows&rdquo;. Marcus Cornelius Fronto likewise mocked the way &ldquo;children&rdquo; and by that term he would&rsquo;ve referred to teenagers too participated in the breaking of bread <em>Octavius </em>8-9. The teaching of the Lord Jesus was attractive to children / young people. They like women were treated as of little worth; the Greco-Roman world considered that children had to be taught, and couldn&rsquo;t teach a man anything. But the Lord Jesus repeatedly set children up as examples of discipleship (Mk. 9:36,37; Lk. 9:47,48; as Heb. 12:5-9). So we can understand the appeal of early Christianity to young people, teenagers, especially girls. O.M. Bakke has written a fascinating study entitled <em>When Children Became People</em>. The thesis is that the teaching of Christianity gave disenfranchised people an identity and meaning as persons- women and slaves are obvious examples- but this also applied to children / young people. They too were disregarded as people in Mediterranean society; and yet in Christ they were given their value as people. In the house church setting, we can imagine how this happened. Celsus mocks how teenage boys go to Christian house churches to be taught by women- reflecting how attractive Christianity was for young people.</p><p>The disciples soon afterwards are framed as doing exactly the opposite to what the Lord had done, when they forbad the little children s.w. to come to Jesus (Mt. 19:13)- whereas the Lord actually invited them to Him. Again we note how the Gospel writers present the disciples as so often out of step with their Lord.</p><p>The Greek for &quot;set&quot; means to stand, not to sit- this is how it is usually translated. Mk. 9:35,36 says that the Lord&nbsp;<em>sat</em>&nbsp;but He&nbsp;<em>stood</em>&nbsp;the child in their midst. But&nbsp;<em>histemi</em>, often translated &quot;set&quot; in Mt. 18:2, has the strong connotation of standing up or setting someone up in a position. &quot;The midst&quot; suggests the disciples were in a closed circle, and the Lord stood the child within the circle. If you call an onlooking child into the midst of a group of unknown adults, they will typically not want to come. We see the powerful attraction of the Lord to children in that this child came, although likely with much nervousness, wanting to come to Jesus, but not into that closed circle of men- just as so many today. Almost certainly the child came to the Lord and He held the child close to Himself; for He goes on to urge the disciples to &quot;receive&quot; such little ones, implying they were reluctant to have the child amongst them. That closeness to the Lord was what was being set up as an example. The scene is portrayed graphically if we put the Gospel records together- the Lord&nbsp;<em>sat</em>&nbsp;with the men in a circle around Him, He calls the child to Him, stands him up &quot;by Him&quot; (<em>para</em>&nbsp;Him means close by Him, Lk. 9:47) and then \'takes\' him, cuddling the child to Himself &quot;in His arms&quot; (Mk. 9:36)- whilst He is sitting down. The natural response of the child who had been stood would be to want to sit down, holding on to Jesus, and not to stand above those men with their attention focused upon him. This natural desire to come down, to humble self, is what is being memorialized by the Lord as the pattern for all who wish to enter His Kingdom. Perhaps we can imagine the scene even further- the child would\'ve wanted to come to Jesus personally, but the circle of disciples with their apparent superiority and judgmentalism would\'ve been offputting. But still the child came, and the Lord in Luke\'s record urges the disciples to allow the child to join the circle and &quot;receive&quot; him. This scenario is seen so often in the body of Christ in our days. In the early church, there soon developed a problem about \'receiving\' others, not least children, women and Gentiles- and the Gospel records through this incident show how seriously wrong the disciples were not do do so. Luke\'s record goes on to record the incident with John\'s disciples where the Lord\'s disciples didn\'t want to &quot;receive&quot; them- implying they did not immediately grasp the teaching themselves.</p><p><em>&quot;</em>In the midst of them&quot; is a phrase used several times about the Lord Jesus Himself standing in the midst of His followers (Lk. 24:36; Jn. 1:26; 8:9; 20:19,26). The supreme &quot;child&quot; was the Lord Jesus. This connection between Him and that child was it seems perceived by Peter later, when he uses the same word to describe the Lord Jesus as God\'s &quot;holy child&quot; (Acts 4:27,30). If as suggested the Lord held the child to Himself, the identification would have been visually powerful and the image would\'ve remained with the disciples. The Lord Himself clinches the connection by saying that whoever becomes as that child will be the greatest in the Kingdom- and He clearly was and is the greatest in the Kingdom. Lk. 9:48 makes the connection beyond doubt in recording that the Lord then said that &quot;Whosoever shall receive this child... receives Me&quot;. His subsequent comment there that &quot;For he that is least among you all, the same is great&quot; is surely a reference to Himself, rather than urging them to be the least so that they might be the greatest. The Lord\'s answer as to who was greatest in the Kingdom was therefore to indirectly point out that He is the greatest, and we should simply seek to be like Him, using the little child as a template to that end. The antidote to division, therefore, is to be focused upon Christ and to seek to simply enter the Kingdom- the things of the Kingdom and of the Name (Acts 8:12).</p><p>So the Lord took a child and set him in the midst of those rough fishermen and tax collectors. He said that they must become like that child; and further, they must receive that child as a representative of Himself, and thereby, of God Himself. In&nbsp;probable allusion to this, Paul teaches that in malice we should be children, but in understanding: men (1 Cor. 14:20). The child in the midst of men, wide eyed, simple and sincere amidst men full of cynicism and human wisdom and self-righteousness and the gruffness of the flesh... This was a symbol of every true believer, of the Lord Himself, and of Almighty God, as they were and as they are in the midst of a world and even a brotherhood that, like the disciples, so often stares on uncomprehending. The aptness was not in the child&rsquo;s humility if indeed a child can be humble, but in the purity of the innocence and sincerity and unassuming directness.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1847','1','41','9','37','37','<p>9:37 <em>Whoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receives me. And whoever receives me, receives not me but Him that sent me</em>- To not offend others we must &ldquo;receive&rdquo; them (Mt. 18:5). It is written of Jesus that when crowds of materialistic, fascinated people followed Him, &ldquo;He received them, and spake unto them of the Kingdom&rdquo; (Lk. 9:11). He didn&rsquo;t just turn round and read them a lecture about the Kingdom. &ldquo;He&nbsp;<em>received&nbsp;</em>them&rdquo;. Presumably Luke means to reflect how he perceived something in the Lord&rsquo;s body language that was receiving of that crowd of peasants- whom we would likely have written off as just dumb groupies with no more than surface level interest. And we too must receive one another, even as the Lord has received us (Rom. 15:7)- and this includes receiving him who is even weak in the faith (Rom. 14:1). We should be looking for every reason to receive and fellowship our brethren, rather than reasons not to.</p><p>The disciples would\'ve had to open their closed circle to allow the child to enter. As the child settled down in the arms of the Lord Jesus, he was effectively added to the circle of disciples. Children were counted as non-persons in first century society, along with women, serious sinners, the mentally ill and lepers. The Lord is powerfully teaching that our attitude to such persons is our attitude to Him and therefore to God (Mk., Lk.). The challenge comes down to many of us too, who come from closed table communities. The Lord foresaw that to form a tight circle around Him was the natural response of those who followed Him, but He is saying that unless we open that circle, we are in danger of actually not having received Him at all. Our not receiving of such persons is going to make them stumble (&quot;offend them&quot;), and this warrants eternal condemnation. The Lord had bidden the disciples \'humble themselves\', and now they are given an opportunity to do so- by \'receiving\' amongst themselves, as one of them, into their circle, a little child. Opening our circle and accepting amongst us those who do not share (at least, at this time) our level of faith, understanding or even culture- this is indeed a humbling experience. All that is in us cries out to keep them excluded, and to keep our circle tightly closed against them. But the argument for a closed circle, or a closed table, is ultimately one which originates in pride and a refusal to humble self.&nbsp;<br /><i><br /></i>The little child was to be identified with the Lord Jesus personally. See on Mt. 18:2. To not receive the little ones is to not receive Jesus personally. The issue is of eternal importance, as the next verse emphasizes. We cannot simply go along with such rejections and refusal to receive others just because it is the policy of a church or fellowship to which we have belonged or grown up in. Social death and rejection by our brethren is nothing compared to the painful rejection at the last day which the Lord speaks of.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1848','1','41','9','38','38','<p>9:38<em> John said to him: Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in your name and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us</em>- Mark inserts at this point the question about a man casting out demons although \'not following us\' (Mk. 9:38-42). The Lord rebukes them for this and goes on to warn them about not offending little ones. In Matthew, that warning follows straight on from the teaching about the need to receive little ones- as if refusing to receive them is what makes them stumble. The case raised by the disciples, as it were in protest at His teaching about receiving little ones, was presumably one of John\'s disciples. Although they had a different spiritual culture, history and even doctrinal understanding, the Lord had earlier likened both His and John\'s disciples to children in the marketplace working in parallel, presenting the same message in different ways. They were admittedly immature in some ways and in parts of their doctrinal understanding, but the Lord is teaching that this is what made John\'s disciples &quot;little ones&quot;, and they must still be accepted. The Lord warns twice in that section in Mk. 9:38-42: &quot;Forbid him not&quot;. This is the same as saying \'Receive him, do not forbid him from entering your circle\'. It is the same word which the Lord will go on to use in Mt. 19:14 about not forbidding another group of &quot;little children&quot;. The Jewish world was to be condemned exactly because they hindered or forbad s.w. men to enter the Kingdom (Lk. 11:52- see on 18:7&nbsp;<em>Woe to the world</em>). Peter surely alludes to the Lord\'s teaching when reasoning: &quot;Who can forbid water&quot; that Gentiles be baptized (Acts 10:47). Refusing baptism to those not considered good, ready or mature enough is surely a way of forbidding and not receiving little ones.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1849','1','41','9','39','39','<p>9:39 <em>But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no one who shall do a mighty work in my name and then be able straight afterwards to immediately speak evil of me</em>- The preceding section has sternly warned against forbidding the little ones, and now we have a worked example. The little ones in view were John\'s disciples (:38); although seeing &quot;John did no miracle&quot; we wonder whether the miracle claimed was legitimate. But the Lord is not only gentle, He seeks to accept even such misunderstanding and misguided ones. For He alludes without doubt to Num. 11:28,29: &quot;Joshua&hellip; answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Are you envious for my sake? Would God that all the Lord&rsquo;s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them&quot;. He considered this misguided miracle worker in John\'s group as all the same one of God\'s new Israel. As noted on :38, the disciples tended to &quot;forbid&quot; those whom the Lord wished to accept. And that same tension is seen time and again with the way closed, denominational mindsets seek to exclude and &quot;forbid&quot; others who differ and are immature. But the allusion to Numbers 11 seems to be saying that all in whom the Spirit is working should be accepted; and the litmus test is whether they shall &quot;speak evil of me&quot;. If they do not, then they are not against Him but for, despite their misunderstanding. An alternative reading however is &quot;Shall not lightly speak evil of me&quot; (as AV). In this case, the Lord is comforting His sceptical disciples that if such a person does is in fact against Him, then this is no light matter and will be dealt with by the Lord\'s judgment; but not by theirs. This incident is surely alluded to by Paul when he warns against some who claimed to possess the Spirit who \'call Jesus accursed\' (1 Cor. 12:3). There were such, and it was their attitude to the Lord Jesus personally which proclaimed them against Him. What people think of Christ is the critical issue when it comes to deciding whether a person is for or against Him; and that is obvious really, but the natural tendency to &quot;forbid&quot; those who interpret differently to ourselves is strong.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1850','1','41','9','40','40','<p>9:40 <em>For he that is not against us, is for us</em>- See on :39. If a person is not against the Lord personally (:39), then he is not against &quot;us&quot;, the body of Christ. And so even if that person will not mix with us, from God\'s wider point of view he is &quot;for us&quot;, &quot;on our part&quot;. Here on earth, sectors of the Lord\'s body are against each other. But from the Lord\'s perspective, those who are not against Him are on His part. But speaking evil of the Lord personally (:39) is parallel here with not being against <em>us</em>. And here we have a worrying implication. Attitudes to those in Christ are attitudes to Him. To be &quot;against&quot; any of them is to be against Him.</p><p>And so the Lord\'s attitude to John&rsquo;s disciples is very telling. He saw those who &ldquo;follow not us&rdquo; as being &ldquo;on our part&rdquo;, not losing their reward, as being the little ones who believed in Him; and He saw wisdom as being justified by <em>all</em> her children, be they His personal disciples or those of John (Mk. 9:38-41; Lk. 7:35). John&rsquo;s men had a wrong attitude to fellowship- they should have &lsquo;followed with&rsquo; the disciples of Jesus; and it would seem their doctrinal understanding of the Holy Spirit was lacking, although not wrong (Acts 19:1-5). Indeed, they are called there &ldquo;disciples&rdquo;, a term synonymous with all believers in Luke&rsquo;s writing. And the Lord too spoke in such an inclusive way towards them. No wonder His disciples had and have such difficulty grasping His inclusiveness and breadth of desire to fellowship and save.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1851','1','41','9','41','41','<p>9:41<em> For whoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because you are Christ\'s- truly I say to you, he shall in no way lose his reward</em>-Giving a cup of cold water to the little ones doesn&rsquo;t necessarily refer to sticking banknotes in a collection for charity. The Hebrew writer took it as referring to our love for Christ\'s little ones, within the ecclesia (Mt. 10:42 = Heb. 6:10). And the context says the same.&nbsp;The Lord was inviting the disciples to see themselves as none less than the likes of Elisha, who were supported in their work by various well-wishers.&nbsp;</p><p>According to Mt. 10:41, these &ldquo;little ones&rdquo; refer to the disciples. But why &ldquo;<em>these</em>&nbsp;little ones&rdquo; and not &ldquo;you&rdquo;? I suggest that verse 41 could effectively be a soliloquy, perhaps spoken out loud in the presence of the disciples, but all the same, it is Jesus speaking to Himself. Or maybe the Lord is saying that the mistaken disciple of John would be accepted as one of the Lord\'s followers, and therefore any who supported him in his slightly misplaced ideals as a missionary for John would therefore still be rewarded. I say this because offering a cup of cold water was how travellers were assisted by local people along the road.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1852','1','41','9','42','42','<p>9:42 <em>And whoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe in me to stumble- </em>The &quot;little ones&quot; of the context could refer to John\'s disciples, with their limited belief and understanding in the Lord, who perhaps refused to follow after Jesus because they disagreed with the worldly ways of His disciples. And so the Lord urges the twelve not to cause stumbling to those ones little in faith and understanding. See on Mt. 18:6.</p><p><em>It would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea</em>- The very language of Babylon\'s judgments at the last day. The believer who makes another to stumble by not receiving them is therefore no better than Babylon, the archenemy of God and His true people. And Rev. 18:21 speaks of how&nbsp;<em>Babylon</em>&nbsp;shall be cast into the sea as a millstone- such \'believers\' will at the last day face Babylon\'s judgments, they will be &quot;condemned with the world&quot; (1 Cor. 11:32), sent back into it from the judgment seat of Christ to share the world\'s fate. Even though externally they had been so separate from the world, so separate that the refused to receive the &quot;little ones&quot;. But this attitude is in fact a worldly attitude; by having it, we are showing that we are of the world.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1853','1','41','9','43','43','<p>9:43 <em>And if your hand causes you to stumble- </em>The context has spoken of not offending the little ones, and of the terrible condemnation awaiting those who cause others to stumble. There are two legitimate meanings of the words here. The idea could be &lsquo;If these things cause you to stumble others&rsquo;; or, &lsquo;If these things cause you yourself to stumble&rsquo;. But the ambiguity is surely intentional. If we make others to stumble then we have made ourselves stumble, for if we make others stumble out of the way to the Kingdom, then we shall not be there ourselves. The point is clear- we are to go to absolutely any length, paying any personal cost, in order not to cause stumbling to a little one.</p><p><em>Cut it off-</em> I suggest the Lord is parodying the orthodox Jewish idea of cutting off members of the community in order to preserve the rest of the body of believers- an idea equally common today amongst some in the new Israel. The Lord is saying that in order to avoid personal condemnation, we are to cut off our own limbs if necessary- in order to avoid causing a little one to stumble. The cost of not causing the little ones to stumble is therefore very personal; because communities, both secular and religious, tend to cause little ones to stumble by their policies, it follows that individuals will pay a high price for stepping out of line by insisting that we will not cause them to stumble. The preceding verse has explained how &ldquo;the world&rdquo;, the Jewish religious system of the Lord&rsquo;s time, the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;of the day, lead others to stumble, and that individuals must take personal responsibility for this. In the same way as the whole system was destroyed in AD70, so personal condemnation at the last day awaits the individuals who make others stumble.&nbsp;</p><p><em>It is good for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having your two hands and to go into Gehenna- into the unquenched fire</em>- The lame, blind and maimed were those not acceptable for service in God&rsquo;s tabernacle (Lev. 21:18; Dt. 15:21; 2 Sam. 5:8). The Lord surely has this in mind. He seems to be saying that to avoid offending little ones, it is better to be unacceptable for priestly service now, and yet therefore enter God\'s Kingdom. The implication, therefore, is that by&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;being seen as fit for priestly service, we avoid offending little ones. The only interpretation which makes sense of this to me is that the Lord foresaw that by fellowshipping the little ones, we may well be excluded from public priestly service in the house of God in this life, because those running the show generally exclude those who think in terms of an open table. But that is a cheap price to pay for entering the Kingdom. And we will be miserable excluded from His Kingdom if we make others stumble by acting in such a way as merely keeps us in with the religious powers that be, that keeps us fit&nbsp;<em>in their sight&nbsp;</em>for service. And this again is absolutely true to observation in the body of Christ. Those who are inclusive of little ones tend to be sidelined from public service by those who are decision makers within the ecclesia. But that is a cheap price for entrance to the Kingdom.&nbsp;</p><p>It\'s better to limp into the Kingdom than be rejected for self-righteousness. Surely there is an invitation here to see the limping Jacob, walking away from the encounter with the Angel, as our role model. The personality we will be in the Kingdom will reflect the struggles we have personally endured in this life. Relationships in the Kingdom of God will reflect these. Thus those who had consciously chosen to be eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom are comforted that in the Kingdom they will be given a name and place in God\'s temple better than of children in this life (Is. 56:5). All the faithful will be given a name and place in the temple; so what especial consolation was this to those eunuchs? Surely the point is that the name (personality) they will then have will gloriously reflect the self-sacrifice and personal Biblical understanding which they went through in this life. This alone proves that the reward will be individual. The Lord\'s picture of men entering the Kingdom without limbs is surely making the same point (Mk. 9:47); the result of our self-sacrifice in this life will be reflected by the personality we have in the Kingdom. And there is evidence that the Man we follow will still bear in His body, throughout eternity, the marks of the crucifixion (Zech. 13:6; Rev. 5:6). &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1854','1','41','9','44','44','<p>9:44 <em>Where their worm does not die and the fire is not put out</em>- Gehenna was the ravine south of Jerusalem where &lsquo;little ones&rsquo; had been sacrificed to Moloch (Jer. 7:31; 10:5,6; 39:35). So there is an appropriacy in this particular picture of condemnation. Those who stop others entering God&rsquo;s Kingdom and lead them to condemnation will share the same condemnation; what they did to others will be done to them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1855','1','41','9','45','45','<p>9:45 <em>And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is good for you to enter into life lame, rather than having your two feet and to be cast into Gehenna</em>- Mk. 9:43-47 spells out the details of the condemnation in laboured detail- if our eye offends, or causes us to offend others, then cut it off, for it is better to be without an eye in this life than to be condemned in Gehenna, where the worm and fire are \'eternal\'. And this is repeated concerning the hand and foot. We read of eye, hand and foot together in only one other context- of &quot;eye for eye... hand for hand, foot for foot&quot; being the punishment for damaging a \'little one\' within the womb of a woman (Ex. 21:24; Dt. 19:21). Nowhere else in Scripture do these three words occur together. By not receiving a little one, despising them and thus causing them to stumble, we are doing the equivalent of the Old Covenant sin of beating up a pregnant woman and causing handicap to the \'little one\' within her. It could be that the Lord is saying that we can be responsible for damaging those who have not yet come to spiritual birth, to the point that if they are born, then they will be born with serious defects which are our fault. And such defects will have been the result of not receiving them, even in their immature state. Thus the table practice of the Lord was to accept people at His table at whatever stage of their spiritual growth or journey, even those not as yet born again, not yet converted, not yet repentant... in order to try to bring them to that point.&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord Jesus spoke several times of taking up the cross and following Him. This is the life you have committed yourself to by baptism; you have at least tried to take up the cross. The full horror and shock of what He was saying doubtless registered more powerfully with the first century believers than with us. They would have seen men in the agony of approaching death carrying their crosses and then being nailed to them. And the Lord Jesus asked men to do this to themselves. Our takings up of the cross will result in damage- the plucked out eye, the cut off foot. And notice that the Lord says that we will enter lame into the eternal life, or enter the Kingdom with just one eye (Mk. 9:45-47). Surely this means that the effects of our self-sacrifice in this life will in fact be eternally evident in the life which is to come. The idea of <em>taking up </em>the cross suggests a conscious, decided willingness to take on board the life of self-crucifixion. Taking up the cross is therefore not just a passive acceptance of the trials of life.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1856','1','41','9','46','46','<p>9:46<em> Where their worm does not die and the fire is not put out- </em>The Jews believed that &lsquo;hell&rsquo; had three sections: Gehenna, a place of eternal fire and worms for those Jews who broke the covenant and blasphemed God; &lsquo;the shades&rsquo;, an intermediate place similar to the Catholic idea of purgatory; and a place of rest where the faithful Jew awaited the resurrection at the last day). This distinction has no basis in the Bible. However, it&rsquo;s significant that the Lord Jesus uses &lsquo;Gehenna&rsquo; and the figure of eternal fire to describe the punishment of people for what the Jews of His day would&rsquo;ve considered incidental sins, matters which were far from blasphemy and breaking the covenant &ndash; glancing at a woman with a lustful eye (Mk. 9:47), hypocrisy (Lk. 12:1,5; Mt. 23:27&ndash;33), not giving a cup of water to a &ldquo;little one&rdquo;, forbidding a disciple of John the Baptist to follow Jesus (Mk. 9:39&ndash;43); not preaching the Gospel fearlessly and boldly (Mt. 10:25&ndash;28). These matters were and are shrugged off as of no eternal consequence. But just like the prophets of Israel did, the Lord Jesus seizes upon such issues and purposefully associates them with the most dire possible punishment which His Jewish hearers could conceive &ndash; Gehenna. Time and again, the Bible alludes to incorrect ideas and reasons with people from the temporary assumption those ideas might be true. The language of demons, as we will show later, is a classic example. And it&rsquo;s quite possible the Lord is doing the same here with the concept of Gehenna &ndash; the punishment for the Jew who breaks the covenant and blasphemes. The Lord was primarily teaching about behaviour, not giving a lecture about the state of the dead. And so He takes the maximum category of eternal punishment known to His audience, and says that this awaits those who sin in matters which on His agenda are so major, even if in the eyes of the Jewish world and humanity generally they were insignificant.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1857','1','41','9','47','47','<p>9:47<em> And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out. It is good for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes and to be cast into Gehenna</em>-The personality we will be in the Kingdom will reflect the struggles we have personally endured in this life. Relationships in the Kingdom of God will reflect these. Thus those who had consciously chosen to be eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom are comforted that in the Kingdom they will be given a name and place in God\'s temple better than of children in this life (Is. 56:5). All the faithful will be given a name and place in the temple; so what especial consolation was this to those eunuchs? Surely the point is that the name (personality) they will then have will gloriously reflect the self-sacrifice and personal Biblical understanding which they went through in this life. This alone proves that the reward will be individual. The Lord\'s picture of men entering the Kingdom without limbs is surely making the same point (Mk. 9:47); the result of our self-sacrifice in this life will be reflected by the personality we have in the Kingdom. And there is evidence that the Man we follow will still bear in His body, throughout eternity, the marks of the crucifixion (Zech. 13:6; Rev. 5:6). &nbsp;</p><p>There\'s a radical in each of us, even if the years have mellowed it. The way to express it is surely through radical devotion to the Father\'s cause. On one hand, Jesus spoke to men as they were able to hear it, not as He was able to expound it. Yet on the other, He gave His radicalism free reign. The Sabbath miracles seem to have purposefully provoked the Jews. When He encouraged His men to rub the corn heads and eat them like peanuts as they walked through a field one Sabbath, He knew full well this was going to provoke confrontation. And he said what was anathema to the Jews: &quot;The Law was made for man and not man for the Law&quot;. Where there is human need, the law can bend. This was a startling concept for a Jew. Jesus described the essence of His Kingdom as mustard seed, which was basically a weed. It was like a woman putting leaven both symbols of impurity into flour. Surely the Lord was trying to show that His message was not so Heavenly that it was unrelated to earthly life. It was real and relevant to the ordinary dirty business of life. The woman who have everything she had was noted by the Lord as His ideal devotee. He taught that it was preferable to rid oneself of an eye or a limb and to sacrifice sex if that is for us the price of entry into the Kingdom (Mk. 9:45-47). The parable of the man who built bigger barns taught that in some senses we should in His service like there\'s no tomorrow. He expected His followers to respond immediately, to pay the price today rather than tomorrow, with no delay or procrastination. There is an emphasis in His teaching on immediacy of response, single-mindedness and unrestrained giving. This is radical stuff for 21st century people in the grip of manic materialism. &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1858','1','41','9','48','48','<p>9:48 <em>Where their worm does not die and the fire is not put out- </em>This threat is repeated several times here. The Lord is emphasizing that condemnation is for real; there is not only an eternal future we may miss, but the experience of condemnation, whilst not eternal, is a significant factor to bear in mind and be influenced by.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1859','1','41','9','49','49','<p>9:49<em> For everyone shall be salted with fire</em>-Having spoken of the destruction of the unworthy in Gehenna fire, the Lord went straight on to comment: &quot;For every one shall be salted with (Gk. \'for the\') fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted&quot; (Mk. 9:48,49 AV). Unless we become a living sacrifice, wholly consumed by God\'s fire, laying ourselves down upon the altar, then we will be consumed by the figurative fire of Gehenna at the day of judgment. Again, there\'s no real choice: it\'s fire, or fire. See on Mt. 3:11; Lk. 15:24.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1860','1','41','9','50','50','<p>9:50<em> Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its saltiness, with what will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another</em>- See on Rom. 12:18. The need for peace amongst ourselves as a community is brought out in the parable of the salt that lost its saltiness. Straight away, we&rsquo;re faced with a paradox- for true salt can&rsquo;t lose its saltiness, seeing that sodium chloride is a stable compound, free of impurities. Salt was a symbol in the Lord&rsquo;s teaching for having peace with one another. If we don&rsquo;t have this, we&rsquo;re not salt. If we&rsquo;re not any influence upon others, we&rsquo;re not salt. It&rsquo;s as simple as that.</p><p>The Lord realized that it was easy to have an apparent love and peace with our brethren, when actually we have nothing of the sort. In the context of His men arguing with John\'s disciples, the Lord told a small parable, in which He made having salt in ourselves equal to having peace with our brethren (Mk. 9:38-40; 49,50). He warned&nbsp;that salt which has lost its saltness looks just the same as good salt; but salt that has lost its saltiness is <em>nothing</em>, it\'s just a lump of substance. Surely He\'s saying: \'You may think you have peace and love for your brethren, when actually you don\'t; and if you don\'t have it, you\'re nothing, just a lump\'. Not without relevance He mentioned that every sacrifice had to have good salt added to it. His point was that all our devotion and sacrifice is meaningless if it lacks the <em>real</em> salt of true love for our brethren. Which is exactly the teaching of 1 Cor. 13. Love is a matter of deep attitude as shown in the small things of life, not the occasional heroism of (e.g.) giving our body to be burned. The command to have salt and therefore peace with each other (Mk. 9:50) is specifically fulfilled, Paul saw, by watching our words (= Col. 4:6).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1861','1','41','10','1','1','<p>10:1 <i>And he left there and went into the regions of Judea on the other side of the Jordan. Crowds gathered around him again, and as was his custom he taught them</i>- The significance is that this was the beginning of His journey to Jerusalem and death. The emphasis is upon the location of these mass healings- &ldquo;there&rdquo;, in Judea &ldquo;beyond Jordan&rdquo; (Mt. 19:1), a semi-Gentile area. The suggestion grows stronger and stronger that the future of His work is with the Gentiles.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1862','1','41','10','2','2','<p>10:2 <i>And there came to him Pharisees, who asked him- </i>Presumably &ldquo;there&rdquo;, beyond Jordan. They had maybe heard that He was there because of the rumours of great miracles, and yet they made the effort to go to Him there with their legalistic questions. Their petty legalism contrasts sharply with the wonder of His teaching and extent of His miracles. They tagged along with the crowds, for they &ldquo;also&rdquo; came unto Him.</p><p><i>Is it lawful for a man to send away his wife?- </i>The parallel record in Matthew 18 has the material arranged according to a chiasmic structure see note there. Within that structure, this teaching about divorce is parallel with the Lord&rsquo;s teaching about not despising little ones but rather unconditionally forgiving them (see notes on Matthew 18). It cannot therefore be accidental that there is a word play in the usage of the word&nbsp;<i>apoluo</i>, to &ldquo;put away&rdquo;, because the word is also used concerning forgiveness, the sending away of the sin of another, and releasing them from debt to us. The word has just been used in Mt. 18:27, where the gracious Lord &ldquo;loosed&rdquo; the wicked servant from his huge debt without repentance. And so the question here is whether a man could put away / forgive / release his wife &ldquo;for every cause&rdquo;. In a sense, the man was indeed to release / forgive his wife for every cause, for everything. But of course the Pharisees had in view the sense of sending away in divorce, and not forgiveness. The Lord surely means them to understand that they should send her away- in forgiveness.</p><p><i>For any cause?</i>- The standard interpretation is that the Pharisees were seeking to draw the Lord into taking a position behind&nbsp;either the school of Hillel (that a man might divorce his wife for any reason) or that of Shammai (divorce was allowable only for unfaithfulness). The Hillel school had justified Herod Antipas recent marriage on this basis, and he was likely to crack down on anyone teaching otherwise- this was obviously one reason they sought to lead the Lord into this whole minefield. But if so, the question arises as to why they should raise this issue with Him so apparently &lsquo;out of the blue&rsquo;. If the question was simply as to which rabbinic school the Lord supported on this issue, then it would seem that He quite clearly came down on the side of Shammai- &lsquo;for unfaithfulness&rsquo;. But whenever the Lord was given such questions, He always avoided giving such direct answers but rather elevated the issues to a much higher and yet more essential level. I suggest that what they found so shocking was His teaching about unconditional forgiveness regardless of the sincerity of repentance, and so they came to Him with the case of adultery in marriage- where surely, so they thought, there could be no forgiveness for adultery and in fact Moses commanded that a man divorce his wife in this case. Whichever rabbinic school the Lord supported, He would surely have to admit that there were some sins which could not just be forgiven but must be acted upon in terms of divorce and exclusion from the marriage. Their use of&nbsp;<i>apoluo</i>, to &ldquo;put away&rdquo;, was therefore a conscious allusion to the Lord&rsquo;s usage of the word in 18:27, where the gracious Lord &ldquo;loosed&rdquo; s.w. the wicked servant from his huge debt without repentance. So I would read the Pharisees here as implying: &lsquo;You claim a man must forgive his brother anything without checking out his repentance; but OK, can a man really forgive his&nbsp;<i>wife</i>&nbsp;&ldquo;every cause&rdquo;? And Moses surely did sanction divorce for some reasons, whether you go with Hillel &lsquo;every or any cause&rsquo; or Shammai for adultery&rdquo;. In terms of connection with the Lord&rsquo;s previous teaching, the Lord had taught that if someone sins against you, i.e. a personal offence, then you can drag them through the synagogue discipline system &ldquo;tell it to the&nbsp;<i>ekklesia </i>/ assembled meeting&rdquo;- although the higher level was unconditional forgiveness. For many listeners and readers, that teaching begs the very same question: &ldquo;OK, so far so good, Jesus&hellip; but really, literally, for every cause, in every case&hellip;?&rdquo;. The Pharisees are asking this question, assuming that they have the Lord trapped because Moses teaches divorce for some things. Of course, Moses doesn&rsquo;t &lsquo;teach divorce&rsquo;- there was a higher level. If your wife sinned against you, you could do as Hosea did, and simply forgive her, rather than making use of Mosaic concessions. Hence the Lord&rsquo;s answer is basically that any verses in the Law which might appear to teach divorce are in fact concessions to human weakness and not the ideal standard.</p><p><i>They asked this to test him</i>- Another hint that the source of &lsquo;testing&rsquo; in the wilderness which returned to the Lord later in His ministry was from the Jewish satan / adversary.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1863','1','41','10','3','3','<p>10:3 <i>And he answered and said to them: What did Moses command you?</i>- As noted on :4, the emphasis may be on &quot;command&quot;; they were citing a concession for human weakness, &quot;for the hardness of your hearts&quot;; but the Lord is perhaps arguing that a concession is not a command in the legalistic sense they wished to interpret it. Their legalism is reflected in how they don&rsquo;t simply say that Moses &lsquo;commanded&rsquo; divorce, but rather than Moses commanded a bill of divorce and then divorce. The legal aspect was all important to them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1864','1','41','10','4','4','<p>10:4 <i>And they said: Moses permitted a man to write a bill of divorcement and to send her away</i>- They had missed the point, that a concession &quot;for the hardness of your hearts&quot; is not a command. Their legalism required that if something was in the teaching of Moses, then this must be done. But they missed the point that there were actually levels of response within the Mosaic law. Adultery could be simply forgiven, dealt with through the trial of jealousy in Numbers 5, become the basis for divorce, or result in the woman being killed. Such a position is very hard for legalists to cope with, desiring as they do clear definition for every situation in life. Hence the Lord emphasized twice in this dialogue that divorce was a concession for their hard hearts.</p><p>&quot;A bill of divorcement&quot;,&nbsp;Gk.&nbsp;<i>Biblion apostasion</i>, literally this could be understood as &lsquo;A Bible / writing of apostasy&rsquo;. The &lsquo;lower level&rsquo; option of divorce for adultery was all part of a law which was &ldquo;holy, just and good&rdquo;, but it could so easily be misused and thus lead people into moral apostasy.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1865','1','41','10','5','5','<p>10:5- see on Dt. 31:9.</p><p><i>But Jesus said to them: For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment</i>- Moses allowed divorce for the hardness of Israel\'s hearts and yet Moses himself appears to have divorced his wife (Ex. 18:2)- for the hardness of his heart? See Dt. 20:14. This appears to be the second time in this discourse that the Lord talks about the way Moses had made a concession to their weakness- see on Mt. 19:4&nbsp;<i>Have you not read?</i></p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1866','1','41','10','6','6','<p>10:6 <i>But from the beginning of the creation: Male and female made He them</i>- It was Moses who wrote Genesis, under Divine inspiration. So the Lord was saying that actually, Moses within his own writings laid down a principle and yet also recorded a concession to weakness. This idea is so hard for the legalistic mind to accept- that within Divine law there are different levels, all is not black and white.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1867','1','41','10','7','7','<p>10:7<i> For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cling to his wife- </i>The cleaving or clinging spoken of in Genesis is a process; this is an example of how God can work directly upon the heart and psychology of persons to unite them. To give up on the process is therefore to go against what is potentially possible. And those who seek to interfere in and block that intended process, be they parents or extramarital lovers, are equally guilty. The clinging together is part of how God joins married, believing couples together (:9).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1868','1','41','10','8','8','<p>10:8 <i>And the two shall become one flesh; so that they are no more two but one flesh</i>- This appears to be a status, referring to marriage rather than solely to the sexual act. Because it is paralleled with &ldquo;what God has joined together&rdquo; and is not to be sundered.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1869','1','41','10','9','9','<p>10:9 <i>What therefore God has joined together- </i>As a couple &quot;cleave&quot; to one another, so they become one flesh (Gen. 2:24). But this becoming one flesh is interpreted by the Lord Jesus as meaning that God actively joins the couple together; as<i> they</i>&nbsp;cleave to each other in the process of their relationship, so&nbsp;<i>God</i>&nbsp;joins them together. Clearly the Lord understood Gen. 2:24 as speaking of the process of marriage, rather than simply the ceremony of a wedding. In passing, note that the Hebrew idea of two becoming one had already been used in Genesis- the morning and evening, the day and night, were fused by God into one day (Gen. 1:5- the same Hebrew phrase is used). Similarly we read of the waters becoming, or being made one, by God (Gen. 1:9). It\'s as if the immense power of God in creation is unleashed in His bonding of man and wife together. To put that asunder is to fight against the very creative power of God.</p><p><i>Do not let man- </i>By sundering relationships, we are pitting ourselves against the intentions and processes of God&rsquo;s Spirit and His actions amongst men. But of course we can indeed put asunder what God joined. He does not force His ways and processes upon people. The parallel see on :1 is with how we can refuse acceptance to the &lsquo;little ones&rsquo; by despising and not forgiving them. God&rsquo;s processes intend to create unity between His people as well as between marriage partners; but we can choose to disallow the effect of His work, both in our own lives and those of others. By rejecting people, the Lord had taught in the previous section of the chiasmus, we make them stumble and damage the &ldquo;little ones&rdquo;. And those same principles apply in marriage- the little ones are made to stumble, and the rejection of a marriage partner often leads them into sin, i.e. they are made to stumble. This I think is the sense of Mt. 5:32, that divorcing a partner causes her to commit adultery- i.e. we will lead her to a sinful life.</p><p><i>Divide</i>- See on :7. The dividing can be by other parties in addition to the two parties to the marriage. We are not to &quot;let&quot; them do that. The same Greek word is used in 1 Cor. 7:10,11,15 of how Paul allows for a wife to &ldquo;depart&rdquo; or &lsquo;sunder&rsquo; from her husband. Clearly, therefore, the Lord is presenting here an ideal state. But that presentation doesn&rsquo;t mean that God will not tolerate lower levels of living before Him. Man can put asunder what God has joined not simply in our own marriage. It can just as much be done by parents seeking to keep their children within the sphere of the family of origin, not letting go; by pressurizing one side of a marriage to adopt a position against their partner, etc. Especially is this true of those who demand that a believing husband or wife not have fellowship with their believing partner because of theological or &lsquo;fellowship&rsquo; differences.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1870','1','41','10','10','10','<p>10:10 <i>And in the house the disciples asked him about this matter</i>- We have recently read how again &quot;in the house&quot; the Lord had explained things further to His disciples (9:28,29, 33-37). This was His style; to provide deeper teaching to those who really wanted it.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1871','1','41','10','11','11','<p>10:11 <i>And he said to them: Whoever shall send away his wife and marry another, commits adultery against her</i>- The parallel in Matthew 19 includes the exception &quot;for<i> porneia</i>&quot;, adding that not all can accept His standards here.The Lord here seems to have in view a situation where a man proactively takes the decision to send his wife away. The implication could be that if he has to send her away, then she actually wishes to remain with him. The language of sending away surely implies she was still living with him. Therefore what is in view is a situation of unforgiveness on the part of the husband, and that is the entire context of this section of teaching which began in Matthew 18. The adultery was therefore a temporary situation and didn\'t involve the wife moving in with another man. In such a case, this whole passage is not directly relevant. The more general idea in Matthew 18 of dealing with personal sins against us is now focused down to the classic personal offence, the sin against us of a partner committing adultery. And let us note that the whole passage beginning in Matthew 18 is speaking of ideal standards, whilst the Lord is prepared to accept lower standards. Let\'s remember that in 1 Cor. 7 we are challenged that the single life of devotion to the Lord is the highest level, and marriage in itself is a concession to human weakness which most of us have made use of. And overarching all our thinking about this matter, especially in terms of our response to those who may divorce for not very solid reasons, we have the parable at the end of chapter 18. We are to see ourselves as chief of sinners, with an unpayable and huge debt to the Lord, compared to which all sin against us is of small account. We also need to remember that others\' behaviour to each other is not a sin against us. The teaching here is very personal- about how we are to respond to personal sin against us, and here the specific example of adultery within marriage is raised. This teaching is not really about how we should respond to the sins of others (e.g. divorce for the wrong reasons) which we observe from a distance.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1872','1','41','10','12','12','<p>10:12<i> And if she herself shall send away her husband and marry another, she commits adultery</i>-The Rabbis in the Lord&rsquo;s time were split into two schools on the question of divorce. One school taught that divorce was available for any reason, whilst the other said that it was only for sexual impurity. The question was put to Jesus as to when He thought divorce was possible. It seemed that He was going to be forced to take sides with one of the two contemporary attitudes. But He cut clean through the whole thinking of first century Israel by basing his argument on the principles of Eden: God created man and woman, and joined them together; therefore, He reasoned, the ideal standard is that there should be no divorce for any reason, including adultery. This is typical of His teaching; through radical and fundamental recourse to the Old Testament, His teachings cut right through all the conceptions and expectations which were present in the mind of first century Jewry as a result of their cultural conditioning. We too must cut through the cultural conditioning of our era. In the time of Jesus, Roman law allowed women to divorce their husbands; some of the women of Herod&rsquo;s family got divorces like this. The Lord was aware of this, and commented upon this local social attitude, roundly condemning it: &ldquo;If a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery&rdquo;. If the Lord was so unafraid to challenge local cultural attitudes towards women, why should we think that He merely went along with those local contemporary attitudes?</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1873','1','41','10','13','13','<p>10:13 <i>And they were bringing to him little children-</i> This continues the connection with the beginning of this section in Matthew 18, which began with a little child being brought to the Lord and Him making the disciples open their closed circle in order to accept the one whom they considered so far beneath them spiritually. He taught then, and teaches again here, that they were to see in the children symbols of themselves, in all their weakness and misunderstanding. In the same way as here the children are &ldquo;brought&rdquo; to Jesus, so we often read in the Gospels of people including the disciples being &ldquo;brought&rdquo; to Him. Their and our salvation depends partly upon others having brought us to Him.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>That he should touch them- </i>The Lord agrees to the request, blessing little ones for the sake of the efforts of third parties who bring them to Him (as in Mk. 2:5 and so often in the work of saving and curing men). As the children &lsquo;received&rsquo; this blessing, so the Lord urges the disciples to &lsquo;receive&rsquo; the things of the Kingdom- for Mk. 10:15 records the Lord&rsquo;s further comment that &ldquo;whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no way enter into it&rdquo;. Those children receiving His grace and blessing, all the more gracious because they received it thanks to others bringing them to it, represent each disciple who receives the grace and blessing of the Kingdom.</p><p><i>And the disciples rebuked them</i>- This is such a theme, of the disciples barring those who wanted to come to the Lord. We think of the Syro-Phoenician woman and other children, and the &quot;little ones&quot; of John\'s disciples. Such attitudes provoke the Lord\'s anger with us (:14).&nbsp; And they were doing this yet again despite the Lord&rsquo;s sober warning that turning away little ones is making them stumble, and will lead to eternal rejection from God&rsquo;s Kingdom. The disciples in their preaching, of which the Gospels are transcripts, were stressing how they had so failed to grasp this vital teaching.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1874','1','41','10','14','14','<p>10:14 <i>But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said to them: Permit the little children to come to me; forbid them not. For to such belongs the kingdom of God</i>-</p><p>The Lord rebuked the disciples for \'forbidding\' John\'s disciples and the little ones to come to Him (Mk. 9:38); and yet He uses the same word to describe how the lawyers hindered s.w. \'forbad\' people to enter the Kingdom. There\'s a very clear parallel here between the disciples and their Jewish teachers who had so influenced their thinking. But they finally got there- for Peter insisted that Gentiles should not be forbidden s.w. \'hinder\' baptism (Acts 10:47); and he uses the same word again when he says that now, he will not &quot;withstand s.w. \'hinder\' God in hindering people to come to Him (Acts 11:17). The awfulness of the disciples\' attitude is brought out by the use of the word in 1 Thess. 2:16, where Paul says that the way the Jews \'forbad\' or hindered the preaching of the Gospel was cause for the wrath of God to come upon them &quot;to the uppermost&quot;. And the disciples initially followed their Jewish elders in this kind of behaviour. In passing, there is a sober warning here to those who would likewise \'forbid\' baptism to those who sincerely seek it, and who will not allow &lsquo;little ones&rsquo; to the Lord&rsquo;s table.</p><p>Mk. 10:15 adds: &ldquo;Whoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no way enter into it&rdquo;. This is exactly how the whole section began in Matthew (18:3). The Greek for &ldquo;receive&rdquo; is often used about people accepting the Gospel. The implication is that one can receive the Gospel of the Kingdom of God- and yet not enter it, because we didn&rsquo;t receive it as a child. We didn&rsquo;t accept that we are the &lsquo;little ones&rsquo;, accepting we know so little, and just marvelling at the special grace being shown us which we accept in awed wonder. The language of &lsquo;entering the Kingdom&rsquo; is used both of our final entry into the Kingdom when Christ returns (Mt. 25:10,21; Jn. 3:5), and of our current entering the Kingdom. The rich man can enter the Kingdom right now if he sheds the load of his wealth (Mt. 19:23,24). The Scribes stopped and hindered those who were entering the Kingdom from entering, locking the door through which the Kingdom could now be entered, all because they chose not to enter themselves (Mt. 23:13; Lk. 11:52). So it&rsquo;s a case of &lsquo;Now but not yet&rsquo;. We do&nbsp;<i>now&nbsp;</i>enter into God&rsquo;s rest, and yet we are promised that we&nbsp;<i>will</i>&nbsp;enter that rest at Christ&rsquo;s return (Heb. 4:1-11). The Lord had warned that our righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes, or we will likewise not enter the Kingdom (Mt. 5:20); but that righteousness is in accepting the blessing of righteousness as a little child; for without&nbsp;<i>that</i>&nbsp;we shall not enter the kingdom. Those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom (Mt. 7:21)- and that will is to be as little children and accept gifts without seeking to justify ourselves or earn them.</p><p>The value of persons felt by the Lord is made very obvious when we notice His attention to women, children, Gentiles and the mentally ill / deformed. These three groups often occur together in the Rabbis&rsquo; teaching. The very people who were not counted as persons, the Lord went out of His way to express value for. And in this He sets us an example. Children were counted as of little value- but the Lord spoke about salvation for children (Mk. 10:14), and of the need to become like a child if we are to enter His Kingdom (Mt. 18:3). This purposeful recognition of the value of <i>all</i> human persons was a radical and difficult thing in His surrounding culture. And so it can be in ours too.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1875','1','41','10','15','15','<p>10:15 <i>Truly I say to you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no way enter into it</i>- The Greek word for &quot;receive&quot; is different to that used in Mt. 19:12, where the Lord bids those able to &quot;receive&quot; the highest standard concerning remarriage to do so. But the idea is surely the same. How do we \'receive\' His high standards and challenges in personal decision making? By receiving them as those children received His blessings, not arguing back, accepting whatever comes from His hand, not considering that we are in any position to do anything other than receive what He gives us. Note that the children&nbsp;<i>receiving</i>&nbsp;His blessings become, therefore, the pattern for our&nbsp;<i>receiving</i>&nbsp;His demands upon our personal living, our forgiveness even of adulterous partners, our rejection of legitimate options of remarriage in some cases in order to follow His higher standards. This is nothing less than profound.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1876','1','41','10','16','16','<p>10:16 <i>And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them</i>- His blessing was and is mediated without physical contact. The need for physical contact in order to receive blessing was embedded in the religious mentality of the time, and is seen to this day in so many rituals and traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. The sick woman thought to herself that if she could only&nbsp;<i>touch&nbsp;</i>Jesus, she would be made whole; but He responded that He made her whole because of&nbsp;<i>her faith</i>&nbsp;(Mt. 9:21,22). He was gently correcting her mistaken understanding of the power of touch. And yet the Lord made a concession to this misunderstanding by indeed touching the children as requested.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1877','1','41','10','17','17','<p>10:17<i> And as he was proceeding along the road, a man ran to him and kneeled before him, and asked him: Good Teacher, what shall I do- </i>This young man (Mt. 19:20) was a &quot;ruler&quot; (Lk. 18:18). To come to Jesus in a public place &quot;in the way&quot; and running- when rulers were supposed to never run in public but maintain decorum- all positively indicates a genuine belief in Jesus. Kneeling before Him was also a public sign of acceptance of Jesus as Lord. But he failed as so many do with respect to his wealth. He was a yuppie, a high flier, a rich young man who was also a &quot;ruler&quot;. And he wasn\'t going to give that up; his \'sincerity\' is shown by his sadness RV &quot;his countenance fell&quot; and his going away &quot;grieved&quot; (:22). This walking away is an anti-climax, not the expected outcome of all the devotion displayed. But the account is structured in this unexpected way to highlight the extraordinary significance of a person\'s attitude to wealth, and how this can make all their other devotion meaningless.</p><p>The man was clearly influenced by the Jewish idea that one supreme good deed (Mt. &quot;good thing&quot;) could assure the doer of salvation. This was particularly popular amongst the zealots, who considered that suicidal attacks on the Romans could assure them of salvation; the same mentality is to be found in Islamic suicide bombers today. But in His typical manner, the Lord doesn&rsquo;t address the misunderstanding but rather works with it. He ends up telling the man that if he sells all he has and gives to the poor, then he will have &ldquo;treasure in Heaven&rdquo;. This, therefore, isn&rsquo;t a global command to every Christian. It was designed especially for this young man who thought that just one great act of obedience would secure salvation. The Lord went along with this by giving him such an example; but added: &ldquo;And come and follow Me&rdquo;, thus gently correcting the idea that one great act is enough for salvation.&nbsp;</p><p>Rom. 7:19 is Paul&rsquo;s allusion here, where he laments that like the young man, the good that he would do same Greek words he finds himself unable to do because of the sin that dwells within him. But instead of walking away from the Lord as this man did, Paul threw himself upon the Lord&rsquo;s grace. This zealous young man was also understood by Peter as representative of us all; for he clearly alludes to him in 1 Pet. 3:10,11: &ldquo;He who would love life and see good days cp. the young man wanting to &ldquo;have eternal life&rdquo;&hellip; let him&hellip; do good&rdquo; (same Greek words).&nbsp;</p><p><i>That I may inherit eternal life?- </i>But Jesus had taught that the Kingdom of God on earth would be \'inherited\' by the poor and meek (Mt. 5:5). If the man had thought that one through, he would\'ve known the answer ahead of time. If he was rich and young, the chances are he had inherited his wealth- and he wanted to know how he could inherit eternity as well. He likely figured that money can buy everything- and in a strange way, the Lord was saying that the giving of wealth and inheriting eternity <i>are</i> in fact related, although actually ultimate \'goodness\' and acceptance with God can\'t come from any such work of obedience.</p><p>&ldquo;Inherit&rdquo; eternal life suggests he considered eternity a right that he must receive if he does only one great deed. The disciples heard the Lord assuring His people that those who follow Him will &ldquo;<i>have</i>&nbsp;eternal life&rdquo;, enter the Kingdom, enter into life, etc. But having heard all that, Peter asked: &ldquo;We have left all&hellip; what shall we&nbsp;<i>have</i>?&rdquo; (Mt. 19:27). The irony of it all is tragic. They&rsquo;d just been promised they would &ldquo;have&rdquo; eternal life. But that wasn&rsquo;t enough. Their focus was very much on this life; what shall we have&nbsp;<i>here and now</i>? They couldn&rsquo;t see very much beyond the present, past the curvature of their earth.&nbsp; Ruth&rsquo;s unnamed relative could have been her redeemer; but when he realized he would have to marry her and have children, and split up his fields into more strips so as to give those children an inheritance along with that of his existing children- he pulled out. He wouldn&rsquo;t &lsquo;mar his inheritance&rsquo;. He saw ahead to his death, to the next generation. His horizon was 20 years at most. But Boaz who didn&rsquo;t think like this established his spiritual inheritance eternally, and is therefore mentioned in the Lord&rsquo;s genealogy. Whilst the short sighted man passed off the page of history anonymously; his name wasn&rsquo;t preserved.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1878','1','41','10','18','18','<p>10:18<i> And Jesus said to him: Why do you call me good? None is good save one- God</i>-The extent to which this man from Nazareth, who sneezed and slept and thirsted as we do, was really God manifest in the flesh... this needs sustained personal meditation. That from the larynx of a Palestinian Jew really came forth the words of Almighty God; to the extent that it had to be said that never man spake like this man; and He Himself could assure us that heaven and earth would pass, but not His words (note the links with Ps. 102:25-27; Heb. 1:10-12)... that this man died for us... rose again, ascended... and now works His saving work for us, hour by hour. Mark records how a man once in an offhand way addressed the Lord Jesus as &ldquo;good master&quot;. The Lord&rsquo;s response was to say that if the man <i>really</i> accepted Him as &lsquo;good&rsquo; he ought to share His cross, and sell what he had and give to the poor. The real extent of Jesus&rsquo; goodness will move us to deep personal response, if we truly perceive it. <br />10:20 &quot;From my youth&quot;- but he was a &quot;young man&quot; (Mt. 19:20). Note the Lord\'s grace- instead of being turned away by the man\'s youthful arrogance, instead the Lord perceives the positive in him and loves him for it (:21). See on Mk. 10:40.</p><p>The Greek of the subsequent sentence may not mean that the Lord was implying &lsquo;Only God is good- I am not good&rsquo;. Translators have added a number of words to try to flesh out the meaning of the words. The sense could just as well be &lsquo;None is as good as the one God&rsquo;- and therefore, we should keep&nbsp;<i>His</i>&nbsp;commandments. In other words, the Lord is not so much saying that He Himself is not &lsquo;good&rsquo; but rather refocusing the man&rsquo;s direction away from Himself towards the Father. For the man had come running to Him asking what he should do in order to inherit or rightfully have eternal life. And the Lord is refocusing the man upon the Father and the Father&rsquo;s commandments. The Lord may therefore have a rhetorical sense in His question &lsquo;<i>why</i>&nbsp;do you call Me good?&rsquo;. His sense would have been: &lsquo;Why are you so keen to call me &ldquo;good&rdquo;, setting me on a level with God? Instead, focus on obeying God&rsquo;s commandments and tackle your hardest challenge- to give away your wealth, and then follow Me in the itinerant life towards the cross&rsquo;. The man&rsquo;s overly high and unrealistic view of Jesus, as if He were God Himself, was really an excuse for his own refusal to face the challenge of living the Christian life. Every false doctrine has a psychological basis, and the idea that Jesus is God and the Trinity are no different. To accept Jesus as less than God, as totally human, is a far deeper challenge to our living than accepting Jesus as being God Himself. If Jesus was human, sharing our own flesh, in which there dwells no good thing (Rom. 7:18), and yet was able to be perfect- this lays down a huge challenge to each of us. It&rsquo;s far less challenging to accept Jesus as God and therefore good and perfect by nature. This is why I suggest the Lord is probing&nbsp;<i>why</i>&nbsp;the man called Him &ldquo;good&rdquo;- and redirected him towards the need for keeping the commandments and living the committed life in practice. So we have here a passage of deep significance for discussions about the Trinity. The Lord cites the unity of God as meaning that He alone is ultimately &lsquo;good&rsquo;, and challenges the man who wanted to treat Him as God as to whether this was not just an excuse for not doing the hard work of following Him in practice.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1879','1','41','10','19','19','<p>10:19 <i>You know the commandments-</i> The question of course is why the Lord chose to repeat the last six commandments of the ten commandments. Perhaps He perceived that they had special relevance to this rich young ruler. Harry Whittaker makes an interesting but not totally convincing case that the rich young man here was Barnabas and these commands were very relevant to him as a Levite- see&nbsp;<i>Studies in the Gospels&nbsp;</i>chapter 148.</p><p><i>Do not kill. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not bear false witness. Do not defraud. Honour your father and mother</i>- Paul\'s references to the Gospels suggests that he had carefully meditated upon the passages to which he consciously alludes. The fact and way in which he&nbsp;<i>alludes</i>&nbsp;rather than quotes verbatim reflects the fact he had thought through and absorbed the teaching of the passages rather than learning them parrot fashion. Here the Lord Jesus combines two quotations from the Law: Ex. 20:12-16 followed by Lev. 19:18. Paul, in a different context, to prove a different point, combines those same two passages, although separating them by a brief comment (Rom. 13:9). This surely indicates that he had meditated upon how his Lord was using the Law, and mastered it so that he could use it himself.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1880','1','41','10','20','20','<p>10:20 <i>And he said to him: Teacher, all these things have I observed from my youth</i>- The record stresses the incongruity and inappropriacy of the young man&rsquo;s self-righteousness: &ldquo;The&nbsp;<i>youth</i>&nbsp;answered, all these have I kept from my&nbsp;<i>youth</i>&nbsp;up&rdquo; (Mt.). He was young- and he says that since a young man he had kept all the commands. Now the Lord doesn&rsquo;t lecture him about self-righteousness, nor does He point out that the young man is way over rating his own spirituality and obedience. Instead, the Master focuses on the positive- as if to say &lsquo;You are zealous for perfection? Great So, sell what you have and give to the poor. Go on, rise up to the challenge&rsquo;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1881','1','41','10','21','21','<p>10:21 <i>And Jesus observing him, loved him; and said to him: One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have and give it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven. And come AV: &quot;take up the cross and&quot; follow me</i>- &quot;You lack&quot; is s.w. to be destitute of. In response to the man\'s question &quot;What do I still lack?&quot; (Mt. 19:20). He lacked nothing materially, but therefore he lacked the important thing- treasure in Heaven. The word play involving \'lacking\' suggests that spiritual wealth and material wealth are opposites; likewise to give away treasure on earth is to as it were transfer it to Heaven. All this underscores the point that we can\'t have both. All our material wealth is to be given away in order to get spiritual treasure (Mt. 13:44). &quot;What you lack&quot; is parallel to the phrase Mt. 19:21 records: &quot;If you will be perfect / complete&quot;. The man could still have had a relationship with the Lord if he hadn\'t sold all; but he wanted perfection and went away from Jesus because he couldn\'t face up to the fact that he wasn\'t perfect, would be saved by grace and now by his own obedience. And so many \'perfectionists\' have done likewise. It\'s perhaps because of the man\'s tendency to perfectionism that the Lord prefaced His answer to the question by saying that even He wasn\'t completely &quot;good&quot; as God alone is &quot;good&quot; (10:18). The humanity of Jesus is therefore, in a way, an answer to \'perfectionism\'. Not that there is ultimately any such thing as \'perfectionism\', for it cannot be in man to be perfect. Perfectionism is merely an arrogant illusion. The record in Mt. 19:16,17 brings this out clearer- &quot;<i>Good</i> Master, what <i>good </i>thing shall I do... why do you call me &quot;<i>good</i>&quot;? There is none &quot;<i>good</i>&quot; but one, that is, God&quot;. The man thought that by his &quot;good&quot; deeds he could become as &quot;good&quot; as God, the only &quot;good&quot; One. And He walked away from Jesus because he was unable to accept that this is not in fact the case, and that even Jesus Himself stood as \'not good\' compared to God; He stood \'perfect\' with God by reason of the relationship He had with God, not solely on the basis of His good works. However, even total generosity and giving away of wealth will not bring total completeness. \'You lack one thing\' appears to be an allusion to Ps. 23:1 LXX: &quot;The Lord is my shepherd; not one thing is lacking to me&quot;. To take up the cross and follow the Lord Jesus as our shepherd, with the loss of material wealth this implies, is the essence of lacking nothing. For walking with Him is perfection, completeness, our everything.</p><p>The very fact that we want to rise up to the heights commends us to God. When the rich young man, in his zeal for righteousness, claimed: &quot;Master, all these have I observed from my youth&quot;, the Lord didn\'t rebuke him for self-righteousness; instead, He beheld Him (with His head cocked to one side?), He took a long wistful look at Him, and <i>loved him</i> (Mk. 10:21). The Lord had a wave of warmth come over Him for that arrogant young man, simply because He appreciated the evident spiritual ambition which was within him. It was for this reason that the Father so loved the Son. God caused the Lord Jesus to approach unto Him; &quot;for who would dare of himself to approach unto me?&quot; (Jer. 30:21 RSV). The Father confirmed the Son in His spiritual ambition, recognizing that very few men would rise up to the honour of truly approaching unto God.</p><p>The &ldquo;one thing&rdquo; lacking was to distribute his wealth, and to follow the crucified Christ. The two things seem therefore related; it was the wealth which was stopping the following of Christ. The man had come to the Lord asking what great deed he must do to obtain eternal life, and so he was aware of his obedience to the commandments. He obviously felt that obedience to Mosaic law was not going to be the basis of eternal life, and he sensed that there was some great deed he must yet achieve. Therefore &ldquo;What do I still lack?&rdquo; shouldn&rsquo;t be read as an arrogant statement that he lacked nothing because he had been legally obedient. Rather is it a genuine question, seeking a concrete, clear and achievable answer.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>We note that the Lord treated each person differently. Jesus approved Zacchaeus\' distribution of only half of his possessions- whilst demanding that the rich young man give away literally all. And He never seems to have demanded that those of His followers who owned houses should sell them. &nbsp;See on Mt. 19:16&nbsp;<i>What good thing.</i>&nbsp;The same principle is seen in His preceding teaching about divorce and remarriage- His ideal standard is not &lsquo;given&rsquo; to everyone, just as it is not a requirement of everyone that they sell and they have and give to the poor. The Lord taught that we receive the Lord\'s goods s.w. &quot;what you have&quot; on conversion to Him (Mt. 25:14). We resign all, but receive all. By giving away our earthly wealth, we directly receive wealth in Heaven. Lk. 12:15,33,44 make a sustained play on this Greek word: &quot;A man\'s life doesn\'t consist in the abundance of the&nbsp;<i>things which he possesses</i>&nbsp;s.w.... sell&nbsp;<i>what you have</i>&nbsp;s.w. and give alms... the Lord will make such a man ruler over all&nbsp;<i>that he has</i>&nbsp;s.w.&quot;. Whilst the specific command to the young man to sell all he had and give it to the poor was not in one sense universal, i.e. not a command to every believer, yet the spirit of it (according to Luke 12) is indeed to be followed by us all. We must at least &quot;forsake \'to bid farewell to\' all that we have s.w.&quot; (Lk. 14:33). The early believers did not \'say\' that anything they possessed s.w. was their own (Acts 4:32)- Luke surely intends us to connect this with his earlier record of how the Lord had taught that our attitude, at very least, must be that we do not really \'own\' those things which we apparently \'have\'.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The rich young man would fain have followed Jesus. But he was told that he must sell all that he had, give to the poor, and take up the cross to follow Christ (Mk. 10:21). Notice how the ideas of following Christ and taking up the cross are linked. The man went away, unable to carry that cross, that sacrifice of those material things that were dearest to him. Peter responds with the strong implication that he <i>had</i> done all these things, he was following the Master, and by implication he felt he was carrying the cross. Notice the parallels between the Lord&rsquo;s demand of the young man, and Peter&rsquo;s comment (Lk. 18:22 cp. 28; Mk. 10:21 cp. 28):&nbsp;</p><div align=center><table border=0 cellspacing=10 cellpadding=0>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td width=355 valign=top>            <p>            &ldquo;Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor</p>            </td>            <td width=355 valign=top>            <p>&ldquo;We have left all</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=355 valign=top>            <p>&hellip;and come, take up the cross</p>            </td>            <td width=355 valign=top>            <p>no comment by Peter</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=355 valign=top>            <p>and follow me&rdquo;</p>            </td>            <td width=355 valign=top>            <p>&hellip;and have followed you&rdquo;</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table></div><p>Peter seems to have subconsciously bypassed the thing about taking up the cross. But he was sure that he was really following the Lord. He blinded himself to the inevitable link between following Christ and self-crucifixion; for the path of the man Jesus lead to Golgotha. We have this same tendency, in that we can break bread week after week, read the records of the crucifixion at several times / year, and yet not let ourselves grasp the most basic message: that we as followers of this man must likewise follow in our self-sacrifice to that same end.</p><p>&quot;Take up <i>the</i> cross, and follow me&quot; is inviting us to carry Christ\'s cross with Him- He speaks of &quot;<i>the </i>cross&quot; rather than \'<i>a</i> cross\'. The Greek translated &ldquo;take up&quot; is that translated \'to take away\' in the context of Christ taking away our sins. Strong says that it implies &quot;expiation&quot; (of sins). This connection, between <i>our</i> taking away / up the cross, and Christ\'s taking away our sins, suggests that the efficacy of His cross for us depends upon our daily \'taking up the cross\'. It is vital therefore that we &ldquo;take up the cross&quot; if our sins are to be taken away by Him. Of course we cannot literally take up the Lord\'s cross. Taking up the cross must therefore refer to an attitude of mind; it is paralleled with forsaking all that we have (Lk. 14:27,33), which is surely a command to be obeyed in our <i>attitudes</i>. &quot;Take up&quot; is translated \'take on\' when we read of \'taking on\' the yoke of Christ, i.e. learning of Him (Mt. 11:29). To take up the Lord\'s cross, to take on His yoke, is to learn of Him, to come to know Him. Yet do we sense any <i>pain</i> in our coming to know Christ? We should do, because the cross was the ultimate symbol of pain, and to take it up is to take on the yoke, the knowledge, of Christ. Consider the contexts in which the Lord spoke of taking up His cross:</p><p>(1) In Luke 9:23-26 He tells the crowds that they have come to His meetings because of the intriguing miracles of the loaves and fishes. The Lord is saying: \'Don\'t follow me because of the loaves and fishes; take up my cross\' <br />(2) The rich young man was willing to be obedient in everything apart from parting with his wealth. In this context, of asking the most difficult thing for him to do, Christ spoke of taking up His cross - in the man\'s case, giving up his wealth. <br />(3) The command to take up the cross in Matt. 10:38 is in the context of Christ\'s description of the family problems which would be caused by responding to His word. Presumably some were willing to follow Christ if they didn\'t have to break with their families; but Christ asks them to take up the cross in this sense.</p><p>In all of these cases people were willing to follow Christ- but only insofar as it didn\'t hurt them. They were unwilling to take on board the idea of consciously deciding to do something against the grain of their natures and immediate surroundings. Yet this is what taking up the cross is all about, and it is vital for our identification with the Lord. It is very easy to serve God in ways which reinforce the lifestyles we choose to have anyway; it is easy to obey Divine principles only insofar as they compound our own personality. By doing so we can deceive ourselves into thinking that we are spiritually active when, in reality, we have never walked out against the wind, never picked up the cross of Christ. Israel were an empty vine, without fruit in God\'s eyes- because the spiritual fruit they appeared to bring forth was in fact fruit to themselves (Hos. 10:1).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1882','1','41','10','22','22','<p>10:22 <i>But this teaching saddened him, and he went away sorrowful</i>- Walking away from Jesus in sorrow is a picture from the scenes of the final judgment. In this case, the man rejected himself, he chose to walk away- just because he couldn\'t accept that he wasn\'t perfect. Literally the Greek means that he became overcast, as the sky clouding over. His joy, therefore, was because he had wrongly assumed that he could do some simple dramatic act well within his comfort zone, and thus attain an assurance of salvation. But his face clouded over when he realized that he was being called outside of his comfort zone. This is an exact picture of the disillusion which clouds so many once they perceive that the call of Christ is not to a mere social club or to surface level religion.&nbsp;</p><p>&quot;He went away&quot; is significant because the entire section starting from Mt. 18:1 is purposefully framed so that the incidents connect with each other. The Lord had welcomed the little children to come to Him, and rebuked the disciples for forbidding them. This young man- also a \'little one\'- went away from the Lord. The implication is that the little children had more spirituality and devotion to Christ than this man. The exhortation to become like little children therefore meant that whatever stops us coming to Him must be jettisoned- and for this \'young one\', it was his wealth.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The man walked away, whereas if he had cast himself upon the Lord\'s grace, or better still, sold what he had and given to the poor, then he could have right then begun to enter into the Kingdom. We begin entering the Kingdom right now; we are, according to another teaching, walking on the road to the judgment, and must get right with our brother who walks on the way there with us. The parable of the camel (i.e. the rich would-be believer) being unloaded of its wealth before it enters the city (Mt. 19:23,24) represents a rich man entering the Kingdom (the city = the Kingdom, as in Rev.22:14; 21:2; Heb.13:14; 11:16; a city can also represent believers). If he sheds his riches now, it follows he is then able in some sense to enter the Kingdom now. This mini parable is in the context of Mt. 19:21: &quot;Sell that thou hast... and thou shalt have (now) treasures in (the Kingdom of) Heaven&quot;. This is the same idea as in Mt. 18:4: &quot;Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child (which necessitates parting with riches etc.), the same is (now) greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven&quot;. In these few words is our highest challenge.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>For he was one that had great possessions</i>- Again Luke\'s record of the early church alludes here, speaking of how possessions were sold and the money distributed to the poorer believers (Acts 2:45; 5:1 s.w.).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1883','1','41','10','23','23','<p>10:23 <i>And Jesus looked around, and said to his disciples: How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God- </i>&quot;Have wealth&quot; is paralleled, or expanded, in 10:24, with &quot;them that trust in riches&quot;. To have wealth is to trust in it. Hence the danger of it- wealth militates against faith. Hence Paul warned &quot;them that are rich in this world that they... <i>trust not</i> in uncertain riches but in the living God&quot; (1 Tim. 6:9,10).</p><p>The sense is not simply that it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom, but that he shall enter with difficulty. The Lord goes on to say that such shall enter the Kingdom only by God\'s grace and possibility of saving those who do not rise up to the higher levels that He bids us to (Mt. 19:26). In what, then, is the hardness or difficulty- if God is willing to accept our living on lower levels? The difficulty is in not walking away from Christ as the young man did, because of our pride; what is hard is to be like a child, the model throughout this entire discourse, and simply accept God\'s grace in Christ.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1884','1','41','10','24','24','<p>10:24 <i>And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus continued and said to them: Children How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God</i>- The disciples were so immature that they thought wealth was a sign of Divine blessing. And were astonished to hear that it\'s really hard for wealthy people to be saved. Hence, in loving pity at their immaturity, the Lord addresses them as &quot;Children...&quot;. See on Lk. 18:24.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1885','1','41','10','25','25','<p>10:25 <i>It is easier for a camel to go through a needle\'s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God</i>- I go with the old explanation that this is an allusion to a loaded camel needing to be unloaded of its \'wealth\' so that it could squeeze through the pedestrian gate- a call to become human, to realize we are naked before God, and our wealth adds nothing to us. Mark\'s record uses a term for &quot;the eye of a needle&quot; which the Septuagint always uses for &quot;the holes of the rocks&quot; (e.g. Jud. 6:2; 15:8,11; Jer. 13:4; 16:16), from whence we see the idea of a hole in the rocky city walls.</p><p>This is such a powerful lesson. And it\'s so simple. It doesn\'t need any great expositional gymnastics to understand it. Like me, you can probably remember a few things very vividly from your very early childhood. I remember my dear dad showing me this as a very young child, with a toy camel and a gate drawn on a piece of paper. And I saw the point, at four, five, maybe six. It is&nbsp;<i>so clear</i>. But what of our bank balances now, now we\'re old and brave? It\'s easier for a camel, the Lord said. Why? Surely because someone else unloads the camel, he (or she) has no say in it. But in the story, surely we must be the camel who unloads himself, who shakes it all off his humps, as an act of the will. And as we\'ve seen, the spirit of all this applies to every one of us, including those without bank accounts.</p><p>The camel must shed its load of riches and goods, so that it can pass through the gate into the Kingdom. But we are doing that right now We will pass through the gate into the Kingdom when the Lord returns (Rev. 22:14), and yet through shedding our materialism, we do it now. John puts it more bluntly and yet more absolutely: now, through the life of faith, we have the eternal life, in that we begin to live now the type of life which we will eternally live. We receive the Kingdom of God here and now, in that we receive the Gospel of the Kingdom; and if we accept it as a little child, we begin to enter it, now- in that the lives we live determine whether or not we will enter it at the Lord&rsquo;s coming. We are on our way into life We have received the Kingdom, our names were written from the foundation of the world, and only our falling from grace can take that away. This is almost too good news to believe. &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1886','1','41','10','26','26','<p>10:26 <i>And they were astonished exceedingly, saying to him: Then who can be saved?</i>-</p><p>They were really so shocked that wealth made it hard to enter the Kingdom, implying they were strongly persuaded that wealth was a gift from God and a sign of His approval of a man. This of course was quite foreign to the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount and other teaching of the Lord, and Matthew uses this strong term to highlight how far they had been from understanding His most basic teachings.</p><p><i>&quot;</i>Who <i>can</i> be saved?&quot; translates the same word the Lord uses in the next verse to say that with God, even the saving of the wealthy who don\'t quit their wealth is &quot;possible&quot;- on the basis, therefore, of His willingness to accept a lower standard of achievement to that He ideally requires. And this is in the context of His offering a lower standard to unconditional forgiveness in Mt. 18 (you can not do this if your brother sins against you, and instead drag him through the synagogue disciplinary process), and His demand for forgiveness of adultery (although if you fail in this you can take the lower level and divorce your partner- if it is not \'given\' to you to accept that standard).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1887','1','41','10','27','27','<p>10:27 <i>Jesus, observing them, said- </i>The Lord maintained eye-contact with His listeners: Mt. 19:26; Mk. 3:5,34; 5:32; 8:33; 10:21, 23,27; Lk. 6:10; 20:17; 22:61; Jn. 1:42. These are all separate occurrences; the fact is really being emphasized. This paying appropriate attention with eye contact is also a good strategy for matching the silences that occur from time to time in any serious conversation.&nbsp; Most of us can tell when another is thinking by&nbsp;observing the eyes, and when they are not their eyes will tell you. The way the Lord Jesus had of lifting up His eyes was something which evidently struck the Gospel writers (Lk. 6:20; Jn. 6:5; 11:41; 17:1 cp. the emphasis upon the eyes of the risen Lord in Rev. 1:14; 2:18; 5:6; 19:12).</p><p><i>With men it is impossible, but not with God-</i> The status of&nbsp;<i>para&nbsp;</i>God is often applied to the Lord Jesus (Lk. 2:52; Jn. 6:46; 8:40; 16:27; Acts 2:33). The suggestion could be that because of the status of the Lord Jesus with the Father, such gracious salvation is possible which would be impossible if men simply had to have the steel will to obey the Father&rsquo;s ideal principles.</p><p><i>For all things are possible with God</i>- Lifted from the Septuagint of the word to Sarah about the birth of Isaac (Gen. 18:14). Those Old Testament heroes were not merely stained glass figures- our own belief in salvation regardless of wealth is as dramatic as the belief of an old woman that she could have a child. The context here, however, is talking of how those who choose a lower level- in this case,&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;selling their wealth and giving to the poor- can still be saved by God&rsquo;s gracious possibility. This harmonizes with the whole theme of :12, that to some is &lsquo;given&rsquo; the possibility of living on the idea level regarding divorce and remarriage, but if that cannot be attained to, then God will still accept us.</p><p>There are at least two instances in the Gospels where the Lord Jesus is quarrying his language from the book of Job, and shows a certain identification of himself with Job. Here the Lord explains the irrelevance of riches to the spiritual good of entering the Kingdom, saying that &quot;with God all things are possible&quot;- without money. This is almost quoting Job 42:2, where Job comes to the conclusion that all human strength is meaningless: &quot;I know that You can do everything&quot;. It may be that Jesus is even implying that through the tribulation of his life he had come to the same conclusion as Job.&nbsp;See too Mt. 5:27-30.</p><p>Having said that it is so hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom- as hard as for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle- the Lord comments that &lsquo;what is impossible with man, is possible with God&rsquo; (Mk. 10:27). In first century Palestinian Judaism, this saying was a kind of figure of speech for describing a miracle. If any rich person gets into the Kingdom- it will be a miracle. That&rsquo;s what the Lord is saying. And He says it to us today. Generosity alone, of course, won&rsquo;t bring us into the Kingdom. It&rsquo;s not as if we can buy our way in. But there are major implications that our attitude to wealth is in fact a crucial indicator of whether or not we will be there.<br />Having explained &ldquo;how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom&rdquo;, the Lord went on to comment: &ldquo;With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible&rdquo; (Mk. 10:25,27). It is impossible for a rich man to be saved, He seems to be saying. And as we seek to convert the rich and self-satisfied in the societies in which we live, this does indeed seem the case. But although on one hand it <i>is</i> an impossibility, yet not with God: for He desires to seek and save the rich too. And indeed He does, achieving what with men is impossible. And the Father seeks to impress His positive attitude upon us.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1888','1','41','10','28','28','<p>10:28 <i>Peter began to say to him: We have left all</i>- The family based structure of the first century is hard to fully empathize with from our distance. Family was all. Peter comments that the disciples had &ldquo;left our own homes&rdquo; (Lk. 18:28 RVmg.), and the parallel here says &ldquo;left&nbsp;<i>all</i>&rdquo;. Your home was your all. To have to leave it for the sake of Christ was the most fundamental thing you could do. Hence the real meaning in the first century of the Lord&rsquo;s response that such converts would receive families in this life, i.e. in their relationships in the ecclesia. And yet the radical call of Christ is no less demanding and intrusive as men and women meet it today, the only difference being that the starkness of the choices is less pronounced today- but just as essentially real.</p><p>I have repeatedly mentioned that the material here is strongly related to that in Mt. 18. The Greek here for &ldquo;left / forsook all&rdquo; is identical to that in Mt. 18:32: &ldquo;I&nbsp;<i>forgave&nbsp;</i>you&nbsp;<i>all</i>&rdquo;. Peter had balked at the idea of &lsquo;forgiving all&rsquo;. It is easier to &lsquo;forsake&rsquo; s.w. &lsquo;forgive&rsquo; all material things than to&nbsp;<i>forgive</i>&nbsp;all. This explains why the incident of the rich young man follows the teaching about the need to forgive all. He would not forsake all, just as some would not forgive all. Peter claims to have forsaken all, and yet it&rsquo;s apparent that he struggled with the idea of&nbsp;<i>forgiving&nbsp;</i>all, thinking that seven times / day was more than generous enough of him. Likewise one wonders whether Peter had really forsaken all materially- he still had a wife, and apparently his fishing boats back in Galilee, to which he returned after the Lord&rsquo;s resurrection.</p><p>Was Peter really correct to say that he had really &ldquo;left all&rdquo;? He evidently had in mind how he had left his nets and walked away, following Jesus (Mk. 1:18). Then he thought he was following Jesus in the way the Lord demanded. For some time later, the Lord &ldquo;entered into one of the ships, which was (i.e. still, at that time) Simon&rsquo;s&hellip;&rdquo; (Lk. 5:1). Peter had been fishing all night in Jn. 21:3- strange, for a man who had so dramatically left his nets to respond to the Lord&rsquo;s call. But after the miraculous catch of fishes, Peter &ldquo;forsook all, and followed him&rdquo;. Note that Mark&rsquo;s Peter&rsquo;s Gospel omits many incidents, but also uses the device of repetition to stress what the writer considers significant. Thus in Mk. 1:16 Peter tells us twice that he <i>was</i> a fisherman cp. 14:68. By the time of Lk. 18 and the conversation with the rich young man, Peter was confident he had forsaken all. But &ldquo;I go a fishing&rdquo; (Jn. 21:3) would suggest that even this forsaking of all had not been so dramatic. The boats were still there. Peter still carried his fishing tackle round with him in his pack (Mt. 17:27). The Lord had taught that following Him meant not just leaving behind for a moment, but selling up and giving the money to the poor. This Peter had not done. But he assumed that because he was physically following Jesus, well therefore what the Lord demanded of the rich young man, he had as good as done; for that young man wouldn&rsquo;t follow Jesus, but Peter would. It is easy to understand how Peter reasoned- for the fact we are&nbsp;apparent followers of the Lord in a world which chooses to reject Him, can lead to an assumption that we must of course be following just as He asks of us.</p><p><i>And have followed You</i>- Just as Peter&rsquo;s claim to have &ldquo;left all&rdquo; was perhaps questionable, likewise Peter seems to have under-estimated what &lsquo;following Christ&rsquo; really meant- for the idea of carrying the cross is strongly connected with following Christ (Mt. 10:38; 16:24). And Peter failed to carry that cross to the end, for he denied the Lord when the going got tough.</p><p>Peter had the impression that by forsaking all and following the Lord, he would somehow benefit. He still had to learn that the carrying of the cross is not to be motivated by any desire for personal benefit, spiritual or otherwise. We live in a world in which religion, like everything else, is seen as a means toward some personal benefit. If we love the Lord, we will follow Him, wherever the life in Him leads us; purely for love of Him, and recognition that His way is the way to glorifying the Father. Peter had left all, but expected something back. For the excellency of fellowshipping the sufferings of the future Saviour, Moses gave up all the riches of Egypt. The Lord responded by saying that nobody who had left all&nbsp;<i>for His Name\'s sake</i>&nbsp;would go unrewarded (Mt. 19:29). The riches, the surpassing excellence of Christ, all the things tied up in His Name, these were not appreciated at that time by Peter. They are enough, purely of themselves, to make a man count all things as dung. Later, he understood this. He told the lame man that the silver and gold which he had was the salvation possible in the Name of Jesus (Acts 3:6). Peter rejoiced that he was counted worthy to suffer shame for the Name, and he preached in that Name. There is quite some emphasis on this: Acts 2:21,28; 3:6,16; 4:10,12,30; 5:41. Now he had learnt his mistake, or rather he realized the poverty of his understanding of the Lord. He now found the excellency of the Lord\'s Name an imperative of itself to witness to it. Likewise &quot;for his name\'s sake they went forth&quot; in obedience to the great preaching commission (3 Jn. 7; Rev. 2:3). &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1889','1','41','19','28','28','<p>19:28&nbsp;<i>And Jesus said to them: Truly I say to you: You who have followed me-&nbsp;</i>This is in response to Peter\'s claim that they had &quot;left all and followed You&quot; (:27). The Lord doesn\'t include Peter\'s claim that they had &quot;left all&quot;, but rather focuses upon the \'following Me\'. This may well have been because He knew that Peter had not in fact &quot;left all&quot; to the degree that Peter thought he had (see on :27). They hadn&rsquo;t then grasped the idea of what really following involved; they hadn&rsquo;t in one way or another laid down their lives with Christ. And then there is the problem of &ldquo;twelve&rdquo;. Judas didn&rsquo;t follow to the end, and will not sit upon a throne in the Kingdom. The Lord surely means, therefore: &ldquo;You who will have followed me&hellip;&rdquo;. Or is that He spoke of &ldquo;the twelve&rdquo; as a title for the group of disciples, and what He meant was that even at that early stage He counted their desire to follow Him to the cross as if they had done it? We must see our failing, following brethren likewise. He counted His sheep as following Him (Jn. 10:27) even then, although he knew they were not then strong enough to follow Him to the end (Jn. 13:36). The risen Lord especially wanted the women to tell Peter that He was &lsquo;going before him&rsquo; to Galilee (Mk. 16:7)- with the implication that even in his weakness and dejection, He wanted Peter to still try to follow Him and re-live the cross in his life.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1890','1','41','10','29','29','<p>10:29 <i>Jesus said: Truly I say to you. Whoever leaves house, or brothers, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands for my sake and for the gospel\'s sake</i>- This list of things to be forsaken recalls the language of the Levites forsaking these things in order to serve God (Ex. 32:26-29; Dt. 33:8-10). The secular disciples again are encouraged to see themselves as the Levites of the new Israel the Lord was creating. Mt. 19:27-30 has a series of extended allusions to the fact that we are now the priesthood. The Lord speaks of how His followers will each have left mother, brother etc. to serve Him, referring to how Moses blessed Levi for forsaking these very things so as to God\'s service (Dt. 33:9). But He also spoke of how they would forsake houses and lands for His sake and the Gospel\'s- a reference to the way the Levites resigned their right to physical inheritance in the land for the sake of their relationship with God and the work they were called to. In the same way as Moses predicted that the Levites would be materially blessed even now as a result of their dedication (Dt. 33:11), so the Lord made the same promise. And there is no Christian who has heart and soul committed themselves to the Gospel\'s work, either in the world or amongst their brethren, who has not lived to see the truth of this definition of priesthood.</p><p><i>&quot;</i>For My Name&rsquo;s sake<i>&quot; </i>is parallel with<i>&nbsp;</i>&ldquo;The kingdom of God&rsquo;s sake&rdquo; (Lk. 18:29). The things of the Name and the things of the Kingdom were therefore not two different things, rather were they different ways of referring to the same realities.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1891','1','41','10','30','30','<p>10:30 <i>Will receive in return, in this present season, a hundredfold houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, and with them persecutions; but in the age to come, eternal life</i>- The Lord&rsquo;s prophecy that the believer receives fathers, mothers, houses, lands etc. only has its fulfilment insofar as the ecclesia is willing to share these things and relationships with its members. But the condition of the fulfilment was&nbsp;not explicitly stated. We forsake all human relationships to follow the Lord Jesus. And He promises to compensate for this even in this life. But it depends to what extent we are willing to accept and perceive it. Through meaningful fellowship with our brethren we will find those relationships which we have given up compensated for, even if we aren&rsquo;t physically close to our brethren. In reference to Israel&rsquo;s deliverance from Egypt we read: &ldquo;God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains&rdquo; (Ps. 68:6). To be set in a new family is paralleled with being brought out from slavery. Part of the process of our redemption is that we are set in a new ecclesial family. This must be a reference to how Israel were brought out on Passover night, where the families and lonely ones had to join together into households big enough to kill a lamb for. The implication of Ps. 68 could be that it was in these family groups that they travelled through the wilderness. The N.C.V. reads: &ldquo;God is in his holy Temple. He is a father to orphans, and he defends the widows. God gives the lonely a home. He leads prisoners out with joy...&rdquo;. The very house / family of God becomes the house / family of the lonely. Hence the ecclesia&nbsp;<i>is</i>&nbsp;the house of God (1 Cor. 3:16). We find true family in the new family of God. By baptism we are &ldquo;added together&rdquo; with those others who are likewise saved in Christ (Acts 2:47 RVmg.). We will live together eternally with the other members of this new body and community which we enter. The links between us within that new family are even stronger than those with our natural family; and hence any division amongst the family of God is the greatest tragedy. What this means in practice is that we must fellowship each other. Even if we are isolated from other believers, one can always write letters, make phone calls, invite others to visit them, attempt to meet others&hellip;</p><p><i>&quot;</i>Inherit eternal life&quot; are the very words of the rich young man (Mk. 10:17). The answer to that man&rsquo;s question was that we have to lose now, if we are to win eternally; we must forsake material things if we are to inherit the life eternal. As he was only a young man, it&rsquo;s likely that his wealth had been inherited. He was being told that the greatest inheritance was of life eternal, but this didn&rsquo;t come easily nor by good luck or circumstance, but in response to a lifetime of following Jesus. The things which were to be forsaken include putting the records in Mark and Luke together with Matthew: family, brothers, sisters, father, mother, lands, houses etc. These were all the things which the young man had received by inheritance, and to forsake association with his family, on behalf of whom he had received his wealth, would&rsquo;ve been crazy and social suicide. It was as crazy as trashing a winning lottery ticket and walking away the same you were before you bought it. But this is the radical calling of those who must forsake materialism in order to inherit eternity. Therefore all seeking for material advantage in this life is surely inappropriate if in fact we are to forsake it even if it comes to us without our seeking it.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1892','1','41','10','31','31','<p>10:31 <i>But many that are first shall be last and the last, first</i>- The context is of the Lord having taught that a rich man&nbsp;<i>must</i>&nbsp;shed his wealth in order to enter the Kingdom,&nbsp;<i>but</i>&nbsp;God&rsquo;s grace is such that He is prepared to save the rich who<i> don&rsquo;t</i>&nbsp;do that. With God this is &ldquo;possible&rdquo;. Chapters 18 and 19 have demonstrated the idea of living on different levels. The Lord had told the rich young man that if he &ldquo;would be perfect&rdquo;, then he should sell all he had and give it to the poor. In this amazing comment at the conclusion of the section, we learn that in fact &ldquo;many&rdquo; who are first in this life&nbsp;<i>and choose to remain first</i>&nbsp;shall still be saved, although they will be &ldquo;last&rdquo; in the Kingdom. The same word for &ldquo;last&rdquo; is used in the parable which speaks of believers having to take the &ldquo;last&rdquo; or &lsquo;lowest&rsquo; place around the Lord&rsquo;s table (Lk. 14:9,10). There are and will be gradations between the Lord&rsquo;s people, both now and eternally. Those who are &ldquo;first&rdquo; in this brief life, retaining their wealth when they should not, shall be saved by grace but will be the least in the Kingdom. Whereas those who are the least in this life, or make themselves the least, will become the first in God&rsquo;s Kingdom.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1893','1','41','10','32','32','<p>10:32 <i>And they were on the road heading up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was walking ahead of them- </i>This could refer to the uphill journey, but &lsquo;going up&rsquo; was a technical term used for going up to Jerusalem, particularly to keep a feast- Passover, in this case. They were going &quot;up&quot; from Jericho, Mt. 19:15. Hence they went &ldquo;up&rdquo;, uphill to Jerusalem. These small details all support the position that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses and were not created many years later by people who were not present. They were going the opposite direction of man in the parable of the Good Samaritan, who went&nbsp;<i>down</i>&nbsp;from Jerusalem to Jericho. We may be able to infer that the Lord intended us to read that man as one who was not going in the way of the cross, who was going away from Jerusalem rather than towards it- and who was still saved by the grace of the Samaritan / Jesus.&nbsp;</p><p><i>And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve aside- </i>The implication is that there were others travelling with them, and the Lord wished to explain the reality of the cross to the disciples alone.</p><p><i>He began to tell them what was to happen to him</i>- Tragically He so often sought to explain to the disciples about the cross; and yet always they met His efforts either with silence, or with irrelevant changing of the subject, or even protest, in Peter&rsquo;s case. The tragic mismatch between the Lord&rsquo;s cross and the mind of the disciples is brought out in Mk. 10:32-40. Having set His face to go up to Jerusalem, the Lord &ldquo;went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid&quot;. The words imply that He took the lead and walked forcefully a few paces ahead of them in a startling manner. &ldquo;If anything in the Gospels has the stamp of real and live recollection upon it, it is this&quot;. His mind was evidently dwelling in His forthcoming death, in which He may well have foreseen that He would be crucified with sinners on His right and left. But then two of the disciples respond to His prediction of the cross by asking that <i>they</i> should sit on His right and left hand in glory over the others. Here we see, on the Gospel writers own admission, the paucity of their effort to grasp the real message of the cross. May it not be so with us. May we at least strive to enter into His struggle, and be moved to a true and unpretended humility by it.</p><p>There was something in His body language during His last journey to Jerusalem which was nothing short of terrifying to the disciples: &quot;They were amazed; and as they followed Him, they were afraid&quot; (Mk. 10:32-34). All this came to a climax in His extreme sweating in Gethsemane as the great horror of darkness began to actually descend on Him (Mk. 14:33-42). Contrast this with the calmness of suicide bombers or other religiously persuaded zealots going to their death. The Lord- <i>our</i> Lord- was too sensitive to humanity, to <i>us</i>, to His <i>own</i> humanity, to His own sense of the possibility of failure which His humility pressed ever upon Him... than to be like that. See on Heb. 5:7,8.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1894','1','41','10','33','33','<p>10:33 <i>We will go up to Jerusalem- </i>This was stating the obvious, but He wanted them to perceive their part in the journey to the cross which He was making; for His path to death and resurrection was to be theirs, as it is ours too. Or perhaps we are to conclude that like Abraham, they were following their Lord not knowing where they were going.</p><p><i>And the Son of Man shall be delivered- </i>The Greek means literally &lsquo;to hand over&rsquo;; the idea of betrayal was maybe implicit, but not as explicit as in the English word &lsquo;betrayed&rsquo;. The word is very common on the lips of the Lord, as if He saw the moment of &lsquo;handing over&rsquo; as the quintessence of all His sufferings- the hand over from God&rsquo;s Providential protection to the powers of darkness.</p><p><i>To the chief priests and the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death- </i>Exactly fulfilled, using the same Greek words, in Mk. 14:64.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>And shall deliver him to the Gentiles</i>- The Lord foresaw that the Jews would have to deliver Him to the Romans if their death sentence was going to be legally inflicted.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1895','1','41','10','34','34','<p>10:34 <i>And they shall mock him and shall spit upon him and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days he shall rise again</i>- The Lord\'s predictions of His sufferings are detailed. The question arises as to whether this knowledge was beamed into Him by Divine revelation, or whether He worked it all out from Old Testament anticipations and prophecies of Messiah\'s sufferings. All the details could indeed have been understood from the Old Testament. And yet the Lord gave His life, it was not taken from Him; He as the master psychologist and chess player knew the moves which His chosen actions would elicit, and that may have been why He could predict these particular events in such detail.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1896','1','41','10','35','35','<p>10:35 <i>And there came near to him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying to him: Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we shall ask of you</i>- So often, the Lord&rsquo;s predictions of the cross are responded to in most unspiritual ways, as if the message really failed to penetrate. As with us today, people turned off at the message of the Lord&rsquo;s death. Whenever this happens, we must enquire as to&nbsp;<i>why</i>&nbsp;we turn off; for it surely has a psychological basis. Why does out attention wander so easily when reading or hearing discussed the crucifixion passages? The psychological, subconscious reason may well be that we realize that whatever is true for the Lord is to be true for us; His death there is the pattern for our death to self today. And we would far rather not be reminded of that.</p><p>Matthew places these words on the lips of their mother, Salome. But effectively the words were those of James and John. Divine inspiration reflects how God understood that completely. They tried to manipulate the Lord through the use of a female. Here is a classic example of where reading the entire Bible gives us a wider and fuller perspective. But a caveat needs to be sounded about such intertextuality, as it is called- the practice of interpreting a text in the light of other Bible texts. Of course, to get the wider and truer picture, this is a quite necessary and legitimate way of studying the Bible. But remember that the vast majority of believers over history have been illiterate. They heard the Gospels read to them. The text as it stands spoke to them- there are no Divinely inspired footnotes which signpost us to one of the parallel Gospels for the fuller picture. The easy use of computer-assisted analysis of the Biblical text is unique to our age, but one downside of this is that it can too easily be assumed that such endless chasing of connections with other Scripture is in fact how the text was originally designed to be read. It clearly was not. The fact the text of the entire Bible stands up to such analysis and indeed glows with glory under it- doesn\'t mean that this is the only nor even the intended way to receive the text. The ability to perform such detailed intertextuality just wasn\'t there for the illiterate; they heard the text of the Gospels as it was read, and there was a message within the text as it stands which they were intended to perceive.</p><p>Mark records the brothers asking: &quot;Master, we would that you should do for us whatsoever we shall desire&quot;- presumably trying to tie the Lord to His words in Mt. 18:19 about the successful prayer of &ldquo;two&hellip; who should agree as touching anything they should ask&rdquo;. But of course the Lord&rsquo;s context there was quite different. It was about restoring the lost to the way to the Kingdom. So often we likewise can seize hold of the Lord&rsquo;s words and try to twist them to as it were manipulate God into response. This sort of thing goes on&nbsp;<i>ad nauseam</i>&nbsp;in many Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, taking Bible phrases out of context and aggressively holding God to words He never uttered in the context required of them by the audience. &nbsp;They had the focus all wrong- they wanted to be in the Kingdom &quot;for us&quot;. Our motive for wanting to be in the Kingdom needs to be analysed. Is it for God manifestation, or mere human salvation from death that we are interested in to paraphrase a well known quote from John Thomas?</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1897','1','41','10','36','36','<p>10:36 <i>And he said to them: What would you wish that I should do for you?</i>- Matthew has: <i>&quot;</i>What do you desire...&quot;.<i>&nbsp;</i>These are the very words the Lord goes on to use to the blind men in Mt. 20:32 as He left Jericho, and to the blind man He met as He approached Jericho (Lk. 18:41). The similarity in the stories of the blind men He spoke to is surely for the same reason as His repetition of &quot;What do you want?&quot; both to them and to Salome and again to her sons. It\'s all to build up the impression that He is asking people to focus upon what their dominant desire really is. And such an approach is not unknown in depth psychology today. The Lord uses the same word for &quot;want&quot; in asking the crippled man if he \'wanted\' to be made whole (Jn. 5:6). Of course he did, and the Lord knew it. So His question was to elicit in the man a sense of what his dominant desire really was. The Lord raised him up, and went on to comment that as the Father raises up people, so His Son enlivens whom&nbsp;<i>He</i>&nbsp;wants s.w.- Jn. 5:21. The \'want\' of the man and the \'want\' of God\'s Son coincided, just as can happen for us all- if our dominant desires are His. Therefore later in Jn. 15:7 the Lord almost comments on the incident with Salome by saying that if His words abide in us, then we shall ask what we wish s.w. &quot;want&quot; and it shall be done s.w. \'do\'. There was no blank cheque promise, as Salome and her sons had wrongly implied. It was often His style to focus people on what they were asking for, encouraging them to verbalize and thus define their deepest desires. This is why He made as if He would go further on the way to Emmaus, why He appeared to be sleeping during the storm, and in another storm appeared to intend to walk past the disciples (Mk. 6:48). All this was to elicit from His people an awareness of their need for Him. He works the same today, through providential circumstance in our lives, to make us ask ourselves what we really and essentially want. He has just spoken in detail of His sufferings, and so His question was rhetorical. \'If I am going to do all that for you- what else could you ask for?\'. The wonder of salvation for us as sinners is such that we should see all our other requests in that context.&nbsp;</p><p>He had just been speaking of how He would die for them. James and John evidently didn\'t appreciate the wonder, the blessing, the honour of the fact that the Son of God would love them unto the end. All they wanted was the human blessing, in this life, of being able to tell their brethren that they would be <i>the </i>greatest in the Kingdom. &quot;What would ye that I should do for you&quot; - in addition to loving you unto the death, of loving you with a love greater than that of <i>anyone</i> else? Their minds were all too set on the present, the petty glory of here and now. But when they actually beheld the cross (Lk. 23:49 suggests James also did), they would have learnt their lesson. And so it was with Job. Throughout the core of the book, he consistently addresses God as \'Shaddai\', the fruitful one, the provider of blessing. But in the prologue and epilogue, he calls God \'Yahweh\'. It may be that He came to <i>know</i> the wonder of God\'s Name to the extent that he quit his perception of God as only the provider of material blessing.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1898','1','41','10','37','37','<p>10:37 <i>And they said to him: Grant to us that we may sit, one on your right hand and one on your left hand, in your glory</i>- This confirms that she had Mt. 19:28 in mind, where the Lord had promised a sitting on thrones when He sat &quot;in the throne of His glory&quot;. The mother of James and John wanted them to have great reward in the Kingdom. The Lord&rsquo;s basic answer was: &lsquo;Take up my cross, follow my example, focused as it is on getting&nbsp;others&nbsp;to the Kingdom&rsquo; (Mt. 20:21,27,28). They were to be to others examples of selflessness. In the parable of the labourers, the hard, all day workers came expecting their pay; they were sent away, it could be, in rejection. But those whom the parable appears to commend worked having made no agreement nor mention of the reward they would receive. Thus when James and John clamoured for a reward in the Kingdom, they were told instead to go away and serve; this was what it was all about, being the minister of others, serving for nothing- not badgering the Lord for a reward in the Kingdom (Mt. 20:20-26).</p><p>When the Lord Jesus promised those who overcome that they would sit down with Him in His throne (Rev. 3:21), He was surely casting a glance back at the way His men had asked to sit at His right and left hand, in His glory (Mk. 10:37). He knew He was promising a future glory far above what to them must have been the heights of their spiritual ambition.</p><p>They surely had in mind the Lord\'s recent assurance that the twelve would sit upon twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel (Mt. 19:28). But even that wasn\'t enough. She wanted even more. The record leaves us gasping at her: \'What? Even that promise, and the prediction of the Lord\'s death for you- still not enough for you??\'. This is intended to put all our requests and dominant desires in a different context. If we have been promised the Kingdom and the Lord has died for us- then what other dominant desires should we have? Surely none. For those things should be the dominant issues within us.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1899','1','41','10','38','38','<p>10:38 <i>But Jesus said to them: You do not know what you ask- </i>The statement that men \'know not\' is usually and extensively on the Lord\'s lips in a negative sense. We can therefore read Him here as deeply disappointed in her. Note how the Lord uses the plural \'you\'; He clearly saw that the question was being asked by the sons through their mother, and the parallel records show Him asking them directly what&nbsp;<i>they</i>&nbsp;really wanted. &quot;We know not what we should pray for as we ought&quot; (Rom. 8:26) seems to be some kind of allusion back to the mother of Zebedee\'s children asking Christ to get her two sons the best places in the Kingdom (Mt. 20:22). He basically replied \'You know not what you pray for\', in the sense of \'you don\'t appreciate\'. It may be that Paul in Rom. 8 is saying that in our desire for the Kingdom, in our groaning for it, we don\'t appreciate what we ask for as we ought, yet Christ nonetheless makes powerful intercession for us to this end.</p><p><i>Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?- </i>The Lord\'s death was therefore His cup, and also His \'baptism\'. He asks us to be baptized with His baptism and to regularly drink His cup in the memorial meeting. These things are easily performed, and yet they are an agreement to die His death. We too can far too easily say &quot;I am able...&quot;, when like the disciples, we fail to perceive the horror of the cross and what is being asked of us. We therefore participate in these symbols, these metaphors, with bowed head, deeply aware of our likely failure to carry the cross to the end, but grateful for our participation in&nbsp;<i>His</i>&nbsp;cup and baptism, the One who did in fact die the death of the cross.</p><p><i>Or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?</i>- Note the present tense compared to the future tense of &quot;the cup that I shall drink of&quot;. And yet in Lk. 12:50 He speaks of the baptism that He must still be baptized with in crucifixion. His death on the cross was in essence lived and died by Him throughout His life. This is why the prophecy of His death in Isaiah 53 is also quoted about experiences during His life. And there is an ongoing element to baptism, just as Israel were baptized &quot;in the cloud and in the sea&quot; as they passed through the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1), and yet lived beneath the cloud throughout their wilderness journey- as if their baptism was ongoing. We likewise die and resurrect with Christ in an ongoing sense as we die to the flesh and progressively experience His new life breaking through into our mortal experience (2 Cor. 4:11). Note too how Paul speaks of baptism in the present tense in Rom. 6:4- we&nbsp;<i>are</i>&nbsp;buried with Him by baptism, although Paul has just said in Rom. 6:3 that we&nbsp;<i>were</i>&nbsp;baptized as a one-time past even. If Paul were simply referencing the point of their baptism in Rom. 6:4, he would have said \'We&nbsp;<i>were</i>&nbsp;buried with Him\'. The sense of Col. 2:12 and 1 Cor. 12:13 may be similar- &quot;By one Spirit we are all present tense baptized into one body&quot;. The whole language of baptism by the Spirit surely suggests a process rather than a one time event of immersion in water.</p><p>In Gethsemane He spoke of drinking the cup of His final death and suffering. But earlier He had spoken in the present tense: &ldquo;the cup that I drink of... the baptism that I am baptized with&quot; (Mk. 10:38). The drinking of the cup of death was ongoing. Likewise there are several verses in Psalms 22 and 69 which are evidently relevant to both the Lord\'s life and also His final hours on the cross. &quot;The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up&quot; is in the context of the cross, but is applied to an earlier period of the Lord\'s life (Ps. 69:9 cp. Jn. 2:17). &quot;I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother\'s children&quot; is another example (Ps. 69:8); it is a prophecy about the final sufferings of the Lord in crucifixion, and yet it is elsewhere quoted about the experiences of His ministry.<br />James and John pestered the Lord to give them glory in His Kingdom. He didn\'t refuse their request; He simply turned the question round to them: \'Can you really carry my cross? Don\'t be so obsessed with getting salvation out of me. Concentrate instead on carrying my cross, being baptized with my baptism, and then the corollary of that- sharing my resurrection- will follow in its own time\'.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1900','1','41','10','39','39','<p>10:39- see on Gal. 3:27.</p><p><i>And they said to him: We are able And Jesus said to them: The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized</i>-</p><p>The Lord surely remembered their childlike over confidence when He Himself prayed for that cup to be &quot;able&quot; (AV &quot;may&quot; s.w.) to pass from Him so that He didn\'t have to drink it (Mt. 26:42). Yet the Lord is so generous spirited to them. He says that they will indeed be &quot;able&quot; to drink His cup (:23)- but the places of honour in the Kingdom were solely for the Father to give. He alludes to this in telling Peter that he was not &quot;able&quot; (s.w.) to follow Him to death on the cross at that time, &quot;but you shall follow Me afterwards&quot; (Jn. 13:36). We would likely have told them to take more seriously the Lord\'s predictions of His death by crucifixion which He had just uttered, and be more realistic about their own failure to suffer and die like that. But He is so more positive and gracious.</p><p>The Lord Jesus Christ\'s sensitivity to our thinking that we really have borne His cross comes out here. Those men, with all their unspirituality, could quite coolly state that they wanted the highest place in the Kingdom, and could say with confidence that they could shoulder the cross of Christ. The Lord\'s reply was gracious and generous spirited indeed: &quot;Ye shall indeed drink of my cup&quot; - \'when you\'re a lot more spiritually mature\', He could have added. We&nbsp;<i>sense</i>&nbsp;rather than are explicitly told His sensitivity to men thinking they can shoulder His cross; for He alone knows what the cross of Christ entailed and entails. And in speaking of our own sufferings, we too need to learn these lessons, and compare our sufferings against Christ\'s with the utmost caution, with the sensitivity to&nbsp;<i>His</i>&nbsp;feelings, recognizing that we must act as men and women who have been&nbsp;<i>counted as if</i>&nbsp;we shared His death, and not as those who have actually &quot;resisted unto blood (in our) striving against sin&quot;. To confidently identify some of our brethren as tares is only one example of the way in which we can hurt our Lord\'s feelings, by acting and thinking in ways which are only appropriate for He who did actually carry the cross.</p><p>Seeing even the Lord baulked at drinking that cup in Gethsemane, saying that they would drink His cup is an incredibly positive comment to make. But none of us, including the twelve, die the death of the cross as Jesus did. He may have seen this as true insofar as by baptism into His death, His personal death and resurrection are counted to us, as if we have participated in it. As we reconstruct in our own minds His death, every fibre in our being cries out: \'I would not have endured that\'. The wonder is that by baptism into Him, His death, that death, even the death of the cross, is counted to us. And with that we should be content, rather than seeking for grandeur in the resurrection age as the disciples were doing. When it came to actually giving the twelve His cup to drink, the Lord invited them: &quot;You- drink all of it&quot; (Mt. 26:27). The force of&nbsp;<i>pas&nbsp;</i>there appears to refer to all of the cup, the whole cup- rather than inviting all of the disciples to drink, because it was surely axiomatic that they were to all drink it. The Lord was saying that He counted them as having fully drunk His cup- a cup which He Himself flinched to take. This is the degree to which we are in Him and counted as participating in His death by reason of our status &quot;in Him&quot;. Another possibility is that the Lord spoke these words specifically to the twelve and envisaged that each of them would die through crucifixion- although whether they did is not historically confirmable.</p><p>John\'s equivalent of this is the Lord\'s word that unless we drink His blood and eat His flesh, we can have no salvation (Jn. 6:53). This therefore has reference to our participation in His death, and our symbolic acceptance of this in the breaking of bread. To drink the Lord\'s cup is parallel with partaking at the Lord\'s memorial table in 1 Cor. 10:21. The breaking of bread means many things, and each time we do it we may likely focus on different aspects. But it is not easy for us, or it should not be easy for us. To drink that cup can never be done in a blas&eacute; spirit of \'Yes, we are able\'. Rather with humbled hearts do we accept that our being counted as having participated in it is by grace alone. Peter was amongst those who thought he was able to drink the Lord\'s cup, and yet the Lord had to rebuke Peter for seeking to deter Him from drinking it- &quot;Put up your sword... the cup which My Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?&quot; (Jn. 18:11). Peter\'s desire for the Lord not to drink it was psychologically rooted in his recognition that the Lord\'s cup was to be his cup.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1901','1','41','10','40','40','<p>10:40 <i>But to sit on my right hand or on my left hand- </i>When the disciples foolishly sought to have what they thought were to be the favoured places at His right hand and His left, the Lord could have answered: &lsquo;You foolish people Those on my left hand will be condemned&rsquo;. But He graciously didn&rsquo;t comment on their glaring error. He pushed a higher principle- that we should not seek for personal greatness, seeing that God is the judge of all (Mt. 20:23). Yet sadly, so much of our preaching has been solely concerned with pointing out the errors of others without being sensitive to what little faith and understanding they&nbsp;<i>do</i>&nbsp;have, and seeking to build on it.</p><p><i>Is not mine to give- </i>A profound rebuttal of the primitive and mistaken equation of Jesus with God which is found in Trinitarian theology.</p><p><i>But it will be given to them for whom it has been prepared</i>-</p><p>A specific future is being prepared for each of us in God\'s Kingdom (22:4; 25:34; 1 Cor. 2:9; Heb. 11:16 &quot;He has prepared for them a city&quot;), a unique place prepared in the Kingdom for us by the Lord\'s death (Jn. 14:2,3) and yet&nbsp;<i>we&nbsp;</i>are likewise being &quot;prepared&quot; (s.w. Lk. 1:17,76; 12:47; 2 Tim. 2:21; Rev. 19:7; 21:2 &quot;His wife has&nbsp;<i>prepared</i>&nbsp;herself&quot;). God is preparing a unique destiny and role for each of us in His Kingdom, but that preparation work is in terms of how we are being prepared in this life. Therefore all our present experiences are specifically intended to prepare us for the kind of person and role we shall eternally have. In this lives the the ultimate significance and meaning to human experience if we are indeed Kingdom people. A huge amount of intense preparation is being packed into a very short space of time in this life. The lack of meaning and significance attached to even is what causes the depression which dogs each secular person, especially as they grow older. The Lord\'s point was that He was going to the cross to prepare places for them all in the Kingdom (Jn. 14:2,3 s.w.). He had just predicted His death. This was where their focus was to be, rather than seeking something for themselves.<br />It&rsquo;s often been commented that God is beyond or even outside of our kind of time. God pre this present creation may have been like that, and He of course has the capacity and possibility to be like that. But it seems to me that particularly in connection with those with whom He is in relationship, He chooses to not exercise that possibility. Instead, God Almighty throws Himself into our experience, by limiting Himself to our kind of time- with all the suspense, hope, excitement, joy, disappointment which this involves. Time and again we read of how God says He is &ldquo;shaping evil against you and devising a plan&rdquo; against His enemies (Jer. 18:11; Jer. 26:3; Jer. 49:20,30; Jer. 50:45; Mic. 2:3; 4:12). For the faithful, He says that He is making plans for them for good and not for evil, &ldquo;to give you a future&rdquo; (Jer. 29:11). The Lord Jesus had this sort of thing in mind when He spoke of how the Kingdom will have been being&nbsp;<i>prepared&nbsp;</i>for the faithful from the beginning of the world (Mt. 25:34; Mt. 20:23).</p><p>John the Baptist was to &ldquo;prepare&rdquo; the way for the Lord&rsquo;s coming- evidently a process- in reflection of how God had been working a long time to &ldquo;prepare&rdquo; same Greek word the way for His Son&rsquo;s coming (Lk. 1:76; Lk. 2:31; Lk. 3:4). We likewise, in our preaching work in these last days, are working in tandem and in step with God. The idea of God \'preparing\' implies that there is therefore a gap between the plan being made, and it being executed- hence &ldquo;The Lord has both planned and done what He spoke concerning the inhabitants of Babylon&rdquo; (Jer. 51:12; Jer. 4:28; Lam. 2:17; Is. 22:11; Is. 37:26; Zech. 1:6; Zech. 8:14).</p><p>The altogether lovely manner of the Lord is shown in how He dealt with immature understanding and ambition amongst others. James and John wanted to sit on either side of the Lord in His Kingdom glory. Instead of telling them to be more humble, the Lord gently went along with them- so far. He said that this great honour would be given to &ldquo;them for whom it is prepared&rdquo; (Mk. 10:40). And whom is this? <i>All</i> those redeemed in Christ have that place &ldquo;prepared&rdquo; (Mt. 25:34). The immediate context speaks of the cross (Mk. 10:33,45), and it is this which prepared the places in the Kingdom (Jn. 14:1,2). Thus the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, and the Kingdom was prepared from the foundation of the world (Mt. 25:34). Actually, all those redeemed in Christ will sit down with Him in His very throne- not just on the right and left side of Him (Rev. 3:21). Indeed, the Lord&rsquo;s subsequent parable about the places prepared in the Kingdom, and people being on the right <i>and left</i> hand of Him at judgment, with the rejected on the left hand, was perhaps His gentle corrective to James and John. But my point is that He was so gentle about the way He corrected their error. Actually twice before in Mark 10, the Lord had shown this spirit. The arrogant young man told Him that he&rsquo;d kept all the commandments from his youth and, get it, he was only a young guy anyway&hellip;. And yet &ldquo;Jesus beholding him, loved him&rdquo; (Mk. 10:20). And then moments later in the record, Peter starts on about &ldquo;Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee&rdquo;- and the Lord so gently doesn&rsquo;t disagree, even though Peter&rsquo;s fishing business and family were still there for him to return to it seems, but promises reward for all who truly do leave all (Mk. 10:28-30). So just three times in one chapter, we see the gentle patience of the Lord with arrogant, small minded people, who thought they understood so much and were so righteous. They were nothing compared to Him. But the way He deals with them is indeed &ldquo;altogether lovely&rdquo;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1902','1','41','10','41','41','<p>10:41 <i>And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning James and John</i>- This suggests that the favour asked was asked secretly. The Lord sensed or overheard their anger, and called the group to Him (:42). The ebb and flow of the disciples to and from Jesus is noted especially in Matthew, probably another indication of their own weakness which formed such a major part of their witness. For the ideal was to abide in Him, to constantly follow Him, and not come to Him and then go from Him in squabbles and jealousies amongst ourselves.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1903','1','41','10','42','42','<p>10:42 <i>And Jesus called them to him, and said to them: You know- </i>This is in response to the anger of the ten against the self-seeking manipulation of the two. He now taught them the spirit of absolute servanthood as an answer to feeling resentful against the unspirituality of our brethren. Even if they are indeed so terribly wrong and simply \'don\'t get it\', as the two brethren clearly didn\'t, our response should not be anger but rather servanthood towards them.&nbsp;</p><p><i>That they who are considered rulers of the Gentiles- </i>The&nbsp;<i>archon</i>, literally, \'the first\'. The Lord had just taught in the parable of the labourers that a principle of His Kingdom was that the first were to be last.</p><p><i>Lord it over them- </i>Gk.&nbsp;<i>katakurieuo</i>. Literally, to be&nbsp;<i>kurios</i>&nbsp;over, to be as Lord over. His idea was that if He is our&nbsp;<i>only</i>&nbsp;Lord, then there can be no lording it over others even when they are clearly unspiritual as the two brethren were at this time. This is where our belief in the Lordship of Jesus really cuts deep. For we naturally would like to think that we are superior to those who \'don\'t get it\' about the spirit of Christ. But we are to see Him as total Lord, and ourselves as servants. Our natural anger and indignation at others\' weakness is to be replaced by servanthood. And yet the body of Christ is littered with the wreckage of believers angry with others who refused to serve them but rather stormed out from them or rejected them- rather than staying to serve them, realizing that they are under the Lordship.</p><p>The style of leadership / control known in this world isn&rsquo;t to be exercised by the elders of God&rsquo;s flock (Mt. 20:25,26; 1 Pet. 5:3); ecclesial organization shouldn&rsquo;t reflect the structures and practices of big commercial organisations. Leadership is to be based upon spiritual attributes and the ability to change and convert the lives of others, rather than secular skills such as fund raising, computer literacy, management etc. Yet sadly many ecclesias and Christian organisations seem to confuse the difference between management skills and spiritual leadership. The two things aren&rsquo;t the same. An executive director of a company may very well not be the right brother to lead an ecclesia. The Greek language is full or words containing the compounds&nbsp;<i>kata-</i>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<i>arch</i>-, implying power over others, as part of a hierarchy. The leaders of the Roman world used these terms (Mt. 20:25), as did the synagogue leadership. But never does scripture use these kind of words about those who are &lsquo;elders&rsquo; in the true ecclesia. It&rsquo;s a pointed omission. On the other hand, there are many&nbsp;<i>sun-</i>&nbsp;prefixes: fellow-worker, fellow-citizen, fellow-soldier, fellow-heir etc. The New Testament emphasis is certainly on what we have in common rather on the fact that in practice some are more capable of organising, or deserve especial respect for their evident spirituality and &ldquo;for their work&rsquo;s sake&rdquo;. And the teaching of the Lord Himself was more concerned with how to follow Him than how to lead others. Likewise, there were many contemporary Greek words used to describe religious gatherings, e.g.&nbsp;<i>heorte, synodos, koinos</i>. But instead the word&nbsp;<i>ekklesia</i>&nbsp;is used, meaning a gathering together of town citizens with equal rights to discuss a matter. This is how the word was understood at that time.</p><p><i>And their great ones-&nbsp;</i>The&nbsp;<i>megas</i>, the mighty, the strong, the superior. The context is the sense of spiritual superiority felt by the ten against the spiritual weakness of the two brethren and their mother.&nbsp;</p><p><i>Exercise authority over them</i>- They have&nbsp;<i>exousia</i>, power, control, over their inferiors. It is the Lord Jesus who is&nbsp;<i>the</i>&nbsp;Lord, and who has this&nbsp;<i>exousia</i>&nbsp;uniquely over His followers and indeed the whole world (Mt. 7:29; 9:6; 21:24; 28:18 etc.). For us to be indignant and superior against the unspirituality of our brethren is thus to usurp the unique role of the Lord Jesus. Quite rightly should we refer to Him as &quot;the Lord&quot;, for this is who He must be in daily life and thought. The failure of others does give us in a human sense this&nbsp;<i>exousia</i>, this control, power and superiority- but the Lord goes on to say that it must&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;be so amongst us (:26), we are to resign this for servanthood. The Lord repeated His teaching here almost verbatim in Lk. 22:25- and He states it there immediately after predicting that one of the twelve would betray Him. He did so because He did not want them to be angry and superior over even Judas- He wanted them to instead resign those feelings for servanthood.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1904','1','41','10','43','43','<p>10:43 <i>But it is not to be so among you; but whoever would become great among you-</i> This is in the singular- for &quot;let&nbsp;<i>him</i>&nbsp;be your minister&quot;. The Lord may not be intending \'If any of you wants to be the greatest, then be the servant\'. He may instead be developing the theme of His absolute and unequalled Lordship by saying that&nbsp;<i>the one</i>&nbsp;who shall be great shall be the minister- and He had solely Himself in view. He knew that He was to be the greatest in the Kingdom, the one with ultimate and total&nbsp;<i>exousia</i>&nbsp;(see on Mt. 20:25). And the path to that was through servanthood, and He invited His men to likewise participate in that servanthood.&nbsp;</p><p>When the disciples argued about who should be the greatest, the Lord replied in the present tense that &quot;it <i>is</i> not so among you: whosoever will be great among you shall be your minister&quot; (Mk. 10:43 R. V.). He expected them to live up to the righteousness which He imputed to them.</p><p><i>Shall be your servant</i>- The idea may be an appeal for the disciples to allow the Lord to be their minister. This appeal had to be repeated at the last supper, when He wished to wash their feet, to be the ultimate servant, and Peter didn\'t want to &quot;let Him&quot; be his minister. So instead of thinking about what they could personally get out of the Kingdom as the two brethren, or being spiritually superior over their weaker brethren the ten, they were to instead accept the Lordship of Jesus and His ministration to them. And the form in which He was supremely a servant was in His death on the cross. And yet as so often, the Lord is speaking to Himself on one level, as well as to the disciples on another level. He is the one who to be great had to make Himself a minister of all, and yet He invites all those in Him to pass through the same process. For all that is true of Him is to be true of us. Hence He goes on to say that &quot;Even as&quot; He ministered, so should they.</p><p>One of the commonest allusions to priesthood in the NT is the idea of ministry. Time and again, the Old Testament speaks of the priests&nbsp;<i>ministering</i>&nbsp;in the priest\'s office. The priests are specifically called God\'s ministers (Is. 61:6; Jer. 33:21; Ez. 45:4; Joel 1:9,13; 2:17).&nbsp; The early Christians would have heard and read many of the New Testament references to ministers and ministry as invitations to see themselves as a new priesthood. The Lord said that we should aim to be a minister, a priests, to every one of our brethren, not expecting them to minister to us, but concentrating on ministering to them (Mt. 20:26). This is exactly against the grain of our nature, and also of the concept of religion we find in the world. People&nbsp;<i>expect</i>&nbsp;to have others spiritually ministering to them. They expect a priest-figure to do all their thinking for them. But our Lord said that we are each other\'s priests, we\'re not here to be ministered&nbsp;(\'priest-ed\') to, but to minister, and give our lives in service to each other.</p><p>When James and John asked to have the senior positions, the Lord didn&rsquo;t rebuke them; he just told them that the greatest would desire to be a servant (Gk.&nbsp;<i>diakonos</i>) of all (Mt. 20:20-28). The utter degradation of the cross, and the Lord&rsquo;s willing humbling of Himself to accept it, is a pattern for all who would take up His cross. The &ldquo;servant of all&rdquo; would make no distinctions concerning whom or how he would serve; such servanthood was a complete and unqualified act of surrender. And this is taken by the Lord as a cameo of His mindset on Calvary. In conscious allusion to this, Paul could speak of how he had become a slave of all men, that he might help some to Christ (1 Cor. 9:19). He was a slave of the Gospel, a slave of the kind who was lower than the least of all others, i.e. a slave of all (Eph. 3:7,9). He didn&rsquo;t preach himself, but rather preached that he was a servant to all his brethren, for the sake of the fact that he was in Christ, the servant of all (2 Cor. 4:5). Thus he almost advertised his servant status; he preached himself as a slave. Paul wished to be perceived by his brethren and the whole world as merely a slave of Jesus (1 Cor. 4:1). In our talking to each other, or in our writing, it does us good to analyse how many personal pronouns we use; how much we are preaching ourselves rather than Jesus Christ. Any who may appear to be leaders or organisers are serving&nbsp;<i>Him</i>, who debased Himself to that depth. There can be no room&nbsp;<i>at all</i>&nbsp;for any sense of superiority amongst us. We are servants&nbsp;<i>of all</i>, not just of those individual brothers or ecclesias whom we happen to get on well with.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1905','1','41','10','44','44','<p>10:44 <i>And whoever would be first among you- </i>The&nbsp;<i>protos</i>&nbsp;(chief) amongst the disciples was clearly the Lord Himself. So again, the Lord may not necessarily be inviting His followers to seek greatness in the future Kingdom, but rather inviting them to focus upon His Lordship and achievement through His upcoming death. Instead He may have Himself in view- the One who is to be chief is to be the servant of the disciples, which the Lord did through His death on the cross. And it is His death there which is the context for this whole teaching, seeing He has just given a detailed prediction of it. However, the Lord\'s teachings often have reference to both Himself and to the disciples, and we have noted a number of times where He seems to have specific reference to Peter. For Peter was the&nbsp;<i>protos</i>, the chief disciple, according to Mt. 10:2 s.w.. And within the Lord\'s words there is the nod to Peter that he must learn the spirit of servanthood if he is to be worthy of that special calling as the leader of the pack which the Lord clearly had in mind for him. The Lord has just had a lot to say about the&nbsp;<i>protos</i>&nbsp;being last in the preceding parable of the labourers, using the word three times in 20:8,10,16. He is perhaps answering the question which arises from that parable: How practically can we be the last? The answer is by serving as He served, by identifying ourselves with the &quot;last&quot; labourers rather than the &quot;first&quot; who thought they were spiritually superior over their weaker fellow labourers.</p><p>The Lord Jesus was the supreme example of spiritual ambition in daily life.&nbsp;&nbsp; When the disciples debated about who would be greatest in the Kingdom, Christ said that &quot;If any man desire to be first, the same shall be... servant of all&quot; (Mk. 9:34,35).&nbsp;&nbsp; Christ was the &quot;servant of all&quot; because He&nbsp;<i>desired</i>&nbsp;to be the greatest in the Kingdom.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was this ambition which motivated His endurance of the daily cross of His life: &nbsp;&quot;Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>even as</i>&nbsp;the Son of man came... to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many&quot; (Mt. 20:27,28). He was drawing on the ideas of Hos. 13:1, where Ephraim exalted himself when he humbled himself to speak to God with the trembling of a true humility. The Lord Jesus was not esteemed by men in His death (Is. 53:3); the same word occurs in Dan. 4:17, concerning how Yahweh will exalt the&nbsp;<i>basest</i>, the least esteemed, to be King over the kingdoms of this world. That made-basest man was a reference to the Lord Jesus. He humbled Himself on the cross, that He might be exalted. Peter had his eye on this fact when he asks us to humble ourselves, after the pattern of the Lord, that we might be exalted in due time (1 Pet. 5:6).&nbsp; Christ desired greatness in the Kingdom, and so can we;&nbsp;for the brighter stars only reflect more glory of the Sun (1 Cor. 15:41).&nbsp;&nbsp; This very thought alone should lift us up on the eagle wings of Spirit above whatever monotony or grief we now endure.</p><p><i>Shall be servant of all</i>- Consider the influence of Christianity on the Greek language of humility. The Lord taught that the leaders, the great ones, in His Kingdom, would be the humble servants (Mt. 20:27). Christ spoke of himself as a humble King, which would have been a contradiction in terms to the first century Greek mind. Consider the following commentary by Alan Hayward: &quot;The ancient Greeks had no time for humility. In fact, their language didn\'t even have a word for it until well into the first century... the early Christians evidently had to coin a word for it. It\'s a clumsy, long word, made by sticking together the Greek word \'low-down\' and the Greek word \'mentality\'. The sudden appearance of this new word in Greek literature during the first century is generally attributed to the influence of the early church&quot; Alan Hayward,&nbsp;<i>The Humble King</i>, \'The Bible Missionary\' No.131, January 1994.</p><p>See on Phil. 2:7. It is a great NT theme that we are the bond slaves of the Lord Jesus. And yet we are also to be slaves to all His people (Mk. 10:44), for the Lord Jesus <i>is</i> His people: they are His body. To serve our brethren is to serve the Lord Himself. The Lord Jesus <i>expects</i> us to relate to Him as bond slaves. He speaks of how a bond slave can be working in the field all day, come home tired, and then be immediately commanded by the master to prepare his meal and only then get his own meal- and the master won\'t thank him, but just expects it of him. And the Lord Jesus applies this to His relationship with us. The Lord of all grace is, by absolute rights, a demanding Lord. He commented that we call Him Lord and Master, and we say well, for so He is (Jn. 13:13). If we are truly the bond-slaves of the Lord Jesus, we have no \'free time\' for ourselves. Neither will we expect to have time for ultimately our \'own thing\'. The craze for personal and social freedom which sweeps the modern world will leave us untouched. Ultimate freedom and total independence is not for us.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1906','1','41','10','45','45','<p>10:45 <i>For the Son of Man came- </i>If the Lord was speaking of Himself as the One who was to be the minister so that He might be great, it is possible that this is a commentary from Matthew rather than the words of the Lord- pointing out that in fact the Lord had Himself in view in the preceding verses.</p><p><i>Not to be served by others- </i>Surely the Lord develops this teaching when He characterizes the rejected as insisting that they had never missed an opportunity to minister unto Him personally (Mt. 25:44). Putting these teachings together, perhaps the Lord means us to understand that He did not come to be personally served, but rather does He \'come\' to us in the form of His needy brethren, each encounter with them is an encounter with Him. People did of course minister to the Lord in His life (Mt. 27:55; Mk. 1:31; 15:41; Lk. 8:3 s.w.), but He surely means that He didn\'t come&nbsp;<i>so much as to be ministered to</i>&nbsp;as to Himself minister to others. In this the exquisite beauty of His Lordship. He is indeed Lord, but He didn\'t come to be personally treated as Lord but rather His psychological focus was upon what He could do for others. And this is His comment upon the desire of the two brethren to have a grand place in the Kingdom &quot;for us&quot;, they were seeking something for themselves, whereas the example of the Lord which they were to follow was of focusing upon serving, rather than having an eye upon the reward.</p><p><i>But to serve- </i>The Lord is the same yesterday, today and forever. His focus in His life was upon serving others, and yet the word is used of how He who served at the last supper shall also \'come forth\' s.w. &quot;the Son of Man&nbsp;<i>came</i>&quot;, Mt. 20:28 to &quot;minister&quot; to His people at the future Messianic banquet (Lk. 12:37).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>And to give his life as a ransom for many</i>- The Greek&nbsp;<i>lutron</i>&nbsp;is only used in this place in the NT, although the LXX uses it for the Hebrew&nbsp;<i>pidion</i>, the ransom payment for human life (Ex. 21:30; Num. 3:49-51; Num. 35:31). The word means literally \'to loose\'. The idea may be that something a life, an eternal life was potentially prepared for the &quot;many&quot; which was tied up by human sin, which the Lord\'s death would unloose and make available. But why use this particular term in this context? The connection is clearly with the idea of being a servant, a slave of the lowest order. And what did they loose? The sandals of the guests at meals, after which they washed their feet. There is clearly a connection of thought between the Lord\'s teaching here and His washing of the disciples\' feet at the last supper, whereby He visually fulfilled the picture of being a servant and not being ministered unto, despite Peter\'s objections. His unloosing of the disciples\' sandals and cleansing their feet, dressed as He was on the cross, having laid aside His outer garment and being clothed only with a loincloth, was all a prefigurement of His death on the cross. He invited us all to do as He had done- to participate in His death by dying for others that they might live. And that has various fulfilments day by day, in self control, not demanding from our brother, forgiving, rebuking, caring for, teaching... telephoning, emailing, and so forth.</p><p>In all ways, the Lord is our pattern. He was a servant of all, and so should we be. His servanthood dominated His consciousness. He said that He came not so much as to be ministered unto, but so as to minister, with the end that He gave His life for others (Mk. 10:45). In His death for Israel, He was &ldquo;a minister lowly servant of the circumcision&rdquo;, i.e. the Jews (Rom. 15:8). Yet we <i>are</i> His ministers, His slave / servants. The same word is used for how the women and Angels ministered unto Him (Mk. 1:13,31; 15:41), and how He anticipated men would minister to Him (Jn. 12:26 Gk. cp. 2 Cor. 11:23; Col. 1:7; 1 Tim. 4:6). But both then and now, He came and has come in order to minister / serve us, rather than to be served by us; even though this is what we give our lives to doing. Yet He is still all taken up with ministering to us. He came more to serve than to be served. We are slaves, all of us, of the lowest sort. It&rsquo;s hard for us to realise the lowliness of being a Roman slave; and the sheer wonder of being made a free man, purely by grace. This is what <i>each and every one of us</i> has experienced. Servanthood / slavery should be the concept that dominates our lives; for we cannot be a servant of two masters (Mt. 6:24). We are to be wholly dedicated to the service of the Lord Jesus and those in Him. See on Lk. 17:10.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1907','1','41','10','46','46','<p>10:46 <i>And they arrived in Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho- </i>Matthew\'s account of the healing of the two blind men as they left Jericho must be compared with the healing of Bartimaeus as He left Jericho (Mk. 10:46), and the healing of a blind man as He approached 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 pairs of 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><p><i>With his disciples and a great crowd- </i>The section began with the idea of the Lord now being on His journey to death in Jerusalem, and bidding the disciples follow Him on that path. The crowd followed, but not in that deeper sense. The same term is used of the healed blind men- they too &quot;followed Him&quot; (Mt. 20:34), but the implication is that they followed Him with understanding. The parallel Mk. 10:52 records that one of the men, Bartimaeus, &quot;followed Jesus in the way&quot;. That last phrase would surely be redundant unless it was pregnant with some deeper meaning, and that meaning surely rests in the idea of following the Lord in the way of the cross which led to Golgotha.</p><p><i>Bartimaeus the son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside</i>- Mk. 10:52 speaks of how at least one of these blind men followed Jesus &quot;in the way&quot;, using the same word&nbsp;<i>hodos</i>&nbsp;as used here for &quot;the way&quot;. Their sad position, sitting maybe for years day by day&nbsp;<i>para</i>&nbsp;or by, next to &quot;the way&quot;, was in fact putting them in a position when at the right time, they could get up and follow the Lord along that &quot;way&quot;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1908','1','41','10','47','47','<p>10:47 <i>And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out, and say: 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 as the Lord &quot;departed&quot; from a town, just as here the cure happened as He departed from 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 men 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 Lk. 18:35, another blind man had very recently said exactly these words and made exactly this request as the&nbsp;Lord&nbsp;<i>approached</i>&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&nbsp;<i>chesed&nbsp;</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('1909','1','41','10','48','48','<p>10:48 <i>And many 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 in 19:13 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 hold his peace. But he cried out more zealously: 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('1910','1','41','10','49','49','<p>10:49 <i>And Jesus stood still and said: Call him. And they called to the blind man, saying to him: Be of good courage Rise, he calls for you</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. Through us. Their obedience to the command to go call the man is emphasized. 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('1911','1','41','10','50','50','<p>10:50 <i>And he, casting away his garment, sprang up and came to Jesus</i>- His garment was likely all he owned. And he is therefore presented as being willing to forsake all in response to the call of Jesus, just as the disciples immediately forsake all and followed Him. \'Coming to Jesus\' is the phrase just used of how the little children came to Him (10:14); and again, there was a desire to forbid them. This native tendency we have to forbid others to come to the Lord must be watched carefully; and never allowed to be given formal expression in church policies which exclude some from ever coming to the Lord Jesus.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1912','1','41','10','51','51','<p>10:51 <i>And Jesus said: What will you have me do for you? And the blind man said to him: Rabbi- 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 asked the blind men the obvious question: &ldquo;What will ye 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;Wilt thou 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('1913','1','41','10','52','52','<p>10:52 <i>And Jesus said to him: Go your way. Your faith has made you whole. And immediately he received his sight and followed him in the way</i>- He &quot;Followed Him&nbsp;<i>in the way</i>&quot;. But He told the man &quot;Go&nbsp;<i>your</i>&nbsp;way&quot;. The man\'s way was now the Lord\'s way, the way of the cross. There\'s surely a play on words here, for&nbsp;<i>akoloutheo</i>&nbsp;translated &quot;followed&quot; means literally \'to be in the same way with\'. The Lord told the man to go&nbsp;<i>his</i>&nbsp;way, but the man followed Jesus in&nbsp;<i>His</i>&nbsp;way, the way which has been defined in Mt. 20:17,18 as the way to the cross. Our way is His way, not in that He dominates and subsumes our individuality beneath His own, but in that we each follow Him in our own particular and unique way. That is not to say that we each have our way in life and that journey must of itself be the right one. It\'s axiomatic that every man has his own path in life. As believers in Christ, our path must be&nbsp;<i>following Him</i>, and not just wandering around in life; but each one in Christ follows their Lord in their own unique path.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1914','1','41','11','1','1','<p>11:1- see on Mk. 7:32-35.</p><p><em>And when they drew near to Jerusalem- </em>This might suggest that the gospel author was not with them at the time. I suggest he was, but in the analogy of the cameraman, he has as it were shifted his camera to Jerusalem and records the group approaching.</p><p><em>To Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives- </em>\'The house of figs\'. There is likely a connection to the incident later in this section when the Lord curses the fig tree. 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;<em>Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature</em>&nbsp;(Jerusalem: Horeb, 1903, reprint) p. 1132).</p><p><em>He sent two of his disciples</em>- 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; (:3), 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('1915','1','41','11','2','2','<p>11:2 <em>Instructing them: Go into the village in front of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it here</em>- The Greek words translated &quot;tied&quot; and &quot;loose&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, according to Matthew. 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;<em>and</em>&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, :2 speaks in the plural, of loosing the animals and bringing&nbsp;<em>them</em>&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>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1916','1','41','11','3','3','<p>11:3 <em>And if anyone says to you: Why are you doing this? You are to say: The Lord has need of him; and immediately he will send him back here</em>-&nbsp; God in a sense is in need of man, just as Jesus was, or allowed Himself to be.&nbsp;&quot;Send&quot; here translates&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>, and naturally we think of the apostles, those sent forth with the Gospel. And as so often taught by implication, the Lord is in need of man, the harvest needs workers and without them, in His wisdom, it will not be harvested. We are surely being invited to see these animals as representative of those upon whom the Lord will ride in order to enter Jerusalem in glory. But He rode upon the bucking, difficult colt which had not yet been broken in. This hampered His triumphal entry. And there was the donkey itself with nobody sitting upon it. Just as the Lord consciously tried to fulfil Zech. 9:9 by obtaining these animals, so the hint surely is that His final triumphal entry will be on the basis of us His people carrying Him in.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1917','1','41','11','4','4','<p>11:4 <em>And they went away and found a colt tied at a door outside in the street, and they untied it</em>- Gk. &quot;a place where two ways met<em>&quot;.&nbsp;</em>This translates the word&nbsp;<em>amphedon&nbsp;</em>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('1918','1','41','11','5','5','<p>11:5 <em>And those that stood there said to them: What are you doing, untying the colt?</em>- This may have been part of a pre-arranged plan by the Lord. If indeed as suggested on :4 this was Herod\'s palace and colt, we can understand why the Lord wished to shield the participants in the plan. Perhaps He was seeking to irritate Herod by appearing to have stolen his colt, and appearing to usurp Herod\'s authority by entering Jerusalem upon it. For He gave His life, of His own device, so that He died at the time and place He did, and by crucifixion. His life was not taken from Him (Jn. 10:18), nor was He overtaken by events; He was the master of the scene.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1919','1','41','11','6','6','<p>11:6 <em>And they said to them just as Jesus had said, and they let them go</em>- See on :5. For them to respond so immediately is unusual and unrealistic until we perceive that this was all part of a prearranged plan.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1920','1','41','11','7','7','<p>11:7 <em>And they brought the colt to Jesus, and put on it their garments; and he sat upon it</em>- Using their garments as saddles. The fact both animals were saddled (according to 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;<em>parody</em>&nbsp;of a triumphant entry.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1921','1','41','11','8','8','<p>11:8 <em>And many spread their garments upon the road, and others spread branches which they had cut from the fields</em>-</p><p>Paul speaks of how Israel were cut off branches because of their rejection of Jesus (Rom. 11:17,19). 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 were palm branches. But palms and the shout of &quot;Hosanna&quot; 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;<em>Studies in the Gospels, &quot;</em>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('1922','1','41','11','9','9','<p>11:9 <em>And they that went ahead and they that followed, cried, Hosanna Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord</em>-</p><p>Hosanna means &lsquo;Save now&rsquo;. This obsession with &lsquo;Salvation now&rsquo; was their equivalent of today&rsquo;s prosperity Gospel, which is a similarly false understanding of the Lord.&nbsp;<br />Matthew records here that the people cried &lsquo;Hosanna&rsquo; at Christ&rsquo;s entry into Jerusalem. 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). 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). This fact is not irrelevant to the issue of demons. 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><p>&quot;He that comes&quot; was a clearly Messianic title. They accepted Jesus as Messiah, but their understanding of Messiah was so wrong. They assumed He would bring &lsquo;salvation now&rsquo;, and immediate freedom from the Romans and economic hardship.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1923','1','41','11','10','10','<p>11:10 <em>Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David Hosanna in the highest</em>- They liked to believe that the Messianic Kingdom was now coming. But the Lord\'s parables and teaching about the Kingdom had repeatedly emphasized that the full establishment of that Kingdom was some way off, and the message of the Kingdom was to be lived in our attitudes whilst this secular life continues. Hosanna<em> &quot;</em>in the highest&quot; suggests that because the people wanted &lsquo;Save&nbsp;<em>now</em>&rsquo; and immediate deliverance from Rome, they assumed that God shared their view. Thus they assumed that their cry of &lsquo;Salvation now&rsquo; was being uttered in Heaven too. This assumption that God is of course in tune with our wishes is very dangerous- the dashing of this expectation was what unleashed the fury and gross misjudgement in these people which lead to their very soon screaming for the death of God&rsquo;s Son.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1924','1','41','11','11','11','<p>11:11 <em>And he entered into Jerusalem and went into the temple, and when he had looked at everything, it being now evening, he went out to Bethany with the twelve</em>- 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>His &lsquo;going out of the city&rsquo; is allusive to the language of Ezekiel, in that the glory begins within the city but progressively lifts up and goes out of it. Going to Bethany continues the radical subversion of Jewish Messianic expectations. They had expected a glorious entry into Jerusalem by Messiah, and His entering the temple in order to fulfil the hopes of Ezekiel&rsquo;s temple visions- that Messiah in glory would enter the temple. Instead, the Lord enters Jerusalem on a rider-less donkey, Himself sitting awkwardly on a wayward foal, enters the temple and castigates the Jews, throwing them out of it. And now He leaves the city and goes to Bethany, &ldquo;the house of the poor&rdquo;. Rather like a pretender to the Presidency mounting a not very serious coup attempt, and going to spend the night in a low cost housing area, perhaps in an apartment in a run down tenement block known as &lsquo;the house of the poor&rsquo;. Or perhaps a night shelter would be the most dynamic equivalent. That is not to say that the home in Bethany was actually poor, my comment is on the meaning of &lsquo;Bethany&rsquo; as &lsquo;house of the poor&rsquo;. The use of&nbsp;<em>eis</em>, &quot;into&quot;, rather than a word carrying the sense of&nbsp;<em>unto</em>, serves to heighten the sense of anti-climax. He ended this parody of a triumphal entry by entering into \'the house of the poor\'.&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord being the psychologist&nbsp;<em>extraordinaire</em>&nbsp;that He was, it could almost seem that He was engineering a situation which would turn public opinion against Him and lead to His betrayal to the Romans. And yet on the other hand, He had made all these points multiple times in His teaching, beginning in the Sermon on the Mount. He had explained as clearly as could be that His Kingdom was not at that time a political one, rather was it about service of others and internal transformation. He had so often elevated humility above anything else. But all His teaching had been skim listened to; people had taken what they wanted from Him, and decided that He was who they wanted and needed Him to be, rather than who He said He was. And so through this parody of a triumphal entry, He was visually and very publicly explaining what He really stood for. And thereby very powerfully exposing their hopes as mere selfishness, their ideals as misplaced, their understandings as faulty. I wouldn&rsquo;t say that&nbsp;He did this with the express intention of bringing about His death, but rather motivated by the hope that His one last appeal might still trigger response amongst the true &ldquo;daughter of Zion&rdquo;. His predictions of His death, however, indicate that He knew what would happen. A psychologist weighing up the situation as it stood at the triumphant entry, even if he didn&rsquo;t know how the story would end, would likely be able to predict accurately what would&rsquo;ve happened. The Jews would become deeply angry with Jesus, their hopes in Him would have turned to hatred and anger, they would desire to kill Him, and being unable to legally do so, would hand Him over to the Romans to execute. Indeed, Judas had already trodden this road one step ahead of the masses.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1925','1','41','11','12','12','<p>11:12 <em>And the next day, when they left Bethany, he felt hungry</em>- Hungry in the morning, having spent the night at Mary and Martha\'s home? Had Martha failed in providing food for some reason? More likely the Lord had been fasting for Israel\'s repentance. And His hunger spoke of His desire to see even the beginnings of spiritual fruit on the fig tree of Israel. His fast was for fruit on Israel; if He had found it, He would have eaten it and thus broken His fast.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1926','1','41','11','13','13','<p>11:13 <em>And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves- for it was not the season for figs</em>- God is in search of man, and so is His Son. We surely all at times get depressed, feeling we are nothing and nobody, just used rather than needed. But just as we have our need to be needed, so does God, seeing we are made in His image and likeness. We see it all worked out visually when the Lord Jesus was starving hungry (Gk.), and saw a fig tree far away. He walked towards it, fixing His mind upon the tree. It wasn\'t the time for figs, but the tree had leaves, and He was so hungry, He\'d have been prepared to eat the most immature, unripe figs (Mk. 11:12,13). This is an acted parable, of His search for man, for fruit upon us. The same imagery of a fig tree bearing fruit is used by the Lord in Lk. 13:6 to speak of His hope of spiritual fruit from Israel. But when the Lord finally arrived at the leafy fig tree, He found no fruit at all, and so He cursed it, and it withered. The same word is used about the withering of those rejected at the last day by the Lord Jesus- they will be withered, and then gathered up and burnt (Jn. 15:6). So as the Lord Jesus strode the long way towards the fig tree, focused upon it with all the focus and hope of a hungry man, so eager and hopeful to find fruit... so He is striding towards us with the same hope in us, of finding at least something, however immature, however unripe. But at least something. The shortening of the days for the sake of a remnant is predicted in Is. 65:8,9: &ldquo;As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants&rsquo; sakes, that I may not destroy them all. And I will bring forth a seed Jesus out of Jacob&hellip; and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there&rdquo;. The &ldquo;elect&rdquo; are paralleled with &ldquo;my servants&rdquo;. Because of them, the minority of faithful fruit, the whole tree is not destroyed. This is exactly the image of the fig tree parable; because of the beginnings of spiritual fruit on the tree of Israel, the whole nation will not be cut off and they will be saved by the coming of the Kingdom.</p><p>The fig tree was symbolic of Israel (Jer. 24:1-8; Hos. 9:10,16; Is. 28:4 RV; 34:2,4,8; Rev. 6:13; Lk. 13:6-9; 17:6; 19:6; Mic. 7:1 RV). Israel were seen by the Lord as the tree by the roadside, whose fruit should have been for all that passed by (Dt. 23:24). But because there was not even the glimmer of this kind of giving of fruit, they were condemned by the Lord. His disappointment was great because of His earlier parable about Himself and the fig tree, in which He had put these words in His own mouth: &quot;Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it and dung it: and if it bear fruit, well; but if not, after that thou shalt cut it down&quot;. He looked over and around the tree, desperate to see at least some signs of fruit. He realized that the tree of Israel had to be cut down. &quot;Leaves only&quot; recalls the inadequate covering for sin with which human history began in Eden.<br />&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1927','1','41','11','14','14','<p>11:14 <em>Jesus addressed it: Henceforth, no one will eat fruit from you again. And his disciples heard it</em>- Mk. 11:14,21,22 imply that Peter was amazed that something the Lord had predicted about the fig tree had actually come true.<br />Sometimes God speaks as if He has rejected Israel, and other times as if they will eternally be His people. Such is the extent of His passionate feelings for them. And the Son of God entered into this- He said that no man would eat fruit of the tree of Israel for ever (Mk. 11:14), when in fact Israel one day will fill the face of the earth with fruit (Is. 27:6). We too, in the spirit of the prophets, are to enter into these feelings of God. God&rsquo;s threats to punish His people and His desire to forgive them don&rsquo;t somehow cancel each other out as in an equation. They exist within the mind of God in a terrible tension. He cries out through Hosea of how His many &lsquo;repentings&rsquo; are &ldquo;kindled together&rdquo; as He struggles within Himself to give up His people as He has threatened (Hos. 11:8). The fig tree would never bear fruit (Mk. 11:14). But Israel will blossom and bud and fill the earth with fruit (Is. 27:6); hence the fig tree bearing fruit when it has been condemned never to bear fruit is such a dramatic sign (Lk. 21:29,30.). The Lord spoke His words about Israel\'s future budding with full knowledge that He (and several OT passages) had condemned her to eternal barrenness. He knew, however, the paradox of grace.</p><p>If the fruit on the fig tree represents spiritual fruit, does this suggest that now the possibility of repentance was taken away from them? It was as if judgment day had really arrived for them even in this life; for there will be no possibility of repentance then. Or it could be that the Lord was annulling the prophecies about&nbsp;<em>Israel</em>&nbsp;filling the face of the earth with fruit. His emphasis then would have been on &quot;May no fruit grow&nbsp;<em>on you</em>&quot;. The tree of Israel was to be cut down, and the fruit was to come from the fig tree &quot;and all the trees&quot; of the Gentile nations. This is the connection with the Lord\'s later sign of the fig tree and all the trees (Lk. 21:29); when spiritual fruit is seen on all of them, when the Gospel has gone into all the world, to all the trees / nations, then shall the end come (Mt. 24:14).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Matthew says there would be no fruit from the fig tree &quot;For ever&quot;, for the&nbsp;<em>aion</em>, the age. He could mean throughout the new age which was to start, for Israel are prophesied as finally blossoming and filling the face of the earth with fruit (Is. 27:6). Or it could be that that prophecy about Israel was conditional, and the Lord is accepting that their rejection of Him meant that it and other such prophecies were now disallowed from fulfilment in themselves by what they were going to do to Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1928','1','41','11','15','15','<p>11:15 <em>And they came to Jerusalem, and he entered into the temple and began to throw out those that sold and those that bought in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money exchangers and the seats of those that sold the doves</em>-</p><p>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>Throwing out or Mt. \'casting out\' is a verb elsewhere used by the Lord about condemnation (Mt. 8:12 and soon after this incident, in Mt. 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>Those who sold and bought in the temple refers to Zech. 9:8: &quot;And I will encamp for the sake of thine house as a garrison that none pass through or return; and no exactor shall pass through them any more: for now I have seen with mine eyes<em>&quot;.&nbsp;</em>This would allude to the Lord\'s looking around the temple and walking out of it; He banned carrying things through the temple (Mk. 11:16), and all exaction of money. 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 ban on carrying things through the temple referred to the practice of taking a short cut through the court of the Gentiles rather than having to walk all around the temple complex. The Lord was thereby proclaiming the court of the Gentiles as holy as the rest of the temple building. Note that the Lord also expelled those who were&nbsp;<em>buying</em>&nbsp;the animals for sacrifice- ordinary Jews wanting to offer sacrifice. 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;<em>not</em>&nbsp;want to hear.<br /><i><br /></i>The overthrowing of the tables was not done in simple anger. The Lord\'s motive was still their reformation. He had entered the temple in allusion to their expectation that Messiah would triumphantly enter Jerusalem and proceed into the temple. They had based that idea upon Malachi 3. But that prophecy continued: &quot;Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple . . .<em>&nbsp;and he shall purify the sons of Levi</em>&quot; (Mal. 3:1,3). This \'cleansing\' of the temple was His attempt to purify the sons of Levi. His hopefulness was simply amazing. And it is a strong pattern for we who give up so easily with people.&nbsp;</p><p>The traders were the sons of Annas, the High Priest. This deepened the anti-climax- the Lord entered Jerusalem and the temple- and cast out the sons of the High Priest. Instead of entering the temple in glory, fulfilling the hope of Ezekiel&rsquo;s vision of the temple where Messiah enters the temple from the East, instead the Lord entered the temple- and in a huge anti-climax, castigates the Jewish religious leadership, throwing them out of the temple, and being acclaimed only by those excluded from Judaism: children, the lame and blind.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1929','1','41','11','16','16','<p>11:16 <em>And he would not permit anyone to carry any merchandise through the temple</em>- 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. For all their claims that God\'s temple was holy, they were treating it like a public street by allowing porters to carry their goods through it rather than around it. It could be that the Jews permitted the carrying of goods through the court of the Gentiles, but not elsewhere. It\'s as if the Lord is saying that that court was to be treated as being as holy as the rest of the structure.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1930','1','41','11','17','17','<p>11:17 <em>And he taught and said to them- </em>The Lord several times quoted an OT passage which if quoted further would have made a telling point. Thus He quoted Is. 56:7: &ldquo;My house shall be called an house of prayer&rdquo;, leaving His hearers to continue: &ldquo;...for&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;people&rdquo;. He recited Ps. 8:2: &ldquo;Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise&rdquo;, leaving them to complete: &ldquo;...that thou mightest 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><em>Is it not written- </em>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><em>My house shall be called-</em> Luke uses the present tense, &quot;<em>is</em>&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><em>A house of prayer for all nations? But you have made it a den of thieves</em>- 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><p>Some of the Bible&rsquo;s &lsquo;prophecies&rsquo; are command more than prediction. The Lord Jesus criticized the Jews for trading in the temple because &ldquo;Is it not written, My house <em>shall be</em> called of all nations the house of prayer&rdquo; (Mk. 11:17). We can easily read this as meaning that one day, a &lsquo;house of prayer for all nations&rsquo; was to be built in Jerusalem. But in that case, why should not the Jews trade in the temple there and then, well before this was to happen, say, 2000 years later? The Lord surely means that the prophecy that the temple &ldquo;shall be called&hellip;&rdquo; a house of <em>prayer</em> was a command more than a prediction. It &ldquo;shall be&rdquo; a place for <em>prayer</em> and not <em>trading</em>. The &lsquo;fulfilment&rsquo; of this statement was dependent upon them praying there and encouraging all nations to pray there; yet they could limit the fulfilment of the &lsquo;prophecy&rsquo; by stopping Gentiles praying there, and by discouraging prayer there because of their trading policies. Thus the Lord saw the prophecy as more of a command than mere prediction. &lsquo;Prophecy&rsquo; really means the speaking forth of God&rsquo;s word, rather than the foretelling of the future. The closer one looks, the more conditional prophecies and Divine statements there are. &ldquo;My house shall be called a house of prayer&rdquo; had the extent of its possible fulfilment limited by the Jews turning the temple into a trading centre (Mk. 11:17).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1931','1','41','11','18','18','<p>11:18 <em>And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought a way to destroy him. For they feared him, for all the crowd were astonished at his teaching</em>- Despite all this, they would very soon be screaming for His blood. Their increased passion to destroy the Lord was, I suggest, exactly the response He had intended to elicit by parodying a triumphal entry.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1932','1','41','11','19','19','<p>11:19 <em>And every evening he left the city</em>- His &lsquo;going out of the city&rsquo; is allusive to the language of Ezekiel, in that the glory begins within the city but progressively lifts up and goes out of it. He repeatedly did so to try to get the perceptive minority to realize what was really happening.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1933','1','41','11','20','20','<p>11:20 <em>And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from the roots</em>- This meant the ground was cursed- the land of Israel. And the roots may refer to the ending of the Mosaic law. &quot;Ephraim \'fruitful\' is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit... My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations&quot; (Hos. 9:10,16,17).</p><p>This incident of the withered fig tree is an example of where Jesus didn&rsquo;t want us to perceive Him as too different from us. The disciples are amazed at the faith of Jesus in God&rsquo;s power. He had commanded the fig tree to be withered- but this had required Him to pray to God to make this happen. As the disciples looked at Him, wide eyed with amazement at His faith, very much into the &ldquo;Wow&rdquo; experience, the Lord immediately urged <em>them</em> to &ldquo;have faith in God... <em>whosoever</em> and this was surely His emphasis shall ask a mountain to move in faith, it will happen... therefore I say unto <em>you</em>, Whatsoever things <em>you</em> desire just as Jesus had desired the withering of the fig tree, when <em>you</em> pray as Jesus had done about the fig tree, believe that <em>you</em> receive them, and <em>you</em> shall have them&rdquo;. I suggest His emphasis was upon the word <em>you</em>. He so desired them to see His pattern of faith in prayer as a realistic image for them to copy. How sad He must be at the way He has been turned into an other-worldly figure, some wonderful, kindly God who saves us from the weakness and lack of faith which we are so full of. Yes, He <em>is</em> our Saviour, and the &ldquo;Wow&rdquo; factor leads us to have a burning and undying sense of gratitude to Him. But He isn&rsquo;t <em>only</em> that; He is an inspiration. It is in this sense that the spirit of Christ can and does so radically transform human life in practice. Of course, we have sinned, and we continue to do so. For whatever reason, we are not Jesus. But our painful awareness of this and it ought to be painful, not merely a theoretical acceptance that we are sinners... shouldn&rsquo;t lead us to think that His example isn&rsquo;t a realistic pattern for us.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1934','1','41','11','21','21','<p>11:21 <em>And Peter, remembering, said to him: Rabbi, look at the fig tree which you cursed. It is withered away</em>- See on Mk. 8:29; Jn. 21:7. After the denials, Peter again &quot;remembered the word of the Lord&quot;. And it seems that Mark is Peter\'s gospel. This has the ring of truth to it, in that Peter is portrayed, for all his impetuosity, as one who meditated upon the Lord\'s words. Perhaps the Lord had in mind His parable of the seed which sprung up and &quot;withered&quot; (Lk. 8:6 s.w.); Israel\'s initial response to John\'s preaching had withered. They were the withered branches which were now cast out of the tree (Jn. 15:6 s.w.). Peter is presenting himself as being somewhat foolish and unspiritual, in being surprised that the Lord\'s word had come true. He implies that he ought not to have been surprised at all.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1935','1','41','11','22','22','<p>11:22 <em>And Jesus answering said to them: Have faith in God</em>- We are asked to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect (Mt. 5:48); to have the faith of God (Mk. 11:22 AVmg.). By faith in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, we can attain these heights; but not in our own strength. In our every spiritual struggle and victory against the flesh throughout the day, we are playing out the finest and highest heroism that any playwright could conceive:&nbsp; the absolute underdog, the outsider without a chance, winning, at the end, the ultimate victory against impossible odds. Dear Peter exemplified how we so often behave, when he gasped at how deep was Jesus&rsquo; faith, as he saw the fig tree withered in exact accord with the Lord&rsquo;s earlier words. But the Lord turns on Him immediately: &ldquo;<em>You</em> have faith in God&hellip; <em>you</em> must believe, and whatever <em>you</em> ask in faith will happen, if you like me, see it as if it has happened at the point of asking for it&rdquo;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1936','1','41','11','23','23','<p>11:23<em> Truly I say to you, Whoever shall say to this mountain: Be removed and thrown into the sea, and shall not doubt in his heart but shall believe that what he said will happen- he shall have it </em>- See on Rev. 8:8. It was the Lord\'s radical usage of language which led to the huge, seething anger which He provoked, culminating in the demand for His death. He seems to have purposefully reinterpreted and reapplied symbols and ideas which spoke of Jewish national pride, and applied them to something quite different. His triumphal entry into Jerusalem on an ass, not a war horse, and in order to die... led to so much anger exactly because He had subverted such a familiar and longed for hope and symbol. We have to remember the huge value of symbols in the first century, living as we do in an age when the written word has become paramount. For the illiterate, symbols and acted parables were of far greater importance than the written word. We may think of \'Jesus\' in terms of His teachings recorded at a specific chapter and verse of our Bibles. To the illiterate first century Jew, they thought of Him in terms of what He <em>did</em>- His cleansing of the temple, His image of the temple mount being plucked up and cast into the sea. The Lord\'s teaching about the temple was especially subversive- for the temple played a &quot;decisive role... in resistance toward Rome&quot;. It was &quot;the focal point of the hope of national liberation, and hence was regarded as a guarantee of security against the pagans&quot;. But what does Jesus teach about the temple? It will be destroyed, His body shall be greater than the temple, it was to be a place of blessing for pagan Gentiles, because of Israel\'s wickedness the abomination would be set there, every place was hallowed ground, He was the true priest, etc. According to the <em>Mishnah Berakoth</em> 9.5, the faithful were to wash the dust from their feet before entering it- and Jesus washed His disciples feet in likely allusion to this before they say down in a private room and broke bread with Him (Jn. 13:1-20). As the Lithuanian Jewish Rabbi Jacob Neusner commented about Jesus\' institution of the \'breaking of bread\': &quot;The holy place has shifted, now being formed by the circle made up of the master and his disciples&quot;. The Lord Jesus used the term &quot;the blood of the covenant&quot; at the last Supper, with reference to how Zech. 9:9-11 prophesied that the restoration of Israel\'s fortunes would be because of this &quot;blood of my covenant&quot;. Yet the restoration / redemption which the Lord had in mind was not politically from Rome, but from sin and death through His blood. The temple had no great role in the Lord\'s teaching. By driving out traders from the temple, the Lord was effectively suggesting that the Kingdom prophecy of Zech. 14:21, of how in the restoration there would be no Gentile traders there, was coming true in Him. And the elders of the Jews are thus paralleled by Him with the Gentiles. He speaks of how &quot;this mountain&quot;- and He must\'ve been referring to Zion, the temple mount- was to be plucked up and cast into the sea of Gentiles (Mk. 11:23). And He was alluding to Zech. 4:6,7, which spoke of how the mountain of Babylon would be cast into the sea at the restoration- with the \'splash\' expressed in the words &quot;Grace, grace&quot;. This was to associate the Jewish temple system with Babylon- just as Revelation 17 likewise does. The Lord opened up a new universe of symbols; in an almost kaleidoscopic way, He twisted all the well loved symbols around. And when you mess with symbols, people get angry. Having lived in the Baltic States many years, I observed how inflammatory is the issue of messing with war memorials. Russians and Balts can slag each other off verbally all they wish, and people shrug. But mess with symbols, remove or rededicate a war memorial- and the crowds are on the streets. And this was, partially, what led to the fury with Jesus which led to His lynching. He who proclaimed non-violent revolution, the radical transformation of the inner mind into God\'s temple, Israel\'s true Messiah, was seen as the ultimate threat to all that it meant to be Jewish- all because His language and actions subverted the beloved symbols of the social club. When we experience this... we are sharing something of His sufferings.</p><p>There is a clear semantic connection between the cursing of the fig tree and the moving of the mountain into the sea. The mountain in view was the temple mount. The Lord is comforting them that not only would the tree of Israel be withered, but the whole mount Zion, the most sacred space in Judaism, would be cast to the Gentiles the &quot;sea&quot;. This kind of thing was what His parody of a triumphal entry had been all about, and His casting out of the religious Jews from the temple and replacing them with kids and cripples, those formerly excluded from the sacred space. The faith to move the temple mount to the Gentiles was the very faith which Peter was later required to have in preaching to the Gentiles represented by Cornelius.&nbsp; The Lord recognized that this paradigm shift was a matter of faith, and He urged the disciples to realize their psychological problem and accept it needed special help from God to get over. This incident obviously had huge relevance for the first century communities of believers who were baptized as a result of Mark\'s Gospel; for acceptance of the end of the Jewish system and the acceptance of the Gentiles was the live issue for the early churches. Mk. 11:25 adds: &quot;And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses&quot;. The motivation in accepting others into fellowship, in accepting the casting of the sacred space of Mount Zion to the Gentiles, was to be from realizing their own urgent need for forgiveness and their moral frailty. Those faced with similar struggles about accepting others, or allowing previously rejected categories into Christian fellowship, need to take this advice.</p><p>To be removed and cast into the sea was a word picture of condemnation. And yet&nbsp;<em>airo</em>, to remove or take away, surely reflects the Hebraism of \'taking away\' with reference to taking away sin (s.w. Jn. 1:29; 1 Jn. 3:5 &quot;takes away the sin of the Jewish world&quot;). This was a phrase with two possible meanings. The disciples could achieve this in that their preaching would give mount Zion both the possibility of sin being taken away if they responded and of condemnation, being cast into the sea like Gentile Babylon if they rejected their message. The same words and ideas are found in Rev. 18:21, where Babylon is \'taken up\' s.w. &quot;removed&quot; and cast into the sea. However, the Lord soon uses the same word in telling the Jews that the Kingdom was to be &quot;taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of the Kingdom&quot; (:43). This reference to fruit connects with the Lord\'s teaching about the fig tree which was cursed for not bearing fruit. The rejected servant was likewise to be \'taken away\' in condemnation (22:13), just as the flood &quot;took them all away&quot; (24:39), the talent was \'taken away\' from the rejected (25:28,29). Significantly, the Lord had used this same word for \'remove\' or \'take away\' in the first cleansing of the temple, when He commanded the traders to &quot;Take these things away&quot; (Jn. 2:16); and likewise it is used about the \'taking away\' of the branches of the tree of Israel (Jn. 15:2). The Lord is telling the disciples that they too will be able to make such a removing of the unclean from the system of Judaism, and likewise cause the withering of Israel\'s tree. In fact it was the Romans who &quot;took away our place and nation&quot; (Jn. 11:48 s.w.) but this was on account of Israel\'s rejection of the disciples\' preaching. In that sense, therefore, it was they who had caused the temple Mount to be taken away and cast into the sea of Gentiles. This too is the power of our preaching. We are not merely discharging a responsibility to evangelize so that we feel better, let alone doing a PR exercise for our local church or denomination. Our presentation of the message to others has eternal consequence for them- to their salvation or condemnation. Significantly, the same word is used for how on the cross, the Lord \'took away\' the Mosaic Law (Col. 2:14).&nbsp;</p><p><em>&quot;</em>Cast into the sea&quot; were the very words used by the Lord in describing the fate of the Jews who made the little ones stumble (Mk. 9:42). The little ones had been brought into the temple to replace the Jewish religious leaders. Those leaders had previously refused to accept those little ones. Their judgment was to be cast into the sea as Babylon (Rev. 18:21 same words). But this would only happen once the disciples had preached to them after the resurrection- they were given chance after chance, despite the Lord\'s cursing of the fig tree with immediate effect.</p><p>The Lord\'s utter confidence in the power of prayer is reflected in the way He speaks to lepers, to waves of the sea, to blind eyes and deaf ears, commanding them to do things. Yet clearly this was a result of His own prayer to the Father. Yet He was so confident that what He had requested would really come true. And in Mk. 11:23 He challenges us to tell mountains to be removed. He doesn&rsquo;t tell us to ask God to move a mountain; rather does He teach us to talk directly to the mountain. It&rsquo;s been observed that Biblical Hebrew has no word for &lsquo;yes&rsquo;; instead, in order to show agreement, the preceding words of the speaker are repeated. Examples are in Esther 5:7 Heb. and Gen. 18:15. Seeing that Biblical Hebrew reflects to us something of the mind of God, it seems to me that we&rsquo;re being taught by this to believe that what we ask for from God, we will receive; our request is the nature of the answer. Hence the need for care in formulating <em>what</em> we ask for, believing that God&rsquo;s &lsquo;yes&rsquo; will be effectively a repeating back of our words to us.</p><p>Consider how the Lord taught ambition in prayer- He put before His men the real possibility of moving a mountain into the sea, if that was what was required (Mk. 11:23). This example wasn\'t off the top of His head; He was consciously alluding to Job 9:5, where Job says that God alone, but not man, can do something like moving a mountain into the sea. And the Lord is saying: \'Yes, God alone can do it; but such is the potential power of prayer, that He will hearken to your requests to do such things- and do them\'. The whole process of Nazariteship was to encourage the normal Israelite to have the ambition to rise up to the spirit of the High Priest himself; the restrictions governing Nazariteship were a purposeful echo of those regarding the High Priest. The way God describes Himself as depriving Israel of &quot;wine or strong drink&quot; (Dt. 29:6) throughout the wilderness journey is Nazarite language: as if in all their weakness and profligacy, God still sought to inspire them to rise up to the heights.</p><p>The Christian must &quot;believe that what he says comes to pass&quot; - present tense. He is to visualize the immediate fulfilment of what he asks for in the court of Heaven. Compare the RV and AV of Ps. 92:11 in this connection: &quot;Mine eye also shall see RV \'hath seen\' my desire&hellip; and mine ears shall hear RV \'have heard\' my desire&quot;. The confusion in the tenses is surely intentional- David really felt he had already received that which he prayed for. He shows this again by the way in which he uses tense moods perhaps purposefully ambiguously in Ps. 56:13. The AV has: &ldquo;Wilt not thou deliver my feet from falling&hellip;?&rdquo;, whereas the RV renders it: &ldquo;Hast thou not delivered my feet from falling?&rdquo;. Another example is in Ps. 18:44,47: &ldquo;The strangers <em>shall </em>submit themselves&hellip; God right now, by faith in prayer subdueth the peoples&rdquo;. David perhaps perceived that the requests of prayer must also be some sort of statement that the prayer was answered already.<br />The Lord taught that we should believe that &quot;what we say in prayer shall come to pass&quot; (Mk. 11:23 RV). This is very much the language of God\'s word- what <em>He </em>says, comes to pass for sure. And so we\'re being invited to see <em>our</em> words in prayer as effectively like God\'s words; for if we pray according to His word, surely we will be heard. See on Jn. 15:7.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1937','1','41','11','24','24','<p>11:24<em> Therefore I say to you: All things, whatever you pray and ask for, believe that you will receive them- and you shall have them- </em>This evidently has some context and limitations, because there is no reason to think that we literally receive whatever we ask. Even the Lord didn\'t. The context is the ability to change, the ability to accept paradigm shifts, to have the courage to preach; the mindset which can cope with a previous worldview coming to an end. This is exactly why people are so unwilling to change cherished beliefs and practices- because their conservatism is more powerful in their own minds than God\'s word. We need to accept we have this problem, and rejoice that whatever we ask for in this psychological and at times practical battle will indeed be granted to us.</p><p>The experience of answered prayer inspires us to pray yet more. &quot;What things soever ye desire, believe that ye did receive them, and ye shall have them&quot; (Mk. 11:24 Gk.) can be read as meaning that we should remember how we received things in the past, and therefore we should have faith that the things we now desire really will be likewise granted. It is for this reason that the prayers recorded in the Psalms constantly look back to previous experiences of answered prayer as a motivation for faith and Hope: Ps. 3:4,5; 44:1-4; 61:5; 63:7; 66:18-20; 77:4-16; 86:13; 94:5,7-19; 116:1; 120:1,2; 126:1,4; 140:6,7. Jeremiah likewise (Lam. 3:55,56). And even the fact other believers had received answers to prayer inspired David\'s faith in prayer (Ps. 74:11-15; 106).<br />The close link between thought and prayer is developed in the Lord&rsquo;s teaching in Mk. 11:23,24: &ldquo;Truly I say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he says comes to pass; he shall have it. Therefore I say unto you, All things you pray and ask for, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them&rdquo;. Our self-talk is to be fantasy about the fulfilment of our prayers. Yet how often do we hit &lsquo;send&rsquo; on our requests to God, like scribbling off a postcard, and hardly think again about them?</p><p>Even in His mortal life, the Lord was eager to as it were close the gap between Himself and His followers, so that they didn\'t feel He was an unattainable, distant icon to admire, but rather a true friend, leader, King and example to realistically follow. Thus when He cursed the fig tree, having prayed about it and firmly believing that what He had asked would surely come about, Peter marvelled: &quot;Master, behold, the fig tree you cursed is withered&quot;. The Lord replies by urging Peter to &quot;Have faith in God. For truly I tell you, <em>whosoever</em> (and this is the stress, surely) shall say unto this mountain (far bigger than a fig tree) , Be removed be cast into the sea (a far greater miracle than withering a fig tree overnight), and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he says will come to pass (referring to how the words of Jesus to the fig tree were effectively His prayer to God about it); he shall <em>whatever</em> he says. Therefore I say unto <em>you</em>, Whatever <em>you</em> desire (just as I desired the withering of the fig tree), when <em>you</em> pray, believe that you receive them, and <em>you</em> shall have them (just as I did regarding the fig tree)&quot; (Mk. 11:21-24). Peter\'s amazement at the power of the Lord\'s prayers was therefore turned back on him- \'<em>You too</em> can do what I just did, and actually greater things are possible for you than what I just did\'. That was the message here- and He repeated it in the upper room, in encouraging them that &quot;Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do&quot; (Jn. 14:12).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1938','1','41','11','25','25','<p>11:25<em> And whenever you stand praying, forgive those you have something against; so that your Father who is in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses- </em>The Lord assumed that whenever we pray, we will include a request for forgiveness. Not only is this one of the few requests in His model prayer, but Mk. 11:25 reflects the same assumption: &quot;<em>Whensoever </em>ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any one; that your Father&hellip; may forgive you&quot; (RV). <em>Whenever</em> we pray we should be seeking forgiveness. And the Lord also implies that whenever we pray, we will almost always have something against someone else. For He knew well that human society is inevitably filled with misunderstandings and bad feelings against each other.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1939','1','41','11','26','26','<p>11:26<em> But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses- </em>The conditions on which God\'s love and forgiveness operate was likewise stressed by Christ: &quot;When ye stand praying, forgive... that&nbsp;your Father... may&nbsp;forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses&quot; (Mk. 11:25,26). God\'s eagerness to forgive us is therefore reflected in His eagerness&nbsp;to see us forgive others. His desire to make all grace abound towards us is something beautiful, something wondrous.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1940','1','41','11','27','27','<p>11:27 <em>And they arrived in Jerusalem. And as he was walking into the temple, there came to him the chief priests and the scribes and the elders</em>- Matthew notes he &quot;entered&quot; the temple. &quot;Entered&quot; is&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>, and is matched by the priests and elders \'coming\' to Him,&nbsp;<em>proserchomai</em>. The impression is created of direct confrontation, head on.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1941','1','41','11','28','28','<p>11:28 <em>They said to him: By what authority do you do these things? Who gave you authority to do these things?</em>- Presumably they thought they had Him caught out, because&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&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 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;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('1942','1','41','11','29','29','<p>11:29 <em>And Jesus said to them: I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things</em>- 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. The sense of the Greek is not &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 that \'We cannot know\' (AV again is unhelpful by offering here &quot;We cannot tell&quot;- the Greek words for AV &quot;tell&quot; are all different in this section).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1943','1','41','11','30','30','<p>11:30<em> The baptism of John- </em>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><em>Was it from Heaven, or from men? Answer me- </em>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;&nbsp;</p><p>The \'naturalness\' of Jesus becomes all the more powerful when we grasp Biblically that Jesus is our representative; exactly because He was really, genuinely human, He is such a natural and powerful imperative to us in our behaviour. Take, for example, His perception of His own baptism. Surely why He went through with it was to show His solidarity with us, who would later be baptized. He lined up along the banks along with big time sinners, nobodies, dear old grannies, weirdos, starry-eyed youngsters, village people stuck in the monotony of a hand-to-mouth existence, all of them standing there probably half-naked... and took His turn to be baptized. When asked later to account for His authority, Jesus asked whether His questioners accepted John\'s baptism as from Heaven or from men (Mk. 11:30). This wasn\'t merely a diversionary question; it was dead relevant. His authority was partly because He had been baptized by John. This was how much John\'s baptism inspired Him. It meant so much to Him, to have been thus identified with us. And it was that very identification with humanity, as the &quot;son of Man&quot;, that gave Him His authority.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1944','1','41','11','31','31','<p>11:31 <em>And they reasoned among themselves, saying: If we shall say: From Heaven- he will say: Why then did you not believe him?</em>- 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 :33 that &quot;They answered... and said, We cannot tell&quot; 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('1945','1','41','11','32','32','<p>11:32 <em>But if we say: From men- they were in fear of the people. For all truly held John to be a prophet</em>- Although we would all agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it is quite possible that we fail to <em>feel</em> this as we might when we read it. The people &quot;verily held John to be a prophet&quot; (Mk. 11:32 RV) but they rejoiced only for a short time in the light of his words. They rejected his most essential message- whilst still believing he was an inspired prophet. Or, thinking they believed he was.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1946','1','41','11','33','33','<p>11:33 <em>And they answered Jesus, saying: We do not know. And Jesus said to them: Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things</em>- See on :31. They knew in their hearts the answer to both their question and the Lord\'s question. Their sin in having Him crucified was therefore the greater; for they recognized His Divine authority, and perceived that &quot;This is the heir...&quot;. Likewise the Lord rarely stated that He was the Christ or God\'s Son; He left that to be worked out by inference from His words and works. And this is why God\'s revelation to us in His word the Bible is as it is. There is no set of 20 bullet points to be grasped, no statement of faith preserved. We are to work things out by inference, for thereby our personal conviction of them will be the more powerful and personal.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1947','1','41','12','1','1','<p>12:1 <i>And he began to speak to them in parables-</i> The Lord&rsquo;s hopefulness at their response is remarkable; He makes a continued appeal to those who in other teaching He has stated have gone too far and are even now condemned. His hopefulness for human response is outstanding and a huge encouragement for us.</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 Mt. 21 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. 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 set a hedge about it- </i>The same word is used for the Law of Moses as the &quot;wall of partition&quot; (Eph. 2:14). Although the vineyard was to be given to others, it was itself destroyed and dismantled by the owner; which involved the taking away of the Law of Moses. The vineyard functioned differently, on the basis of fruit being produced in the vine of Christ (Jn. 15).</p><p><i>And dug a pit for the winepress- </i>This was the place where the grapes were trodden to produce wine. It features in all record of this parable. What does it represent? Perhaps the temple, designed to be the means of producing the wine of covenant relationship with God. The targums on Isaiah 5, the song of the vineyard upon which the parable is based, interpret it as a reference to the destruction of the temple. But the Lord only elsewhere uses the term when three times using it as a symbol of God\'s final judgment of condemnation (Rev. 14:19,20; 19:15). This is typical of the structure of God\'s plans with men. What is designed for our blessing can also be for our condemnation, just as a cup of wine is used as a symbol of both blessing and condemnation. Time and again we are left with nothing but two choices before us- of acceptance or condemnation. Israel were the vine of God\'s planting which produced bad fruit (Jer. 2:21; Dt. 32:32,33; Hos. 10:1). The lack of good grapes on the vine was because of Israel\'s unspirituality (Jer. 8:13) and allowing the wonderful vineyard to become overgrown (Jer. 5:17). The reason why the workers beat and killed the servants was surely because actually they had no fruit to give them, even though the environment was perfect for good wine. The land of Israel was an environment and climate ideally suited to producing good vines (Dt. 8:7). There was supposed to be joy at the gathering of the vine harvest- and that connection is frequently made in the Old Testament. Indeed, the pictures of joy and wine at harvest are the pictures of the Messianic Kingdom. It could have come- but Israel didn\'t produce the good grapes. Likewise, believe it or not, God has created an ideal environment for each of us to produce spiritual fruit. The song of the Vineyard in Is. 5:1-7 is clearly the basis of the Lord\'s parable here, and this is the thrust of that story- that all had been done by God for the viticulture to flourish, but it didn\'t because of Israel\'s refusal to respond and to work. Isaiah 5 goes on to condemn Israel for drunkenness (Is. 5:11-13,22), as if they had used the vine for their own selfishness, rather like the Jews had made the &quot;feasts of Yahweh&quot; the &quot;feast of the Jews&quot;, His house had become &quot;your house&quot;, and just as we can use the structure of God\'s working with men, the body of Christ, the mystical temple, as a social club for our own pleasure. God therefore withheld rain so that in any case, fruit was now impossible for Israel (Is. 5:6); and that is exactly the Lord\'s message in Mt. 21. The Isaiah 5 passage is in turn developed in Is. 27:2-6, where we find that Yahweh Himself guarded the vineyard, watered and weeded it, such was His almost obsessive interest in this project (Is. 27:3). The fruit hoped for was righteousness and justice (Is. 5:7); human injustice usually arises from passivity, going along with a group situation which hurts individuals and denies them justice. And this was the lack of fruit which led to condemnation. Is. 5:5 and Ps. 80:13 say that the judgment of the vineyard is in terms of having its walls broken down and it being destroyed; the Lord\'s parable doesn\'t deny that, but doesn\'t specifically mention it- rather does He focus upon fruit being produced by different workers. Jn. 15 uses the imagery of the vine to suggest that fruit now comes from being branches within the vine of Christ- which grows with no reference to any vineyard, freestanding in the world.</p><p><i>And built a tower-</i> It may be that the emphasis upon the tower and winepress is simply to show the degree of effort God went to so that the vineyard could produce fruit. The details of the allegory fall away compared to the supreme point- that God did all possible to provide an environment which would produce fruit. And He likewise provides us with an optimal environment for spirituality, much as we are tempted to think He has it wrong on some points.</p><p><i>And rented it to husbandmen. Then he went into another country</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 25:14,15; Mk. 13:34 &quot;the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey&quot;, s.w.. 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('1948','1','41','12','2','2','<p>12:2 <i>And at the season- </i>Matthew: &quot;And when the harvest season drew near&quot;, a phrase used by Matthew about the drawing near of the Kingdom at Christ\'s time (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, so he might receive from the husbandmen the fruits of the vineyard</i>- The prophets are God\'s servants (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. But we wonder whether there was one initial prophet in view here? Matthew says there were two groups of servants, and this is perhaps an allusion to the Jewish distinction between the &ldquo;former prophets&rdquo; and the &ldquo;latter prophets&rdquo;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1949','1','41','12','3','3','<p>12:3<i> And they took him and beat him, and sent him away empty handed</i>- Paul several times uses the word to express his fear that his preaching and pastoral labour had been &quot;in vain&quot; s.w. &quot;empty&quot;, e.g. 1 Cor. 15:14. His aim, as our aim, was spiritual fruit in people, to see the fruits of the Spirit revealed in a convert. Where this is lacking we come away empty handed as it were, just like the Old Testament prophets. The parable suggests that the more Israel were asked for spiritual fruit, the more angry and abusive they progressively became towards the servants who required that fruit from them. And so often, those who call others on their real spirituality are hated and finally destroyed by them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1950','1','41','12','4','4','<p>12:4 <i>And again he sent to them another servant- and him they wounded in the head and handled shamefully</i>- When the world reviled him, Paul saw himself as the beaten prophets Jesus had spoken about (2 Cor. 11:24,25 = Mt. 21:35).&nbsp;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. &quot;Handled shamefully&quot; is s.w. Is. 53:3 LXX &quot;despised&quot;. The Old Testament prophets suffered aspects of what the Lord suffered at their hands.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1951','1','41','12','5','5','<p>12:5 <i>And he sent another- and him they killed; and many others, beating some and killing some</i>- Matthew adds stoning to these insults. There are few accounts of Old Testament prophets being killed or stoned. But beating, stoning and killing 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('1952','1','41','12','6','6','<p>12:6<i> He had one other, a beloved son. He sent him last to them, saying: They will reverence my son</i>-It is noteworthy that the parable of Mk. 12:6 has Jesus describing Himself as both a servant- the last servant- and the only beloved son of the vineyard owner.</p><p>Lk. 20:13 adds &quot;It may be that...&quot;. The Greek&nbsp;<i>isos</i>&nbsp;is tantalizingly hard to understand. It could mean \'Perhaps\'; or equally it could mean \'They will, surely\'. Lk. 20:13 adds &ldquo;My beloved Son&rdquo;. Thus 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;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. 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;Surely they will reverence my Son&rdquo; is the thought imputed to Almighty God in the parable, as He sends His only Son to seek for spiritual response in Israel. The parable frames God as almost naive in believing that although Israel had killed the prophets, they would reverence the Word made flesh, and the speaking of God to them in Him. Yet of course God knew what would happen; but in order to express the extraordinary, unenterable extent of His hopefulness, He is framed in this way. Just as the Father thought that His people &ldquo;surely&rdquo; would reverence His Son, so He was &lsquo;certain&rsquo; that if His people went to Babylon in captivity, &ldquo;surely then shalt you be ashamed&hellip; for all your wickedness&rdquo; (Jer. 22:22). But the reality was that they grew to like the soft life of Babylon and refused to obey the command to return to God&rsquo;s land. Such was and is the hopefulness of God. The Father had the same attitude to Israel in Old Testament times: &ldquo;I thought that after she had done all this, she would return to me, but she did not&rdquo; (Jer. 3:7 NIV). The Lord Jesus reflected the Father&rsquo;s positive spirit in the way He framed the parable of the prodigal son to feature the Heavenly Father as running out to meet the returning son, falling on his neck and kissing him&hellip; in <i>exactly</i> the language of Gen. 33:4 about Esau doing this to Jacob. The connection can&rsquo;t be denied; but what was the Lord&rsquo;s point? Surely He was willing to see something positive in the otherwise fleshly Esau at that time, He as it were took a snapshot of Esau at that moment&hellip; and applied it to God Himself, in His extravagant grace towards an unworthy Jacob. This was how positive minded the Lord was in His reading of even the darkest characters.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1953','1','41','12','7','7','<p>12:7 <i>But those husbandmen said among themselves- </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)</p><p><i>This is the heir-</i> The leaders of first century Israel initially recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (Mt. 21:38 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;Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am... Ye neither know me, nor my Father... when ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye 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>Come, let us kill him and the inheritance shall 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. The leaders of first century Israel initially recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (Mt. 21:38 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;Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am... Ye neither know me, nor my Father... when ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye 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>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1954','1','41','12','8','8','<p>12:8 <i>And they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard</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 to Matthew: Took, killed, cast out of the vineyard. But the Greek text doesn&rsquo;t have to be read strictly chronologically. Strictly, they &ldquo;took Him, killed and cast out of the vineyard&rdquo;. 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 (:10). 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, the Kingdom (Mt. 21:43) will themselves be cast out of the Kingdom at the last day.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1955','1','41','12','9','9','<p>12:9- see on Mk. 8:34-37.</p><p><i>What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do?- </i>The Lord&rsquo;s parable of the vineyard is shot through with allusions to the vineyard parable of Is. 5. When the Lord asks &ldquo;What will the lord of the vineyard do?&rdquo;, those who picked up the Isaiah 5 allusions would have found the answer in Is. 5:4,5: &ldquo;What&hellip; to do&hellip; what I will do&rdquo;.</p><p><i>He will come- </i>The Lord Jesus said this with the cry still echoing in His ears concerning Himself: &quot;Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord&quot; (Mt. 21:9). He clearly has Himself in view, \'coming\' in behalf of His Father. His parody of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem was really an entering of Jerusalem in judgment upon them. His entry into Jerusalem and the temple was in essence the Lord of the vineyard coming. He certainly uses the language of the Lord coming with reference to Himself (23:39; 24:42,46,48; 25:19; Lk. 12:36).&nbsp;</p><p><i>And destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others</i>- The Lord spoke of how the owner Himself would &ldquo;come and destroy the 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>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1956','1','41','12','10','10','<p>12:10 <i>Have you not read in the scripture- </i>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). In the metaphor, the builders were supposed to use the stone, to manipulate it and use it as important material; and build a temple upon it. But they rejected the cornerstone, and so they didn\'t build a temple. That is what the metaphor implies. The Jews considered that the building of a temple was the work of Messiah; but they refused to build it, because they rejected Jesus as Christ. And so the Messianic Kingdom didn\'t come; there was no Messianic temple built by them, because they rejected the cornerstone.</p><p><i>The same was made the head 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('1957','1','41','12','11','11','<p>12:11 <i>This was from the Lord and it is marvellous in our eyes?</i>- In whose eyes would the elevation and acceptance of the stone a similar Hebrew and Aramaic word to &quot;son&quot; be marvellous or miraculous / praiseworthy? The quotation is from Ps. 118:23. This Psalm is a dialogue between the speaker, who is in suffering and rejection and yet has hope of resurrection and glorious acceptance, and another group of people who sing or speak their response. This is why there are statements in the first person e.g. &quot;The Lord is&nbsp;<i>my</i>&nbsp;strength...&nbsp;<i>I</i>&nbsp;will praise you&quot;, and then responses of the group: &quot;It is marvellous in&nbsp;<i>our</i>&nbsp;eyes...&nbsp;<i>we</i>&nbsp;will rejoice and be glad...&nbsp;<i>we</i>&nbsp;have blessed you... the Lord has showed&nbsp;<i>us</i>&nbsp;light&quot;. Who is this group? The Psalm opens with instruction to &quot;The house of Aaron... Israel... them that fear the Lord&quot; to respond to the Messiah figure in praise (Ps. 118:2-4). The priesthood are often paralleled with all Israel, because it was God\'s intention that eventually all Israel should be a priestly nation. The significance of the quotation is that it was to be the intended response of the &quot;house of Aaron&quot;, Israel\'s religious leaders, to the acceptance of the rejected stone / son of God. But it was the Lord\'s disciples who would make this response. They, therefore were the new &quot;house of Aaron&quot;- yet another hint that the Lord was creating a new Israel with another priesthood.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1958','1','41','12','12','12','<p>12:12 <i>And they sought to arrest him; but they feared the crowd. For they perceived that he had spoken that parable against them; and they left him and went away</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. Their &quot;seeking&quot; to arrest Him is the very language of Herod seeking to destroy God\'s son (Mt. 2:13,20). They were no better than the despised Herod.&nbsp;The Greek for &quot;Lay hands on / arrest&quot; is likewise used for what Herod did to John the Baptist (Mt. 14:3). The Lord uses the same word soon afterwards to describe how His servants will likewise suffer (Mt. 22:6 &quot;The remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully and killed them&quot;). The Lord intends us to see all our sufferings as part of His. Matthew repeatedly uses the word to describe how the Jews laid hands on the Lord to arrest and kill Him (Mt. 26:4,48,50,55,57).&nbsp;We see the fickleness of the crowd. They were soon crying for the Lord\'s blood.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1959','1','41','12','13','13','<p>12:13 <i>And they sent to him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might catch him out in his teaching</i>- The same word used of how&nbsp;<i>they</i>&nbsp;were to be entangled or caught up 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. The Pharisees and Herodians were sworn enemies. Herod was anathema to the Pharisees, who saw him as a false Jew and some kind of antiChrist figure. But a theme of the Lord\'s judgment and death was that His enemies were united together by a common hatred of Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1960','1','41','12','14','14','<p>12:14 <i>And when they arrived, they said to him: Teacher, we know you are truthful and do not care about anyone\'s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God-</i> See on Jn. 10:13. Lk. 20:21 adds that they also said at this point: &quot;You say and teach&nbsp;<i>rightly</i>&quot;, 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 could legally swoop upon Him and have Him arrested for disloyalty to the empire.&nbsp;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><p>Not caring about others\' opinion 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. 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>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>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>');
