insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1598','1','41','4','4','4','<p>4:4<i> And it came to pass, as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside</i>- The Greek&nbsp;<i>hodos</i>&nbsp;means simply \'the way\'. It is the very word used about John the Baptist seeking to prepare the way for the Lord Jesus (Mt. 3:3). If Israel had responded as envisaged in the Isaiah 40 passage which speaks of this, then the way or road would have been prepared and the glory of Yahweh would have travelled over it to establish God\'s visible Kingdom in Jerusalem. On one hand, the fact the sower sowed even on the \'way\' is an element of unreality in the parable which simply points to the extreme enthusiasm of this sower, casting the seed onto all types of human personality, including those who appear hopeless cases. The seed of God\'s word would have made the rough way smooth for the King of glory to ride over to Zion. But instead the seed was despised and even condemned, trampled underfoot - an idiom meaning it was despised and even condemned. And then the birds came and took it away altogether. The way was not prepared by response to the seed because of the Jewish leadership stopping others responding. We note the usage of the same word to describe how some despised individuals sitting in \'the way\' were in fact persuaded to respond to the Kingdom invitation (Mt. 22:9,10); Bartimaeus was likewise sitting in the way s.w. and responded, following Jesus &quot;in the way&quot; (Mk. 10:46,52). The \'way side\' could have responded to the seed- but it didn\'t. Because men came and trampled it under foot, and the birds came and took it away. It wasn\'t as if there was no chance at all that it could have responded.&nbsp;</p><p><i>And the birds came</i>- Lk. 8:5 adds that first of all, the seed was &quot;trodden down&quot; before the birds came. The impression is given of something, someone or a group of people hindering the growth of the seed- and that is a theme explaining the failure of the seed to grow in the other cases of \'bad ground\'. The Lord has in mind the damage done to the growth of the word in the hearts of first century Israel by a group of people- and those people were the Jewish religious leaders. On a wider level, it\'s true that in practice it is the attitudes and pressures from others, conscious and unconscious, which stops people today from responding to God\'s word beyond an initial interest. Birds were symbolically understood in Judaism as the Gentiles- and the Lord is applying the symbol to the very religious leaders of Judaism, whom He saw as Gentiles in that they were consciously trying to stop people responding to the seed of God\'s word of Christ. And yet His later parable&nbsp;speaks of the birds coming and dwelling in the branches of His Kingdom (Mt. 13:32). I see in this His hope, even His fantasy, that His worst opponents would come into His Kingdom. And some did- for some Pharisees did later repent and were baptized, even Saul. And this is a great example to us, of wishing the very best, the Kingdom, for even the worst.</p><p>The picture of fowls coming down to take away the seed is firmly rooted in a host of Old Testament passages which speak of fowls descending on apostate Israel (Is.18:6; Jer.7:33; 15:3; 16:4; 19:7; 34:20). These birds taking away the seed are interpreted as &quot;the wicked one&quot; (the Biblical devil) \'catching away\' the word. There must be a thought connection here with Jesus\' comment that from him who would not understand the sower parable &quot;shall be&nbsp;<i>taken away</i>&nbsp;even what he has&quot; (Mt. 13:12). Those who would not make the mental effort to grapple with Christ\'s parable had what understanding they did have snatched away by the Jewish devil. &quot;The wicked one&quot; responsible for this easily connects with &quot;the devil&quot; of the parable of the tares which follows; this parable has frequently been interpreted with reference to Jewish false teachers of the first century. &quot;The wicked one... catches away&quot; the seed/word, as the Jewish wolf &quot;catches&quot; the sheep (Mt. 13:19; Jn. 10:12). This association of the first century Jewish system with the wolf/ wild beast/ devil/ wicked one is probably continued by some of the beasts of Revelation having a similar Jewish application in the first century.</p><p>Lk. 8:5 literally translated speaks of &quot;birds of Heaven&quot;. The fowls taking away the unfruitful seed is the first of a number of connections with the true vine parable of Jn. 15, where the ideas of Divine husbandry and fruitfulness due to the word recur. In Jn. 15:2 the fruitless branch is taken away by God; in the sower parable, the birds remove the fruitless plant. The conclusion is that God sends \'birds\' of various kinds to remove the spiritual deadwood from His ecclesia. It is in this sense that false teaching (e.g. the Judaist &quot;fowls&quot; of the first century) is allowed by God. parable of the sower connects the Devil with the fowls which take away the Word from potential converts, stopping their spiritual growth. This would aptly fit the Judaizers who were leading the young ecclesias away from the word, and the Jews who &ldquo;shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men... neither suffer ye them that are entering (young converts) to go in&rdquo; (Mt. 23:13). The Devil takes away the word of the Kingdom, &ldquo;lest they should believe and be saved&rdquo; (Lk. 8:12).</p><p><i>And devoured it</i>- The same word is used of how the Pharisees &quot;devoured widows houses&quot; (Mt. 23:14) and of how the Judaist fifth column within the fledgling church \'devoured\' some (Gal. 5:15). The sober fact is that we can be barriers to the response of others to the word of Jesus, the word which is&nbsp;<i>the</i>&nbsp;seed- Jesus. One lesson we can take from the parable is that spiritual growth involves resisting other influences in order to respond to the Lord Jesus personally through His word.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1599','1','41','4','5','5','<p>4:5<i> And other fell on the rocky ground, where it had not much earth- </i>The Greek&nbsp;<i>petrodes</i>&nbsp;is a form of&nbsp;<i>petra</i>. The Lord had taught that the wise man who heard and did His sayings developed his spiritual house upon a&nbsp;<i>petra</i>, a rock (Mt. 7:24). And of course Peter was the&nbsp;<i>petra&nbsp;</i>upon which the church would be built (Mt. 16:18). So again we see that it was not impossible for the seed on the rock to prosper. The problem was that some who began their growth upon rocks stopped growing because of persecution and tribulation (Mt. 12:21)- which in the first instance was from the Jews.</p><p><i>And immediately- </i>The immediacy of response is not wrong; immediate response is a great theme of Mark. The good ground also features immediate response. The problem with many is that they do not continue that immediacy of response. When you perceive an opportunity to do the Lord\'s service, <i>respond immediately</i>. See it as another opportunity for &quot;redeeming the time&quot;. This is a major Biblical theme. Israel were not to delay in offering their firstfruits to God (Ex. 22:29), lest their intentions weren\'t translated into practice. The disciples <i>immediately</i> left the ship, simply put their nets down and followed (Mt. 4:20,22); Matthew left his opened books and queue of clients in the tax office and walked out never to return (Lk. 5:17,18 implies). There is a marked theme in the NT of men and women hearing the Gospel and <i>immediately</i> responding by accepting baptism. In this spirit Cornelius immediately sent for Peter (Acts 10:33), and the Philippian jailer was immediately baptized, even though there were many other things to think about that night (Acts 16:33). Joseph was twice told in dreams to &ldquo;arise&rdquo; and take the child Jesus to another country.&nbsp; Both times he &ldquo;arose&rdquo; in the morning and just did it, leaving all he had, responding immediately (Mt. 2:13,14,20,21). Paul and Luke immediately went to preach in Macedonia after seeing the inviting vision (Acts 16:10); Paul &quot;straightway&quot; preached Christ after receiving his vision of preaching commission (Acts 9:20). Indeed, the records of the Lord\'s ministry are shot through (in Mark especially) with words like &quot;immediately&quot;, &quot;straightway&quot;, &quot;forthwith&quot;, &quot;as soon as...&quot;. He was a man of immediate response, Yahweh\'s servant <i>par excellence</i>. He dismissed the man who would fain follow Him after he had buried his father, i.e. who wanted to wait some years until his father&rsquo;s death and then set out in earnest on the Christian life. The Lord&rsquo;s point was that we must immediately respond to the call to live and preach Him, with none of the delay and hesitancy to total commitment which masquerades as careful planning. Note how the Lord told another parable in which He characterized those not worthy of Him as those who thought they had valid reason to delay their response to the call (Lk. 14:16-20). They didn\'t turn Him down, they just thought He would understand if they delayed. But He is a demanding Lord, in some ways. What He seeks is an immediacy of response. If we have this in the daily calls to service in this life, we will likewise respond immediately to the knowledge that \'He\'s back\' (Lk. 12:36, cp. the wise virgins going immediately, whilst the others delayed). And whether we respond immediately or not will be the litmus test as to whether our life\'s spirituality was worth anything or not. All this is not to say that we should rush off in hot-headed enthusiasm, crushing the work and systematic efforts of other brethren and committees under foot. But when we see the need, when we catch the vision of service, let\'s not hesitate in our response, dilly dallying until we are left with simply a host of good intentions swimming around in our brain cells. Instead, let\'s appreciate that one aspect of the seed in good soil was that there was an <i>immediacy of response </i>to the word, a joyful and speedy \'springing up\' in response (Mk. 4:5).</p><p><i>It sprang up- </i>The idea is that they germinated. The seed of the Gospel began to grow- the multitudes had begun to respond to John\'s message. The same word is used in the next verse to describe how the sun then \'sprung up\'. After response to the word begins, there will be trouble and testing. Just as Israel\'s Red Sea baptism was immediately followed by tribulation and testing. The sun arising and withering the seed is a symbol of tribulation arising in the life of the believer (Mk. 4:6). But the sun arising is also a clear symbol of the day of the Lord&rsquo;s return. Thus whenever we encounter tribulation, our response to it is in some sense a preview of our response to the Lord&rsquo;s coming in judgment. Trials and reproofs from God are Him &ldquo;entering with thee into judgment&rdquo;, here and now (Job 22:4).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>Because it had no depth of soil</i>- John perhaps explains the \'depth\' in his account of the woman at the well. The salvation in Christ was brought from the \'deep\' s.w. well (Jn. 4:11). These people had only a surface level interest and did not really grasp the deep reality of Christ and His work.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1600','1','41','4','6','6','<p>4:6<i> And when the sun had risen, it was scorched- </i>Literally, burnt. John the Baptist had presented a powerful logic- either baptism by fire by the Jesus whom he preached, or being burnt up with figurative fire at the last day (Mt. 3:10-12). The Lord clearly has that in mind here- those who had refused John\'s message about Him were even now burnt up, for judgment in its essence begins now, according to our response to the word of Christ.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>And because it had no root, it withered away</i>-The sun arising and withering the seed is a symbol of tribulation arising in the life of the believer (Mk. 4:6). But the sun arising is also a clear symbol of the day of the Lord&rsquo;s return. Thus whenever we encounter tribulation, our response to it is in some sense a preview of our response to the Lord&rsquo;s coming in judgment. Trials and reproofs from God are Him &ldquo;entering with thee into judgment&rdquo;, here and now (Job 22:4).</p><p>The same word for &quot;withered&quot; is used by the Lord about how Israel were the fig tree who had once had promise of fruit (in their initial response to John) but was now withered (Mt. 21:19,20). Those who initially accept Christ but do not abide in Him are likewise &quot;withered&quot; (Jn. 15:6). John\'s emphasis upon \'abiding\' in Christ likely has reference to the need to accept John\'s message about Christ and abide in it, rather than wandering off and back to Judaism. Both James and Peter seem to allude to this point of the parable in their teaching that the word of God stands forever, whereas flesh withers away (James 1:11; 1 Pet. 1:24). As we will note on 13:22, the seed is to become the person. Those who do not wither are those who have the seed within them, the power of eternal life which endures. &quot;Because they had no root, they withered away&quot; (Mt. 13:6) is alluded to in Jn. 15:6 concerning the branches of the vine withering as a result of God\'s word not abiding in them. The connection between the plants of the sower parable and the branches of the vine is further evidence that the sower parable mainly concerns the response to the word of those&nbsp;<i>within</i>&nbsp;the ecclesia.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1601','1','41','4','7','7','<p>4:7 <i>And other fell among the thorns- </i>This of itself didn\'t mean that growth was impossible. The Lord\'s later parable makes that clear- the good sees brings forth fruit, clearly alluding to the \'good ground\' of the sower parable,<i> despite</i>&nbsp;being surrounded by &quot;tares&quot;, weeds, within which category are thorns (Mt. 13:26). The point of the later parable would therefore be to make the point that fruit can be brought forth&nbsp;<i>despite</i>&nbsp;a spiritual environment in which we have to grow and fruit next to thorns. &quot;Thorns&quot; were defined by the Lord as&nbsp;<i>people</i>- those who do not bring forth good fruit, even though they may claim to be true believers (Mt. 7:16). Heb. 6:8 likewise speaks of \'thorns\' as people (&quot;He that bears thorns... is rejected&quot;). The later interpretation in Mt. 12:22 is that the thorns are the deceitfulness of riches and the cares of &quot;this world&quot;- and yet these abstract things operate upon the believer through persons, through people devoted to them. For we all \'are\' the principles which we live by; and our example and influence upon others is more significant than we realize. Those people in the first instance were Jewish people in first century Palestinian society who strangled the growth of the seed in the hearts of people by their attitudes and the pressure of their example. We note that &quot;this world&quot; in the first instance referred to the&nbsp;<i>aion</i>&nbsp;around Jesus- which was the Jewish world. Especially in John\'s Gospel the phrase carries that meaning in most occurrences.&nbsp;</p><p><i>And the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no fruit</i>- The later parable explains that both good and bad seed \'spring / grow up\' (Mt. 12:26); the point is that the good seed continues to bear fruit despite this. They intertwined with the roots of the crop beneath the ground, and later kept light from reaching the plants. Again the suggestion is that there was a specific group of people the Jewish religious leadership who were damaging the growth of seed which had begun to grow in response to the preaching of John. And yet the interpretation is that the thorns represent the worry of the world, and wealth (Mt. 12:22). We can understand these things in the context of the Jews loving wealth and the whole system of Judaism, the Jewish &lsquo;world&rsquo;, making them worry about appearances to the point that the real seed of the word grows no more. The same can be seen in legalistic forms of Christianity today, where appearance to others becomes all important and thereby real spirituality goes out of the window.</p><p><i>&quot;</i>Choked&quot; is again language more relevant to persons. The same word is found in the Lord\'s description of the man who initially accepted forgiveness from God and then went and \'choked\' or \'took by the throat\' his brother (Mt. 18:28). That man who was initially forgiven and then finally condemned speaks in the primary context of those who responded to John\'s message of forgiveness, but ended up condemned because of their aggression towards their brother- the Christians. Again, those who choked the response of others to the word are the members of Jewish society. The parable of the sower can be interpreted as fulfilling every time we hear the word sown in us. Thus some seed is &quot;choked with cares&quot; (Lk. 8:14)- exactly the same words used about Martha being &quot;cumbered&quot; with her domestic duties so that she didn\'t hear the Lord\'s word at that time (Lk. 10:40). We bring various attitudes of mind- stony, receptive, cumbered etc.- to the word each time we hear it. And it is our attitude to it which determines our response to it.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1602','1','41','4','8','8','<p>4:8 <i>And others fell into the good ground- </i>The next parable is clearly related to this parable of the sower. There, the same word is used for the &quot;good seed&quot;, the &quot;children of the Kingdom&quot; (Mt. 13:24,38). The ground refers to the hearts of people; but in the parable of the good seed, the seed itself is paralleled with the person. The word had become flesh in them, as it was in the Lord Himself (Jn. 1:14). John the Baptist had preached about the need to be a &quot;good&quot; plant bearing good fruit, or else face condemnation (Mt. 3:10, and repeated by the Lord in Mt. 7:17-19). The appeal was for the audience to be as John intended, to follow where his teaching led. They had initially accepted that teaching but had failed to follow where it led. And this was to be their condemnation.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>And yielded fruit, growing up and increasing; and brought forth, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold- </i>Even if some preaching work appears not to bear fruit, this shouldn\'t discourage us from the essentially outgoing spirit we should have in spreading the word far and wide. Many of the parables have an element of unreality about them, designed to focus our attention on a vital aspect of teaching. The sower parable has 75% of the seed sowed on bad ground, due to the almost fanatic way the sower throws the seed so far and wide, evidently without too much attention to whether it lands on responsive soil or not. His emphasis was clearly on broadcasting the seed far and wide. We should desire to see the spread of God&rsquo;s ways, His Truth, His will, the knowledge of the real Christ, to as many as possible.</p><p>Mk. 4:8 adds the significant detail that it was the <i>fruit</i> that the plant yielded which &quot;sprung up and increased&quot;. The picture is of a plant bringing forth seeds which themselves germinate into separate plants and bear fruit. This can be interpreted in two ways: <br />1) True spiritual development in our lives is a cumulative upward spiral; successfully developing spiritual fruit leads to developing yet more.<br />2) The new plants which come out of our fruit refer to our converts, both from the world and those within the ecclesia whom we help to yield spiritual fruit. There is another link here with the parable of the vine bearing fruit: &quot;I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should <i>go</i> and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain&quot; (Jn. 15:8,16). This connects with Christ\'s command to them to <i>go</i> into the world preaching the Gospel and thereby making converts. In this sense our spiritual fruiting is partly through our bringing others to glorify God through the development of a God-like character. It is in this context of using the word for preaching and personal spiritual development that we receive the glorious encouragement &quot;that whatever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he (will) give it you&quot; (Jn. 15:7,16). Every believer who truly strives to bring forth fruit to God\'s glory, both in preaching to others and in personal character development, will find this promise constantly true.</p><p>God works like this because He is prepared to accept that different people will make something different of His Truth. The parable of the sower shows that; the &quot;good ground&quot; brings forth 30, 60 or 100 fold. Some believers respond three times as actively to the Gospel as others; yet they will all be accepted at the end. I see a connection between this parable and Christ\'s words to the rich, righteous young man: \'&quot;If you will be <i>perfect</i>...&quot; sell what you\'ve got; and then you\'ll receive <i>100 fold</i> in this life, and eternal life in the Kingdom\' (Mt. 19:12,21). Presumably, that man at that time was (say) in the 30 or 60 fold category. Christ wanted him in the 100 fold category. But if that man didn\'t sell all that he had, it doesn\'t necessarily mean that Christ would have rejected him ultimately. In this context, He says: &quot; Many that are first (in this life) will be last (least- in the Kingdom); and the last shall be first&quot; (Mt. 19:30). Those who don\'t sell all that they have will be in the Kingdom, but least in it. The poor of his world, rich in faith, will be great in the Kingdom (James 2:5). We need to ask ourselves whether we really accept the parable of the sower; whether we are strong enough to let another brother be weak, to accept that even if he\'s in the 30 fold category, he\'s still acceptable to his Lord, just living on a different level. Indeed, it isn\'t for us to go very deeply at all into how exactly Christ sees others; because we can\'t know. The point to note is that God wants us to rise up the levels of commitment. Paul was persuaded that the Romans were &ldquo;full of goodness, filled with all knowledge&rdquo;, but he prayed they would be filled yet further (Rom. 15:13,14).</p><p>The sower parable has 75% of the seed sowed on bad ground, due to the almost fanatic way the sower throws the seed so far and wide, evidently without too much attention to whether it lands on responsive soil or not. His emphasis was clearly on broadcasting the seed far and wide, rather than sowing like any normal sower would do. This taught that even if some preaching work appears not to bear fruit, this shouldn\'t discourage us from the essentially outgoing spirit we should have in spreading the word far and wide. To reach &ldquo;all men&rdquo; must be our brief; all types of men and women, including those who are obviously going to respond poorly. Yet the parable talks of one grain of corn that yields one hundredfold (Mk. 4:8). Any farmer would pick up on this impossibility. An average yield in 1st century Palestine was about ten fold (This has been carefully worked out by R.K. McIver &lsquo;One Hundred-Fold Yield&rsquo;, <i>New Testament Studies</i> Vol. 40 (1994) pp. 606-608). What kind of response was <i>this</i>? What kind of grain of corn? Clearly, the Lord Jesus- who described Himself in John\'s record as the grain of corn that was to fall into the ground and bring forth much fruit. But the other grains of corn yielded 30 and 60 fold. This was quite amazing response too, totally unheard of in practice. Was it not that the Lord was trying to show us just how radically His Gospel can transform human life? Amazing fertility was a feature of the future Messianic Kingdom (Amos 9:13; Jer. 31:27; Ez. 36:29,30)- it&rsquo;s as if the Lord is saying in the sower parable that the abundance of the future Kingdom can begin in human life now.</p><p>Jeremias claims that a yield of tenfold was considered good in first century Palestine (Joachim Jeremias,&nbsp;<i>The Parables of Jesus</i>&nbsp;(New York: Scribner&rsquo;s, 1972) p. 150). Even if that is somewhat conservative, the point is that the seed on good ground yielded amazingly. This element of unreality speaks of how each person in the &lsquo;good ground&rsquo; category will experience growth and blessing out of proportion to their tiny spiritual beginnings. The parable of the mustard seed makes the same point. Amazing harvests is the language of the Messianic Kingdom, both Biblically and in Judaism. The beginning of the Kingdom experience is in our response to God&rsquo;s word in this life. The one hundred fold response is huge- but then so is the loss. It&rsquo;s as if the Lord is trying to encourage the disciples after the conclusions drawn about the general failure of the ministry of John- and therefore the Lord&rsquo;s also. His point is that despite all the failure,&nbsp;<i>some</i>&nbsp;will respond, and their response and blessing will be so huge that this more than counterbalances all the failure of others. If we can bring one person towards eternity, this is so wonderful that all the rejection of our message is worthwhile.&nbsp;</p><p>Note how the three types of wasted seed and poor ground are matched by three types of response on the good ground. This feature of triads (features occurring in threes) may not necessarily have any meaning, but it may simply be part of a structure designed to aid memorization- which was the initial usage of the Gospel records.</p><p>I have shown in the commentary above that growth was in fact possible on each type of ground, and the New Testament contains examples of where this happened. I suggest that in fact there are only three types of ground- the way side, the rocky and the thorny. These three types of ground would then match the three types of good ground- which gave 30,60 and 100 fold increase. Putting the gospel records together, the Lord\'s description of the good ground contains elements of the initially good response from the three bad types of ground. The good ground represents a good state of mind- for the ground is clearly to be understood as the heart of those receiving the word. This category therefore refers to those on the three other types of ground who&nbsp;<i>did</i>&nbsp;respond to the end, who overcame the pressures upon them not to respond further. This also removes the moral problem which is otherwise presented- in that it would appear that the seed of the word is spread, but the good ground people can do nothing else but respond, and the bad ground people can do nothing but not ultimately respond because of who they are by nature and where they are situated in life. The good ground category had to \'keep the word\' (Lk. 8:15)- they didn\'t let men tread it underfoot nor birds take it away. Given their position in life, even by the wayside, they still responded by keeping the word. There was an element of choice and human effort required- rather than some categories being inevitably unable to keep the word because of their location in life and surrounding influences upon them. In this we see huge encouragement in our cluttered lives today, subject as they are to negative spiritual influences which at times seem too strong to resist. And we are further encouraged in our own sowing of the seed- nobody is incapable of response, from the deepest room in a strict Moslem family to sharing a one room apartment in Europe surrounded by materialistic, unGodly people.</p><p>In fairness, this parable can be read another way. In Palestine, sowing precedes ploughing. The sower sows on the path which the villagers have beaten over the stubble, since he intends to plough up the path with the rest of the field. He sows amongst thorns because they too will be ploughed in. And it has been suggested that the rocky ground was land with underlying limestone which barely shows above the surface.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1603','1','41','4','9','9','<p>4:9 <i>And he said: Who has ears to hear, let him hear</i>-</p><p>Seeing that the next verses show the Lord considered Israel generally to no longer have ears to hear (see Matthew), this would seem an appeal to the disciples to perceive what He is saying, even though the majority of Israel cannot. Therefore He asks them later to &ldquo;<i>Hear</i>&nbsp;the parable&rdquo; (Mt. 12:18)- for He knows they do have ears to hear. But even they had to make a conscious effort to hear- those with ears are asked to hear. Understanding, in the sense Jesus uses the idea, doesn&rsquo;t come naturally but requires effort.</p><p>Luke adds: &ldquo;As he said these things, he cried: He that has ears to hear, let him hear&rdquo; (Lk. 8:8). The Lord so wanted their response. &quot;As he said these things, he&nbsp;<i>cried</i>, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear&quot; (Lk. 8:8 RV; Jn. 7:37). The very muscles of the Lords face, His body language, would have reflected an earnest,&nbsp;<i>burning</i>&nbsp;care and compassion. The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost; He put His whole personality into the task. And we beseech men &ldquo;in the face of Christ&quot; (2 Cor. 2:10 RV). We are to be&nbsp;<i>His</i>&nbsp;face to this world and to our brethren. With raised eyebrows, lines showing in our forehead, one eye half closed&hellip; our body language should reflect the depth of our concern for others. Having spoken of how our attitudes to God\'s word will elicit from Him varying responses, the Lord&nbsp;<i>cried</i>, loudly, &quot;he that hath ears to hear,&nbsp;<i>let him hear</i>&quot; (Lk. 8:8). There is then the sickening anti-climax of the next verse, where the disciples ask Him whatever His parable meant.&nbsp; One senses a moment of silence in which the Lord composed Himself and camouflaged the pain of His disappointment; and then His essential hopefulness returns in Lk. 8:10: &quot;Unto you it is given (potentially, anyway) to know (understand) the mysteries (parables) of the Kingdom of God&quot;. There is a fine point of translation in Lk. 8:8 which needs to be appreciated: &ldquo;<i>As</i>&nbsp;he said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear&rdquo; (ASV and Greek). It seems that the Lord was &lsquo;throwing out&rsquo; this challenge several times, as He spoke the parable. As the sower sows seed, so the Lord was challenging His hearers to decide what type of ground they were, as they heard the parable.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1604','1','41','4','10','10','<p>4:10- see on Mk. 3:14.</p><p><i>And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked him about the parables</i>- The Lord&rsquo;s grace to His men is reflected in Mark&rsquo;s record of how the twelve were confused by the Lord&rsquo;s parables. He responds that He speaks in parables so that &ldquo;them that are without&rdquo; would not understand; but His followers would, He implies, &ldquo;know the mystery of the Kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables&rdquo;. And yet it&rsquo;s immediately apparent that the disciples were equally confused by the parables. We sense the Lord&rsquo;s frustration with this: &ldquo;Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?&rdquo;- i.e. &lsquo;If you don&rsquo;t understand this parable, it means you won&rsquo;t understand any of them, which makes you equal with the crowd of those outside of Me, whom I&rsquo;m seeking to leave confused&rsquo;. And we note how straight away Mark notes, perhaps in sadness and yet marvel at the Lord&rsquo;s grace: &ldquo;But without a parable spake he not unto them the disciples: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples&rdquo; (Mk. 4:10-13,34). Mark, or Peter writing through Mark, could look back in wonder. They the supposed disciples, learners, of the Lord Jesus had been as dumb as the crowd; but by grace alone the Lord had privately explained the parables to them. And our understanding of true Bible teaching is likewise a gift of grace, when we are every bit as obtuse as the people in darkness who surround us.</p><p>This question is understandable if this was the first parable the Lord spoke; see on Mt. 12:1. They were taken aback by His changed method of teaching, probably noticing that the eagerly listening multitudes had not properly understood it, overhearing all kinds of wild guesses at what the Lord was maybe driving at.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1605','1','41','4','11','11','<p>4:11 <i>And he said to them: To you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those that are without, all things are done in parables- </i>The Lord explained that parables only remained incomprehensible to &quot;them that are without&quot;. That phrase seems to have stuck with Paul; he uses it five times. Perhaps he saw that a characteristic of the believers, those separated from the world of darkness, was that they understood the parables; and this would explain Paul\'s frequent allusion to them, stressing as he does the need to appreciate their power. Those &ldquo;without&rdquo; in His other teaching clearly refer to those rejected at the judgment, who will stand &ldquo;without&rdquo; begging for admission to the Kingdom (Lk. 13:25; Rev. 20:15). But those &lsquo;without&rsquo; in Mk. 4:11 are those who chose not to understand the Lord&rsquo;s teaching, for whom it&rsquo;s all parables, fascinating perhaps, but confusing, unclear, and not something they are really bothered to understand. This connection of thought doesn&rsquo;t mean that intellectual clarity of understanding alone decides who will be, indeed who is, within or without of the Kingdom. But it is all the same true that the Kingdom life both now and in the future requires us to understand so that we might believe and live and be as the Lord requires. See on Jn. 16:25.</p><p>The things which God has prepared for those who love Him, things which the natural eye has not seen but&nbsp;which are revealed unto us by the Spirit, relate to our redemption in Christ, rather than the wonders of the future political Kingdom (because Mt. 13:11; 16:17 = 1 Cor. 2:9,10). The context of 1 Cor. 2 and the allusions to Isaiah there demand the same interpretation.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1606','1','41','4','12','12','<p>4:12 <i>That seeing, they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn again and it should be forgiven them</i>- Understanding and perceiving the meaning of the parables would result in conversion, repentance and forgiveness. Moses persevered because he <i>understood</i>. &ldquo;Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law&rdquo; (Ps. 119:35) is one of many links in David&rsquo;s thought between understanding and obedience. See on Mk. 7:29. It was their initial seeing and hearing of John the Baptist which became the basis of their subsequent total blindness and deafness to Jesus. If the word sown isn\'t responded to further, or only partially so, then there remains only a hardening. We must respond, and immediately- and be led wherever the word leads us.&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord Jesus spoke the parable of the sower so that the Jews &quot;by hearing... shall hear, and... not understand&quot; (Mt. 13:14), which is quoting from Is. 6:9,10 concerning Israel hearing the preaching of Jesus during his ministry. This would explain the present tenses in Mk. 4:14-20: &quot;These&nbsp;<i>are</i>&nbsp;they by the way side... these&nbsp;<i>are</i>&nbsp;they... which&nbsp;<i>are</i>&nbsp;sown...&quot;. That prophecy evidently had fulfilment at Isaiah\'s time; the point is thereby established that prophecy can have multiple fulfilments.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1607','1','41','4','13','13','<p>4:13 <i>And he said to them: Do you not understand this parable? And how will you understand all the parables?</i>- Not understanding was characteristic of those sown by the wayside, according to the interpretation we have in Matthew 13. We can therefore imagine a note of deep concern in the Lord\'s voice at this point. For the Lord has just made clear that not understanding Him is a conscious, wilful intellectual act; and people shut their eyes so that they will not understand, lest it demand too much from them personally (Mt. 13:15). The wayside category are not, therefore, merely predestined not to understand. It\'s not that they were just in the wrong place, exposed to the wrong teachings and religious culture, and therefore they did not understand. For anyone who hears the word or seed of Christ, refusal to understand it is a conscious choice. It may not appear like that, but the Lord has said in Mt. 13:15 that it is. By \'understanding\', the Lord means the understanding which brings forth fruit. He is here redefining \'understanding the word\', making it refer to something fruitful in practice. He spoke against a religious culture in which spirituality was seen in terms of being a microscopic student of the Old Testament and word by word, verse by verse, coming to the right theological interpretation. Many of us were raised in a similar environment. And the Lord here is redefining \'understanding the word\' away from the sense of \'correct exposition\' towards \'responding faithfully in practice, bringing forth fruit\'. The bad ground, therefore, involved an element of choice to be like that. We showed on Mt. 13:4 that there were \'wayside\' persons who&nbsp;<i>did</i>&nbsp;respond; our location in terms of culture, environment, psychology etc. is&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;an inevitable barrier to responding to the word which we hear. This proves that sin, in its various manifestations as a \'devil\', can be resisted through an understanding of the word.&nbsp;<i>When</i>&nbsp;there was no understanding of the word,&nbsp;<i>then</i>&nbsp;the devil came. Likewise 1 Jn. 5:18-20 teaches that those who are born again by a true understanding of the word are not even touched by the &quot;wicked one&quot;, the Jewish satan. In his justification of confusing the Jews through the sower parable, the Lord twice lamented that they did not&nbsp;<i>understand&nbsp;</i>(Mt. 13:13,14). He was basically saying that the Jews were the bad ground in the parable; the fowls snatched away the seed because they did not&nbsp;<i>understand</i>&nbsp;(Mt. 13:19). By contrast, those on the good ground&nbsp;<i>did</i>&nbsp;understand (Mt. 13:23). Those who heard the word &quot;and immediately with joy receives it&quot; only to later fall away (Mt. 13:20,21) approximate to the Jews who initially rejoiced at the word of Christ preached by John and later Jesus himself (Jn. 5:35). And the Lord was concerned that the disciples were in the same category.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1608','1','41','4','14','14','<p>4:14 <i>The sower, sows the word</i>- In terms of a \'this equals that\' interpretation, &quot;the sower&quot; is left without interpretation. The seed is the word, but &quot;the sower&quot; is left as &quot;the sower&quot;; but the Lord Jesus and any preacher. The purpose of the parable is to focus not upon the sower but upon human response to the word.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1609','1','41','4','15','15','<p>4:15 <i>And these by the way side, where the word is sown, represent those who, when they have heard, have Satan immediately come- </i>Note that the parable was spoken the same day as the discourses of Matthew chapter 12- see Mt. 13:1. The entire context of the parable and the preceding chapter is that it was the Jewish world system which hindered people from further responding to the seed / word about Jesus which they had first heard from John the Baptist. As I showed at length in&nbsp;<i>The Real Devil</i>, the Jewish system is frequently described as the \'satan\' or adversary of the early church. By \'the wicked one\', the Lord\'s audience would\'ve understood \'satan\'; and the Lord is redefining their view of \'satan\' as being not so much the Gentiles or some cosmic being, as their own religious elders and system.</p><p><i>And take away the word- </i>Mt. 13:19 &quot;snatches away&quot;.<i>&nbsp;</i>The same word had recently been used by the Lord in Mt. 11:12 about how the violent take away the Kingdom. I suggested in the commentary there that this is possible to understand as referring to the Jewish leaders stopping people entering the Kingdom of Jesus. In this case, &quot;the wicked one&quot; is again identified as the Jews. The word is also used about the wolf \'catching away\' the sheep (Jn. 10:12)- and in the same passage in John 10, it is the wolf who kills Jesus in His mortal combat with him in order to save the rest of the sheep. Clearly the wolf there refers to the Jewish leaders who ravaged the flock, indeed John 10 is full of reference to Ezekiel 34, which speaks of Israel\'s priesthood as responsible for the scattering of the sheep. However can we resist that evil one? Paul had his eye on this question in 2 Thess. 3:1,3, where he speaks of the word being&nbsp;<i>with them</i>, and also of the&nbsp;Lord keeping them from the evil one. Paul knew that the Lord (Jesus) will help us in keeping the word in our hearts, if we allow him to; he saw that the power of God is greater than our low nature. &nbsp;</p><p><i>Which has been sown in them</i>- Clearly the types of ground represent types of heart or mind. In addition to the elements of unreality in the parables, there are other features which shout out for our attention. Often details are omitted which we would expect to see merely as part of the story. For example, the parable of the ten girls says nothing at all about the bride; the bridegroom alone is focused upon, along with the bridesmaids. Where&rsquo;s the bride in the story? Surely the point is that in the story, the bridesmaids are treated as the bride; this is the wonder of the whole thing, that we as mere bridesmaids are in fact the bride herself. Another example would be the way in which the sower&rsquo;s presence is not really explained. No reference is made to the importance of rain or ploughing in making the seed grow. The preacher is unimportant; we are mere voices, as was John the Baptist. But it is the type of ground we are which is so all important; and the type of ground refers to the type of heart we have (Mt. 13:19). The state of the human heart is what is so crucial. Yet another example is in the way that there is no explanation for exactly why the tenants of the vineyard so hate the owner and kill His Son. This teaches of the irrational hatred the Jews had towards the Father and Son. And why would the owner send His Son, when so clearly the other servants had been abused? Why not just use force against them? Here again we see reflected the inevitable grace of the Father in sending the Son to be the Saviour of the Jewish world.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1610','1','41','4','16','16','<p>4:16 <i>And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky places, who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with joy</i>- So long as he \'believes for a while\' (Lk.). Belief and joy are therefore paralleled. The later references to our joy&nbsp;<i>remaining</i>&nbsp;unto the end of our spiritual path surely allude here (Jn. 15:11; 16:22; Acts 20:24; Heb. 3:6). Note how in Jn. 16:22 the joy of the disciples could be taken from them by those who took Christ from them; another hint that the persecution which choked the joy came from the Jews, who were those who took Christ from them. Joy and faith are linked many times in the New Testament; we must ask whether we really have the joy which is the proof of real faith.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1611','1','41','4','17','17','<p>4:17 <i>But they have no root in themselves and only endure for a while. Then, when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they stumble</i>- The house built on sand was destroyed by a flood, an oft used type of the second coming and day of judgment. The equivalent in the sower parable is &quot;when the sun was up... they were scattered&quot; (Mt. 13:6). The sun is a symbol of both Christ\'s return and also of &quot;tribulation or persecution (Mt. 13:21). It seems that Jesus is teaching that our response to the word now is in effect our judgment seat; if we do not properly grow by it, in time of trial (the sun rising) we will spiritually die. Therefore when &quot;the sun of righteousness&quot; arises (Mal. 4:2) at the day of judgment, we will be &quot;scorched&quot; or \'burnt up\' (Gk.). There are other examples of where a man\'s attitude to God\'s word in this life indicates his position at judgment day (e.g. Acts 13:46). In the same way as we call upon a reserve of word-developed spirituality in time of trial (the &quot;moisture&quot; of the parable), so we will at judgment day. When Paul spoke of how we&nbsp;<i>must</i>&nbsp;go through tribulation to enter the Kingdom (Acts 14:22), perhaps he was alluding to the parable of the sower, where the Lord taught that when, and not &ldquo;if&rdquo; tribulation arises (Mt. 13:21). Paul knew that it&nbsp;<i>must</i>&nbsp;come because of the way the Lord had worded the interpretation of the parable.</p><p>It is quite possible that our Lord\'s sad prophecy of the disciples being offended because of having to identify with his sufferings looked back to this parable, concerning those who impulsively respond to the word in joy, but are offended because they have no deep root (Mk. 4:17 = Mk. 14:27; Mt. 26:31). The fact that the disciples became good ground after this encourages us that we can change the type of ground which we are on initially receiving the seed.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1612','1','41','4','18','18','<p>4:18 <i>Others are represented by those that are sown among the thorns. These are they that have heard the word</i>- One of the ineffable sadnesses of Paul\'s life must have been to see his converts falling away. Yet he seems to have comforted himself by seeing their defection in terms of the sower parable. Many a missionary has been brought close to that parable for the same reason. It supplies an explanation, an answer, a comfort, as \'Friends one by one depart (some we saw as pillars to our own faith, those we thought would always be there) / Lonely and sad our heart\'. Thus Paul saw Demas as a seed among thorns (Mt. 13:22 = 2 Tim. 4:10); he saw Elymas as a tare (Mt. 13:38 = Acts 13:10); and he pleads with the Romans not to slip into the tare category (Mt. 13:41 Gk. = Rom. 14:13).&nbsp;</p><p>Thorns were symbolic of false teachers in the Old Testament ecclesia (Ez. 2:6; Is. 33:12-14). It is a repeated theme that thorns are devoured by fire (Ex. 22:6; Ps. 118:12; Ecc. 7:6; Is. 10:17), looking ahead to the destruction of all false elements of the ecclesia. The thorns easily equate with the tares of the next parable, which represent false teachers (primarily the Judaist infiltrators of the first century ecclesia). It would seem from this that some members of the ecclesia are never right with God, but exist purely for the spiritual trial of others; although it cannot be over-emphasized that it is quite wrong to attempt to label individuals as this \'thorn\' element. Thus Jesus pointed out that grapes (the true Israel) and thorns can be apparently similar (Mt. 7:16), but &quot;Ye shall know them by their&nbsp;<i>fruits</i>&quot;. The thorns of the sower parable and those they influenced were &quot;unfruitful&quot;. However, seeing that &quot;the thorns sprang up&nbsp;<i>with it</i>&quot; (Lk. 8:7), there was some genuine spiritual growth, matched by the appearance of this among the thorns too. Heb. 6:8 likewise speaks of the thorns as believers who grew up within the ecclesia. This indicates the dual-mindedness of those who only partially commit themselves to the word; knowledge like this should play an active part in our self-examination. Because the thorns outwardly look like true believers, having an outward appearance of spiritual growth even more zealous and strong than that of the plants which they choke, it is impossible to personally identify the &quot;thorns&quot;; but there can be no doubt that, according to the parable, they&nbsp;<i>must</i>&nbsp;be present among the ecclesia. The seed &quot;fell&nbsp;<i>among</i>&nbsp;thorns&quot; (Mt. 13:7), showing that this thorn category were already within the ecclesia when the person who was to be choked was converted. We have shown that Biblically the thorns are false teachers; yet Jesus interprets them as &quot;the care (Gk. \'divisions\'- the double mindedness of serving two masters) of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches&quot; (Mt. 13:22). The conclusion to be drawn is that the false teachers are responsible for the new convert being choked by these things. Mk. 4:19 says that these lusts enter into the convert\'s heart. Therefore the thorns must influence the person\'s thinking, so that he follows after these things until &quot;he becometh unfruitful&quot;. The Greek for &quot;choked&quot; is from a root meaning \'association, companionship\'. Marshall\'s Interlinear renders the Greek text of Lk. 8:7 in keeping with this idea: &quot;Growing up with the thorns choked it&quot;. Thus it is through close association with the thorn element already in the ecclesia, that the new convert who enters it is corrupted.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1613','1','41','4','19','19','<p>4:19 <i>And the cares of the world- </i>In our age as never before, given more possibilities and knowledge of possible futures and what could go wrong, we have as never before the temptation to be full of such care. The same word is used in Lk. 21:34 about the &quot;cares&quot; which will be a feature of the last days- both of AD70 and today. But in the first instance, the \'world\' in view was the Jewish world.</p><p><i>And the deceitfulness of riches and the lusts of other things entering in- </i>There are not a few Bible passages which present materialism as&nbsp;<i>the</i>&nbsp;besetting temptation of every human soul, and which confirm that therefore our attitude to materialism,&nbsp;serving God or mammon, is the litmus test of our spirituality. The parable of the sower teaches that for those who begin well in the Truth, who don\'t fall away immediately or get discouraged by persecution, &quot;the deceitfulness of riches... the cares and pleasures of this life&quot; will be their temptation. I would have expected the Lord to either speak in more general terms about the flesh, or to reel off a list of common vices. But instead He focuses on the desire for wealth as the real problem.&nbsp; The love of wealth is the root of&nbsp;<i>all</i>&nbsp;evil behaviour (1 Tim. 6:10). And I would go further, and suggest that so many of the excuses we hear which relate to &quot;I haven\'t got time&quot; (for reading, preaching, meeting, writing...) are related to this desire for material improvement. The desire for advancement takes an iron grip on a man\'s soul. As we move through life, our thinking is concerned with prices, with possibilities, with schemings... what&nbsp;<i>ought</i>&nbsp;to be the surpassingly dominating aspect of our life, the Son of God and His Truth, takes a poor second place. The connection between the desire for riches and the devil (our nature) is powerful. The devil is a deceiver. And \'riches\' is also a deceiver (Mt. 13:22). That we know for sure. The desire for material things, for the false security of bank balances, the excuse that we are allowing ourselves to be so preoccupied for the sake of our families, the idea that we are only human beings and so God will let us be dominated by these worries... all this is the deception of the flesh. God&nbsp;<i>does</i>&nbsp;remember that we are dust, and yes, of course we&nbsp;<i>must</i>&nbsp;provide for our own, some thought (but not&nbsp;<i>anxious</i>&nbsp;thought) must be given to tomorrow (Mt. 6:25,31,34). But these facts must never make us push God\'s Truth into&nbsp;<i>second</i>&nbsp;place. The lilies of the field are fed and dressed by God without anxiously worrying about it. Israel on their wilderness journey were miraculously provided with food&nbsp;<i>and clothing,</i>&nbsp;surely to prefigure God\'s basic material care of His spiritual Israel of later years. David, all his life long, never saw the seed of the righteous begging bread (Ps. 37:25).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>Choke the word- </i>Paul had thought deeply about the parables. He doesn\'t just half-quote them in an offhand way. For example, that riches choke a man\'s response to the word. 1 Tim. 6:9 warns that those who&nbsp;<i>want to be rich</i>&nbsp;are choked by their&nbsp;<i>desire&nbsp;</i>for riches. Likewise Paul saw the rich man of Mt. 19:23 as actually one who&nbsp;<i>wanted</i>&nbsp;to be rich (= 1 Tim. 6:9,10). So Paul had thought through the parable. He saw that possession of riches alone wouldn\'t choke a man; he saw that the Lord was using &quot;riches&quot; as meaning \'the desire for riches\'. And because &quot;riches&quot; are relative and subjective, this must be right. And therefore the Spirit was able to use Paul\'s deductions. My point is that the Spirit&nbsp;<i>could</i>&nbsp;have used just anyone to write (e.g.) 1 Tim. 6:9. But it was no accident that God chose to use a man with a fine knowledge and appreciation of His Son to be His pen-man.</p><p><i>And it becomes unfruitful</i>- Mt. 13:22 has &quot;he becomes unfruitful&quot;. The types of ground represent the hearts of various categories of people. We expect to read that&nbsp;<i>the seed</i>&nbsp;becomes unfruitful. But the seed never does, it never of itself loses its power and life. The seed of the word, of Jesus who is&nbsp;<i>the</i>&nbsp;seed, becomes the person. The word is to be made flesh in us as it was to perfection in the Lord (Jn. 1:14). See on 13:6&nbsp;<i>withered</i>. The word becoming unfruitful in Mt. 13:22 is matched by it yielding &quot;no fruit&quot; (Mk. 4:7) and no fruit being perfected in Lk. 8:14. The conclusion from this is that spiritual fruit which is developed but does not remain is not really fruit at all. There is the constant temptation for us to recognize just a bit of apparent \'growth\' within us, and feel satisfied with it- rather than taking on board the concept of the word having a fullness of effect upon every part of our lives. Given the lesson of the thorns, there is no doubt that one must watch their friends even within the ecclesia. &quot;Thorns and snares are in the way of the forward: he that doth keep (the Hebrew for &quot;keep&quot; is often used in Proverbs about keeping the word) his soul shall be far from them&quot; (Prov. 22:5). The language of thorns must connect with the curse upon Eden; the ecclesia, the paradise of God, must always have its thorns in order to spiritually exercise Adam, the spiritual gardener. As our brother\'s keeper, we need to be aware that after conversion, a whole gamut of new temptations face the convert.&nbsp;<i>After</i>&nbsp;he has heard the word, he is choked with the cares, riches and pleasures (Lk. 8:14). Yet these things existed before he heard the word; the point is that they became new temptations after his response to the word. A concerted effort to understand, with Biblical guidance, the pressures upon new converts might help save a few more of the many which are being lost.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1614','1','41','4','20','20','<p>4:20 <i>And these are they that were sown upon the good ground: such as hear the word and accept it-</i> &ldquo;Understand it&rdquo; (Mt. 13:23), &ldquo;holds fast&rdquo; (Lk. 8:15). In our present culture of anti-intellectualism, it can be overlooked that any real acceptance of a message, let alone holding onto it, must require a degree of &lsquo;understanding&rsquo;. We can hear the Bible explained and at that point&nbsp;<i>understand</i>&nbsp;intellectually. But this is something different to real understanding; for if we truly apprehend the message, we will receive it deep within us and keep that understanding ever present in our subsequent actions. The background of the parable is that it was given the same day as the Lord&rsquo;s lament over the lack of response to John&rsquo;s message and therefore His own ministry (Mt. 13:1). The very fact there is good ground, and three different types of it matching the three different types of failure, is therefore an encouragement to the disciples (and all) that God&rsquo;s word doesn&rsquo;t &lsquo;return void&rsquo; but does ultimately achieve an end in some lives. Indeed it has even been suggested that the parable of the sower is a kind of&nbsp;<i>midrash</i>&nbsp;or interpretation of the Isaiah 55 passage about the word going forth and not returning void. Ultimately, despite rejection, setbacks and only a minority responding- the work of the Kingdom will succeed. That is one aspect of the parable.&nbsp;</p><p><i>And bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold</i>- One example of the Lord Jesus\' emphasis on our salvation being through grace rather than our works is found in the way the parables teach that our acceptance is to some degree dependent on our predestination. Thus the parable of the types of ground suggests that we are good or bad ground at the time the seed is first sown; the fish are good or bad at the time they first enter the net; the wise virgins take the oil with them from the start of their vigil. I would suggest that this is not just part of the story. It was evidently within the Lord\'s ability to construct stories which featured the idea of bad seed or fish etc. changing to good, and vice versa. But He didn\'t; indeed, His emphasis seems to have been on the idea of predestination. This isn\'t to decry the effort for spirituality which we must make; but His stress of the predestination factor is surely to remind us of the degree to which our calling and salvation is by pure grace. &nbsp;</p><p>Many of the Lord&rsquo;s parables had some oblique reference to Himself. The parable of the sower speaks of the type of ground which gave one hundred fold yield- and surely the Lord was thinking of Himself in this. And yet the whole point of the parable is that all who receive the Lord&rsquo;s word have the possibility of responding in this way. Or take the related parable of the mustard seed =God&rsquo;s word of the Gospel which grows up into a huge tree under which all the birds can find refuge (Mk. 4:31,32). This image is replete with allusion to Old Testament pictures of God&rsquo;s future Kingdom, and the growth of Messiah from a small twig into a great tree (Ez. 17:22). Here we see the power of the basic Gospel message- truly responded to, it can enable us to have a share in the very heights to which the Lord Jesus is exalted.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1615','1','41','4','21','21','<p>4:21- see on Mt. 5:15.</p><p><i>And he said to them: Is a lamp brought in to be put under a basket, or under a bed, and not on a lamp stand?</i>- <br />The light of the candlestick is both the believer (Mt. 5:15) and the Gospel itself (Mk. 4:21). We are to be the Gospel.<br />The parable of the sower leaves us begging the question: &lsquo;So how can we be good ground?&rsquo;. Mark&rsquo;s record goes straight on to record that the Lord right then said that a candle is lit so as to publicly give light and not to be hidden. He is speaking of how our conversion is in order to witness to others. But He says this in the context of being good ground. To respond to the word ourselves, our light must be spreading to all. The only way for the candle of our faith to burn is for it to be out in the open air. Hidden under the bucket of embarrassment or shyness or an inconsistent life, it will go out. We will lose our faith if we don&rsquo;t in some sense witness to it. Witnessing is in that sense for our benefit. When the disciples ask how ever they can accomplish the standards which the Lord set them, He replied by saying that a city set on a hill cannot be hid (Mt. 5:14). He meant that the open exhibition of the Truth by us will help us in the life of personal obedience to Him.</p><p>We must give forth the light, not keep it under a bucket, because &quot;there is nothing hid which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad&quot; (Mk. 4:21,22). In other words, the very reason why God has hidden the things of His word from the world and some aspects of them from our brethren, is so that we can reveal them to them. &nbsp;</p><p>The Greek article in &quot;the lamp / lamp stand / candlestick&quot; refers to the specific candlestick, and to Jewish minds this would surely have referred to the candlestick in the Holy Place (s.w. Heb. 9:2). This continues the theme of the Lord teaching a new form of Judaism, for His sermon on the mount is full of allusions to previous Mosaic practice, but redefining it. The implication of :16 is that ordinary men are present in the Holy Place too, who will see our light. Or it could be that Jesus has in mind how it was the priests who alone entered the Holy Place- and He is saying that the light from those who followed Him would illuminate the Jewish priesthood. The light of the candlestick is both the believer (Mt. 5:15) and the Gospel itself (Mk. 4:21). We are to be the Gospel. We must burn as a candle now, in shedding forth the light, or we will be burnt at the judgment (Mt. 5:15 and Jn. 15:6 use the same words). This is but one of many examples of the logic of endurance; we must burn anyway, so why not do it for the Lord\'s sake and reap the reward.</p><p>The story of the candle that was put under a bucket brings out an issue related to that of the desire to root up the tares: the candle was put there (presumably) on account of an almost paranoiac fear that the wind would blow it out; but this over-protection of the lamp in itself caused the light to go out (Mt. 5:15). Time and again, preaching the light, holding up the beacon of the word of Christ\'s cross, has been impeded or stifled in the name of preserving the truth, strengthening&nbsp;what remains (words taken out of context). And because of this lack of witness, this lack of holding out the light to others, the fire of Christ has waxed dim amongst us. This ties in to the theme that preaching is not just commanded as a publicity exercise for Almighty God; He doesn\'t need us to do that for Him. It is commanded for the benefit of the preacher more than those preached to. To put a candle under a bucket or bed seems senseless; yet this is how senseless and inappropriate it is to hold back preaching for the sake of defending the Faith. Indeed to put it under a bed (Mk. 4:21) and then go to sleep (candles are normally only lit at night) is likely to destroy the person who does it, to burn them while they are asleep. All who have the light but don\'t preach it (in whatever form) are likely to suffer the same; notice how the Lord (by implication) links night time and sleepiness with an apathy in preaching. Evidently the Lord foresaw the attitude that has surfaced amongst His people: \'We must concentrate on keeping the Truth, new converts are often problematic, too much energy goes to preaching rather than building up ourselves in the faith\'. Probably the resistance to preaching to the Gentiles in the first century used similar reasoning. The Lord may have had in mind a Talmud entry (<i>Shabbat</i>&nbsp;107a) which permitted the covering of a lamp with a bowl on the Sabbath if it was done in order to stop the entire house catching fire. He is arguing that such a fear based attitude, fearful of possible consequence if we share the light, will result in the light going out. And that lesson needs to be learnt time and again.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1616','1','41','4','22','22','<p>4:22- see on 1 Cor. 14:25.</p><p><i>For there is nothing hid, save that it should be manifested; neither was anything made secret but that it should come to light</i>- The ecclesias, groups of believers, are lampstands (Rev. 2:5 cp.&nbsp; Ps. 18:28). We must give forth the light, not keep it under a bucket, letting laziness (under a bed) or worldly care (a bushel) distract us; because &quot;there is nothing hid which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad&quot; (Mk. 4:21,22). In other words, the very reason why God has hidden the things of His word from the world and some aspects of them from our brethren, is so that we can reveal them to them. The whole process of covering truths before revealing them is not because God plays hard to get. It is because the process of discovery is for our benefit.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1617','1','41','4','23','23','<p>4:23 <i>If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear</i>- See on :9.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1618','1','41','4','24','24','<p>4:24 <i>And he said to them: Pay attention to what you hear. What measure you use shall be applied to you, and more shall be given to you</i>- The measuring and giving as we have measured and given is used in Mt. 7:2 regarding the outcome of the final judgment. But it is not that our works shall as it were earn us a place in that Kingdom. The measure we use is applied here to what or &quot;how&quot; (AV) we hear. The context is the parable of the sower; how we hear God\'s word is critical to our eternal destiny. The outcome of judgment day will be directly proportionate to how far and in what way we have \'heard\' the Lord\'s word. Hearing is doing; intellectual purity of understanding is not in view here.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1619','1','41','4','25','25','<p>4:25 <i>For he that has, to him shall be given- </i>This is a clear statement of the upward spiral which we can experience. What we \'have\' in our commitment to His word (see on :24) will be added to. The faithful do not get the blessing solely by their own effort and application to God\'s word, but through the gift /grace of God. The context requires we understand this as \'having\' the ability to hear the Lord\'s words and practically \'understand\' them (Mt. 13:9). Mark speaks of what a man has, whereas Lk. 8:18 AV mg. more precisely speaks of what a man&nbsp;<i>thinks</i>&nbsp;he has. Matthew\'s record adds to &quot;shall be given&quot; the idea of \'given in abundance\'. This Greek word for &quot;abundance&quot; is used about the \'abundance\' which characterizes the life of the believer. But the \'abundance\' is not of material things, but of understanding of and thereby relationship with the Lord.</p><p><i>And he that has not, from him shall be taken away even that which he has</i>- The language is difficult, but makes good sense if we understand &lsquo;what a man has&rsquo; as referring to what that generation had due to responding to John&rsquo;s preaching; but because they had not followed where it led, they were left with nothing. The ideas are similar to the parable the Lord had just given of the demon being thrown out of the house of Israel by John the Baptist, but then returning. The language is arrestingly and purposefully strange. How can a man who has nothing have what he has taken away from him? All is clearer once we accept the initial context as being the Lord\'s commentary upon Israel\'s initial response to John the Baptist, and subsequent rejection of his ministry insofar as they rejected Jesus as Messiah. What they had once had- an initial response to the word sown- was now being taken away from them. This likewise explains the language of the next verse- that it was by the process of seeing and hearing that they became blind and deaf. It was their initial seeing and hearing of John\'s message which had made them now totally blind and deaf- because they had not responded to it.</p><p>In the sower context, those who appear to have been committed to the word but have now fallen away (the seed on the rocks, wayside and amongst thorns) will find that their time of apparent commitment to it was nothing; they have nothing if they did not endure to the end, and what they appeared to have will be taken away from them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1620','1','41','4','26','26','<p>4:26 <i>And he said: So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed upon the earth</i>- The Greek tenses suggest a one-time sowing, contrasted with regular sleeping and rising (:27). As King of the Kingdom, the Lord Jesus did at times give Himself the title &quot;the Kingdom of God&quot;. John\'s Gospel often mentions that the gift of the life of the Lord Jesus is also that of &quot;eternal life&quot;; His life, the kind of life He lived, His spirit, is that which believers shall eternally have. The sower in the preceding parable of the sower refers to the Lord Jesus sowing the seed of God\'s word; although all those &quot;in Him&quot; are likewise sowers of the word. Perhaps &quot;the earth&quot; refers specifically to the land of Israel, as often in the New Testament. But it could be that this parable is an extension of the parable of the sower, and the earth / ground in view is specifically the good ground, which brings forth much fruit. This parable is then a reflection on the wonder of salvation from the Lord\'s viewpoint.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1621','1','41','4','27','27','<p>4:27 <i>He sleeps and rises, night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he does not know how</i>- The humility of the Lord Jesus is a reflection of the humility of God His Father. He spoke of Himself as the sower, who sleeps (in His death) and then works night and day (His present Heavenly labour for us) so that the seed should bring forth fruit- &quot;he does not know how&quot; (with allusion to Ecc. 11:1,5,6). Despite all things having been revealed unto Him, and the Spirit unmeasurably given to Him, He had the spiritual and intellectual humility to openly recognize that our spiritual growth and ultimate salvation is a mystery to Him. It was the Father alone who gave the increase. &nbsp;</p><p>The Lord was limited in understanding. He forgot things at times, didn\'t understand absolutely everything (e.g. the date of His return, or as here, the mystery of spiritual growth), made a mistake when working as a carpenter, cut His finger. But He was never frustrated with Himself; He was happy being human, comfortable with His humanity.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1622','1','41','4','28','28','<p>4:28 <i>The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear</i>- As noted on :25, these comments are added as caveats to the parable of the sower, lest the impression should be given that all is required is correct exposition of God\'s word. For this was the great fallacy of Judaism. He who &quot;has&quot; in hearing / understanding / obedience is &quot;given&quot; the more (:25); the hand of grace is a major element in achieving that person\'s salvation, rather than their own unaided intellectual efforts. And so here, there is an element of mystery to spiritual growth, which even the Lord Himself did not understand; the earth &quot;by itself&quot; appears to produce the fruit. It is not simply a case of receiving the seed into good ground. There is another element in the whole business of spiritual fruition.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1623','1','41','4','29','29','<p>4:29 <i>But when the grain is ripe, immediately he puts forth the sickle, because the harvest comes</i>- He is closely watching our spiritual growth, as the farmer watches the wheat and then <i>immediately</i> begins to harvest it once the humidity and growth is just right. This is the enthusiasm with which the Lord watches our growth, not just individually, but as a community, i.e. the whole field. As the growth is still in some sense a mystery to the farmer, so it may be to the Lord (Mk. 4:26,27); we grow, &quot;he knows not how&quot;. This could be taken as an eloquent essay in the Lord\'s own limitation of knowledge. But the point is, once there is sufficient spiritual fruit, then the harvest is put in. This means that we cannot fix a calendar date for the Lord\'s return; we have conditions to be met, rather than dates to be waited for. Once the fruit is on the fig tree, then that generation shall see the Lord\'s return. I suggest this refers specifically to spiritual fruit amongst repentant Jews; and in this may lie the significance of the seed being sown upon the earth / land of Israel (:26).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1624','1','41','4','30','30','<p>4:30 <i>And he said: To what shall we compare the kingdom of God? Or in what parable shall we set it forth?</i>- The Lord has explained that He is going to teach in parables so that Israel shall not understand. The point had arrived in His ministry where the window of their opportunity was starting to close. So it could be that He is asking the disciples to think up parables, a casing within which to place the things of the Kingdom. The &quot;we&quot; would therefore refer to Him and His disciples. They apparently made no response, and so the Lord went on to share another of His comparison parables. \'Think up a modern day parable...\' is no bad exercise to use as a pastoral tool today.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1625','1','41','4','31','31','<p>4:31- see on Jn. 12:23-25.</p><p><i>It is like a grain- </i>Gk. \'a kernel\'. The element of unreality is that a farmer would not consciously sow one tiny seed in a field. But the Lord does this, knowing the potential power within that one tiny seed. He \'takes\' this&nbsp;one tiny seed in his palm, we are to imagine out into the field and sows it. And the mustard bush was perceived as a weed, a wild bush, not a crop. But it grows into a tree, it grows far greater and more majestically than could ever be expected. Here again is the Lord\'s encouragement to His disillusioned preachers- the growth of the Gospel, rather like the unreal increase on the good ground, is out of all proportion to what it initially is. Preaching appears \'foolish\' (1 Cor. 1:18,21); that by sharing the Gospel with others, the vast majority of whom ultimately reject it, something so wonderful and eternal can really come. This parable thereby highlights the faith of the Father and Son, the sowers, that the word of the Kingdom really would survive and grow out of all proportion to its beginnings. This was exactly the encouragement which the disciples needed to hear, disillusioned as they were by the pathetic response to John&rsquo;s ministry and the Lord&rsquo;s real spiritual demands upon people.</p><p><i>Of mustard seed, which, when it is sown upon the earth, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the earth</i>- <br />Many of the Lord&rsquo;s parables had some oblique reference to Himself. The parable of the sower speaks of the type of ground which gave one hundred fold yield- and surely the Lord was thinking of Himself in this. And yet the whole point of the parable is that all who receive the Lord&rsquo;s word have the possibility of responding in this way. Or take the related parable of the mustard seed =God&rsquo;s word of the Gospel which grows up into a huge tree under which all the birds can find refuge (Mk. 4:31,32). This image is replete with allusion to Old Testament pictures of God&rsquo;s future Kingdom, and the growth of Messiah from a small twig into a great tree (Ez. 17:22). Here we see the power of the basic Gospel message- truly responded to, it can enable us to have a share in the very heights to which the Lord Jesus is exalted.</p><p>Gk.&nbsp;<i>mikros</i>, the tiniest, the least. Mark adds that it was the tiniest of all seeds&nbsp;<i>in the earth</i>&nbsp;(Mk. 4:31). It was the tiniest seed known in the land- and the term often refers to the land promised to Abraham. It was the tiniest imaginable seed. And it would grow into the greatest imaginable tree. The point has been made that orchid and other seeds are actually smaller than mustard seeds (H. N. Moldenke and A.L. Moldenke,&nbsp;<i>Plants of the Bible</i>&nbsp;(Waltham, Mass.: Chronica Botanica Company, 1952) p.61). But the Bible is written from the perspective of its original hearers, it never claims to present global scientific truth, and the mustard seed was the smallest seed known to the Lord&rsquo;s audience.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1626','1','41','4','32','32','<p>4:32 <i>Yet when it is sown, grows up- </i>The phrase in Greek appears rather strange until we recall Mark\'s theme of immediacy of response. He envisages the sown seed growing up immediately, in a moment.</p><p><i>And becomes greater than all the herbs, and puts out great branches so that the birds of the sky can lodge under the shadow of it</i>- Not &lsquo;grows into&rsquo; a tree. The tiniest seed was only supposed to grow into a bush, but this unusual seed &lsquo;became&rsquo; a tree,&nbsp;<i>ginomai</i>&nbsp;carrying the sense of being &lsquo;caused to become&rsquo;. This was another element of the unreal- a shrub became a tree. It is (Mt. 13:32) &quot;the greatest&quot;; but the mustard bush is not the greatest herb and it is far from the tallest tree. The emphasis is on the word &ldquo;it&rdquo;- when&nbsp;<i>this&nbsp;</i>particular tiny seed grows&hellip; The point is that this particular tiny seed had extraordinary growth. This on one hand speaks of the amazing growth experienced by the believer from the apparently tiny beginnings of the Gospel. And yet the specific language of&nbsp;<i>the greatest</i>&nbsp;suggests the entire parable may refer to the Lord Jesus, the ultimate seed, tiny and despised, yet who grew to become the Kingdom of God under whose branches the Gentile world would find blessing. For \'the Kingdom\' was a legitimate title for Jesus, the King of the Kingdom who embodied it in His very person (Lk. 17:21). If here the Lord (as elsewhere) is speaking parables to and about Himself, it would in this context be in encouraging others as to the huge extent of growth possible. For Jesus is the parade example of how something which began so small- an egg within the womb of a barefoot unmarried teenager- could become so great.</p><p>The mustard seed becomes a tree so big that all the birds of the air can live in it (Mk. 4:32). But mustard trees aren\'t <i>this</i> big. Surely the point is that the small seed of the Gospel produces a quite out of proportion result- by reading literature, spotting a press advertisement, getting baptized... we will by grace become part of the Kingdom of God, and provide shelter to the nations of this world. This is the extraordinary power of the Gospel. This is how far it will take us, and the extent to which we can, through the Gospel, become saviours of men. See on Mt. 13:33; Rev. 17:18.</p><p>Mark records that the Lord emphasized that the branches were &quot;great&quot;,&nbsp;<i>megas</i>&nbsp;(Mk. 4:32). The&nbsp;<i>mikro</i>&nbsp;seed became&nbsp;<i>mega</i>; but the greatness of the tree was because of the greatness of the individual branches. A mustard bush doesn\'t have \'great\' branches, but in this unreal story, it does have them. According to the Lord\'s parable of Jn. 15:5, the branches represented the disciples: &quot;I am the vine, you are the branches&quot;. The total greatness of the Lord Jesus depends to some extent upon the degree to which we grow into great branches. The disciples were depressed at the lack of response to their message, and the failure of John\'s ministry in first century Palestine. The Lord is encouraging them personally that from their&nbsp;<i>mikro</i>, tiny beginnings, they would become great branches, and be able to provide shelter for the birds of the Gentiles; although the &quot;birds&quot; in the earlier parable of the sower were representative of the Jewish religious leaders. When the disciples later baptized priests and Pharisees, the Lord\'s ambitious vision began to come true.<br />There are a number of insights throughout the parables into how the Lord perceived His future Kingdom. Significantly, His emphasis in the parables of the Kingdom is upon our spiritual status then, rather than on the physical wonders which His reign will bring on the earth. He&nbsp;foresaw how although our faith is so puny now, as a mustard seed, we will be those who will be as a solid tree, a real place of refuge, to the nations of the Millennium (Mt. 13:31,32 = Ez. 17:23,24).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Each of the records of the great preaching commission in the Gospels ties in with earlier passages within the same Gospel record. Mark&rsquo;s &ldquo;preach the gospel to every creature&rdquo; is to be understood in the context of the Lord&rsquo;s prophecy that the seed of His Gospel would be sown by preaching, and would result in creatures&nbsp;of all kinds coming under its&rsquo; shadow (Mk. 16:15 cp. 4:32). The extent of witness we make is our choice; and according to how well we do it, so the extent of the shadow of the Kingdom gives shelter to many kinds.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1627','1','41','4','33','33','<p>4:33 <i>And with many such parables he spoke the word to them, according as they were able to understand it</i>- The Lord Jesus spoke the word to men &ldquo;as they were able to understand it&rdquo;, not as He was able to expound it. He didn&rsquo;t always relay to men the maximum level of understanding which He Himself possessed. The language of Jesus as recorded in John\'s Gospel is very different to that we encounter in the other Gospels. Indeed, the difference is so striking that some have claimed that John put the words into Jesus\' mouth in his account. My suggestion is that the Lord did in fact say all the words attributed to Him in all the Gospel records. But He had two levels of talking with people- a Heavenly, spiritual kind of style (which John picked up on); and also a more earthly one, which Matthew, Mark and Luke tended to record. In our context, the simple point that emerges is that Jesus spoke in different ways to different people; He tailored His language in accordance with His audience. It\'s significant that there are no records of Jesus casting out demons in John\'s record; this occurs only in the more audience-friendly accounts of the Synoptics.</p><p>There is&nbsp;tendency, it seems to me, for brethren particularly to insist on flaunting their knowledge, to have to correct others who have inferior knowledge or less mature interpretations. The Lord taught men the word &ldquo;as they were able to hear it&rdquo; (Mk. 4:33), not as He was able to expound it. If we ask where He obtained this humility and ability from, it is clearly an inheritance from His dear mother, who stored up things in her heart and didn&rsquo;t reveal them to others, just quietly meditating over the years. He spoke the word to men &ldquo;as <i>they</i> were able to <i>hear</i> it&rdquo;- He didn&rsquo;t always relay to men the maximum level of understanding which He Himself possessed. There is a tendency amongst some personality types to turn every disagreement over interpretation of Scripture into a right: wrong, truth : error scenario. Matters relating to basic doctrine are capable of being dealt with like this. But to turn the interpretation of every Bible verse into a conflict area is a recipe for ecclesial disaster. So often the debate becomes personal, with a brother sure that <i>he</i> is right and the other wrong, and the other must be shown to be wrong. This leads inevitably to pride, and there is the possibility that the other party is degraded and feels abused by the other. We simply have to accept that much of Scripture is open to various levels of interpretation, which if placed side by side would appear to be contradictory. Consider, for example, how many different applications the NT gives to Psalms 2 and 110.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1628','1','41','4','34','34','<p>4:34 <i>Without a parable he did not speak to them, but in private he explained all things to his own disciples</i>- As noted earlier, this marked a changeover in His ministry. He <i>only</i> spoke to Israel in parables; there was no more of the plain teaching of the Kingdom as found in the sermon on the mount. They were expected to have grasped that. If they did not, then it was too late. He also designed things so that He explained the truth of things to those who came to Him wishing to understand, rather than those who simply wanted to experience healings.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1629','1','41','4','35','35','<p>4:35 <i>And on that day, when evening had come, he said to them: Let us go over to the other side of the lake</i>- &quot;That day&quot; refers to the longest day recorded in all the Gospels.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1630','1','41','4','36','36','<p>4:36 <i>And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him- </i>&quot;Just as he was&quot; could imply He had fainted or was unwell. He would have endured immense nervous pressure from the ministry of this very long and active day.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1631','1','41','4','37','37','<p>4:37 <i>And there arose a great wind storm and the waves slammed into the boat, so much so that the boat was now filling</i>- The changes of tense in the Gospel records suggest an eye witness telling the story. &quot;And there arises a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the boat, insomuch that the boat was now filling&quot; (RV). But the rest of the account in the surrounding verses is in proper past tenses- e.g. &quot;He arose, and rebuked the wind, and said...&quot; (:39). The impression we have is of the author getting carried away with the memory of the event, and telling it as if it\'s happening. And this is especially fitting if in fact the Gospels were performed live rather than coldly memorized as prose.</p><p>The word used for the storm in Mt. 8:24 is also translated &quot;earthquake&quot;. &quot;Arose&quot; uses the same Greek word as found in Mt. 8:26 &quot;there was / arose a great calm&quot;. Just as easily as God can raise up a crisis, He can raise up the resolution to it.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1632','1','41','4','38','38','<p>4:38- see on Mt. 8:25; 20:32; Jn. 10:13.</p><p><i>And he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they awoke him, and said to him- </i>The waves from the earthquake &quot;covered&quot; or \'hid\' s.w. the ship (Mt.). Given the intensity of the situation it seems unlikely the Lord was really &quot;asleep&quot;. Here we have a picture of the apparent silence of God. He appeared to be asleep, He remained with eyes closed, lying there as the boat was hidden beneath the waves. But He did this surely to pique the intensity of faith and urgency of appeal in their prayer to Him for salvation. And the apparent silence of the Lord in our lives is ultimately to try to achieve the same effect.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The Greek for \'sleep\' could also stand the translation \'lying down to rest\'. But how could He appear to be resting or asleep in such a situation? I suggest He did this to elicit their desire for Him. Likewise He made as if He would walk by them during another storm, and acted as if He would go on further on the walk to Emmaus. It was all in order to elicit their urgent desire for Him. And so it is with His apparent silence to us; that silence or lack of immediate response is in order to heighten our final sense of His grace and action. We see it in how He delayed going to Lazarus; it is the principle of Is. 30:18: &quot;Therefore Yahweh will wait, that He may be gracious to you; and therefore He will be exalted, that He may have mercy on you, for Yahweh is a God of justice. Blessed are all those who wait for Him&quot;.</p><p>\'Awoke\' is literally, to raise up. It seemed He didn\'t want to do anything- until they imposed upon Him with all their energy and intensity of focus upon Him and Him alone as their Saviour. And the whole situation was raised up to that end.</p><p><i>Teacher, do you not care that we perish?</i>- His whole life and death were because He <i>did</i> so care that they would not perish (Jn. 3:16). It&rsquo;s so reminiscent of a child&rsquo;s total, if temporary, misunderstanding and lack of appreciation of the parent&rsquo;s love and self-sacrifice.</p><p>Matthew records that they asked Him to save them, because &quot;We perish&quot;. The same Greek words for \'save\' and \'perish\' also occur together in Mt. 16:25, where the Lord teaches that if we seek to save our lives in this world then we will perish. He could thereby be making a criticism of the disciples\' plea to be saved from perishing; His sense would then have been \'You should have an even greater, focused intensity upon your need to be saved spiritually and not to perish eternally\'. Again the two words occur together in Mt. 18:11, where the Lord says that He came to save those who are perishing- and again, He has in view spiritual, ultimate salvation. The perishing disciples on the lake, in need of saving, are therefore being set up as a picture of the intensity of desire we should have for forgiveness and salvation. The way essential intention is understood as prayer is perhaps reflected in the way Matthew records that the disciples prayed during the storm on the lake: &quot;Lord, save us, we are perishing&quot; (Mt. 8:25). Mark records that their actual words were &quot;Teacher, do you not care if we perish?&quot; (Mk. 4:38). Perhaps this was read by Matthew\'s inspiration as prayer. An alternative would be that they firstly said the words recorded by Mark, and then those by Matthew- in which case we could perhaps notice the difference between &quot;Teacher&quot; and &quot;Lord&quot;, as if the higher they perceived the greatness of the Lord Jesus, the more moved they were to prayer.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1633','1','41','4','39','39','<p>4:39 <i>And he awoke and rebuked the wind- </i>The Greek for &quot;rebuked&quot; can mean just this, but it is also translated \'to solemnly charge\'. There are times in the Gospels where the sovereign authority of Jesus as Lord simply shines through. He did His work with a minimum of such displays of authority. Yet there are enough of them to make us appreciate how He could so easily have \'come down from the cross\'; such incidents of sovereign authority in His ministry simply pave the way for us to appreciate the degree of self-control and wilful sacrifice and suffering which He achieved on the cross. The peoples of the first century, and their predecessors, believed that demons and the Satan monster were somehow associated with water &ndash; that was why, they figured, the water mysteriously kept moving, and at times blew up into storms. When we read of God &lsquo;rebuking&rsquo; the waters and making them calm or do what He wished (Ps. 18:16; 104:7; 106:9), we&rsquo;re effectively being told that Yahweh of Israel is so infinitely superior to those supposed demons and sea monsters that for God&rsquo;s people, they have no effective existence. The Lord Jesus taught the same lesson when He &lsquo;rebuked&rsquo; the sea and wind during the storm on the lake (Mt. 8:26). The same Greek word is used to described how He &lsquo;rebuked&rsquo; demons (Mt. 17:18 etc.). I have no doubt that the Lord Jesus didn&rsquo;t believe there was a Loch Ness&ndash;type monster lurking in Galilee which He had to rebuke in order to save the disciples from the storm; and likewise He spoke of &lsquo;rebuking&rsquo; demons as a similar way of teaching others that&nbsp;<i>whatever</i>&nbsp;ideas they had about demons, He was greater and was in a position to &lsquo;rebuke&rsquo; them. Likewise He assured His men that they had the power to tread on snakes, scorpions, and all their enemies (Lk. 10:17&ndash;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&rsquo;s your perception of things, well, in your terms, you have ultimate victory through working &lsquo;in My name&rsquo;.</p><p><i>And said to the sea: Peace Be still. And the wind ceased and there was a great calm</i>- His authoritative &quot;Peace, be still&quot; (Mk. 4:39) was probably primarily addressed to the Angels controlling the natural elements. The reference to Angels \'ministering\' to Him after the temptations suggests their inferiority. Thus He could summon twelve legions of Angels at the time of His greatest passion- maybe He remembered this incident and it was a temptation to Him to use this power over Angels at the crucifixion.</p><p>All three of the Synoptics use the same phrase for &quot;a great calm&quot; (Mt. 8:26; Mk. 4:39; Lk. 8:24). It would\'ve been a profound experience. The whole experience looks ahead to the calm of God\'s Kingdom being brought about by intense latter day prayer during a tribulation so intense that unless it were shortened, the faithful would die. When the Lord calmed the raging sea into a still calmness, He was consciously replicating what happened when Jonah was cast into the sea. He said plainly that He understood Jonah&rsquo;s willing submission to this as a type of His coming death. Therefore He saw the stilled sea as a symbol of the peace His sacrifice would achieve. And yet even during His ministry, He brought that calmness about; for in principle, His sacrifice was ongoing throughout His life. His blood is a symbol both of His cross and of the life He lived.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1634','1','41','4','40','40','<p>4:40- see on Mt. 8:26.</p><p><i>And he said to them: Why are you fearful? Do you still not have faith?</i>- Fear and unbelief are again connected in Rev. 21:8. The unbelief refers ultimately to disbelief in our salvation, fear of condemnation; see on 8:25 \'We perish\'. The question as to&nbsp;<i>why</i>&nbsp;they had little faith (Mt.) echoes to us. Why is it that faith is so hard for us? The track record of the Father and Son as rewarding faith is clear and without question. This&nbsp;<i>why</i>&nbsp;question drives each individual into personal introspection, reviewing our history, past and present influences upon us, the nature of our personality.&nbsp;<i>Why</i>&nbsp;do we not believe very strongly... ? The records of the Lord&rsquo;s words to the disciples in the sinking ship are significantly different within the Gospel records. Luke&rsquo;s record has Him upbraiding them: &ldquo;Where is your faith?&rdquo;, as if He thought they had none. Matthew and Mark have Him commenting: &ldquo;O you of&nbsp;<i>little</i>&nbsp;faith...&rdquo;. Putting them together, perhaps He said and implied something like: &lsquo;O you of little faith, you who think you have a little faith, in my view you have no&nbsp;<i>real</i>&nbsp;faith. Come on, where is your&nbsp;<i>real</i>&nbsp;faith, not the little bit which&nbsp;<i>you&nbsp;</i>think you have...?&rsquo; (Mt. 8:26 cp. Mk. 4:40). The Greek for &ldquo;little&rdquo; faith is also translated &lsquo;almost&rsquo;; as if the Lord is saying that they almost had faith, but in reality, had nothing. The Lord spoke of how just a little piece of real faith, like a grain of mustard seed, could result in so much (Mk. 11:12,13)- as if He recognized that there was pseudo-faith, and the real thing.&nbsp;<i>Oligopistos&nbsp;</i>(&quot;little faith&quot;) is used five times by Matthew (Mt. 6:30; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20); it never occurs in Mark and only once in Luke. Perhaps Matthew\'s Gospel record was written to challenge those whose faith was small, and he encourages them that the disciples likewise started with &quot;little faith&quot;.&nbsp;</p><p>It seems to me that all the Lord\'s servants are taught by increments, progressively, being given tests as to the degree to which they have grasped what the Lord has sought to teach them previously. And the Lord Jesus used a similar structured approach with the training of the twelve disciples. When the Lord commented &ldquo;Have you not yet faith?&rdquo; (Mk. 4:40 RV) it becomes immediately apparent that He was working with the twelve according to some program of spiritual development, and He was frustrated with their lack of response to it and slow progress. He surely has a similar program in place, and makes similar patient efforts, with each one of us. It is apparent to any reader of the Greek text of the Gospels that Jesus almost always left the verb &ldquo;believe&rdquo; without an object (e.g. Mk. 4:40; 5:34,36; 9:23). The question naturally arose: &lsquo;Believe&nbsp;<i>in what or whom</i>?&rsquo;. And seeing the speaker of the words, the answer was there before their eyes.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1635','1','41','4','41','41','<p>4:41 <i>And they feared exceedingly, and said to each other: Who then is this?- &quot;</i>What manner of man is this&quot; (Mt. 8:27); what&nbsp;<i>sort</i>&nbsp;of man is this (Gk.&nbsp;<i>potapos</i>), they asked themselves. They felt very much their own humanity (hence they are called &quot;the men&quot; at this time), and their awe was because they sensed that Jesus too was a man. Accepting the humanity of the Lord Jesus is relatively easy on one level, as a matter of theology, exposition or logic. But then comes the far harder part- the awe at the fact that One who was like me could actually do so much and be so much. And this can lead to our feeling a kind of gap between Him and us, although we know He shared the same nature, this in a sense means that we feel the spiritual distance between Him and us very keenly. In later spiritual maturity, Peter seems to have reflected upon this gap and realized that it was bridgeable- for he uses a similar word in saying that because of God\'s grace, &quot;what manner of persons(<i>potapous</i>) ought we to be...&quot;. Just as Jesus was human and yet different from unbelieving men, so that same element of difference can be seen in us. The whole consideration is an essay in His humanity and representation of us as humans.</p><p>&quot;What manner of&nbsp;<i>man</i>&nbsp;is this?&quot; was maybe said on perceiving that His actions were in fulfilment of the prophecy that&nbsp;<i>Yahweh&nbsp;</i>would still the waves of the sea. And in the context of stilling another storm, He comments: &quot;Fear not, it is I&quot; - not \'it\'s&nbsp;<i>me</i>\'. He was surely suggesting they connect Him with the essence of the Yahweh Name, I am that I am. But the connection was only for those who would truly meditate and connect things together. As our Moslem friends have correctly pointed out many times, Jesus Himself never in so many words claimed to be Messiah. When others said this about Him, He replies by describing Himself as the &quot;son of man&quot;. Indeed, this was His preferred self-image. He was intensely conscious of His humanity, His solidarity with us, and it was as if He directed us who later have believed to image Him first and foremost as a&nbsp;<i>man of our nature</i>. Of course, He was and is so much more than that. But because we are human, we have to image ourselves around a perfect human- Jesus, the real and full humanity as God intended. Here those who believe Jesus was God Himself place themselves at a distinct disadvantage- our understanding that Jesus did indeed come &quot;in the flesh&quot; ought to be a tremendous inspiration to us to be like Him. The power and compulsion of His life and example are surely diminished by relating to Him as God Himself.</p><p>Jesus does not&nbsp;proclaim Himself, and yet He expects us to base our lives around Him. This is yet another paradox. Clearly we are intended to reconstruct Him from our repeated and sensitive readings of the Gospels. We in our day must read the Gospel records, portraying Him as they do from four different angles, and seek to reconstruct Him in our own minds as a person. His actions spoke loudly and in this He is a pattern to us in our witness. When He stilled the storm, the disciples marvelled: &quot;What manner of man is this?&quot;, knowing full well that His actions were in fulfilment of the prophecy that <i>Yahweh </i>would still the waves of the sea. And in the context of stilling another storm, He comments: &quot;Fear not, it is I&quot; - not \'it\'s <i>me</i>\'. He was surely suggesting they connect Him with the essence of the Yahweh Name, I am that I am. But the connection was only for those who would truly meditate and connect things together. As our Moslem friends have correctly pointed out many times, Jesus Himself never in so many words claimed to be Messiah. When others said this about Him, He replies by describing Himself as the &quot;son of man&quot;. Indeed, this was His preferred self-image. He was intensely conscious of His humanity, His solidarity with us, and it was as if He directed us who later have believed to image Him first and foremost as a <i>man of our nature</i>. Of course, He was and is so much much more than that. But because we are human, we have to image ourselves around a perfect human- Jesus, the real and full humanity as God intended. Here those who believe Jesus was God Himself place themselves at a distinct disadvantage- our understanding that Jesus did indeed come &quot;in the flesh&quot; ought to be a tremendous inspiration to us to be like Him. The power and compulsion of His life and example are surely diminished by relating to Him as God Himself.</p><p><i>Even the wind and the sea obey him- </i>The disciples spoke of the wind and sea as if they were conscious entities, able to be obedient to the word of Jesus. The same word is used to describe the marvel of the people that &quot;even the unclean spirits... obey Him&quot; (Mk. 1:27). Just as wind and sea are not actually living entities, so unclean spirits likewise don\'t actually exist. But the disciples clearly had the idea in their head. Yet the scale of the Lord\'s power over such entities in fact showed their effective non-existence in practice.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1636','1','41','5','1','1','<p>5:1- see on Mk. 10:28. For a detailed study on this incident, see my discussion of it in <a href=http://www.realdevil.info/4-3-1.htm><i>The Real Devil</i></a><em>. </em>See too commentary on Matthew 8 and Luke 8.</p><p><em>And they came to the other side of the sea- </em>The Gospel records, Mark especially, often paint a broad scene and then zoom in upon the person of Jesus. Mark does this by using a plural verb <em>without an explicit subject</em> to paint a picture of the disciples or crowd generally; and then follows this by a singular verb or pronoun referring specifically to Jesus. Here are some examples: &quot;They came to the other side... and when He had stepped out of the boat&quot; (Mk. 5:1,2); &quot;when they came from Bethany, he was hungry&quot; (Mk. 8:22); &quot;they went to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples...&quot; (Mk. 14:32). The grammatical feature is more evident in Greek than in English. If the writer of Mark had been a cameraman, he\'d have taken a broad sweep, and then suddenly hit the zoom to focus right up close upon Jesus Himself. This is what is being done with words, and it reflects the Christ-centeredness of the whole narrative and preaching of the Gospel, of which the Gospels are transcripts.</p><p><em>Into the country of the Gerasenes</em>- The &quot;Girgashites&quot; of Dt. 7:1, some of the original inhabitants of Canaan who had never been cast out of the land as intended by God. These men stopped anyone passing along the way or road. The point may be that those whom Israel should\'ve \'cast out\' to secure their inheritance of the Kingdom were finally cast out by Christ. This lays the basis for the language of \'casting out\' the demons into the lake.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1637','1','41','5','2','2','<p>5:2 <em>And when he got out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit</em>- &quot;Immediately&quot; suggests the man was waiting for Him; although :6 says that Legion ran to the Lord from far away, which would make the &quot;immediately&quot; here relative, and intended to create an impression of fast moving action. From his isolated hideouts on the cliffs, he had seen the boat traversing the lake so many times. And he was convinced that within it there was the Son of God. &quot;With an unclean spirit&quot; appears to contradict the idea that he had a legion of such spirits within him- until we accept that this is just the language of the day for mental illness. We are not reading here about literal spirits. See on :7. But when we meet a similar situation in Acts 8:7 of unclean spirits crying out, the Eastern (Aramaic) text reads: &quot;Many who were mentally afflicted cried out&quot;. This is because, according to George Lamsa, &quot;&quot;Unclean spirits&quot; is an Aramaic term used to describe lunatics&quot; (George Lamsa, <em>New Testament Commentary</em> (Philadelphia: A.J. Holman, 1945) pp. 57,58). It should be noted that Lamsa was a native Aramaic speaker with a fine understanding of Aramaic terms. He grew up in a remote part of Kurdistan which had maintained the Aramaic language almost unchanged since the time of Jesus. It\'s significant that Lamsa\'s extensive writings indicate that he failed to see in the teachings of Jesus and Paul any support for the popular conception of the devil and demons- he insisted that the Semitic and Aramaic terms used by them have been misunderstood by Western readers and misused in order to lend support for their conceptions of a personal Devil and demons.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1638','1','41','5','3','3','<p>5:3 <em>Who had his dwelling in the tombs; no one could any more bind him, even with a chain</em>- A fairly detailed case can be made that the man Legion was to be understood as representative of Judah in captivity, suffering for their sins, who despite initially opposing Christ (Legion ran up to Jesus just as he had \'run upon\' people in aggressive fits earlier), could still repent as Legion did, be healed of their sins and be His witnesses to the world. This fits in with the whole theme which the Lord had- that the restoration of Israel\'s fortunes would not be by violent opposition to the Legions of Rome but by repentance and spiritual witness to the world. The point is, Israel were bound in fetters and beaten by the Gentiles because of their sins, which they were culpable of, for which they had responsibility and from which they could repent; rather than because they had been taken over by powerful demons against their will. Here then are reasons for understanding Legion as representative of Judah under Gentile oppression: </p><p><strong>-</strong> Israel were &ldquo;A people... which remain among the tombs, and lodge in the monuments&rdquo; (Is. 65:3-4).</p><p>- Legion was always &ldquo;in the mountains&rdquo;- the &quot;high places&quot; where Israel sinned (Is. 65:7; Hos. 4:13).</p><p>- The man\'s name, Legion, suggests he was under the ownership of Rome. The miracle occurred in Gentile territory, suggesting Judah in the Gentile dominated world. </p><p>- &lsquo;What is your name?&rsquo; is the same question asked of Jacob</p><p>- Legion\'s comment that &lsquo;we are many&rsquo; is identical to the words of Ez. 33:24 about Israel: &ldquo;Son of man, they that inhabit those wastes of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one, and he inherited the land: but <em>we are many</em>; the land is given us for inheritance. Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land?&rdquo;.</p><p>- Legion had often been bound with fetters and chains (Mk 5:3,4)- just as God\'s people had so often been taken into captivity in &quot;fetters and chains&rdquo; (2 Chron. 33:11; 36:6, 2 Kings 24:7).</p><p>- When the sick man asks that the unclean spirits not be sent &quot;out of the country&quot; (Mk. 5:10), I take this as his resisting the healing. But he later repents and asks for them to be sent into the herd of pigs. This recalls a prophecy about the restoration of Judah in Zech. 13:2: &ldquo;And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land&rdquo;.</p><p>- The herd of pigs being &quot;destroyed&quot; in the water recalls the Egyptians being &ldquo;destroyed&rdquo; in the Red Sea when Israel were delivered from Gentile power before. The Gadarene Gentiles &quot;were afraid&quot;, just as the Gentile world was at the time of the Exodus (Ex. 15:14). The curing of Legion is termed &ldquo;great things&rdquo; (Mk. 5:19); and Israel\'s exodus from Gentile power and the destruction of the Egyptians is likewise called &ldquo;great things&rdquo; (Ps. 106:21).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1639','1','41','5','4','4','<p>5:4 <em>For he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him</em>- See on :3 for the connection between Legion and Judah. He had &quot;often&quot; been restrained, in efforts to cure him. He therefore needed some assurance that the cure from the Lord Jesus was going to be permanent, and the rushing of the pigs over the cliff to their permanent destruction would have been a reminder of that.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1640','1','41','5','5','5','<p>5:5 <em>Always, night and day, in the tombs and in the mountains, he was crying out and cutting himself with stones</em>- A psychological approach to the self-mutilation which is a classic symptom of mental illness would be to understand it as him trying to stone himself, convinced he was unworthy and deserving of condemnation. No surprise, in this case, that the presence of Jesus lifted that sense of condemnation from him, and the miracle of the pigs was therefore performed to assure him that his sin really had been removed and condemned by drowning in the sea a figure of condemnation in Mt. 18:6 and Rev. 18:21. 33. The French social scientist Ren&eacute; Girard commented at length upon the curing of the demoniac. He took the gashing of himself with stones as being representative of the man\'s desire to stone himself, and he observes the phenomena of &quot;autolapidation&quot; (self-stoning) as being common within the mentally disturbed. But he observes further that the pigs running over the cliff has &quot;ritual and penal connotations&quot; in that both stoning and being thrown over a cliff were common methods of execution in primitive societies (Ren&eacute; Girard, <em>The Scapegoat</em> (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986) p. 176. The same points are made in Jean Starobinski, &quot;The Gerasene Demoniac&quot;, in Roland Barthes et al, eds., <em>Structural Analysis and Biblical Exegesis</em> (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974) pp. 57-84). We recall how the townspeople tried to execute Jesus by throwing Him off a cliff (Lk. 4:29). And yet Jesus turned the man\'s fears on their head; for the pigs, representing the crowd who wished to stone the man and throw him off the cliff, are the ones who are thrown over the cliff by Jesus. The crowd therefore suffer the execution which they wished to inflict upon the victim. Thus &quot;the miracle of Gerasa reverses the universal schema of violence fundamental to all societies&quot; (<em>Ibid</em> p. 179). Now we understand why Jesus declined Legion\'s request to follow Him on His mission, but insisted he instead return to his own society and live at peace with them. For Jesus had taught the man that the crowd he feared were no more, the lynch mob he obsessively feared had themselves been lynched over the cliff. The man begged that the demons <em>not</em> be cast into the sea (Lk. 8:31) in the sense that he himself feared being cast over the cliff into the sea by the mob. But that fear was taken away by Jesus; for it was the demons, the lynch mob which he feared, the Roman Legions, which he saw represented by the pigs, hurtling to their own destruction over the cliff.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1641','1','41','5','6','6','<p>5:6 <em>And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him</em>- Yet the man is described as &quot;immediately&quot; meeting the Lord; see on :2. His worship suggests He had heard and processed the works and teaching of the Lord, and come to the conclusion which the Lord never stated in so many words- that He was the Son of God. The Lord\'s style was to let His audience join the dots and come to that conclusion; and this mentally disturbed homeless man was one of the few who did so and saw the picture. It was His illness which stopped Him credibly and usefully proclaiming that; and so the Lord cured that dimension of the man.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1642','1','41','5','7','7','<p>5:7 <em>And crying out with a loud voice, he said: What have I to do with you, Jesus, you Son of the Most High God? I solemnly implore you by God, do not torment me</em>- See on :6. He was one of the few who joined the dots and saw that the Lord was God\'s Son; yet he feared condemnation, which is what &quot;torment&quot; spoke of. It was his mental illness which was largely responsible for that paranoia about condemnation; and the Lord healed him of it.</p><p>A comparison of the records indicates that the voice of the individual man is paralleled with that of the \'demons\' (see on :2)- the man was called Legion, because he believed and spoke as if he were inhabited by hundreds of \'demons\':</p><p>&quot;Torment <em>me</em> not&quot; (Mk. 5:7) = &ldquo;Are you come to torment <em>us</em>?&rdquo; (Mt. 8:29). <br />&ldquo;<em>He</em> singular besought him&rdquo; (Mk. 5:9) = &quot;<em>the demons</em> besought him&quot; (Mk. 5:12) <br />The man\'s own words explain his self-perception: &quot;<em>My</em> name singular is Legion: for <em>we</em> are many (Mk. 5:9)&quot;. This is classic schizophrenic behaviour and language. Thus Lk. 8:30 explains that Legion spoke as he did because he thought that many demons had entered into him.</p><p>Another case of \'proving too much\' arises from reflection upon the fact that the \'demon possessed\' Legion clearly recognized Jesus as the Son of God (Mk. 5:7); Mark seems to emphasize that demon possessed\' people perceived Jesus as God\'s Son (Mk. 1:24,34; 3:11). Yet Mark and the other Gospel writers likewise emphasize the slowness or refusal of many other groups in the Gospels to arrive at the same perception. And so we are forced to deal with the question: Since when do \'demons\' bring people to accept Jesus as God\'s Son? Surely, according to the classical schema of understanding them, they and the Devil supposedly behind them are leading people to unbelief rather than to belief? But once we accept the language of \'demon possession\' as referring to mental illness without requiring the actual physical existence of demons, then everything falls into place. For it\'s so often the case that the mentally ill have a very fine and accurate perception of spiritual things. And we see a clear pattern developed in the Gospels: the poor, the marginalized, women, slaves, the mentally ill \'demon possessed\', the disenfranchised, the lepers, the prostitutes, are the ones who perceive Jesus as God\'s Son and believe in Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1643','1','41','5','8','8','<p>5:8 <em>For Jesus had said to him: Unclean spirit, come out of the man</em>- The man\'s fear of condemnation &quot;torment&quot; was triggered or restimulated by the command to the \'unclean spirit\' to come out of the man. Legion assumed that he personally was going to be condemned if the &quot;unclean spirit&quot; was condemned which he supposed was within him. But the Lord was seeking to help the man see a difference between himself personally, and his mental illness, the &quot;spirit&quot; or mind within him which was paranoid about condemnation. And so the Lord went along with the man\'s self perception, and in terms the man understood, showed beyond doubt that that spirit of fear had been cast out. Perhaps John reflects on this incident when he writes that perfect love casts out fear, because fear is associated with &quot;torment&quot; (1 Jn. 4:18), which is just what the man was obsessed with fearing (:7).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1644','1','41','5','9','9','<p>5:9 <em>And he asked the spirit: What is your name?- </em>The Lord focused the man\'s attention upon the man\'s beliefs about himself- by asking him &quot;What is your name?&quot;, to which he replies &quot;Legion For we are many&quot;. Thus the man was brought to realize on later reflection that the pig stampede was a miracle by the Lord, and a judgment against illegal keeping of unclean animals- rather than an action performed by the demons he thought inhabited him. The idea of transference of disease from one to another was a common Semitic perception, and it&rsquo;s an idea used by God. And thus God went along with the peoples\' idea of disease transference, and the result is recorded in terms of demons which was how they understood illness going from one person to another. Likewise the leprosy of Naaman clave to Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27). God threatened to make the diseases of the inhabitants of Canaan and Egypt to cleave to Israel if they were disobedient (Dt. 28:21,60). Here too, God is accommodating the ideas of disease transference which people had at the time.</p><p><em>And the spirit replied: My name is Legion. For we are many</em>- I have outlined in :3 how Legion could be seen as representative of Israel in their weakness. Mark records how Jesus asked the man his name- as if He wished the man to reflect upon who he thought he was. He replied: &quot;Legion&quot;. And of course the word &quot;legion&quot; referred to a division of Roman soldiers, usually five or six thousand. The man felt possessed by Roman legions. Through the incident with the pigs, Jesus helped him understand that He alone had the power to rid the man, and all Israel, of the Roman legions. The observation has been made that the incidents of \'driving out demons\' nearly all occur in &quot;militarized zones&quot;, areas where the Roman army was highly visible and resented (Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw<em>, Jesus for President (</em>Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008) p. 115). The man wished the &quot;demons&quot; he imagined to be possessing him to be identified with the pigs. And Jesus empowered that desire. The &lsquo;band&rsquo; of pigs is described using the same original word as used for a group of military cadets. And the pig was the mascot of Rome&rsquo;s Tenth Fretensis Legion which was stationed nearby; indeed, &quot;pigs&quot; were used as symbols for Romans in non-Roman literature of the time (Warren Carter, <em>Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations</em> (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001) p. 71; Warren Carter, <em>Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-political and Religious Reading</em> (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000) pp. 212,213). William Harwood comes to the same conclusion: &quot;Jerusalem had been occupied by the Roman Tenth Legion X Fretensis, whose emblem was a pig. Mark\'s reference to about two thousand pigs, the size of the occupying Legion, combined with his blatant designation of the evil beings as Legion, left no doubt in Jewish minds that the pigs in the fable represented the army of occupation. Mark\'s fable in effect promised that the messiah, when he returned, would drive the Romans into the sea as he had earlier driven their four-legged surrogates&quot; (William Harwood, <em>Mythology\'s Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus</em> (New York: Prometheus Books, 1990) p. 48). The claim has been made by Joachim Jeremias that the Aramaic word for &quot;soldiers&quot; was in fact translated &quot;Legion&quot; (The same point is made in Gerd Theissen, <em>Sociology of Earliest Palestinian Christianity</em> (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1978) pp. 101,102). Jesus elsewhere taught that through faith in Him, &quot;this mountain&quot; could be cast into the sea (Mt. 21:21; Mk. 11:23). Seeing that mountains are symbolic in Scripture of empires, it could be that He was referring to how the empire contemporary with Him as He spoke those words, the Roman empire, could be cast into the sea through faith in Him. The acted parable of the Legion of pigs running into the sea was surely teaching the same thing. In passing, I note the apparent discrepancy between the fact that a Roman Legion contained five or six thousand people and yet there were two thousand pigs drowned. I found the comment on an internet forum, by an unbeliever, that &quot;the governor of Judaea only had 2000 legionaries at his disposal&quot;. I have searched Josephus and other sources for confirmation of this, but can\'t find any. If it were to be found, it would be marvellous confirmation of the thesis I\'m presenting here- that the pigs were to be understood as representative of the Roman Legions, who in their turn were responsible for the man\'s mental illness. In any case, there is evidence to believe that there were Roman troops stationed in Gadara, and the pigs were likely being kept in order to provide food for them (Michael Willett Newheart, <em>&quot;My name is Legion&quot;: The Story and Soul of the Gerasene Demoniac</em> (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004) p. 14). &quot;Pigs for the pigs&quot; would\'ve been the common quip about that herd of swine.</p><p>There is a strange flip of the tail in all this. Josephus records how the Romans massacred many Jewish rebels in Gadara, the very place of the Legion miracle, in AD69: &quot;Vespasian sent Placidus with 500 horse and 3000 foot to pursue those who had fled from Gadara... Placidus, relying on his cavalry and emboldened by his previous success, pursued the Gadarenes, killing all whom he overtook, as far as the Jordan. Having driven the whole multitude up to the river, where they were blocked by the stream, which being swollen by the rain was unfordable, he drew up his troops in line opposite them. Necessity goaded them to battle, flight being impossible... Fifteen thousand perished by the enemy\'s hands, while the number of those who were driven to fling themselves into the Jordan was incalculable; about two thousand two hundred were captured...&quot; (<em>Wars of the Jews, </em>Book 4, Chapter 7). This is all very similar to the picture of the Roman legions being driven into the water, as Jesus had implied would happen. Perhaps we are to understand that what was made potentially possible for the Jews by the work of Jesus was in fact turned around against them- they suffered the very punishment and judgment which was potentially prepared for Rome, because they refused their Messiah. This is possibly why the destruction of Rome / Babylon predicted in the Apocalypse is described in terms of Jerusalem\'s destruction in the Old Testament. The judgment intended for Babylon / Rome actually came upon Jerusalem and the Jews.</p><p>I suggest that the man\'s mental illness was related to the possession of his country by the Roman Legions. Perhaps he found huge power within himself to smash the chains with which he was restrained because he imagined them as symbolizing the Roman grip upon his soul and his country. In this case, his self-mutilation, gashing himself with stones (Mk. 5:5), would\'ve been from a desire to kill the Legions within him, the \'demons\' of Rome whom he perceived as having possessed him. He saw himself as representative of his people; Walter Wink sees the man\'s gashing himself with stones as a result of how he had &quot;internalized Judah\'s captivity and the utter futility of resistance&quot; (Walter Wink, <em>Unmasking the Powers</em> (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) Vol. 2 p. 46). So often the mentally ill internalize their abusers; they act and speak as if their abusers are actually them, within them. This is why the abused so often end up abusing others; it\'s why Israel treat some Palestinians in a way strangely similar to how they were treated at the hands of the Nazis; and it\'s why Jesus urges us to pray for those who persecute us, to the end we might place a psychological distance between them and us, be ourselves, and not become like them. Jesus recognized this long before modern psychiatry did; hence he asks the sick man his name, &quot;Legion&quot;. The man\'s reply really says it all- as if to say \'I am my abusers. I have internalized them\'. Hence one commentator writes of how Legion &quot;carries his persecutors inside him in the classic mode of the victim who internalizes his tormentors&quot; (Robert G. Hammerton-Kelley, <em>The Gospel and the Sacred: Poetics of Violence in Mark</em> (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1994) p. 93).</p><p>Frantz Fanon was a psychiatrist who analysed the psychological damage done to those living under repressive regimes. Taking case studies from the French colonization of Martinique and Algeria, Fanon demonstrated that many darker skinned local people came to see themselves as second rate and dirty, and that when these darker skinned natives interacted with the white colonizers, they often experienced a tension between who they really were, and who they had to act as in secular life with the white masters. One of his books says it all in its title: <em>Black Skin, White Masks</em>. Having listed the various types of mental illness and multiple personality disorders which he attributed to French colonialism, Fanon concluded that there was brought about &quot;this disintegrating of personality, this splitting and dissolution... in the organism of the colonized world&quot; (Frantz Fanon, <em>The Wretched of the Earth</em> (New York: Grove Press, 1963) p. 57. See too his <em>Black Skin, White Masks</em> (New York: Grove Press, 1967)). Similar observations have been made, in a white-on-white context, about the psychological damage done by the Soviet occupation to the ethnic Baltic population, perhaps explaining why the tiny countries of Latvia and Lithuania have some of the highest suicide and mental illness rates in the world. The point is, however exaggerated these studies may be in some areas, there is indeed huge psychological damage caused by occupying, colonial powers; and this was the case in first century Palestine, and I submit that Legion with his multiple personalities was an example of mental illness caused by such a scenario. Paul Hollenbach likewise interprets the case of Legion, commenting in that context that &quot;mental illness can be seen as a socially acceptable form of oblique protest against, or escape from, oppressions... his very madness permitted him to do what he could not do as sane, namely express his total hostility to the Romans; he did this by identifying the Roman legions with demons. His possession was thus at once both the result of oppression and an expression of his resistance to it&quot; (Paul Hollenbach, &quot;Jesus, Demoniacs and Public Authorities&quot;, <em>Journal of the American Academy of Religion, </em>Vol. 99 (1981) p. 575). Richard Horsley takes the idea further: &quot;The demon possession of the manically violent man among the Gerasenes can be understood as a combination of the effect of Roman imperial violence, a displaced protest against it&quot; (Richard Horsley, <em>Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark\'s Gospel</em> (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) p. 145). By asking the sick man for his name, the Lord Jesus was surely seeking to help the man clarify the fact that his real issue was with Rome, and the man actually need not fear supposed \'demons\'. This refocusing upon the real problem is a common feature of how the Bible deals with the whole subject of Satan and demons, as we\'ve often seen in the course of this book. Horsley is right on target in his conclusion: &quot;The casting out and naming of &quot;Legion&quot; is a demystification of demons and demon possession. It is now evident to Jesus\' followers and to the hearers of Mark\'s story that the struggle is really against the rulers, the Romans&quot; (<em>Ibid </em>p. 147). Newheart writes in very similar terms: &quot;Jesus... demystified the demons, showing that the real culprit was Rome&quot; (Newheart, <em>op cit</em> p. 84).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1645','1','41','5','10','10','<p>5:10 <em>And he pleaded earnestly with him not to send them out of the country</em>- This is the man\'s fear of condemnation, noted on :8. Note that the sick man is paralleled with the demons. &quot;<em>He</em> begged him earnestly not to send <em>them</em> out of the country&quot; (Mk. 5:10) parallels &quot;he&quot;, the man, with &quot;them&quot;, the demons. And the parallel record speaks as if it were the demons who did the begging: &quot;<em>They </em>begged him not to order them to go into the abyss&quot; (Lk. 8:31). This is significant in that the record doesn\'t suggest that demons were manipulating the man to speak and be mad; rather are they made parallel with the man himself. This indicates, on the level of linguistics at least, that the language of &quot;demons&quot; is being used as a synonym for the mentally ill man. There\'s another example of this, in Mark 3:11: &quot;Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, &ldquo;You are the Son of God&rdquo;&quot;. Who fell down on their knees and who shouted? The mentally disturbed people. But they are called &quot;unclean spirits&quot;. James 2:19 likewise: &quot;The demons believe and tremble&quot;. This is surely an allusion to the trembling of those <em>people </em>whom Jesus cured, and \'belief\' is appropriate to persons not supposed eternally damned agents of Satan. Clearly James is putting &quot;demons&quot; for \'mentally disturbed people who believed and were cured\'. And thus we can better understand why in Mk. 5:8 Jesus addresses Himself not to these supposed spirits; but to the man himself: &quot;Jesus said to <em>him, </em>Come out of the man, you unclean spirit&quot;. He doesn\'t say to the<em> unclean spirit</em> &quot;Come out of the man&quot;. Jesus addresses Himself to &quot;the man&quot;. The demons / unclean spirits never actually say anything in the records; it\'s always the man himself who speaks. Josephus records that when the first century Rabbis cast out demons as they supposed, they first had to ask for the name of the demon. The Lord Jesus doesn\'t do this; He asks the man for <em>his</em> personal name. The difference is instructive- the Lord wasn\'t speaking to demons, He was speaking to the mentally sick man, and going along with the man\'s belief that he had demons within him. The \'demons\' plead with Jesus not to torment them, and back this up by invoking God. \'They\' believed in God and honoured Him to the point of believing He was the ultimate authenticator of oaths. \'They\' hardly fit the classical idea that demons are anti-God and in conflict with Him. Clearly enough, when we read of demons and spirits in this passage we are not reading of the actual existence of \'demons\' as they are classically understood, but simply of the mentally ill man himself.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1646','1','41','5','11','11','<p>5:11 <em>Now there was there on the mountain side a great herd of pigs feeding</em>- Mt. 8:30 <em>&quot;</em>Now there was afar off from them a herd of many pigs feeding&quot;. The term is used about those \'far off\' from Christ, the unsaved (Lk. 15:20; Acts 2:39; 22:21; Eph. 2:13,17). The man saw himself as far from Christ, with nothing in common between them (Mt. 8:29). His response was to say that OK, let\'s get the condemnation over and done with- and you yourselves shall be saved. See on :8 for the man\'s paranoia about condemnation, although he believed in the Lord as God\'s Son and worshipped Him as such. This is very much the kind of teaching which John\'s Gospel records as being specifically on the Lord\'s lips.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1647','1','41','5','12','12','<p>5:12 <em>And they pleaded with him, saying: Send us into the pigs, let us enter into them</em>- Mt. 8:31 adds: <em>&quot;</em>And the demons begged him, saying: If you cast us out&quot;. The word is used about \'casting out\' to condemnation at the last day (Mt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30; Lk. 13:28; Jn. 6:37). Legion was obsessed with the thought of condemnation at the last day, being \'tormented\' at the last day (Mt. 8:28), being \'far off\' from Christ and His salvation (see on Mt. 8:30), \'going away\' into condemnation (s.w. Mt. 25:46), plunged into the sea of condemnation (see on Mt. 8:32). He correctly perceived that meeting Jesus in this life was in effect a meeting of Him in judgment, for even then, even now, He is the judge of all. The Lord was assuring Legion that his fear of condemnation was well and truly \'cast out\'; His destruction of the pigs was an acted parable of final condemnation at the last day; and this addressed the man\'s paranoia about condemnation noted on :8. John\'s Gospel doesn\'t record this incident but as so often, he records the essential teaching in spiritual terms. In John\'s terms, we need have no fear of future condemnation, for we have received it now, and have passed from judgment to life and salvation. Legion had a fine understanding of the Lord Jesus. He realized that meeting Him was meeting his judge. And he ask that the pigs bear his condemnation. And the Lord agrees- which meant that once Legion had as it were received his condemnation, he had passed from death into life.&nbsp;</p><p>Legion believed he was demon possessed. But the Lord didn&rsquo;t correct him regarding this before healing him; indeed, one assumes the man probably had some faith for the miracle to be performed (Mt. 13:58). Lk. 8:29 says that Legion &ldquo;was driven of the devil into the wilderness&rdquo;, in the same way as the Lord had been driven into the wilderness <em>by the spirit</em> (Mk. 1:12) and yet overcame the &lsquo;devil&rsquo; in whatever form at this time. The man was surely intended to reflect on these more subtle things and see that whatever he had once believed in was immaterial and irrelevant compared to the Spirit power of the Lord. And yet the Lord &lsquo;went along&rsquo; with his request for the demons he thought were within him to be cast into &lsquo;the deep&rsquo;, thoroughly rooted as it was in misunderstanding of demons and sinners being thrown into the abyss. This was in keeping with the kind of healing styles people were used to at the time &ndash; e.g. Josephus records how Eleazar cast demons out of people and placed a cup of water nearby, which was then supposedly tipped over by the demons as they left the sick person <em>Antiquities of the Jews</em> 8.46&ndash;48. It seems to me that the Lord &lsquo;went along with&rsquo; that kind of need for reassurance, and so He made the pigs stampede over the cliff to symbolize to the healed man how his disease had really left him.</p><p>Mark 5 records three prayers to Jesus: &quot;The demons besought him&quot;, and &quot;Jesus gave them leave&quot; (:12,13); the Gadarenes &quot;began to beg him to depart out of their coasts&quot; (:17); and He obliged. And yet when the cured, earnestly zealous man &quot;begged him that he might be with him... Jesus suffered him not&quot; (:18,19). After the fascination, physically and intellectually, had worn off, very few of the crowds continued their interest. The Lord scarcely converted more than 100 people in the course of His ministry. We are familiar, from our own experience of sin and failure, with the pure grace of the Lord Jesus. We see that largeness and generosity of spirit within Him, that manifestation of the God of love, that willingness to concede to our weakness; and therefore we can tend to overlook the fact that the Lord Jesus set uncompromisingly high standards. I would even use the word &quot;demanding&quot; about His attitude.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1648','1','41','5','13','13','<p>5:13 <em>So he gave them permission- </em>Why did the pigs run over the cliff, and why did the Lord Jesus agree to the man\'s request for this? Because mental illness features intermittent episodes, it\'s understandable that the Lord sought to comfort those cured that the change He had brought was permanent. Thus the Lord tells the \'spirit\' assumed to be tormenting the mentally afflicted child: &quot;I command you, come out of him, <em>and enter no more</em> into him&quot; (Mk. 9:25). It\'s in the same vein that He drove the pigs into the lake as a sign that Legion\'s cure was permanent. I suggest that it was a kind of visual <em>aide memoire</em>, of the kind often used in the Bible to impress a point upon illiterate people. I suggest that\'s why in the ritual of the Day of Atonement, the scapegoat ran off into the wilderness bearing Israel\'s sins. As the bobbing animal was watched by thousands of eyes, thousands of minds would\'ve reflected that their sins were being cast out. And the same principle was in the curing of the schizophrenic Legion- the pigs were made to run into the lake by the Lord Jesus, not because they were actually possessed by demons in reality, but as an <em>aide memoire</em> to the cured Legion that his illness, all his perceived personalities, were now no more. Mental illness is typically intermittent. Legion had met Jesus, for he recognized Him afar off, and knew that He was God\'s Son (Mk. 5:6); indeed, one assumes the man probably had some faith for the miracle to be performed (Mt. 13:58). He comes to meet Jesus &quot;from out of the city&quot; (Lk. 8:27) and yet Mt. 8:28 speaks of him living in the tombs outside the city. He pleads with the Lord not to torment him (Mk. 5:7)- full of memories of how the local folk had tied him up and beaten him to try to exorcise the demons. Probably Legion\'s greatest fear was that he would relapse into madness again; that the cure which he believed Jesus could offer him might not be permanent. And so the Lord agreed to the man\'s request that the demons he perceived as within him should be permanently cast out; and the sight of the herd of pigs running over the cliff to permanent death below, with the awful sound this would\'ve made, would have remained an abiding memory for the man. Note how the \'demon possessed\' man in Mk. 1:23 sits in the synagogue and then suddenly screams out (Mk. 1:23)- showing he was likewise afflicted by intermittent fits.</p><p>The madness may have been an infection in the brain of the trichina parasite, commonly found infecting the muscles of pigs - and transmissible to humans in undercooked pork.&nbsp; The infected man would likely have been&nbsp;forced by poverty to eat this kind of food, and likely associated his &quot;problem&quot;&nbsp;with it because of&nbsp;the prohibition of pork&nbsp;under the Mosaic Law.&nbsp; This approach is confirmed by medical observations such as the following:</p><p>&ldquo;Neurocysticercosis is the most common parasitic disease in the world which affects the central nervous system&hellip; A 25 year old, illiterate married Hindu male&hellip; presented with a three month history of gradual change in behaviour in the form of irrelevant talk &hellip; On mental status examination, he was well oriented to time, place and person, cooperative, communicative and responded well to questions asked&hellip; Delusions of persecution and reference were present&hellip; he accepted the illness but attributed the cause to evil spirits&hellip; histopathology report of subcutaneous nodule confirmed the diagnosis of cysticercosis cellulosae&hellip;. Significant improvement in psychiatric symptoms was also observed following albendazole (an anti-parasitic drug) therapy. Delusions of persecution and delusions of reference were not found on mental status examination. Insight also improved; instead of attributing the illness to evil spirits, the patient accepted having a physical illness.&rdquo; (&ldquo;Neurocysticercosis Presenting as Schizophrenia: A Case Report&rdquo;, B. Bhatia, S. Mishra, A.S. Srivastava, <em>Indian Journal of Psychiatry</em> 1994, Vol. 36(4), pp. 187-189).</p><p>The&nbsp;desire to see the disease return to the&nbsp;herds of swine probably stemmed from a need to know that his affliction had been cured in a rather permanent sort of way. And the Lord went along with this. The idea of transference of disease from one to another was a common Semitic perception, and it&rsquo;s an idea used by God. And thus God went along with the peoples\' idea of disease transference, and the result is recorded in terms of demons which was how they understood illness going from one person to another. Likewise the leprosy of Naaman clave to Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27). God threatened to make the diseases of the inhabitants of Canaan and Egypt to cleave to Israel if they were disobedient (Dt. 28:21,60). Here too, as with Legion, there is Divine accommodation to the ideas of disease transference which people had at the time.</p><p><em>And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the pigs; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the hill into the sea and were drowned in the sea</em>- Death in the sea was seen as condemnation; the same figure is used of Babylon\'s final condemnation.&nbsp;The Legion incident &quot;proves too much&quot; if we are to insist on reading it on a strictly literal level. Do demons drown? Presumably, no. And yet the story as it stands requires us to believe that demons drown- if we are talking about literal \'demons\' here. Clearly, Legion was mentally ill. We therefore have to face the hard question: Was that mental illness caused by demons, or, as I am suggesting, is the language of demon possession merely being used to describe mental illness? If indeed mental illness is caused by demons, the observations of T.S. Huxley are about right: &quot;The belief in demons and demoniacal possession is a mere survival of a once universal superstition, its persistence pretty much in the inverse ratio of the general instruction, intelligence, and sound judgment of the population among whom it prevails. Demonology gave rise through the special influence of Christian ecclesiastics, to the most horrible persecutions and judicial murders of thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women, and children... If the story is true, the medieval theory of the invisible world may be and probably is, quite correct; and the witchfinders, from Sprenger to Hopkins and Mather, are much-maligned men&hellip; For the question of the existence of demons and of possession by them, though it lies strictly within the province of science, is also of the deepest moral and religious significance. If physical and mental disorders are caused by demons, Gregory of Tours and his contemporaries rightly considered that relics and exorcists were more useful than doctors; the gravest questions arise as to the legal and moral responsibilities of persons inspired by demoniacal impulses; and our whole conception of the universe and of our relations to it becomes totally different from what it would be on the contrary hypothesis&rdquo; (T. S. Huxley, <em>Science and Christian Tradition</em> (New York: Appleton, 1899) p. 225).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1649','1','41','5','14','14','<p>5:14 <em>And they that fed them fled and told it in the city and in the country. And they came to see what it was that had happened</em>- &quot;What had happened&quot; was the cure of Legion; they came to investigate, and saw the cured man (:15). As Jews they were not supposed to be keeping pigs; they realized they could say little against the Lord\'s action, for what they had been doing was illegal. It would have taken some time for the news to spread to &quot;the city and in the country&quot;; so we can assume the Lord sat with the cured Legion for some time, even days, teaching him further.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1650','1','41','5','15','15','<p>5:15 <em>And they came to Jesus and saw him who had been possessed with demons, that previously had the legion, sitting, clothed and in his right mind- and they were afraid</em>- When Legion was cured of his \'demons\', we read of him as now &quot;clothed and in his right mind&quot;. His \'demon possession\' therefore referred to a sick state of mind; and the \'casting out\' of those demons to the healing of his mental state. People thought that Jesus was mad and said this must be because He had a demon- &ldquo;He has a demon, and is mad&rdquo; (Jn. 10:20; 7:19-20; 8:52). They therefore believed that demons caused madness.</p><p>The &quot;fear&quot; of the people was perhaps related to their bad conscience about keeping pigs. The parable of the prodigal son associated Jewish pig keepers with those who needed to repent, and for whom the Father was eagerly waiting to welcome back home. Those people were in the same position as Legion; being now aware of the Lord\'s Divine power, but fearing condemnation. They actually needed the same basic healing which the Lord had given Legion in curing him of his complex about condemnation. Indeed the case of Legion speaks to so many believers today, who believe in and even&nbsp;worship the Lord as Son of God, but who are obsessed with a fear of final condemnation.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1651','1','41','5','16','16','<p>5:16 <em>And they that saw it described to them what had happened to him that was previously possessed with demons, and about what had happened to the pigs</em>- Apart from the loss of their pigs, what had happened was good news. Fear of condemnation, to the point of paranoia, really could be cured by the Lord Jesus; the demons of doubt and fear really could be cast out, and the miracle of the destruction of the pigs was dramatic visual evidence of this. But when faced with this, the people feared and didn\'t want that good news.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1652','1','41','5','17','17','<p>5:17 <em>And they began to beg him to depart from their borders</em>- &quot;Begged&quot; is the very same word used about the demons / mentally ill men \'beseeching\' Jesus in Mt. 8:31. As the mentally ill men besought Jesus to send away the demons, so the city dwellers besought Jesus to also \'go away\'. As the keepers of the pigs &quot;went their way&quot; (Mt. 8:33), so the same word is used of the demons \'going away\' into the pigs (Mt. 8:31,32). As the city dwellers \'came out\' to meet Jesus, so the mentally ill men \'came out\' of the tombs to meet Jesus (Mt. 8:28) and the demons \'came out\' of them (Mt. 8:32). Perhaps the idea is that those unbelievers were spiritually in the same position as the despised mentally ill men whom they had excluded from their society. And the story ends with the mentally ill saved, and the townspeople asking Jesus to depart from them, which will be the exact position of the rejected at the last day (Mt. 25:41; Lk. 13:27). It is they who are condemned, by their own wish; the mentally ill men asked for the pigs to bear their condemnation, which they felt worthy of- and thus were saved.&nbsp;</p><p>Consider how the believers were assembled praying for Peter\'s release, and then when he turns up on the doorstep, they tell the servant girl that she\'s mad to think Peter was there. Or how the Lord Jesus did such wonderful miracles- and people asked him to go away. We too have this element within us. We would rather salvation and forgiveness were \'harder\' to attain. The popularity of Catholic and Orthodox rituals is proof enough of this. It always touches me to read in the Gospels how the Lord Jesus cured wide eyed spastic children, crippled, wheezing young women, and sent them (and their loved ones) away with a joy and sparkle this world has never known. But the people asked Him to go away, and eventually did Him to death. A voice came from Heaven, validating Him as the Son of God; those who heard it involuntarily fell to the ground. But the people didn\'t really believe, and plotted to kill him (Jn. 12:37). They turned round and bayed for His blood, and nailed Him to death. He cured poor Legion; and the people told the Lord to go away. &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1653','1','41','5','18','18','<p>5:18 <em>And as he was entering into the boat, he that had been possessed with demons pleaded with him that he might go with him</em>- Motivations for involvement in evangelistic work vary. This man was separated from his family and society, for he had been violent and abusive to them. It would have been far more convenient for him to just leave them and join the peripatetic ministry of the Lord Jesus. But the Lord realized that the healing of relationships was a fundamental outcome of acceptance of the Gospel; and He wished this process to at least be given a chance in this case. And so He established a principle which many have struggled to accept: ministry to family and local society is even more important than joining in mobile missionary work.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1654','1','41','5','19','19','<p>5:19 <em>But Jesus did not permit him. Instead he said to him: Go to your home, to your family, and tell them how great things the Lord has done for you and how he had mercy on you</em>- See on :18 and :20. We must &quot;do&quot; the Lord\'s will (Mt. 7:21), but the Lord also \'does\' for us by His grace (&quot;mercy&quot;); our \'doing\' is in response to His \'doing\' for us. The same word is used in Jn. 4:1 (also Acts 15:17) of how the Lord \'did\' or &quot;made&quot; disciples. That was the end point in view; the &quot;great things&quot; done were not just the cure, but the making of a disciple.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1655','1','41','5','20','20','<p>5:20 <em>And he went his way and began to publish in Decapolis the great things Jesus had done for him, and all men marvelled</em>- This preaching in Decapolis rather than to his family could be read as disobedience. The Gospels are transcripts of the twelve disciples&rsquo; own preaching and obedience to the Lord&rsquo;s commission for them to go into all the world and tell the news of what they had seen and heard of Him. Yet there is a theme in the Gospels, consciously included by the writers and speakers, of men being disobedient to the preaching commission which the Lord gave them. When some were told to say nothing, they went and told many others (Mk. 7:36). And as Acts makes clear, the disciples themselves were disobedient, initially, to the commission to go tell the Gentiles the good news of their salvation. Legion&rsquo;s disobedience is especially instructive for us:</p><div align=center><table border=0 cellspacing=10 cellpadding=0 width=80%>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p><strong>Mk. 5:19</strong></p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p><strong>Mk.   5:20</strong></p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Go to   your&nbsp;<em>house</em></p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>He goes to the<em>&nbsp;ten cities&nbsp;</em>Decapolis</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>unto your&nbsp;<em>friends </em>relatives</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>He goes   to&nbsp;<em>strangers</em></p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p><em>tell&nbsp;</em>them Lk. 8:39 &ldquo;<em>show</em>&nbsp;them&rdquo;- by   personal demonstration to individuals</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>He &ldquo;<em>publishes</em>&rdquo;</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>how great   things</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>how great   things</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>the&nbsp;<em>Lord i.e. God</em>&nbsp;has   done for you</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p><em>Jesus&nbsp;</em>had done for him</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>and how he had   mercy on you.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>ignored</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table></div><p>The record of the commission given him and his obedience to it are clearly intended to be compared. The man went to strange cities, indeed he organized a whole preaching tour of ten cities- rather than going home and telling his immediate friends / family. And how true this is of us. It&rsquo;s so much easier to embark upon a campaign to strangers, to do &lsquo;mission work&rsquo;, to &lsquo;publish&rsquo; the Gospel loudly, rather than&nbsp;<em>tell</em>&nbsp;and<em> show</em>&nbsp;it to our immediate personal contacts. And we notice too how he omits to tell others of the Lord&rsquo;s merciful grace to him personally. Rather does he speak only of the material, the literality of the healing. And he tells others what Jesus had done for him, rather than take the Lord Jesus&rsquo; invitation to perceive the bigger picture in all this- that this was the hand of God. One wonders whether the disciples were commenting upon their own sense of inadequacy in their initial personal witness. The Lord told the cured demoniac to go back to his friends (Mk. 5:19) and family (Lk. 8:39) and witness to them. Clearly enough, the man didn&rsquo;t have any friends- for he had a history of violence and lived alone, many having tried unsuccessfully to bind him due to the grievous harm he must have inflicted upon many. Yet the man went out and preached to the whole area (Mk. 5:20). Was this just rank disobedience to what His Saviour Lord had just told him? Perhaps, due to unrestrained enthusiasm. But more likely is that the man now considered the whole world around him to be his family and friends, and therefore he witnessed to them. His care for others in desiring to witness to them flowed quite naturally from his experience of conversion at the Lord&rsquo;s hands.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1656','1','41','5','21','21','<p>5:21 <em>And when Jesus had crossed over again by boat to the other side, a great crowd was gathered to him; and he was by the sea</em>- Just as Legion &quot;immediately&quot; met the Lord on His arrival on the shore (:2), so on going back to &quot;the other side&quot;, there was a great crowd waiting for the Lord &quot;by the sea&quot;, on the shore. Jairus must have had to push himself to the front of that crowd (:22). According to the parallel in Mt. 9:18, the Lord began teaching the crowd immediately. Again we see that teaching was the primary focus of His ministry, for surely the crowds were expecting healings. The impression is given in Matthew that the ruler was begging the Lord for the healing of his daughter, but instead the Lord delayed responding in order to complete the teaching He was giving about the vital need for total transformation if we have received the new wine. He felt His message was that important. We also notice something which we see several times in the Gospel records- the Lord appears to not respond to human need, to even be deaf to it. For a while. The reason for that, both then and now, was surely to pique the intensity and urgency of the requests.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1657','1','41','5','22','22','<p>5:22 <em>And there came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name- </em></p><p>Matthew omits his name- perhaps because his Gospel first circulated in areas local to Jairus where the mention of his name could\'ve led to persecution? The Orthodox Jewish opposition claimed that none of the rulers i.e. rulers of the synagogues had believed on Jesus (Jn. 7:48), and yet Jn. 12:42 notes that &quot;Among the chief rulers also many believed on Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be cast out of the synagogue&quot;. Jairus clearly was one such ruler, and yet he didn\'t confess Jesus for fear of consequence and disfellowship. Remember that Jairus had come to Jesus whilst He had been teaching John\'s disciples the need to totally accept His new wine and not compromise with Judaism and the Pharisees who were standing with them. But whilst He was teaching that, Jairus had been clamouring for Jesus to come and heal his daughter (see on :21). He rather missed the essential spiritual point because he was distracted by his human need. The Lord\'s sermon on the mount taught that we are a city set on a hill which cannot be hid, and that if we seek to hide our light under a bucket, then we will lose the light altogether. The omission of Jairus\' name in Matthew leads me to fear that perhaps Jairus drifted away from faith, although his great faith at this particular moment in time is recorded positively.</p><p><em>And seeing him, he fell at his feet</em>- This kneeling (Mt.) was in worship; just as Legion had done on the sea shore the other side of the lake. The same formula is used in Mt. 8:2- the leper worshipped Jesus in that he expressed faith in His power to cleanse (also in Mt. 15:25). The Greek&nbsp;<em>proskuneo</em>&nbsp;is not used (as some Trinitarians wrongly claim) exclusively of worship of God. It is used in the LXX, classical Greek and in the later New Testament for worship of men- e.g. Cornelius worshipped Peter (Acts 10:25), men will worship faithful Christians (Rev. 3:9), the beast is worshipped (Rev. 13:4).&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1658','1','41','5','23','23','<p>5:23 <em>And implored him earnestly, saying: My little daughter is at the point of death- </em>Mt. 9:18 &quot;My daughter is even now dead&quot;. The Greek could carry the idea of \'for now, she is dead\' (see the usage in Mt. 3:15; Jn. 13:7; 16:12,31; 1 Cor. 13:12 etc.); in this case, the man believed her death state was only temporary, until the resurrection he believed Jesus would achieve.</p><p><em>I beg you to come and lay your hands on her, that she may be made whole and live</em>- The man &quot;came&quot; to Jesus, and now Jesus \'comes\' to the man; the same Greek word is used twice. The impression is given of a mutuality between the Lord and those who come to Him in faith.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1659','1','41','5','24','24','<p>5:24 <em>And Jesus went with him; and a great crowd followed him, and they pressed upon him</em>- This verse zooms in close on the body language and physical movement of the characters, as if the author was the cameraman on the scene. Truly we have eye witness accounts in places like this. The image of the Lord Jesus following a man stressed in Matthew is unusual, as readers are accustomed to the disciples following the Lord, not Him following men. The point perhaps is that He is responsive to human need and prayer in a sense controls Him, according to His will of course. The picture is of the man racing ahead, so eager to get home. This sets the scene for the interruption to the journey, and serves to heighten the sense we get of his frustration with the woman who is taking up the Lord\'s time, when for him, every second counted so crucially.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1660','1','41','5','25','25','<p>5:25 <em>And a woman, who for twelve years had an issue of blood</em>- Exactly how old the child was. Clearly the hand of providence had been at work in both these lives according to some defined sense of timing.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1661','1','41','5','26','26','<p>5:26 <em>And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had and was nothing bettered but rather grew worse</em>- This is another similarity with Legion, who had suffered from many failed attempts to cure his conditions. Getting \'worse and worse\' is the picture of all people outside of Christ, and specifically of the spiritual state of Israel at the time (Mt. 9:16; 12:45; 2 Tim. 3:13; 2 Pet. 2:20). The Mosaic system of Judaism could not &quot;better&quot; humanity (s.w. Jn. 6:63; Rom. 2:25; Gal. 5:2; Heb. 4:2; 13:9). Perhaps the implication is that the woman represented Israel, who like Asa had trusted in physicians rather than the Lord (2 Chron. 16:12). Job\'s \'friends\' had many Judaist characteristics and reasoned in the same way as orthodox Judaism; and they were &quot;physicians of no value&quot; (Job 13:4). The woman was bankrupt and desperate. This was how all were under the Law; the only answer was to throw themselves upon the Lord Jesus.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1662','1','41','5','27','27','<p>5:27 <em>Having heard the things about Jesus, came from the crowd behind him- </em>The scene is being developed from :24, where the Lord and the disciples are following the rushing man; and now we \'see\' the woman coming behind Jesus, as if she in this sense was also one of the disciples who followed behind Him.</p><p><em>And touched his garment</em>- Mt. &quot;the hem&quot;. Her example inspired the many others who later sought to do this in Mt. 14:36. It has been suggested that the hem of the garment referred to the blue band which was to be worn by Jews to remind them of their commitment to obedience to God. In this case she would have been seeking to associate herself with the righteousness of Christ and be healed / saved the same Greek word is used thereby. In essence, this is what faith and baptism into Christ is all about. But the simpler reading is that she thought that if she associated herself even with the Lord\'s periphery, she would thereby be saved / healed. Given Jewish phobia about blood and the fact that any touching her would have been ritually unclean, she surely disguised her condition. And yet she didn\'t consider that her uncleanness could make the Lord unclean. Her view of His righteousness was correct- it can be shared with us, but our uncleanness cannot negate His purity. She was driven to this insight by her desperation, just as Job\'s desperation led him to understand doctrinal truths that were beyond his time and place.</p><p>The Lord allowed this interruption when the man was so earnest that the Lord would haste to his home. The Lord, and the hand of providence, wanted to teach the man that how long a person has been dead is no barrier to resurrection; his faith needed to be developed further. And it fits in with the apparent silence of the Lord, always to develop the intensity of our desire for Him and our focus upon Him. Jesus focused on the essential whilst still being human enough to be involved in the irrelevancies which cloud the lives of all other men. Just glancing through a few random chapters from the Gospels reveals this tremendous sense of focus which He had, and His refusal to be distracted by self-justification. In all of the following examples I suspect we would have become caught up with justifying ourselves and answering the distractions to the point that our initial aim was paralyzed.&nbsp;</p><div align=center><table border=0 cellspacing=8 cellpadding=0 width=80%>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p><b><font size=3><strong>Focus</strong></font></b></p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p><b><font size=3><strong>Distraction</strong></font></b></p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p><b><font size=3><strong>Resumed   Focus</strong></font></b></p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>The sick woman   touches His clothes, and He turns around to see her. He wants to talk to her.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>The disciples   tell Him that this is unreasonable, as a huge crowd is pressing on to Him</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>&quot;He looked   round about again to see her that had done this thing&quot; (Mk. 5:30-32).   He talks to her.</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>He says that   the dead girl is only sleeping; for He wants to raise her.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>&quot;They   laughed Him to scorn&quot;</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>&quot;But...&quot;   He put them all out of the house and raised her (Mk. 5:40,41).</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>He was moved   with compassion for the crowds, and wants to feed them and teach them more.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>The disciples   tell Him to send the people away as it was getting late</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>He tells the   disciples to feed them so that they can stay and hear more (Mk. 6:35-37)</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Again He has compassion&nbsp;on   the hunger of the crowd</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>The disciples   mock His plan to feed them</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>He feeds them   (Mk. 8:3-6)</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>He explains how   He must die</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Peter rebukes   Him</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>He repeats His   message, telling them that they too must follow the way of the cross (Mk.   8:31-34)</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table></div>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1663','1','41','5','28','28','<p>5:28 <em>For she said: If I touch but his garments- </em>Mt. \'she said within herself\'. She had the same wrong notion as many Orthodox and Catholic believers have today- that some physical item can give healing. The Lord corrected her by telling her that it was&nbsp;<em>her faith</em>- not the touch of His garment- that had made her whole (Mt. 9:21,22). As so often, He had focused on what was positive in her, rather than the negative. We know that usually the Lord looked for faith in people before healing them. Yet after this incident there are examples of where those who merely sought to touch His garment were healed (Mk. 6:56; Lk. 6:19). They were probably hopeful that they would have a similar experience to the woman. One could argue they were mere opportunists, as were their relatives who got them near enough to Jesus&rsquo; clothes. And probably there was a large element of this in them. But the Lord saw through all this to what faith there was, and responded to it. It is perhaps not accidental that Mark records the link between faith and Jesus&rsquo; decision to heal in the same chapter (Mk. 6:5). When we fear there is interest in our message only for what material benefit there may be for the hearers, we need to remember this. To identify wrong motives doesn&rsquo;t mean that we turn away; we must look deeper, and hope more strongly.</p><p><em>I shall be made whole</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>sozo</em>&nbsp;is that usually used for \'saved\'. She had a wider desire for not only healing (for which other Greek words could have been used) but for salvation on a wider level.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1664','1','41','5','29','29','<p>5:29 <em>And immediately the fountain of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her illness</em>- The immediacy of the Lord\'s cure contrasted sharply with all human attempts at curing an internal disease. &quot;Healed of her illness&quot; is literally &quot;healed of her flogging&quot;. For that is how the Greek translated &quot;illness&quot; here is usually translated. We sense an allusion to the prophecy that by the Lord\'s floggings / stripes we are healed (Is. 53:5; 1 Pet. 2:24). The woman becomes thereby typical of us all. Our stripes / floggings become His; and thereby, through the representational nature of His life and sacrifice, we are healed.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1665','1','41','5','30','30','<p>5:30 <em>And immediately Jesus, perceiving in himself that the power proceeding from him had gone forth, turned towards the crowd and said: Who touched my garments?</em>- This gives an insight into the huge outflow of energy from the Lord when He healed people. As noted on :29, His healing of people was on account of His total identification with them; and each healing was a living out in essence of the cross even during His life. The Lord of course knew the woman had touched Him; but He didn\'t want her to just have a secret faith. He wanted her to \'come out\'; and He engineers circumstance in our lives likewise, so that we have to become a city that is set on a hill.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1666','1','41','5','31','31','<p>5:31- see on Mk. 14:70.</p><p><em>And his disciples said to him: You saw the crowd pressing upon you and you ask, Who touched me?</em>- The gospels are transcripts of how the disciples spoke the gospel message. And yet they are shot through with thee disciples\' recognition of their own weakness, and thereby their message was the more appealing and convicting to their hearers. Here, they paint themselves as foolish and inappropriate; they record their mocking of the Lord in the same section in which they record the scorning of the Lord by unbelievers in :40.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1667','1','41','5','32','32','<p>5:32 <em>And he looked around to see who had done this thing</em>- Mt. 9:22 &quot;But Jesus turning and seeing her<em>...&quot;.</em> Again the emphasis is upon recording the physical movement of the persons involved in the scene, so that we can visually reconstruct it. 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). 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. &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1668','1','41','5','33','33','<p>5:33 <em>But the woman, fearing and trembling, knowing what had been done to her, came and fell down before him and told him all the truth</em>- We see another connection with Legion, who feared condemnation and yet also fell before the Lord in worship. The Lord knew her history; but &quot;the truth&quot; to be told forth is a personal confession of our hopeless spiritual history, and the Lord\'s saving by grace.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1669','1','41','5','34','34','<p>5:34 <em>And he said to her: Daughter- </em>Perhaps the Lord was using the term in the Hebraic sense of \'descendant\', seeing her as a daughter of Abraham because of her faith in Him.</p><p><em>Your faith has made you whole- </em>The <em>faith</em> of the sick woman is commended by the Lord (Mk. 5:34; Mt. 9:20)- when it was due to her <em>understanding</em> of the significance of the <em>hem</em> of the Lord\'s robe that she had touched Him. She had perceived the connection with the High Priest\'s hem; perhaps too she had added Job\'s comment about our touching but the hem of God\'s garment into the equation. And certainly she perceived that the sun of righteousness of Mal. 4 had healing in his hems / wings of his garment.</p><p>The Centurion&rsquo;s servant was healed for the sake of&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;faith; Jairus&rsquo; daughter was healed because of&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;faith (Mk. 5:36). Hence the Lord told them to believe and stop wavering, so that she would be made whole, or &ldquo;saved&rdquo; (Lk. 8:50). This comes straight after the Lord&rsquo;s commendation of the woman with &ldquo;an issue of blood&rdquo; whose faith hath made her whole or, saved. It&rsquo;s as if the two healings are similar in their result- being made whole, or saved- and both required faith. But the woman&rsquo;s own personal faith which led to her healing is paralleled with the faith of the family of the girl who was resurrected.</p><p><em>Go in peace and be free of your illness</em>- The woman was fearful of condemnation, and so the Lord wished her peace, with God. Her full healing was only now pronounced, although she had felt it already within herself. The Lord required public confession from her; and so He does today.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1670','1','41','5','35','35','<p>5:35 <em>While he was still speaking, some came from the ruler of the synagogue\'s house, saying: Your daughter is dead. Why do you trouble the Teacher any further?</em>- Luke adds: &ldquo;There comes one from the ruler of the synagogue&rsquo;s house, saying to him, Your daughter is dead, trouble not the Master&rdquo; (Lk. 8:49). We naturally ask:&nbsp;<em>who</em>&nbsp;was this &ldquo;one&rdquo; along with the &quot;some&quot; mentioned by Mark who came with this message? In the Gospels, it is often the disciples who term Jesus &ldquo;the Master&rdquo;, which is how Matthew records the form of address. And it is the disciples who ever show themselves concerned at others \'troubling the master\'; every time they try to turn people away from Him on this basis the children, their mothers, the Phoenician woman etc., He makes a point of accepting and working with those whom they sought to bar from Him. The implication is that it was they who thought that Jesus wouldn&rsquo;t have the power to raise the dead, perhaps connecting with their own studied lack of faith in His resurrection later.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1671','1','41','5','36','36','<p>5:36 <em>But Jesus, not heeding the word spoken, said to the ruler of the synagogue: Fear not, only believe</em>- The implication could be that the Lord, just like us, was momentarily tempted to heed that bad news and falter in faith. But as so often, His words to Jairus were spoken effectively to Himself. This shows the power of fear- it is fear which stops faith, fear is the opposite of faith. If we know the love that casts out fear, then a whole new style of relationships becomes possible. In so many relationships there is a balance of power which is more realistically a balance of fear- a fear of losing, of being made to look small, a fighting back with self-affirmation against the fear of being subsumed by the other. Be it parents and kids, teachers and students, pastor and flock, so often both sides fear the other. Yet if we are truly affirmed in Christ, no longer seeking victory because we have found victory in Him, His victories become ours&hellip; then our whole positioning in relationships becomes so different. For example, our fear of rejection becomes less significant if we believe firmly in our acceptance in the eyes of the Lord, the only one whose judgment has ultimate value. If we can say with Paul that for us the judgment of others has very little value, because we only have one judge&hellip; then we will no longer worrying about acting in such a way as to impress others. No longer will it be so important to not express our inner thoughts about people or situations for fear of not using the constant &lsquo;nicespeak&rsquo; which results in judgment from others unless it&rsquo;s used. There will be a congruence between what we feel and think within us, and what we actually show. And thus we will avoid the dysfunction which is so apparent in so many, as they forever struggle to control their outward expressions, hiding their real self, with the real self and the external self struggling against each other in a painful dis-ease.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1672','1','41','5','37','37','<p>5:37- see on Mt. 17:1.</p><p><em>And he permitted no one to follow him- </em>We see here the Lord\'s amazing force of personality when He wished to use it, just as He walked through the crowd in Nazareth who wished to throw Him off the cliff. He sent away the inquisitive crowd, just as He sent away the crowd after the miraculous feeding. He used the same power in commanding the mourners to leave the home (:40; Mt. &quot;Leave&quot;).</p><p><em>Save Peter, James and John the brother of James</em>- These were clearly the inner three whom He especially sought to educate further.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1673','1','41','5','38','38','<p>5:38 <em>And they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue- </em>Again we have the impression of the cameraman following Him, shooting from behind. Mt. 9:23&nbsp;<em>&quot;</em>When Jesus came into... He saw...He said&quot;. This is the process of usual human experience, perception and response to perception. It\'s yet another evidence of the Lord\'s humanity. The Greek phrase for &quot;came into&quot; is used so often in the Synoptics. Just in Matthew 9, Jesus came into His own city (9:1), came into the ruler\'s house (9:23) and came into a house (9:28). Consider the other usages of the phrase in Matthew alone: He came into Israel (Mt. 2:21), came into Nazareth (2:23), came into Capernaum (4:13), came into Peter\'s house (8:14), came into the land of the Gergesenes (8:28); came into a synagogue (12:9), came into a house (13:36), came into His own region (13:54), came into the land of Gennesaret (14:34), came into Magdala (15:39), came into Caesarea (16:13, came into Capernaum (17:24), came into the borders of Judea (19:1), came into Bethphage (21:1), came into the temple (21:23), came into Gethsemane (26:36), came into the place called Golgotha (27:33). Mark and Luke record even other cases of His \'coming into\' various towns, areas and situations. It is a huge emphasis. John\'s Gospel uses the term, but frequently in the more abstract sense of the Lord Jesus \'coming into\' the (Jewish) world. The prologue uses the Greek phrase three times alone in describing how Jesus \'came into\' the world and into &quot;His own&quot; (Jn. 1:7,9,11). He was the light and prophet that &quot;came into the world&quot; (Jn. 3:19; 6:14). John\'s references to the Lord Jesus coming &quot;into the world&quot; (Jn. 12:46; 16:28; 18:37) are therefore not to be read as implying that He literally came down out of Heaven into the world; but rather they are John\'s more abstract equivalent of the Synoptics\' direct and repeated statements that the Lord came into the Jewish world of His day, into human situations. His sending of us out &quot;into&quot; the world is therefore inviting us to go forth and enter into our world and its various situations just as He did. We are to replicate His ministry in our world and situations.</p><p><em>And he saw a tumult, and many weeping and wailing greatly</em>- Mt. 9:23 &quot;The flute-players and the crowd making a tumult&quot;. if the flute players had already been called, the implication is that the girl had been dead for some time. This places a question mark over the ruler\'s claim that his daughter had only just died (Mt. 9:18 Gk.). All through these accounts we see the Lord\'s grace. The man exaggerated, just as the woman thought that merely touching Christ\'s clothes was all that was needed for a miracle- and yet the Lord graciously worked with all these people and situations to bless them. On the other hand, embalming would\'ve been done quickly, and perhaps the intensity of the tumult and weeping was because she had indeed just died, and the minstrels would have only just arrived. The Lord in this case would\'ve arrived at the very peak of human distress and need. This is why He was \'delayed\' on the way, in order for that peak of need to be reached. Mk. 5:38,39 emphasizes the extraordinary agitation.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1674','1','41','5','39','39','<p>5:39- see on Acts 21:13.</p><p><em>And when he had entered, he said to them: Why make you a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeps</em>- The Lord dismissed the noise of the flute players as a mere &quot;tumult&quot;. The Angel repeated the same words to the women at the Lord\'s grave, as did the Lord to Mary: &quot;Why do you weep?&quot; (Jn. 20:13,15). Surely those women were close to the Lord at this time. The Lord used the same word choice before and after His resurrection, showing the continuity of personality between how we are now in the flesh, and how we shall eternally be. Salvation is personal, and how we are now is of critical importance eternally.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1675','1','41','5','40','40','<p>5:40 <em>And they laughed him to scorn- </em>This is recorded in all three of the Synoptics. It made a deep impression upon them all. The Greek could suggest (although not necessarily) that there was a process of derision here which left the Lord looking somehow scorned (&quot;to scorn&quot;). Perhaps He blushed, or looked at the ground- for He was after all human. Clearly these people were just the hired mourners and flute players. There was an element of anger in their derision because clearly money and payment were at issue if they were to just be sent away.</p><p>Luke records how Peter, James, John and the parents of the dead girl entered the house where she was&nbsp;<em>alone</em>; and then &quot;they&quot; laughed Jesus to scorn when He proclaimed she was merely asleep (Lk. 8:51,53). It\'s psychologically unlikely that the distraught, desperately hopeful parents would\'ve ridiculed Jesus like this at that time. The reference is surely to the three disciples doing this. This is a profound recognition of the disciples\' weakness- there, alone with Jesus and the distraught parents, they mocked Jesus\' ability to resurrect the girl. And they have the profound humility to tell the world about that in their record of the Gospel.</p><p><em>But he, having put them outside, took the father of the child and her mother and those that were with him, and went to where the child was</em>- The Lord was consciously seeking to reduce the element of hysteria at the miracle He knew He was going to do. Pentecostals need to note this. He wanted as few as possible to see the dead body actually revive. There was perhaps a similar logic in the way His own resurrection was not done publicly and His risen body was only seen by a relatively few rather than being displayed publicly. This was not His way, nor the Father\'s way, even during His ministry.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1676','1','41','5','41','41','<p>5:41 <em>And taking the child by the hand, he said to her: Talitha cumi, which means, little girl, I say to you, rise</em>- The whole scene of putting mourners out of the house, taking her by the hand and raising her up was followed exactly by Peter in raising Tabitha. The Lord\'s style, language and even body language became the pattern for those who had been with Him, and it must be the same for us. The Gospels are written in such a way, that through the power of inspiration we can as it were be there with the disciples likewise watching Jesus and learning of His Spirit.</p><p>&quot;Rise&quot; here isn\'t from the \'<em>anastasis</em>\' group of words which are used about the \'rising up\' of dead people in resurrection. It\'s <em>egeiro</em>, which more literally means \'to get up\'. \'Honey, it\'s time to get up now\' was what the Lord was saying- not \'I command you to resurrect\'. He had raised her, given her life, and He knew that. In fact, He\'d done it a while beforehand. For He told the mourners: &quot;The girl isn\'t dead, she\'s only sleeping&quot; (:39). He raised her even before going into the room- and He knew that. And so when He finally saw her, He took her hand and gently asked her to get up out of bed. His gentleness, His faith, His calmness, His certainty that the Father heard Him- are all wondrous.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1677','1','41','5','42','42','<p>5:42 <em>And immediately the girl got up and began walking (for she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement</em>- We note the connection with the woman who had been sick for twelve years. God was at work in parallel in those lives over that period. Their being overcome with amazement reads rather negatively; amazement rather than faith and thanksgiving. The same word is used of the women\'s amazement at the news of the Lord\'s resurrection, having again been told not to weep (Mk. 16:8).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1678','1','41','5','43','43','<p>5:43 <em>And he strictly ordered them that no one should know about this- </em>The Lord Jesus, in His ministry, had forbidden the extroverts from publicly preaching about Him, as they naturally wanted to (e.g. Mk. 8:26). To keep silent was an act of the will for them, something against the grain. It is hard to find any other explanation for why He told Jairus not to tell anyone that He had raised his daughter (Lk. 8:56)- for it would have been obvious, surely. For they knew she had died (8:53). By contrast, those who would naturally have preferred to stay quiet were told to go and preach (e.g. Mk. 5:19). Perhaps Paul was in this category. The parallel between the Lord&rsquo;s words and works is brought out in Lk. 9:43,44: &ldquo;They wondered at all things which Jesus&nbsp;<em>did</em>&hellip;He said&hellip;let these&nbsp;<em>sayings</em>&nbsp;sink down into your ears&rdquo;. There are no distinct &lsquo;sayings&rsquo; of Jesus in this context; He wanted them to see that His works were His words. There was perfect congruence between what He said and what He did. Perhaps this was why He told the parents of the girl whom He resurrected to tell nobody what was done, even though it was so obvious; He wanted His self-evident works to speak for themselves, without the need for human words. For His works were essentially His message.</p><p><em>And told them to give her something to eat</em>- We see here a window into His sensitivity and thoughtfulness. Despite the inevitable hysteria of joy experienced by the parents, He realized she was hungry, not having eaten for a long time.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1679','1','41','6','1','1','<p>6:1 <em>And he left there and went to his own country; and his disciples followed him</em>- An artless reflection of the way in which He really was so human, having His &ldquo;own&rdquo; native area- here on this earth and not in any pre-existent form in Heaven He had a very common Jewish name. The brothers of Jesus had names which were among the commonest Jewish names at the time- James, Joseph, Simon and Judas (Mt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3). I know we know this, but just remember how Jesus truly shared our nature. He smelt the smells of the marketplace, as He walked around helping a little child crying because he\'d lost his mum. From the larynx of a Palestinian Jew there truly came the words of Almighty God. There, in the very flesh and body tissue of the man Jesus, was God manifested in flesh. And yet that wondrous man, that being, that Son of God who had no human father, readily laughed at the funny side of events, just like anyone else. His hands and arms would have been those of a working man. He is always described as walking everywhere- and it\'s been calculated that He must have walked 10,000 km. during His ministry. He slept under the Olive trees at the foot of the Mount of Olives; the Son of man had nowhere to lay His head. So He would often have appeared a bit rough, His feet would have developed large blisters, and His skin would have been sunburnt. Palestine was infested with bandits at the time. It was almost inevitable that the Lord was robbed and threatened at least once. He would have gone through all the gut feelings one does when they are mugged: the initial shock, the obvious question that skates through the mind \'How much harm are they gonna do me...?\', the bad taste left in the mouth afterwards, the way one keeps on re-living every moment of what happened. He would have known those feelings. &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1680','1','41','6','2','2','<p>6:2<em> And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying: Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom given to him? What mighty works are done by his hands</em>- To my mind, one of the most artless and surpassing things about the Lord was that He lived a sinless life for 30 years, and yet when He began His ministry those He lived with were shocked that He could ever be the Messiah. He was &ldquo;in favour&rdquo; with men (Lk. 2:52), not despised and resented as many righteous men have been. He was the carpenter, a good guy- but not Son of God. Somehow He showed utter perfection in a manner which didn&rsquo;t distance ordinary people from Him. There was no &lsquo;other-wordliness&rsquo; to Him which we so often project to those we live with. We seem to find it hard to live a good life without appearing somehow distasteful to those around us. In fact the villagers were scandalized <em>skandalizein</em> that Jesus should even be a religious figure; they had never noticed His wisdom, and wondered where He had suddenly gotten it from (Mk. 6:2,3). This suppression of His specialness, His uniqueness, must have been most disarming and confusing to Mary. Her son appeared as an ordinary man; there was no halo around His head, no special signs. Just an ordinary guy. And this may well have eroded her earlier clear understanding that here in her arms was the Son of God. Until age 30, the Lord was &ldquo;hidden&rdquo; as an arrow in a quiver (Is. 49:2). So profound was this that Mary may have come to doubt whether after all He was really as special as she had thought, 30 years ago. 30 years is a long time. We also need to bear in mind that opposition to Jesus both from the other siblings and from His home town was significant. A fair case can be made that He actually moved away to Capernaum, perhaps before the start of His ministry. Mk. 2:1 RVmg. describes Him as being &ldquo;at home&rdquo; there; Mt. 4:13 NIV says He lived there; Mt. 9:1 calls it his &ldquo;own city&rdquo; (cp. Mk. 2:1). Don&rsquo;t forget that the Nazareth people tried to kill Jesus early on in His ministry- this was how strong the opposition was. And Mary had to show herself for or against... and it seems she at least on the surface didn&rsquo;t exactly show herself for Him.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1681','1','41','6','3','3','<p>6:3<em> Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended by him</em>- See on :2.It has been suggested that the title &ldquo;son of Mary&rdquo; given to Him in Mk. 6:3 implied that they considered Him illegitimate- for men were usually called by their father&rsquo;s name. &ldquo;&ldquo;Jesus, son of Mary&rdquo; has a pejorative sense&hellip; there is a Jewish principle: A man is illegitimate when he is called by his mother&rsquo;s name&rdquo;. The perception of the surrounding world may have influenced Joseph, and must have surely given rise to at least temptations of doubt within Mary as the years went by. &nbsp;See on Mk. 3:21. It has also&nbsp;been observed that it was unusual for the villagers to describe Jesus as &ldquo;the son of Mary&rdquo; (Mk. 6:3)- even if Joseph were dead, He would have been known as Jesus-ben-Joseph. It could well be that this was a reflection of their perception of how closely linked Jesus was to His mother. &nbsp;</p><p>According to Talmudic writings like <em>Yebamot</em> 78b, Dt. 23:3 was interpreted as meaning that a fatherless man wasn&rsquo;t allowed to enter the temple or marry a true Israelite. The reference to Jesus as&nbsp; &ldquo;son of Mary&rdquo; (Mk. 6:3) rather than &ldquo;son of Joseph&rdquo; is, apparently, very unusual. It reflects the Lord&rsquo;s lack of social identity in first century Israel; He had no father&rsquo;s house to belong to. In passing, the jibe in Mt. 27:64 &ldquo;the last deception shall be worse than the first&rdquo; is likely a reference to Mary and Jesus claiming that He was the result of a virgin birth- this, as far as the Jews were concerned, was the &ldquo;first deception&rdquo;.</p><p>Their offence or stumbling is effectively what is happening to Trinitarians. They just can\'t hack that Jesus, Son of God, perfect human being... was truly human, with a human brother, mother and relatives. And so they have stumbled off into various wrong theories and theologies about Jesus to try to rationalize and spiritually legitimise their lack of faith in Him as a human person.</p><p>One of the most surpassing wonders of the Lord&rsquo;s character was that He could live for 30 years in a small town in Galilee, never ever committing sin, and never ever omitting an act of righteousness... and yet when He stood up and basically proclaimed Himself to be Messiah, the people were scandalized. They were shocked that this carpenter&rsquo;s son should think He was anything much more than them. Yet whenever we try to be a bit more righteous than our fellows, it&rsquo;s always noticed and held against us. Yet the Lord Jesus was both perfect, and also in favour with men. He came over as the ordinary guy, and yet He was perfect, and the light of this world. In this there is a matchless example for us. This wondrous feature of the Lord&rsquo;s achievement in His own character is reflected by the way His own brothers, who knew Him better than any, perceived Him to be just an ordinary person. When He started implying that He was the Son of God, they thought He&rsquo;d gone crazy. When He declared Himself as Messiah, the people who had grown up with Him were scandalized. He was <em>so</em> human that even though He never sinned, the people who intimately knew Him for 30 years thought that He was truly one of them. In our making the word flesh, we tend to irritate people by our apparent righteousness, or turn them away from us by our hypocrisy. But the Lord truly made the word flesh, to the extent that the very dregs of society could relate to Him as one of them. There is a wonder in this that requires sustained meditation.</p><p>Jesus was poor. He was from Nazareth, a village of between 200 to 2,000 people, about 7 km. away from Sepphoris, a city of 40,000. And He would have gone through the process of socialization which anyone does who lives in a village under the shadow of the big town. He is described as a <em>tekton </em>or manual worker (&quot;carpenter&quot; in many translations). &quot;A <em>tekton</em> was at the lower end of the peasant class, more marginalized than a peasant who owned a small piece of land. We should not think of a <em>tekton</em> as being a step up from a subsistence farmer; rather, a <em>tekton</em> belonged to a family that had lost its land&rdquo;. The problem was that the Jewish authorities insisted that the tithes were still paid, and these could amount to around 20% of agricultural income. But the Romans added their own heavy taxation system on top of this. Farmers had to pay a 1% land tax, plus a 12% crop tax on produce, as well as various other custom, toll and tribute taxes. For those who wished to be obedient to the Government as well as the Jewish law, there was a total taxation of around 35%. Those who could no longer pay their taxes to Rome lost their land, and a <em>tekton </em>was one in this class. It has been noted: &ldquo;Some peasant who were forced from their lands turned to carpentry as a profession&rdquo;. A case has even been made that the term &quot;Abba&quot; \'daddy\' was specifically &quot;from lower class Palestinian piety&quot;. If this is so, then we see yet another window into the poverty of the Lord Jesus, extending even to the kind of language He used to address His Father in prayer. So Jesus was Himself marginalized, the poorest of the poor perhaps because of paying all the required taxes and not being dishonest, in one of the poorest corners of the Roman empire. The poor needn\'t think of Jesus as so Heavenly that He doesn\'t know their crises; the crises that come from not having food or money, the problems of drought, the worry about the weather, the rains not coming, the problem of broken equipment and worn out clothes and shoes, the distress that a little brother is sick, there\'s medicine in the nearby town, but no money for it...He <em>knows</em>. He really does. He can and does relate to all this. And it\'s why He is so especially watchful, according to His own teaching, of how we respond to those in such need. It means a lot to Him; because as a poor man, He must have known what it was to receive charity, to be given a few eggs by a neighbour, some milk from a kind woman down the street. When He taught &quot;Blessed are the poor... the hungry&quot;, He immediately had a realness and credibility. For all the poor want to be better off. But He was so self-evidently content with who He was. The poor also want a bit more security for the future than just knowing that they have enough food for today. Yet Jesus could teach people to pray only for the food they needed for each day. And they were to forgive their debtors. This was radical stuff for people who lived a generally hand to mouth existence as day labourers and subsistence farmers. Only if Jesus was real and credible would people have flocked to hear Him and taken His teaching seriously. The fact He preached to the poor was a sign that He was indeed Messiah (Lk. 7:22); the context of that passage suggests it was something totally unusual, that a religious leader should bother with the poor. Serious religion was some kind of hobby for those rich enough to be able to spare the time for it. But Jesus turned all this upside down; He, the poor man, preached to the poor, and showed them that God and salvation was truly for them more than anyone else.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1682','1','41','6','4','4','<p>6:4 <em>And Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honour, save in his hometown- </em>We need to ask&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;this is so true. In the first century Palestinian world, a person wasn&rsquo;t defined so much by &lsquo;who they were&rsquo; as by &lsquo;whom they belonged to and where they originated from&rsquo;. Hence their problem with seeing that the Lord had access to wisdom and power which they did not have as a group. He didn&rsquo;t get that from them- and this confused them and their lack of understanding it turned to anger with Him. He had become different to them, therefore He was not of them- so they reasoned. And yet He&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;of them- the record stresses that they were His natural&nbsp;<em>patris</em>(&ldquo;country&rdquo;) and&nbsp;<em>oikos</em>&nbsp;(&ldquo;family&rdquo;). This is the same problem as Trinitarians have- they can&rsquo;t see that the Lord could have what He had, and yet be one of us, of our human nature. And perhaps that partly explains their frequently observed anger with non-Trinitarian Christians. This proverb is quoted again in Jn. 4:44 but in a different sense. The Lord is recorded as leaving Judea and going to Galilee exactly because a prophet has no honour in &ldquo;His own country&rdquo;. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, not in Galilee. It could be that He went to Galilee from Judea because the &ldquo;country&rdquo; He had in mind here in quoting this proverb was Bethlehem, rather than Nazareth. And yet in Mt. 13:57 He uses this proverb about Nazareth. Perhaps this explains His deep amazement at His rejection now in Nazareth- see on Mt. 13:58.</p><p><em>And among his own kin, and in his own family</em>- We have yet another evidence of the Lord&rsquo;s humanity, in that He talked of His own family of origin, which included His blood brothers and sisters of the previous verses. But He has just spoken of Himself as the &lsquo;householder&rsquo;, the head of the family / house (see on Mt. 13:27,52). Clearly enough, He is contrasting His spiritual family with His natural family. That group of mixed up, doubting and misunderstanding men and women who followed Him- had replaced His family of origin as His real family.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1683','1','41','6','5','5','<p>6:5<em> And there he could not do his mighty work, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them</em>-He could not do a mighty work in Nazareth because of their unbelief- as if He would have done a mighty miracle greater than the few healings He did perform there, but that possibility was discounted by their lack of faith (Mk. 6:5,6). Although the Lord at times healed people who had no faith (e.g. the blind man who didn&rsquo;t even know who the Son of God was), yet it seems that the Lord in this context wanted to see faith before healing people. Thus we see His sensitivity in operating in a different way with different people. Sometimes He does things for people&nbsp;<em>in order that</em>&nbsp;they might come to faith; in other contexts, He will only do things for people if they first have faith. It would seem therefore that He expected faith from His family and neighbours, seeing that they knew Him. Mk. 6:6 adds the comment that the Lord was &ldquo;amazed&rdquo; at their unbelief- the only time we hear of Him being &lsquo;amazed&rsquo;. Yet given His penetrating psychological insight into people, surely He could have guessed at the response in Nazareth? His amazement would therefore seem to be a reflection of His supreme&nbsp;<em>hopefulness</em>&nbsp;for people- a characteristic which makes the Lord so altogether lovely and such a powerful example to us.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1684','1','41','6','6','6','<p>6:6- see on Lk. 2:33.</p><p><em>And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages teaching</em>- The Lord Himself <em>marvelled</em> at the unbelief of men, despite knowing what was in man. Surely He could only have genuinely felt such marvel because He began with such an essentially positive spirit. We notice that the focus of His ministry was upon the villages. He clearly didn\'t want to attract large crowds. His desire was to get His message over rather than deal with the material problems of humanity.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1685','1','41','6','7','7','<p>6:7 <em>And he called the twelve- </em>Mt. &quot;called to him&quot;, implying they were not always with Him. But there seems an intended contrast between calling them to Him, and then sending them forth (:5). They were with Him when they were away from Him. It is simply so, that when we witness, the words we speak are in effect the words of Jesus. Our words are His. This is how close we are to Him. And this is why our deportment and manner of life, which is the essential witness, must be in Him. For He is articulated to the world through us. And it explains the paradox of the parallel record in Mk. 3:14, whereby Jesus chose men that they should &ldquo;be with Him and that He might send them forth to preach&rdquo;. As they went out to witness, they were with Him, just as He is with us in our witness, to the end of the world both geographically and in time. And this solves another Marcan paradox, in Mk. 4:10: &ldquo;When He was alone, they that were about Him with the twelve asked Him&hellip;&rdquo;. Was He alone, or not? Mark speaks as if when the Lord was away from the crowd and with His true followers, He was &ldquo;alone&rdquo;- for He counted them as one body with Him. This was why the Lord told Mary, when she so desperately wanted to be personally with Him, to go and preach to His brethren (Jn. 20:18), just as He had told some of those whom He had healed- for going and preaching Him was in effect being with Him.</p><p><em>And began to send them out in pairs</em>- The &quot;pairs&quot; may not just have been for mutual encouragement, but in allusion to the principle of two or three witnesses. For a witness was being made to Israel, to which they were to be held accountable.</p><p><em>And he gave them authority over the unclean spirits-&nbsp;</em>This is in the context of the Lord\'s concern that the crowds were sheep with no shepherd, which I have suggested was an allusion to Moses\' words of Num. 27:17 (see on Mt. 9:36). Moses asks for God to raise up another to do his work, and God gives him Joshua- and is told &quot;You shall invest him with some of your authority&quot; (Num. 27:20). So the Lord is here treating the disciples as if they are His replacement, going out to do His work, just as the later body of Christ are to do. We have in this preaching tour they are sent on some sort of foretaste of the great commission.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1686','1','41','6','8','8','<p>6:8 <em>And he instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a staff. No bread, no wallet- </em>Mark is picking out the picture of Israel as they were on Passover night, as an illustration of how His disciples should be on their preaching mission.&nbsp;&quot;He called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth... and commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only;&nbsp;no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:&nbsp; but be shod with sandals;&nbsp;and not put on two coats&quot; (AV).&nbsp;&nbsp; All this is couched in the language of Israel on Passover night.&nbsp;His next words for them appear to be stating the obvious, unless they allude to Israel remaining at whatever place they reached until the fire and cloud moved them on: &quot;In what place soever ye enter... there abide till you depart from that place&quot; (Mk. 6:8-10).&nbsp;It must be remembered that God intended Israel to be a missionary nation, teaching the surrounding world of His ways by their example of obedience to His law.&nbsp;As Israel left Egypt with the gold and jewels of Egypt, so, Jesus implied, the disciples were to carry the precious things of the Gospel.</p><p><em>No money in their purse</em>- Mt. <em>&quot;</em>Nor brass for your purses&quot;- Even small coins were not to be considered necessary for the missionary work to finally succeed.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1687','1','41','6','9','9','<p>6:9 <em>But to go wearing sandals, and not to wear two coats</em>- See on :8; an allusion to Israel on Passover night. Adam Clarke claims: &quot;The sandal was originally a part of the woman&rsquo;s dress; ancient authors represent them as worn only by women&quot;. In this case the command to not wear shoes but sandals (Mt.) was significant. It was another part of the Lord\'s attempt to challenge gender stereotypes in the new community of people He was forming, where there was to be in that sense neither male nor female, slave nor free. And He may be directing their attention to Ps. 68:11 Heb. and LXX, where &quot;great was the company <em>of the women</em> who published&quot; the word of salvation.</p><p>At this point, Matthew records that they were commanded not to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans (Mt. 10:5). Mark omits this because he was preaching to Gentiles. We cannot omit any part of the basic Gospel message; but we can present it in ways which are appropriate to our audience.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1688','1','41','6','10','10','<p>6:10 <em>And he said to them: Whenever you enter into a house as a guest, remain there until you leave town</em>- This appears to be stating the obvious, unless they allude to Israel remaining at whatever place they reached until the fire and cloud moved them on; see on :8. It must be remembered that God intended Israel to be a missionary nation, teaching the surrounding world of His ways by their example of obedience to His law.&nbsp;As Israel left Egypt with the gold and jewels of Egypt, so, the Lord implied, the disciples were to carry the precious things of the Gospel.</p><p>In practice, this command was in order to develop relationships in families which would lead to the development of house churches, which was the Lord\'s preferred vision for His church, at least in the first century.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1689','1','41','6','11','11','<p>6:11<em> And whatever place shall not receive you and they will not hear you, as you leave there, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony against them</em>- The disciples were to shake off the dust of their feet against unbelieving Israel (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 6:11; Acts 8:51), in allusion to the Rabbinic teaching that the dust of Gentile lands caused defilement. Israel who rejected the Gospel were thus to be treated as Gentiles. Indeed, John&rsquo;s immersion of repentant Israelites would have recalled the way that Gentiles had to be likewise dipped before being accepted into the synagogue. He was teaching &ldquo;that all Israel were Gentiles in the eyes of God&rdquo;. Time and again the prophets describe the judgments to fall upon Israel in the same terms as they speak of the condemnations of the surrounding nations. The message was clear: rejected Israel would be treated as Gentiles. Thus&nbsp;Joel describes the locust invasion of Israel in the language of locusts covering the face of Egypt (Joel 2:2,20 = Ex. 10:14,15,19). Israel&rsquo;s hardness of heart is explicitly likened to that of Pharaoh (1 Sam. 6:6); as the Egyptians were drowned, so would Israel be (Am. 9:5-8). As Pharaoh&rsquo;s heart was plagued (Ex. 9:14), so was Israel&rsquo;s (1 Kings 8:38); as Egypt was a reed, so were Israel (1 Kings 14:15). As Pharaoh-hophra was given into the hand of his enemies, so would Israel be (Jer. 44:30). She would be&nbsp;&ldquo;Condemned with the world...&rdquo;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1690','1','41','6','12','12','<p>6:12<em> And they went out and preached that all should repent</em>- <em>&nbsp;</em>Mt. 10:7 and Mk. 6:12 parallel preaching the soon coming of the Kingdom with preaching repentance. The very message of the Lord Jesus is of itself an appeal to re-think, to repent, to change.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1691','1','41','6','13','13','<p>6:13 <em>And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them</em>- Anointing with oil was a common way of trying to cure people. In the case of these healings, they were achieved by the power of God and not by the oil. And yet the did this in order to relate to people in their terms, to as it were speak their language; and that is also the reason why the language of demon possession is used. Anointing with oil also meant to be given a commission. Those healed were thereby commissioned to do something for the Lord, for the Messiah / anointed one with whom they were now associated. We noted on 1:31 how when Peter\'s wife\'s mother was cured she respond by immediately serving the Lord and His people.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1692','1','41','6','14','14','<p>6:14 <em>And king Herod heard of it, for Jesus\' name had become well known- </em>When the disciples went out preaching around Israel, Herod heard of the fame of <em>Jesus</em>- because they so manifested Him.</p><p><em>And he said: John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these powers work in him</em>- The Lord\'s relationship with His cousin John provides an exquisite insight into both His humanity and His humility. The people thought that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected. Perhaps this was because they looked somehow similar, as cousins?</p><p>The idea of bodily resurrection was around in the first century, but very often in the sense of a dead person not really dying but returning&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>&nbsp;in another form. This was widely believed about Nero- and there are allusions to the legend of Nero&nbsp;<em>redivivus&nbsp;</em>in Revelation (they are deconstructed there as being untrue- the ultimate resurrection was of the Lord Jesus, not Nero). Herod\'s words show that a \'resurrected\' person was expected to do great miracles as proof of their resurrection. The Lord\'s resurrection was likewise accompanied by &quot;mighty works&quot;- but not by Him personally, but by the community of believers. This accommodation to contemporary views of resurrection was therefore a way of demonstrating that the believers doing the miracles after the Lord\'s resurrection were being presented to society as Jesus&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>; as if they truly were the body of Jesus revived. Which of course they were, and we are. Paul uses the same Greek word translated &quot;show forth themselves&quot; to describe how the Lord Jesus worked through both Peter and himself through the doing of miracles (Gal. 2:8; 3:5).&nbsp;</p><p><em>And therefore do these powers work in him</em>- The Greek could more likely mean &lsquo;the powers&rsquo;, a reference to the popular beliefs in various &lsquo;powers&rsquo; rather than one God. Jn. 10:41 is plain that &ldquo;John did no miracle&rdquo;, and yet such was the evident spirituality of John that the theory quickly arose that the miracles of Jesus were really being done by John&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1693','1','41','14','3','3','<p>14:3&nbsp;<em>For Herod had arrested John and bound him-</em>&nbsp;\'Laid hands on\'. The Greek means just that, but it is possibly mistranslated in Jn. 20:23: &quot;Whosoever sins you retain \'lay hands on\', they are retained&quot;. The idea is that we can in some cases obtain forgiveness for others\' sins; but we must beware lest we lay hands on their sin and commit it ourselves. This is exactly the teaching of Jude- to reclaim others who are in sin, whilst being careful not to become contaminated by their sins rubbing off on us. Herod and his servants (Mt. 14:2) had laid hold on John, bound him, and cast him into prison. These are all terms used elsewhere about how the Lord Jesus will do exactly the same in condemning people at the last day. His servants (Mt. 22:13) shall lay hold of them (Rev. 20:2), bind them (Mt. 22:13) and cast them into prison (condemnation- Mt. 18:30). And these terms are also used about what happened to the Lord Jesus in His death: laid hold on by servants at a king\'s command (s.w. Mt. 26:4,48,50,57) bound (Jn. 18:12), to prison (Lk. 22:33). Herod is therefore being set up here as an anti-Christ, a fake Christ. And the Lord\'s death is again described in similar terms to that of John, whose ministry He continued. The way disciples came seeking the body is another point of connection. As events unfolded with the Lord\'s arrest and binding, He would\'ve surely perceived the connection with John. And would\'ve likewise seen how He was as it were going through the process of condemnation, being treated as a sinner, although He was not one. This means that He has even more so the right to condemn men, because in essence He knows the condemnation process. And it gives Him the ability to identify with those who in this life are currently under condemnation for their sins, and seek to lead them out of that position.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1694','1','41','6','15','15','<p>6:15 <em>But others said: It is Elijah; and others said: It is a prophet, even as one of the prophets</em>- As made explicit in Matthew 12 and 13, the crowds did not accept the essential message of John- but they fiercely defended him as a prophet, speaking God&rsquo;s word. Acceptance of an inspired word is one thing, but to grasp the essence of the Lord Jesus is quite another. By assuming the Lord was Elijah rather than Messiah, we see how they had missed the whole point of John\'s teaching; for he had been the Elijah prophet, heralding Messiah. And yet John had such popularity that Herod had been unable to murder him because of his mass support (Mt. 14:5). The image of John was popular, John as religion; but his essential message went unheeded. And so it can be with us today; the image and religion of Christianity may be appealing to us to the point we identify with it. But the essential message of the Christ who should&nbsp;be at the core of it can be totally ignored or not even grasped. See on :20.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1695','1','41','6','16','16','<p>6:16 <em>But Herod, when he heard of it, said: It is John, whom I beheaded; he is risen</em>- Having killed John, Herod\'s conscience was haunted by him, and he was eager to see John alive again. He regretted murdering him; his subconscious desire was that John would somehow overcome that death and revive. And so he became convinced of the idea that John had reincarnated as Jesus. This explains why people can be so utterly convinced of after death experiences, reincarnation, ghosts, appearances of the dead etc. Such apparent experiences are a reflection of their own deep subconscious desire to see the dead again, to make death somehow not death. This is where the clear Biblical definition of death as unconsciousness is so challenging.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1696','1','41','6','17','17','<p>6:17 <em>For Herod himself had had John arrested and thrown into prison to please Herodias, his brother Philip\'s wife; for he had married her</em>- Josephus claims that she was in fact married to another relative, not Philip, before she married Herod (<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;18:136). We can simply decide to trust the Biblical record over Josephus. Or it could be that Josephus refers to a previous relationship she had. See on Mt. 14:10 for another conflict with Josephus.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1697','1','41','6','18','18','<p>6:18 <em>For John said to Herod: It is not lawful for you to have your brother\'s wife</em>- The laws of Lev. 18:16; 20:21 were applicable to Jews; which opens the wider question as to whether we ought to be drawing the attention of the world to their disobedience to Biblical principles, even though they do not claim any faith in the Bible. Criticizing others&rsquo; ways of living leads to anger if the point isn&rsquo;t accepted; and we have a classic case of it here. The Herods were from Idumea, but although they weren&rsquo;t ethnic Jews, they claimed to be religious Jews. So it could be that John&rsquo;s attitude was that if someone considered themselves as being under God&rsquo;s law, then they should be obedient to it and were therefore culpable before Him for disobedience to it. In this case, we do not actually have here any reason to think that a Christian&rsquo;s duty is to lobby the unbelieving world leaders to be obedient to God&rsquo;s law.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1698','1','41','6','19','19','<p>6:19 <em>And Herodias set herself against him, and desired to kill him; but she could not</em>- Mt. 14:5 says that Herod also wanted to kill John, but feared the people. The same Greek words are&nbsp;used about Herod wanting to kill Jesus in Lk. 13:31. A manipulative woman arranging the death of a prophet through a weak willed ruler recalls Jezebel in 1 Kings 21; and she was a protagonist of Elijah, upon whom John the Baptist was clearly modelled.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1699','1','41','6','20','20','<p>6:20 <em>For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was much perplexed; and he heard him gladly</em>- This came about after his initial desire to murder John (Mt. 14:5). There was something in John\'s message which made him oscillate between respecting him and wanting to murder him. He heard him gladly, just as the crowds of self-righteous Jerusalem Jews streamed out of Jerusalem to hear John\'s rough message of repentance. We too can intellectually assent to a message without grasping the personal appeal for actual change and repentance. See on :15.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1700','1','41','6','21','21','<p>6:21<em> But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his nobles, military commanders and the leading men of Galilee</em>- The idea of &quot;opportunity&quot; leads us to think that the whole scene was set up, so that when Herod was drunk and made one of his famous \'I\'ll give you whatever you like\' statements, they could then pounce with their request.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1701','1','41','6','22','22','<p>6:22 <em>And when the daughter of Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests, and so the king said to the girl: Ask of me whatever you will, and I will give it to you</em>- As suggested on :21, Herod when drunk probably often said these kind of things; for this would not have been his first wild birthday party.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1702','1','41','6','23','23','<p>6:23 <em>And he made an oath to her: Whatever you shall ask of me, I will give it to you, to the half of my kingdom</em>- This continues a theme we find in the book of Daniel- powerful rulers making a rash oath and feeling forced to carry it out because of shame and the pressure of courtiers. The contrast with God, the ultimate ruler, is not that He is not so rash and not manipulated by His subjects. Rather the contrast is surely that Yahweh&nbsp;<em>does</em>&nbsp;change, He has no fear of shame or being shamed; such is His grace that when He sees a repentant Nineveh, He&nbsp;<em>does</em>&nbsp;change His original intention. The fear of shame and pressure from the eyes of others is what leads so many leaders into behaviour and positions which are against their better judgment. There is no shame in change. Indeed, change is part of real spirituality. &quot;To the half my kingdom&rdquo; is alluding to the king&rsquo;s promise to Esther in Esther 5:23, but it seems an allusion with no context or specific meaning, for Herodias\' daughter was not at all Esther.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1703','1','41','6','24','24','<p>6:24 <em>And she went out and said to her mother: What shall I ask? And she said: The head of John the Baptist</em>- I suggested on :21 that the whole thing was a set up. They knew Herod made exaggerated offers when drunk, and so they waited for that moment and then pounced with the request for John\'s head as the next dinner dish. Her going to her mother was therefore just part of the act, rather than from genuine lack of awareness as to what to ask for.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1704','1','41','6','25','25','<p>6:25 <em>And she rushed to the king and asked, saying: Here and now- </em>The emphasis on &ldquo;here&rdquo; is strange. She wanted the head brought in before everyone. This rather strongly contradicts Josephus&rsquo; claim that John was beheaded in the Machaerus fortress, a long way from Herod&rsquo;s court.</p><p><em>I want you to give me on a platter the head of John the Baptist</em>- The feast would have been full of plates with various dishes. The idea was that the head would be offered for eating. The implication is that the head would\'ve been brought immediately, which suggests that John was imprisoned nearby. This again rules out Josephus\' claim that John was beheaded in the Machaerus fortress, far from Herod\'s palace in Tiberias. The offering of a head on a platter is full of allusion to pagan ritual. Herod, as one who claimed to be an observant Jew, was now forced to choose- between being a serious Jew, following Divine principle, or a pagan. He was forced to decide- and chose wrongly. He had earlier wanted to kill John, and now his evil thought was being brought to action, in a powerful outworking of the Lord\'s principle that the thought is indeed counted as the action.&nbsp; We ask, naturally, why it all had to be as it was. John would\'ve carefully reflected upon the life of Elijah, and John would\'ve seen the parallel between Jezebel and the manipulative women behind his own death- and taken comfort from that in his last moments: that he was in fact the Elijah prophet.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1705','1','41','6','26','26','<p>6:26 <em>And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths and his dinner guests, he could not reject her request</em>- And yet we learn in Mt. 14:5 that Herod had wanted to kill John because John had criticized Herod&rsquo;s lifestyle. We may feel flushes of anger against a person, but if it were to come to actually carrying out what we imagine- we would likely regret it.</p><p>A&nbsp;<em>horkos</em>&nbsp;&quot;oath&quot; was not merely a verbal promise; although he was not ethnically Jewish, Herod claimed to be a practicing Jew, and an \'oath\' would\'ve been something like \'May I be eternally condemned at the last day if I do not...\'. Peter used the same oaths in denying the Lord. And so we see the torture of this unhappy man- asking himself to be condemned if he didn\'t do something which surely warrants eternal condemnation. The only way out was to&nbsp;<em>change</em>, to re-pent, to re-think; to recognize that he was not going to get out of this without a deep repentance.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1706','1','41','6','27','27','<p>6:27 <em>And immediately the king sent a soldier of his guard and commanded that he bring John\'s head. And the soldier went to the prison and beheaded John</em>- The implication is that the court party was held close to the prison. This would have been most unlikely if Josephus is correct in claiming that John was imprisoned and beheaded in the fortress of Machaerus. Herod&rsquo;s court was in Tiberias. The implication of the language is that Herod took full responsibility for this- as if he personally beheaded John. And he realized this later in his conscience: &ldquo;John whom I beheaded&hellip; John have I beheaded&rdquo; (Mk. 6:16; Lk. 9:9).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1707','1','41','6','28','28','<p>6:28 <em>And brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother</em>- The language of bringing to and giving on further is found in the following account of the miraculous feeding. The Lord uses the word &quot;brought&quot; of how He wished the loaves and fishes to be &ldquo;brought&rdquo; to Him for His Messianic banquet (Mt. 14:18). It may be that Herod&rsquo;s banquet is being set up in contrast to that of the Lord Jesus described later in the chapter.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1708','1','41','6','29','29','<p>6:29 <em>And when his disciples heard of it, they went and took his corpse and laid it in a tomb</em>- The phrase is only used elsewhere about Joseph taking up the body of the Lord Jesus after His death (Jn. 19:31,38). And doing the same with it- burying it. He was likely one of the followers of John the Baptist, and his fine action here was surely motivated by the memory of those brave brethren who &lsquo;took up the body&rsquo; of John. The example of devotion shown by believers can inspire later believers in different contexts. The power of example is far greater than we can ever imagine.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1709','1','41','6','30','30','<p>6:30 <em>The apostles returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught</em>- The same Greek words are found in Jn. 20:18 of Mary going and telling the disciples. Here, after the &lsquo;taking up of the body&rsquo; of the Lord Jesus and &lsquo;burying&rsquo; it, just as had been done to John&rsquo;s corpse, Mary &ldquo;went and told&rdquo; the disciples. The disciples &ldquo;went and told Jesus&rdquo; of John&rsquo;s death; now, Mary goes to tell the disciples of the Lord&rsquo;s resurrection. The similarity of language and yet the inversion of the ideas is all surely intentional. The intention is to show that the tragedy of John&rsquo;s death was vindicated and gloriously reversed in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1710','1','41','6','31','31','<p>6:31 <em>And he said to them: Come, we shall depart for a deserted place and rest for a while. For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure time, even to eat</em>- Lk. 9:10 says that it was near to Bethsaida. This indicates the literal accuracy of the Gospels, because Bethsaida was just outside the boundary of Herod&rsquo;s jurisdiction, and it would be understandable that after his execution of John, the disciples and Jesus might want to be outside of his territory.</p><p>Matthew says that this desire to withdraw for a while was immediately upon hearing of John\'s death. The feeding of the five thousand is not in chronological sequence; it is part of the flashback to John&rsquo;s death. Perhaps the intention is to present the Lord&rsquo;s banquet as the antithesis of Herod&rsquo;s banquet which led to John&rsquo;s execution. We see here yet another insight into the Lord&rsquo;s humanity. Knowledge of John&rsquo;s death wasn&rsquo;t beamed into the Lord&rsquo;s mind; He didn&rsquo;t have the total omniscience of God. For He was not God Himself, but the human Son of God. He had to be informed of some things before He knew them. And He reacts in a very human way- He wants to go away on His own with His closest friends to reflect upon the death of a relative and co-worker. But again, in a typically human way, His plan to have time out relatively alone was thwarted- despite His intention to get away alone, or at least just with His close friends, the crowds heard He had been spotted heading out to an uninhabited area, and followed Him there by foot. &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1711','1','41','6','32','32','<p>6:32 <em>And they went away in the boat to a deserted place</em>- Bethsaida, according to Lk. 9:10. See on :31. &quot;The boat&quot; suggests they were a common sight, travelling in the same boat, which presumably belonged to the family of James and John, whose father Zebedee had a large enough business to employ hired hands.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1712','1','41','6','33','33','<p>6:33 <em>Now many saw them going and recognised them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them</em>- This is added to demonstrate their commitment to hearing Him teach. Why were they so keen to make such effort to get to Him? Mt. 13:54-58 records how the Lord taught in the synagogue but didn&rsquo;t get a good response, nor did He do many miracles there because of their unbelief. But now He leaves, and the people flock after Him. This may be understandable just in terms of basic psychology- when a wonderful offer is not taken up but appears to be receding, people then desperately grab onto it. Perhaps that&rsquo;s why the Lord seems well disposed to these people- healing and feeding them (see on Mt. 14:22). But we also get the impression that the Lord was not constantly available for teaching and healing. I have previously remarked that the intensity of some of the days which the Gospels record was surely not repeated every day of His ministry. It seems He spent most of His time training the twelve and only occasionally made public appearances to teach and heal.</p><p>The Lord in Jn. 6 comments upon their efforts. The people laboured in that they walked around the lake in the boiling midday sun in order to be with Christ and perhaps benefit from the physical food He might provide.&nbsp; He tells them not to labour for the food which would perish, but for that which would endure for ever. The labouring of those people, trekking around that lake in the heat of the day, should be the effort we put in to eating the manna of God\'s word- according to how the Lord. There was a theme of urgency in Israel\'s gathering of the manna; it had to be gathered before the sun was up, or it would be lost. Would that we could have that same sense of urgency as we read, realizing that the rising of the sun at the second coming of will put an end to our opportunity to feed and grow. If Israel didn\'t gather the manna, or if they left it to another day, it bred worms and stank. The active anger of God was to be expressed against those who didn\'t take the wonder of the manna seriously. So our gathering of the manna / word must be taken seriously; it\'s not a question of skim reading familiar words, or doing mental gymnastics with it in an intellectual world of our own. &nbsp;The people had walked all round the lake to see Jesus and get some food from Him. In typical style, He responded: &ldquo;Labour not for the meat which perisheth but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life&rdquo; (Jn. 6:27). They ask what they can&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;that they might work / labour same Greek word the works of God; and they are told that the real work / labour which God requires is to believe (Jn. 6:28). To truly believe, to the extent of being sure that we will surely have the eternal life promised, is the equivalent of walking round the lake. We like those crowds want to concretely&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;something. The young man likewise had asked what good thing he must&nbsp;<em>do&nbsp;</em>in order to get eternal life (Mt. 19:16). But the real work is to&nbsp;<em>believe</em>. To really make that enormous mental effort to accept that what God has promised in Christ will surely come true for us. The proof that this is so is because Jesus really said these words, and &ldquo;him hath God the Father sealed&rdquo;, i.e. shown His confirmation and acceptance of. So again we come down to the implications of real basics. Do we believe Jesus existed and said those words? Yes. Do we believe the Biblical record is true and inspired? Yes. Well, this Jesus who made these promises and statements about eternal life was &ldquo;sealed&rdquo; / validated by God. Do we believe this? Yes. So, what He said is utterly true.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1713','1','41','6','34','34','<p>6:34 <em>And when Jesus came ashore, he saw a great crowd- </em>Or, \'came forth\', as Mt. We could picture Him hiding away in some cave or bush, noticing the crowds combing the area, having spotted the abandoned boat. And then battling with a desire to retreat further into the bush away from them, or to send them away- but instead having compassion on them and going out to meet them with teaching and healing. But that is unlikely the right reading, because :33 notes that some of the people who ran around the lake got to the destination before they did. The &lsquo;coming forth&rsquo; would therefore have been coming forth from the boat to land. That moment is perhaps noted because the obvious inclination would have been to sail further and find a better resting place, far from this irritating crowd.</p><p><em>And he had compassion on them, because they were as sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things</em>- His pity was therefore for their spiritual state rather than their material need. This being &lsquo;moved with compassion&rsquo; is a major characteristic of the Lord which the Gospel writers noticed (s.w. Mt. 9:36; 15:32; 18:27; 20:34 in Matthew alone- see too Lk. 7:13; 10:33; 15:20). The Greek speaks of a literal movement within the ribcage, as if the Lord&rsquo;s actual body was moved by the compassion He felt. The Lord Jesus is the same yesterday, today and at the day of judgment- and forever. This same basic pity is part of Him, as it is of His Father- and it must be with us too. Several times when we read of the Lord showing such pity, it is in the context of others&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;doing so. In this instance, the disciples don&rsquo;t want to feed the hungry people; and likewise in Mt. 15:32. In Mt. 18:27 the compassion of the Lord to His indebted servant was not reciprocated by that servant; the Samaritan of the parable had compassion when the priest and Levite did not (Lk. 10:33); the Father had compassion on the prodigal son when the older brother did not (Lk. 15:20). Such compassion is therefore an act of the will, rather than a streak some are born with. We can shut up our &ldquo;bowels of compassion&rdquo; against human need (1 Jn. 3:17), we have to &ldquo;put on&hellip; bowels of mercies&rdquo; (Col. 3:12).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1714','1','41','6','35','35','<p>6:35 <em>And when the day was far spent, his disciples came to him- </em>The implication is that they weren&rsquo;t standing by Him, but rather watching cynically from a distance. Which explains their harsh attitude to the crowds. After all, they too had been followers of John the Baptist, they too wanted to get away on their own to mourn the news of His death. They probably felt the Lord should&rsquo;ve sent away the multitudes from the start. It&rsquo;s not hard to sense that the record paints the disciples negatively at this time. But who wrote this record? The Gospels are transcripts of how the disciples preached the Gospel. Despite the process of inspiration, the disciples in their recounting of the Gospel repeatedly mentioned their own weakness, and thereby would&rsquo;ve come over as all the more credible to their audience. And in this we see a fine pattern for our own witness.</p><p><em>And said: The place is deserted and the day is now far spent</em>- <em>&nbsp;</em>AV &quot;The time is now past&quot;. &ldquo;Past&rdquo; translates&nbsp;<em>parerchomai</em>; the Lord uses a similar word in replying that &ldquo;they need not&nbsp;<em>depart</em>&rdquo;-&nbsp;<em>aperchomai</em>. This word choice not only aided memorization of the Gospel record. The disciples considered that time had more than gone, that it was inevitable that the Lord must now send the crowd away, and should&rsquo;ve done earlier. But He is saying that actually He is not limited by time, the time didn&rsquo;t have to be &ldquo;past&rdquo;; because He was not limited by food either, and could feed them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1715','1','41','6','36','36','<p>6:36 <em>Send them away- </em>Twice they wanted to turn away those who wished to come to Jesus, and whom He wished to accept (Mt. 14:15; 15:23). As with the two miracles of bread, the second incident was giving them the opportunity to learn the lesson from the first incident- and yet they failed. Likewise they &ldquo;forbad&rdquo; John&rsquo;s disciples just as they wrongly &ldquo;forbad&rdquo; the little children to come to Him (Lk. 9:50). They ask the Lord to send the multitude away, whereas He had taught by word and example, that whoever came to Him He would not turn away (Jn. 6:37). Mark and Matthew present themselves, the disciples, as seriously out of step with their Lord at this time. And surely the communities which they were establishing were likewise tempted to &lsquo;send away&rsquo; or deny fellowship to those whom the Lord would have them fellowship.</p><p><em>That they may go into the country and villages round about and buy themselves something to eat</em>- Seeing most of the people were poor, and were likely subsistence farmers, it is most unlikely they had money to buy food. And 5000 men plus women and children would&rsquo;ve meant a crowd of 10,000 at least- the few shops in those tiny hamlets would&rsquo;ve been totally unable to provide for them. Here again we see the insensitivity of the disciples being related in the narrative which they themselves told after the resurrection. The apparently redundant &ldquo;buy&nbsp;<em>themselves</em>&rdquo; may suggest the disciples&rsquo; bitterness and resentment at the apparent expectation of the crowd that the Lord was to provide food for them. The only other time we meet the phrase is when the wise virgins tell the foolish to go and &lsquo;buy for themselves&rsquo;, and refuse to give their oil to them. Perhaps the Lord built that phrase into the parable because the disciples had earlier used it- and by His provision, He had effectively rebuked them for doing so.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1716','1','41','6','37','37','<p>6:37<em> But he answered and said to them: You give them something to eat. And they said to him: Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?</em><i><br /></i>- The Lord told the disciples to feed the crowd, when they had nothing to give them. He was actually quoting from 2 Kings 4:42, where the man of God told his servant to do the same. He gave what bread he had to the people, and miraculously it fed them. The disciples don\'t seem to have seen the point; otherwise, they would have realized that if they went ahead in faith, another such miracle would likely be wrought. We too are given Divine nudges towards seeing Biblical precedents for our situations; but we may not always grasp them. Familiarity with the Bible text through regular re-reading is a great help here. But it seems that God almost over-ruled them to make the response of the faithless servant of 2 Kings 4:43: &quot;Shall we... give them to eat?&quot;. They were almost \'made\' to do this to make them later see the similarity with the 2 Kings 4 incident. If they had been more spiritually aware at the time, the Lord\'s quotation would have been a fillip for their faith.</p><p>If a labourer worked for a denarius a day during harvest season, we can conclude that their figure of 200 denarii was a year\'s wages for a working man. Like us so often, they focused on the size of the problem rather than on the Lord\'s ability to move absolutely any mountain.</p><p>According to Jn. 6:5, the Lord also asked: &ldquo;From whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?&rdquo;. Even if money was no issue, the village shops simply had nowhere near the amount of food required. So in &ldquo;You give them&hellip;&rdquo;, the stress was not only on the word &ldquo;you&rdquo;. Perhaps it was more so on the word and concept of &ldquo;give&rdquo;, standing as it does in contrast to the disciples&rsquo; unrealistic and harsh expectation that these poor people go to a village and&nbsp;<em>buy</em>&nbsp;food. Surely the Lord had in mind Is. 55:1,2: &ldquo;Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food&rdquo;. He intended the disciples to see the connection and to figure that He would even provide them with free food, because they were seeking His word. We are confirmed in this idea by the way that He appealed to the crowd in the same discourse: &ldquo;Labour not for the food which perishes&rdquo; (Jn. 6:27), which is surely an allusion to Is. 55:2. Perhaps the disciples got the point- perhaps not. Often the Lord sets us up with situations in which we are intended to have our minds sent back to a Biblical verse or precedent as encouragement and guidance for us in our decisions. Whether or not we grasp it is a matter partly of our familiarity with the text of Scripture, but more significantly, our openness to this kind of spiritual prompting, and the idea of God&rsquo;s word being part of a living, two-way dialogue between Him and ourselves.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1717','1','41','6','38','38','<p>6:38<em> And he said to them: How many loaves have you? Go and see. And when they knew, they reported: Five loaves and two fishes</em>-He calmly bid them feed a huge crowd with just a few loaves. We are left to imagine those men, almost paralysed and certainly gobsmacked by the extent of the demand, awkwardly going away to count their few loaves. He could be seen as a demanding Lord. The Lord Jesus said many &quot;hard sayings&quot; which dissuaded people from seriously following Him. He kept speaking about a condemned criminal\'s last walk to his cross, and telling people they had to do this. He told them, amidst wondrous stories of flowers and birds, to rip out their eyes, cut off their limbs- and if they didn\'t, He didn\'t think they were serious and would put a stone round their neck and hurl them into the sea (Mk. 9:42-48). He healed a leper, and then spoke sternly to Him (Mk. 1:43 AV mg.). We sense something of the Lord\'s same style to this day as He works in our lives. They were asked to number their loaves, but they perhaps sarcastically add: &quot;And two small fishes&quot;.</p><p>Mt. 14:17 adds the word &quot;only&quot;: &quot;We have here only five loaves and two fishes&quot;. Jn. 6:9 says that they said: &ldquo;There is a lad here, which has five barley loaves and two small fishes&rdquo;. The boy out of the crowd gave the bread to the disciples- for now, the bread is no longer &lsquo;his&rsquo;, but belongs to &lsquo;the disciples&rsquo;. Then they gave it to Jesus. He then gives it back to the disciples, and they give it back to the crowd, including to the boy. We see in this cycling around of the bread an eloquent picture of the Lord&rsquo;s humanity. What little the crowd of humanity had was taken by the Lord and transformed by Him into what could save them; and in this sense, the bread was &lsquo;sent down&rsquo; from Heaven, in John&rsquo;s terms, even though it was a recycling of the peoples&rsquo; own bread.</p><p>The very human perspective of the disciples is almost predictably brought out by their response to the Lord&rsquo;s question to them about where to get bread to feed the hungry crowd. &ldquo;Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient&rdquo; was Philip&rsquo;s response (Jn. 6:7 AV). Andrew&rsquo;s comment that they had five loaves and two fishes surely carried the undertone that &lsquo;&hellip;and that&rsquo;s not even enough for us, let alone them- we&rsquo;re starving too, you know&rsquo;. The disciples wanted the crowd sent away, to those who sold food, so that they might buy for themselves (Mt. 14:15). As the Lord&rsquo;s extended commentary upon their reactions throughout John 6 indicates, these responses were human and selfish. And yet- and here is a fine insight into His grace and positive thinking about His men- He puts their very words and attitudes into the mouth of the wise virgins at the very moment of their acceptance at the day of judgment: &ldquo;The wise answered the foolish virgins saying, Not so, lest there be not enough s.w. &ldquo;not sufficient&rdquo;, Jn. 6:7 for us and you; but got ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves&rdquo; (Mt. 25:9). Clearly the Lord framed that parable in the very words, terms and attitudes of His selfish disciples. He counted even their weakness as positive, and thus showed His desire to accept them in the last day in spite of it. Another reading of the connection would be that the Lord foresaw how even in the final moment of acceptance into His Kingdom, right on the very eve of judgment day, His people would still be as hopelessly limited in outlook and spiritually self-centred as the disciples were that day with the multitude. Whatever way we want to read this undoubted connection of ideas, we have a window into a grace so amazing it almost literally takes our breath away.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1718','1','41','6','39','39','<p>6:39 <em>And he commanded that all should sit down in groups upon the green grass</em>- &quot;In groups&quot; is a technical term for how in the Roman empire, large groups sat at groups of three tables forming three sides of a square, with divans or couches on which they reclined as they ate. The open end of the square was entered by the servants who waited on the guests. But there no tables nor couches. They were bidden imagine them. For this was set up as a banquet; with the Lord as host. It was a foretaste of the Messianic banquet. And all and any present were invited to recline and eat. So the people sat down as it were in table-companies but without tables, in companies of a hundred and others of fifty, waited upon by the disciples. Who you ate with had religious meaning in their society; it was a sign of religious fellowship. And here the Lord opened His table to any who wished to hear His word, be they clean, unclean, Jew, Gentile, women or children. </p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1719','1','41','6','40','40','<p>6:40 <em>And they sat down in groups of hundreds or of fifties</em>- Vine comments: &quot;Lit., like beds in a garden. The former adverb, by companies, describes the arrangement; this the colour. The red, blue, and yellow clothing of the poorest Orientals makes an Eastern crowd full of colour; a fact which would appeal to Peter\'s eye, suggesting the appearance of flower-beds in a garden&quot;. If this were the case, then the allusion would be to the encampment of Israel in Num. 24:6: &quot;As valleys they are spread forth, as gardens by the riverside, as aloes which Yahweh has planted, as cedar trees beside the waters&quot;. Equally if the allusion is instead to military groups or companies, the idea is that this apparently random group of peasants, with all their shady biographies and legal uncleanness and lack of understanding, were the new Israel the Lord was forming; the new &quot;hosts&quot; of Yahweh of Hosts.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1720','1','41','6','41','41','<p>6:41 <em>And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven- </em>This detail not only suggests the close fellowship enjoyed between the Father and Son, to the extent that the Lord could pray with open eyes looking up to Heaven, knowing there was no barrier between Him and God. But we also as it were have the camera zoomed in upon the Lord, yet another indication that we have in the Gospels an eye witness account. Likewise the Lord\'s way of looking up was noticed in Lk. 19:5; 21:1.&nbsp;And the Comforter passages promise us that we can share His relationship with the Father, through the gift of the Spirit.&nbsp;</p><p><em>He blessed and broke the loaves; and he gave them to the disciples to set before them; and the two fish he divided among them all</em>- The aorist followed by the imperfect in &quot;broke and gave&quot; suggests He broke the bread once, and went on giving it out as a continuous act. This speaks of the Lord\'s one time death, and His continuous giving out of that to His people. The miracle of multiplication therefore happened at the moment of breaking the bread and His giving it out. This is indeed the work of the Spirit in our lives.</p><p>Clearly the record is structured to show how the Lord worked through them. In giving the bread of life to the world, the Lord usually works through some kind of human mechanism rather than as it were parachuting His word and salvation directly to a person. There was no word from the Lord that He had performed the miracle of multiplication- the disciples had to go forth in faith and start distributing the bread and fish. Presumably He broke the five loaves into 12 parts, and the two fish likewise. The disciples, each holding a small piece of bread and fish in their hands, in turn went to the crowds and broke it further- and never ran out. It was indeed a sign of their faith that they participated, risking looking foolish as they first began. This is indeed an accurate picture of our fears as we go out into this world with the Lord\'s salvation.</p><p>Time and again, it becomes apparent that the Lord especially designed incidents in His men&rsquo;s experience which they would learn from, and later be able to put to use when similar experiences occurred after He had ascended. This was essential to the training of the twelve disciples. Thus He made&nbsp;<em>them&nbsp;</em>distribute the food to the multitude (Jn. 6:11); yet after His ascension, we meet the same Greek word in Acts 4:35, describing how they were to distribute welfare to the multitude of the Lord&rsquo;s followers.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1721','1','41','6','42','42','<p>6:42 <em>And they all ate and were filled</em>- &quot;All&quot; ate; and eating together at a banquet was a sign of religious fellowship. There were for sure some there who were Gentiles, unclean, or simply curious. They were &quot;filled&quot;, perhaps alluding to Dt. 8:10, &ldquo;you shall eat and be full&rdquo;. The blessings of an obedient Israel were counted to this random crowd. By grace. They were &quot;filled&quot; superabundantly. The Lord\'s generosity is wonderful.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1722','1','41','6','43','43','<p>6:43 <em>And they collected twelve basketfuls of leftovers, and also of the fish</em>- Eph. 1:8 talks of how God has lavished or&nbsp;abounded&nbsp;His grace upon us. The same word is used about the Lord not only made miraculous loaves and fishes, but there was so much that&nbsp;abounded (&ldquo;leftovers&rdquo;) that it filled twelve baskets, another implication that here were assembled the new Israel. The word for &quot;baskets&quot; here is a different word to that used in the feeding of the 4000 in Mt. 15:37. This here&nbsp;is the smaller basket, used for carrying ritually clean food when in Gentile areas. The Lord imparted a sense of ritual holiness to the otherwise random and unclean.</p><p>Why did the Lord do that, and why make the disciples pick up all those crumbs? Surely to give them an object lesson in how God delights in abounding to us. He didn&rsquo;t just give the people food; He abounded to them. The record of each of the feeding miracles, in each of the Gospels, uses this word translated &ldquo;remained&rdquo; in commenting about the fragments that were left over- although the real meaning is &lsquo;to abound&rsquo;. Each of the Gospel writers was therefore deeply impressed by the fact that the Lord not only provided food- but such an abundance. All this sets the background for Paul&rsquo;s use of the very same word to describe how God&rsquo;s grace has &ldquo;abounded&rdquo; to us in Christ (Rom. 3:7; 5:15; Eph. 1:8).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1723','1','41','6','44','44','<p>6:44 <em>There were five thousand men that ate the loaves</em>- It is tempting to try to work out some significance in the figures here and in the feeding of the 4000 recorded later. Five loaves and two fishes fed 5000 with 12 baskets taken up; seven loaves and a few fishes fed 4000 with seven baskets taken up. With the food distributed each time by 12 disciples. One observation would be that the total number of loaves used was 12, which was the number of loaves required for the showbread (Lev. 24:5). The loaves in totality represent the Lord Jesus, the bread of God&rsquo;s presence in Israel, offered to all and sundry- not just to the priests. The Lord had made the same point in reminding Israel that David and his men had eaten the showbread- the things considered exclusively for the religious elite were now open to all, women and kids and Gentiles included. The very same Greek phrase &ldquo;about five thousand men&rdquo; occurs in Acts 4:4, to describe the total number of converts made by the disciples in the very early days of the church. Surely there must be some connection here. As the disciples moved amongst the crowds, each of them repeatedly breaking the bread of Christ to the multitudes, they were being trained towards the day when they would move amongst other multitudes preaching Christ and baptizing people into Him. It would seem that there were two major incidents when the disciples preached and performed mass baptisms; the 3000 in Acts 2:41, and then either 2000 or 5000 (depending how one reads the Greek) in Acts 4:4. These days of mass baptisms were probably never repeated in the history of the early church; and so the two feeding miracles were to prepare them for those two later incidents. In our yearning to attach meaning to event, we too can be encouraged that what we currently cannot understand is likely preparation for some potential future calling for us at some point in the future.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1724','1','41','6','45','45','<p>6:45 <em>And immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and to go without him to the other side to Bethsaida- </em>Jn. 6:15 says that the crowds wanted to &ldquo;take him by force to make Him a king&rdquo;. Yet these were the same folk, it seems, who had showed little real faith in Him previously- see on Mt. 14:13<em> on foot</em>. They were so fickle. They evidently saw the connection between the feeding miracle and Him being Messiah, but their understanding of Messiah was that He was to be a King offering immediate salvation. Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1:9 claimed that &ldquo;...as the former redeemer caused manna to descend... so will the latter redeemer cause manna to descend&rdquo;. We get the impression that the Lord felt under a sense of great urgency- He &ldquo;constrained&rdquo; the disciples to get into the boat and leave, whilst He sent the crowd away. Perhaps He felt that the crowd intended to make Him King and the disciples the leaders of their new&nbsp;<em>junta</em>, but by sending the disciples away, He was greatly reducing the chances of them doing this. However the other reason was simply that the disciples themselves were looking for an immediate kingdom and glory, and He knew the temptation would be too great for them. He likewise works with us so often to deliver us from temptation He knows is too great for us.</p><p>The Lord told them to sail to the other side of the lake, but said that they would be &lsquo;going before / ahead of Him&rsquo;. The Greek could suggest that His words could have been understood as meaning that they would sail to that place, He would send the crowds away, and then go behind them- i.e., walking on the water. Of course, they could have understood &lsquo;going before Him&rsquo; as meaning that He would join them there at a later stage. But as they sailed away, they must have debated whatever He meant. Because if He meant that He would join them there at a later stage, however was He going to walk there around the lake, whilst so desperately wanting the crowds to go away from Him? Remember He had no personal boat, and they were in a deserted location. Whichever exit He took, whichever way He walked around the lake, He would have the very people with Him whom He was so earnestly trying to avoid. Again, as in asking&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to&nbsp;<em>give</em>&nbsp;and not&nbsp;<em>buy</em>&nbsp;food for the crowd, the Lord was stretching them. He wanted them to reflect upon His words, and if they had done, then logically they were intended to come to the conclusion that He was implying that He would walk over the water to them. And if they were Old Testament minded, they would have known the passages which spoke of Yahweh walking upon the water and the waves of the sea (Ps. 29:3,10; 77:19; Nah. 1:3; Hab. 3:15). When, therefore, the waves arose and they seemed likely to drown, they were intended to figure that He would come to them, manifesting Yahweh, walking upon the waves of the sea- to save them. Whether any of them did actually get that far in perception and faith seems doubtful. But I believe we can discern how the Lord was seeking to lead them and educate their faith. The tragedy is that so many of His detailed plans for us are likewise wasted because of our lack of spiritual perception, and allowing the immediacy of issues to obscure the clear light of His leadership through life.</p><p>However, Jn. 6:15-17 implies they got tired of waiting for the Lord Jesus to return from prayer, and so they pushed off home to Capernaum, leaving Him alone. Yet by grace He came after them on the lake, to their salvation.</p><p><em>While he sent the crowd away</em>- The phrase is repeated twice in Mt. 14:22,23, probably in recognition of the miracle performed in managing to send these crowds away empty handed, with no visible Messianic Kingdom. At least, the power of personality in the Lord was very great to be able to get Himself out of this situation.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1725','1','41','6','46','46','<p>6:46 <em>And after he had taken leave of them, he departed into the mountain to pray</em>- Mt. &quot;by himself&quot;. The term&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>&nbsp;&quot;by himself&quot; is used about 16 times in the Gospels, covering around 12 different occasions. The need to be alone with the Lord or with the Father is therefore a significant theme. The Lord had departed to the deserted place because of this need to be&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>&nbsp;(Mt. 14:13), but His plans were thwarted by the unexpected tenacity of the crowd in following Him there. In this we see another picture of His humanity. But ultimately, God granted Him the need He felt to be&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>, to be alone with God. Perhaps one reason He so insistently sent both the crowd and the disciples away was because He knew He simply had to be alone with God. And there can be times like this for us too. No matter how stupid we might appear in secular life, there can be a time when you just have to go and sit in the toilet for five minutes in your lunch break and pray. The Lord uses the term in speaking of how we are each given something very personal which we are to use in His service-&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>, \'alone by ourselves\', or as in AV &quot;according to his several ability&quot; (Mt. 25:15). Each sheep is called by the Lord&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>, AV &quot;by name&quot; (Jn. 10:3). And therefore the judgment of each believer will be&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>, AV &quot;according to his own labour&quot; (1 Cor. 3:8). There is a very wide range of translations of this phrase. But the idea is that we were each individually called by the Lord and given different callings, and our judgment will be according to this. This is not to say that there is anything other than one basic faith, Gospel, Hope, Lord etc. But in many denominations and fellowships the idea is pushed that each believer must adopt an identical, detailed statement of understanding and calling. Yet in practice, the frames of our calling and the Lord\'s hopes for our responses vary significantly between individuals.</p><p>The fact the Lord Jesus prayed to His Father is one of the profoundest and logically strongest evidences that He was not God in any Trinitarian sense. The basic facts of the Gospel records were simply not given their full weight by the unBiblical politicians who first created the Trinity doctrine. The liberal theologian Hal Taussig observes that other theologians haven&rsquo;t written much about Jesus at prayer- for this very reason, that of itself it contradicts Trinitarian dogma: &ldquo;Because Jesus at prayer confuses theological categories of &ldquo;divine&rdquo; and &ldquo;human&rdquo; (is there any need for a divine Jesus to pray?), theologians have rarely been interested in Jesus at prayer&rdquo; (Hal Taussig,&nbsp;<em>Jesus Before God: The Prayer Life of the Historical Jesus</em>&nbsp;(Santa Rosa, CA: The Polebridge Press, 1999) p. 7). Taussig&rsquo;s question &ldquo;is there any need for a divine Jesus to pray?&rdquo; is ultimately impossible for Trinitarian apologists to answer.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1726','1','41','6','47','47','<p>6:47 <em>And when evening had come, the boat was in the midst of the sea- </em>People at that time had a strong association between the sea and the forces of evil and condemnation; beginning with the condemnation of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, the Bible itself speaks of condemnation as being swamped at sea by the waves. The Egyptians perished &quot;in the midst of the sea&quot; (Ex. 14:23,27; Ez. 29:3); Jonah drowned &quot;in the midst of the sea&quot; (Jonah 2:3) as does the fool of Proverbs (Prov. 23:34), as did Tyre and the Gentile nations (Ez. 26:12; 27:26,27,32; 28:8; Ps. 46:2) and Babylon (Jer. 51:63). The disciples doubtless felt condemned. For there were these 12 Old Testament references to condemnation ringing in their Jewish ears. Their cry for salvation was therefore not merely for physical deliverance, but a cry for deliverance out of condemnation. They were &quot;tossed with waves&quot;- the very term used for the torment of the rejected (Rev. 14:10; 20:10). The disciples had earlier seen people who were tormented s.w. &quot;tossed&quot; being delivered by the Lord- to pave the way for them personally crying out for that same deliverance (s.w. Mt. 8:6).</p><p><em>And he was alone on the land</em>- This is a pointed repetition of the information that the Lord was there&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>- alone apart, by Himself. His aloneness with God is being brought to our attention. Prayer in one sense has to be a lonely experience. This is all surely why the Lord Himself is frequently pictured by the Gospel writers as making an effort to be alone in prayer to the Father (Mk. 1:35; 3:13; 9:2; Mt. 14:13,23; 17:1; Lk. 6:12; 9:28; 22:39,41). This is all some emphasis. Be it rising in the early hours to go out and find a lonely place to pray, or withdrawing a stone&rsquo;s throw from the disciples in Gethsemane to pray&hellip; He sought to be alone. Jn. 6:15 emphasizes this repeated feature of the Lord&rsquo;s life: &ldquo;He departed again into a mountain himself alone&rdquo;. The fact He often &ldquo;again&rdquo; retreated alone like this is emphasized by three words which are effectively saying the same thing- departed, himself, alone. Much as we should participate in communal prayers or in the prayers of our partner or our children, there simply has to be the time for serious personal prayer in our lives. And I have to drive the point home:&nbsp;<em>Are you doing this?</em>&nbsp;Putting it in other terms- are you alone&nbsp;<em>enough.&nbsp;</em>Incident after incident shows the Lord doing something alone, and then the disciples somehow being presented as doing the same. Take the way He departed &ldquo;himself alone&rdquo; when the crowd wanted to make Him king; and then soon afterwards we read that the crowd perceived that the disciples had likewise departed &lsquo;themselves alone&rsquo; same Greek phrase and construction, Jn. 6:15,22. The point is that the world is presented as perceiving the disciples in the same terms and way as they did Jesus, even when, in this case, Jesus was not physically with them. And we too are to be &ldquo;in Him&rdquo; in our work of witness for Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1727','1','41','6','48','48','<p>6:48 <em>And seeing they were having difficulty rowing, for the wind was against them, about the fourth watch of the night he went to them, walking on the sea; and he would have passed by them</em>- The Greek strictly means that He departed, He left to walk over the sea to them, in the fourth watch of the night (Mt.). Mark adds the detail that &quot;He would have passed by them&quot;. This is often His style to this day- it\'s not that He plays hard to get, but He wants to elicit in us a sense of our desperation for Him. Likewise He often asked sick people what He could do for them, when it was obvious what they wanted. For the same reason on the road to Emmaus, He made as if He would have gone further- to elicit in those disciples an urgent desire for fellowship with Him. The same word translated &quot;passed by them&quot; had just been used by the disciples in saying that &quot;the time is now&nbsp;<em>past</em>&quot; and so the Lord should send the crowd away to feed themselves. The disciples likely realized that they were being corrected for their desire to turn away the crowds of people from the Lord; admittedly their motivation was poor, as the Lord seems to explain to them in John 6, but it was seriously wrong to turn them away.<br />Mk. 6:48 says that &ldquo;He saw them toiling in rowing&rdquo; and then, later, He went to them. He didn&rsquo;t literally see them rowing; but in His sensitive mind, He imagined just how it would be for them, and so He went to them.</p><p>Mark&rsquo;s account of this incident omits all reference to Peter walking on the water (Mk. 6:45-51). Yet there is good reason to think that Mark is really Peter&rsquo;s gospel; in characteristic humility, he emphasizes his failures and downplays his achievements in his Gospel record. Hence this omission of any reference to Peter&rsquo;s bravery may indicate that this incident places Peter in a positive light; it was a tremendous achievement, and he humbly declines to mention it.</p><p>Walking on the sea, Jesus &ldquo;would have passed by them&rdquo;. I don&rsquo;t suppose He <em>would</em> have done, because He was &lsquo;coming unto them&rsquo;, but this was how they perceived it &ndash; and thus the record stands written, from a human perspective. The same is the case with the language of demons.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1728','1','41','6','49','49','<p>6:49 <em>But they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was a ghost and cried out</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>phantasma</em>&nbsp;could refer to a ghost, in which cases we see how under pressure, disciples return quickly to their previous belief systems. But the word could equally refer to an Angel. Their fear, and that fear being met with assurance&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to fear, would then be typical of human reaction whenever Angels appear to them. The Lord\'s assurance that &quot;It is&nbsp;<em>I</em>&quot; would then be yet another evidence that the Lord Jesus was not an Angel (as the Watchtower wrongly claim).&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1729','1','41','6','50','50','<p>6:50 <em>For they all saw him and were disturbed- </em>The word is specifically used in literature of troubled water (and in Jn. 5:4,7). The state of the water was as the state of their minds. Hence the power of the image of the Lord Jesus walking at ease upon that troubled water.</p><p><em>But he immediately spoke to them and said to them: Be of good courage It is I Be not afraid</em>- They had at least twice heard the Lord comfort others with those words &quot;be of good courage&quot; before healing them (Mt. 9:2,22). According to their recollection of His words, so their comfort would have been. And that principle applies to us today.&nbsp;&quot;Be not afraid&quot; was a phrase so often on the Lord\'s lips to the disciples. They so often feared (Lk. 8:25; 9:34,45; Mk. 4:40; 6:50; 10:32); despite the Lord repeatedly telling them not to be afraid (Lk. 12:4,32; Jn. 14:27). Despite His high demands on the one hand, on the other, He was and is ever assuring His people of His total and saving love for them. Peter uses the same phrase when he in his turn urges us to not be afraid nor \'troubled\'- the very word used about the troubled disciples on the water that night (1 Pet. 3:14; Mt. 14:26). The Lord likewise leads each of us through situations in order that we might then strengthen others in those situations. Paul\'s teaching in 2 Cor. 1:4-8 would seem to go as far as saying that in fact&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;we experience is in order that we might later give strength to others in similar situations. And this enables us, in broad terms at least, to attach meaning to event in a way which the unbeliever simply cannot.&nbsp;</p><p>The Qumran&nbsp;<em>Thanksgiving Hymns</em>&nbsp;are full of reference to the true Israel being saved from drowning in the sea of Gentile nations (1 QH 3:6,12-18; 6:22-25; 7:4,5). The&nbsp;<em>Testament of Naphtali</em>&nbsp;6:1-10 speaks of &ldquo;the ship of Jacob&rdquo; almost sinking in a storm, but Jacob himself walks on the water to save her. Clearly the Lord has these popular images in mind, and is recasting them- Jesus is the founder of the new Israel as Jacob was of the old, his 12 disciples are as the 12 sons of Jacob. And the faithful Israel in the boat are in fact not very faithful, they are secular, non-religious very human Jews who have come to believe in Jesus as Messiah.</p><p>&quot;It is I&quot; is<em> ego eimi</em>&nbsp;and could be understood as an allusion to the Yahweh Name. They were to understand Him as the fulfilment of the Old Testament language of Yahweh walking upon the raging sea. &ldquo;It is I&rdquo; could be a quotation of the Divine Name from Is. 41:4; 43:10. It is used in that context of not fearing the power of Assyria / Babylon. The Lord wanted the disciples to perceive that the huge waves were to be met with the same faith that the faithful remnant had in the face of the opposition of superpowers against Israel. However, it needs to be asked how else the Lord could have said &ldquo;It&rsquo;s Me&rdquo;. There are alternatives, but this is the phrase used. And yet on the other hand, the use of&nbsp;<em>ego eimi</em>&nbsp;is not necessarily an allusion to the Divine Name, because it is found on the lips of men in 2 Sam. 2:19 LXX; Mt. 26:22,25; Jn. 1:20,27; 9:8 and Acts 22:3 (see too Lk. 1:18,19). The question is: Did the Lord really expect the disciples to perceive such Scriptural allusions in the midst of panic and crisis? And if so, what was the point? For surely they were not in the midst of a quiet Bible class evening. The point likely was and is that in the heat of crisis, the spiritually minded will unconsciously perceive spiritual nudges from the Father and Son- and thus be strengthened to endure and decide rightly in the heat of crisis.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1730','1','41','6','51','51','<p>6:51 <em>And he got into the boat with them, and the wind ceased. And they were utterly amazed</em>- Gk. \'grew weary\', as if there was a brief period over which the raging decreased.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1731','1','41','6','52','52','<p>6:52 <em>Because they did not understand the miracle of the loaves; their heart was hardened</em>- And yet Matthew says that they worshipped Him as &quot;Son of God&quot;. Perhaps they did this after their initial amazement. Or it could be that we can make such statements of belief whilst still having hardened hearts and amazed in our actual unbelief.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1732','1','41','6','53','53','<p>6:53 <em>And when they had crossed over- </em>Perhaps the emphasis is upon&nbsp;they. The Lord and His disciples were now united again.</p><p><em>They landed at Gennesaret and anchored there</em>- This is on the northwest shore of Galilee. Mk. 6:45 says that they departed on their journey aiming for Bethsaida, on the northeast shore. The Lord had upbraided Bethsaida in Mt. 11:21. Perhaps the disciples had insisted on pressing ahead with giving those people another chance, whereas that was not the Lord&rsquo;s will. Such providential overruling of our preaching is a common occurrence. One wonders whether the changed journey plan involved not returning to the Jews but going to a more Gentile area. This would have been in line with the Lord&rsquo;s own change of course in His ministry, turning away from the Jewish masses towards the tiny minority who accepted Him and towards the Gentiles (see on Mt. 13:10).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1733','1','41','6','54','54','<p>6:54 <em>And when they got out of the boat, the people immediately recognised him</em>- The Lord was a well known figure. But He used an economy of miracle, focusing upon the instruction of the twelve and those who wished to learn from Him. We get the impression He avoided crowds wherever possible; the crowd scenes are nearly always against His will. So whenever He was seen in public, the crowds came.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1734','1','41','6','55','55','<p>6:55 <em>And ran through that whole surrounding region, and began to carry about on beds those who were sick to wherever they heard he was</em>- As noted on :54, &quot;wherever He was&quot; suggests that He sought to avoid gathering crowds to Himself. But those who made the effort to come to Him were not disappointed (:56).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1735','1','41','6','56','56','<p>6:56 <em>And wherever he went, into villages, or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in the marketplaces- </em>See on Mt. 9:21. His preaching campaign is spoken of as focusing on the towns, villages and &quot;country&quot; - in modern terms, the villages, hamlets and isolated rural dwellings. He made the effort to get out to the individuals, the poorest and loneliest of&nbsp;society.</p><p><em>And pleaded with him- </em>The Greek&nbsp;<em>parakleo</em>&nbsp;means literally \'to call near\' and in this case we can understand it literally. They felt that they had to touch Him in order to be healed (unlike the cases of faith in His spoken word which the Lord so commends). Therefore, needing that physical presence, it makes sense to understand&nbsp;<em>parakleo</em>&nbsp;here as meaning to literally call near. They called Him near so that they might touch the hem of His garment.</p><p><em>That they be allowed to touch the fringe of his garment. And as many as touched him were cured- </em>The Law of Moses commanded the Jews to make &quot;borders&quot; of blue upon their clothes (Num. 15:38), presumably to remind them of Heaven in daily life. But the same Hebrew word is found in Mal. 4:2, speaking of how the Messianic &quot;sun of righteousness&quot; was to arise with &quot;healing in His hems&quot;. Their seeking for healing in the hem of the Lord\'s clothes was therefore a sign that they accepted Him as Messiah. But the \'arising\' of Malachi 4 is the time of the Kingdom established on earth, with Judah freed from her oppressors. The time for Mal. 4:2 was not then. They thought it was. And yet the Lord still goes along with their misunderstanding, by granting them healing from His hems. This may have been simply from compassion of the moment towards human need; or it could be that the Lord was happy to reward faith when He saw it, even if it was based upon somewhat wrong interpretation of the Father\'s word.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1736','1','41','7','1','1','<p>7:1 <em>The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus</em>- They came all the way to Galilee to try to trap the Lord in His words. And yet it was some of the Jerusalem priests (Acts 6:7) and Pharisees (Acts 15:5) who later accepted Christ. We would likely have ignored these troublemakers and given up on them as hard cases, to be endured but not converted. But the Lord&rsquo;s hope and vision for humanity was so wide- and in the end, even after His death, it paid off. This is a great challenge to us in our witness to all men, including the bitter, self-righteous religious leader types.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1737','1','41','7','2','2','<p>7:2 <em>And they saw that some of his disciples ate with unclean hands, that is, unwashed</em>- The Lord Jesus had asked the disciples to be obedient to every jot and tittle of the teaching of the Scribes, because they &ldquo;sit in Moses&rsquo; seat&rdquo;. And yet when they are criticized for not doing what He&rsquo;d asked them to do, for not washing hands before a meal, the Lord Jesus vigorously defends them by criticizing their critics as hypocrites (Mk. 7:2-8). Indeed, the Lord&rsquo;s passion and anger with the critics comes out very clearly in the subsequent record of the incident; and it is the essence of that passion which He has for us in mediating for us.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1738','1','41','7','3','3','<p>7:3 <em>The Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they first wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders</em>- This was well known to Jews in Palestine, and so Mark\'s addition of this background information suggests he was preaching to Gentiles.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1739','1','41','7','4','4','<p>7:4 <em>And when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they first purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze</em>- &quot;Washing&quot; is <em>baptizo</em>. The Jews practiced immersion multiple times in order to cleanse themselves, as they imagined, from the defilement caused by association with unclean persons. The Christian take on baptism is so different- it is to cleanse us from our own sins, not those of others which we have been associated with by physical contact. The Christian baptism was into death, into a grave, into association with a dead body- all of which made a Jew unclean and requiring immersion to cleanse them from.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1740','1','41','7','5','5','<p>7:5 <em>And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him: Why don\'t your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders- </em>The word&nbsp;<em>presbeteros</em>&nbsp;would&rsquo;ve been understood by all to refer to members of the Sanhedrin. And yet the later New Testament uses the word about elders within the Christian church, who got to that status regardless of social position but purely on the basis of spiritual qualification; thus a spiritually qualified slave or young believer in their 20s could be a&nbsp;<em>presbeteros</em>&nbsp;in the new Israel which was being consciously created by the Lord in parody of the old Israel.&nbsp;</p><p>Often Paul sees similarities between the Pharisees\' behaviour as recorded in the Gospels, and that of people he brushed against in his life (e.g. Mt. 15:2 = Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8; Mt. 15:9 = Col. 2:22; Tit. 1:14; Mt. 16:6 = 1 Cor. 5:6,7; Gal. 5:9; Mt. 23:31,32 = 1 Thess. 2:15). We too are to translate the Gospels into our own life situations.</p><p><em>But eat their bread with unclean hands?</em>- Rabbi Joses claimed that &ldquo;to eat with unwashen hands is as great a sin as adultery.&rdquo; And Rabbi Akiba in captivity used his water ration to wash his hands rather than to drink, resulting in him almost dying of dehydration.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1741','1','41','7','6','6','<p>7:6 <em>And he said to them: Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honour me with their lips but their heart is far from me</em>- See on Heb. 11:4. They honoured with their lips, but their heart was far from God; they kept His commandments, but they frustrated their intention by not letting them influence their essential selves (Mk. 7:6-9). They fiercely guarded the pronunciation of His Covenant Name; but in reality, they forgot that Name (Jer. 23:27).</p><p>Isaiah prophesied &quot;of you&quot; in the first century. The reference to &ldquo;this people&hellip;&rdquo; was not to be understood as only Isaiah&rsquo;s hearers, but all who read this living word. And so this is in the end how to study the Bible- to let it speak to&nbsp;<em>you in your generation</em>.</p><p>The prophecy quoted from Is. 29 is a criticism of the common people of Judah at Hezekiah&rsquo;s time; there was Godly leadership, but Isaiah laments that the ordinary people were far from Yahweh. But the Lord quotes this as relevant to the Jewish religious leadership, who prided themselves on their separation from the mass &lsquo;people of the land&rsquo; whom they considered as apostate. Yet again we see His radical turning upside down of the Jewish worldview and creation of a new order, where secular people like His disciples were to be the new Sanhedrin leadership (see on Mt. 15:2&nbsp;<em>elders</em>). Note that He was at this stage specifically addressing the Jewish elders, because only in Mt. 15:10 does He call the crowd to Him to listen.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1742','1','41','7','7','7','<p>7:7 <em>But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men</em>- The mere act of worship itself is not spirituality. Religion is full or \'worship\' of God but this is not of itself acceptable to Him; so much such religion is &quot;in vain&quot;. It depends whether our worship is a reflection of our understanding the right teachings / doctrines; otherwise it is worship in vain. Worship is therefore a reflection of and outflow from the things we believe about the Lord we worship.</p><p>Worship and sacrifice to God can be done &ldquo;in vain&rdquo; if our attitude to His word is wrong. The reason for the vanity of their worship and devotions was because their doctrine was wrong. This clearly shows that religious devotion alone doesn&rsquo;t mean anything in terms of acceptability with God. And it also shows that the intention of doctrine, of teaching from God&rsquo;s word, is so that our lives are&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;lived &ldquo;in vain&rdquo;; there is &ldquo;effect&rdquo; in the outworking of God&rsquo;s true word in human lives. &ldquo;In vain&rdquo; here is surely to be semantically paralleled with &ldquo;making void&rdquo; in :13.</p><p>The original of Is. 29:13,14 doesn&rsquo;t say &quot;teaching for doctrines&quot;. It is addressed to&nbsp;<em>the people</em>, stating that their fear of God is taught by the doctrines of men. The Lord amends the text slightly to make it relevant to the&nbsp;<em>teachers</em>&nbsp;whom He was addressing. Such amending of Old Testament quotation was common in Jewish&nbsp;<em>midrash</em>. The point is, that God&rsquo;s ancient word is to be reapplied to us today in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;contexts, rather than be left as mere historical statement to people long ago.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1743','1','41','7','8','8','<p>7:8 <em>You leave the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men</em>- The contrasts are between \'leaving\' and \'clinging\'; between &quot;commandment&quot; and &quot;tradition&quot;; and finally, between &quot;of God&quot; and &quot;of men&quot;. &quot;Leaving&quot; is literally \'to put away\' and is used of divorce. The marriage contract between God and Israel was the Mosaic law. But they were putting that away, and thereby effectively divorcing God; His action in divorcing Israel was therefore only confirming them in what they themselves wished to do. &quot;Cling&quot; or \'cleave to\' is likewise a marriage allusion; they had applied \'leave Father and cleave to wife\' to their relationship with God. They had left Him and cleaved to men, with human tradition as their marriage contract with them. This is how serious it is to become enslaved to following tradition. God &quot;commands&quot;, from God to man, whereas &quot;tradition&quot; is that which is passed on from men to man. The acceptance of tradition is therefore effectively a playing God.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1744','1','41','7','9','9','<p>7:9 <em>And he said to them: You are good at rejecting the commandment of God so that you can establish your tradition</em>- They had rejected or Gk. brought to nothing, neutralized, the commandment of God. They had ended the law. What God did in ending the Mosaic law was only a confirmation of what Israel themselves had done. And they did it despite all their much vaunted attention to every letter of the words which comprised that law. They wished to effectively write their own law; they annulled God\'s commandment in order to establish their own tradition. &quot;Establish&quot; is a variant reading, but it fits well with the following verses which speak of their voiding of God\'s law in order to obey the tradition which they created (:13).</p><p>The tension is between human&nbsp;<em>tradition</em>, and Divine&nbsp;<em>commandment</em>. There is a tendency to assume that tradition passed down over a period of time is in fact from God. Even the most protestant of Protestant churches have this tendency. And it is in all of us. The Lord goes on to demonstrate that God&rsquo;s&nbsp;<em>command</em>&nbsp;is transgressed not only by bold faced disobedience, but equally by seeking to get around its real force and by&nbsp;<em>omitting</em>&nbsp;to do what that command implies. Accepting the real implication of God&rsquo;s inspired word means that we will fearlessly break with tradition when necessary, and will examine whether our response to His word is direct obedience or rather a mirage, &lsquo;getting around&rsquo; the direct requirement. All this is the practical outcome of believing the Bible to be inspired.&nbsp;</p><p>The tradition in view is not specifically their teaching about washing. The subsequent context shows the Lord has in view other traditions. His argument is therefore &lsquo;If&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;of your traditions are wrong and unBiblical, then why demand we keep other traditions which are within that same body of tradition&rsquo;. And so He relentlessly requires that tradition within any religious group is fearlessly analysed- if some are unBiblical, then the others need not be respected. Just as &ldquo;tradition&rdquo; and &ldquo;commandment&rdquo; are placed in apposition to each other, likewise &ldquo;your&rdquo; is in opposition to &ldquo;of God&rdquo;. Elevating tradition to the status of Divine commandment is yet another way in which religious people &lsquo;play God&rsquo;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1745','1','41','7','10','10','<p>7:10<em> For Moses said- &quot;</em>Commanded&quot;. God\'s word speaks directly to us, whereas the Greek word for &ldquo;tradition&rdquo; means something passed down. To make the point, the Lord speaks of the commandments of Moses as&nbsp;<em>God </em>commanding. The Jews spoke of&nbsp;<em>Moses&nbsp;</em>commanding (Jn. 8:5), and although the Lord also does (Mt. 8:4), His point is that it was effectively&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;commanding.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Honour your father and your mother, and, He that speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death</em>-Thus the Lord Jesus saw as parallel the commands to honour parents and also not to curse them. These two separate commands (from Ex. 20:12 and 21:17) He spoke of as only one: &quot;<em>the</em> commandment&quot; (Mk. 7:9). He therefore saw that not to honour parents was effectively to curse them (Mk. 7:10). <em>Omitting </em>to honour parents, even if it involved appearing to give one\'s labour to God\'s temple, was therefore the same as <em>committing </em>the sin of cursing them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1746','1','41','7','11','11','<p>7:11<em> But you say- </em>The saying of God (note the word &ldquo;saying&rdquo; in :4) was overridden by the saying of men. This quotation was from the passed down traditions of the Jews. But the Lord says that&nbsp;<em>you&nbsp;</em>say this. The &lsquo;saying&rsquo; of the Rabbis became the &lsquo;saying&rsquo; of those who obeyed them. Thus obedience to a command (in this case, of men) is counted as &lsquo;saying&rsquo; it- for we pass on teaching by our example of doing it. The depth of the Lord&rsquo;s analysis of their behaviour is amazing.</p><p><em>If a man tells- </em>Matthew\'s word means to give a word, or written contract.&nbsp;</p><p><em>His father or his mother: Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban (that is to say, an offering to God)</em>- &quot;Gained&quot; or \'profit\' is a term which reduces love and the care that comes from love to a mere transaction. The Lord taught that to wangle one\'s way out of caring for their parents by delegating it to the synagogue was effectively cursing them, and those guilty must &quot;die the death&quot; (Mk. 7:10,11). To him who knows to do good but does it not, this omission is counted as sin (James 4:17- written in the context of brethren omitting to help each other). See on Mk. 3:4.</p><p>If a gift was made to the temple treasury of what was reckoned to be the obligation of the man to his parents, or if the man agreed to list the temple treasury as a beneficiary in his will, giving to them the amount he would have spent caring for his elderly parents- then he was considered free from having to honour and care for them. The reasoning was that something promised to God in the future was His and could not therefore be spent on parents. But this was&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;honouring the parents (:6). We can&rsquo;t buy our way out of spiritual responsibility by making donations or making legacies which cost us nothing today. We can think that we are devoting ourselves to the Lord\'s cause over and above that which is required of us- when actually, we do nothing of the sort. We can give to the Lord\'s cause, when actually we have only got round the essential intention of God\'s commandments to be generous-spirited and show a true love (Mt. 15:5,6). The Jews fasted on days which the Law did not require of them; but in God\'s ultimate analysis, they did this for themselves, to bolster their own spiritual ego, rather than as a fast which He recognized (Zech. 7:15,16). The more active we are in the community of believers, the more we feel we go the extra miles- the more sober is this warning.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1747','1','41','7','12','12','<p>7:12 <em>You no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother- thus</em>- &quot;Not do anything&quot; is &quot;not honour...&quot; in Matthew. To not honour ones&rsquo; parents is, in the Lord&rsquo;s book, to actively curse them, even though it is doubtful those He was criticizing ever actually did so (Mt. 15:1-6). This is the power of sin of omission.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1748','1','41','7','13','13','<p>7:13 <em>Making void the word of God by your tradition which you have delivered; and you do many similar things</em>- see on Mt. 13:39. It could mean, literally, of no authority. Again the Lord is making the point that practical obedience to God&rsquo;s word is a function of what authority we give it. To disobey God&rsquo;s commands by seeking to &lsquo;get around&rsquo; them is effectively saying that God&rsquo;s word is of no authority. And this is the context of this whole discussion- God&rsquo;s word is the sole authority, and not human tradition and the concessions to disobedience made by men. His word is sent forth and&nbsp;<em>will accomplish&nbsp;</em>its purpose, Isaiah says; and yet we can make &ldquo;the word of God of none effect&rdquo; by our traditions or our lack of preaching it. The word / Gospel will inevitably have a result, and yet it is also limited by the attitudes of men.<br />Or we can understand &ldquo;effect&rdquo; as just that- effect. The command to honour and practically care for elderly parents had an &ldquo;effect&rdquo;. God&rsquo;s laws are not simple tests of obedience for the sake of it. The process of obedience has &ldquo;effect&rdquo;; disobedience therefore robs us of the positive effect which obedience will bring. Caring for elderly parents, putting &ldquo;honour&rdquo; into practice rather than leaving it as mere words, is designed to teach us something. In Matthew we read of the &ldquo;commandment&rdquo; (<em>entole</em>) of God, but in Mk. 7:13 of the &ldquo;word&rdquo; (<em>logos</em>) of God. What did the Lord say? Perhaps: &lsquo;You make the commandment, that is, the intention (<em>logos</em>) of God, of no effect&rdquo;. God&rsquo;s word of command is a&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, an intention. See on :9&nbsp;<em>in vain</em>.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1749','1','41','7','14','14','<p>7:14 <em>And again he called to him the crowd, and said to them: Hear me all of you, and understand</em>- His previous teaching in this chapter was therefore given to the &ldquo;scribes and Pharisees&rdquo; in a private audience, so Matthew implies. The Lord was speaking specifically to the crowd, without the presence of the disciples, who only later came to Him (:12). The Greek words for &ldquo;hear and understand&rdquo; were repeatedly used by the Lord in Mt. 13:13,14,15,19. There He had explained to the disciples that the crowds did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>could not</em>&nbsp;&ldquo;hear and understand&rdquo;, and therefore He was confusing them by parables; only the disciples heard and understood. But here, hoping against hope, the Lord makes a desperate appeal to the crowds to hear and understand. Such is His hopefulness that He was unashamed to depart from a declared position about people, and hope that they might somehow respond. We are left to imagine the tone of desperate pleading in His voice as He appealed for them to &ldquo;hear and understand&rdquo; in the light of how He had used those words about the crowds in Mt. 13. In the same spirit, Paul turned to the Gentiles- and yet continued by all means trying to persuade the Jews.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1750','1','41','7','15','15','<p>7:15 <em>There is nothing from outside the man that going into him can defile him- </em>Nothing which enters in can defile (Mt.). The same words are found in the Lord&rsquo;s final message to us in Rev. 21:27- nothing will&nbsp;<em>go into</em>&nbsp;the Kingdom of God which&nbsp;<em>defiles</em>. Surely He had in mind the words He had spoken here 30 years previously. Nothing can go into and defile- but a&nbsp;<em>person</em>&nbsp;can. The Lord is showing that defilement is a personal matter, not a question of avoiding eating or touching &lsquo;unclean&rsquo; things. The whole discussion here about defilement is in the context of the Pharisees criticizing the disciples for eating &ldquo;with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands&rdquo; (Mk. 7:2 s.w.). Paul had meditated upon the Lord&rsquo;s teaching here deeply, because he clearly alludes to it in saying that he is &ldquo;persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean s.w. &lsquo;defiled&rsquo; in itself&rdquo; (Rom. 14:14). Again we see the nature of the living word- these black words on white paper, those shimmering images on our screens, become the Lord Jesus reasoning with us and persuading us over issues.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>But the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man</em>- Mt. 15 says &quot;what proceeds out of the mouth&quot;. Here we see the huge importance placed by the Lord upon our words. He goes on to explain that it is what comes out of the&nbsp;<em>heart</em>&nbsp;which defiles, but words are an expression of the heart. Therefore by them we shall be judged (Mt. 12:37). What comes out of the heart is what comes out of the mouth (Mt. 15:18)- ultimately, at least, after we have finished all the hypocritical games of trying to say one thing whilst thinking otherwise. And Mark adds that what comes out of&nbsp;<em>the man</em>, what comes out &ldquo;from&nbsp;<em>within</em>&rdquo;, is what defiles him (Mk. 7:15,23). A man is his heart and so he is his words, just as &ldquo;the word was and is God&rdquo;. We note that the same word is used about gracious words &lsquo;proceeding out of the Lord&rsquo;s mouth&rsquo; (Lk. 4:22). They were a reflection of the grace deep within Him, which&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;Him. And likewise ungracious words are not to &lsquo;proceed&rsquo; s.w. from&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;mouths, but only words that &ldquo;may minister grace to the hearers&rdquo; (Eph. 4:29).&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1751','1','41','7','16','16','<p>7:16 <em>If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear</em>- We are granted potential hearing as a gift from God; this is the element of calling and predestination by grace. But we must respond; we must use that gift of spiritual hearing to &quot;hear&quot; in the sense of obedience.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1752','1','41','7','17','17','<p>7:17 <em>When he had entered a house away from the crowd, his disciples asked him about the parable</em>- Matthew says it was Peter who asked, but Mark as Peter\'s gospel omits this. The crowds that followed the Lord didn&rsquo;t understand His parables; in fact, He spoke in parables so that they wouldn&rsquo;t understand, as He intended His teaching only to be grasped by the disciples (Mk. 7:17,18; see on 8:29). Therefore, in that very context, it is significant to read of the Lord&rsquo;s frustration and disappointment when the disciples likewise didn&rsquo;t understand the parables. And the record goes on to show that in fact it was a regular occurrence, that they like the crowds didn&rsquo;t understand the parables, and the Lord had to explain to them later. So the disciples, contrary to the Lord&rsquo;s high hopes of them, were no better than the crowds. They too &lsquo;didn&rsquo;t get it&rsquo;; and Mark&rsquo;s i.e. Peter&rsquo;s record of the Gospel therefore brings out the point that they too, the ones now preaching to the crowds, only got the understanding they did of the Lord by an undeserved grace. This is the kind of humility we need in our teaching of others, especially when it involves correcting their lack of understanding on a point.</p><p>The Lord replies by expanding upon what He has said earlier about a man being defiled by what comes out of him, rather than by what he eats or touches. And yet the Lord&rsquo;s teaching&nbsp;was hardly parabolic. Perhaps it was too much for the disciples to believe that the Lord had declared void the entire conception of becoming unclean by what you eat; and they assumed He must be talking in parables. Peter in Acts 10 was still convinced that defiled food should not ever be eaten. But it could also be that the &ldquo;parable&rdquo; Peter wanted explained was what the Lord had just spoken about the blind leading the blind and falling into a ditch; Lk. 6:39 specifically calls this saying a &ldquo;parable&rdquo;. In this case, the Lord didn&rsquo;t oblige, at least not specifically. He went on to expand on His previous teaching that we are defiled by our own thoughts and words, rather than by what we eat. Perhaps the Lord meant that once that point was truly grasped, then it would be apparent that the Pharisees with their concept of ritual defilement by food were blind leaders- and should not be given the status of leaders.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1753','1','41','7','18','18','<p>7:18<em> And he said to them: Are you without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever from without goes into the man, it cannot defile him</em>- The world would not perceive (Mk. 4:12); but they did, or so the Lord told them. And hence His distress that they did <em>not</em> perceive (Mk. 7:18; 8:17); and yet He said that blessed were their ears and minds, because they understood what had been hidden from so many. Surely He imputed more perception to them than they really had.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1754','1','41','7','19','19','<p>7:19 <em>Because it does not go into his heart but into his belly and is eliminated this he said, thus making all foods clean</em> - See on Acts 10:35,36. Paul really did meditate on every word of his Lord. Thus he says he was <em>persuaded</em> by the Lord Jesus that all foods were clean (Rom. 14:14)- this is how he took the Lord\'s teaching in Mk. 7:19. Those words <em>lived</em> to Paul, they were as the personal persuasion of his Lord, as if Christ was talking to him personally through the Gospel records.</p><p>Jesus clearly explained that nothing a man eats can spiritually defile him;&nbsp;it is what comes out of the heart which does this (Mark 7:15-23).&nbsp;&quot;In saying this, Jesus declared <em>all</em> foods \'clean\'&quot; (Mark 7:19 NIV).&nbsp;Peter was taught the same lesson (Acts 10:14,15), as was Paul:&nbsp;&quot;I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself&quot; (Rom. 14:14).&nbsp;Earlier, Paul had reasoned that to refuse certain foods was a sign of spiritual weakness (Rom. 14:2).&nbsp;Our attitude to food &quot;does not commend us to God&quot; (1 Cor. 8:8).&nbsp;Most incriminating of all is the warning that apostate Christians would teach men, &quot;to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth&quot; (1 Tim. 4:3).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1755','1','41','7','20','20','<p>7:20 <em>And he said: That which proceeds out of the man is what defiles the man</em>- &quot;The man&quot; is here paralleled with &quot;the heart of men&quot; in :21. A man is his heart, his mind. Whatever external appearances and acts are achieved, the Lord looks upon the heart because He looks upon the man.</p><p>I have repeatedly used this verse to demonstrate that sin comes from within, and not from any cosmic being called \'Satan\'. If indeed Satan is responsible for initiating human sin, then this would be the classic place for the Lord to teach it. Instead, He traces sinful words and actions to their true source, the heart. That, in the end, is the great \'satan\', or adversary. &quot;Out of the heart&quot; parallels &quot;out of the&nbsp;<em>mouth</em>&quot; (:18)- the implication is surely that sin is committed through the route of heart - mouth - action. The Lord heavily condemns thought (heart) and words (mouth) because these are considered not sinful, or not very sinful, by human judgment. What one thinks internally is not a criminal act in any court of law, and what one says is only rarely so. External actions are all important in human judgment (remember the context is of washing at meal times)- the Lord is saying that thought and word are the essence which God looks at rather than the external action. What comes out of the mouth comes out of the heart- that is the clear teaching. And yet we fool ourselves into thinking that we can think one thing, and say something else with our mouth. The Lord\'s parallel would suggest that sooner or later, that breaks down, and words reflect thought.&nbsp;</p><p>The Pharisees were concerned about things entering a person and defiling them. The Lord perceptively noted that this implied that a person was basically clean, and just needed to avoid contamination by externalities. His teaching attacked that base assumption- He taught that the inward parts of a man were the source of defilement. This difference in perspective is reflected in differing approaches to the Gospel today. Some focus upon the need for social reform and improvement of the circumstances surrounding people, believing that the right external environment will lead to reformation of life. I favour the approach taken by the Lord- that the essence is of internal reformation, so that in whatever external environment we are living, the internal spirit is pure. The Lord reasons from the very structure of the human alimentary canal, that unclean food is naturally passed out of our system. But there is no such natural, inbuilt ability to deal with matters of the heart. The implication could be that we therefore need external intervention in the arena of the human heart in order to be cleansed and have strength against defilement- and this is precisely the work of the Holy Spirit, bearing in mind that &lsquo;spirit&rsquo; usually refers to the mind / heart. It may be that the Lord is not so much teaching the need to somehow control the fountain of potential defilement thrown up by the heart- as implying that we need a new, cleansed heart. This is what was promised as part of the new covenant (Ez. 18:31; 36:26), and those in Christ have entered that new covenant and received the promised gift of the Spirit to transform the human heart, the &quot;inner man&quot; (Eph. 3:16).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1756','1','41','7','21','21','<p>7:21 <em>For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts- </em>Matthew\'s parallel record uses the same Greek word for &quot;thoughts&quot;, but different ones for &quot;proceed&quot; and &quot;evil&quot;, although the meaning is similar. The Lord likely said the same thing twice, repeating phrases in sentences, and repeating whole sentences with slight differences. This was inevitable in speaking without speech reinforcement and with much background noise. Further, given the illiteracy of the audience and the newness of the ideas being presented, any teacher would have repeated the ideas several times over, using slightly different words. I have often found myself doing this when speaking in a missionary context to illiterate people. Once I replayed a recording of my preaching, and noticed myself doing this. From then on, I never had much problem with the fact that the parallel records in the Gospels often use different words and phrases for the same ideas. And of course it\'s highly likely the Lord spoke in Aramaic, and Matthew and Mark are as it were translating that Aramaic into literary Greek. It\'s absolutely legitimate to translate an original spoken word in various ways, indeed it would appear suspicious, forced and unnatural if the Gospel writers used precisely the same Greek to translate the Lord\'s original Aramaic. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The Greek for &quot;thoughts&quot; means reasonings or disputings (s.w. Phil. 2:14). The Lord surely had in mind the cunning but carnal reasoning of the Pharisees which is mentioned at the start of this section (15:1-6). There are separate Greek words used here for &quot;evil&quot; and &quot;thoughts&quot;; but every single one of the 14 New Testament usages of the word&nbsp;<em>dialogismos</em>&nbsp;(&quot;thoughts&quot;) is in a distinctly sinful context (Mk. 7:21; Lk. 2:35; 5:22; 6:8; 9:46,47; 24:38; Rom. 1:21; 14:1; 1 Cor. 3:20; Phil. 2:14; 1 Tim. 2:8; James 2:4). Yet the word itself has no moral overtone, it means simply \'to think / reason\'. But the point is, that human thinking is so often sinful, and is the root cause of sinful behaviour.</p><p><em>Fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries</em>- Notice the purposeful juxtaposition of bad&nbsp;<em>thinking&nbsp;</em>next to murder. This confirms the Lord\'s constant emphasis that the thought is equivalent to the action in His judgment. Murder, adultery and fornication have already been defined in the Sermon on the Mount as being essentially performed in the heart. The list of seven sins here is surely intended to encompass all sin in totality (seven)- whatever specific sin there may be, it originated in a human heart.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1757','1','41','7','22','22','<p>7:22 <em>Covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness</em>- Perhaps the list of evil behaviours here is exactly what the Lord considered the Pharisees to be guilty of in their hearts. There is no shortage of evidence that they were guilty of all these things beneath their appearance of hyper righteousness.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1758','1','41','7','23','23','<p>7:23 <em>All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man</em>-&nbsp; The Greek&nbsp;<em>koinoo</em>&nbsp;&quot;defiles&quot; strictly means \'to make common\'. The later New Testament uses it in a quite different and spiritual way, speaking of how there is a &quot;common faith&quot; (Tit. 1:4; Jude 3) which means that the community of believers are bound together by what they have &quot;in common&quot; (Acts 2:44; 4:32). The Lord\'s new Israel had new principles. If the heart was cleansed, then the focus moved from fear of collective&nbsp;<em>defilement</em>&nbsp;to rejoicing in and experiencing what we have&nbsp;<em>in common</em>&nbsp;in Christ.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1759','1','41','7','24','24','<p>7:24 <em>From there he arose and went to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and wanted no one to know it; but he could not be hidden</em>- Mt. &quot;He withdrew&quot;. The word is used of fleeing persecution or avoiding difficult circumstances (Mt. 2:12-14,22) and often about Jesus (Mt. 4:12; 12:15 &ldquo;when Jesus knew it, He&nbsp;<em>withdrew Himself</em>&rdquo;; 14:13 &ldquo;When Jesus heard of it, He departed thence&rdquo;). We get the sense of the Lord desperately needing to be away from the crowds, out of the limelight, alone with the Father and the disciples. And yet so often when He makes such a withdrawal, the crowds follow Him, or human need is felt by Him to an almost overpowering extent, so that He again comes into the public view. This need to &lsquo;withdraw&rsquo; may simply have been from basic human fatigue, both physical and psychological. Or there may also have been the desire to focus upon training the twelve rather than being side-tracked by trying to give surface level fragments of teaching to the crowds who were clearly more interested in miracles than in His teaching. Recall how at the end of chapter 12 and from chapter 13 onwards, the Lord turned away from the crowds towards the minority who had responded. But whatever the reason, His responsiveness to human need and potential was amazing.</p><p>The Lord had emphasized earlier that His mission was not to the Gentiles but to the lost sheep of Israel. Perhaps He decided to go to Gentile areas in order to avoid engagement with the crowds and focus upon the disciples. But again, His humanity is indicated by the fact that even that plan had an outcome that He didn&rsquo;t foresee, in that there He met a Gentile woman who so deeply impressed Him by her perception that He healed her daughter.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1760','1','41','7','25','25','<p>7:25 <em>But immediately a woman, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, having heard of him, came and fell down at his feet</em>- &quot;But immediately&quot; shows that the Lord was proven mistaken in thinking that by going to a Gentile area, he would be away from public ministry and able to focus upon teaching the twelve. He as a human did not have full knowledge, and things at times turned out differently to how He expected; just as in His work as a <em>tekton</em> &quot;carpenter&quot; He may well have made mistakes and misjudgements as He cut and sawed and measured.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1761','1','41','7','26','26','<p>7:26 <em>Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by race- </em>Matthew says she was a &quot;Canaanite&quot;. Canaanite women are presented in the Old Testament as very much Israel\'s&nbsp;<em>femmes fatales</em>. Nobody else is described in the New Testament as a person &quot;of Canaan&quot; (see note on Mt. 10:4). Indeed it would appear a term not commonly in use at the time. It is therefore used in order to create associations in Biblically aware minds that here was a woman whom classically, a believer should beware of and give a wide berth to. This fits with the inversion of stereotypes and shattering of expectations which this incident presents. For the Lord had gone to this Gentile area expecting to get a break from engagement with people, because His mission was not to the Gentiles (see on Mt. 15:21&nbsp;<em>Tyre and Sidon</em>).</p><p><em>And she pleaded with him to cast out the demon from her daughter</em>- Matthew: &quot;My daughter is severely oppressed by a demon<em>&quot;. </em>The very same words were repeated by the man of Mt. 17:15. He likewise asked for&nbsp;<em>mercy</em>&nbsp;to be shown to his&nbsp;<em>son</em>, as she had asked for her daughter, because he was likewise &ldquo;badly vexed&rdquo; (the same two Greek words are used). Just as she was inspired by the blind men of Mt. 9:27, so she in her turn inspired another man who heard of her story. This is how communities can get into an upward spiral of spiritual growth.&nbsp;The idea was that a demon had possessed the daughter and was controlling her, perhaps as was thought convulsing her. However, today we understand what causes convulsions- and it isn&rsquo;t demons. The language of being controlled by demons is clearly phenomenological, the language of the day for illnesses which were otherwise inexplicable to the people of the time. The healing of the daughter resulted in her being &ldquo;whole&rdquo; or &ldquo;healed&rdquo; (Mt. 15:28). The implied &lsquo;driving out of demons&rsquo; was simply another way of saying she was cured.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1762','1','41','7','27','27','<p>7:27 <em>And he said to her: Let the children first be filled, for it is not right to take the children\'s bread and cast it to the dogs</em>- The idea could be of taking the food the children were eating, and giving it to the dogs. Or, the Greek could equally mean &lsquo;the food intended for the children&rsquo;. In this case, the Lord would be implying that He had received food to give to the children, and it was inappropriate for Him to instead throw it to the dogs rather than giving it to the children. The&nbsp;<em>artos</em>, &ldquo;bread&rdquo;, is specifically bread rather than food in general. The bread obtained by the Lord is easily understandable as salvation; Judaism expected Messiah to bring manna for Israel, and the Lord makes it clear in John 6 that the manna He would give was Himself and salvation in Him. The bread of Israel was to be the salvation of the world, but it was only given to the world because of Israel&rsquo;s rejection of it. In this we see the economy of God, how even through human rejection of the Gospel, the final purpose of God towards salvation is still furthered.&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord so respected Israel that He felt giving the Gospel to the Gentiles instead of them was like casting good food to dogs. Israel (the children) didn\'t want to eat, but the Lord painted them as if they did. The &quot;crumb&quot; that was cast to the dogs was a great miracle; but Christ saw that as only a crumb of the huge meal that was prepared for Israel. It seems the idea here is meant to be connected with His invitation to us to sit at table with Him and share the meal, both now (Lk. 14:8) and in the Kingdom (Lk. 12:37). Just one crumb of the Lord\'s meal is a mighty miracle, and yet we are asked to sit down and eat the whole meal with Him: as symbolised in our eating of &quot;the Lord\'s supper&quot;. This is an eloquent picture of the greatness of our position as members of His table now, as well as in the future.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1763','1','41','7','28','28','<p>7:28<em> But she answered and said to him- </em>Sometimes what is recorded as being actually said may be only a summary of the real words (consider what the Canaanite woman actually said: Mt. 15:27 cp. Mk. 7:28).</p><p><em>Indeed, Lord- </em>A word signifying her assent to what the Lord had just said. She agreed with the position that the bread of salvation was primarily for Israel and that Gentiles were but dogs.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>&nbsp;But even the dogs under the table eat of the children\'s crumbs- </em>She perceived the healing of her daughter as a mere &ldquo;crumb&rdquo; compared to the bread of the Kingdom, full salvation, which had been obtained for Israel by Jesus. She perceived too that that great salvation had been rejected by them, or at best, treated carelessly and without due respect, in that crumbs had fallen to her. The Lord at the end of Matthew 12 and throughout His subsequent parables of chapter 13 had explained how Israel had rejected the Gospel, and that He was therefore turning to the disciples for response. The parables of Matthew 13 were His attempt to help the disciples come to terms with the fact that in reality, Israel had rejected John&rsquo;s message. But this woman perceived it well, and thereby perceived that the bread of salvation must therefore be available to the Gentiles if Israel didn&rsquo;t want it. In this she was far ahead of the disciples themselves. It could be argued that she was not&nbsp;<em>seeking</em>&nbsp;&lsquo;crumbs&rsquo;, in the sense of equating the hoped for healing with the crumbs. It could be that she is saying that she is already eating of those crumbs, in that she felt she was feeding on whatever small parts of the bread of salvation were possible for her as a Gentile. She says that the dogs&nbsp;<em>are eating</em>&nbsp;the crumbs- rather than begging for them. The Lord was so deeply impressed by the woman&rsquo;s use of metaphor that He Himself builds it into a later parable- Lazarus the beggar desired to eat the crumbs which fell from the rich man&rsquo;s table (Lk. 16:21). The rich man clearly represents Judaism, which was to be condemned and rejected, whilst the beggar was saved. In this we see the Lord&rsquo;s humility as well as His sensitivity; He was deeply impressed by the woman, and absorbed her use of metaphor into His own mental material.</p><p>We can too easily assume that she is considering the Jewish children sitting at the table as the masters of the Gentiles. But she uses&nbsp;<em>kurios</em>&nbsp;for &lsquo;master&rsquo;, and I noted on Mt. 15:22 that she is recorded three times here as addressing Jesus as&nbsp;<em>kurios,&nbsp;</em>&ldquo;Lord&rdquo;. There is no Biblical nor spiritual warrant for thinking of Jews as &lsquo;masters&rsquo; or &lsquo;lords&rsquo; of the Gentiles. Her triple use of&nbsp;<em>kurios</em>&nbsp;regarding the Lord Jesus surely suggests that she is thinking of&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;table, with the bread of Israel&rsquo;s salvation placed upon it&nbsp;<em>by Him</em>, as the lord of the house and the feast- with the Jewish children sitting disinterested and disrespectfully at the table, throwing the food to the eager dogs beneath the table. It was exactly the attitude of the Lord Jesus to table fellowship, His eating with Gentiles and sinners, which was what led the children of Israel to reject Him. And this incident is sandwiched between the records of the feeding miracles, in which the Lord dealt His bread to all and sundry, including Gentiles. This amazing woman accepted Jesus as her Lord even though she felt that she was not fit to sit at His table; she got to be at His table by being as a dog. This amazing devotion to her Lord, fully accepting the barriers there were between them brought about by ethnic birth circumstances beyond her control- resulted in the Lord tearing down those barriers. Significantly, Paul uses the very same Greek words in 1 Cor. 10:21 about eating at the Lord&rsquo;s table- and he has the breaking of bread service in mind. The sharing of table fellowship with Gentiles was a highly divisive issue in the communities of Jewish Christians who first responded to Matthew&rsquo;s Gospel. He is surely making the point that in a strange way, Gentiles partook of the Lord&rsquo;s table in that even the dogs under the table still eat what is on the table.&nbsp; And this happened even during the Lord&rsquo;s ministry. They were &ldquo;under the table&rdquo; (Mk. 7:28)- but still&nbsp;<em>at</em>&nbsp;the table.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1764','1','41','7','29','29','<p>7:29<em> And he said to her: For this saying go your way. The demon is gone out of your daughter</em>- This shows the value which the Lord placed on correct understanding. The Gentile woman had seen the feeding of the 5,000 and <em>understood</em> the implications of the lesson which the Lord was teaching. We get the feeling that the Lord was <em>overjoyed</em> at her perception and therefore made an exception to His rule of not being sent at that time to the Gentiles, but to the house of Israel.&nbsp;</p><p>I think the extraordinary sensitivity of the Lord Jesus is reflected in the many examples of Him displaying extraordinary perception and precognition of what had happened or was going to happen. He had felt that Nathanael was sitting under a fig tree before they even met (Jn. 1:48); He knew the Syro-Phoenician woman&rsquo;s daughter had been cured; He knew the thoughts of men, etc. Now all this may have been due to the Father directly beaming that knowledge into Him through a Holy Spirit gift of knowledge. Maybe. And this was the explanation I assumed for many years. But I have noticed in myself and others that at times, we too have flashes of inexplicable precognition; we somehow know something&rsquo;s happened. I remember sitting next to a sister, and she suddenly came over looking distressed. She simply said: &ldquo;John B&rsquo;s mother has just died&rdquo;. And so indeed it was. I think we&rsquo;ve all had such things happen. And we share the same nature which the Lord had. So my restless mind wonders, and no more than that, whether His extraordinary precognition was not simply a result of a bolt of Holy Spirit knowledge, but rather an outflow of His extraordinary sensitivity to other people and their situations. This Lord is our Lord, the same today as He was back then yesterday. In any case, living as such a sensitive person in such a cruel and insensitive and blunt world would itself have been almost unbearable. And yet He was like that for us, the insensitive, the ignorant, the selfish and the uncaring, in so many moments of our lives.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1765','1','41','7','30','30','<p>7:30 <em>And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed</em>- &quot;She found&quot; could suggest that she did not have complete faith that it had happened until she saw it. The mention that her daughter was lying on the bed, calm, draws a similarity with the healing of Jairus\' daughter; as if to say that there were certain hallmarks to the Lord\'s ministry and work amongst people. We see the same today, and this forms the basis of fellowship between those the Lord has touched. Presumably the girl had been running around in a wild state due to her illness; which means the mother had shown all the more faith in leaving her in order to go to the Lord. The Ethiopic text adds that she was lying &quot;clothed&quot;, suggesting that she had previously torn off her clothes due to her vexation.</p><p>The Lord Jesus used well known medical techniques in His ministry (Mk. 7:33; Jn. 9:6); not because He needed to use them, but in order to somehow get His hearers at ease. And so, it seems to me, He used the language of demons. He dealt with people in terms which they would be able to accept.</p><p>It was done unto her daughter, for her sake- an example of a third party being healed&nbsp;or blessed by the Lord in response to the faith of another person (see Mk. 2:5 for another example- the paralyzed man was cured for the sake of the faith of his friends). This sets a challenging precedent for us in our prayers for others. John seems to consciously allude to the Lord\'s words here when recording how the Lord stated a general principle, that if His words abide in us &quot;You shall ask what you will, and it shall be done unto you&quot; (Jn. 15:7; see too Mt. 18:19). The Lord was setting up that woman as the role model of all who would believe in Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1766','1','41','7','31','31','<p>7:31 <em>And again he left from the borders of Tyre and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis</em>- The Lord was now meeting those to whom the healed Legion had preached to. He had purposefully stopped Legion from coming with him, so that Legion could instead witness where he was. Just as the Lord made a point of visiting the home areas of His disciples, so now He returns to Legion\'s home area. This following up on the work of His converts continues today, as He partners with us in our local witnessing.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1767','1','41','7','32','32','<p>7:32 <em>And they brought to him one that was deaf and had an impediment in his speech; and they begged him to lay his hand upon him</em>- 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. 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. 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>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1768','1','41','7','33','33','<p>7:33 <em>And he took him aside from the crowd, and in private put his fingers into his ears, and he spat, and touched his tongue</em>- The Lord as ever sought to avoid showmanship; He wanted that man to have an intimate personal relationship with Him, knowing that the whole incident would be programmatic for all He does in opening the ears of every believer in Him. The Lord\'s saliva was to touch the man\'s saliva; the Lord\'s spirit and words were to be mixed with the man\'s. Fingers in the ears spoke of deafness; the man was to become deaf in order to hear- suggesting that the true hearing is from being deaf to the world and open to the word of the Lord Jesus. The finger of God was what touched Egypt in causing the plagues (Ex. 8:19; Lk. 11:20); it refers to His power. It is that same immense power which works in opening a man\'s ears, if he so wishes them to be opened, to attend to the word of Jesus. But in subsequent life, he must hear the Lord\'s word and mix his spirit with the Lord\'s. But it was &quot;the finger of God&quot; which wrote the old covenant on tables of stone (Ex. 31:18; Dt. 9:10). The Lord may be implying that a new covenant was being now written on the man\'s mind, through the words / saliva of the Lord Jesus. For the new covenant is to be written by God on human hearts (Heb. 8:10; 10:16). And by grace, the Lord takes the initiative in doing this to people, leaving them to respond further.</p><p>Because the tongue controls swallowing, surely the man was frothing in his own spittle. And yet the Lord spits and puts His spittle on that of the man, to show His complete ability to identify with the human condition. The Lord Jesus used well known medical techniques in His ministry (Mk. 7:33; Jn. 9:6); not because He needed to use them, but in order to somehow get His hearers at ease. And so, it seems to me, He used the language of demons. He dealt with people in terms which they would be able to accept.</p><p>There is however another take on the passage, which the grammar does allow. It is the paraphrase suggested by Adam Clarke: &quot;And Jesus took him aside from the multitude: and the deaf man put his fingers into his ears, intimating thereby to Christ that they were so stopped that he could not hear; and having spat out, that there might be nothing remaining in his mouth to offend the sight when Christ should look at his tongue, he touched his tongue, showing to Christ that it was so bound that he could not speak: and he looked up to heaven, as if to implore assistance from above: and he groaned, being distressed because of his present affliction, and thus implored relief: for, not being able to speak, he could only groan and look up, expressing by these signs, as well as he could, his afflicted state, and the desire he had to be relieved. Then Jesus, having compassion upon him, said, Be opened: and immediately his ears were opened, so that he could hear distinctly; and the impediment to his speaking was removed, so that he spake properly&quot;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1769','1','41','7','34','34','<p>7:34 <em>And looking up to heaven- </em>This is typical of how the Lord prayed, with no barrier between Him and the Father; and He invites us to share the same relationship with the Father which He had, enabled by the gift of the Comforter.</p><p><em>He sighed- </em>This is the Greek word used for our groaning in desire for the Kingdom situation to come about on earth, and for an end to our limited human condition (Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 5:2,4). The Lord knows those groans, for He had them Himself. Therefore His healing of this man, as noted on :32, was to provide a foretaste of His Kingdom. The same word is used of the Lord\'s intercession for us now with &quot;groanings&quot; (Rom. 8:26). This incident of healing, for which the Lord groaned in prayer for it to happen, is therefore a cameo of His present intercession for us. But let us note that His groaning / sighing was not simply in frustration at the human condition, but it merged into prayer to the Father. And this is important for us to follow; otherwise our groanings are merely the groaning complainings of Israel in the wilderness.</p><p><em>And said to him: Ephphatha, that is, Be opened</em>- Recording the Aramaic term used is another indication that this was written by a genuine eyewitness. &quot;Opened&quot; is a term which tends to be used of the opening of ears in understanding (Lk. 24:31,32,45; Acts 16:14; 17:3). The literal opening of his ears was therefore so that his understanding be opened. The Aramaic term &quot;ephphatha&quot; is perhaps used to direct our attention to its Old Testament usage. Israel were the ones whose ears were not opened (Is. 48:8), whereas the ears of Messiah were opened (Is. 50:5). The same Hebrew term is used as &quot;ephphatha&quot;. The Lord\'s ears had been opened, and now He opened the ears of this man- so that the man might be &quot;in Him&quot;, and respond to the Father\'s word as the Lord had done.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1770','1','41','7','35','35','<p>7:35 <em>And his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke plainly</em>- Again, the language of the day is used; the idea that dumb people were literally tongue-tied is alluded to. The more essential idea is that the Lord through His word, His saliva, His spirit, had broken the ties that bind, that seem unmoveable. &quot;Plainly&quot;, <em>orthos</em>, literally means \'correctly, rightly\'. The miracle worked upon the man\'s mind by the Lord\'s spirit and word was to result in right speaking and action from then onwards in the man\'s life. We are reminded of 2 Cor. 3:12: &quot;Seeing then that we have such hope, we have great plainness of speech&quot;. The bold, plain speaking of the disciples in the early chapters of Acts is an example of how this works out in practice in human life.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1771','1','41','7','36','36','<p>7:36 <em>And he ordered them that they should tell no one. But the more he ordered them, the more widely they proclaimed it</em>- See on Mk. 5:19,20. The Lord didn\'t want the man distracted from his spiritual transformation by mass popular interest in him. And yet those who heard him speak would be amazed. And we noted on :35 that plain speaking was a feature of the early preachers of the Gospel. The Lord\'s idea was that the quiet witness of just living ordinary live, speaking plainly and hearing others, was going to be witness enough to Him, without any need for dramatic claims about healing.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1772','1','41','7','37','37','<p>7:37 <em>And they were astonished beyond measure, saying: He has done all things well. He even makes the deaf hear and the dumb speak</em>- This is an echo of how every stage of creation / \'doing\' was pronounced &quot;very good&quot;. The Lord\'s healings were not just done for the sole sake of addressing human need; but in order to create a new creation of persons who would exist to God\'s glory.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1773','1','41','8','1','1','<p>8:1<i> In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him, and said to them</i>- We often meet this note in the Gospels. The implication is surely that if discipleship involves being with and following Jesus, then the disciples are therefore recording their own weakness in noting that they were often&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;with Jesus and had to be called unto Him. And it is observable that in many of the cases of being called to Him, they were somehow astray in action or attitude- separated from Him not just physically. The Greek specifically means &lsquo;to call towards&rsquo;, and so the pattern is established of the Lord&rsquo;s basic call being repeated throughout the course of our discipleship.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1774','1','41','8','2','2','<p>8:2<i> I pity the crowd- </i>The Lord called His men unto Him, and informed them that He had compassion on the hungry multitude. He said no more than that. But the disciples immediately started bleating on about how there was no way they had the money nor ability to arrange so much bread in a deserted place. They understood that their Lord had transferred His compassion onto them; all that was true of Him became true for them.&nbsp;<i>He</i>&nbsp;wanted to feed the multitude;&nbsp;<i>He</i>&nbsp;was feeling compassionate to the crowd; so, axiomatically, so must they. And so must we today, as we face the crowds too. Whatever are the feelings, the mind, of Jesus towards this world; so must our mind be. And He came, without controversy, above all to give His all, to die, for this world&rsquo;s redemption.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>Because they have continued with me- </i>The same word for &quot;continued&quot; is used about believers &lsquo;cleaving unto&rsquo; Jesus (Acts 11:23). The Lord uses the same word about His wish for the disciples to continue with Him in the heat of temptation in Gethsemane (Mt. 26:38), and it is the same word used so often in John for &lsquo;abiding&rsquo; with Christ. The Lord was more sceptical about the (Jewish) crowd in the earlier feeding miracle (of the 5000), later commenting that their interest was largely in the food. This more Gentile crowd (see on Mt. 15:31) He felt were abiding with Him in a more spiritual sense.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>For three days- </i>The provision of manna, the bread of salvation, after three days&hellip; this is surely prophetic of the resurrection. The Lord could have fed them at the end of the first day- three days is a long time not to eat, and they were at the point of losing consciousness due to lack of food (&ldquo;they will faint in the way&rdquo;). The Lord surely didn&rsquo;t provide food earlier in order to prove the level of interest. Surely many did walk away in search of food. But 4000 (at least) remained. It certainly was a great expression of sincere interest in the Lord&rsquo;s message, and compares favourably to that of the crowd of 5000, who were fed after only a few hours. The disciples&rsquo; desire to dismiss this extraordinary group therefore appears even worse.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>And have nothing to eat</i>-The same Greek phrase is on the Lord&rsquo;s lips in Mt. 25:32, where He says that condemnation awaits the man who gives &lsquo;nothing to eat&rsquo; to those who are hungry. The disciples like many of us assume automatically that it can&rsquo;t be their problem to provide others&rsquo; needs if they don&rsquo;t have what is required materially. But the connection between this verse and Mt. 25:32 puts that assumption under a spotlight. Even if we do not have what is needed, our confrontation with that need requires to exercise faith that that need will be resolved. And the resolution of it may well depend upon our&nbsp;<i>faith</i>. This doesn&rsquo;t mean that we ask that material resources are dropped from Heaven into&nbsp;<i>our</i>&nbsp;hands, but rather than they will be provided in order to meet the need.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1775','1','41','8','3','3','<p>8:3 <i>And if I send them away to their homes without food, they will faint on the way; for some of them have come from far away</i>- This is a hint at Gentile presence in the crowd- hence the crowd are described as glorifying &quot;the God of Israel&quot; (Mt. 15:31). The Lord certainly made no attempt to decide who was pure, or who was Jew and who was Gentile; He shared His bread with all who were in need, as He does today, regardless of moral circumstance. By sharing fellowship in this way He seeks to transform and change those who are willing to sit with Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1776','1','41','8','4','4','<p>8:4<i> And his disciples answered him: Where shall one be able to find bread for these men here in such a desolate place?</i>- The wording is so very similar to the LXX of Ex. 16:3, where a faithless Israel asked the same of Moses; and Moses responded, as did the Lord, in providing bread from Heaven. Did the disciples actually say those words? Would they really have said the very words which Israel did in one of their lowest ebbs of faith and understanding? My suggestion is that they did indeed say something similar in essence, but Mark / Peter purposefully recorded it in terms which highlight the similarity with unbelieving Israel- to as it were emphasize how weak the disciples were at that point. Peter was the public leader of the early ecclesia, and yet the Gospels all emphasise his weaknesses. The Gospels all stress the disciples&rsquo; lack of spirituality, their primitive earthiness in comparison to the matchless moral glory of God&rsquo;s Son, their slowness to understand the cross. But there are also more studied references to their failures. Mark&rsquo;s account of their words at the feeding of the crowd is shot through with reference to the attitude of faithless Israel in the wilderness: &ldquo;Where shall we &lsquo;And this includes me, Mark...this is what we said to Him...&rsquo; get bread to satisfy this people in the wilderness?&rdquo;.</p><p>&quot;Where can&quot; is literally &quot;Whence can a man&hellip;&quot;. Their reasoning was that no&nbsp;<i>man</i>&nbsp;could meet this huge need, and so therefore, they naturally couldn&rsquo;t meet it- for they were only men. Man can&rsquo;t, therefore we can&rsquo;t. And so our reasoning goes so often. Something is humanly impossible, therefore it is impossible to me, because I am human. The life and person of the Lord Jesus challenged this thinking very deeply. For He was fully human, of our nature, our representative, and yet did super-human things. With God&rsquo;s manifestation and involvement in human life, then human beings can achieve that which is humanly impossible. And this was exemplified supremely in the Lord Jesus, once we appreciate He was of our nature and not some Divine puppet playing a mere role- as required by Trinitarian theology.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1777','1','41','8','5','5','<p>8:5 <i>And he asked them: How many loaves have you?-</i></p><p><i>And they said: Seven</i>-&nbsp; The feeding of the 4000 is clearly recorded in the same style and with much the same language as the feeding of the 5000. We are surely intended to place the events together. Five loaves were used in the healing of the 5000, and seven here- making a total of 12 loaves. Jewish minds would surely have thought of the 12 loaves on the table of showbread (Lev. 24:5). Moses personally was to &quot;set them&quot; on the table in rows (Lev. 24:1,6), which connects with how the loaves were &quot;set&quot; before the people (Mk. 8:6), who at the feeding of the 5000 were set down in rows (Mk. 6:40 Gk.). The hint was clearly that the most sacred bread of Judaism, the 12 loaves of the showbread, were being set before Gentiles, women, children and secular Jews- by non-priests, the disciples. And all were welcome to partake, without testing their qualification. The rending of the veil into the Most Holy at the Lord\'s death was only really making public that which the Lord had already achieved in His life.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1778','1','41','8','6','6','<p>8:6 <i>And he commanded the crowd to sit down on the ground- </i>The Greek really means to recline at table. This is another indication that He was presenting as it were the Messianic banquet, and fellowshipping at table in a spiritual sense with whoever wished to be present.</p><p><i>And he took the seven loaves and having given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and they set them before the crowd</i>- The same Greek words for &lsquo;took&rsquo; and &lsquo;loaves&rsquo; have just been used in Mt. 15:26, where the Lord told the Gentile woman that it was not appropriate to &lsquo;take&rsquo; the &lsquo;bread&rsquo; (s.w. &ldquo;loaves&rdquo;) intended for Israel and give them to the Gentiles. But now, He does just that (bearing in mind the evidence that this is a partly Gentile crowd). The impression is surely that the woman&rsquo;s spiritual perception deeply impressed the Lord, to the point that He decided the time had come to begin giving Israel&rsquo;s bread to the Gentiles. This openness in both the Father and Son is a function of their supreme sensitivity to men. See on Mt. 16:5.&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord gave the broken bread to the disciples, eloquently speaking of the gift of His life. They in their turn &ldquo;did set before the people&rdquo; (Mk. 8:6). We must pass on that which was given to us by the Lord. Paul is our example in this (1 Cor. 11:23). We must, of course, have a valid relationship with the Lord in the first place, feeling we have definitely received something from Him, if we are to pass it on. The Greek term for &ldquo;set before&rdquo; recurs in 1 Tim. 1:18 and 2 Tim. 2:2 concerning how we simply <i>&nbsp;must </i>pass on the word which has been given to us. Quite simply, if we&rsquo;ve really heard it, really received it, we must pass it on.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1779','1','41','8','7','7','<p>8:7 <i>And they had a few small fishes; and having blessed them, he commanded to set these also before them</i>- Mark&rsquo;s record speaks as if the fish were something of an afterthought (Mk. 8:7); the use of the diminutive word for&nbsp;<i>little</i>&nbsp;fish suggests they thought them hardly worth mentioning. The stress (in Mark) is that&nbsp;<i>they</i>&nbsp;had a few small fish. The situation is of course purposefully similar to that of the feeding of the 5000. They were really intended to learn from it. But they didn&rsquo;t. There were some differences, and one of them was that this time, their own small amount of food was used rather than that of the boy. The Lord was seeking to show that what little they personally had, fish they had personally caught but felt inadequate for the task, could and would be used by Him in order to meet the hunger of the Gentile world.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1780','1','41','8','8','8','<p>8:8 <i>And they ate and were filled- </i>The Lord has just said to the Gentile woman that the Jews must first be &ldquo;filled&rdquo; (s.w. Mk. 7:27) before the Gentile dogs are fed. The feeding of the 4000 comes soon after the Lord&rsquo;s encounter with that woman. It seems the point is that the Lord judged that the time had now come to fill the Gentiles. For this was largely a Gentile crowd (see on :3).&nbsp;</p><p><i>And they gathered seven baskets of broken pieces that remained over</i>- According to Mk. 8:19-21, one of the reasons behind the Lord telling them to do this was simply to make them more deeply aware of the huge amount of bread which the Lord had created- to the point that they should realize that things like bread, and indeed all physical externalities, were just ultimately insignificant to the Lord.</p><p>Literally, &lsquo;the breakages&rsquo;. The word is only ever used in the Gospels about the broken pieces of bread from the feeding miracles. The related verb&nbsp;<i>klao</i>, to break, is used only of the &lsquo;breaking of bread&rsquo; in the feeding miracles, and every other occurrence in the New Testament concerns the breaking of bread service in memory of Jesus (Mt. 26:26; Mk. 14:22; Lk. 22:19; 24:30; Acts 2:46; 20:7,11; 27:35; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24). Clearly the breaking of bread in the miracles is intended to be seen as programmatic for the later &lsquo;breaking of bread&rsquo; services. In this connection it becomes highly significant that there were Gentiles participating, along with women and children, and there was no &lsquo;test of fellowship&rsquo; operated. The simple fact people wanted to be present around Jesus was enough.&nbsp;</p><p>&quot;What was left over&quot; is Gk. &lsquo;super-abounded&rsquo;. This is noted in all five records of the feeding miracles. The poor notice wastage of food, and this was the wastage of food&nbsp;<i>extraordinaire</i>. But such super generosity is the hallmark of God&rsquo;s activity, as it should be a feature of our spirit too. The prodigal recalled how there was always &lsquo;an abundance of loaves&rsquo; with the Father (Gk. &ldquo;bread to the full&rdquo;, AV; Lk. 15:16).&nbsp;</p><p>The incident is surely placed next to that of the Gentile woman eating the &lsquo;crumbs&rsquo; in order to show the eagerness of the Gentiles for the bread of Israel. The amazing example of going three days without food in order to receive spiritual food demonstrated beyond doubt the legitimacy of Gentile interest in the Messianic bread / manna of the Kingdom.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1781','1','41','8','9','9','<p>8:9 <i>And they were about four thousand; and he sent them away</i>- The way the number of eaters is presented at the end of the meal might suggest that this is the equivalent of a bill being presented at the conclusion of a meal. If this is the case, then the hint would be towards Is. 55:1,2, where again we have the theme of free provision of food, and being utterly filled / satisfied: &quot;Come, he who has no money, buy, and eat Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which doesn&rsquo;t satisfy? Listen diligently to Me, and eat you that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness&quot;.&nbsp;</p><p>The Greek of this verse is identical to the conclusion concerning the feeding of the 5000. The similarity between the two feeding miracles is very pointed and extensive. The point may simply be that the Lord was consciously repeating a situation so that the disciples would have the chance to put into practice what they should have learnt from the earlier situation. This principle would explain the strong sense of&nbsp;<i>d&eacute;j&agrave; vu&nbsp;</i>which surely all of us have observed in the course of our lives.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1782','1','41','8','10','10','<p>8:10 <i>And immediately he got into the boat with his disciples and went into the region of Dalmanutha</i>- There is no contradiction with Mt. 15:39 which says they came into the region of Magdalla; Dalmanutha would have been a village within the region of Magdalla. Different words for &quot;region&quot; are used by Matthew and Mark. Perhaps Matthew focuses on &quot;Magdalla&quot; because he may be wishing to say that this was the area from which Mary of Magdalla Magdalene was from.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1783','1','41','8','11','11','<p>8:11 <i>And the Pharisees came and began to question him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, testing him</i>- This was exactly the situation in the wilderness temptations, strengthening the impression that the source of the temptation was the \'Satan\' or adversary of Jewish thinking and the Jewish system. This appears an exact repetition of the situation in Mt. 12:38,39- the same words are used. The point is simply that the same requests and answers were given at different times throughout the Lord\'s ministry. That seems to me to have the ring of truth- for anyone with any missionary experience will nod their head and recall how often that has been their experience. And yet the critics love to make elaborate claims based on the similarity with Mt. 12:38,39. It simply depends with what spirit we come to the records- those who believe in inspiration will see circumstantial evidence for veracity in such things, whereas those bent on downgrading the Gospels to human, fallible records will use the same material to find fault.</p><p>The implication of requesting a sign &quot;from heaven&quot; was that the Lord\'s miraculous signs were from \'satan\', from beneath rather than from above. This was tantamount to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. See notes on Mt. 12:38,39.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1784','1','41','8','12','12','<p>8:12 <i>And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said- </i>As noted on 7:34, this is the word used about the Lord as &quot;the Lord the Spirit&quot; groaning for us in mediation (Rom. 8:26), reflecting how our groaning or sighing for the Kingdom age is known by Him too even now (Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 5:2,4).</p><p><i>Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say to you, No sign shall be given to this generation</i>- Matthew says there would be no sign given apart from that of Jonah being three days within the fish. Here we have a parade example of how the correct picture will only be arrived by careful reading of the whole Bible. A sign was given; but there was no other sign given apart from that one sign.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1785','1','41','8','13','13','<p>8:13 <i>And he left them, and again got into the boat and departed for the other side of the lake</i>- The original words suggest that this is more than a mere notice of the Lord moving on. The Greek for &quot;left&quot; can imply a more conscious and formal abandoning (see examples in Mt. 19:5; Lk. 5:28; Acts 18:19). This would be in line with how in the similar incident in Mt. 12:38-45, the Lord had decided to \'leave\' the masses of Israel and instead focus upon a minority. He \'left\' the majority in the wilderness and went after the one lost sheep until He found it (Lk. 15:4 s.w.). In Matthew 12, the Lord made clear His change in policy- that He was leaving a wicked and adulterous generation and focusing upon the few who had truly responded, i.e. the group of disciples. But here He is again reasoning with the Jews and again formally leaving them. This is not inconsistency, but rather is such behaviour typical of the love that always hopes, that draws a line and yet revisits it in the hope that some will still change. Paul\'s behaviour to the Jews was the same- having turned away from them and towards the Gentiles, he still revisits the Jews in hope they will yet respond to Christ (Acts 13:46).&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1786','1','41','8','14','14','<p>8:14 <i>And they forgot to take bread; and they did not have more than one loaf in the boat with them</i>- This is the very same Greek phrase used about the Lord &lsquo;taking the bread&rsquo; in the feeding miracles (Mt. 14:19; 15:36). The phrase is used a total of 23 times- here, about the taking of bread in the feeding miracles, and about &lsquo;taking bread&rsquo; at the breaking of bread service. To &lsquo;take bread&rsquo; therefore refers to an act of religious significance- for the &lsquo;taking of bread&rsquo; in the feeding miracles was clearly invested with deeper meaning, as brought out in John 6. The disciples at this point seem to have sensed that there was something significant in &lsquo;taking bread&rsquo;- but they had not figured out what. Because when the Lord warns them about the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees, they assume He is referring to their failure to &lsquo;take bread&rsquo;. Their slowness to understand is really brought out in the record.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1787','1','41','8','15','15','<p>8:15<i> And he ordered them, saying: Take heed Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod</i>- The Lord had earlier used yeast as a symbol of influence and effect worked by teaching (Mt. 13:33). But they didn&rsquo;t grasp that He meant &lsquo;beware of the influence and teaching of the Jewish leaders&rsquo;- even though that had been such a major theme of His teaching from the beginning. Instead, they superstitiously felt that they must be at fault concerning &lsquo;bread&rsquo; because the Lord had mentioned yeast, and so they concluded that the Lord considered their forgetting to &lsquo;take bread&rsquo; as being somehow sinful. They were really so far off in understanding, and yet the Lord elsewhere speaks so positively about their understanding of His message.</p><p>The preaching of the Kingdom by us is likened to leaven- a symbol for that which is unclean (Mk. 8:15; 1 Cor. 5:6-8). Perhaps the Lord used this symbol to show that it is our witnessing as humans, as the sons of men, which is what will influence the &lsquo;lump&rsquo; of humanity. People are increasingly acting like the personalities they feel they are expected to be, rather than <i>being</i> who they <i>are</i>.</p><p>Their fear that they might have done something ritually wrong regarding bread was an outcome of their being influenced by the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Their doctrines led to folk like the disciples becoming paranoid and self-suspicious over issues which were irrelevant, and indeed a distraction from the thrust of the Lord\'s teaching and intended way of life for His followers. The same effect can be observed in sincere believers who have fallen under the influence of Christian legalists.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1788','1','41','8','16','16','<p>8:16 <i>And they reasoned one with another, saying: It is because we have no bread</i>- Every one of the 16 NT usages of&nbsp;<i>dialogizomai</i>&nbsp;(and they are all found in the Gospels) is in a negative context, of the reasoning of the flesh against the spirit, or of legalism against faith. The flesh prefers the way of internal debate rather than simple action in faith, because the longer we keep ourselves talking (as it were), the greater the chance we shall be finally disobedient. They &quot;reasoned among themselves&quot;, and the Lord perceived that they so &quot;reasoned&quot; (:8). This double usage of the word is to be found in an earlier Gospel incident, where the Scribes &quot;reasoned in their hearts&quot;, &quot;among themselves&quot;, and the Lord likewise &quot;perceived... that they so reasoned amongst themselves&quot; (Mk. 2:6,8; Lk. 5:21,22). The point is that the disciples were acting like the Jewish religious leaders- which is precisely the context here, for in the preceding verse the Lord has warned them not to become mentally influenced by these people. This part of the Lord\'s ministry has rightly been described as His &quot;crisis in Galilee&quot;- the disciples present themselves here in the Gospel records as far from Him in understanding and spirit.</p><p>&quot;One with another&quot; gives the impression of the disciples away from Jesus, huddled together keeping out of the Lord\'s earshot- and He perceives what they are whispering, and raises the issue with them (Mt. 16:8).&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1789','1','41','8','17','17','<p>8:17<i> And Jesus perceiving it said to them: Why do you so reason, because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart so hardened?</i>- Clearly the Lord was carefully working out a plan of spiritual education for them- an d they failed to respond well to it. He does the same in our lives, although we may be barely perceptive that the process is even running.</p><p>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. See on Mk. 7:18.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1790','1','41','8','18','18','<p>8:18<i> Having eyes, can\'t you see? And having ears, can\'t you hear? And do you not remember?</i>- One gets a fraction of insight into the Lord&rsquo;s struggle when we read that He perceived that the disciples were worried about bread; and He laments that they do not perceive the miracle of the loaves which He had done. His perception, His sensitivity, is contrasted with the lack of these things in His followers. He must have therefore been so humanly alone. There\'s so much we don\'t perceive as we should, so much we are blind to. And this blindness separates us from God. It frustrates the Lord Jesus; he is angry when those who have eyes to see (i.e. have been converted) still don\'t see. &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1791','1','41','8','19','19','<p>8:19 <i>When I broke the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you gather? They said to him: Twelve</i>- The Lord&rsquo;s teaching style continually revolved around posing explicit and implicit questions to His hearers. John&rsquo;s Gospel contains a total of 161 questions; and one brief passage in Mark (Mk. 8:14-21) records how the Lord asked seven questions in quick succession. In this sense, the Lord Jesus intended to be intrusive into human life; He penetrates the depths of our being. His call to pick up a cross and follow Him was radical- so radical, that His hearers both then and now tended to even unconsciously negate the totally radical import of His demands.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1792','1','41','8','20','20','<p>8:20 <i>And when the seven among the four thousand, how many basketfuls of broken pieces did you gather? And they said to him: Seven</i>- The Lord intended them to see a connection between the <i>seven</i> loaves and the <i>seven</i> baskets full of fragments which they gathered. For each loaf, there was a basket of fragments. Perhaps His idea was that effectively, the people didn\'t eat the bread; each loaf was just broken into pieces by the Lord and then left on the ground by the crowd. The idea would be as stated in John 6 that the bread provided represented the Lord and His message, which for the most part was discarded by the crowds, who were simply hooked on getting to see or feel a miracle.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1793','1','41','8','21','21','<p>8:21 <i>And he said to them: How is it that you do not yet understand?</i>- On their own admission in the Gospel records, the understanding of the disciples was pitiful. Not only did they not really listen to the Lord&rsquo;s words, the words of the Only Begotten Son of God, but they retained many misconceptions from the world around them which did not accept Him. Thus after two miracles relating to bread, they failed to see that literal bread was not so significant to the Lord.</p><p>The disciples were rebuked as being &quot;of little faith&quot; in the matter of not&nbsp;<i>understanding</i>&nbsp;the Lord\'s teaching about leaven (Mt. 16:8-11). It has been commented that the sayings of Jesus &quot;are everywhere too subtly penetrated with theological claims and dogmatical instruction for the distinction commonly drawn between Christian &quot;ethics&quot; and Christian &quot;dogma&quot; to be other than forced or artificial&quot;. His doctrines lead to His practice. Doctrine is likened by the Lord to yeast- it is going to affect the holder of it.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1794','1','41','8','22','22','<p>8:22- see on Mk. 5:1.</p><p><i>And they went to Bethsaida. And they brought to him a blind man, and begged him to touch him</i>- Perhaps the &quot;they&quot; was the disciples, seeing that Philip was from Bethsaida (Jn. 1:44), and that despite the Lord having done many miracles in this village previously, they still had not repented (Mt. 11:21).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1795','1','41','8','23','23','<p>8:23 <i>And he took hold of the blind man by the hand and brought him out of the village; and when he had spat on his eyes and laid his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw anything</i>- Trying to do the miracle as privately as possible and using His saliva is very similar to the healing of the deaf man in 7:33. Again the idea, as noted there, was that the Lord wanted the healed man to subsequently \'see\' Him; and to see in the cure something intimate between Himself and the Lord. The Lord\'s spirit and word was represented by His saliva. This was what was to give the man spiritual vision.</p><p>Ultimately, we will only truly see in the Kingdom (Is. 29:18; 42:6; 1 Cor. 13:12). Then we will know (see) face to face. We will see God face to face, i.e. understand Him. It follows therefore that in some ways we are blind, or partially sighted, now. This is indicated by the Lord\'s symbolic healing of the blind man in two stages (Mk. 8:23-26). Firstly, the man saw men as if they were walking trees. Probably he scarcely knew what a tree or man looked like. Yet he is described as receiving his sight at this stage (8:24 Gk.). And then the Lord touched his eyes again, and again he is described (in the Greek) as receiving his sight (8:25- same phrase as in v.24). This time he saw all things (Gk.) clearly. This surely represents the full spiritual vision of the Kingdom. According to this type, we are at the stage of seeing men as if they are walking trees, perhaps wildly guessing about some things, lacking the most basic sense of proportion. Perhaps when we speak so glibly about &quot;eternal life&quot; or being in the Kingdom, we are speaking as that partially healed blind man.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1796','1','41','8','24','24','<p>8:24<i> And he looked up, and said: I see men. But I see them as trees, walking</i>- The healing of the blind man is unusual in that the healing was in two stages. Initially the man only &ldquo;beheld men as trees, walking&rdquo;. As a blind man, he would have had very limited experience of people. He initially saw them merely as part of the landscape, as important to him as trees. But the aim of the miracle was to convict him of this, and lead him to understand people as more than trees, more than just part of the natural creation with as much meaning as trees. That man represented us all; part of coming to the light, of receiving spiritual sight, is to perceive the value and meaning of persons; to see the world of persons rather than a world of things. No longer will we divide people as the world does into winners and losers, successes and failures; rather will we see in each one we meet a potential brother or sister. For they have all been invited into God&rsquo;s family, insofar as we pass them the invitation.</p><p>Having a true, accurate self-perception and appreciating the tremendous significance of the true person as opposed to our mere personas... this affects our relation to others. We will seek to decode the images presented to us by our brethren, and relate to the Christ-man within them, to the real and true person rather than the persona they act out. Because we see the Christ within them, the real Duncan or Dmitry or Ludmila or Sue or Jorge&hellip; we will realize that relationships are worth fighting for. The world of unbelievers then becomes perceived as a mass of persons waiting to be born, to become born again after the image of Christ through their conversion and baptism.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1797','1','41','8','25','25','<p>8:25- see on Mt. 20:32.</p><p><i>Then Jesus put his hands on his eyes again and made him look up. And his sight was restored, and he saw everyone clearly</i>- The way the Lord healed people reflects His sensitivity- He commanded food to be brought for a girl who had been dead and was therefore hungry (Lk. 8:55), and perhaps here He healed the blind man in two stages so that he wouldn&rsquo;t be scared when he first saw people moving. &quot;His sight was restored&quot; is in some manuscripts &quot;he was restored&quot; (as AV). The same word is used of the restoration of the Kingdom (Acts 1:6), which was potentially possible for the Elijah ministry through John the Baptist to achieve (Mt. 17:11). The implication is that &quot;in our lives, Your Kingdom comes&quot;. In a limited sense, we as persons become those under the dominion of the King, the Kingdom restored at least in our hearts and vision / outlook. And it is the vision which the Lord gives which enables us to see all men clearly, to see people as we should, to understood the world as a world of persons rather than vague objects we encounter or collide with as we stumble through life.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1798','1','41','8','26','26','<p>8:26 <i>And he sent him away to his home, saying: Do not even enter into the village</i>- The Lord is recorded in the next verse as going into villages to preach (:27). Perhaps the implication is that the man needed some time, however brief, to prepare him to be able to preach as his Lord did. Some time alone to just get used to seeing, to understand the world through his new eyes, before talking to others about what had happened to him. Paul too had time in the wilderness before his main preaching mission began, as did the Lord.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1799','1','41','8','27','27','<p>8:27 <i>And Jesus went with his disciples into the villages of Caesarea Philippi, and on the way he questioned his disciples, saying to them- </i>Again we get the impression that the Lord was working to educate the disciples according to some kind of program. He surely would have loved to ask them this question earlier, but He waited for some reason until they were in Caesarea Philippi. What that reason was isn\'t clear. Perhaps He wanted to wait until they were back in Jewish territory after their excursion into Gentile territory, the purpose of which had been to get away from the spotlight of publicity and teach the disciples. And like a good teacher, now the Lord tested their apprehension of His teaching.</p><p><i>Who do men say that I am?</i>- This was to pave the way for His more significant, personal question: Whom do&nbsp;<i>you</i>&nbsp;say I am? (:29). &quot;Say&quot; translates&nbsp;<i>lego</i>&nbsp;which more specifically means to speak rather than \'to believe\' or \'to understand\'. He wanted to know the words of men&rsquo;s\' actual lips about Him- which again hints that the disciples were not with the Lord all the time. They were often with people when the Lord wasn\'t present. Psychologically, considering others\' views of Christ helps us better understand where we personally stand regarding Him- indeed, this is true generally in terms of self-understanding. Hence the Lord firstly asks whom others thought Him to be, rather than simply asking the disciples whether they believed in Him as the Son of God.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1800','1','41','8','28','28','<p>8:28 <i>And they told him, saying: John the Baptist- </i>Literally,&nbsp;<i>the&nbsp;</i>John the Baptist. &quot;Some...&quot; is simply translating&nbsp;<i>ho</i>, the definite article. &quot;The John the Baptist&quot; would therefore appear to be the main opinion- after that, some thought Jesus was Elijah, others thought He was another of the prophets. There was a strong belief in dead people reappearing in the form of others,&nbsp;<i>redivivus</i>, a kind of reincarnation. This had been Herod\'s view of Jesus, that He was the resurrected John the Baptist. None of the opinions they list include the possibility that Jesus was Messiah. The disciples\' answer is therefore a tacit recognition of the failure of John\'s ministry. He was known even at that early stage as &quot;John the Baptist&quot; because his baptism of so many people was what he was noted for. But that baptism, that recognition of sin, had not led people to accept Jesus as the Christ. It happens so often, that we can have a temporary conviction of sin, and even do something about it- but to fully come to Christ is a different question, and it seems that few go on to make that vital connection.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>And others, Elijah- </i>John\'s crisis of faith in prison involved him thinking that perhaps he had only been the herald of Elijah, rather than Messiah- and that therefore perhaps Jesus was the Elijah prophet. See on Mt. 11:3. And it seems some had accepted that view. This is the problem with crises of faith- others are affected by them and can easily share our opinion. In Jn. 6:14 we learn that after the miracle of feeding the 5000, the crowd thought that Jesus must be &quot;that prophet which should come into the world&quot;. But by &quot;that prophet&quot; they likely referred to Elijah or a herald of Elijah- and not Messiah.</p><p><i>But others, one of the prophets</i>- Why so much misunderstanding? Perhaps because it demands far less faith to accept Jesus as a prophet, a holy man, than as being the unique Son of God, Saviour and Messiah; it demands far less response in practice. Islam presents Jesus as a &quot;prophet&quot;, the new age religions as a &quot;top bloke&quot;. But to accept Him as He is demands not only more faith, but also far more response in practice.</p><p>We can note that in Mt. 12:23 the crowd asks: &quot;Is not this the Son of David?&quot;. That was a Messianic title. But the answer given here shows that this suspicion that Jesus might be Messiah was just a passing thing. The miracles themselves did not persuade the crowds of the Lord\'s Messiahship. Pentecostals should take note of that- miracles do not necessarily produce faith.</p><p>The false notion that the Lord Jesus literally pre-existed and was then somehow incarnated, or re-incarnated, was a pagan idea that had become popular in Judaism around the time of Christ. In fact the road to the Trinity began with Justin and other \'church fathers\' coming to teach that Jesus personally pre-existed- even though they initially denied that He was God Himself. The Qumran sect, some of whose followers became the first Christians, believed that the &quot;Teacher of Righteousness&quot; pre-existed as the former prophets and would be an incarnation of them. This explains why they thought Messiah had previously been incarnated as Moses, Elijah and the prophets. In this lies the significance of the account here. Jesus enquires who the people think He is- and the disciples answer that the popular view is that Jesus of Nazareth is Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets reincarnated. But this was exactly who first century Judaism thought Messiah would be. So the crowd view was indeed that Jesus was Messiah- but &quot;Messiah&quot; as they understood Messiah would be. The significance of the incident lies in Peter\'s affirmation that Jesus, whom he accepted as Messiah, was not a re-incarnation of a pre-existent prophet but was the begotten Son of God. Note in passing that the false doctrine of pre-existence is connected to the pagan myth of incarnation and re-incarnation. If, for example, Jesus really was existing in Old Testament times, then somehow He would have had to have been re-incarnated in Mary\'s womb.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('1801','1','41','8','29','29','<p>8:29 <i>And he asked them: But who do you say that I am?- </i>The effort required in interpreting Jesus is, it seems to me, designed by God, whose word it is which we are discussing. The intention is to make us think about Jesus, struggle with the issue of His identity and nature, in order that we should understand Him better, and thereby love and serve Him the more intently. Perhaps that is why so little is recorded of Jesus- all the speeches and actions of Jesus found in the Gospels would\'ve occupied only three weeks or so of real time. The rest of His life, words and actions we are left to imagine, given what we do know of Him. He wants us to reflect, as He did the disciples, &quot;Whom do&nbsp;<i>you</i>&nbsp;think I am?&quot; (Mk. 8:29). Perhaps that is why at least in Mark\'s Gospel there is the theme of Jesus not wanting men to be told in point blank terms that He was Messiah.</p><p>&quot;Say&quot;,&nbsp;<i>lego</i>, means to talk out loud, and is the same word used in :28. The Lord may have been asking whom they talked about Him as.&nbsp;<i>Lego&nbsp;</i>means specifically to talk about; the Lord chose not to use words like \'understand\' or \'believe\'. Maybe He is alluding to His principle that words express inner thoughts and beliefs. And so instead of asking them whom they&nbsp;<i>believed&nbsp;</i>or<i> thought&nbsp;</i>Him to be (although that is the essence of His question), He asks them whom they talk about Him as. Because spoken words do ultimately reflect inner faith and understanding.</p><p><i>Peter answered and said to him- </i>Peter is set up as our example and pattern. The records portray him in such a way that we see so clearly the similarities between him and us. The good intentions, the flashes of zeal, the miserable failures, the essential loyalty to the Man who was better than he. The Gospels also portray Peter as the representative of the group of disciples. It is Peter who answers when the Lord asks a question of them all (Mk. 8:29 cp. the other accounts). The way Jesus looks upon all the disciples as He speaks to Peter makes Peter some kind of representative of them all in the Lord&rsquo;s eyes (Mk. 8:33). In Mt. 16:17 Peter is commended for having had the Father reveal Jesus to Him. Yet Mt. 11:27 says that the Father reveals the identity of His Son to&nbsp;<i>all</i>&nbsp;who truly come to Him. Thus Peter is representative of all who have truly perceived the Son&rsquo;s identity in Jesus of Nazareth. In one Gospel, all the disciples ask a question, while in the parallel passage Peter is stated to have asked it (Mk. 7:17 cp. Mt. 15:15 and Mt. 21:20 cp. Mk. 11:21). Even outsiders considered Peter to be representative of all the disciples (Mt. 17:24). &ldquo;Peter and those with him&rdquo; is how the group is described (Mk. 1:36; Lk. 8:45 Gk.; 9:32). Peter&rsquo;s crucial confession that he believed that Jesus was the Son of God is repeated almost verbatim by all the disciples, sometime later (Jn. 6:69; 16:30). He is truly the representative disciple.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>You are the Christ</i>- The confession of Messiahship and this incident of trying to stop the Lord dying are also juxtaposed in Mark&rsquo;s Gospel, which seems to be Mark&rsquo;s transcript of the Gospel account Peter usually preached note, e.g., how Peter defines the termini of the Lord&rsquo;s life in Acts 1:21,22; 10:36-42- just as Mark does in his gospel.&nbsp; Surely Peter is saying that yes, he had grasped the theory that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah; but the import of Messiahship was totally lost upon him. For he had utterly failed to see the connection between Messianic kingship and suffering the death of the cross. He knew Jesus was Messiah, but strongly rejected the suggestion Messiah must suffer. And yet the Lord warmly and positively grasped hold of Peter&rsquo;s positive understanding, such as it was. The Lord&rsquo;s comment &lsquo;Get behind me&rsquo; was exactly the same phrase He had earlier used to the &lsquo;satan&rsquo; in the wilderness when the same temptation to take the Kingdom without the cross had been suggested. It could even be that Peter was the &lsquo;satan&rsquo; of the wilderness conversations; or at least, in essence he was united with that satan. Hence the Lord told him that he was a satan. And interestingly, only Mark aka Peter describes the Lord as being tempted in the wilderness of<i> satan</i>&nbsp;rather than the&nbsp;<i>devil</i>. And he records how&nbsp;<i>he</i>&nbsp;was a satan to the Lord later on. &nbsp;</p><p>Peter&rsquo;s proclamation of Jesus as Messiah half way through Matthew and Mark&rsquo;s records of the Gospel (Mk. 8:29) is presented by them as a climax of understanding. And yet according to Jn. 1:41, Andrew and Peter had known this right from the start. The implication is surely that they, as simple working men, probably illiterate, had merely repeated in awe words and phrases like &ldquo;Messiah&rdquo; and &ldquo;Son of God&rdquo; with no real sense of their import. Yet again, the Lord gently bore with their misunderstandings, and Peter of his own initiative, 18 months later, came to gleefully blurt out the same basic ideas but with now far deeper insight- although he still incorrectly perceived the Messiah as one who would not suffer but provide instant glorification. Thus the spiritual growth of the disciples is revealed.</p><p>Rarely in the Gospels does someone actually declare Jesus to be the Christ, the anointed one, Messiah. This of course was the thrust of John\'s teaching, denying that he was the Christ but saying that he was heralding Him. Despite all the surface level response to John, with so many baptized that he was known as &quot;the Baptist&quot; very soon after His death, it seems that only the disciples really grasped his essential message about Jesus. See on Mt. 16:14. Peter had made the same confession of faith in the same words (&quot;You are the Christ, the Son of the living God&quot;) some time previously, after the feeding of the 5000 (Jn. 6:69). It would seem that &quot;the Christ, the Son of God&quot; is therefore being presented as a formula for confession of faith. Martha likewise confesses faith in Jesus as &quot;the Christ, the Son of God&quot; (Jn. 11:27). The connection between the words &quot;Christ&quot; and &quot;Son of God&quot; is found elsewhere. Mark\'s Gospel is a proclamation of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (Mk. 1:1); Luke begins his Gospel predicting that Messiah would be &quot;called... Son of God&quot; (Lk. 1:32,35), not by being named &quot;Son of God&quot; by Mary (He was named \'Jesus\'), but called on as Son of God by those believing in Him. Indeed it was the whole intention of John\'s Gospel to bring people to faith in &quot;the Christ the Son of God&quot; (Jn. 20:31). Therefore the Eunuch\'s confession before baptism that he believed that &quot;Jesus Christ is the Son of God&quot; (Acts 8:37) can be seen as a triumph of the Gospel- Philip likewise preached towards the same end as John did through his Gospel. Paul likewise preached the &quot;Christ... is the Son of God&quot; (Acts 9:20). A \'Christ\' was simply an \'anointed one\', someone anointed or commissioned for a specific task- and there had been many people anointed in this way. The uniqueness about Jesus the Christ was that this Christ was the uniquely begotten Son of God. This explains why there is such a strong emphasis upon believing that Jesus was the Christ who was Son of God. And to this day, it is this uniqueness which differentiates the real Christ from a mere understanding that He was a good man who did indeed historically exist and die. The question is how much more, if anything, was required from people in terms of understanding before a person was considered to have believed \'in Christ\'. The evidence of Acts and the Gospels would appear to indicate that \'belief in Christ\' meant simply believing that He was Son of God and identifying with Him. The centurion (Mt. 27:54), healed persons (Mk. 3:11) etc. are all examples of this.</p><p>Twice in Mark, Jesus is addressed as &quot;Messiah&quot; but He replies by calling Himself &quot;the Son of man&quot; (Mk. 8:29-31; 14:61,62). If this was His preferred self-perception, should it not be how we perceive Him?</p>');
