insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2303','1','42','3','5','5','<p>3:5 <i>Every valley shall be filled and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the crooked paths shall become straight, and the rough ways smooth</i>- John the Baptist\'s ministry was so that the \'crooked\' nation of Israel should be \'made straight\' and ready to accept Jesus as Messiah. God\'s enabling power was present so that this might have happened; but the same word is used in Acts 2:40 and Phil. 2:15 to describe Israel as still being a \'crooked\' nation. John\'s preaching, like ours, was potentially able to bring about the conversion of an entire nation. So instead of being discouraged by the lack of response to our witness, let\'s remember the enormous potential power which there is behind it. Every word, witness of any kind, tract left lying on a seat... has such huge potential conversion power lodged within it, a power from God Himself.</p><p>John\'s mission was to prepare Israel for Christ, to figuratively \'<i>bring low\' </i>the hills and mountains, the proud Jews of first century Israel, and raise the valleys, i.e. inspire the humble with the real possibility of salvation in Christ. Paul uses the same Greek word for &quot;bring low&quot; no fewer than three times, concerning how the Gospel has humbled him (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 11:7; Phil. 4:12). It\'s as if he\'s saying: \'John\'s preaching did finally have its&rsquo; effect upon me; it did finally make me humble enough for the Lord Jesus\'. And as John made straight paths for men\'s feet that they might come unto Christ (Mt. 3:3), so did Paul (Heb. 12:13).&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2304','1','42','3','6','6','<p>3:6 <i>And all flesh</i>- See on Mt. 3:3.</p><p><i>Shall see the salvation of God</i>- John perceived how eager God is to forgive, and how our acceptance of that forgiveness is His glory and His salvation. John says, quoting Is. 40:5, that if men repent and ready themselves for the Lord&rsquo;s coming, then &ldquo;all flesh shall see the salvation of God&rdquo;. But he is changing the quotation- Isaiah said that all flesh shall see the glory of God. But saving men and women is the thing God glories in.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2305','1','42','3','7','7','<p>3:7<i> He said to the crowds that went out to be baptized by him: You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?</i>-The ideas of fleeing wrath and preparing a way are surely based upon the Law&rsquo;s command in Dt. 19:3 that a way or road should be prepared to the city of refuge (symbolic of Christ- Heb. 6:18), along which the person under the death sentence for manslaughter could flee for refuge. John was preparing that way or road to Christ, and urging ordinary people to flee along it. They didn&rsquo;t like to think they were under a death sentence for murder. They were just ordinary folk like the soldiers who grumbled about their wages, and the publicans who were a bit less than honest at work. But they had to flee. But they wouldn&rsquo;t be alone in that. If a man prepares his way after God&rsquo;s principles (2 Chron. 27:6; Prov. 4:26), then God will &lsquo;prepare&rsquo; that man&rsquo;s way too (Ps. 37:23; 119:5), confirming him in the way of escape.</p><p>This intense, urgent presentation of the ultimate issues of life and death, acceptance and rejection, brought forth a massive response. People lined up for baptism. And John was hardly polite. He called his baptismal candidates a &ldquo;generation of vipers&rdquo;, alluding obviously to the seed of the serpent in Gen. 3:15. Yet his tough line with them, his convicting them of sin, led them to ask what precisely they must do, in order to be baptized. They didn&rsquo;t turn away in offence. They somehow sensed he was for real, and the message he preached couldn&rsquo;t be ignored or shrugged off as the ravings of a fanatic. Time and again we see the same- the very height of the demand of Christ of itself convicts men and women of Him. And it&rsquo;s for this reason that it seems almost &lsquo;easier&rsquo; to convict people of Christ and the need for baptism into Him in societies e.g. radical Moslem ones where the price for conversion to Him is death or serious persecution&hellip; than in the easy going Western countries where being &lsquo;Christian&rsquo; is the normal cultural thing to do.</p><p>The Gospel was presented in different forms by the early preachers, according to their audience. John the Baptist set the pattern in this. Having quoted the prophecy about the need for the rough to be made smooth and the proud to be humbled in order for them to accept Jesus, John &ldquo;said <i>therefore</i> to the multitude&hellip; ye offspring of vipers&rdquo; (Lk. 3:7 RV). He used tough and startling language because that was what the audience required. He had set his aims- to humble the proud. And so he used &ldquo;therefore&rdquo; appropriate approaches. The early preachers as Paul became all things to all men, so that they might win some. They therefore consciously matched their presentation and <i>how</i> they articulated the same basic truths to their audience.<br />But perhaps even his comment &ldquo;Generation of vipers&rdquo; was said with a heart of love and appeal, reflecting the &ldquo;heart of mercy&rdquo; which he had come to know in the Father. He was &ldquo;the friend of the bridegroom&rdquo; (Jn. 3:29)- the one who introduced the groom to the bride and arranged the marriage and then the wedding. John&rsquo;s &ldquo;Generation of vipers&rdquo; stuff was all part of his attempt to persuade the bride, Israel, to accept the groom, the Lord Jesus. He wasn&rsquo;t angrily moralizing, lashing out at society as many a dysfunctional preacher does today, working out his own anger by criticizing and condemning society in the name of God. No, John was appealing. He had an agenda and an aim- to bring Israel and the Son of God together in marriage.</p><p>When asked who he was, John&rsquo;s reply was simply: &ldquo;a voice&rdquo;. He was nothing; his message about Jesus was everything. In all this there is a far cry from the self-confident, self-projecting speaking off the podium which characterizes so much of our &lsquo;preaching&rsquo; today. So John&rsquo;s appeal to repentance was shot through with a recognition of his own humanity. It wasn&rsquo;t mere moralizing. We likely don&rsquo;t preach as John did because we fear that confronting people with their sins is inappropriate for us to do, because we too are sinners. But with recognition of our own humanity, we build a bridge between our audience and ourselves. In this context it\'s worth reconsidering Lk. 3:7: &quot;Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?&quot;. John said these words to those who were coming to him wishing to be baptized by him- exactly because he had warned them of the wrath to come. It\'s possible that John meant this as a rhetorical reflection, thus enabling us to paraphrase him something like this: \'And what kind of man am I, who am I, just another sinful guy like you, who has warned you to flee? I\'m nothing- don\'t get baptized because of me, but because you repent and are committed to bringing forth the fruits of repentance&quot;. And it&rsquo;s worth meditating that if Israel had responded to his preaching, then the glorious salvation of God might have even then been revealed in the form of the Kingdom coming on earth, even then. But instead of heeding John&rsquo;s message, Israel in the end crucified their King, necessitating a latter day John the Baptist mission (Mt. 11:13,14; 17:11,12). And it&rsquo;s not going too far to suggest that our latter day witness to Israel and indeed to the world is to conducted in the spirit of John&rsquo;s preaching; hence the crucial importance of understanding the spirit and content of his witness.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2306','1','42','3','8','8','<p>3:8 <i>Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves: We have Abraham as our father. For I say to you, that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones</i>- The eagerness of John for the inculcation of faith is seen in the way He foresees the likely thought processes within men. &ldquo;Begin not to say within yourselves....&rdquo; (Lk. 3:8), He told a generation of vipers; and the Lord eagerly strengthened the centurion&rsquo;s faith when it was announced that faith was pointless, because his daughter had died. Always the Biblical emphasis is upon internal thought processes and the need to be aware of them. John\'s great convert Paul several times uses the same device in his letters- foreseeing the likely thought process in response to his message, and answering it ahead of time (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:35).</p><p>&quot;These stones&quot; was said perhaps pointing to the stones. Perhaps they were the 12 stones set up after the Jordan crossing (Josh. 3 and 4). There is a word play between&nbsp;<i>avanim</i>, stones, and&nbsp;<i>banim, </i>sons.&nbsp;<i>Avanim</i>, stones, in turn sounds like&nbsp;<i>evyonim</i>, the term for the poor, the social outcasts- these were the &quot;stones&quot; which were being accepted into the covenant of grace.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2307','1','42','3','9','9','<p>3:9- see on Lk. 13:8; Col. 3:13.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>And even now, the axe also lies at the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bring forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire</i>- John\'s words about cutting down the fruitless tree are directly quoted by the Lord Jesus in Mt. 7:17-19; 12:33- as if to show His solidarity with John\'s teaching. Perhaps the Lord Jesus had heard these very words being preached by John when He went to be baptized by him. &quot;Now also&quot;, right now; John felt that the day of Christ\'s judgment was very close. The language of gathering grain into the barn and burning the chaff is used by the Lord concerning the future judgment at His second coming (Mt. 13:30). John saw the Lord Jesus as already having the winnowing fork in His hand (Mt. 3:13), meaning that in essence, judgment began with the ministry of Jesus. In essence, we stand before His judgment right now. Judgment day is not some unknown future entity which has no connection with this life.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2308','1','42','3','10','10','<p>3:10 <i>And the crowds asked him, saying: What then must we do?</i>- Luke phrases this in the same language he uses of the crowds who responded to Peter\'s preaching in Acts 2. The answer was the same- repent, accept Jesus as Messiah and be baptized. John saw the essence of the Christian gospel as just that, and it was essentially the same message taught by both John and Peter. </p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2309','1','42','3','11','11','<p>3:11 <i>And he answered and said to them: He that has two coats, let him give to him that has none, and he that has food, let him do likewise</i>- In order to prepare the way of the Lord, to make a level passage for Him, the man with two coats should give to him who had none, and likewise share his food. So the &lsquo;equality&rsquo; and levelling was to be one of practical care for others. We have to ask, how often we have shared our food, clothing or money with those who don&rsquo;t have&hellip; for this is all part of preparing for the Lord&rsquo;s coming. It could even be that when there is more of what Paul calls &ldquo;an equality&rdquo; amongst the community of believers, that then the way of the Lord will have been prepared. And He will then return.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2310','1','42','3','12','12','<p>3:12 <i>And there came also tax collectors to be baptized; and they said to him: Teacher, what must we do?</i>- There is a parallel between desiring baptism and realizing that they must <i>do</i> something concretely in their lives. The baptism process brings us into the realm of God\'s gracious forgiveness and redemption, and into living contact with the real Christ. There is no way we can be passive to this and do nothing about it. Note that Matthew himself was a publican and also records this- this is an example of the Gospel records being a transcript of the message standardly taught by e.g. Matthew.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2311','1','42','3','13','13','<p>3:13 <i>And he said to them: Collect no more than what you have been ordered to</i>- John the Baptist showed a spirit of concession to human weakness in his preaching. He told the publicans: &ldquo;Extort no more than that which is appointed you&rdquo; (Lk. 3:13 RV). He tacitly accepted that these men would be into extortion. But within limits, he let it go. Likewise he told soldiers to be content with their wages- not to quit the job. And seeing there were no Roman Legions in Judaea at his time Josephus, <i>Antiquities</i> 18.5.1, these were likely Jewish soldiers.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2312','1','42','3','14','14','<p>3:14 <i>And soldiers also asked him, saying: And we, what must we do? And he said to them: Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages</i>-</p><p>The nature of how demanding John was is reflected in his response to the soldiers and publicans. He didn&rsquo;t tell them to quit their jobs, but to live with integrity within those jobs. He told the soldiers to be content with their wages- implying he expected them to not throw in their job. And seeing there were no Roman Legions in Judaea at his time Josephus,&nbsp;<i>Antiquities</i>&nbsp;18.5.1, these were likely Jewish soldiers. He didn&rsquo;t tell them to quit their jobs, but to live with integrity within those jobs. He told the soldiers to be content with their wages- implying he expected them to not throw in their job. This is juxtaposed with the command for them to do no violence. But not grumbling about wages was as fundamental an issue for John as not doing physical violence to people. To have as Paul put it &ldquo;Godliness with contentment&rdquo; another of his allusions to John&rsquo;s preaching? is as important as not doing violence. And yet our tendency is to think that moaning about our wages is a perfectly normal and acceptable thing to do, whereas violence is of an altogether different order. It&rsquo;s like Paul hitting the Corinthians for their divisiveness, when if we&rsquo;d been writing to them we would likely have focused upon their immorality and false doctrine. John would have been far less demanding had he simply told the publicans and soldiers to quit their jobs. By asking them to continue, and yet to live out their lives within those jobs with Godly principles, He was being far more demanding.</p><p>John places complaining about wages a common human fault in juxtaposition with doing violence to others (Lk. 3:14)- to show that in his serious call to a devout and holy life, there are no such things as little sins. Ez. 16:49,50 defines the sins of Sodom as including &ldquo;pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor&hellip; they were haughty, and committed abomination&rdquo;. The abomination of their sexual perversion is placed last in the list, as if to emphasize that all the other sins were just as much sin. Likewise Paul writes to the Corinthians about their failures, but he doesn&rsquo;t start where I would have started- with their drunkenness at the memorial meeting. Instead he starts off with their disunity. Those things which we may consider as lesser sins, the Bible continually lists together with those things we have been conditioned into thinking are the greater sins. Clearest of all is the way Paul lists schism and hatred in his lists of sins that will exclude from the Kingdom. The Anglo-Saxon worldview has taught that sexual sin is so infinitely far worse than a bit of argument within a church. But is this really right&hellip;?</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2313','1','42','3','15','15','<p>3:15 <i>And as the people were in expectation, and all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether he was the Christ</i>-</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2314','1','42','3','16','16','<p>3:16 <i>John answered, saying to them all: I indeed baptize you with water, but there comes he that is mightier than I, whose shoelaces I am not worthy to untie. He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire</i>- The Greek for &quot;mightier&quot; is that translated \'stronger\' and the idea of Jesus as the one \'stronger / mightier than\' recurs in Lk. 11:22, where Jesus is \'mightier than\' the \'strong man\' who had previously possessed the house of Israel. That there is a connection of thought here cannot be denied, but the existence of such a connection doesn\'t of itself mean that there is a detailed semantic connection. Perhaps John\'s words had simply left a subconscious impression upon the word choice of the Lord.</p><p>Christ &quot;shall baptize&nbsp;<i>you</i>&quot; plural was deeply meditated upon by Paul, until he came to see in the fact that we&nbsp;<i>plural</i>&nbsp;are baptized the strong implication that therefore we should be one body, without unnecessary divisions (= 1 Cor. 12:13).</p><p>John prophesied that the disciples would be baptized with fire; this was fulfilled by tongues of Spirit descending which looked like fire (Acts 2:3). Evidently this was not literal fire or else it would not have rested on the heads of the disciples. So the words here spoke of how things would&nbsp;<i>appear&nbsp;</i>to the disciples, without saying so explicitly.</p><p>John described himself as a preacher of Christ who was not &quot;worthy&quot; to do so. The same Greek word is used by Paul when he says he is &quot;not&nbsp;<i>meet</i>&nbsp;(s.w.) to be called an apostle&quot; (1 Cor. 15:9); and that it was God\'s grace alone that had made him an &quot;<i>able</i>&nbsp;(s.w. &quot;worthy&quot;) minister of the Gospel&quot; (2 Cor. 13:6). He knew that his &quot;<i>sufficiency</i>&quot; (s.w. &quot;worthy&quot;) to give knowledge of salvation (John language- Lk. 1:77), to be a preacher, was from God alone (2 Cor. 2:16; 3:5); and that in fact this was true of&nbsp;<i>all</i>&nbsp;preachers. But do we really feel like this in our preaching? John was a burning and shining light to the world (Jn. 5:35), just as we should be (Phil. 2:15). And therefore, if we are to witness as John did, we need to have the humility of John in our preaching. He was \'in the Truth\' from a baby, he lived a spiritual, self-controlled life. And yet he had this great sense of personal sinfulness and unworthiness as a preacher. It\'s difficult for those raised Christian to have the sense of sinfulness which Paul had, and thereby to have his zeal for preaching. But actually his zeal was a reflection of John\'s; and John was a \'good boy\', brought up in the Faith. Yet he had a burning sense of his spiritual inadequacy. Anglo-Saxon Christianity urgently needs to capture his spirit.&nbsp; Truly Paul \'bore\' Christ to the world just as John \'bore\' (s.w.) Christ\'s Gospel (Acts 9:15 = Mt. 3:11). If ever a man was hard on himself, it was John the Baptist. His comment on his preaching of Christ was that he was not worthy (RVmg. &lsquo;sufficient&rsquo;) to bear Christ\'s sandals (Mt. 3:11). The sandal-bearer was the herald; John knew he was heralding Christ\'s appearing, but he openly said he was not worthy to do this. He felt his insufficiency, as we ought to ours. Would we had that depth of awareness; for on the brink of the Lord\'s coming, we are in a remarkably similar position to John. Paul perhaps directs us back to John when he says that we are not &ldquo;sufficient&rdquo; to be the savour of God to this world; and yet we are made sufficient to preach by God (2 Cor. 2:16; 3:5,6 RV). To carry the master&rsquo;s sandals (Mt. 3:11) was, according to Vine, the work of the lowest slave. This was how John saw himself; and this is what witnessing for Jesus is all about, being the lowest slave and servant of the Lord of glory. It\'s interesting in this context to note how the Lord Jesus states that in some sense, John \'was Elijah\', whereas he himself denies this (Mt. 11:14; 17:12; Mk. 9:13). Such was his humility.</p><p><i>&quot;</i>He shall baptize you&quot; points up the contrast is between John baptizing unto repentance, and Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit. The contrast is between \'repentance\' and \'the Holy Spirit\'. I suggest that the idea is that the gift of the Holy Spirit would empower repentance and new-mindedness far more than what was achieved by unaided, steel-willed human repentance.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2315','1','42','3','17','17','<p>3:17 <i>Whose fan is in his hand, to cleanse his threshing-floor thoroughly, and to gather the wheat into his barn; but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire</i>- John says that the axe is laid to the root of the trees; his hearers were about to be cut down and thrown into the fire of condemnation. And He says that the Jesus whom he heralds is about to come and divide the wheat from the chaff in judgment, gathering in the wheat, and burning the chaff with &ldquo;unquenchable fire&rdquo; (Lk. 3:17). But the &lsquo;fire&rsquo; of condemnation and the division of wheat and chaff is to be done ultimately at the Lord&rsquo;s second coming (Mt. 13:30; Mk. 9:48). But for John, the moment his audience met Jesus, they were standing before the Lord of judgment, the Judge of all the earth. In their response to Him, they were living out the final judgment. And this is just as true of us, both as preachers and hearers of the Gospel.</p><p>&quot;He (Jesus) shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit (even) with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and... he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire&quot; (Mt. 3:11,12). John put a choice before them: fire, or fire. Either we are consumed with the fire of devotion to God, or we face the figurative fire of condemnation. This is the logic of judgment. John says that the axe is laid to the root of the trees; his hearers were about to be cut down and thrown into the fire of condemnation. And He says that the Jesus whom he heralds is about to come and divide the wheat from the chaff in judgment, gathering in the wheat, and burning the chaff with &ldquo;unquenchable fire&rdquo; (Lk. 3:17). But the &lsquo;fire&rsquo; of condemnation and the division of wheat and chaff is to be done ultimately at the Lord&rsquo;s second coming (Mt. 13:30; Mk. 9:48). But for John, the moment his audience met Jesus, they were standing before the Lord of judgment, the Judge of all the earth. In their response to Him, they were living out the final judgment. And this is just as true of us, both as preachers and hearers of the Gospel. The message that the Lord will &quot;burn with unquenchable fire&quot; those who reject Him is described as preaching &quot;good tidings unto the people&quot; (Lk. 3:18 RV). Likewise the stark teaching about the mortality of man in Is. 40 is quoted in 1 Pet. as being the Gospel. The harder side of God is in fact the good news for those who reflect deeply upon the essential message and nature of the Almighty. In Jer. 26:2, Jeremiah is warned to &ldquo;diminish not a word, if so be&hellip;&rdquo; Israel may repent. His temptation of course was to water down the message which he had to deliver. But only the harder, more demanding side of God might elicit response in them. By making the message less demanding, it wouldn&rsquo;t have any chance of eliciting a response.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2316','1','42','3','18','18','<p>3:18 <i>With many other appeals he preached good tidings to the people</i>- The need to repent is in fact good news. The message that the Lord will &quot;burn with unquenchable fire&quot; those who reject Him is described as Jesus preaching &quot;good tidings unto the people&quot; (Lk. 3:18 RV). Likewise the stark teaching about the mortality of man in Is. 40 is quoted in 1 Pet. as being the Gospel. The harder side of God is in fact the good news for those who reflect deeply upon the essential message and nature of the Almighty. In Jer. 26:2, Jeremiah is warned to &ldquo;diminish not a word, if so be&hellip;&rdquo; Israel may repent. His temptation of course was to water down the message which he had to deliver. But only the harder, more demanding side of God might elicit response in them. By making the message less demanding, it wouldn&rsquo;t have any chance of eliciting a response.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2317','1','42','3','19','19','<p>3:19 <i>But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for marrying Herodias his brother\'s wife, and for all the evil things which Herod had done</i>- Josephus claims that she was in fact married to another relative, not Philip, before she married Herod (<i>Antiquities</i>&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. John\'s example here raises the question of whether we should protest immoral behaviour in society. It could be argued that Herod claimed to be Jewish and therefore responsible to Divine law.</p><p>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('2318','1','42','3','20','20','<p>3:20 <i>Also added this, that he locked John up in prison</i>- Even with very sinful men, their continual sins still register in the feelings of God. The way God progressively senses the weight of accumulated sin is reflected in His description of the Amorites\' iniquity filling up (Gen. 15:16); or Israel marrying Gentiles &ldquo;to increase the trespass of Israel&quot; (Ezra 10:10). &ldquo;The iniquity of Israel is bound up, his sin is kept in store&rdquo; (Hos. 13:12). God sees some wicked men as more wicked than others; for He is sensitive to every one of their sins (e.g. 2 Kings 17:2). &quot;For three transgressions and for four&quot; of Israel or the Gentiles, God would still punish Jew and Gentile alike (Am. 1,2)- i.e. He still feels the fourth sin, He doesn\'t become insensitive after the third sin. And this doesn\'t only apply to His people; but to all sin, committed by anyone, anywhere. Thus Herod &quot;added yet this above all&quot; when he imprisoned John after also sinning with another man\'s wife. We have an uncanny ability to become numb to sin the more we see or do it. But not so Almighty, all righteous God. This is a feature of His nature that needs meditation.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2319','1','42','3','21','21','<p>3:21 <i>Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also having been baptized and praying, the heaven was opened</i>- The Lord\'s baptism was in his case not for forgiveness, but as a sign of identity with &quot;all the people&quot;. And Luke in his words here recognizes that. Sometimes God indicates from what perspective the record is written; at other times He doesn&rsquo;t. Thus Matthew 3:16 makes it clear that the Lord saw Heaven opened at his baptism, and the Spirit descending like a dove. But Luke 3:21-22 just says that &ldquo;the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended&rdquo;. Luke doesn&rsquo;t say that this is only what happened from the Lord&rsquo;s perspective. This problem of perspective is at the root of the misunderstanding of the demon language in the Gospels.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2320','1','42','3','22','22','<p>3:22 <i>And the Holy Spirit descended upon him in a bodily form as a dove, and a voice came out of heaven: You are My beloved Son- </i>Surely an allusion to Gen. 22:2 (LXX), where the sacrificed Isaac was Abraham\'s beloved son.</p><p><i>In you I am well pleased</i>- Combining references to Ps. 2:7 and Is. 42:1. Klausner: &quot;In whom I shall be blessed&quot;. Quoted about the Lord also in Mt. 12:18; 17:5. The contrast is with how the Father was not &quot;well pleased&quot; with Israel when they were in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:5); but He was well pleased with His Son in the wilderness. Many prophecies about Israel, the \'servant\' of Isaiah\'s prophecies, come true in Jesus. God\'s plan in Israel failed due to their disobedience, but the intention behind it came true in Jesus; He was the Son who fulfilled the Father\'s wishes after Israel failed Him. Jesus thus became the embodiment of Israel; He was their representative before God. It is in this context that the representative nature of the Lord Jesus was first established; He was God\'s Son who was fully representative of Israel. It is thereby through Him that Israel can be finally restored to their Father.&nbsp; See on 2 Pet. 1:17. The voice had the same intonation as the voice on the mount of transfiguration; it was the voice of God Himself in person. The Father\'s \'pleasure\' spoke also of His \'will\'. His will was done, and His pleasure thereby achieved, &quot;in&quot; His Son; because of the Lord\'s internal state of mind. And this sets the path toward understanding our own status &quot;in Christ&quot;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2321','1','42','3','23','23','<p>3:23 <i>And Jesus, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age- </i>Thirty was the age at which priests began to minister; and yet Luke connects this with the Lord\'s beginning to teach. For the duty of priests was to teach.</p><p><i>Being the son (as was legally reckoned) of Joseph, the son of Heli</i>- See on Lk. 2:49. The genealogies focus upon Joseph because Mary has already been stated to be the descendant of David, in his direct line. Giving the genealogies of Joseph is however a kind of concession to human weakness in not accepting genealogies through the mother; for Joseph was of course not the Lord\'s biological father. But even he could be traced as the rightful inheritor of Israel\'s throne had there been a monarchy at the time of Jesus. Jesus was his adopted son; he was &quot;as was supposed&quot;, or \'as was reckoned by law\', the son of Joseph. And the genealogy is included for the sake of those who reckoned by law. And yet the record in Luke appears to effectively be that of Mary; Joseph being &quot;the son of Heli&quot; was probably by reason of marrying Mary, the daughter of Heli; the Talmud speaks with gross vitriolic about Mary the daughter of Heli going to hell for her blasphemy, referring to Mary the mother of Jesus. This shows that the Jews accept that Mary was the daughter of Heli. Heli\'s father was Matthat, who can be equated with Matthan the grandfather of Joseph. Thus Mary and Joseph were cousins (hinting at an arranged marriage?), and therefore Jesus was a son of David through both his mother and father by adoption. In the light of this it is evident that the question mark over the validity of a genealogy through Joseph is an irrelevancy, seeing that Joseph and Mary had a common grandfather. The point has to be made that a humanly fabricated genealogy would be sure to make some glaring errors, especially if it was produced by simple, uneducated men as the Jews claim the New Testament was. The wonder of the New Testament genealogies is that closer study reveals ever more intricate internal evidence for their truth and reliability, rather than exposing more problems.</p><p>The Talmud (<i>Treatise Bava Bathra</i>, 110a) claims that Mary the mother of Jesus was called the daughter of Heli. In this case we would then effectively have here the genealogy of Mary; and this is rather confirmed by the fact that Matthew\'s genealogy gives a man called Jacob as the Lord\'s grandfather, whereas Luke gives &quot;Heli&quot;. Both can be correct, if one i.e. Luke is the genealogy of Mary as it were attached to Joseph, the &quot;supposed&quot; father of Jesus.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2322','1','42','3','24','24','<p>3:24 <i>The son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph</i>- This &quot;Jannai&quot; is identified by Philo with Hyrcanus the second, who reigned sixteen years.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2323','1','42','3','25','25','<p>3:25 <i>The son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai</i>- These are all identified by Philo as being kings during the period of the Maccabees.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2324','1','42','3','26','26','<p>3:26 <i>The son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda</i>- &quot;Joda&quot; or &quot;Juda&quot; is identified by Philo with Hyrcanus the first, in whom the kingly and priestly lines crossed, making him and his offspring \'king-priests\'. This is how the Lord is portrayed, as a king who is also priest after the order of Melchizedek.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2325','1','42','3','27','27','<p>3:27 <i>The son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri</i>- Lk. 3:27 in some versions describes Zerubbabel as the head / chief / leader. The term Rhesa is incorrectly rendered in many versions as a name. Perhaps Luke&rsquo;s point was that the Lord Jesus was the final Messiah, after the failure of so many potential ones beforehand. &lsquo;Zerubbabel the chief&rsquo; would then be a similar rubric to &ldquo;David the king&rdquo; in Matthew&rsquo;s genealogy (Mt. 1:16). It could be that Shealtiel adopted Zerubbabel.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2326','1','42','3','28','28','<p>3:28 <i>The son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er</i>- From verses 28 to 31 we have 20 names; Matthew for the same period has 14, demonstrating that the genealogies do not cover every generation; &quot;son of&quot; can mean grandson or descendant of. Those named are clearly for a purpose.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2327','1','42','3','29','29','<p>3:29 <i>The son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi</i>- The mention of a &quot;Levi&quot; could suggest that although this is the line through Judah, there was some intermarriage with the Levites; this made the Lord a king-priest, as required for the Messianic priest after the order of Melchizedek.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2328','1','42','3','30','30','<p>3:30 <i>The son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim</i>- We read of a Levi in :29; now of a Simeon, Judah and Joseph. And yet this is the genealogy through Judah (:33). We can assume from these names that the tribes intermarried. This was far from ideal and was not God\'s intention; and yet all this was in the genetic pool and background of the Lord Jesus. Yet none of these factors make us inevitable sinners, and the Lord overcame them as we can.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2329','1','42','3','31','31','<p>3:31 <i>The son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David</i>- The line is traced not through Solomon but rather through Nathan, named perhaps after the prophet Nathan who had rebuked David, and whom he so respected that he names a son after Nathan. Yet Nathan openly rebuked David for what he had done with Uriah and Bathsheba. This in the end led to deep respect.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2330','1','42','3','32','32','<p>3:32 <i>The son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon</i>- Boaz was unashamed to marry Ruth the Moabitess and raise up his seed to his relative, meaning that his inheritance would have to be further divided. This was at a time when the fields were split up into strips, as we also learn from the book of Ruth, and further subdividing the strips made farming difficult and unprofitable. The nameless relative who was closer to Ruth than Boaz refused to marry her because he didn\'t want to spoil the inheritance he was going to hand over to his existing children. And yet he who was so concerned about secular things and the good continuance of his name- found himself anonymous in the final account. It was Boaz, the one prepared to have more children and further subdivide his inheritance, who goes down in history as an ancestor of the Lord.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2331','1','42','3','33','33','<p>3:33 <i>The son of Amminadab, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah</i>- Perez was born by the strange and immoral set of events recorded in Genesis 38, whereby Judah\'s daughter in law Tamar acted as a prostitute to seduce Judah to get her pregnant- and Perez was the result. So often it seems that pre-existing background, family and genetic issues all set up a person for spiritual failure. One lesson of these genealogies is that sin is not inevitable. The Lord Jesus had all this, and far more, in His ancestry- and yet He never sinned. We are a new creation in Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2332','1','42','3','34','34','<p>3:34 <i>The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor</i>- This is a clear statement that the Lord was indeed the promised seed of the Jewish fathers. His humanity was critically important to the fulfilment of those promises.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2333','1','42','3','35','35','<p>3:35 <i>The son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah</i>- &quot;Eber&quot; has been suggested as the first occurrence of &quot;Hebrew&quot;. The Lord is being presented as a well qualified Jew, despite the admixture of Gentile blood at many points. We note that it is Matthew, writing to Jews, who tends to mention the Gentile connections of the Lord\'s genealogy; whereas Luke, writing to Gentiles, doesn\'t emphasize them. Perhaps this was in order to demonstrate to them that indeed &quot;salvation is of the Jews&quot; (Jn. 4:22); Gentile salvation was brought about by the Lord being Israel\'s Messiah and fulfilling the promises to the Jewish fathers.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2334','1','42','3','36','36','<p>3:36 <i>The son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech</i>- The apparent differences with the genealogy in Gen. 10:24; 11:12; 1 Chron. 1:24 are because Luke is following the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text. It is common for the New Testament writers to do this. We note that Shem\'s grandson was called Cainan; clearly there was intermarriage between the descendants of Noah, and the theory that different coloured human beings emerged from the three sons of Noah is simply fantasy.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2335','1','42','3','37','37','<p>3:37 <i>The son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan</i>- Luke is concerned with the facts of the genealogy; he could have done what people tend to do in presenting genealogies, and present the hero as continuing a prestigious line. Positive things could have been noted about Enoch and Methuselah, as we find when we read their histories in Genesis; but there is not a word about this. The great truth presented is that the Lord is truly the seed of Abraham and David, and really had our nature and connection with us all.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2336','1','42','3','38','38','<p>3:38 <i>The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God</i>- The Roman emperors and Greek heroes sometimes traced their pedigree back to a god- and therefore the genealogies of Jesus we find in Matthew and Luke were quite radical in this regard. For they traced the pedigree of Jesus back to God- as if He were the emperor. This would have made this gospel record forbidden literature at some periods of the Roman empire and emperor cult.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2337','1','42','4','1','1','<p>4:1 <i>And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness</i>- The Lord Jesus was led of the Spirit at His time of testing; and Paul uses just those words of us in our present experience of trial (Rom. 8:14). &nbsp;His victory in the wilderness therefore becomes a living inspiration for us, who are tempted as He was (Heb. 4:15,16). Note how Mark speaks of Jesus being \'driven\' at this time. Being driven by circumstances can be a form of leading- it just depends which perspective we have.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2338','1','42','4','2','2','<p>4:2 <i>Being tempted by the Devil for forty days. And he ate nothing in those days; and when they were completed, he was hungry</i>- Commentary on what this passage does <i>not</i> mean can be found in my <a href=http://www.realdevil.info/5-8.htm><i>The Real Devil</i></a>.</p><p>The only other two men recorded as doing this are Moses and Elijah (Ex. 34:28; 1 Kings 19:8). The Lord chose to seek to enter into their experience; it was presumably His decision to fast for this period. And the Father responded to that by giving Him the encouraging vision of those same two men at the transfiguration. We see here how God is in dialogue with man; if we wish to identify with some Bible character, the Father will respond His side to enable us to do so yet more.</p><p>With His familiarity with Scripture, Christ would have seen the similarities between Himself and Elijah, whose morale collapsed after 40 days in the wilderness (1 Kings 19: 8) and Moses, who forfeited his immediate inheritance of the land at the end of 40 years in the wilderness. Jesus at the end of 40 days, was in a similar position to them - faced with a real possibility of failure. Moses and Elijah failed because of human weakness - not because of a person called &ldquo;the devil&rdquo;. It was this same human weakness, the &ldquo;Satan&rsquo;, or adversary, that was tempting Jesus.</p><p>The temptations were controlled by God for the Lord&rsquo;s spiritual education. The passages quoted by the Lord to strengthen Himself against His desires (&ldquo;devil&rdquo;) are all from the same part of Deuteronomy, regarding Israel&rsquo;s experience in the wilderness. Jesus clearly saw a parallel between His experiences and theirs:</p><table border=1 cellspacing=3 cellpadding=0>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td width=440 valign=top>            <p>Deuteronomy 8:2   &ldquo;The Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness to humble   thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou   wouldest keep His commandments (word), or no.&rdquo;</p>            </td>            <td width=603 valign=top>            <p>Matthew 4 /   Luke 4 &ldquo;Jesus led up of the spirit&rdquo; &ldquo;forty days&rdquo; &ldquo;in the wilderness&rdquo;. Jesus   was proved by the temptations. Jesus overcame by quoting the Scriptures that   were in His heart (Ps. 119:11), thus showing it was the Scriptures that were   in His heart.</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=440 valign=top>            <p>Deuteronomy   8:3. &ldquo;And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with   manna... that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only,   but by every word...of the Lord...&rdquo;</p>            </td>            <td width=603 valign=top>            <p>&ldquo;He was   afterward an hungered&quot;. In John 6 manna is interpreted by Jesus as   representing the Word of God, which Jesus lived by in the wilderness. Jesus   learnt that spiritually He lived by the Word of God. &ldquo;He answered...it is   written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word ...of God&rdquo;.,</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td width=440 valign=top>            <p>Deuteronomy 8:5   &ldquo;Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son,   so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee&rdquo;</p>            </td>            <td width=603 valign=top>            <p>Jesus no doubt   reflected on His experiences. God chastened His Son, Jesus- 2 Sam. 7:12; Ps.   89: 32.</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table><p>Thus the Lord showed us how to read and study the Word - He thought Himself into the position of Israel in the wilderness, and therefore took the lessons that can be learnt from their experiences to Himself in His wilderness trials. The description of the Lord Jesus as being in the wilderness with beasts and Angels (Mk. 1:13) is another connection with Israel&rsquo;s experience in the wilderness- they were plagued there by &ldquo;wild beasts&rdquo; because of their disobedience (Dt. 32:19-24 and context).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2339','1','42','4','3','3','<p>4:3 <i>And the Devil said to him: If you are the Son of God, command these stones that they become bread</i>- The first temptation- to turn stones into bread- would not in itself have been a sin if He had agreed to it. But it would have been choosing a lower level, by breaking His fast. But the next temptations were to actually sin. If He had agreed to the first suggestion, obedience to the next ones would have been harder. It could even be argued that to put the Lord to the test was permissible on a lower level- for passages like Ps. 34:8 and Mal. 3:10 almost encourage it for those with a weak faith. Gideon likewise put the Lord to the test and was answered. But the Lord chose the higher level: and He knew Scripture which could support it. But the fact He chose the highest level first of all, meant that He was better able to take the higher level again, and to finally overcome the third temptation, which was definitely a clear choice between right and wrong. More than this, anything other than a desire to make the highest maximum commitment can lead to failure. &ldquo;The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left&rdquo; (Ecc. 10:2 NIV) has been understood as referring not so much to right and wrong, good and evil, as to the highest good and lesser good (cp. how the left hand can stand for simply lesser blessing rather than outright evil, e.g. Gen. 48:13-20). The fool inclines to lower commitment. The wise will always incline to the maximum, wholehearted level.</p><p>It\'s perhaps noteworthy that in the wilderness temptation, the Lord responds to the &quot;If you are the Son of&nbsp;<i>God</i>...&quot; by quoting Dt. 8:3 &quot;<i>man</i>&nbsp;shall not live by bread alone&quot;- and the Jonathan Targum has&nbsp;<i>bar nasha</i>&nbsp;son of man here for &quot;man&quot;. If we are correct in understanding those wilderness temptations as the Lord\'s internal struggles, we see Him tempted to wrongly focus upon His being Son of<i> God</i>, forgetting His humanity; and we see Him overcoming this temptation, preferring instead to perceive Himself as Son of&nbsp;<i>man</i>. The&nbsp;<i>if... then</i>&nbsp;structure here (a \'first class conditional\') effectively means \'Because...\' (See Craig A. Evans,&nbsp;<i>Matthew</i>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C.U.P., 2012) p. 83). In this case, we are clearly being given an insight into the internal thinking of the Lord Jesus. \'Because You are Son of God, why not...\'. A truly human Jesus would inevitably have had such thoughts, and the record here makes that clear. Seeing that Mary appears to have become somewhat influenced by the surrounding view of Jesus as her illegitimate son, it\'s likely the Lord too had moments when He wondered whether this could all be true- whether He really was God\'s Son.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2340','1','42','4','4','4','<p>4:4 <i>And Jesus answered him: It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone- </i>The Lord&nbsp;overcame&nbsp;all&nbsp;His&nbsp;temptations&nbsp;by&nbsp;quoting&nbsp;from Deuteronomy, showing that His mind was seeking strength from the words of the Angel leading Israel through the wilderness. There are clear similarities between the Angel\'s leading of Israel through the wilderness and the Lord\'s experience in the wilderness:</p><div align=center><table border=0 cellspacing=3 cellpadding=0 width=80%>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p><strong>Deuteronomy   8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</strong></p>            </td>            <td valign=top>                        </td>            <td valign=top>            <p><strong>Luke 4</strong></p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>v. 2 &quot;The   Lord your God an Angel led you... in the wilderness&quot;</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>                        </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>v. 1 Jesus led   by the spirit (an Angel?) into the wilderness.</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>Forty years in   the wilderness</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>                        </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Forty days in   the wilderness</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>v. 3 &quot;He   (the Angel who led them in v. 2) suffered you to hunger&quot;.</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>                        </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>The Angel made   Jesus hunger.</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>The Angel   &quot;fed you with manna&quot; (Ps. 78:25)</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>                        </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>Jesus was   tempted to ask the Angel to provide bread as He did to Israel in their   testing.</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td valign=top>            <p>&ldquo;Man does not   live by bread alone&quot;</p>            </td>            <td valign=top>                        </td>            <td valign=top>            <p>v. 4 &quot;Man   does not live by bread alone&quot;</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table></div><p>Thus the Lord Jesus surveyed His own experience in the wilderness, and saw that He could take to Himself personally the lessons given to Israel. The Angel led Israel through the wilderness &quot;to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments or no&quot; (Dt. 8:2). God Himself knows anyway, so this must be regarding the Angel, seeking to know the spiritual strength of Israel, as Job\'s&nbsp;Satan Angel sought to know Job\'s strength. Similarly, the Lord&rsquo;s&nbsp;Angel led Him into the wilderness, suffering Him to hunger, to humble and&nbsp;prove Him, to reveal His real attitude to the word of God. His quoting of the word to answer the temptations surely proved this to the Angel, especially since the Lord showed Himself so capable of thinking Himself into Scripture, and therefore taking the lessons most powerfully to Himself. The Lord was made to realize the importance of His memory of the word, as He would have later reflected that this was the only way He had overcome- that man spiritually lives by &quot;every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God&quot;. As a result of their wilderness temptations, both Israel and Christ were led to &quot;consider in (their) heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God (the Angel) chasteneth thee&quot;. The chastenings of the Lord spiritually&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;wilderness&nbsp;were therefore arranged by the Angels. There did not have to be Angels actually tempting Christ in the wilderness temptations- because they can act directly on a man\'s heart, they can lead us into temptation. The fact we pray for Him not to implies that He does- through the Angels, as He Himself tempts no man (James 1:13), although the Angels tempted Abraham, and Israel among others. Thus the Angels may arrange an external stimulus, e. g. the fruit of the tree of knowledge, knowing it must produce certain internal desires within us which tempt us. Note how the temptation to throw Himself off the top of the temple was a temptation to misuse Angelic care. He answered it by a quotation which has an Angelic context: &quot;You (Jesus) shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted Him in Massah&quot; (Dt. 6:16). At Massah the Israelites put the Angel to the test by questioning whether He could provide water (Ex. 17:2-7).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2341','1','42','4','5','5','<p>4:5<i> And he led him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time</i>- This was surely a vision or imagination of the Kingdom, when &quot;the kingdoms of this world&quot; becomes those of the Lord Jesus. It can hardly be that a fiendish being took the Lord Jesus literally up the highest mountain (Everest) from where He could see all the world. Nor would being up a tall mountain enable the Lord to see &quot;the glory of them&quot;. Surely a non-literal event is implied here- within the Lord\'s mind.</p><p>The temptations are hard to take literally:</p><p>- Matthew 4:8 implies that Jesus was led up into a high mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world in their future glory, &ldquo;In a moment of time&rdquo;. There is no mountain high enough to see all the world. And why would the height of the mountain enable Jesus to see what the world would be like in the future? The earth, being a sphere, there is no point on its surface from which one can see all the parts of the world at one time.</p><p>- A comparison of Matthew 4 and Luke 4 shows that the temptations are described in a different order. Mark 1:13 says that Jesus was &ldquo;in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan&rdquo;, whilst Matthew 4:2,3 says that &ldquo;when he had fasted forty days... the tempter (Satan) came to Him...&rdquo;. Because Scripture cannot contradict itself, we can conclude that these same temptations kept repeating themselves. The temptation to turn stones into bread is an obvious example. This would fit nicely if these temptations occurred within the mind of Jesus. Being of our nature, the lack of food would have affected him mentally as well as physically, and thus his mind would have easily begun to imagine things. Just going a few days without food can lead to delirium for some (cp. 1 Sam. 30:12). The similarity between rolls of bread and stones is mentioned by Jesus in Mt. 7: 9, and doubtless those images often merged in his tortured mind - although always to be brought into swift control by his recollection of the Word</p><p>- Jesus probably told the Gospel writers the record of His temptations, and to bring home in words the intensity of what He underwent, He could have used the figurative approach seen in Matthew 4 and Luke 4.</p><p>- It seems unlikely that several times the devil led Jesus through the wilderness and streets of Jerusalem and then scaled a pinnacle of the temple together, all in view of the inquisitive Jews. Josephus makes no record of anything like this happening - presumably it would have caused a major stir. Similarly, if these temptations occurred several times within the forty days as well as at the end of that period (which they did at least twice, seeing that Matthew and Luke have them in different order), how would Jesus have had time to walk to the nearest high mountain (which could have been Hermon in the far north of Israel), climb to the top and back down again, return to the wilderness and then repeat the exercise? His temptations all occurred in the wilderness - He was there for forty days, tempted all the time by the devil (he only departed at the end). If Jesus was tempted by the devil each day, and the temptations occurred only in the wilderness, then it follows that Jesus could not have left the wilderness to go to Jerusalem or travel to a high mountain. These things therefore could not have literally happened.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2342','1','42','4','6','6','<p>4:6 <i>And the Devil said to him: To you will I give all this authority and the glory of them. For it has been delivered to me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it</i>- The Lord knew full well that &quot;all things&quot; (Mt.), the Kingdom of God when the kingdoms of this world have been subsumed beneath it, could only be given to Him to God. He was tempted to play God, to assume that by His own action He could grasp it for Himself without the cross. It is perhaps to this that Paul alludes when he writes that the Lord did not consider such equality with God a thing to be even grasped after (Phil. 2:6). Again we see how the essence of the wilderness temptations returned to the Lord on the cross. For Phil. 2:6 specifically speaks of the Lord in His time of dying.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2343','1','42','4','7','7','<p>4:7 <i>Therefore, if you will worship me, it shall all be yours</i>- All the kingdoms of the world will indeed be the Lord\'s. This was the subtlety of the temptation. The question was when and how that was to be achieved. The Lord knew that the cross must come before that crown. But the temptation would have been to try to circumvent that, and this is portrayed as falling down and worshipping self.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2344','1','42','4','8','8','<p>4:8 <i>And Jesus answered and said to him: It is written, you shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve</i>- The record of the Lord&rsquo;s wilderness temptations is almost certainly a reflection of <i>His</i> self-perception; He spoke to the &lsquo;devil&rsquo; / personification of sin which was within Him, He saw Himself as two people, and His spiritual man triumphed gloriously against the man of the flesh. He understood that we can only serve two masters: God or the flesh (&ldquo;mammon&rdquo; is another personification of the flesh, similar to &lsquo;satan&rsquo;). He saw His own flesh, His own internal thoughts, as a master begging to be served which He must totally reject. His words are a quotation from Dt. 6:13, which warns Israel to serve Yahweh alone and not idols. He perceived His own natural mind and desire as an idol calling to be served. When the Lord explained what had happened in the wilderness to the disciples and thereby to the Gospel writers, He opened His heart to them. He gave us all a window on how He perceived Himself, as He sought to explain to men the internal struggles of the Son of God. Bringing it all back home, I must ask firstly how much we even <i>struggle</i> with temptation? And as and when we do, would we not be helped by the Lord&rsquo;s example of talking to ourselves, and personalizing Scripture as He did? &lsquo;You don&rsquo;t want to do <i>that</i> Give up your place in the Kingdom, for that... drug, that girl, that job? Of course not Come on. There <i>is</i> a way of escape; Paul told me God won&rsquo;t try me beyond my strength, He will make me a way of escape&rsquo;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2345','1','42','4','9','9','<p>4:9 <i>And he led him to Jerusalem, set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him: If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down from here</i>- The idea may well be that He was imagining being received into rulership of the Messianic Kingdom, and was wondering whether that would be possible through accepting \'the devil\', be it His own flesh or the Jewish system, who humanly speaking seemed able to offer a path to this. Likewise \'<i>set him</i>\' in Mt. 4:5 carries the idea of being appointed, established in authority.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2346','1','42','4','10','10','<p>4:10 <i>For it is written: He shall give His angels charge concerning you, to guard you</i>- The Angels were given &ldquo;charge concerning thee&rdquo; (Jesus)- in the court of Heaven, God&rsquo;s purpose was declared and His charge made clear concerning His Son (Lk. 4:10 RVmg.).</p><p>Presumably this was to be taken literally- the Angels physically with Him would have literally held Him under the arms if He jumped from the temple. So we see the literal physical presence of the Angels in our lives. The eyes of God, an evident reference to the Angels, are associated with the temple (1 Kings 8:29; Ps. 11:4; Ps. 5:6-8). The implication surely is that the Angels specifically functioned in the temple / sanctuary. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen.</p><p>The &lsquo;devil&rsquo; of the Lord&rsquo;s own thoughts tempted Him to apply Ps. 91:11 in a wrong context, and jump off the pinnacle of the temple. But if the Lord had gone on, as surely He did, He would have found the words: &ldquo;You shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shall you trample under feet&rdquo; (Ps. 91:13). This promise would have been of wonderful comfort, as throughout the wilderness temptations the Lord &ldquo;was with the wild beasts&rdquo; (Mk. 1:13).&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2347','1','42','4','11','11','<p>4:11 <i>And on their hands they shall carry you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone- </i>Presumably this was to be taken literally- the Angels physically with Him would have literally held Him under the arms if He jumped from the temple. So we see the literal physical presence of the Angels in our lives. The eyes of God, an evident reference to the Angels, are associated with the temple (1 Kings 8:29; Ps. 11:4; Ps. 5:6-8). The implication surely is that the Angels specifically functioned in the temple / sanctuary. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen (Gen. 18:10).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2348','1','42','4','12','12','<p>4:12 <i>And Jesus answering said to him: It is said, you shall not test the Lord your God</i>- The Greek in Matthew effectively means \'On the other hand, it is also written...\'. The Lord Jesus did not try to reconcile the two verses, He accepted them as part of a dialectic whereby this verse says that but this verse says this- which is typical Hebrew reasoning. Geek reasoning would seek to explain that this verse says this, but that is qualified by this other verse, so the truth is a mixture between the two verses. The Hebrew style of reasoning leaves apparent contradictions to the Western, Greek reasoning mind. But they are not this at all, just dialectical style.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2349','1','42','4','13','13','<p>4:13 <i>And when the Devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him for a time</i>- The essence of all the temptations returned to the Lord, particularly in Gethsemane and on the cross. Every time we discern them returning, they are at the hands of the Jews- to become king immediately in Jn. 6, to come down from the cross. Which leads us to perceive that the \'devil\' in the wilderness may have been manifested through the Jewish satan; the idea of the Jewish system as the great satan or adversary to the Lord and His later work is continued throughout the New Testament.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2350','1','42','4','14','14','<p>4:14 <i>And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and the news about him went out throughout all the region</i>- This was no glorious entry into Galilee; He withdrew into Galilee (Mt. 4:12) after cleansing the temple (Jn. 2:13-22), taking the imprisonment of John as the sign to begin His ministry. He felt He was withdrawing, heavy in spirit at the loss of John the Baptist to prison, but in the eyes of the world, it was a triumphal entry (:15). &quot;The power of the Spirit&quot; may mean that He began doing miracles, thus accounting for news of Him spreading like wildfire, or simply that He was propelled by the leadership of the Spirit as we can be today.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2351','1','42','4','15','15','<p>4:15 <i>And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all</i>- The entry to Galilee could be that of Jn. 4:43, meaning that by this stage He had already turned water into wine at Cana (Jn. 2). The miracles had begun, but the \'glorifying\' of Jesus is presented as in connection with His teaching rather than His miracles. This is an important theme- that His teaching was far more significant than His miracles. And that teaching we have recorded for us. It ought to elicit the same desire to glorify Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2352','1','42','4','16','16','<p>4:16 <i>And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read</i>- This suggests He had been a regular synagogue attender and reader, but somehow this time, as He read the Messianic prophecies, it was clear that He was the word made flesh. He was the One. He must have previously somehow contained the fact He was the Messiah, living His life of perfect obedience in a somehow obscured manner. Now, He let down the mask and revealed Himself for who He was.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2353','1','42','4','17','17','<p>4:17 <i>And there was delivered to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written</i>- The record is as it were of a video capture, focusing on every detail of His body language- He stood up to read (:16), the scroll was delivered into His hands, He opened it and He found the place in the scroll. All this is to present in more visual form what John states more enigmatically- the word was made flesh.</p><p>Although the Greek <i>euangelion</i> is not used, the LXX of Is. 40:9; 52:7 and 60:1,2 clearly envisage a Messianic figure proclaiming the &quot;good news&quot; of Israel\'s freedom from oppression and sin. The Lord seems to assume that His audience would know what \'good news\' He had in view. Perhaps He was alluding to those Servant Songs in Isaiah, and saying that the good news is of &quot;the Kingdom of God&quot;. And He goes on in Matthew particularly to explain that this good news is of the life of forgiveness and grace lived out now, under the rulership of God, and coming to its material climax in His second coming and the literal establishment of God\'s Kingdom on earth.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2354','1','42','4','18','18','<p>4:18 <i>The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and the recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those that are bruised</i>- The Lord began His ministry by proclaiming a freedom from burdens through Him (Lk. 4). And He concludes it by telling the disciples to proclaim the same deliverance (Lk. 24:47). Consider how He brings together various passages from Isaiah in His opening declaration in Lk. 4:18: <i>&ldquo;</i>The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives,&nbsp;&nbsp; and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach proclaim Heb. &lsquo;call out to a man&rsquo; the acceptable year of the Lord&rdquo;<i>. </i>This combines allusions to Is. 61:1&nbsp;(Lev. 25:10); Is. 58:6 LXX&nbsp;and&nbsp;Is. 61:2.<i>&nbsp; </i><br />Is. 58:6 AV: &ldquo;To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free (cp. Dt. 15:12 re freedom of slaves, s.w.), and that you break every yoke&rdquo; is in the context of an insincerely kept year of Jubilee in Hezekiah&rsquo;s time, after the Sennacherib invasion. Is. 58 has many Day of Atonement allusions- the year of Jubilee began on this feast. We are as the High Priest declaring the reality of forgiveness to the crowd. Hence Lk. 24:47 asks us to proclaim a Jubilee of atonement. The Greek for &ldquo;preach&rdquo; in Lk. 24:47 and for &ldquo;preach / proclaim the acceptable year&rdquo; in Lk. 4:19 are the same, and the word is used in the LXX for proclaiming the Jubilee. And the LXX word used for &lsquo;jubilee&rsquo; means remission, release, forgiveness, and it is the word used to describe our preaching / proclaiming forgiveness in Lk. 24:47. It could be that we are to see the cross as the day of atonement, and from then on the Jubilee should be proclaimed in the lives of those who accept it. It&rsquo;s as if we are running round telling people that their mortgages have been cancelled, hire purchase payments written off...and yet we are treated as telling them something unreal, when it is in fact so real and pertinent to them. And the very fact that <i>Yahweh</i> has released others means that we likewise ought to live in a spirit of releasing others from their debts to us: &ldquo;The creditor shall release that which he hath lent&hellip;<i> because</i> the Lord&rsquo;s release hath been proclaimed&rdquo; (Dt. 15:2 RV).</p><p>Isaiah 61 was the Jewish synagogue reading for the Day of Atonement and especially on the first day of a jubilee year, and it could be that the Lord is alluding to this when He said that &quot;today&quot; those words were coming true. Perhaps that day was a day of atonement. He was the means for atonement, on which basis the Jubilee was proclaimed; the good news of Messiah was not so much a political kingdom free from the Romans, but the good news of atonement for sin.</p><p>Christ means \'Messiah\', the&nbsp;anointed one. He was anointed in order &quot;to preach the Gospel&quot;; and we too have been anointed insofar as we are in Christ, the anointed one (2 Cor. 1:21). Therefore as He was ordained a preacher of the Gospel to the world, we too share that honour (as we do all His honours, to some extent). He was anointed (&lsquo;oiled&rsquo;) by God in order to give the oil of joy to His people; He shared His experience of anointing with us, and we must go out and do likewise (Is. 61:1,2 cp. Lk. 4:18).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2355','1','42','4','19','19','<p>4:19 <i>To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord</i>- See on :18. To preach <strong>proclaim</strong> the <strong>acceptable year</strong> of the Lord (Lk. 4:19) is thus parallel with &ldquo;You shall <strong>proclaim</strong> liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants&rdquo; (Lev. 25:10). Likewise there are to be found other such allusions to the proclamation of Jubilee: &ldquo;We as workers together with him, beseech you also that you receive&hellip; the grace of God&hellip; a time accepted&hellip; in the day of salvation the Jubilee have I succoured you: behold, now is the <strong>accepted time</strong>&rdquo; (2 Cor. 6:1,2) &ldquo;Repentance and remission of sins should be preached <strong>proclaimed</strong>, s.w. 4:19 in his name among all nations&rdquo; (Lk. 24:47).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2356','1','42','4','20','20','<p>4:20 <i>And he closed the book and gave it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him</i>- &ldquo;The word was made flesh&rdquo; in daily reality for Jesus. The extraordinary connection between the man Jesus and the word of God which He preached and spoke is reflected here, as noted on :17. Here we have as it were an exquisite close up of Jesus, His very body movements, His handling of the scroll, and the movement of the congregation\'s eyes. Notice that at this stage He had only read from the scroll, and not yet begun His exposition of what He had read. The impression I take from this is that there was an uncanny connection between Him and the word of His Father. The Son reading His Father&rsquo;s word, with a personality totally in conformity to it, must have been quite something to behold. He was the word of God made flesh in a person, in a way no other person had or could ever be. See on Lk. 4:36; Jn. 14:10.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2357','1','42','4','21','21','<p>4:21 <i>And he began to say to them: Today has this scripture been fulfilled in your hearing</i>- It was fulfilled &quot;today&quot; in that it was on that day that He chose to remove the mask He had worn before His neighbours, and reveal Himself for who He was- the Messiah.</p><p>Some prophecies are fulfilled according to the acceptance of their fulfilment by believers, and therefore have their fulfilments in different ways at different times. Thus for those who received it, Malachi&rsquo;s &lsquo;Elijah&rsquo; prophecies were fulfilled in John the Baptist, for those who accepted him (Mt. 11:14). The implication is that for those who didn&rsquo;t, those prophecies weren&rsquo;t fulfilled. He didn&rsquo;t mean that His reading those words in a synagogue had fulfilled them. He speaks of &ldquo;your ears&rdquo; or &quot;hearing&quot; as standing for &lsquo;your correct perception / understanding&rsquo; in Mt. 13:16. What He was surely saying was that for those of them who perceived who He was, Isaiah&rsquo;s words were ringing true. For those who rejected Him, of course, they weren&rsquo;t fulfilled, and therefore their complete, universal acceptance&nbsp;/ fulfilment would be delayed until a future day; just as it was with the &lsquo;Elijah&rsquo; prophecy. &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2358','1','42','4','22','22','<p>4:22 <i>And all bore him witness, and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said- </i>Because of the gracious words and manner of speaking of Jesus, therefore God so highly exalted Him (Ps. 45:2). The Father was <i>so </i>impressed with the words of His Son. Lk. 4:22 records how people were amazed at the gracious words He spoke, as in Jn. 7:46; there was something very unusual in His manner of speaking. Evidently there must have been something totally outstanding about His use of language. God highly exalted Him because He so loved righteousness and hated wickedness (Ps. 45:7), and yet also because of His manner of speaking (Ps. 45:2); so this <i>love </i>of righteousness and hatred of evil was what made His words so special. &nbsp;</p><p><i>Is this not Joseph\'s son?</i>- Mary had clearly not shared with others what had happened around the Lord\'s conception. She had perhaps come to see Him as Joseph\'s son by the time she rebuked Him at age 12 in the temple, when she refers to Joseph as His father. She became influenced in her view of the Lord by the view of others. And we can take a warning from this. Such was His humanity that He appeared to have just followed the profession of His supposed &lsquo;father&rsquo; on earth. In essence, the same 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.&nbsp;</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 <i>so</i> 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>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2359','1','42','4','23','23','<p>4:23 <i>And he said to them: Doubtless you will say to me this proverb: Physician, heal yourself. Whatever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in your hometown</i>- The nobleman\'s son had been cured in Capernaum, as recorded in John. &quot;Heal yourself&quot; could suggest the Lord had some illness or physical weakness. The language of Isaiah 53 is full of allusion to leprosy. He may have had the appearance of leprosy, some skin condition, whilst not having leprosy itself. This would speak much of the Lord\'s relationship with sin.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2360','1','42','4','24','24','<p>4:24 <i>And he said: Truly I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own hometown</i>- We need to ask&nbsp;<i>why</i>&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;<i>was</i>&nbsp;of them- the record stresses that they were His natural&nbsp;<i>patris</i>(&ldquo;country&rdquo;) and&nbsp;<i>oikos</i>&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>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2361','1','42','4','25','25','<p>4:25 <i>But of a truth I say to you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land</i>- See on James 5:16-18. We only learn of the length of the famine in the New Testament. Three and a half years is a period we often meet in the latter day prophecies- 1260 days, 42 months, a time, times two times and a half. This latter day period is therefore flagged up as the time of the ministry of the latter day Elijah, as an appeal for Israel to repent.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2362','1','42','4','26','26','<p>4:26 <i>And to none of them was Elijah sent, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman that was a widow</i>- In the context of :27, the implication would be that this woman too was a Gentile. Even at the start of His ministry, the Lord stressed Gentile acceptance. This was not simply because He realized Israel would reject Him and the door thereby opened to the Gentiles; but because He understood that the good news of the Hope of Israel was in fact good news for the Gentile world if they embraced that hope.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2363','1','42','4','27','27','<p>4:27 <i>And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them were cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian</i>- When Naaman\'s maid asserted that Elisha could cure him of his leprosy, this was not therefore based on experience. She had not even heard of Elisha curing any lepers in Israel. But she believed it was the kind of thing he could do.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2364','1','42','4','28','28','<p>4:28 <i>And they were all filled with anger in the synagogue as they heard these things</i>- There is a similar account in Mt. 13:55-58. If this is indeed a later, similar incident, then we marvel at how despite this rejection, the Lord later returned to give them another chance- and was treated likewise. Anger is demonstrated here to be rooted in a bad conscience. They realized the truth of who He was, but refused to accept it. And this leads to anger. Much human anger, although not all of it, is rooted in such bad conscience. And the anger is directed at the ones whose words have been rejected.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2365','1','42','4','29','29','<p>4:29 <i>And they rose up and threw him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong</i>- This was the punishment for a heretic. They knew He said the truth, but because it demanded so much of them, they claimed He was heretical. So many cries of \'heresy\' and \'heretic\' are psychologically rooted in a subconscious refusal to accept the truths presented. I suggest this is why there has been such a long tradition of hatred, anger and calling of \'heretic\' against those who preach a non-Trinitarian Jesus. If He truly had our nature and therefore was not God, this demands so much of us. And men shy away from that and cry \'heresy\' rather than be challenged as to what are the very high possibilities for we who share the nature the Lord had when mortal.<br />&nbsp;</p><p>There may be an allusion here to Jephthah, who had been &quot;despised and rejected of men&quot; during the time of Israel\'s suffering.&nbsp; In this and many other ways he is a clear type of Christ. Jephthah reminded the &quot;elders of Gilead&quot; who were now seeking his help, &quot;Did not you hate me, and expel me out of my father\'s house?&quot; (Jud. 11:7).&nbsp; The Hebrew for &quot;expel&quot; is also translated \'thrust out\';&nbsp;Jesus was \'thrust out\' from his native town as Jephthah was from Gilead, perhaps a technical term for local excommunication from the city synagogue region.&nbsp;It was &quot;the elders&quot; who were also responsible for Christ\'s rejection. He was despised as &quot;the son of a strange woman&quot; (Jud. 11:2) as the Lord was accused of being born out of wedlock (Jn. 8:41).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2366','1','42','4','30','30','<p>4:30 <i>But he passing through the midst of them went his way- </i>The Lord clearly had the ability to avoid capture and death. This explains why towards the end of His ministry He was not taken and killed earlier. He gave His life, it was not taken from Him (Jn. 10:17,18). So we see highlighted the fact that He could have avoided the cross, but chose not to- the essence of His wilderness temptations.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2367','1','42','4','31','31','<p>4:31 <i>And he came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them on the Sabbath day</i>- He had been there earlier (:23), and cured the nobleman\'s son there. But Luke is writing for Gentiles, and so he mentions where Capernaum was located.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2368','1','42','4','32','32','<p>4:32 <i>And they were astonished at his teaching; for his word was with authority</i>- The synagogue minister gave the lesson or sermon, but invited members of the congregation to contribute their thoughts. The Lord\'s message would therefore have been brief, but so powerful that it astonished people. The Gospel records twelve times record astonishment at the Lord\'s teaching. How could the passage of mere ideas from the larynx of a Palestinian Jew be so utterly astonishing, no matter how profound the content of the message? The Old Testament prophets likewise spoke God\'s word, but they were met with cynicism and mocking. Surely there was another factor which elicited such astonishment at His teaching, and I suggest it was in the way that His person was so perfectly congruent with the amazing ideas He was teaching. He was after all the word made flesh.</p><p>His authority was based upon something. And I suggest it was not His miracles, but rather the congruence between His person and His word. The scribes indeed claimed authority. But the teaching of Jesus somehow had that authority within itself. It was not therefore just the nature or profundity of the ideas and content itself which were authoritative. He really did have authority, and He didn\'t need to make any claim to having it. The amazing challenge is in the parable of Mk. 13:34, where the Lord gives His authority to us His servants... We are not merely standing on a street lamely holding out tracts, offering them to anyone willing to come up and take one. We have an element of His authority if we are teaching His word in His Name; and thus Paul uses the word when speaking of his \'authority in the preaching of the Gospel\' (1 Cor. 9:18; 2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; 2 Thess. 3:9). And in our personal standing before the Father, we likewise have been given authority by the Lord Jesus to be the sons of God (Jn. 1:12). Paul realized we have each been given this authority, and uses the same word when warning believers not to let their &quot;authority&quot; (AV &quot;this liberty of yours&quot;) cause others to stumble (1 Cor. 8:9).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2369','1','42','4','33','33','<p>4:33 <i>And in the synagogue, there was a man that had a spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice</i>- Notice that the man singular cried out in the plural &quot;us... we&quot;, :34, and then changes immediately back to the singular &quot;I know you...&quot; (:34). This is a classic case of schizophrenia- not literal demon possession.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2370','1','42','4','34','34','<p>4:34 <i>Leave us alone What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are The Holy One of God</i>- See on :33. Notice the changes of pronouns from plural to singular. The supposedly spirit-possessed man was what we would call a man suffering from multiple personality disorder or a schizophrenic. Perhaps the dominant personality of the man was that which could say &quot;I know who you are- the Holy One of God&quot;. &quot;You Nazarene&quot; may suggest this man had met the Lord previously, and was one of the few who during the Lord\'s carpenter years had perceived that He was God\'s Holy One. Despite his affliction, in his deepest heart and most fundamental personality, the mentally ill man perceived what few others did- that Jesus was the Son of God. The man\'s less dominant personalities feared condemnation and destruction from this Son of God, and wanted Him to leave. The dominant personality recognized Him as Son of God, and maybe we are to imagine him saying &quot;I know who you are...&quot; said in a totally different tone of voice, as if another person was speaking compared to the ones who feared condemnation and didn\'t want closer engagement with Jesus. That same struggle, in essence, goes on in the mind of every person as they come to Jesus; a desire to pull back before it gets too serious and risky, and yet another desire to accept Him for who He is, the saviour Son of God. The Lord\'s apparent exorcism of the other personalities therefore left the man with who he really was in his heart of confused hearts- a believer in Jesus as God\'s Holy Son.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2371','1','42','4','35','35','<p>4:35 <i>And Jesus rebuked him, saying: Hold your peace and come out of him. And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst, he came out of him, having done him no hurt</i>- If as suggested on :34, the man had multiple personalities, the Lord is rebuking the less dominant personality. He speaks of course in terms which the man would have related to- of demon possession. The language of &quot;rebuke&quot; is appropriate to rebuking a personality; for one could hardly &quot;rebuke&quot; a person for being mentally disturbed. That is not a moral issue.</p><p>This is recorded from the perspective of the onlooking crowd, with their beliefs and observations coloured by those beliefs. The video camera of the Gospel writer is as it were focused on them, and therefore the language of demon possession is used. The Greek for &quot;tearing&quot; used in Mark at this point is literally \'to make gasp\'. It is appropriate to an epileptic convulsion or fit. But these incidents are not the work of indwelling demons; for they can be managed by medication today. The convulsion is described in the language of the day, as if there was a struggle within the man, and then in the man\'s panting afterwards we are invited to imagine a spirit departing from him. There was no actual &quot;unclean spirit&quot; involved; the cure was of personality, as noted on :34, it was as if one of the man\'s less dominant personalities now left him. And that is the kind of healing which the Lord through the Spirit can work today.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2372','1','42','4','36','36','<p>4:36<i> And amazement came upon all, and they spoke together, one with another, saying: What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits and they come out</i>- See on :32. We can see here one reason why the Lord \'went along\' with their misunderstanding about evil spirits. They were left with the impression, within their albeit incorrect worldview, that His <i>teaching</i> had the power to change radically, and to cause a spirit or mindset to depart from a person permanently. They thereby perceived that His words had power; the ideas in His teaching were of themselves powerful.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2373','1','42','4','37','37','<p>4:37 <i>And there went a rumour concerning him into every place of the region round about</i>- &quot;Rumour&quot; is literally &quot;a noise&quot;. The word about the Lord Jesus went to &quot;every place&quot;, every isolated dwelling. The Lord clearly used an economy of miracle, but He did so initially in order to publicize His Messianic claims and above all, His message. For we have noted above that He was using the miracles to exemplify and back up His message.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2374','1','42','4','38','38','<p>4:38 <i>And he rose up from the synagogue and entered into the house of Simon. And Simon\'s wife\'s mother was sick with a high fever- </i>The Greek literally means &lsquo;to be on fire&rsquo;. This is yet another example of phenomenological language. A high temperature was thought to be a sign that something was on fire within a person; that wrong idea is repeated without correction, just as the language of demons is. The simple point being made, time and again, is that however folk understood disease, the power of the Lord Jesus was so infinitely greater that whatever was supposed to be causing the illness effectively didn&rsquo;t exist.</p><p><i>And they made request of him concerning her</i>- Mt. 8:14 says:&nbsp;<i>&quot;</i>And when Jesus had entered Peter\'s house, he saw his wife\'s mother lying&quot;, as if the Lord noticed the problem and took the initiative to assist, rather than being asked to- although Luke says they did ask Him. But they asked for what He already had noticed and knew all about. Mk. 1:31 states that &ldquo;they told Him about her&rdquo; and He responded. Surely the overall picture is that He did notice her need. But He waited to be asked before responding- not because He would not otherwise have responded, but because He wanted to pique the intensity of request and entreaty on their part. We sense the same spirit in how He appeared to be asleep on the sinking boat, and how He made as if He would go further on the way to Emmaus. And His apparent silence in our own lives is surely to provoke our prayerfulness and faith likewise.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2375','1','42','4','39','39','<p>4:39 <i>And he stood over her and rebuked the fever; and it left her-</i> Also the language of the day, because illness was understood as having to go somewhere when it was healed.</p><p><i>And immediately she rose up and served them</i>-&nbsp; Her response to her healing was to serve the Lord and His people. This should be the underlying motive why we ask for healing and good health- so that we can serve. And our response to the Lord&rsquo;s touching of us can never be passive- it involves some level of active serving. Perhaps the use of&nbsp;<i>diakoneo</i>&nbsp;looks forward to the office and practice of women being deacons, ministers, in the early church. For the church of any age is to be an extension of the men and women who followed the Lord Jesus in Galilee.&nbsp; There was a Rabbinic prohibition of women serving men at table, so this is yet another instance of the Lord and His people being driven by their desire to respond to God\'s grace to breaking accepted social norms about gender.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2376','1','42','4','40','40','<p>4:40 <i>And when the sun was setting, they brought to him all that were sick with various diseases; and he laid his hands on everyone of them and healed them</i>- The healing had been done on a Sabbath, and so they only carried their sick to the Lord after sunset. We see here the power of religious tradition and fear of religious leaders and infringement of their traditions. There would have been urgently sick people, who needed healing as soon as possible. The people believed the Lord could heal them; but their fear of infringing Sabbath traditions was even greater. And we see the same in essence today.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2377','1','42','4','41','41','<p>4:41 <i>And demons also came out from many, crying out and saying: You are the Son of God- </i>The &quot;many&quot; had &quot;various diseases&quot; (Mk. 1:34). The &quot;various diseases&quot; demonstrated His wide ranging power; for healers tended to specialize in specific diseases, claiming power over particular supposed demons. But the Lord could heal all kinds of diseases. The purpose of the healings was not simply to meet human need, but to elicit a belief in Him as &quot;Son of God&quot;. His miracles were always to back up His preaching.</p><p><i>But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ</i>- &quot;Allow / permit&quot; is the same word translated &quot;send forth&quot;. The idea could simply be that the Lord didn\'t send out these converts as \'sent forth\' missionary apostles. &quot;The demons&quot; are put for the supposedly \'demon possessed\' people. The focus is ultimately upon the person and not upon whatever was thought to be possessing them. Note how it was the Egyptian people who were judged (Gen. 15:14); their idols (&ldquo;gods&rdquo;) are used by metonymy to stand for those who believed in them. Likewise &ldquo;demons&rdquo; is sometimes put by metonymy for those who believed in them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2378','1','42','4','42','42','<p>4:42 <i>Now when it was day, he departed and went into a deserted place. And the crowd sought him and came to him, and tried to keep him from leaving them</i>- We continually notice the Lord\'s dislike of melodrama and large crowds. He was used to sustained personal contact with the Father, and the pressure of the crowds would have been unbearable for Him. He loved solitude with God. Many of us can relate to Him in this, and He thereby to us. But He worked with the crowds exactly because He saw their need, He as it were came out of Himself for their sakes and for the sake of God\'s glory.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2379','1','42','4','43','43','<p>4:43 <i>But he said to them: I must preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for this is why I was sent</i>- He did not want to be a mere miracle man. His focus was upon preaching the Kingdom, and so He departed rather than meet all the human need which He could have done. His approach ought to be programmatic for us; and too often the focus of our ministry has either been upon purely academic pushing of Biblical ideas at one extreme, or mere do-gooding for its own sake at the other.</p><p>Comparing with :19, the preaching of the Kingdom is made parallel to preaching the time of acceptance with God and forgiveness of sins <i>now</i> (2 Cor. 6:2). Rom. 14:17 seems to teach that the Kingdom of God is more about &quot;peace and joy in the Holy Spirit&quot;, both now and eternally, than physical, tangible things. Christ\'s parables about the Kingdom don\'t speak of a political Kingdom, but rather about the relationship between God and the believer in the here and now. See on Acts 8:12.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2380','1','42','4','44','44','<p>4:44 <i>And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee</i>- As with Paul\'s ministry, the openness of the synagogues to visiting teachers was well used by the Lord. <i>&quot;</i>Went about&hellip; teaching&hellip; preaching&hellip; healing&quot; (Mt. 4:23) is just what we read of the Lord\'s followers doing in Acts. The preaching of the apostles (and of ourselves) continues the personal work of the Lord in whom they lived and moved, and therefore often Acts records the preaching work in language lifted from Luke as well as the other Gospel records (e.g. Acts 4:2; 5:12-16 = Mt. 4:23).&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2381','1','42','5','1','1','<p>5:1 <i>Now it came to pass, while the crowd pressed upon him and heard the word of God, that he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret</i>- As elsewhere in the Gospels, the Lord\'s focus is presented as being upon the disciples rather than upon the crowds. He sought to develop and teach a small body of serious converts rather than make mass conversions; the mass conversions were to be made by them, rather than Him personally. And Acts continues this theme.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2382','1','42','5','2','2','<p>5:2 <i>And he saw two boats standing by the lake; but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets</i>- The impression is that they were potentially ready to go \'fishing\' for the Lord, but with His presence in the boat they were able to do it. &quot;Fishermen&quot; is literally, \'salty ones\'. The Greek can equally mean \'sailors\'. The Lord must have had this in mind when He said that they were &quot;the salt of the earth&quot; (Mt. 5:13). If we are likewise the salt of the earth in our influence upon others, we will find ourselves as the modern counterpart to those \'salty ones\' who followed the Lord in His Galilee days.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2383','1','42','5','3','3','<p>5:3 <i>And he entered into one of the boats, which was Simon\'s, and asked him to put out a little from the shore. And he sat down and taught the crowds out of the boat</i>- It was for all the world as if the boat belonged to the Lord. He was setting these men up to continue His preaching ministry. He sat in their place, so that they would take His place later. Teaching from a boat is in intended contrast with the idea that teaching could only take place within the synagogue. He surely would have been better standing up, so that His voice carried, and so that He could speak louder. But He &quot;sat&quot;, as His style was, just as an adult gets down to the level of a child in order to talk with them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2384','1','42','5','4','4','<p>5:4 <i>And when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon: Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch</i>- The scene is purposefully repeated by the Lord after His resurrection. He wished them to see that He was the same essential Jesus both in His mortal life and also in His post resurrection glory. And the same Jesus who loved little children and so desperately wished human salvation is the same yesterday, today and for ever- including when we meet Him at judgment day. He had asked Peter to &quot;put out&quot; into shallow water, with Him in the boat teaching (:3 s.w.). Now He asks them to &quot;put out&quot; into deeper water, alone, without Him, to fish. This was an acted parable of how their calling was to share the Gospel with others as the Lord had done; His teaching was their fishing of men. Prior to His presence and entering of their lives, they could not have done this. But He was present on the shore. This is expressed in more abstract terms in Jn. 14-16, where the Comforter, the spirit of Jesus, is promised to all who will teach Him to others. He is with us just as really as He was in His mortal life. But they were to go fishing &quot;for a catch&quot;, in the expectation of response. Our witness too is not merely a witness for the sake of it, but is to be made in firm faith that there are fish / men out there to be caught. A &quot;catch&quot; is literally a \'bringing\', the same word is used of how sick people were \'brought\' to the Lord in 4:10. The drawing process depends partially upon our bringing of men into the Gospel net.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2385','1','42','5','5','5','<p>5:5 <i>And Simon answered and said: Master, we toiled all night and took nothing, but at your word I will let down the nets</i>- See on :4 and Jn. 21:7. Despite having toiled all night and caught nothing, Peter was able to subdue his natural wisdom, his sense of futility, and the sense of irritation and superiority which exists in the experienced working man: &quot;Nevertheless &quot;but&quot; (how much that hides) at <i>your word</i>&nbsp; I will let down the nets&quot;. It would seem that the parallel record of this is found in Mt. 4:18, which describes the call of the disciples soon after Christ\'s triumphant emergence from the wilderness temptations. We learn from Jn. 1:41,42 that it was Peter\'s brother, Andrew, who first told Peter about Jesus, and who brought him to meet Jesus first of all. The point is that at the time of Peter\'s call as he was fishing, he had probably heard very few of Christ\'s words personally. He had heard about Him, and listened to His words for perhaps a few hours at different times in the past. So where did he get this tremendous respect for the word of Christ from, which he demonstrated when Christ called him? The answer must be that he meditated deeply on those words that he had heard and understood, and came to appreciate that the man saying them was worth giving all for. Our far easier access to God\'s word does not seem to make us more meditative as individuals. We have access to hearing God\'s word which previous generations never had. We can listen to it on a Walkman, have tapes of well-read Scripture playing at home, analyse it by computer, hear it sung to us according to our taste in music, read it from pocket Bibles as we work and travel... we <i>can</i>&nbsp;and <i>could</i>&nbsp;do all these things. My sense is that we just don\'t make use of our opportunities as we should. Why has God given our generation these special opportunities to be ultra-familiar with His word? Surely it is because our age contains temptations which are simply more powerful than those of former years. So it is <i>vital</i>, vital for our eternal destiny, that we do make as much use as possible of all these opportunities. We should be <i>cramming</i>, yes cramming, our hearts and brains with the words of God. I certainly get the feeling that Peter would have listened to a tape of Isaiah on his Walkman if he had one, as he went out fishing; that he\'d have had tapes of the Psalms going all evening long in his little fisherman\'s cottage, wife and kids caught up in his enthusiasm too (Mk. 10:10,15 suggests that the incident with the little children occurred in Peter\'s house). There <i>are</i> a handful of Christian homes where this spirit is truly seen. &nbsp;</p><p>It seems to me that the Lord asks each of us to do that which is essentially difficult for us personally, something against the grain of our very nature and personal understanding of and position in life. This may explain why sometimes He asked those He cured to spread the message (perhaps the introverts, or those whose past lives had been notorious?), whilst others (perhaps the extroverts?) He asked to remain silent about what He had done. When the Lord asked Peter to go out fishing, for example, this was totally and exactly against every grain of Peter\'s natural self. He was a fisherman, he\'d been fishing all night, he knew it was <i>absolutely</i> pointless to try again. He knew that a carpenter didn\'t know what a fisherman did. The Lord\'s request was a blow at the justifiable pride in his specialism which every working man has. If the Lord Jesus had asked let\'s say <i>Paul</i> to go out fishing, well, I guess he\'d have obeyed with no real difficulty. But He asked Peter to do that, at that very moment, because it was a real cross for Peter to pick up. Likewise it would have seemed logical for Paul to preach to the Jews, and Peter to the Gentiles (note how the Gentiles approached Philip, from semi-Gentile Galilee, in Jn. 12:20,21). Yet in fact the Lord God used those men in the very opposite way, right against the grain of their natural abilities. He asked goldsmiths to do the manual work of building the wall of Jerusalem, bruising their sensitive fingers against lumps of rock (Neh. 3:8,31); and Barak&rsquo;s victorious warriors were civil servants and writers (Jud. 5:14), not military men. Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews, when we&rsquo;d have thought that naturally speaking, they would have been far more comfortable in the reverse roles. Judas was put in charge of the money amongst the twelve; when Matthew the tax collector would presumably have been the obvious man for the job. Naaman wanted to do some great act, but was asked to do the hardest thing for him- to dip in Jordan. And Abraham was asked to do what was so evidently the hardest thing- to offer up his only, specially beloved son.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2386','1','42','5','6','6','<p>5:6 <i>And when they had done this, they caught a great many fishes; and their nets were breaking</i>- See on Acts 2:6. As explained above, the Lord was teaching them that they were to do His work of fishing men into the Gospel net. In the similar incident after the resurrection, their nets did not break. The Lord will somehow provide the resources needed for this work. And perhaps He was also encouraging them to follow Him and forsake their fishing business because He is absolutely able to provide any amount of fish. All human endeavour and desire for income can be dramatically overridden by the Lord if we devote ourselves to His work.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2387','1','42','5','7','7','<p>5:7 <i>And they beckoned to their partners in the other boat, that they should come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink</i>- Paul seems to allude here in saying that the desire for wealth can drown believers (1 Tim. 6:9). The Lord is warning them not to allow their desire for wealth and good income to drown them; rather they were to focus upon doing the work of the Gospel, and somehow all shall be provided.</p><p>It would seem that Peter as a working man had a love of his job. He left his fishing in Mark 1 to follow the Lord, but returned to it by Luke 5. Then he left it, and returned to it in the post-resurrection crisis. The Lord&rsquo;s provision of fish on the shore was simply saying: &lsquo;You don&rsquo;t need to fish any more&rsquo;. He asked them to drag the nets to land, which would usually have broken them, but they didn&rsquo;t break. Likewise He had earlier told fisherman Peter to cast the net on the other side, when Peter knew full well which side of the boat there were likely to be fish. And a whirlwind storm had come upon Galilee which would have drowned fisherman and sailor Peter were it not for the Lord&rsquo;s presence. In all these things, Peter was being taught to quit the life that he loved. &ldquo;Lovest thou me more than these?&rdquo; was asked with the huge catch of fish lying there on the shore- a fisherman&rsquo;s dream. It could be that the question referred to them. &lsquo;Go and feed <i>my</i> sheep rather than worry about <i>your </i>fish&rsquo;. When earlier the boats had begun to sink with too many fish, the word used for &lsquo;sinking&rsquo; occurs in 1 Tim. 6:9, about believers being drowned in materialism and thereby condemning themselves (Lk. 5:7). Whether it&rsquo;s a career that we love, a livelihood that we simply trust as a sure means of human survival, or the spiritual pride that we love the Lord more than our brethren, all these things are demanded of us by the demanding Lord, as we seek to follow Him to the cross.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2388','1','42','5','8','8','<p>5:8<i> But Simon Peter, when he saw it, fell down at Jesus\' knees, saying: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord </i>- See on Jn. 21:7. The Father seems to have wanted Peter to make the connection between preaching and recognition of personal sinfulness quite early on. &ldquo;Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord&rdquo; was followed by a commission to go preach the Gospel to Israel, just as Isaiah had been brought to the same point and then been sent on a like mission. The picture of the condemned is presented in Scripture in some detail. We are all condemned men and women before the light of the glory of Jesus Christ. If we are to be saved in that future day, we must judge / condemn ourselves now in our self-examination (1 Cor. 11:31). This means that we ought to have their feelings in some respects; as they will have no desire to go on living in the flesh, as they will so earnestly desire entry into the Kingdom, as they will then desperately not want to go back into the world... so we should feel now, grateful that for us there is entry into the Kingdom made possible. Thus Peter asked the Lord to depart from him (Lk. 5:8), with the very same words the Lord used about what He will say to the rejected (Lk. 13:27).</p><p>&quot;Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord&quot; was capturing the spirit of Isaiah. But the Lord responded that he was not to fear, but no now &quot;catch men&quot;. Peter\'s deep recognition of his sinfulness resulted in him being given a preaching commission. And in similar vein, Peter was given another commission to teach the word when he met the Lord after his denials (Jn. 21:15-17). In response to this he stood up and preached that forgiveness of sins was possible to all those that are afar off from God (Acts 2:39). As he did so, consciously or unconsciously, part of his mind must have been back in the way that on that shameful night he followed the Lord &ldquo;afar off&rdquo;, and far off from Him, denied Him (Mk. 14:54). Peter&rsquo;s vision of the unclean animals in the net taught him that those people whom he considered unclean, he was to &ldquo;eat&rdquo;, i.e. preach to and fellowship with. When he recounts the vision, he comments in an account that is strictly factual in all other regards and without any embellishment: &ldquo;It the sheet with the animals came <i>even to me</i>&rdquo; (Acts 11:5). He is expressing his unworthiness at being called to the task of preaching, just as Paul likewise expressed his inadequacy.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2389','1','42','5','9','9','<p>5:9 <i>For he was amazed, and all that were with him, at the catch of fish which they had taken</i>- The huge catch of fish, which nearly drowned them, was what provoked Peter to confess how sinful he was. He felt therefore that his sin was in being materialistic, in being obsessed with that huge catch, thinking of all the money they could earn in the market by selling it. The gift of wealth elicited within him a sense of sinfulness; and it should likewise within us all.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2390','1','42','5','10','10','<p>5:10 <i>And so were also James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon: Fear not. From this time forward you shall catch men</i>- See on Lk. 9:59; Jn. 21:2. <i>&quot;</i>Catch men&quot; is Gk. \'to catch alive\'. This is an example of where what sounds like predictive prophecy is actually a command, which men are free to obey or disobey. The whole section about the temple to be built in Ez. 40-48 is another example. Peter was not to &quot;fear&quot; his tendency to materialism and his momentary failure in this matter. He was to move onwards from that and see that the greatest thing in life is not success in our business, but bringing others into the Gospel net, dragging them, with the help of our brethren &quot;partners&quot; is <i>koinonos</i>, those we fellowship with, into the Kingdom.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2391','1','42','5','11','11','<p>5:11 <i>And when they had brought their boats to land, they left all and followed him</i>- They became His disciples, that is the meaning of the idiom. They powerfully learnt the lesson- that the Lord could give business success and wealth at ease. And therefore they in a moment left it all and focused on following Him. The &quot;all&quot; which they left included the huge catch of fish.</p><p>Peter on the shore doesn&rsquo;t say to the Lord that he had &lsquo;made a mistake&rsquo; or cast the net on the wrong side etc.- he confesses that he is a &ldquo;sinful man&rdquo; altogether. Jesus taught that sin was no longer to be seen as a list of specific actions which must be avoided in order to have a good conscience before God. The conviction of sin as God intends is far deeper than this. As the Lord makes clear, it&rsquo;s all about motives, what is inside the cup rather than what appears on the outside (Lk. 11:39). And we are to press on with the work of the Gospel, regardless of our previous failings in being distracted by issues of wealth and income.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2392','1','42','5','12','12','<p>5:12 <i>And it came to pass, while he was in one of the cities, that there was a man full of leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, saying- </i>The Greek literally means to bow or crouch. Perhaps it is being used here in that literal sense, inviting us then to imagine the Lord extending His hand to the kneeling man (:13). Or the idea could be that the man\'s worship was not in any external display of respect, but in the fact he believed in the Lord\'s ability and power to respond to his request. In this case, the man worshipped Jesus&nbsp;<i>in saying</i>&nbsp;&quot;If You will, You can...&quot;.</p><p>&quot;Begging&quot; is the Greek <i>parakleo</i>; and John\'s Gospel records at length the Lord\'s promise to be our<i> parakletos</i>, doing the work of comfort and entreaty, <i>parakleo</i>, for <i>us</i>. We see here the mutuality between a man and his Lord; both relate to each other in the same passionate way, in prayer from our side and in the Lord\'s gracious response from His side. The <i>parakleo</i> group of words are appropriate to both sides of the relationship.</p><p><i>Lord, if you will, you can make me clean</i>- The Lord replied that this was indeed His will (:13). This coincidence of human will with that of our Lord is what fellowship with Him and answered prayer is all about. The phrase &quot;If You will, You can...&quot; is recorded identically in all three of the synoptics (Mk. 1:40; Lk. 5:12), as if they all wished to draw attention to the man\'s attitude and make an example of it- accepting that the Lord has all power (&quot;can&quot; =&nbsp;<i>dunamai</i>), but that our will is not always His.</p><p>The man recognized that it was within the Lord\'s power to heal him, but he also recognized that the Lord\'s will is not always ours, as His longer term plan may require Him not to respond to our request in the immediate term. This is a great example to us. For he would have been aware that the Lord did not heal all human need which He encountered; He had just left Simon\'s house, apparently because He didn\'t want to cure all the crowds surely gathering there for healing.</p><p>Faith is inculcated by an appreciation of the height of Christ&rsquo;s exaltation. He now has all power in Heaven and in earth, and this in itself should inspire us with faith in prayer and hope in His coming salvation. On the basis of passages like Ex. 4:7; Num. 12:10-15; 2 Kings 5:7,8, &ldquo;leprosy was regarded as a &ldquo;stroke&quot; only to be removed by the Divine hand which had imposed it&quot; (L.G. Sargent,<i> The Gospel Of The Son Of God</i>, p. 28). The leper lived with this understanding, and yet he saw in Jesus nothing less than God manifest. Inspired by the height of the position which he gave Jesus in his heart, he could ask him in faith for a cure: &ldquo;If You will, You can as only God was understood to be able to make me clean&quot;.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2393','1','42','5','13','13','<p>5:13 <i>And he stretched forth his hand and touched him, saying: I will. Be made clean- </i>The Lord responds within the terms of the man\'s request: &quot;If You will, You can make me clean&quot;. We note the man sought cleansing above mere healing; his spiritual need for cleansing was paramount in his mind. We likewise should ask for material blessings motivated by spiritual concerns. The Lord could have cured the man in multiple ways, but he chose to touch the man, making Himself technically unclean; although it could be argued that the cure was so immediate that it was therefore debatable as to whether the Lord had actually touched a leper or not. Surely He did it the way He did to provoke such questions; for the process of questioning led to them becoming the more aware of the fact that the Lord\'s touch had indeed cleansed the man. And the whole question of ritual uncleanness was of course put in the spotlight. The Lord was and is unafraid to associate with the very dirtiest of human conditions and situations. There was no revulsion from them, as there is not today. The Lord is described a staggering 28 times in the synoptics as touching people. This was a studied rejection of the false teaching of \'guilt by association\' or \'contamination by contact\'. More than that, the Lord was at such lengths to identify Himself with suffering people.</p><p><i>And immediately the leprosy departed from him</i>- The immediacy of the cure upon touching the Lord raised all kind of questions for the legalistic mind, as to whether the Lord was made unclean or not. The Greek literally means \'scales\' and the same word is used of scales falling from Saul\'s eyes in Acts 9:18. It could\'ve been any skin disease rather than Hansen\'s disease. In Mt. 10:8 the Lord told the disciples to likewise &quot;cleanse the lepers&quot;. Again the Lord is giving the disciples the work of the priests to do. For it was their job to pronounce lepers cleansed. But He is asking them to do what He Himself had done here. His work was to be theirs. The later NT references to&nbsp;<i>our</i>&nbsp;being cleansed by the Lord Jesus (Eph. 5:26; Tit. 2:14; 1 Jn. 1:7,9 etc.) perhaps look back to how the historical Jesus cleansed lepers in Galilee. We are to see ourselves in that isolated and rejected man.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2394','1','42','5','14','14','<p>5:14 <i>And he ordered him: Tell no one, but go your way and show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing according as Moses commanded, for a testimony to them</i>- The Lord had told the cured leper to tell no other man but go and offer for his cleansing, in order to make a witness to the priests. All three synoptics record this, as if it made a special impression on everyone (Mt. 8:4; Mk. 1:44; Lk. 5:14). It could be that the Lord is using an idiom when He told the leper to tell nobody: &lsquo;Go and make a witness&nbsp;<i>first and foremost</i>&nbsp;to the priests as opposed to anybody else&rsquo;. Such was His zeal for their salvation. And the fact that &ldquo;a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith&rdquo; (Acts 6:7) shows how this apparently hope-against-hope desire of the Lord for the conversion of His enemies somehow came true. We noted on Mt. 8:3 that the work of the priests was to cleanse the leper- but this had been done by the Lord. The man was therefore to show himself to the priests- in order to demonstrate to them that another priest and priesthood was already coming into operation.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2395','1','42','5','15','15','<p>5:15 <i>However, the report went around concerning him all the more; and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities</i>- Mk. 1:45 notes that therefore &quot;Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but stayed in deserted places&quot;. If we put the stress on the word &quot;openly&quot;, we are left imagining Jesus somehow disguising Himself in order to enter the towns. This is the reason why the Lord so sternly charged the healed man not to spread the news (:43); the stampede of people wanting healing meant that the Lord was unable to perform His most important ministry, which was to preach rather than to heal</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2396','1','42','5','16','16','<p>5:16 <i>But he withdrew himself into the desert and prayed</i>- Each healing took energy and spiritual power from the Lord (8:46). As noted on 4:42, the Lord was desperate for aloneness with God in prayer; for this was His source of being filled by the Spirit.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2397','1','42','5','17','17','<p>5:17 <i>And it came to pass on one of those days that he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, who had come out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was with him to hea</i>l- The power of the Lord was present to heal the Pharisees- but they would not make use of what was potentially made available. The text suggests that the healing was possible for the Pharisees. The healing in view was therefore spiritual healing; and the whole incident of curing the paralyzed man was therefore in order to potentially provide the religious leaders with spiritual healing. The Lord\'s work in our lives is likewise multifaceted. Things happen in order that others may be taught, as happened in the life and sufferings of Job- it was to convert and teach the friends rather than Job personally, who is presented as &quot;perfect&quot; both before and after the recorded sufferings.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2398','1','42','5','18','18','<p>5:18 <i>And men brought on a bed a man that was paralysed; and they sought to bring him in and to lay him before him</i>- The term for &quot;brought&quot; is also used of bringing a sacrifice to God, but in this case of the lame.&nbsp;&quot;Bed&quot; is Gk. a table or a couch. They had grabbed whatever could serve as a stretcher.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2399','1','42','5','19','19','<p>5:19 <i>But not finding by what way they might bring him in, because of the crowd, they went to the housetop and let him down through the tiles with his couch, into the midst before Jesus</i>- This was all done in faith, and by doing this the Lord saw their faith (:20). Mk. 2:3 says they &quot;carried&quot; him, the term means literally to be taken up or away, and reflects the Hebrew term used for the bearing away of sin. And :20 confirms this association by stating that it was through the faith of the four friends that the man\'s sins were forgiven. This is the huge horizon of potential which there is for us in our efforts for others- we can even play a role in the Lord forgiving them their sins. This lifts the concept of pastoral work far beyond mere doing of good works.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2400','1','42','5','20','20','<p>5:20 <i>And seeing their faith, he said- </i>This is emphasized in all the accounts of this incident. Because of the faith of third parties, the sins of this man were forgiven. James speaks of the same possibility (James 5:15- the same Greek words for &quot;sins&quot; and &quot;forgiven&quot; are used there). Here we have a principle which can totally affect the course and hourly practice of our lives. In some cases, the sins of others can be forgiven because of&nbsp;<i>our</i>&nbsp;faith. Job understood that when he offered for his sons after their wild parties. Of course there are invisible limits to the principle, but many of those with whom we have to do in church life are surely within those limits. Quite simply, the salvation of others depends to some extent and in some cases- upon our faith and prayers, and effort to get them to Jesus. This imparts huge and eternal significance to our lives, lived and prayed for others. The same Greek words for &quot;sins&quot; and &quot;forgiven&quot; are used again in the enigmatic Jn. 20:23: &quot;Whose soever sins you forgive, they are forgiven them&quot;. I suspect this is John\'s version of the great commission to preach the Gospel of forgiveness to others- the idea being that if we bring them to Jesus, then thanks to our efforts for them, they will be forgiven. And if we are slack to do this, then God may not always find another way, and their sins remain unforgiven. Prayer really does change things. God is willing to do things in the life of a third party (even forgive them) for the sake of the prayers and efforts of others. That man was healed for the sake of the faith of others. The widow woman&rsquo;s son was resurrected because God heard Elijah&rsquo;s faithful prayer (1 Kings 17:22).</p><p><i>Man, your sins are forgiven you</i>- The Lord emphasized this first, and then went on to heal him physically. It\'s common for the sick and their carers to focus almost exclusively upon their need for healing, whereas the most essential human need is for forgiveness. So the Lord stressed the forgiveness first, and the healing secondly. Clearly there was a link in this case between sin and illness. It could be argued that the two things are connected as they both arise from the curse in Eden. But I would suggest that it\'s likely that in this case, the connection between the man\'s paralysis and his sin was more direct. We too often shrug at those in such situations and consider that \'it\'s their fault\'. So it may be, but if a man digs a hole and falls into it, he\'s still in the hole. And we have all done this, and the Gospel was designed for us exactly because we have done that. There is an inevitable connection between this incident and Is. 33:24, where we read of the restored Zion that &quot;the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity&quot;. The Lord is implying here as elsewhere that the prophecies of the restored Zion were to be fulfilled in the lives of individuals who had come to Him, and not in the literal glorification and exaltation of Jerusalem over the Roman occupiers.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2401','1','42','5','21','21','<p>5:21 <i>And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason-</i>Matthew adds &quot;within themselves&quot;. Consider the huge emphasis of the New Testament upon \'thinking / talking within oneself\', especially within the Gospels. The same Greek phrase is used repeatedly:<br />- &quot;Think not to say within yourselves&quot; (Mt. 3:9)<br />- &quot;The scribes said within themselves&quot; (Mt. 9:3)<br />- &quot;She said within herself&quot; (Mt. 9:21)<br />- The believer who fails to grow spiritually has no root &quot;within himself&quot; (Mt. 13:21)<br />- &quot;They reasoned within themselves... Why do you reason within yourselves...&quot; (Mt. 16:7,8)<br />- &quot;The husbandmen... said within themselves&quot; (Mt. 21:38)<br />- The disciples &quot;disputed within themselves&quot; (Mk. 9:33)<br />- Have salt &quot;within yourselves&quot; (Mk. 9:50)<br />- The Pharisee &quot;spake within himself&quot; (Lk. 7:39)<br />- The guests &quot;began to say within themselves&quot; (Lk. 7:49)<br />- The rich fool &quot;thought within himself, saying...&quot; (Lk. 12:17)<br />- &quot;The steward said within himself&quot; (Lk. 16:3)<br />- The unjust judge &quot;said within himself&quot; (Lk. 18:4)<br />- Peter &quot;doubted in himself&quot; (Acts 10:17)<br />- Jews who heard the Gospel &quot;reasoned within themselves&quot; (Acts 28:29 Gk.)<br />- Israel &quot;through the lusts of their own hearts... dishonoured their bodies within themselves&quot; (Rom. 1:24)<br />- &quot;Within yourselves... you have a better and enduring substance&quot; (Heb. 10:34)<br />- &quot;Partial within yourselves, judges of evil thoughts&quot; (James 2:4).</p><p>There are many other Bible verses which likewise speak of the internal state of a person and the significance of our self-talk- these are just examples of one Greek phrase. It is logical therefore to expect that the great adversary or \'satan\' to be internal thinking, how we think and speak within ourselves. And properly understood, this is indeed what \'satan\' in the Bible sometimes refers to. We should deeply note at this point that the thoughts of men in their hearts are known to the Father and Son, and have been recorded publicly here in these records for many centuries.</p><p><i>Saying: Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?</i>- The miracles of Jesus exposed the error of local views, e.g. of demons, without correcting them in so many words. Thus in Lk. 5:21 the Jews made two false statements: that Jesus was a blasphemer, and that God alone could forgive sins. Jesus did not verbally correct them; instead he did a miracle which proved the falsity of those statements. It was clearly the belief of Jesus that actions speak louder than words. He rarely denounced false ideas directly, thus he did not denounce the Mosaic law as being unable to offer salvation, but He showed by His actions, e.g. healing on the Sabbath, what the truth was.</p><p>The Jews got caught up on the issue of whether Christ\'s forgiveness of others made Him God or not- just as some folk do today. His response was to refocus them on the fact that He wanted&nbsp;<i>you</i>&nbsp;to<i> know</i>&nbsp;that He had real power to forgive&nbsp;<i>their</i>&nbsp;sins (Lk. 5:24). I spend a lot of time arguing against the trinity and the \'Jesus = God\' mentality. But the essence is, do we&nbsp;<i>know</i>&nbsp;on a personal level that the Lord Jesus really has the power to forgive&nbsp;<i>our</i>&nbsp;sins?</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2402','1','42','5','22','22','<p>5:22 <i>But Jesus, perceiving their reasoning, answered and said to them- </i>Time and again, the Gospels record how He &ldquo;perceived&rdquo; things about people. Admittedly this could have been because He simply had a Holy Spirit gift to enable this. But I prefer to think that His sensitivity, His perception, aided by His extraordinary intellectual ability as the Son of God for intelligence and perception / sensitivity are related&hellip; these things developed within Him over the years so that He could sense the essential needs and feelings of others to an unsurpassed extent. &ldquo;Jesus, seeing their thoughts&hellip;&rdquo; (Mt. 9:4 RVmg.) shows how He came to perceive the hearts of others from His observation of them. This was the same Jesus who could be ridiculed into scorn / shame / embarrassment (Mt. 9:24), such was His sensitivity to others. This incident helps us to understand the ability of the mind / spirit of the Lord Jesus to connect with that of human beings. Mk. 2:8 puts it like this: &quot;Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, &quot;Why are you thinking such things in your hearts?&quot; (NET Bible). The spirit / mind of Jesus was at one with the spirit / mind of those men. Such was His sensitivity. I don\'t think it was a gift of Holy Spirit knowledge so much as His sensitivity to the minds of men... and yet Rom. 8:16 calls Jesus &quot;The Spirit&quot; as a title, saying that He bears witness with our spirit / mind, in His intercession to the Father. So this incident in the Gospels gives us as it were an insight into how He&nbsp;<i>now</i>&nbsp;operates too... He\'s the same today as yesterday. He\'s at one with our mind / spirit, and also with the mind / Spirit of the Father. Thus is He such a matchless mediator. The way the Lord Jesus \'knew\' things because of His extreme sensitivity, rather than necessarily by some flash of Holy Spirit insight, isn\'t unparalleled amongst other men. Elisha knew what Gehazi had done when Gehazi went back to ask Naaman for a reward- Elisha commented: &quot;Went not my heart with you, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet you?&quot; (2 Kings 5:26). Elisha imagined Naaman dismounting from his chariot, etc. And he could guess that the request had involved &quot;money... garments&quot; etc. That the Lord\'s knowledge wasn\'t necessarily automatic is reflected in the way we read things like &quot;When he saw their faith... when Jesus heard it...&quot; (Mk. 2:5,17). He \'saw\' and knew things by the sensitivity of His perception.</p><p><i>Why reason you so in your hearts?</i>- This was a rhetorical question. Why did they struggle with His offer of forgiveness? Because it required an acceptance of it from them, which in turn required repentance.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2403','1','42','5','23','23','<p>5:23 <i>Which is easier to say-</i> Gk. \'less work\'. The Lord meant \'Which is easier&nbsp;for Me\'. There were plenty of claims to heal people; but to forgive sins was of a different order altogether. But the Lord is saying that for Him, they are one and the same; and that His healing was performed in this case on the basis of having forgiven the man his sin. Not only could He forgive sin, but in this case He could remove the consequence of it. For the Lord healed the man&nbsp;<i>so that&nbsp;</i>they would realize that He had power to forgive sins (:24).</p><p><i>Your sins are forgiven; or to say: Arise and walk?</i>- The same words used by Peter when he tells the lame man to \'arise and walk\' (Acts 3:6). Peter consciously or unconsciously replicated his Lord in doing healing miracles. The very body language and word choice of the Lord were so impressed upon him that they became the pattern for&nbsp;<i>his</i>&nbsp;ministry; and the same should be true of us. The paralyzed man of Jn. 5:8 was likewise told to arise, take up his bed and walk- using the same words used here about the paralyzed man. Clearly the Lord Jesus worked with people according to some pattern. And we can discern similar hallmarks of His work as we get to know each other within the body of Christ today, perceiving as we exchange stories and testimonies that the Lord in essence works in similar ways between human lives today.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2404','1','42','5','24','24','<p>5:24 <i>But that you may know-</i> The reason for the healing miracle was to teach that He could forgive sins. This is why I suggest that in this man\'s case, his paralysis was a direct and publicly known result of his sin. Perhaps he had been alcoholic, or become paralyzed in an accident whilst stealing something. In this case his friends are to be commended for so wanting his healing, because many would have shrugged him off as someone who was suffering justly. The link between his illness and his sin was so clear that to heal him was seen as effectively forgiving him&nbsp;<i>and</i>&nbsp;removing the consequence of his sin. David, Moses and others often asked for the consequences of sin to be removed and at times received this. The palsied man was healed by the Lord in order to&nbsp;<i>teach others</i>&nbsp;that Jesus had the power to forgive sins. Job was a &ldquo;perfect&rdquo; man before the afflictions started; and he is presented as a &lsquo;perfect&rsquo; man at the end. The purpose of his trials was not only to develop him, but also in order to teach the friends and we readers some lessons. The purpose of our trials too may not only be for our benefit, but for that of others. If we suffer anything, it is so that we might help others (2 Cor. 1:4). He didn&rsquo;t&nbsp;<i>only</i>&nbsp;reward the faith of the man&rsquo;s friends; His motive for the miracle was to seek to teach those Scribes. Our tendency surely would have been to ignore them, to be angry that in the face of grace they could be so legalistic and petty and so far, far from God... and get on and heal the sick man who believed. But the Lord&rsquo;s picture of human salvation was far wider and more inclusive and more hopeful than that.</p><p><i>That the Son of Man- </i>The humanity of Jesus was the very basis upon which He could and can forgive human sin. This is why Mt. 9:8 records that the crowds praised God for having given such power&nbsp;<i>unto men</i>. He understood Himself as rightful judge of humanity exactly because He was &quot;son of man&quot; (Jn. 5:27)- because every time we sin, He as a man would\'ve chosen differently, He is therefore able to be our judge. And likewise, exactly because He was a &quot;son of man&quot;, &quot;the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins&quot;. If it is indeed true that &quot;\'Son of Man\' represents the highest conceivable declaration of exaltation in Judaism&quot;, then we can understand the play on words the Lord was making- for the term \'son of man\' can also without doubt just mean \'humanity generally\'. Exactly because He was human, and yet perfect, He was so exalted.</p><p><i>Has authority on earth to forgive sins (he said to him who was paralyzed)-</i> He had that power during His mortal life, and yet after His resurrection &quot;<i>all</i>&nbsp;power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth&quot; (Mt. 28:18). His power to save and forgive is therefore even greater. Perhaps the contrast was that He had the power of forgiveness delegated to Him in specific cases during His ministry, but after the resurrection He had power in His own right to forgive, not on the basis of delegated power but power / authority in His own Name; even though that exalted position was of course given Him by God the Father.</p><p>The Jews got caught up on the issue of whether Christ\'s forgiveness of others made Him God or not- just as some folk do today. His response was to refocus them on the fact that He wanted <i>you</i> to <i>know</i> that He had real power to forgive <i>their</i> sins. I spend a lot of time arguing against the trinity and the \'Jesus = God\' mentality. But the essence is, do we <i>know</i> on a personal level that the Lord Jesus really has the power to forgive <i>our</i> sins?</p><p>The disciples observed as Jesus made a lame man <i>arise</i>, take up his bed, and follow Him. But in Acts 9:34, we find Peter doing just the same to Aeneas, even taking him by the hand as he had seen Jesus do to Jairus&rsquo; daughter. What Peter had seen and learnt of the Lord Jesus, he was now called to do. Not for nothing did he tell Aeneas that &ldquo;Jesus Christ makes you whole&rdquo;, thereby recognizing the connection between him and his Lord.</p><p>&quot;He said to him that was paralyzed&quot; suggests He turned from the Jews to the paralyzed man. It could be that the healing was really for the benefit of the hard hearted scribes- the Lord was going to all this trouble to try to persuade them of His authority as God\'s Son. We would likely have given up with them, but the way the Lord kept on trying with the orthodox Jews of His day is an essay in perseverance in witnessing. And amazingly, it paid off- in that a number of priests and Pharisees were baptized after His resurrection (Acts 6:7; 15:5).</p><p><i>I say to you, arise and take up your bedding and go to your house</i>- The same word is used for taking up the cross (Mt. 16:24), and the Greek for &quot;bed&quot; is also translated a table or couch. He was to pick up a piece of wood and go his way. He was given a simple task of obedience immediately after meeting with Jesus, and we can see that pattern repeated in how the Lord works with people today.</p><p>The Lord was sensitive to the situation of those He healed or converted. Just as He commanded the resurrected girl to be given something to eat, so He realized the pressure that would be on the healed man- and so He told him to go home immediately and thus avoid the limelight.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2405','1','42','5','25','25','<p>5:25 <i>And immediately, he stood up before them, picked up what he had been lying on and went home, glorifying God</i>- Emphasizing his exact and studied obedience to the Lord\'s command to Him to go home (:24). He did it &quot;before them all&quot;- another hint that the miracle was for teaching purposes; the Lord was surrounded by people eager for healing, and instead He taught them. The immediacy of the cure, especially in response to the faith of third parties, was utterly unknown amongst those who had seen too many fake healers attempting to heal illness.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2406','1','42','5','26','26','<p>5:26 <i>And they were all amazed, and they glorified God; and they were filled with fear, saying: We have seen strange things today</i>- This is a strange mixture, at first blush- glorifying God and yet being filled with fear instead of joy, describing the wonderful healing and forgiveness as &quot;strange things&quot;. Why the barrier to joyful acceptance of the Lord\'s work? I suggest as noted on :22 that His offer of forgiveness demanded acceptance of it, and therefore repentance. And so they preferred to act bemused and confused, as many do to this day when faced with God\'s truth in Christ, preferring the search rather than the finding of the ultimate truth- that really we can be forgiven and faith rewarded in salvation and the ultimate healing of persons. On one hand, they knew it was all true, and &quot;glorified God&quot;. But then their humanity kicked in. And we see this so often in folk today.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2407','1','42','5','27','27','<p>5:27 <i>And after these things he went and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax office, and said to him: Follow me</i>- Matthew, according to Matthew\'s record. There is reason to believe that Matthew was himself a converted Scribe, who had perhaps turned away from it to being a tax collector; the way he has access to various versions of Scripture and quotes them as having been fulfilled in a way reminiscent of the Jewish commentaries (compare Mt. 4:12-17 with Mk. 1:14,15) suggests this. Matthew\'s other name was Levi, strengthening the possibility he was once a Levitical scribe; for the scribes were drawn from the priests and Levites. The point is that in this case Matthew would be referring to himself when he writes: &ldquo;Every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old&rdquo; (Mt. 13:52). Yet he does so in a beautifully oblique and selfless manner. The Scribes have just been mentioned in the previous incident, which apparently took place within sight of Matthew\'s desk (Mt. 9:3).</p><p>It\'s hard to grasp the degree to which tax collectors were despised and distrusted. We may at times think that we need to show our best front personally when preaching the Gospel, to display our credentials, in order to persuade others of our message. Matthew thought otherwise. He was quite open about who he had been when he was called. Human credentials do not ultimately persuade men and women of Christ- a degree in theology, knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, academic status, a stable career, an externally spotless family history. Rather do the Gospels show us that it is those from questionable backgrounds who are chosen by the Lord as His most effective messengers. The content of the message ultimately far outweighs the credibility of the messenger. And the same is seen today in the preaching of the Gospel.&nbsp;</p><p>It was whilst he was at work that he was called, just as the other disciples were called exactly whilst they were about their fishing business, and like Matthew, left all and &quot;followed&quot; the Lord. This is when the call of Christ comes to us- in the very midst of secular life, rather than resting at home looking at a screen.</p><p>&quot;Follow me&quot; means to share the same road with. And the road or way of Jesus led to Jerusalem, to the death of the cross, and then to life eternal. The word is used about 80 times in the Gospels. The call was to follow Jesus; the crowds followed, the disciples followed, but often the Lord tries to teach them the difference between merely externally following Him on the same public road, and following Him as He intends; which is to carry a cross and follow Him to Golgotha. We who follow Him in our life situations today are in essence continuing the following of Him which began in those early days in Galilee. But we likewise are challenged as to whether our following is mere membership of a denomination, or a personal following of Him.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2408','1','42','5','28','28','<p>5:28 <i>And he forsook all, and rose up and followed him</i>- Exactly as he had just observed the paralyzed man obediently arise and go where the Lord told him. It\'s as if Matthew saw himself in that paralyzed man. As the man was laying on the \'bed\', so Matthew was sitting \'on\' the receipt of custom, the elevated chair and desk (<i>epi</i>, translated &quot;at&quot;, is better translated in this context &quot;on&quot;). The Lord spoke with &quot;authority&quot; in the eyes of the people- so that a man arose and followed Him. What gave Him this? Surely it was His lifestyle, who He was, the way there was no gap between His words and who He was. The word of the Gospel, the message, was made flesh in Him. There was a perfect congruence between His theory and His practice. The repeated amazement which people expressed at the Lord\'s teaching may not only refer to the actual content of His material; but more at the way in which He expressed it, the unique way in which word was made flesh in Him. The way the Lord could ask men to follow Him, and they arose and followed is surely testimony to the absolute, direct and unaccountable authority of Jesus. It was surely His very ordinariness which made Him so compelling.</p><p>The Lord valued persons for who they were, and this had radical results in practice. And yet He spoke with &quot;authority&quot; in the eyes of the people. What gave Him this? Surely it was His lifestyle, who He was, the way there was no gap between His words and who He was. The word of the Gospel, the message, was made flesh in Him. There was a perfect congruence between His theory and His practice. The repeated amazement which people expressed at the Lord\'s teaching may not only refer to the actual content of His material; but more at the way in which He expressed it, the unique way in which word was made flesh in Him. The way the Lord could ask men to follow Him, and they arose and followed (Mk. 2:14), is surely testimony to the absolute, direct and unaccountable authority of Jesus. It was surely His very ordinariness which made Him so compelling. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2409','1','42','5','29','29','<p>5:29 <i>And Levi made him a great feast in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and of others that were dining with them</i>- Clearly the associates of Matthew. They came and sat down with Jesus whilst He was eating. And He accepted them. Given the religious significance of eating together, note the Lord\'s open table.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2410','1','42','5','30','30','<p>5:30 <i>And the Pharisees and their scribes murmured against his disciples, saying: Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?</i>- See on Lk. 7:39. To eat together had a religious dimension; the Lord was seen as fellowshipping sinners at His table in a radically open manner, just as we should. To break your bread with someone, to eat together, was a religious act in Palestinian Jewish society. The Lord broke His bread with sinners in order to bring them to repentance; not because He considered they had cleared some kind of bar of moral and doctrinal acceptability. His table was open, radically so, and so should ours be.</p><p>The disciples were from very varied backgrounds; and Lk. 5:30 RVmg. describes how publicans and sinners had Pharisees and Scribes among them as they all sat at the same table gathered around Jesus. There was something in His person and teaching which welded people together.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2411','1','42','5','31','31','<p>5:31 <i>And Jesus answering said to them: They that are in health have no need of a doctor, but they that are sick</i>- &quot;Doctor&quot; is literally, a healer. The same word is used of how &quot;by his stripes you were healed&quot; (1 Pet. 2:24). All who will finally be saved have been healed by Jesus. Therefore &quot;they that be whole&quot; must be understood as meaning \'those who&nbsp;<i>think they are</i>&nbsp;whole\'. The Lord\'s healing work was done by fellowshipping with those who realized their need for healing. He broke His bread with them first; He didn\'t heal them and then invite only the healed to His exclusive table. This breaking of bread with them was a \'calling to repentance\' (:32). The many records of the Lord\'s physical healing were all intended to be acted parables of His healing of spiritual sickness</p><p>The Greek word for &quot;in health&quot; is usually translated with the sense of \'being able\'. The Lord\'s work was with them who felt&nbsp;<i>unable</i>&nbsp;to be righteous, who felt that circumstance and past history had left them spiritually incapacitated. <br />Perception of need and spiritual helplessness is the vital prerequisite. The Lord healed &quot;them that had need of healing&quot; (Lk. 9:11), those who perceived their need. The Lord uses the same word in speaking of how He doesn\'t go find and save those &quot;which need no repentance&quot; (Lk. 15:11); again, an ellipsis must be read in: \'Those who&nbsp;<i>think they</i>&nbsp;need no repentance\'. And again in Rev. 3:17- the Laodiceans thought that they &quot;had need of nothing&quot;. This, therefore, was a major concern of the Lord- that we cease to perceive our need for Him. The attitude that \'I have no need...\' is picked up by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:21,24, where he warns against thinking that we have no need of weaker members of the body of Christ. Our need for Christ personally is to be reflected in practice in our need for association with His body, however weak we feel it to be. God supplies all our need in Christ (Phil. 4:19), but that supplying of our need is not solely in the death of Christ for us, but in the body of Christ.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2412','1','42','5','32','32','<p>5:32 <i>I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance</i>- He was implying, &lsquo;I came not to call those who believe they are righteous&rsquo;. But Jesus spoke to them on their own terms, even though, technically, He was using language which was untrue. See on Lk. 19:23.&nbsp;The Lord is referring to the wicked Pharisees here as &ldquo;the righteous&hellip; they that are whole&rdquo;. Yet they were not righteous. He was speaking of them according to how they saw themselves.</p><p>It was the disciples who had only recently been \'called\'- because they considered themselves sinners, the sick who needed a doctor.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Consider how the Lord asks Zacchaeus to eat with Him- a public sign of religious fellowship in first century Palestine. This acceptance of the man for who and where he was, inspired Zacchaeus to then start changing his life in practice- he then offered to give back what he had stolen. When quizzed as to why He ate / fellowshipped with sinners, the Lord replied that He had come to call sinners to repentance. Think through the implications of this. He fellowshipped with those who were so weak within the ecclesia of Israel so as to bring them to repentance; His eating with them was like a doctor making a home visit. The religious attitude of the Pharisees was that one only fellowshipped someone who was repentant; whereas the Lord said that He fellowshipped with people to bring them to repentance. Note how in Lk. 19:1-10, the Lord offered salvation to sinners <i>before</i> they had repented. It&rsquo;s the same idea.</p><p>The fellowship of the Lord Jesus was a call towards repentance, not a reward for it. See on Mt. 3:11; John baptized people&nbsp;<i>unto</i>&nbsp;repentance. The methods of the Lord should be ours, for having spent His ministry doing this, He transferred it to us in bidding us likewise go worldwide and call others to repentance (Lk. 24:47).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2413','1','42','5','33','33','<p>5:33 <i>And they said to him: The disciples of John fast often and make supplications, likewise also the disciples of the Pharisees; but your disciples eat and drink</i>- Was this also in Capernaum? If so, we note that John\'s influence had spread as far north as Galilee. In any case, the impression is given of wave after wave of questioning, activity, controversy. It would\'ve all been so mentally draining of the Lord\'s spirituality and emotions.</p><p>The implication was that they didn\'t even fast at the Day of Atonement, the one Biblical command for fasting. The Lord\'s disciples were mostly secular men whom He was trying to turn into spiritual people. And this continues to be the thrust of His work with people. The focus of our preaching should likewise be on getting unspiritual, secular people to believe, rather than focusing on trying to persuade those who already believe in Him to change their understandings of some points. I don\'t say we shouldn\'t do this, but far more will be achieved to His glory by bringing unbelievers to faith, rather than correcting misbelievers. Another reason why John\'s disciples thought the Lord\'s men didn\'t fast could have been because they took seriously His command to not appear to others to fast. And John\'s disciples proclaiming their fasting meant they were overlooking the Lord\'s clear teaching&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;to do this in the Sermon on the Mount. But in His gracious way, the Lord didn\'t point out the obvious&nbsp;<i>faux pas</i>&nbsp;in their reasoning. He could\'ve said \'John told you to obey Me. I teach not to proclaim your own fasting. Why aren\'t you obedient to My teaching?\'. But instead He reasoned with them on their own ground. And again, we see a pattern for our engagement with others- not to always baldly confront misunderstanding and reduce it to a right / wrong, black and white issue, but to lead the person further by accepting for a moment that their faulty assumptions are true; for they are true to the person who holds them, and the Lord recognized that.</p><p>We also see the Lord\'s gentle grace in teaching His disciples how to fast, acting as if they were not fasting; when actually they never fasted at all until that point. He wanted them to continue showing themselves to be secular men, who really believed in Jesus. This had been exactly His approach until age 30, to manifest God\'s perfection through the shroud of ordinariness.</p><p>The Lord defended the non-observant Judaism of the twelve as being due to their joy that He, the bridegroom, was with them. When they &lsquo;ground corn&rsquo; on the Sabbath, the Lord defended them to their critics by saying that they were like David&rsquo;s men eating the shewbread. Those guys were just walking through a cornfield rubbing ears together as their manner was, as they had done on many a Sabbath day, but not realizing that this time there was some Scribe out with his binocular vision scrutinizing them. They surely weren&rsquo;t doing it because their minds were on the incident of David&rsquo;s men eating the shewbread. The Lord had asked them to obey the Scribes, who sat in Moses&rsquo; seat, over this kind of trivia. But He doesn&rsquo;t rebuke them. Rather, He defends them to others, imputing far more spiritual perception to them than they had (Lk. 6:1-4). &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2414','1','42','5','34','34','<p>5:34 <i>And Jesus said to them: Can you make the wedding guests fast, while the bridegroom is with them?</i>- He spoke of how that band of rough, mixed up men were filled with the joy of little bridesmaids because He was among them. Now this is an essay in imputed righteousness. The Lord saw the zeal of the uncertain, misunderstanding disciples as storm troopers taking the city of the Kingdom of God by force- knowing exactly where they were coming from and where they were going (Mt. 11:12). And even after reprimanding them for their slowness of heart to believe, the record graciously says that they &ldquo;believed not for joy&rdquo;- although joy can never hinder faith.</p><p>John had likened himself to the Lord\'s best man at a forthcoming wedding. The Lord phrases his reply to John\'s disciples in terms they would\'ve understood- a pattern for us to follow in our response to people. Note too that the Lord\'s answer implied that His wedding was about to happen. He hoped against hope that Israel would respond, and the Messianic banquet would be soon. But in His later parables, He spoke of how even the guests couldn\'t be bothered to attend it; it was delayed until human response was suitable. But His hopefulness for human response is again a pattern for us, to have a hopeful attitude in our witness.</p><p>The joy of the bridegroom\'s friends is a sharing of the groom\'s joy. John\'s Gospel records this truth in a different way when speaking of how the Lord\'s joy is to be our joy (Jn. 15:11; 17:13); at His return, we will enter into His joy (Mt. 25:21). We note again how the Lord phrased His response to John\'s disciples in terms they would best relate to- for John had said that his joy was complete, because he was \'the friend of the bridegroom\' (Jn. 3:29). The Lord is saying that His disciples are also friends of the bridegroom- He is seeking to persuade John\'s disciples that actually His disciples are the same as they are, notwithstanding differences in spiritual culture, in that they are related to Jesus in the same way, as friends of the groom. The Lord was always very positive about His followers. He explained their lack of fasting on their joy at the forthcoming Messianic banquet, when in reality their lack of fasting was because they were secular, non-religious people. The Lord wasn&rsquo;t na&iuml;ve, although He was so positive. He told the disciples quite frankly that they were full of &ldquo;unbelief&rdquo;, and couldn&rsquo;t do miracles which He expected them to because they didn&rsquo;t pray and fast (Mt. 17:19-21). And yet when quizzed by the Pharisees as to why His disciples didn&rsquo;t fast, He said it was because they were so happy to be with Him, the bridegroom. Here surely He was seeing the best in them. They come over as confused, mixed up men who wanted the Kingdom there and then and were frustrated at the Lord&rsquo;s inaction in establishing it. But He saw that they recognised Him as the bridegroom, as Messiah, and He exalted in this, and saw their lack of fasting as partly due to the deep-down joy which He knew they had.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2415','1','42','5','35','35','<p>5:35 <i>But the days will come- </i>Not necessarily plural- s.w. &quot;the day&quot; (Mt. 6:34; 10:15), &quot;that day&quot; (Mt. 7:22).</p><p><i>When the bridegroom shall be taken away from them; then will they fast, in those days</i>- The Gk.&nbsp;<i>apairo</i>&nbsp;&quot;taken away&quot; is a form of the Greek&nbsp;<i>pairo</i>&nbsp;which has just been used in Mt. 9:6 (&quot;<i>take up</i>&nbsp;your bed&quot;) and which is now used in the next verse about the new cloth \'taking from\' the old garment (Mt. 9:16). What exactly the connection of thought might be is hard to say. But clearly the \'taking of Jesus from\' the disciples was to be at the same time as when the new wine and new cloth were available, which would \'take from\' the old cloth in destroying it. This time was surely the death of the Lord Jesus, at which the new wine of His blood confirmed the new covenant and thus ended the old. It was then of course that the disciples mourned (s.w. Mk. 16:10 &quot;they&nbsp;<i>mourned</i>&nbsp;and wept&quot;); and the same Greek word for \'taken from\' occurs in Jn. 19:15 where the Jews cry &quot;Away with Him&quot;- to the cross; in Jn. 19:31,38 where the body of Jesus is \'taken from\' the cross and in Acts 8:33 &quot;His life is&nbsp;<i>taken from</i>&nbsp;the earth&quot;. Significantly, Col. 2:14 uses the word to describe how on the cross, Christ \'took away\' the old covenant. This is the idea of its usage in Mt. 9:16, that the new wine and new garment would \'take from / away\' the old. And it was achieved by the \'taking away\' of Jesus at the cross. Through the grace of Jesus, He is in love with us; He has called us to be His bride. He sees us in an extremely positive light. He counts us as righteous to a degree that is a real struggle to believe- even during His ministry, &quot;when we were yet sinners&quot;, and when the only example He had of His bride were those faltering 12. He tells the Jews that&nbsp; His people will fast and mourn for His absence after His departure, with the intensity that the friends of the bridegroom would have if the groom suddenly collapsed and died at the wedding (this seems to be the picture of Mt. 9:15, seeing &quot;taken away&quot; as an idiom for sudden death). This is surely a positive view of the sorrow of the body of Christ for their Lord\'s absence. Even if we see in this mini-parable only a description of the disciples\' sorrow after the&nbsp;Lord\'s death, He is giving a very positive description of the disciples\' joy, saying that they didn\'t fast for joy of being with Him; He describes their joy as the joy of the friends of the groom at the wedding. Yet the Gospels paint the twelve as a struggling, uncertain group of men, eaten up with the petty arguments of this life, unused to the self-control of fasting. Peter, for example, had until very recently been a possibly immoral young fisherman (1 Pet. 4:3).&nbsp;The happiness of the disciples is explained in terms of them being at a wedding. The happiness of the wedding is normally associated with alcohol, and the context here goes on to explain that Christ\'s new covenant is symbolised by new wine. The difference between John\'s disciples and Christ\'s was that Christ\'s were full of the joy of the new covenant. But there is ample reason to think that they were heavily influenced by Judaist thinking; they didn\'t go and preach to the Gentile world as Christ commanded, and even Peter was marvellously slow to realize the Jewish food laws had been ended by Christ, despite the Lord\'s strong implication of this in Mk. 7:19 (not AV). Yet the grace of Jesus saw His men&nbsp;<i>as if</i>&nbsp;they had grasped the meaning of the new covenant,&nbsp;<i>as if</i>&nbsp;they had the joy of true faith in and understanding of His work; and He spoke of them to the world in these terms. We can take untold comfort from this; for we dare to believe that the Lord does and will confess our name (character) in a like exalted manner to the Father and His Angels.</p><p>There seems to be the idea that fasting was somehow part of the Mosaic system that we have now left behind. Yet the Sermon on the Mount clearly implies that the Lord saw fasting as part of the path of discipleship (Mt. 6:16-18). And there are many examples of fasting in the Old Testament that are quite unconnected with obedience to the Law. When the bridegroom is away, then we will fast by implication, for His return. Try it, that\'s all I can say. Just start by going without some meals. Use the time and the natural desire to eat to increase the poignancy of the special requests you are making. Is. 58:4 RV says that fasting makes &ldquo;your voice to be heard on high&rdquo;. Yet the essence of fasting is to take us out of our comfort zone. We human beings have a great tendency to form habits in order to create or keep us within the comfort zone. Yet truly creative thinking and action, not to say true obedience to the call of Christ, all occur outside of the comfort zone. Fasting is only one of many ways to go outside of it. Take a different route home from work; describe your faith to yourself in terms and language you wouldn\'t usually use. Pray at different times, bring before the Lord the most banal things you usually wouldn\'t dream of talking with Him about.</p><p>Time and again, the Lord uses language about the restoration from exile and applies it to Himself. Thus fasting was common amongst Palestinian Jews of His time, and it was involved with mourning the destruction of the temple and Judah\'s submission to Rome. And yet the Lord pronounced that the days of fasting were over, and His people were to be feasting because of His work. But He brought no freedom from Rome, and spoke of the principles of the Messianic Kingdom as being non-resistance to evil rather than military resistance to it. He spoke of Yahweh as \'visiting\' His people- but not to save them as they expected, but rather to judge them, with Messiah on His behalf at the head of the Roman armies who would come to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. And thus Jesus deeply disappointed people who didn\'t want to change their self-centred, nationalistic outlook- those who didn\'t want to see things spiritually rather than naturally, those who refused to accept the extent of Israel\'s sin.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2416','1','42','5','36','36','<p>5:36 <i>And he spoke also a parable to them: No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it upon an old garment, else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not agree with the old</i>- The same phrase for &quot;old garment&quot; is used to describe the Mosaic system in Heb. 1:11. The stress may be on &quot;a&nbsp;<i>piece</i>&quot;. Taking parts of Christ\'s teachings like fasting was the temptation being given in to by John\'s disciples. The torn old garment had to be thrown away and the new one totally accepted and publicly worn. The Greek for &quot;new&quot; is not the same as in &quot;new wine&quot; in :37. Here the word means not dressed, not worked by a dressmaker. The only other time the related word occurs is in Mk. 9:3 concerning the clothes of Jesus not having been worked by a dressmaker (AV &quot;fuller&quot;). The Lord Jesus presents Himself here as raw, fresh, unworked to suite the appearance of men.&nbsp;</p><p>To get a piece out of a new garment, that new garment would be spoiled; and the old one likewise would be rent further (Mt., Mk.). &quot;New&quot;&nbsp;cloth refers to cloth which hasn\'t yet been washed; on first washing of the new garment, it would shrink, and thus make a tear. The tragic waste envisioned here is like the new wine running away on the ground from the burst old bottles. Likewise the old wine skins would\'ve had to have the old wine poured out from them to have this new wine put into them. Mixing the old life and the new covenant, a bit of the one here and a bit of the other there, results in this tragic wastage all around. The parables make it seem so obvious that this isn\'t the way to go; but in reality, we find it hard to be so complete in our devotion to the new covenant.</p><p>Jesus told this parable in the context of His eating with sinners- clothing and wine were part of the \'eating out\' scene; He took whatever was around Him and made spiritual lessons out of it. To get a piece out of a new garment, that new garment would be spoiled; and the old one likewise would be rent further (Mt., Mk.). &quot;New&quot;&nbsp;cloth refers to cloth which hasn\'t yet been washed; on first washing of the new garment, it would shrink, and thus make a tear. The tragic waste envisioned here is like the new wine running away on the ground from the burst old bottles. Likewise the old wine skins would\'ve had to have the old wine poured out from them to have this new wine put into them. Mixing the old life and the new covenant, a bit of the one here and a bit of the other there, results in this tragic wastage all around. The parables make it seem so obvious that this isn\'t the way to go; but in reality, we find it hard to be so complete in our devotion to the new covenant.</p><p>The unrent garment is that of Christ- the same Greek words are used about the fact that His garment was not rent at His death (Jn. 19:24). Division both within ourselves and within the community is caused by partial response to the new covenant; mixing grace with legalism; it is a rending of Christ\'s garment, cutting out just a part of it and mixing it with the old way. An old garment that is torn can\'t be mended by anything new- it must be thrown out and a new garment accepted. The Mosaic system is described as an old garment in Heb. 1:11; it &quot;shall perish&quot; uses the same Greek word as in 5:37, where the bottles &quot;perish&quot;. The new garment of Christ is unrent. We are each clothed with the white garment of Christ\'s imputed righteousness (Rev. 19:8; Mt. 22:11); by dividing with each other we are seeking to rend and thereby destroy that covering. &quot;New&quot; translates a different Greek word than that which in the parallel Mt. 9:16 and Mk. 2:21 is translated &quot;new&quot;. The word there means something which has not been carded. &quot;<i>Agnaphos</i> is a combination of the negative article <i>a</i>, with <i>knapto</i>, meaning, &quot;to card&quot;.&nbsp; It is sometimes translated undressed, uncombed or, as above, unfinished, and refers to wool or cotton cloth that has not been carded or combed so that the fibers are aligned, giving it both strength and a smoother, more finished appearance&quot;.&nbsp; This suggests that the New Covenant is an unfinished work, God\'s work in us is ongoing and may take apparently unstable turns and changes- e.g. prophecy is often conditional, the intended timing of Christ\'s return has and may yet still change, dependent upon factors like the freewill repentance of Israel; God may plan one line of possibility for someone or a whole nation, e.g. Nineveh or Israel at the time of Moses- but change His stated intention in response to human prayer and repentance. This open-ended approach simply can\'t be squared with the &quot;old&quot; set-in-stone approach of the Old Covenant. The same message is taught by the next parable- <i>new</i> wineskins are required, because the New Covenant wine is fermenting, they need to be soft and flexible enough to change; if they are old and set, they will burst because of the movement and dynamism of the new wine. The wine of the Lord Jesus is therefore not about tradition, about a set pattern; but is rather a call to constant change and evolution. Yet paradoxically, religious people become set in their ways more than any, and seek stability in those traditions; whereas the activity of the Lord Jesus is the very opposite.</p><p>Old and new covenants cannot overlap. The encounter with Christ means that ultimately there can be no brinkmanship in remaining partly with the old way, be it the Mosaic way of legalism or the way of secular modern life, and partly in the Lord\'s way. There will only be a painful and messy division in the end.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2417','1','42','5','37','37','<p>5:37<i> And no one puts new wine into old wine-skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilt, and the skins will perish</i>- The new wine is a clear reference to Christ\'s blood of the new covenant.</p><p>Wine skins were made of goat skin. The goats speak of the rejected, the sinners, in the parable of the sheep and goats. The wine skins may therefore speak of our flesh of sin. It\'s no sin to be a human being and have human flesh, but because of the nature of the new wine, we must become wholly new- or we will be destroyed. The new wine fermented powerfully- similar to the Lord describing His Gospel as yeast which works through flour (Lk. 13:21). The new covenant will work powerfully in us if we let it, and our skins, the life structure we have, must be prepared to accept that. Each wineskin expanded slightly differently in response to the fermenting of the new wine poured into it; no two wineskins expanded to an identical shape or form. We too will individually and uniquely respond to the new wine.</p><p>The skins will be &quot;burst&quot;, Gk. to shatter, divide. The context is of John\'s disciples uniting with the Pharisees against the disciples of Jesus. He\'s saying that if His new wine is not totally accepted, if it is mixed with the old, then lives will be destroyed through further schism. The only basis for avoiding schism is a total acceptance by all parties of the blood of the new covenant.&nbsp;</p><p>&quot;Spilt&quot; is the same word used in Lk. 20:20 about the blood of the new covenant being &quot;shed&quot;. We can crucify Christ afresh (Heb. 6:6), His death can be &quot;in vain&quot; for us (Gal. 2:21)- if we refuse to respond and be renewed, or trust in our own works.&nbsp; Especially significant is the reference in Mt. 26:28 to Christ\'s blood of the&nbsp;<i>new</i>&nbsp;covenant being &quot;shed&quot;. Failed spiritual life, the life which only partially accepts the new wine of Christ but refuses to change, refusing to be new containers for it, results in the blood of Christ being as it were shed, the blood of Calvary wasted in the dust, and Christ crucified afresh by our apostasy (Heb. 6:6). This is the final tragedy of refusing to change upon receipt of the new wine.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2418','1','42','5','38','38','<p>5:38 <i>But new wine must be put into fresh wine-skins</i>- AV adds &quot;and both are preserved&quot;, Gk. preserved from loss / ruin. There is a very real sense of loss to Jesus if His blood (the new wine) is as it were poured out in vain. There will be tragic loss both to Him and to the person who refuses to be wholly renewed. The word is used of the final destruction in condemnation at the last day (Mt. 10:28,39; 16:25; Jn. 3:15). The lives of the untransformed recipients of the new wine are shattered (&quot;break&quot;) and then finally they are destroyed in final condemnation.&nbsp;The loss is not only to the untransformed person. There is also a loss and damage to the new wine, the Lord Jesus. He is not undamaged by the loss of any of His people. Their failure is His re-crucifixion, the pouring out again of His blood, but in vain. All this signals the danger of not being totally transformed after having received the Truth. Interestingly, a form of the Greek&nbsp;<i>suntereo</i>&nbsp;&quot;preserved&quot; is used in Jn. 2:10, where it is noted that the Lord Jesus&nbsp;<i>kept</i>&nbsp;Gk.&nbsp;<i>tereo</i> the best wine.&nbsp;<i>Tereo</i>&nbsp;is frequently on the lips of the Lord in John\'s Gospel (and is widely used by John in his letters), in the context of \'keeping\' His word. But this is done by totally surrendering human life to be a vessel totally devoted to the new wine we have received, rather than steel willed, nail-biting, white-knuckled struggle for obedience to specific laws.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2419','1','42','5','39','39','<p>5:39 <i>And no one having drunk old wine immediately then desires new wine; for he says: The old is good</i>- The Lord here recognizes the basic conservatism of human nature; even those who consider themselves &quot;liberal&quot; are often only so in comparison to others, in relative terms- we are all in fact basically conservative. We stick with what we know and don\'t easily go outside our comfort zone of the old and familiar. We all find change hard; new wineskins are able to be stretched. He was perhaps, in the context, making some apology for John\'s disciples, who still couldn\'t fully allow themselves to be filled with the new covenant wine. The Gospel of Jesus is all about change and being stretched; and He recognizes that we find this so very difficult. People do not immediately / quickly respond to the new wine of the new covenant because, the Lord piercingly observed, they think the old was better (Lk. 5:39). He perceived, with His amazing penetration of the human psyche, that there is a conservatism deep within us all that militates against the immediate response to Him and the new wine of His blood / sacrifice which He so seeks. Yet once we have made this immediate response in a few things, it becomes easier to get into an upward spiral of response to Him. We become truly a new creation in Him, breaking constantly with factor after factor in our past, which has previously defined us as persons. Quite simply, we become new persons, with all the rejection of the &lsquo;old&rsquo; ways which this requires.</p><p>The parable of the sower shows how the Lord foresaw that the majority who responded to His word would not hold on; He knew that men would not immediately appreciate the blood of His cross, but would prefer the old wine of the old covenant (Lk. 5:39). He saw that our spiritual growth would be an agonizingly slow business; as slow as a tiny mustard seed growing into a tree, as slow as a man digging a foundation in rock, or a seed growing and bringing forth fruit. Such growth is <i>very</i> slow <i>from a human perspective</i>. &nbsp;</p><p>The parable of the wine exactly predicted the attitude of people to Christ\'s work in taking the Old Covenant out of the way. The Lord is surely saying: \'I know you won\'t immediately want the blood of my new covenant. I understand your nature, by nature you\'ll prefer what you are familiar with, the Old Covenant; you won\'t &quot;straightway&quot; desire the new wine, but (by implication) you will, after a while\' (Lk. 5:39). He foresaw how the implication of the blood of His sacrifice wouldn\'t be accepted by His people first of all. It would be a process, of coming to accept how radical the gift of His blood is. As we weekly take the cup of His covenant, we come to see more and more the excellency of that blood, and its supremacy over all else. Christ recognized that conservatism in human nature which will naturally shy away from the marvellous implications of what He achieved for us. And true enough, whenever we talk about the present aspect of the Kingdom of God, our present blessings of redemption in Christ, the sense in which we have already been saved...there is a desire to shy away from it all.&nbsp; And true enough, the early Christian believers desperately clung on to the Mosaic food laws, circumcision and synagogue attendance as far as they could; the command to witness to the Gentiles was likewise not taken seriously for some time. It must have been painful for the Lord to know this and to see it, recognizing in it a lack of appreciation of His life and final sacrifice, a desire to reconcile with God without totally committing oneself to His work. He saw the possibility of His blood being wasted if men didn\'t change from old to new wineskins. The slowness of the changeover in attitudes amongst the early believers must have been a great pain to Him; as if His blood was being poured out again. The implication is that we shed His blood afresh if we won\'t change, if we allow the conservatism of our natures to have an iron grip upon us we not only destroy ourselves, but waste the blood of the Son of God. The picture of the new wine being &quot;spilled&quot; uses the same word as in Mt. 26:28 concerning the \'shedding\' of Christ\'s blood. Again, how utterly, painfully accurate. This is the danger of the conservatism that is in our natures; it was this which led men to shed the Lord\'s blood, and it is this same element within us which He foresaw would lead us to crucify Him afresh. How many times has this conservatism been mistaken as true spirituality How careful we must be, therefore, not to adopt any attitude which glorifies that conservatism and masks it as the hallmark of a stable believer. The sensitivity of Jesus to the value of the human person was the very opposite of this.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2420','1','42','6','1','1','<p>6:1 <i>Now it came to pass on a Sabbath that he was going through the grain fields- </i>The very poor were allowed to do this by the Law (Lev. 19:9; Dt. 23:24,25), and so we see in this a picture of the deep poverty of the Lord&rsquo;s followers; He later parallels the urgent hunger of David&rsquo;s men at the time of 1 Sam. 21 with that of His followers. It would seem that He Himself did not make use of the concession, because the criticism was focused upon His disciples rather than Himself. W.D. Davies lists evidence that Judaism forbad fasting on the Sabbath (Jubilees 50:12) (W.D. Davies&nbsp;<i>Matthew&nbsp;</i>p. 312 (<i>op cit.</i>)). In this case, the record is showing how the legalism of the time would&rsquo;ve condemned the disciples- and the poor generally- either way: for fasting on the Sabbath, or for &lsquo;threshing&rsquo; on the Sabbath to get food so as not to fast. The Lord therefore takes the whole argument to a level far above such petty legalism.&nbsp;</p><p><i>And his disciples plucked the ears and ate, rubbing them in their hands</i>- See on Mt. 26:11. The only point in mentioning this would presumably be because the Pharisees came and stopped them. This shows how closely the Lord and His men were under the critical eyes of others, even from a distance.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2421','1','42','6','2','2','<p>6:2 <i>But certain of the Pharisees said: Why do you do what is unlawful on the Sabbath day?</i>- A constant concern with the Pharisees (Mt. 19:3; 22:17; 27:6; Jn. 5:10; 18:31). The Lord\'s attitude here was to show that the Old Testament itself envisaged situations where true spirituality was above law. The parable of Mt. 20:15 brings the point home- the generous employer justified his pouring out of grace, giving the weak and lazy the same penny a day as the hard workers, on the basis that \'It is lawful for me to do what I wish\'.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2422','1','42','6','3','3','<p>6:3 <i>And Jesus answered them, saying: Have you not read- </i>Of course they had, many times. But the Lord here and several times elsewhere challenges them (and us) as to whether we have really read what we have. The Lord could have legitimately answered them: &lsquo;It is lawful to pick corn whilst passing through a field, the Law allows for this if one is poor, and my followers are indeed poor. There is nothing in the Law which stipulates this permission doesn&rsquo;t operate on the Sabbath&rsquo;. But as always, the Lord was prepared to meet people where they were, and to take them to a higher level. He seeks to teach by general principle that the extent of His Lordship meant that He and His men were free to do as they pleased on this kind of matter. He reasoned that &lsquo;OK, let&rsquo;s assume you&rsquo;re right, but David and&nbsp;<i>his</i>&nbsp;men broke the law because they were about God&rsquo;s business, this over-rode the need for technical obedience&rsquo;. The Lord Jesus wasn&rsquo;t constantly correcting specific errors of interpretation. He dealt in principles much larger than this, in order to make a more essential, practical, useful point.</p><p><i>What David did when he was hungry, he and they that were with him?</i>- The Lord&rsquo;s reasoning depends upon drawing a parallel between Himself and David, and David&rsquo;s warriors and the disciples. Again, He is encouraging them to see themselves as no less than the warriors of David who later became the governors of Israel. Aaron&rsquo;s sons were the ones who were intended to eat the showbread (Lev. 24:5-9)- and again the Lord is inviting His secular disciples to see themselves as a new priesthood.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2423','1','42','6','4','4','<p>6:4 <i>How he entered the house of God- </i>For non-Levites to enter the Sanctuary was also not \'lawful\', quite apart from eating the bread which only the priests could lawfully eat. This prepares the way for the Lord\'s later parable about God urging unclean street people to \'enter His house\' because Israel had rejected the invitation (the same words are used- Lk. 14:23). The psychological magnitude of the Lord\'s new system of thinking is hard to appreciate. Non-Levites could now enter it- and even the worst of the Gentiles. But the magnitude of the new thinking in Christ for anyone, not least secular people of the 21st Century, is no less.</p><p><i>And took and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?</i>- The Lord defended the non-observant Judaism of the twelve as being due to their joy that He, the bridegroom, was with them (Lk. 5:33,34). When they &lsquo;ground corn&rsquo; on the Sabbath, the Lord defended them to their critics by saying that they were like David&rsquo;s men eating the showbread. Those guys were just walking through a cornfield rubbing ears together as their manner was, as they had done on many a Sabbath day, but not realizing that this time there was some Scribe out with his binocular vision scrutinizing them. They surely weren&rsquo;t doing it because their minds were on the incident of David&rsquo;s men eating the showbread. The Lord had asked them to obey the Scribes, who sat in Moses&rsquo; seat, over this kind of trivia. But He doesn&rsquo;t rebuke them. Rather, He defends them to others, imputing far more spiritual perception to them than they had. &nbsp;</p><p>&quot;Gave it to those with him&quot; recalls how the Lord blessed the bread and gave it to those with <i>Him</i>. He was turning the ordinary bread of the people into the shewbread of the sanctuary. Clearly the Lord is suggesting that His ragtag crowd of disciples and questionable ministering women were the new priesthood of a new Israel.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2424','1','42','6','5','5','<p>6:5 <i>And he said to them: The Son of Man is lord- </i>Here as elsewhere we see the juxtaposition of the Lord\'s humanity and His Lordship. His exaltation is precisely because He was human; He has authority to judge us because He was Son of man (Jn. 5:27). The Lordship of Jesus was predicated upon His obedience to death and exaltation (Acts 2:36), and yet Jesus was calmly confident that this would be achieved by Him; to the point that He could reason that He already was &quot;Lord&quot; and thereby able to abrogate the Sabbath and act as the ultimate temple.</p><p><i>Of the Sabbath</i>- The &ldquo;of&rdquo; is supplied as guesswork by the translators; it could equally be left unsupplied, giving the sense of &ldquo;the Lord the Sabbath&rdquo;; or, &ldquo;Lord&nbsp;<i>on</i>&nbsp;the Sabbath&rdquo;. Mark adds that the Lord went on to teach that God\'s law was made for man, rather than man being built in such a way as to easily fit in with God\'s word (Mk. 2:27).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2425','1','42','6','6','6','<p>6:6 <i>And it came to pass on another Sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered</i>- The point is that the Lord was&nbsp;<i>outside</i>&nbsp;the synagogue when He had recently declared that the &quot;place&quot; where He was then standing, in or near a cornfield, was holy ground; see on Mt. 12:6. It was &quot;their&quot; synagogue, just as the temple was &quot;the temple of the Jews&quot;, and the feasts of Yahweh had been hijacked to become &quot;the feast of the Jews&quot;. It\'s typical of Luke as a doctor to mention the medical details. God\'s Spirit worked through the natural perceptions and personalities of those who were inspired, and achieves a similar synthesis in working with us today. His right hand suggests his own strength and ability to act was withered.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2426','1','42','6','7','7','<p>6:7 <i>And the scribes and Pharisees watched him closely, whether he would heal on the Sabbath, that they might find an accusation against him</i>- A legal term. They wanted to get Jesus in court over this issue. But there&rsquo;s no evidence they actually did, and there was no recorded mention of Sabbath breaking in His final trial- so well and profoundly did He answer them. Their false accusation of Him was especially seen at His trials. Pilate&rsquo;s question to them &ldquo;What accusation do you bring against this man?&rdquo; (Jn. 18:29) shows the Jews as the ultimate false accusers of God&rsquo;s Son. For it was because of their playing the ultimate role of the Devil, the false accuser, that the Son of God was slain. No wonder the ideas of &lsquo;Devil&rsquo; and &lsquo;Satan&rsquo; are often associated with the Jewish system&rsquo;s opposition of Christ and His people. The same Greek word for &lsquo;accuser&rsquo; is five times used about Jewish false accusation of Paul in an attempt to hinder His work for Christ (Acts 23:30,35; 24:8; 25:16,18).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2427','1','42','6','8','8','<p>6:8 <i>But he knew their thoughts- </i>The Lord\'s ability to read minds and motives (5:22; Jn. 2:25) was partly given by the Spirit, but also an outcome of His own extreme sensitivity to humanity, and also His undoubted intellectual ability as God\'s Son. He was far ahead of all depth psychologists of later generations. I will suggest later regarding the triumphal entry that the Lord set up all the circumstances surrounding His death and apparent \'capture\' by the Jews and betrayal by Judas; He therefore knew exactly the events which would follow, as the chess grandmaster foresees the game in advance.Rev. 2:23 states that the Lord to this day has this ability, even more enhanced by His Divine nature.</p><p><i>And he said to the man that had his hand withered: Rise up and stand in the midst. And he arose and stood</i>- The Lord\'s miracles were performed for a range of reasons, quite apart from basic sympathy with the sick. He often used them to teach lessons to the onlookers; and this explains the way He asked the man to cooperate in public display.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2428','1','42','6','9','9','<p>6:9 <i>And Jesus said to them: I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do harm? To save a life, or to destroy it?</i>- See on Lk. 9:54,55. The Lord said that to refrain from saving a man when it was in your power to do so was effectively &ldquo;to do evil&hellip; to destroy&rdquo; (Lk. 6:9 AV). This is how the Lord looks at our laziness and passivity- as active wrongdoing. Sins of omission are probably our greatest temptation.</p><p>Mark records that He developed this point- if He had&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;performed the miracle, He would have been actively committing &ldquo;evil&rdquo;, even &lsquo;killing&rsquo;. When the Lord taught that it was right to break the Sabbath because they were in the business of saving life (Mk. 3:4), His words were purposefully alluding to how the Maccabees had pronounced that it was acceptable for Jewish soldiers to break the Sabbath in time of war, in order to save lives through their fighting (1 Macc. 2:32). He intended His people to live as active soldiers on duty, at war in order to save the lives of God&rsquo;s people. Indeed, so frequently, the whole language of the future judgment is applied to us right here and now. We are living out our judgment now; we are standing as it were before the final judgment seat, and receiving our judgment for how we act, speak and feel and are. Thus if He had omitted to heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath, this would have been \'doing evil\' and even \'killing\' (Mk. 3:4). That\'s how seriously He took omitting to do good when it\'s in our power to do it. He had a choice of saving life or destroying life, were He to prefer to keep the Sabbath laws above the need for preserving life. Clearly He saw failing to act to save life as tantamount to destroying life. We must give our Lord\'s words their due weight here in our decision making. To not act to save life, to excuse ourselves for whatever reason, is effectively destroying life, or, as Mark\'s record puts it, &ldquo;to kill&quot; (Mk. 3:4; Lk. 6:9). We can\'t therefore be passive in this matter. The context of the Lord\'s statement was in response to questions about whether something was &quot;lawful&quot; or not; it was the age old question, \'Is it is a sin to do X, Y or Z?\'. His answer was as ever in terms of a principle- that our guiding principle must be the saving and healing and preservation of human life. The attitude of the Pharisees was that the Lord was infringing a letter of the law and therefore was guilty of death. They murdered Him on the Sabbath days; and thus they chose to destroy life rather than save it. The word for &ldquo;to kill&quot; in Mk. 3:4 is so often used in the Gospels about the killing of Jesus. They failed to take His exhortation. The crucifixion of God\'s Son was thus a result of legalism; it was because of His attitude to the man with the withered hand that the Pharisees first plotted to kill Jesus (Lk. 6:11). Whatever our individual conscience, let us not &quot;be filled with madness&quot; as the Pharisees were at the fact the Lord approached human behaviour in terms of principles, rather than reducing everything to a common right / wrong scenario. The principle is clearly the saving and preservation and enriching of others\' lives. Surely we should each allow each other to articulate this fundamental issue as we each have occasion to do so.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2429','1','42','6','10','10','<p>6:10 <i>And he looked round about on them all, and then said to him- </i>The Lord maintained eye-contact with His listeners: Mt. 19:26; Mk. 3:5,34; 5:32; 8:33; 10:21, 23,27; Lk. 6:10; 20:17; 22:61; Jn. 1:42. These are all separate occurrences; the fact is really being emphasized. This paying appropriate attention with eye contact is also a good strategy for matching the silences that occur from time to time in any serious conversation.&nbsp; Most of us can tell when another is thinking by&nbsp;observing the eyes, and when they are not their eyes will tell you.</p><p><i>Stretch out your hand. And he did so, and his hand was restored</i>- Matthew uses the same word to describe how the Lord Himself stretched forth&nbsp;<i>His</i>&nbsp;hand in order to heal, save and welcome (Mt. 8:3; 12:49; 14:31). Again we are encouraged to perceive a sense of mutuality between the Lord and His people.&nbsp;According to the textus receptus, his hand was restored whole as the other. This detail is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is another touch of the eye witness- the man would\'ve held out both his hands and everyone would\'ve looked from the one to the other, observing they now looked so similar.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2430','1','42','6','11','11','<p>6:11 <i>But they were filled with rage, and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus</i>-&nbsp;Here we see the common human feature of doing evil in response to the experience of grace. Even amongst believers, and even at judgment day, there is the possibility of the eye becoming evil because of His goodness and grace to others (Mt. 20:15). We see the principle in both secular and church life. Grace shown to others can elicit the worst evil from religious people. We shouldn\'t be surprised at this phenomenon; but it is the very surprise at encountering it which causes so many to become disillusioned with the church and ultimately with the Lord.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2431','1','42','6','12','12','<p>6:12 <i>And it came to pass in these days that he went out into the mountain to pray; and he continued all night in prayer to God</i>- Luke alone records the all night prayer. How long have you ever prayed for at one time? Luke as a doctor was struck by the psychological intensity of the Lord in maintaining such lengthy contact with God Almighty. He presumably was praying for wisdom and blessing in this matter of ordaining the twelve, probably with special attention to the issue of calling Judas.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2432','1','42','6','13','13','<p>6:13 <i>And when it was day, he called his disciples- </i>He was in the mountain, so He called them up into the mountain, and they came down the mountain with Him (:17). In the same way as Moses was called up into the mount to receive his Divine commission, so the Lord Jesus called up to the mount His disciples- implying that they, who represent all of us, were now a new Moses. Moses was thus an example that challenged those from a Jewish background especially. He was no longer to be gazed at with incomprehension as to his greatness and intimacy with God; he was to become the realistic pattern for all followers of the Lord Jesus, who would meaningfully emulate His closeness to God.</p><p><i>And he chose from them twelve, whom also he named apostles</i>- Whoever is sent forth is apostled, and the great commission sends forth all believers. This is not the same incident as the sending forth of the twelve in Matthew 10. But we see how there were various tiers; the crowds, His disciples, the twelve supported by the ministering women; and within them, an inner core of Peter, James and John, with Peter set up as the leader. This kind of hierarchy of leadership was found in the Old Testament too, and is not inappropriate today, if managed with humility and servant-leadership as the dominant spirit. For total equality of role is just unworkable amongst any group of people, and attempts to enforce it often leave Christian communities without the leadership which people need, and the group becomes rudderless.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2433','1','42','6','14','14','<p>6:14 <i>Simon, whom he also named Peter- </i>Simon was anything but rock-like, but the Lord named him Peter, \'rocky\'. He perceived the ultimate stability in Peter\'s faith, despite all the ups and downs he had. And He sees to the core of each of us too. Peter is always listed first in the lists of apostles, and was the one chosen to be the rock of the early church. But the Lord chose the one who seemed most inappropriate for that work. And so is again exhibited a major theme in the Lord\'s work amongst men and women like us, that the most inappropriate are often chosen for the job. For the Lord\'s power is made manifest through our inadequacy.</p><p><i>And Andrew his brother, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew</i>- Apparently the same as Nathanael, also mentioned with Philip in Jn. 1:46-51<i>.</i></p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2434','1','42','6','15','15','<p>6:15 <i>And Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot</i>- We see the wide range of men the Lord called into His band; Matthew the tax collector would\'ve been seen as a traitor, whereas the zealots were at the other end of the political spectrum. The way the 12 didn\'t break up as a group after living together under extreme psychological conditions is a testament to the unifying power of the person of Jesus. The composition of the Lord\'s body is the same today, including &quot;all types of men&quot;. Sadly denominationalism and churchianity has led to churches often being clusters of believers having the same socio-economic, racial and personality type positions, rather than being conglomerations of literally all types, of whatever accent and formation.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2435','1','42','6','16','16','<p>6:16 <i>And Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became the betrayer</i>- &quot;Iscariot&quot; is perhaps \'man of Kerioth.\' Kerioth was a small village in Judea (Josh 15:25). Judas would therefore have been the only Judean. It could be that \'Iscariot\' is from&nbsp;<i>sicarius</i>, \'dagger-man\' or \'assassin\'. This would suggest that Judas belonged to what was reckoned to be the most far right of the various resistance groups, the Sicarii (the partisans, cp. Acts 21:38). Again we see the wide range of people the Lord was calling together in order to weld them into one body in Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2436','1','42','6','17','17','<p>6:17 <i>And he came down with them and stood on a level place; and a great crowd of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, came to hear him and to be healed of their diseases</i>- &quot;Came down&quot; heightens the similarity with Moses coming down from the mountain after receiving the law (Ex. 19).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2437','1','42','6','18','18','<p>6:18 <i>And they that were disturbed with unclean spirits were healed</i>-</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2438','1','42','6','19','19','<p>6:19 <i>And all the crowd sought to touch him, for power went out from him and healed them all</i>- See on Lk. 16:1.<br />It seems that the apostles were filled with the Spirit in order to do certain acts, and after doing them they were as it were \'drained\' of the Spirit, and had to be filled up again. Thus the Lord Jesus felt that something had gone out of Him after performing miracles (Lk. 6:19; 8:46). The non-miraculous work of God through His Spirit would seem to follow a similar pattern. We are &quot;strengthened with might by his spirit in the inner man&quot;, &quot;strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and long-suffering&quot; (Eph. 3:16; Col. 1:11). God strengthens us deep inside to have that <i>hupomon&egrave;</i>, that patient endurance, that energy to keep on keeping on. But this strengthening is according to our effort in the appropriate spiritual exercises, and the strength given is not ultimately permanent unless we continue responding to it. and it isn\'t only a N.T. phenomena; even in earlier times, they that waited on the Lord had their strength renewed, they mounted up on eagle wings, they were made to walk and not faint in God\'s ways (Is. 40:31). As God doesn&rsquo;t faint or weary, so somehow those who identify their lives with His will also keep on keeping on- even now (Is. 40:31 cp. 29). David felt that his youth was renewed like the eagle\'s in his repeated experience of God\'s grace (Ps. 103:5), that his soul was restored (Ps. 23:5), and that a right spirit could be renewed by God within him (Ps. 51:10).&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2439','1','42','6','20','20','<p>6:20 <i>Then he lifted up his eyes toward his disciples, and said- </i>The way the Lord Jesus had of lifting up His eyes was something which evidently struck the Gospel writers (Lk. 6:20; Jn. 6:5; 11:41; 17:1 cp. the emphasis upon the eyes of the risen Lord in Rev. 1:14; 2:18; 5:6; 19:12). The Hebrew phrase &quot;to lift up the eyes&quot; is used very extensively about the Abraham family; and the Lord was the seed of Abraham. Most Bible characters have the term used at most once or twice about them; but the Genesis record emphasizes this characteristic of this family. It\'s as if we\'re being bidden to really visualize them as a family, and to enable this we\'re even given an insight into their body language. Consider the emphasis on the way this family had of lifting up their eyes:<br />Lot lifted up his eyes (Gen. 13:10)<br />Abraham lifted up his eyes (Gen. 13:14)<br />Abraham lifted up his eyes and noticed the Angels (Gen. 18:2)<br />Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place of sacrifice (Gen. 22:4)<br />Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the ram caught (Gen. 22:13)<br />Isaac lifted up his eyes and saw camels coming on which Rebekah was riding (Gen. 24:63)<br />Rebekah, as part of a marriage made in Heaven, lifted up <i>her</i> eyes and saw Isaac at the same moment (Gen. 24:64)<br />Jacob lifted up his eyes and saw the vision of the speckled cattle (twice recorded- Gen. 31:10,12)<br />Jacob lifted up his eyes and saw Esau coming (Gen. 33:1)<br />Esau lifted up his eyes and saw Jacob\'s family (Gen. 33:5)<br />Jacob\'s sons lifted up their eyes and saw the traders coming (Gen. 37:25)<br />Joseph lifted up his eyes and saw Benjamin (Gen. 43:29)<br />Of course the classic epitome of this feature is when Abraham lifts up his eyes to Heaven and is asked to count the stars, and there and then believes God\'s word of promise that &quot;so shall thy seed be&quot;. Yet <i>we</i>, as Abraham\'s family, his children by faith, are likewise asked with the same Hebrew words to lift up <i>our</i> eyes to Heaven and consider the stars, and take strength from the fact that their creator is our God (Is. 40:26; 51:6; 60:4).&nbsp; Surrounded by huge crowds, the Lord focused upon teaching the disciples. This was typical of Him, and occurred also at the time of the sermon on the mount.</p><p><i>Blessed are you poor- </i>The poverty in view is spiritual poverty; those who wish to be spiritually rich but are not. It is no blessing to simply be poor materially; for such poverty can distract people from spiritual focus just as much as wealth can. Our prayers should be like those of a man on death row in a dark dungeon, waiting to die, but groaning for salvation (Ps. 102:17,20). This is the extent of our desperation. We are &ldquo;the poor&rdquo; (Gk. &lsquo;the crouchers&rsquo;), cringing in utter spiritual destitution (Mt. 5:3). And yet we have a terrible tendency to only occasionally&nbsp;<i>really</i>&nbsp;pray, content with prayer on a surface level. The Lord\'s parables invite us to see ourselves as, e.g., the desperate widow woman pleading for deliverance from her oppressive landlord (Lk. 18:3).</p><p><i>For yours is the kingdom of God</i>- The Lord\'s prayer used the same phrase &quot;Yours is the Kingdom&quot; in addressing God. But &ldquo;Blessed are you poor, for <i>yours</i> is the Kingdom <i>of God</i>&rdquo;. The Lord thereby assures us that the Father wants to give <i>His</i> Kingdom to those who are poor in spirit, to the broken, to the self-doubters, the uncertain, those uncomfortable with themselves, the unbearably and desperately lonely, the awkwardly spoken&hellip; the poor in spirit. Those who would be the very last to believe that God would give <i>them</i> what is evidently <i>His</i> Kingdom. But not only <i>will</i> the Father do this, but Jesus stresses that it <i>is</i> ours right now. The certainty of the glory that will be revealed for us means that we cope better with suffering; as Paul writes, they &ldquo;are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us&rdquo; (Rom. 8:18).</p><p>The similarities with the sermon on the mount are many; but this sermon is delivered on the plain. The Lord is repeating in the Jerusalem area what He had taught in Galilee.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2440','1','42','6','21','21','<p>6:21 <i>Blessed are you that hunger now; for you shall be filled-</i>According to the beatitudes, the hunger is a spiritual hunger after righteousness (Mt. 5:6).&nbsp; &ldquo;<i>Blessed</i>&nbsp;(Lk. 1:48) are they which do&nbsp;<i>hunger</i>&nbsp;(Lk. 1:53) and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be&nbsp;<i>filled&nbsp;</i>(Lk. 1:53)&rdquo; (Mt. 5:6) shows the Lord clearly alluding to His mother&rsquo;s own description of herself. It&rsquo;s as if He stands up there before the hushed crowd and lays down His manifesto with those words. This was the keynote of what He had to say to humanity. Everybody was waiting to hear what His message really was. And this is what He said. He was saying &lsquo;This, guys, is what I essentially and most fundamentally seek to inspire in you&rsquo;. And He saw His dear mother as the epitome of the converts He was seeking to make. I lay great store by this allusion. For it makes Mary, at least at the time of the Angel&rsquo;s visit, truly our pattern. She heard the glad tidings and believed that word in faith, holding on to it in her heart (Lk. 8:15,21). She was a model for all who hear the Gospel. It could even be that the language of Lk. 1:32,33,35 is framed in such a way as to make Mary appear to be the first person who heard the gospel about Jesus. &nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</p><p><i>Blessed are you that weep now; for you shall laugh</i>- See on 1:53. Associated in the Old Testament with mourning for sin (Ex. 33:4,5; Ezra 10:6; Neh. 8:9; Ps. 38:5,6). The time of God\'s grace was extended to those who mourned for their sins (Is. 61:2,3; 66:10). Such Godly sorrow is the sorrow of repentance (2 Cor. 7:10); and the laughter in view is therefore the utter joy of good conscience with God through His forgiveness.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2441','1','42','6','22','22','<p>6:22 <i>Blessed are you, when men shall hate you, and when they shall reject you, and reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man\'s sake</i>- \'Reject\' is literally \'to drive away\' (Mt. 1:23; 23:34), maybe carrying the idea of excommunication. Being thrown out of the synagogue was a major and frequent occurrence for many who came to Jesus (Jn. 9:22). There are Old Testament connections between persecution and suffering for sin (Dt. 30:1-7), so the Lord could also have in view, as in the Beatitudes, that He is offering blessing and happiness for the messed up sinners who are suffering in this life for their sins.</p><p>This is quoted by Peter in 1 Pet. 4:14 where he says that we are blessed / happy if we are reviled for the sake of Christ\'s Name. The implication is that persecution, slander and serious opposition is inevitable for all who will follow Christ. Yet when these things happen, we seem to be shocked and surprised. Paul\'s extraordinary ability to rejoice in his trials seems to have been rooted in his sustained reflection upon these verses. These words are alluded to in at least 5 verses in his epistles. When Corinth reviled him (2 Cor. 7:4), Paul saw this as being reviled and persecuted after the pattern of Lk. 6:22.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2442','1','42','6','23','23','<p>6:23 <i>Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy; for your reward is great in heaven. For in the same manner did their fathers treat the prophets</i>- Again seeking to challenge the prevailing views of the Jewish leadership, the Lord invited His humble fishermen-followers to see themselves as the great prophets of old being persecuted by a wicked Israel. The language of persecution is also rooted very much in the language and experience of the prophets. The similar language in Mk. 13:8-11 and Lk. 21:12-18 suggests the same. Again, just as the Lord has challenged his secular, nothing-special followers to see themselves as Moses, now He invites them to see themselves as the prophets. And so a theme develops in the Lord\'s teaching- that He is seeking to place the mantle of Moses, David and the prophets upon ordinary, sinful members of spiritual society, seeking to show them their huge potential significance in God\'s program. And that impression must come home to us too in our situations, no longer considering that spiritual heroics and work for God are somehow for \'the others\', the leaders.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2443','1','42','6','24','24','<p>6:24 <i>But woe to you that are rich For you have received your consolation</i>- Is the &quot;woe&quot; in Lk. 6:24-26; 11:42-52 an imprecation \'woe to\' or a lament \'alas\'? Luke has more to say about the &quot;rich&quot; than any other of the gospels. The implication is that the comfort is for those who are poor in spirit. The comfort offered in Isaiah was specifically comfort for sinners who realized their desperation (Is. 12:1; 40:1). We noted on Matthew 4 that the Lord presented the way that John had prepared the way for Him in terms of the prophecy of Isaiah 40, which spoke of \'comfort\' to God\'s doubting people. If this comfort were accepted, then the glory would come to Zion and John\'s work would have prepared a highway of repentant people over which the Lord Jesus could have come to Zion and established the Kingdom there and then. Comfort to the mourners was one of Isaiah\'s descriptions of that possible Kingdom. It could have all happened in the first century, but Israel would not- and so the final fulfilment of this comfort will be at Christ\'s return and the establishment of God\'s Kingdom fully on earth. &quot;Be comforted&quot; may be a prophesy of the Comforter which was to give a measure of comfort even in this life (Jn. 14:16).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2444','1','42','6','25','25','<p>6:25 <i>Woe to you, you that are full now For you shall hunger. Woe to you that laugh now For you shall mourn and weep</i>- The wealth, laughter and fullness refers to spiritual confidence of the type seen in the Jewish religious leadership. The gospel is good news for those who mourn for their sins, and hunger to be righteous. Those who considered themselves spiritually rich would experience the mourning and weeping associated with condemnation at the last day. Either we will mourn now in repentance, or we will mourn at the judgment (Mt. 8:12 etc.). Having foretold the inevitable coming of judgment day, Yahweh Himself pleads with Israel: &quot;Therefore also <i>now</i>... turn ye even to me... with weeping, and with mourning&quot; (Joel 2:12). See on Mt. 3:11.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2445','1','42','6','26','26','<p>6:26 <i>Woe to you, when all men shall speak well of you For in the same manner did their fathers do to the false prophets</i>- The Lord assumes that His followers will not be people of spotless reputation, but will be as unpopular as the Old Testament prophets. He was at this point largely appealing to secular, irreligious people who wanted to be spiritual but couldn\'t so far get their act together- rather than seeking to tweak the theology of those who claimed to be believers already. And this should be the focus of our outreach too. But just as in this verse He assumes His people will not be well thought of in society, so He assumes that they shall each one be as the true prophets of Israel. He reasons as if all His followers shall have a prophetic ministry.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2446','1','42','6','27','27','<p>6:27 <i>But I say to you that hear: Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you</i>- We tend to love in response to others\' love. But the love which the Lord has in mind is the love which is an act of the will, consciously effected towards the&nbsp;<i>un</i>loving.&nbsp;This love of enemies is specifically exemplified in :35 as lending without expecting anything back. It\'s not usual for an enemy to try to borrow from us; but I suggest that the lending in view is that of forgiveness. For debt is so often used as a metaphor for sin.</p><p>It was the Essenes in their&nbsp;<i>Rule Of The Community</i>&nbsp;who taught that Essenes must yearly chant curses upon their enemies. The Lord\'s attitude to the Essenes is a case study in bridge building- developing what we have in common with our target audience, and yet through that commonality addressing the issues over which we differ. The Dead Sea scrolls reveal that the terms &quot;&quot;poor in spirit&quot; and &quot;poor&quot; are technical terms used only by the Essenes to describe themselves&quot;. So when the Lord encouraged us to be &quot;poor in spirit&quot; (Mt. 5:3), He was commending the Essene position. Likewise when He praised those who were eunuchs for God\'s Kingdom (Mt. 19:10-12), He was alluding to the Essenes, who were the only celibate group in first century Israel. And yet lepers were anathema to the Essenes, and the Lord\'s staying in the home of Simon the leper (Mk. 14:3) was a purposeful affront to Essene thinking. The parable of the Good Samaritan has been seen as another purposeful attack upon them; likewise the Lord\'s teaching: &quot;You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy&quot; (Mt. 5:43). So the Lord&nbsp;within His teaching as a whole, both commended and challenged the Essenes; His bridge building didn\'t involve just accepting their position.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2447','1','42','6','28','28','<p>6:28 <i>Bless those that curse you, pray for those that mistreat you</i>- Praying for our enemies and abusers, not wishing a curse upon them but rather a blessing, sounds like Job (Job 31:30). \'Blessing\' has Biblical connection with the ideas of forgiveness and salvation. There would be no point in praying for forgiveness for the obviously impenitent unless God might actually grant it. This opens huge possibilities and potentials to us. God is willing to forgive people for the sake of the prayers and efforts of others (Mk. 2:5). Jesus isn\'t simply telling us to vaguely pray for our enemies because it is psychologically good for us and eases our pain a bit. Genuine prayer for abusers really has the possibility of being heard- for God is willing to save people for the sake of our prayers. Otherwise, this exhortation to do good to abusers through praying for their blessing would be rather meaningless. \'Cursing\' likewise tended to carry the sense of \'May you be condemned at the day of judgment\'. Those who condemn others will be condemned (Mt. 7:1 etc.)- and yet we can pray for their blessing. It is perhaps only our prayers and desire for their salvation which can over-ride the otherwise certain connection between condemning others and being condemned. This gives those condemned and abused by others so much work to do. In fact, so amazing are the possibilities that that alone is therapeutic. Moses\' praying for Pharaoh in Ex. 9:28,29 is perhaps the Old Testament source of Christ\'s words. Let\'s not read those records as implying that Moses simply uttered a few words to God, and then each of the plagues was lifted. There was an element of real fervency in Moses\' prayers- which may well be lacking in ours. This is surely an example of genuinely praying for our enemies.</p><p>Curse condemn... hate... despitefully use slander... persecute chase out- excommunicate<i>&shy; </i>the terms used here are very applicable to attitudes from some members of God\'s people to others- first century Israel, in the first context, and the Christian church in the longer term context. The language is not so applicable to persecution at the hands of the unbelieving world. Likewise the commands to pray for spiritual blessing and acceptance of our abusers is surely more appropriate to prayers for those who are bitter misbelievers than for complete unbelievers who profess no desire to please God.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2448','1','42','6','29','29','<p>6:29 <i>To him that hits you on the cheek offer also the other- </i>&nbsp;You singular. Time and again the Sermons on the Mount and Plain seem to take a broad sweep in its record of the Lord&rsquo;s teaching to us all; and then He suddenly focuses in on the individual. The AV brings this out well through the use of &ldquo;you&rdquo; (plural) and &ldquo;thee&rdquo; (singular): &ldquo;Blessed are you poor&hellip; love your enemies&hellip; to him who strikes thee on the cheek&hellip;&rdquo;. Note how many times there is this change of pronoun in Luke 6. Clearly the Lord wants us to see our collective standing before Him, and yet not to overlook the purely personal nature of His appeal to us individually.&nbsp;The Lord was smitten on the cheek but enquired why He was being smitten, rather than literally turning the other cheek. But to do this would be so humiliating for the aggressor that it would be a far more effective resistance of evil than anything else. The power in the confrontation is now with the one who turns the other cheek. S/he is calling the shots, not the beater. The idea of not resisting evil and offering the other cheek we normally apply to suffering loss from the world without fighting for our rights. Yet Paul took this as referring to the need to not retaliate to the harmful things done to us by members of the ecclesia (Rom. 12:16,17; 1 Cor. 6:7; 1 Thess. 5:15). When struck on the right cheek- which was a Semitic insult to a heretic- they were to not respond and open themselves up for further insult surely a lesson for those brethren who are falsely accused of wrong beliefs. And yet the compassion of Jesus shines through both His parables and the records of His words; as does His acceptance of people for who they were. People were relaxed with Him because they could see He had no hidden agenda. He wasn\'t going to use them for His own power trip.</p><p><i>And from him that takes away your cloak- withhold not your coat also</i>- The simple principle \'Do not resist wrong judgment of you\' is a very large ask. Even in this life, truth often comes out. And if we believe in the ultimate justice of the final judgment, we will not for ever be going around correcting others\' misjudgements and wrong impressions of us. That is something I have had to deeply learn in my own life. It was forbidden by the Law to keep a man&rsquo;s outer garment overnight (Ex. 22:26,27). But the Lord taught&nbsp;<i>whilst the law was still in operation&nbsp;</i>that we should be willing to give it up, and even offer it. The threatened man could have quoted the Law and kept his clothing. But the Lord bids us go to a higher level, beyond using God&rsquo;s law to uphold our own rights. And in this He raises a vital if difficult principle: Don&rsquo;t always enforce what Biblical rights you have against your brother. Don&rsquo;t rush to your own defence and justification even if Scripture is on your side. Live on the level of true love and non-resistance to evil. In this case the idea would be that even if someone amongst God\'s people does something unBiblical to us, clearly breaking God\'s laws, we are still to not resist evil but rather by our grace to them, shame them into repentance.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2449','1','42','6','30','30','<p>6:30 <i>Give to everyone who asks of you, from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back</i>- This parallels the Lord\'s teaching that we receive from God whatever we ask. But that is not to be taken literally. It is paramountly true in spiritual terms. \'Debt\' is used as a metaphor for sin. The idea is used in :35 for forgiving sin. Likewise the Lord\'s teaching here likely has context and parameters to it. The Lord is teaching not to resist evil; for the \'asking\' of us is parallel to taking away our goods.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2450','1','42','6','31','31','<p>6:31 <i>And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them likewise</i>- This is another way of saying \'Love your neighbour as yourself\'. The Greek for \'do to you\' recurs in Mt. 18:35 where we read how God shall \'do to you\' if you do not forgive your brother. We also find the phrase in Mt. 25:40,45- \'whatever you do\' to Christ\'s brethren, you do to Him and shall receive from Him accordingly. It is true that what goes around, comes around- so it\'s best to treat others as you would like to be treated. But that kind of truth is expressed in almost every religious and cultural system of the world. My sense is that the Lord is not merely repeating conventional, folksy wisdom, but rather is elevating it to a far higher and more deeply internal, spiritual level. For this is His style throughout the Sermons on the mount and plain. The recurrence of the phrase \'whatever you do\' in Mt. 25:40,45 teaches that whatever we do (or do not do) to others, we do to Christ personally. And in that dimension of life, the \'come back\' of our actions will not simply be in this life, but more importantly, at the last day. Judgment day, either explicitly or implicitly, forms a major theme in the Lord\'s teaching. If He is indeed teaching that what we do to others is done to Him and therefore will have its response at the day of judgment, rather than merely in this life as folksy wisdom teaches, then indeed we can understand His comment in Mt. 7:12: &quot;For this is the law and the prophets&quot;. The law and the prophets do indeed teach that human behaviour, especially that done to others, shall come to final judgment in the last day. But I would not say that \'what goes around, comes around\' is exactly their major and noteworthy theme, true as that bit of folksy wisdom is.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2451','1','42','6','32','32','<p>6:32 <i>For if you love those that love you, what praise do you have? For even sinners love those that love them</i>- Taking responsibility for others is often thankless. Our human dysfunction cries out for affirmation, and we tend not to do those things for which we are not thanked. This is one of the most radical aspects of our calling as followers of Christ- to serve without being thanked. Belief in God&rsquo;s judgment helps us with this. For all our works will be rewarded in some sense by Him at the last day. If we love those that love us, we have no &ldquo;thank&rdquo; (AV) or &quot;praise&quot;- but we will have &ldquo;thank&rdquo;, or &ldquo;praise of God&rdquo; ultimately. And this is what ultimately matters. This speaks of receiving &quot;thank&quot; for making the conscious effort to love the unlovable. The Greek for &quot;thank&quot; or &quot;praise&quot; is <i>charis</i>, normally translated &quot;grace&quot;, and often connected with the help of the Spirit which is given to us in response to our own efforts.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2452','1','42','6','33','33','<p>6:33 <i>And if you do good to those that do good to you, what praise do you have? For even sinners do the same</i>- There is no <i>charis</i>, no grace, in loving those who love us; grace is found in doing good to those who do not do good to us. Too easily, believing communities can become self-help clubs, whereby we do good to those who do good to us. And that is the way of the world, of secular society. The call of grace is to do good to those who are not of us, and who are against us.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2453','1','42','6','34','34','<p>6:34 <i>And if you lend to those of whom you hope to receive, what praise do you have? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much</i>- As noted on :32 and :33, there is no grace s.w. &quot;praise&quot; in giving when we hope to receive back in this life. This is the way of secular society and groups within it. From whom do we receive grace or praise? Surely from the Father, the source of grace. Secular people do good (:33) and lend to others because they hope to receive again &quot;as much&quot;, literally, the same kind of thing. Our spiritual investment is of an altogether different character. We will not receive back in this life from those we give to. But we are banking in Heaven, and at judgment day, will receive back the grace we are so desperately in need of. Then we shall receive &quot;praise of God&quot; (1 Cor. 4:5), according to the parable, the Lord will go through our good works to weak people and praise us for them. We will indeed &quot;receive&quot; for what we do, but not &quot;as much&quot;, not in the same coin, not things of the same nature which we gave. There is a radical exchange going on- our lending to others, be it literally or in terms of the gift of forgiveness, time and grace, shall be recompensed- but not from them, and on a far more wonderful level.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2454','1','42','6','35','35','<p>6:35 <i>But love your enemies, and do good and lend, never despairing, and your reward shall be great, and you shall be sons of the Most High. For He is kind toward the unthankful and evil</i>- See on Mt. 5:45. The Lord sort to inculcate in His followers His same positive spirit. We must love our enemies &ldquo;never despairing&rdquo;. To never give up with people, for all the losses, the casualties, the hurt&hellip; never despairing of humanity. This was and is the spirit of Jesus. Debt is a common metaphor for sin, being in need of forgiveness. The constant lending we are called to, not expecting repayment but all the same placing those lent to in an ever greater debt to us, corresponds more accurately with the experience of forgiving people than it does with lending of material things. To lend without hoping for anything back &quot;never despairing&quot; is quite some challenge. This appears to be the pattern of God\'s kindness; He is kind for the sake of it, with no hope of anything back. And yet what joy we must give Him when we form the habit of regular thanks before food, and seek to appreciate His kindness. Worthiness of the recipient is not the way of grace, and the teaching here is in conscious contrast to the Jewish idea, soon to be recorded by Luke, that a man was worthy of a miracle because he had been generous to a Jewish community (7:4). The paradox of this teaching is that although we should serve for nothing, with no hope for anything back, there will in fact be a great reward prepared for us. Although not in this life, nor in secular terms, as noted on :34.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2455','1','42','6','36','36','<p>6:36 <i>Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful</i>- Quite simply, who God is should inspire us to be like Him; to copy His characteristics the things of His Name in our personalities. We must be &quot;perfect&quot; as our Father is; &quot;be holy&quot;, because He is holy (1 Pet. 1:14-16); &quot;kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God forgave&hellip; be you therefore followers of God, as dear children&quot; (Eph. 4:32; 5:1); &quot;merciful, as your Father is merciful&quot; (Lk. 6:36). Prov. 19:11 RV uses language frequently applied to Yahweh Himself and applies it to the wise man: &quot;The discretion of a man makes him slow to anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression&quot;. And thus Phinehas was commended for being &quot;jealous with my jealousy&quot; (Num. 25:11 RV)- his emotion at that time was a mirror of that of God Himself.</p><p>Not only was language re-interpreted by the Christian movement. Whole concepts were reoriented. Holiness in the sense of separation from the unclean had been a major theme in the Mosaic Law, and it figured largely in the theology of the Pharisees. But the Lord quoted &ldquo;Be holy because I, Yahweh your God am holy&rdquo; (Lev. 19:2) as &ldquo;Be merciful, even as your father in heaven- AV is merciful&rdquo;. To be merciful to those who sin is now the true holiness- not merely separation from them and condemnation of their ways. Note, too, how He invites us to interpret the Yahweh as &ldquo;father&rdquo;, rather than transliterating the Name.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2456','1','42','6','37','37','<p>6:37 <i>Judge not, and you shall not be judged; condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven</i>- This confirms the suggestion so far made in commentary on this chapter; that the lending and giving in view is particularly that of forgiveness, unconditionally granted. For Paul, &quot;judge not...&quot; echoed in his mind throughout the years; thus it is at the basis of Rom. 2:1; the whole of Rom. 14, and 1 Cor. 4:3,5. The Lord\'s teaching about judging does not in fact say that the act of condemning our brother is in itself a sin- it\'s simply that we must cast out the beam from our own eye first, and then we can judge our brother by pointing out to him the splinter in his eye. But the Lord tells us not to judge because He foresaw that we would never completely throw out the beam from our own eye. His command not to judge /&nbsp;condemn at all was therefore in this sense a concession to our inevitable weakness (:41). The commentary of James on this is interesting: &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t speak against one another, brothers. He who speaks against a brother and judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge&quot; (James 4:11). In what sense is to judge / condemn our brother to judge the law? And which law? Maybe James considered Lk. 6:37 and Mt. 7:1 to be so fundamental a part of &quot;the law of Christ&quot; that he refers to it as &quot;the law&quot;. See on Mt. 7:24. The Lord had taught clearly that under His law, to condemn meant being condemned. Yet there were those in James\' readership, as there are today, who think they can go ahead and condemn others. Seeing the Lord\'s law is so clear, James is saying that effectively they are condemning the law of Jesus, placing themselves as judges over His law by deciding that they can break it at will.</p><p>We observe that not forgiving is parallel here to condemning and judging. We are setting ourselves up as judge of others if we refuse to forgive. Forgiveness is not the same as trust, but it is clearly required- otherwise we are condemning. If we assume that all our brethren shall be saved and seeing we can\'t prejudge the judgment, we have to assume this, as Paul did about Corinth, then we assume that whatever sins they have committed against us will be forgiven. Therefore we must forgive them, acting in harmony with the Lord\'s position to them. In this lies the connection between not forgiving and condemning. If we refuse to condemn them, then we must forgive them. And the nature of the logic demands that we are to grant that forgiveness to any whom the Lord will not condemn, and so the forgiveness in view is to be granted without any angst about whether or not the person has repented. That is not for us to judge; it is for us to forgive. The logic of the whole argument requires this. There are passages which picture a person sinning against us and saying they repent and then being forgiven; but their purpose is to teach that we are to forgive when they do that, even if their repentance appears insincere; but we are not thereby taught not to forgive unless they repent. We are being presented in those passages with a theoretical situation, and told to forgive even if repentance seems sincere. But the logic here in Lk. 6:37 is to forgive in any case; for all &quot;in Christ&quot; are not condemned and therefore forgiven.</p><p>Because of the principle that we shall be condemned if we condemn, we need to remember that we will receive according to the measure we use to people in this life. Again, a direct connection is made between our judgment experience before Jesus at the last day, and our attitude to others now.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2457','1','42','6','38','38','<p>6:38 <i>Give; and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they pour into your lap. For with what measure you use, it shall be measured to you again</i>- We are to give expecting nothing again, and we do not get such generous response to our generosity from men in this life. So I suggest the reference is to judgment day, and the &quot;men&quot; refer to Angels. As men gather in a net and sort out the fish, so the angels will at judgment day (Mt. 13:47-50). &quot;Men (angels) gather (the branches), and cast them into the fire, and they are burned&quot; (Jn. 15:6). This same equation of men and angels is seen in Lk. 6:38, this time concerning how the angels will mete out rewards as well as punishment at the judgment; for the language here is very much the language of judgment to come (Lk. 6:38 cp. Mt. 7:1,2). This association of &quot;men&quot; (angels) with the judgment is fitting, seeing that our guardian angel will have been with us through every up and down of life, and shall come with the Lord Jesus to our judgment. See on Lk. 12:48.</p><p>We might have expected Him to say: &lsquo;Give generously, with a good, running over measure, and this is what you will receive in return&rsquo;. But He doesn&rsquo;t. He says simply &ldquo;Give&rdquo;; and then we will be given to in a generous measure, because with what measure we use in our giving, we will receive. Thinking it through, He means surely that &ldquo;giving&rdquo;, by His definition, means a generous, well packed, abundant giving; for that <i>is </i>Christian giving. And note that the context of Lk. 6:38 is the Lord talking about not being critical and judgmental of others, but rather forgiving and accepting them. It is our \'giving\' in this sense which is to be so full and generous. Only God&rsquo;s grace / giving can inspire this attitude within us, as we live hemmed in by the people of a materialistic, mean world, where nobody takes up a cross for anyone else. This is why Paul makes a play on the word &lsquo;grace&rsquo; when writing to the Corinthians about giving; for <i>charis</i>, &ldquo;grace&rdquo;, means &lsquo;giving&rsquo;. He urges them to not receive God&rsquo;s grace in vain, but rather, motivated by it, to give grace to others (2 Cor. 6:1; 8:6,7,19).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2458','1','42','6','39','39','<p>6:39 <i>And he spoke also a parable to them: Can the blind guide the blind? Shall they not both fall into a pit?</i>- The blind can lead the blind into the ditch, i.e. to be \'rooted up\' in condemnation (Mt. 15:13,14 cp. 13:29). And yet&nbsp;<i>now&nbsp;</i>in this day of marvellous opportunity, we can lift both ourselves and others out of that pit of condemnation (Mt. 12:11). Some of those who are now \'rooted up\', i.e. condemned as they would be in the future judgment (Mt. 13:28), who are &ldquo;wandering&rdquo; as the rejected will in the last day, can still be saved from this by us pulling them out of the fire of condemnation (Jude 12,22). Men can escape from the &quot;damnation of hell&quot; in which they are in (Mt. 23:33). Herein lies the urgency of our task in both personal repentance and pastoral work. But we note too the responsibility of leaders- they can lead others to condemnation. We do well to analyse our leaders. When the Lord elsewhere spoke of the blind leading the blind, He went on to tell the story of the partially sighted man who tries to remove what he perceives as a splinter of wood from his brother&rsquo;s eye (:39-42). The implication is that we are all blind, and need leadership- but by the Lord, not by each other. And He is saying the same thing here in Mt. 15. By telling the disciples not to be led by the Pharisees in order to avoid falling into condemnation, He is effectively implying that the disciples were blind- for if the blind lead the blind, then they will fall into the ditch of condemnation.&nbsp;</p><p>The pit is that of condemnation. And yet the Lord likens Himself to a man who lifts His sheep out of the ditch / pit (s.w. Mt. 12:11). We can be condemned in this life, as Peter was, and yet be saved out of it. Just as some of those blind Scribes and Pharisees were saved.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2459','1','42','6','40','40','<p>6:40 <i>The disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is perfected, shall be as his teacher</i>- The Lord is partly speaking to the possible desire in some of the disciples to be martyrs for His cause. Peter\'s attitude in Gethsemane was clearly of that nature, and some of the disciples came from radicalized, fanatical backgrounds. Martyrdom was a common concept in the first century, and the Lord\'s warning to flee persecution, to bring about a quiet revolution rather than a political one, was aimed at warning against any desire for a quick, glamorous death for the sake of the Kingdom. In the context, He has warned them to endure persecution. He could be saying that the game plan was that&nbsp;<i>He</i>&nbsp;was to die, but&nbsp;<i>they</i>&nbsp;were to seek to preserve their lives so that they could make a longer and more effective witness to Him. They were not \'above\' Him- He was the one who had to die as the perfect sacrifice, not them. They were to be \'as\' Him in terms of personality, and be satisfied with that- it was to be &quot;enough&quot; for them to bear His reproach (Mt. 10:25). The Lord elsewhere taught Peter that the time for martyrdom would indeed come for Peter, when he was &quot;perfected&quot; or matured- but not right then. So there is the possibility that the Lord is implying \'You are not at this stage&nbsp;<i>huper</i>&nbsp;(&quot;above&quot;) Me, for the moment, focus on being &quot;as&quot; Me, as disciples learning to copy their teacher\'. This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that Paul later writes that we are indeed to be&nbsp;<i>huper</i>&nbsp;Christ, in the sense of being instead of Him, for His sake, in our witness. Thus we are to preach &quot;<i>huper</i>&nbsp;Christ... in Christ\'s stead <i>huper</i>&nbsp;again&quot; (2 Cor. 5:20), suffering in the work of preaching&nbsp;<i>huper&nbsp;</i>Christ (2 Cor. 12:10; Phil. 1:29; Col. 1:24), giving our lives&nbsp;<i>huper</i>&nbsp;Christ (Acts 15:26), in response to Christ\'s death&nbsp;<i>huper</i>&nbsp;us (Rom. 5:8 and often). So when the Lord taught that the disciples were not to give their lives&nbsp;<i>huper</i>&nbsp;Him their Lord and Master, He might have meant \'at this time\'. The time would come, but for then, they were to focus on learning of Him.&nbsp;</p><p>Today, students are \'trained\' to think for themselves, be creative, develop their own opinions, push forward their own independent research, using question / problem-based learning as a paradigm for their education. \'Education\' in the first century wasn\'t like that at all. The idea was that &quot;every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher&quot; (Lk. 6:40). The idea was that a person born into a certain social situation was trained to take their place in society, given that \'station and place\' into which they had been born. Initiative in that sense was not encouraged; it was all about training up a person to correctly fulfil societies\' expectation of them. The idea of being personally taught by the invisible Master / teacher Jesus, becoming like Him rather than like the person whom society expected, being given talents by Him which we are to trade and multiply at our initiative (Mt. 25:15-28)... this was all totally counter-cultural stuff. What was so vital in the Mediterranean world was that a person achieved conformity to accepted values. Cicero advised that in any good presentation of a legal case or encomium, emotions and passions shouldn\'t be referred to. Individualism was seen as a threat to tradition and the collective society. The huge New Testament emphasis on becoming disciples, learners, of an invisible Lord, Master and teacher located in Heaven, serving Him alone, worried about <i>His</i> standards, perceptions and judgment of us- that was and is so totally opposite to the expectations of society. People were educated to be embedded in society, rather than to come out of their world and live in the new world in which Christ was the light, and all things were made new in a new creation, a new set of values.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2460','1','42','6','41','41','<p>6:41 <i>And why do you see the splinter that is in your brother\'s eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye?</i>- The Lord prefaces this mini-parable by saying that the blind can\'t lead the blind. For Him, a man with even slightly impaired vision was effectively blind. In this very context He speaks of the need to be &quot;perfected... as his master&quot;. Only the perfect, by implication, can criticize their brethren. And the final reason He gives for not attempting to cast out the plank from our brother\'s eye is that &quot;For a good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit&rdquo;. This is rather hard to understand in the context. But on reflection, it seems that He is teaching that if we are good trees, we will have no corrupt fruit, no splinters in our eye- and because none of us are like this, there is corrupt fruit on each of us, we aren\'t perfect as our Master, therefore we shouldn\'t think of trying to cast out the plank from our brother\'s eye (Lk. 6:39-43). And of course He bids us to be perfect as our Father is. These high standards of demand were mixed with an incredible grace. Only a man who was evidently perfect could speak like this with any realness or credibility. Otherwise His words would just have been seen as the ravings of a weirdo. But there was a realness to His perfection that made and makes His demands so piercingly appropriate to us. The way He handled His perfection is a wonderful insight into His character. He knew that He was without sin; and He knew that the life He lived moment by moment was to be the pattern for all God&rsquo;s people. Yet somehow, He handled this in a manner which was never arrogant, never proud, and never off-putting to sinners; but rather, actually inviting to them.</p><p>This continues the context about judging. Our attitude to others will be the Lord\'s attitude to us at the last day. If we are hyper-critical of others, then this is how the Lord will look upon us. If&nbsp;<i>He</i>&nbsp;should mark iniquity in us, none could stand (Ps. 130:3)- and we should struggle with the natural human tendency to mark iniquity in others. The question \'Why...?\' is answered by the Lord in verse 42- He perceived that we excuse our judgmentalness and critical attitudes with the excuse that we actually want to assist the poor person who is the object of our critical gaze. How many times have we heard the bitterest, most carping criticism of others- rounded off with the excuse \'I actually really feel so sorry for him\'. This is the very mentality the Lord is bringing to our attention. He bids us realize how we justify critical attitudes towards others on the basis that we kind ourselves that we want to help them.</p><p>The splinter is literally, a twig. Both a twig and a beam are all of the same material- wood. If the Lord was indeed a woodworker, He would have prepared this teaching during meditation in His workplace. The point is, all our faults are of the same essence. The problem is that although we have been called out of darkness / blindness into the light of life, we are still blind in so many ways- even though blindness is a feature of the unsaved, and ignorance of God is the basis of His anger with men (2 Thess. 1:8). Crystal clear teaching of Jesus relating to wealth, brotherly love, personal forgiveness, the vital unity of His church, personal purity&hellip; these all go ignored in some way by each of us, and therefore by us as a community. The Lord gently warns us that we are&nbsp;<i>all</i>&nbsp;likely to be blind in some way- why, He asks, are we so keen to comment on our brother\'s blindness / darkness, when we too have such limited vision (Mt. 7:3)? We can read the same passages time and again, and fail to let them really register.</p><p>&quot;Consider not&quot; is alluded to by James. James is full of references to the Sermon, and James 1:23,24 repeat this Greek word for &quot;consider&quot;. James warns that we can be like the man who considers / beholds his face in a mirror and then carries on with life, immediately forgetting what he has seen of himself. It\'s not that we are totally, blissfully unaware of our faults. We see / consider them, but for a fleeting moment. And then live as if we have not seen them. The Lord is telling us to indeed see / consider our own planks. The idea seems to be that the plank in our own eye is our judgmental attitude towards our brother. This is what damages our vision; John teaches that we cannot see where we are walking if we hate our brother in our heart (1 Jn. 2:11). If we are without this major impediment to our vision, then maybe we will be able to assist others with removing small parts a twig of the major problems a beam which we have ourselves overcome.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2461','1','42','6','42','42','<p>6:42 <i>Or how can you say to your brother: Brother, let me cast out the splinter that is in your eye- when you yourself do not perceive the beam that is in your own eye? You hypocrite Cast out first the beam out of your own eye, and then shall you see clearly to cast out the splinter that is in your brother\'s eye</i>- The Lord foresaw the problems we would have within our community; from the schisms of the first century to the struggles of latter day believers. Consider the story He told of the carpenter with a beam in his own eye who is so keen to extract the splinter from the eye of his fellow worker (note how he almost forces himself upon his brother to do this). There is something grotesque, absurd, over the top in this story. In this story of the two carpenters there is something not only unreal, but almost cartoon-like. We read it and think \'The Lord\'s obviously exaggerating, nobody would really be so foolish\'. But that\'s exactly how He knew we would think Our attempts to sort out our brother really are that absurd Christ is effectively saying: \'Now, I know you\'ll think I\'m exaggerating- but I\'m not\' (Lk. 6:41,42). Often it seems the Lord intends us to think His parables through to their end, imagining the necessary details. A splinter will come out of the eye naturally, its presence will provoke tears which ultimately will wash it out. \'The grief of life will work on your brother to solve his problem, there are some spiritual weaknesses which time and the experience of life will heal; but I know you people will want to rush in and speed up the spiritual growth of your brother. But you can\'t do it\'. Christ even foresaw how we will stress the fact that our fellow believer is our &quot;brother&quot; as we try to do this; as if we\'ll try to be so righteous in the very moment when in God\'s eyes we do something grotesquely foolish. Doubtless the Lord\'s carpenter years were the time when He formulated this story of the two carpenters. Significantly they both had wood in their eye- as if a brother will tend to seek to correct another brother who has in essence the same weaknesses, but the &lsquo;helping&rsquo; brother considers that the other brother&rsquo;s is so much greater than his. Perhaps the Lord intends us to take it further, and pick up the implication that these two carpenters couldn\'t help each other; but there\'s another one who can...</p><p>If we condemn ourselves in our self-examination, we will not be condemned (1 Cor. 11:31). We are to most importantly Gk. <i>proton</i> &ldquo;cast out&rdquo; the beam from our own eye (Lk. 6:42)- and the Lord uses the same word about the &lsquo;casting forth&rsquo; of the rejected at the last day. We are to judge our own weaknesses as worthy of condemnation. See on Lk. 18:10.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2462','1','42','6','43','43','<p>6:43 <i>For there is no good tree that brings forth corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree that brings forth good fruit</i>- We take a third road of indifferent tolerance to far too many. Having spoken of the need to tolerate our brother, the Lord Jesus repeated His common theme: that there is no third road. There\'s no third position. Either we love our brother, and bring forth good fruit; or we don\'t get down to it, and bring forth bad fruit. We can\'t sometimes bring forth good, sometimes bad. At heart, we are either loving or selfishly hateful. Anything less than following Yahweh with all our heart is seen as doing evil in His eyes (1 Kings 11:6).</p><p>Fruit on a transformed person is obvious and visible. If we are to use the presence or absence of fruit as a basis for perceiving false teachers, then we will have no problem at all discerning who is of the Lord and who isn\'t. And yet this very issue of deciding on others\' status has been fatally divisive and destructive for the Lord\'s church. Statements of faith are analysed, and the teaching of others is watchfully dissected to see if it fits that given statement- in order to decide whether someone is \'in\' or \'out\'. The Lord foresaw that tendency, for it was the tendency of the scribes too. And instead He offers us this other way, elevating spirituality to the highest level- whoever has the fruits &quot;cannot&quot; be a bad tree. The issue of \'fruit\' therefore becomes the key methodology through which to make the judgments which we are called to make in life. The attitude is often expressed that \'Well they may be very nice Christians and all that, but they do not understand the Truth about... issue X\'. The Lord is tackling that mentality head on, by saying that this &quot;cannot&quot; be the case; if the fruit is there, then they are a good tree, whatever misunderstandings they may have (and we all have them).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2463','1','42','6','44','44','<p>6:44 <i>For each tree is known by its own fruit- </i>The Lord knows the evil hearts of people- but we can\'t see their hearts, and so&nbsp;<i>we</i>&nbsp;shall know them by their external fruits.&nbsp;The need for fruit as a sign of repentance had been a theme in John\'s teaching (Mt. 3:8,10), and the Lord in His Sermon is often building on John\'s words. The Lord\'s concern is about those who appear to have accepted His message, dressing as sheep, and yet are in fact completely false. The whole thrust of His Sermon is that acceptance of Him produces a change in human life; there must be fruit. And we take a simple lesson from that- if we are to be able to tell whether someone is a genuine Christian or not by whether their fruits are visible, we have to ask ourselves whether our lives are so markedly different from unbelievers. There is to be something about us, fruit hanging on us, which clearly differentiates us from the unbelieving world. The difference has got to be fairly obvious, because the Lord is here teaching that we can easily discern whether someone purporting to be spiritual is indeed so because the fruits of it will be evident. Therefore there will not be any debate about whether someone is in the wolf / false prophet category- because they either have the fruits of the Spirit, the signs of the transformed life, or they do not. And the difference will be obvious. And yet endless energy has been expended trying to judge false prophets according to the content of their Biblical exposition and teaching. The Lord, however, teaches that the litmus test is in their life, rather than in their intellectual position.&nbsp;</p><p><i>For from thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush do they gather grapes</i>- The idea is \'Of course not\'. The Lord\'s point is that spiritual fruit is obvious, it cannot be hidden, like a city set on a hill. If there are grapes, the blessed fruit of the new covenant, on a person- then for sure they are not a thorn bush, with all the associations between thorns and cursing. In Mt. 12:33 the Lord makes an apparently obvious point- a good tree has good fruit, a bad tree has bad fruit. But the point is that we can easily, clearly tell whether someone has the fruit of the transformed life or not. There is no argument about it, because the fruit of the transformed life, lived according to this Sermon on the Mount, is public and visible. The seed of the Gospel which is sown by Jesus either brings forth fruit, or it doesn\'t (Mt. 13:8,26). So much angst about labelling individuals as false teachers is rendered unnecessary if we take this approach. And the false teachers with whom the later New Testament letters engage are teaching a false way of life, and Jude, Peter and John especially point out that their way of life indicates that they are false teachers.&nbsp;</p><p>Figs are associated with spiritual fruit (Mt. 21:19; 24:32), whereas thistles, like thorns, are associated with the curse (Gen. 3:18 &quot;thorns and thistles&quot;; s.w. Heb. 6:8 &quot;that which bears thorns and thistles is rejected&quot;). The point is, that the difference between the accepted and the condemned is apparent even in this life, because the fruit of the transformed life simply has to be seen publicly on people. This is perhaps the Lord\'s expansion upon His command not to judge / condemn. He\'s saying that we should not, however, walk around life blind and imperceptive, but rather take good notice of the presence or absence of fruit on a person.&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord puts it slightly another way in Lk. 6:44 when He says that men don\'t &quot;gather&quot; good fruit from a corrupt tree. The language of gathering is very much that of judgment to come; and yet the fruit is produced and gathered now, in the words / fruit that comes out of our mouth. This is why right now we can judge a false teacher, by his corrupt words this is one of the contexts of the Lord\'s words about corrupt trees and fruit- we see the fruit&nbsp;<i>now</i>. The corrupt man&nbsp;<i>will</i>&nbsp;speak villainy (Is. 32:6). But corrupt words don\'t just mean expletives- the false teacher would be too smart to use them. He comes in sheep\'s clothing. But Lk. 6:41-44 gives us an example of &quot;corrupt&quot; words; words which create a corrupting spiritual influence in a man or in a community. One may&nbsp;<i>say</i>&nbsp;to his brother that he must cast out the splinter from his eye, although he has a plank in his own. And the Lord goes on to say that a good tree doesn\'t bring forth corrupt fruit. The corrupt fruit, as in the above passages, means \'corrupt words\'. And in Lk. 6:45 the Lord concludes by saying that &quot;for of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh&quot;. The corrupt fruit are the corrupt words of Lk. 6:42- saying, \'My brother, I\'m very sorry, but I just have to correct you, you are so obviously wrong and stupid to walk round with a splinter in your eye, I can correct your spiritual vision, because I see perfectly. At the moment your spiritual perception \'eye is just hopeless\'. The Lord understood \'the eye\' as ones\' spiritual vision (Mt. 6:22,23). These kind of words, in essence, are the real leaven; they corrupt / pull apart over time communities as well as individual faith. These criticisms work away within a brother or sister, disaffirming them as believers, disaffirming them for who they are, raising doubt and not hope, humiliating them that they haven\'t made the grade&hellip; until they are corrupted. We have a specific example of a man being punished in judgment for his words, and it may well be the basis for the Lord\'s teaching here: &quot;When the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks. For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done this&hellip;&quot; (Is. 10:11,12). And there follows a long quotation of his words. These words were the \'fruit of his heart\'- out of the abundance of his heart his mouth had spoken. And these words were almost cited back to him at the time of his condemnation. We know, however, that it is quite possible for human actions and words to&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;reflect the heart. Consider how Sennacherib invaded Judah but in his heart &quot;he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so&quot; (Is. 10:7). This is why the Lord clearly condemns the thought as being as bad as the action, even if the action isn\'t actually committed. Ps. 55:21 laments how words cannot reflect the true state of a man\'s heart: &quot;The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords&quot;. So why, then, is there so much emphasis on spoken words as the basis for judgment to come? Surely it is that although thoughts will also be judged, and the hypocrites revealed for who they are, it doesn\'t follow that a good man sometimes uses \'corrupt speech\'. It\'s impossible. A good man cannot bring forth bad words. But a bad man can sometimes bring forth words which seem good on the surface, but which are in fact counterfeit. But it can\'t happen another way- a good man\'s words aren\'t just his surface level sin. And I for one flinch at this; because when I have to own up to having said inappropriate words, my flesh wants me to think that in my heart, I didn\'t mean them. And yet, ruthlessly, I must press the point: bad words reflect a bad heart. We can\'t justify them. We must repent of them, and by the influence of knowing God, through and in His Son and His word, we must change the state of mind that leads to them. And we should be, on one hand, simply&nbsp;<i>worried</i>: that bad words came out of a bad heart. And a good man cannot bring forth such corrupt fruit. There is with some especially the problem of temper, saying things well beyond what they really mean in hot blood. But here again, the words of hot blood do reflect something of the real man or woman. The tongue is a fire that can lead to condemnation, whatever and however we justify its\' words as a relatively harmless outcome of our personality type. This may be true, but it isn\'t harmless.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2464','1','42','6','45','45','<p>6:45 <i>The good man- </i>The good man is as the good tree. His good fruit or works is because of a good mind within- and vice versa. The Lord as always took the issue to its deepest essence- which was within the deepest heart. He was the ultimate &ldquo;good man&rdquo; and good tree. His good works came forth from deep within Him, they were a reflection of His mind.</p><p><i>Out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth that which is good- </i>The heart is our wealth. This is the real gold and silver, the core value of a man\'s life- what we are thinking about. Spiritual mindedness is the essence of Christianity.</p><p><i>And the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth that which is evil- </i>The Lord uses the same word to speak of &quot;this evil (AV &quot;wicked&quot;) generation&quot; in Mt. 12:45. The problem with Jewish society as a whole was how they thought. This is the Biblical emphasis- sin comes from our thinking, and not because society is controlled by a personal cosmic \'satan\' figure.</p><p><i>For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks</i>- Gk. \'that which remains\'. The idea may be that a certain amount of human thought is taken up with basic human functioning, but that which remains over and above that, the part of our thinking which we can consciously control, is what must be controlled- for it is that part of our thinking which controls the words and actions which are the fruit on the tree of a man\'s life.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2465','1','42','6','46','46','<p>6:46 <i>And why do you call me \'Lord, Lord\' and not do the things which I say?</i>- In Rom. 2:13, Paul saw the &quot;Lord, Lord&quot; people as the Jews of the first century who initially responded enthusiastically to the Gospel. The contrast is between saying &quot;Lord, Lord&quot; in this life, and then in the future not entering into the Kingdom. The contrast is between merely&nbsp;<i>saying</i>&nbsp;and actually&nbsp;<i>doing</i>. The Lord repeats the idea in His mini parable of the two sons; the one who \'said\' he would be obedient, and the other who \'did\' the will of his father (Mt. 21:30,31). The acceptance of Christ as Lord means that we are as His servants and slaves; it is for us to \'do\' His will and work. This fits with the context of the preceding verses- that if He is really our Lord, we will inevitably&nbsp;<i>do</i>&nbsp;His will, and that doing will be actual, practical and visible. It is the false prophets who merely say but don\'t&nbsp;<i>do</i>, just as they claim to be good trees but don\'t have good fruit.</p><p>As with many aspects of doctrine, it is often difficult for us to appreciate how radically revolutionary they were in the first century context; and in essence they should lose none of their radicalness with us. David Bosch observes: &ldquo;Christians confessed Jesus as Lord of all lords- the most revolutionary political demonstration imaginable in the Roman Empire&quot;. Philip Yancey likewise: &ldquo;As the church spread throughout the Roman empire, its followers took up the slogan &ldquo;Christ is Lord&quot;, a direct affront to Roman authorities who required all citizens to take the oath &lsquo;Caesar the state is Lord&rsquo;&quot; (<i>The Jesus I Never Knew</i>, p. 246). It hurt, it cost, to recognize Him as Lord. And so it should with us. Men and women died for this; and we likewise give our lives in response to that very same knowledge. There is a tendency, which the Lord Himself brought to our attention, of calling Him Lord but not doing what He says. To know Him as Lord in truth is axiomatically to be obedient to Him (Lk. 6:46). The attitude which we have to the Lord Jesus <i>now</i> will be the attitude we have to Him at the day of judgment (Mt. 7:23 cp. Lk. 6:46).</p><p>The sensation of working for the Lord can be so self-deceptive. He draws the difference between doing many wonderful works in His name, saying &ldquo;Lord, Lord&rdquo;; and <i>really</i> doing the will of the Father (Mt. 7:21,22). The parallel Lk. 6:46 has that men will say &ldquo;Lord, Lord&rdquo; but not really hear His words. To hear them is to do the will of the Father. Putting all this together, it is perfectly possible to bear His Name, call Him Lord, work hard for Him- and yet never really hear His words, and thereby never really know the will of our Father. From this parallel we can conclude that our attitude to Christ in this life (e.g. &quot;Lord, Lord&quot;) will be our attitude to Him at the judgment seat. If we think He is a hard, unreasonable Lord: that is how He will be. To the froward (in this life), He will shew Himself froward. Straight away we are met head on with a major challenge: Our attitude to Christ in this life will be our attitude to Him at the judgment seat. John\'s letters reason down the same line: &ldquo;If (in this life) our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence (now) toward God... this is the confidence that we have in him... abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence... before him (at the judgment) at His coming&quot; (1 Jn. 3:21; 5:14; 2:28). The confidence we have towards Christ now will be the confidence we have at judgment day. This fact should pull us up out of the spiritual indifference which characterizes so much of our lives. If we see Christ as an abstract theological necessity, a black box in our brain called \'Christ\'; if we don\'t have a dynamic, two- way relationship with Him now- then this too is how we will regard Him then.</p><p>In 1 Cor. 13:2 Paul understands those who say &quot;Lord, Lord&quot; as saying it without really&nbsp;<i>knowing</i>&nbsp;Christ, and living without love. Thus Paul saw an association between a lack of true love and an external show of appreciation of Christ\'s Lordship. Not doing what Christ says is a lack of love, in Paul\'s mind. If we appreciate this, we will see that those who are ignorant of Christ\'s words cannot show true love. Biblically ignorant Christians need to think through the implications of this. Those who insincerely say &quot;Lord, Lord&quot; now, will say the same then, at the judgment, with the same lack of reality (Mt. 7:21,22). The repetition of &quot;Lord, Lord&quot; shows that our attitude to Him in this life will be that we have when we meet in the last day.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2466','1','42','6','47','47','<p>6:47 <i>Everyone that comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you to whom he is like</i>- The parable of the builders is fundamentally about our attitude to the Lord. There is good reason to think it mainly concerns the attitude of the responsible; these words of Jesus are set against the background of :27: &quot;I say unto you which hear&quot;. The rest of the chapter seems to be addressed primarily to the disciples- e.g. :41,42 speak of them beholding the mote in their brother\'s eye; warning surely more relevant to believing disciples than to the world generally. The parable of the builders likewise refers to those within the ecclesia, who know Christ as their Lord: &quot;Lord, Lord&quot;, they say. Among this class of people there would be &quot;many&quot; (Mt. 7:21- 23) who would hear Christ\'s sayings, but not do them. See on Jn. 13:13. I\'m obviously labouring this point, that the builders in the parable are those within the ecclesia, or at best the responsible. This is because the parallel record in Mt. 7 is rather unpleasant to apply to the ecclesia; it says that &quot;many&quot; of us will be in the category who say &quot;Lord, Lord&quot;, and whose house will be destroyed. The Greek for &ldquo;many&quot; can imply \'the majority\'. Even the majority of those who hear Christ\'s words simply don\'t do them. Now that\'s an uncomfortable statistic for us who sit before the bread and wine each week, seeking to hear Christ\'s words and do them. This parable was spoken in the context of crowds of the ecclesia of Israel coming to Christ, hearing His words, and doing sweet nothing about it. Such an attitude is not building a house on a rock.</p><p><i>Logos</i>&nbsp;suggests more than simply words. The Lord intends us to get to the essential intention of His Spirit. God\'s word is often styled His \'judgments\' in the OT (e.g. Ps. 119:43,160; 147:19). In His word we see His judgments- how He judges and will judge. And in the wealth of Bible history we see examples of how these judgments have been articulated with men in practice. Thus the Lord Jesus concluded the sermon with a parable of judgment, that of the two builders. One heard the Lord\'s words of the sermon and did them, the other heard but didn\'t deeply apply them. The message was clear: \'Deeply meditate on what I\'ve just been saying. For this is the basis upon which I will judge men in the last day. You can try to discern for yourselves how seriously and fundamentally you apply my words; and in this you will have a preview of how I will judge you&quot;.</p><p>The figure of building a house on a rock conjures up the idea of sweating labour. Do we feel that we are spiritually sweating, in a sense? Is it that hard to understand and therefore do the words of Christ? A number of passages make this connection between labouring&nbsp;and understanding the word. Elders labour in the word (1 Tim. 5:17), as the prophets laboured in writing the word of God (Jn. 4:38); and the true Bible student is a labourer who will not be ashamed of his work at the end (2 Tim. 2:15). And the Lord Jesus spoke of us labouring for the manna of God\'s words, even harder than we labour for our daily bread, and more earnestly than the crowds ran around the lake of Galilee in the blazing midday sun in order to benefit from Christ\'s miracles (Jn. 6:27). One could be forgiven for thinking that most of us find hearing the words of Christ easy. But there is an element of difficulty, even unpleasantness for us, in truly understanding Him in practical application. &nbsp;How do we hear and do? We are helped to get the answer by considering how Christ elsewhere appealed to people to &quot;Hear&nbsp;<i>and understand</i>&quot; (Mt. 15:10). Truly understanding is related to action, \'doing\'. In the parable, hearing and doing is like the hard work of digging the foundation on a rock. This is how hard it is to truly understand the words of Christ. Remember how the one talent man also dug into the earth (Mt. 25:18). He did some digging, he did some work. But he failed to truly understand. The very physical action of digging deceived him into thinking he had done enough, as the physical action of building deceived the man who built on earth. Of course we are progressing somewhere spiritually, as we live day by day. But our movement can deceive us. &nbsp;</p><p>James clearly alludes to the appeal to not only hear but do: &ldquo;But be doers of the word, and not only hearers, deluding your own selves&rdquo; (James 1:22). James spells out the problem- we hear the Lord\'s words and for a moment assent to them- but don\'t continue to do them in the long term. &quot;The word&quot; is paralleled by James with &quot;the perfect law of freedom&quot;.&nbsp; &ldquo;But he who looks into the perfect law of freedom, and continues, not being a hearer who forgets, but a doer of the work, this man will be blessed in what he does&rdquo; (James 1:25). The term &quot;perfect law of freedom&quot; is hard to interpret, and it seems to be in contrast with how the New Testament elsewhere speaks of the Mosaic law as being a form of bondage, with Christ\'s teaching as the way to freedom. I would suggest that this &quot;perfect law of freedom&quot; refers to the Sermons on the Mount and plain (see on Mt. 7:1), perhaps specifically to the challenge to be perfect (Mt. 5:48); the Sermon, as we showed in commenting on Mt. 5:1, was the Lord\'s equivalent to the Mosaic Law. The Sermon would\'ve been memorized and recited by the vast mass of early Christians who were illiterate. And James is urging them to not merely encounter the words and nod approvingly at them, nor even merely recite them- but continuing in actually doing them. And this of course is the challenge to us too, assailed as we are in our generation by too many words, to the point that we can easily give a passing \'like\' to them, and yet live on uninfluenced.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2467','1','42','6','48','48','<p>6:48 <i>He is like- </i>Present tense. Matthew says he &quot;shall be like&quot;; the essence of judgment is now. We can discern the principles by which we shall be judged. The future tenses in Matthew\'s version imply that the truth of the parable of the builders will only be apparent at the day of judgment. The purpose of judgment day is largely for our benefit, and therefore the process will be public- we will learn from the rejection and acceptance of others. Paul alludes to the idea by saying that &quot;the day of judgment shall declare&quot; each man\'s building work (1 Cor. 3:13). And to whom will it be declared? The Lord already knows them that are His. It will be declared to the individual being judged, and to those who are observing. The Lord uses the same word translated \'likened\' in speaking of how in this life, the state of the Kingdom in a man\'s life &quot;<i>is</i>&nbsp;likened&quot;, present tense, right now, to various things (Mt. 13:24; 18:23; 22:2). But in Mt. 25:1 we find another future tense- at the Lord\'s return, the Kingdom&nbsp;<i>will be likened unto</i>&nbsp;the wise and foolish girls cp. the wise and foolish builders. We can perceive the essence of the Lord\'s future judgment in this life- for the Bible is full of His &quot;judgments&quot; ahead of time. Therefore the nature and outcome of the final judgment need not be a mystery for us, if we perceive the principles of judgment which the Lord teaches in the Sermon and elsewhere. But all the same, that day will be the final and ultimate declaration of those values.</p><p><i>A man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation upon the rock- </i>This is exactly what the Lord Himself is doing (Mt. 16:18; 26:61). There is a mutuality between the Lord and us. We build upon a rock, and He builds us upon a rock. We ourselves build, and yet we are &quot;built up a spiritual house&quot; by God (1 Pet. 2:5; note how Peter goes right on to speak of the Jews as foolish builders in 1 Pet. 2:7; he surely had the Lord\'s parable of the two types of builder in mind). Both men&nbsp;<i>built</i>&nbsp;in that both men&nbsp;<i>heard</i>&nbsp;the Lord\'s sayings. We are all making progress on our spiritual journey, for good or bad. There\'s no way to just take a break from the journey. We are building, hearing the Lord\'s will- but the question is, where is our foundation. The fundamental core, the dominant desire, of the Lord\'s people is Him. For the rock is clearly a symbol of the Lord Jesus (&quot;that rock was Christ&quot;, 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8 s.w.). On one hand, the Lord teaches that obedience to His sayings in practice is building upon a rock. And yet the rock is Him. He was the word made flesh, the perfect fulfilment and example of obedience to His sayings. To follow the Sermon fully means becoming as Him. And yet the judgment of the last day will not be a simple test of legalistic obedience. It will be a revelation of where our core foundation, our dominant desire, really is. Many people living in this postmodern, passionless world will have to think long and hard before answering the question: \'What is your dominant desire?\'. Short term things such as getting a qualification, a career, a particular level or form of wealth, buying a particular house, marrying a particular person, some specific success for our children... all these things fade from dominance in the course of a person\'s life. Many people simply don\'t have a dominant desire. The difference with true believers is that we do- and it is \'Christ\', Him as a person, the things of His eternal Kingdom. This perhaps more than anything else is the simple difference between the true believer and all other people. This is why there is a simple test as to whether a person is a genuine Christian or not- and it\'s \'fruit\', as the Lord has just previously explained. The difference is clear. The dominant desire of a true Christian is manifest and cannot be hid.&nbsp;</p><p>Comparing with the parallel in Mt. 7 it seems that both men built on the same kind of ground- it was rock overlaid with sand. The difference was that the wise man dug through the sand to the rock, whereas the fool built only on the sand. To really get down to the rock of Christ is hard and long work. It is achieved through the process of \'doing\' what He teaches. And the story is true to life- for so many of us in our spiritual biography can relate how we passed through years of being \'Christian\' or religious without having any personal relationship with Jesus, not praying nor talking to Him, not sensing Him at all as a living Lord. The story suggests that there will be some, perhaps &quot;many&quot;, who build a spiritual edifice of grand appearance which has no personal root in a relationship with Jesus- indeed, some actually preach against this because of their obsession with upholding theologies about the supremacy of God the Father. But getting through the sand, through the dirt and dust of our own humanity, to truly knowing Christ- this is what alone will come through judgment day.</p><p>Paul uses the metaphor of building about the work of converting and building up others in Christ (Rom. 15:20; 1 Cor. 10:23; Gal. 2:18), knowing that the day of judgment shall declare the quality of our work (1 Cor. 3:13). But even if that building work does not pass through the fire of judgment, we shall personally be saved (1 Cor. 3:15). But our personal house must stand firm throughout the judgment process. Note there is a continuity between the house before and after the storm of judgment day- it &quot;fell not&quot;. Who we essentially are in spiritual terms is who we shall eternally be; our spirit shall be saved at that day (1 Cor. 5:5), our essential spiritual person will be preserved. The experience of the day of judgment will not make us somehow flip over another side and relationship with the Lord, previously unknown to us. Those who say &quot;Lord, Lord&quot; in this life without meaning will use the same empty terms in that day.</p><p>To get down to the rock, the man who truly heard Christ had to dig through the earth which the foolish man also dug into. Hearing Christ\'s words is likened to digging into that earth. Doing and understanding them is likened to then digging into the bed- rock. The foolish man did allow the word to go into him- skin deep. We need to ask ourselves how often these days the word really goes right through our skin, and forces us to hack into the bed- rock. Are we truly building our house on a rock? The force of Mk. 16:16, for example, went more than skin deep just before our baptism. We read it, thought about it, and did it. But now. Are we old and brave, thick skinned, hardened by the humdrum of repetition, no longer building a house on a rock? My sense is that many of us are. Let\'s be aware that Heb. 6:1,2 defines &quot;the foundation&quot; as &quot;repentance&quot;, and an awareness of the reality of the resurrection and coming judgment. In some ways, the longer we are in Christ, the more likely it is that we will not reach down to the bedrock of these things as we ought to. I mean, how often these days do we really repent of something? How often does the reality of the judgment seat truly come home to us? The poetry of the Bible\'s language, especially if we read the same version, makes God\'s word glide over us. Exhortations, even the recollection of Golgotha\'s tragic scene, the final, friendless end... can all slip so easily over our heads. We rest on the laurels of past spiritual victories. Nothing really shakes us up, reaching right down to the bedrock. Surely each of us should be sensing a surge of spiritual urgency when we look at ourselves like this. Yet God will help us; it is He Himself who will &quot;settle&quot; us, or \'make a foundation for\' us, as the Greek can mean (1 Pet. 5:10).&nbsp;</p><p>The rock which our response to the word must reach down to is that of the crucified Christ. That rock represents Christ and Him crucified, according to Paul (1 Cor. 10:4 and 3:11 cp. 2:2). The Lord\'s parable of building on the rock was surely quarried from His understanding of Is. 28:16,17: &ldquo;I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone... a precious cornerstone. The hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place&quot;. Truly doing God\'s word will always lead us back to the spirit of the suffering Christ on Calvary. If it does not, our building, our apparent development within the much-vaunted biblicism of our faith, is just a &quot;refuge of lies&quot;. All our spiritual effort and suffering finds its ultimate summation in Christ\'s crucifixion. His suffering there is the quintessence of all spiritual struggle.&nbsp; It is quite possible that as we break bread weekly, we are merely digging a little deeper than usual in the earth, yet still not reaching down to the real meaning of building on the example of Christ\'s death. The wise man\'s house was &quot;founded upon a rock&quot;. The same Greek word occurs in Col. 2:7, describing how we are &quot;rooted and built up in him&quot;. The parallel Eph. 3:17 expands this to mean that if Christ dwells in our hearts, we are &quot;rooted and grounded in love... able to comprehend... and to know the love of Christ&quot;, which was supremely shown in His death. Col. 1:23 associates this being &quot;grounded and settled&quot; with not being &quot;moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard&quot;. If the word really sinks down deep within us, it will reveal to us the love of Christ on the cross, it will result in true love, and all this will be the outworking of the basic doctrines of the Truth which we understood at baptism. Thus the hacking away at the rock is not only hard, grim work against human nature. It reveals the wondrous love of Christ. The implication is that we can only really understand this love, that passes human knowledge, if we are really sweating away to obey Christ\'s words, to build our house on a rock.</p><p>Luke seems to translate the Palestinian style of things into terms which were understandable by a Roman audience. He had an ambition to preach the gospel to Gentiles even when this was felt by the other brethren to be an outrageous thing to do. Thus Lk. 6:48; 11:33 speak of houses with cellars, which were uncommon in Palestine; and in Lk. 8:16; 11:33 of houses with an entrance passage from which the light shines out. The synagogue official of Mt. 5:25 becomes the &quot;bailiff&quot; in Lk. 12:58. In Palestine, the cultivation of mustard in garden beds was forbidden, whereas Lk. 13:19 speaks of mustard sown in a garden, which would have been understandable only to a Roman audience. It seems in these cases that inspiration caused Luke to dynamically translate the essence of the Lord\'s teaching into terms understandable to a non-Palestinian audience. Even in Mt. 5:25 we read of going to prison for non-payment of debts, which was not the standard Jewish practice. Imprisonment was unknown in Jewish law. The point of all this is to show that we must match our terms and language to our audience. See on Mk. 13:35.</p><p><i>And when the flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it; because it had been founded upon a rock</i>- The allusion is clearly to Noah\'s flood; although the Greek for \'flood\' here usually refers to a river. Only those within the ark of Christ were saved. To do he will of God, to hear and do the Lord\'s teaching, to be in the ark of Christ, to be founded upon the rock of Christ as our dominant desire- these are all different ways of saying the same thing. Our core root, our foundation, our dominant desire, our main self-perception and self-understanding, must be of being and living in Christ. This is the fundamental divide between persons, not their statement of faith, their spiritual culture. It comes down to whether they have a heart for the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom. And we cannot judge those &quot;secrets of men&quot; in this life, but we can at least be sure never to reject anyone who professes to have such a heart for the Lord. Paul uses the same word for &quot;descended&quot; to describe how Christ shall descend from Heaven at His return (1 Thess. 4:16); likewise the word for &quot;came&quot; is used about the coming of Christ (Mt. 24:30,39 parallel the coming of Noah\'s flood with the coming of Christ). The coming of Christ will be judgment; our meeting with Him will be the coming of the rain etc. Even the house founded upon the rock took a fair beating- the purpose of judgment day is to reveal to the builder (and other observers) how he built.&nbsp;</p><p>The flood which came was like the day of judgment. This fits in exactly with the way Christ used the figure of the flood to describe His second coming in Mt. 24. Peter does the same in 2 Pet. 3. The beating of the stream upon the house on a rock is a truly apposite figure for the day of judgment. It certainly implies a process of judgment, in which the unworthy will experience a gradual collapse of their spirituality. For the man with the firm foundation, the flood of the parable would have been a worrying experience. Would the house stand up to it? In many of the parables, we can profitably speculate as to likely details of the story. The wise man would have remembered his hard work on the foundation, not with any sense of pride or self-gratitude. But he would nevertheless have been aware of it. Our real spiritual effort will be so valuable in that day. Only then will we realize the extent of the fact that there can be no short cut to true spiritual development. A man cannot be crowned, unless he strive lawfully.&nbsp; The Lord\'s parable was no doubt partly based on Is. 28:17, which speaks of the day of judgment being like hail which &quot;shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters (which) shall overflow&quot;. The spiritual house of the foolish builder was a lie, effectively; an appearance of real development which deceived men. For externally, men cannot know anything about the different foundations of houses built side by side. We are left to imagine the details of the parable. The foolish man would have run outside and watched his house being beaten down and washed away. He would have thought of trying to do something to stop the destruction, but then given up, realizing it was too late. The foolish girls saw that &quot;our oil&nbsp;<i>is</i>&nbsp;running out&quot; (Gk.). The unworthy will have that terrible sense of their opportunity and spirituality ebbing away from them. The impression is given in the parable that the two houses were next door to each other; again confirming our feeling that this parable is about different attitudes to the word within the ecclesia.&nbsp;</p><p>&quot;Came&quot; is the same word in the model prayer- we pray for God\'s Kingdom to &quot;come&quot; (Mt. 6:10), but again we find it hard to pray that prayer if we understand it. We are praying for the storm of judgment to come and beat upon our house.&nbsp;</p><p>The picture of the storm beating on the house to see if it collapses implies a purpose and process of the judgment. If it were only a yes / no decision, the language of tribunal, judgment and appeal which occurs in passages concerning the judgment seat would appear to be out of place. Both sheep and goats register their surprise at their Lord\'s comments on various specific actions of theirs which he discusses with them (Mt. 25:44).</p><p>The same house stood before and after judgment. Every knee shall bow to Him in this manner- either in this life, or in condemnation before Him. This is what flesh must come to; and we must realize that now. We must fall down and be broken upon the rock of Christ now, or that rock will fall upon us and grind us to powder with the rest of the kingdoms of men (Mt. 21:41). Ananias and Saphira fell to the earth at their condemnation, whereas Saul fell to the earth in repentance (Acts 5:5,10; 9:4 s.w.). At the last day, we shall fall to the earth but be lifted up and made to stand (Rom. 14:4).&nbsp;</p><p>&quot;Because it had been founded upon a rock&quot; is surely alluded to by Paul when he teaches that we must be grounded / have a foundation in love (Eph. 3:17), in the Gospel of the Kingdom (Col. 1:23). And God Himself has the ability to &quot;settle&quot; or ground / foundation us (1 Pet. 5:10 s.w.)- if we so wish to have the things of the Lord Jesus, His love and His Kingdom, as the dominant, master passion of our lives, then God will confirm us in that.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2468','1','42','6','49','49','<p>6:49 <i>But he that hears and does not do is like a man that built a house upon the earth without a foundation, against which the stream broke- and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great</i>- The Jews who rejected the Lord Jesus are described as builders in Mk. 12:10; Lk. 11:48- and to unwise builders in Lk. 14:28.&nbsp;</p><p>he Lord spoke of the rejected at the judgment as being like a house against which &quot;the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell&quot;. Floods (of the ungodly), winds (whirlwinds), smiting, a falling house- this is all language taken from Job\'s experiences. He went through all this&nbsp;<i>now</i>, just as each righteous man must come to condemn himself in self-examination&nbsp;<i>now</i>&nbsp;so that he won\'t be condemned then. Flesh must be condemned, each man must come to know his own desperation. And if he won\'t do this, the judgment process at the last day will teach it him.</p><p>The collapse of time around the events of the judgment would explain this equation between the gathering and the judgment. The wicked will &quot;immediately&quot; feel that the house of their pseudo-spirituality has totally collapsed, as soon as the rain of judgment comes down (Lk. 6:49). The \'rain\' will be a symbol of blessing for the righteous, and of judgment for the wicked. Likewise the cup of wine is another double symbol- of blessing, and of condemnation. Yet we know that there will be a <i>process</i> of condemnation- they will argue back with their Lord, expecting a reward for their good works&hellip; but underneath, &quot;immediately&quot; from their first knowledge of the Lord\'s return, there will be this sense of total collapse within them. The judgment passages which speak of the rejected apparently confidently demanding a place in the Kingdom in reward for their good works must be read with this fact as background.</p><p>The man who hears and does not appears to be building- he has the sensation of going some place in his spiritual life. He <i>did</i> dig a foundation- in sand, where it is easy to dig. But the Lord said that he built &ldquo;without a foundation&rdquo; (Lk. 6:49). Are we <i>really</i> hearing and doing- or just going through the motion of it, experiencing the sensation of appearing to do it?<br />In the parable, the flood which came was like the day of judgment. This fits in exactly with the way Christ used the figure of the flood to describe His second coming in Mt. 24. Peter does the same in 2 Pet. 3. The beating of the stream upon the house on a rock is a truly apposite figure for the day of judgment. It certainly implies a process of judgment, in which the unworthy will experience a gradual collapse of their spirituality. For the man with the firm foundation, the flood of the parable would have been a worrying experience. Would the house stand up to it? In many of the parables, we can profitably speculate as to likely details of the story. The wise man would have remembered his hard work on the foundation, not with any sense of pride or self- gratitude. But he would nevertheless have been aware of it. Our real spiritual effort will be so valuable in that day. Only then will we realize the extent of the fact that there can be no short cut to true spiritual development. A man cannot be crowned, unless he strive lawfully.&nbsp; The Lord\'s parable was no doubt partly based on Is. 28:17, which speaks of the day of judgment being like hail which &quot;shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters (which) shall overflow&quot;. The spiritual house of the foolish builder was a lie, effectively; an appearance of real development which deceived men. For externally, men cannot know anything about the different foundations of houses built side by side. We are left to imagine the details of the parable. The foolish man would have run outside and watched his house being beaten down and washed away. He would have thought of trying to do something to stop the destruction, but then given up, realizing it was too late. The foolish girls saw that &quot;our oil <i>is</i> running out&quot; (Gk.). The unworthy will have that terrible sense of their opportunity and spirituality ebbing away from them. The impression is given in the parable that the two houses were next door to each other; again confirming our feeling that this parable is about different attitudes to the word within the ecclesia.&nbsp;</p><p>Condemnation will be tragic- the ruin is &quot;great&quot;. Not only for those individuals, but for the Father and Son and all of us who view it. These are the final words of the Sermon. The Lord ends on the note of the possibility of condemnation, despite His many positive, upbeat and encouraging words about the certainty of salvation. The tragedy of the future we might miss is simply so great that the Lord felt He had to say this. It isn\'t mere negative psychology. The eternal reality of the issues before us are such that we can do nothing else but let the Lord\'s concern and earnestness ring in our ears.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2469','1','42','7','1','1','<p>7:1 <i>After he had ended all his sayings in the ears of the people, he entered into Capernaum</i>- The Lord was based in Capernaum and returned there after the public work of teaching the sermon on the plain and healing. The language of \'ending sayings\' and the stress that the people heard what He said is somewhat solemn, as if the Sermon was a manifesto of the Kingdom which they had heard and were now responsible to.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2470','1','42','7','2','2','<p>7:2 <i>And a certain centurion\'s servant, who was dear to him, was sick and at the point of death</i>- It is tempting to think that this is the same incident as recorded in Mt. 8:5-13. But the differences are such that they preclude this. In Matthew, the centurion and the Lord are in direct contact, and not through mediators and messengers. The healing is from a distance, a Gentile centurion is involved, his sick servant is healed, the Lord is willing to enter the Gentile\'s house but each Centurion says that this is not necessary as they believe in the Lord\'s power to heal. So there were two centurions in the Capernaum area who both had sick servants whom the Lord healed. The similarity of wording between the two is understandable; one of the incidents happened first, and the second Centurion was inspired to faith and humility by the words and attitude of the first one. This is how faith spreads today too; a person sees in practice the words and faith of a person similar in position to themselves- and they are encouraged to do as that person has done.</p><p>The next pericope in Luke concerns the widow\'s son at Nain, and this also is not recorded elsewhere apart from in Luke. Indeed, most of Luke 7 is material unique to Luke. This strengthens the suggestion that this is not the same centurion as in Mt. 8 but is more unique material.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2471','1','42','7','3','3','<p>7:3 <i>And when he heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, pleading with him to come and heal his servant</i>- It was common to approach another for favours through intermediaries whom it was thought would be impressive to the one being besought. The centurion clearly had faith in the Lord and yet failed to perceive the chasmic differences between Him and &quot;the elders of the Jews&quot;- the very class who rejected and crucified Him. So we can assume that the man\'s understanding of the Lord\'s message was minimal. And yet on the other hand, we must give due weight to his own later explanation as to why he sent the elders to the Lord- he says it was because he felt unworthy to talk directly with the Lord (:7). The man\'s faith progressed- from inviting the Lord into his house, to then realizing that such a visit was not necessary as the Lord had power to heal from a distance (:6). The qualities of humility and faith in this man are clearly set up as exemplary for all Gentile believers. For the aim of Luke\'s Gospel was to bring Gentiles to faith, and so this man becomes a parade example.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2472','1','42','7','4','4','<p>7:4 <i>And they, when they came to Jesus, pleaded earnestly, saying: He is worthy to have you do this for him</i>- The man protested that he was <i>not</i> worthy (:6), perhaps in conscious allusion to their words. The synagogue elders considered the man &quot;worthy&quot; by his works (:5), whereas the Lord saw him as &quot;worthy&quot; by his faith in the Lord\'s grace. The situation is set up as a cameo of the entire argument of Romans 1-8.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2473','1','42','7','5','5','<p>7:5 <i>For he loves our nation and he built our synagogue</i>- As noted on :4, they considered worthiness to come from generosity and loyalty to all things Jewish. But the point of the account is that it was his faith in the Lord Jesus, rather than these things, which was counted as significant. Theophilus, &quot;lover of God&quot;, was the immediate audience for this Gospel; and his given name could suggest he too was a proselyte. Luke is perhaps trying to get him to identify with this centurion who likewise was a God lover, and whose example inspired the centurion in Mt. 8 to a similar faith. Luke was hoping that Theophilus would be likewise inspired. It was of course unusual for a Roman centurion to be a Jewish proselyte. The man must have taken issues of faith very seriously, and so his amazing faith in the Lord as Messiah is quite credible.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2474','1','42','7','6','6','<p>7:6 <i>And Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him: Lord, trouble not yourself. For I am not worthy that you should come under my roof</i>- See on Jn. 4:53. He was aware that Jews were not supposed to &lsquo;come to\' or under the roof of a Gentile (Acts 10:28). He was therefore aware that the purpose of God at that time was for Jews rather than Gentiles- his understanding was quite deep. See on Mt. 8:9. But the Lord was quite willing to go under the roof a Gentile; that is the significance of the Lord\'s response that He would come to the sick servant. The man\'s faith and humility progressed; for the Lord was now near his house, and he may as well let Him enter. But he clearly felt unworthy to have the Lord in his home and even to directly talk with the Lord.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2475','1','42','7','7','7','<p>7:7 <i>Therefore I did not even think myself worthy to come to you. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed</i>- His faith was absolute- the servant would be surely healed at the Lord\'s word. The messengers sent to beg the Lord to assist were not therefore sent in order to as it were persuade the Lord to assist by their fine oratory and arguments. That is maybe how they perceived themselves, and how others perceived it; but the simple truth was that the man felt unworthy to even talk with the Lord. His faith in Him as Son of God was therefore so deep.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2476','1','42','7','8','8','<p>7:8 <i>For I also am a man under authority, having under myself soldiers; and I say to one: Go And he goes. And to another: Come And he comes. And to my servant: Do this. And he does it</i>- Like any good teacher, the Lord repeated His lessons. The disciples heard His commendation of the Centurion, who believed that just as he had men under his control, so Jesus had the whole cosmos under His control (Lk. 7:8-10); and they learnt that lesson again as they sat awestruck in the boat soon afterwards: &quot;What manner of man is this For he commands even the winds and water, and they obey him&quot; (Lk. 8:25). Clearly the centurion understood that the Lord was of immense power in His own right; He was surely appreciative that the Lord was God\'s Son, able to function for Him and with His power. He had thought through the issues. Perhaps He had heard the Lord\'s preaching in the Capernaum synagogue, which he had built. He felt a level of identification with the Lord; for he reasons that just as he has a servant whom he can command, so he wishes the Lord to treat <i>his</i> servant as <i>His</i> servant. He was inviting the Lord to take his own place as Lord and master of his family, and to have him as one of His soldiers, to come and go at His command, and to have his servant healed. The language of \'going\' at the Lord\'s word of command is used elsewhere about casting out of demons. Maybe the centurion thought that the servant was demon possessed, and wanted the Lord to tell the demons to \'go\'. In which case we can perceive that misunderstandings, even erroneous ones, having our science and language wrong, will not hinder relationship with the Lord if we have faith in Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2477','1','42','7','9','9','<p>7:9 <i>And when Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him- </i>He admired him Gk.. Here we see the humility of the Lord Jesus, that despite His own peerless perfection, He could admire the faith of a man who as a centurion was yet far from His own level of spirituality. Despite His peerless faith, the Lord Jesus marvelled at the extent of other\'s faith; the Gospels stress how sensitive He was to the faith of others (Mt. 9:2,22,29; 15:28; Mk. 5:34; 10:52; Lk. 7:9,50; 8:48; 17:19; 18:42). Yet measured by His standards, they probably hardly knew what faith was. &ldquo;No, not in Israel&quot; suggests the Lord thought that Israel&rsquo;s faith was something&nbsp;<i>very</i>&nbsp;high; when their rejection of Him was the cruellest tragedy in their history. The Lord marvelled at the man\'s faith, and also at the extent of unbelief in others (s.w. Mk. 6:6). Given the Lord\'s tiredness, mental and physical exhaustion, demanding program, extreme loneliness etc., the fact He had the emotional energy to marvel is an essay in His extreme sensitivity, and how He let neither His spiritual mission nor His external circumstances stop Him from having such sensitivity regarding the spiritual state of others. In this we see a deep challenge to ourselves.</p><p><i>And turned and said to the crowd that followed him- </i>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><p><i>I say to you, I have not found so great a faith, not even in Israel</i>- The Lord was and is actively searching for faith in people. He is the man looking to find a great treasure (Mt. 13:44), seeking to find a pearl of great price (Mt. 13:46), finding a lost sheep or coin (Mt. 18:13; Lk. 15:4-9), finding weak and rejected workers to work for Him in His work (Mt. 20:6), wanting to find spiritual fruit on the fig tree (Mt. 21:19), finding willing guests for His own wedding (Mt. 22:10)- any who believe in Him. As He meets so many disappointments, imagine His joy at finding&nbsp;<i>our</i>&nbsp;faith, incomplete and at times misplaced as it is. Surely in all this work of seeking and finding just a few He was living out His own command to seek, because we will find (Lk. 11:10). He seems to allude to the idea in telling the disciples to fish on the right side of their boat, and they would find (Jn. 21:6). The incident is replete with symbolism- the message surely is that we will find converts for the Lord, if we seek for them as the Lord did. We in our turn are searching to find the Lord (Acts 17:27); and He is seeking to find us. Hence the flash moment when the searching God and His Son meet searching man in conversion to Christ. Ultimately we are \'found\' at the Lord\'s return (Phil. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:7; 2 Pet. 3:14), but we are also \'found\' by Him at the point of first faith in this life.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2478','1','42','7','10','10','<p>7:10 <i>And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant healed</i>- These \'sent ones\' were converted; the apostles were intended to be challenged by the conversion of these other \'sent ones\', just as we are intended to take lessons from the folks amongst whom we live in this world.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2479','1','42','7','11','11','<p>7:11 <i>And it came to pass soon afterwards, that he went to a city called Nain, and his disciples and a great crowd went with him</i>- Perhaps He had some other reason for going to Nain; or maybe He went there to attend the funeral because the woman and her son were relatives. The crowd would likely have been nagging Him all the way to perform healings. His economy of miracle is remarkable.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2480','1','42','7','12','12','<p>7:12 <i>Now when he came near to the gate of the city, there was carried out one that was dead, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and many people of the city were with her</i>- Luke\'s attention to women and the marginalized continues. This woman had no husband and now no son; she was without males in her life and thereby marginalized and despised. But the Lord comes to her, and becomes the ultimate saviour male in her life.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2481','1','42','7','13','13','<p>7:13 <i>And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said to her: Weep not</i>- We are given the impression that the Lord\'s plans of action were sometimes spontaneous. Realizing how she was now bereft of males in her life, He felt compassion for her and intervened. And yet if we enquire why He decided to take a journey to Nain, we conclude that it was specifically to attend this funeral and transform it. &quot;Weep not&quot; is itself an invitation to faith in Him. Otherwise, it is a most inappropriate thing to say to a mother as she buries her son. She could only stop crying if she believed that the Lord could radically change the situation. And He could.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2482','1','42','7','14','14','<p>7:14 <i>And he came near and touched the coffin; and the bearers stood still. And he said: Young man, I say to you, arise</i>- The Lord spoke to the corpse of the widow&rsquo;s dead son as if it were already restored to life; see on Mk. 5:41. The touching of the coffin was all significant, for it made the Lord ritually unclean. And yet He touched it when in His own mind having proclaimed the man alive; there was therefore no defilement from a dead body because in fact the body was not dead. The Lord surely knew the kind of casuistic discussion of the legalism of the situation which would be provoked. And He was seeking to teach through the miracle that legalistic defilement is no issue to Him because He can transform defiling situations. He taught the same by touching lepers and sick people who were probably also ritually unclean. But He touched them at the point of healing, raising the legalistic question as to whether He had in fact touched the defiled, seeing that He spoke of dead and unclean things as if they had already come clean and alive to Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2483','1','42','7','15','15','<p>7:15 <i>And he that was dead sat up and began to speak. And he gave him to his mother</i>- The idea of giving the man over to his mother would again imply physical contact between the Lord and the once dead man; and surely the mother embraced her son. The new life given by the Lord meant that concepts of defilement were changed; and it was this fear of defilement which had stymied the development of true spirituality within Judaism, just as it is does within legalistic Christianity today. &quot;Sat up&quot; is literally to be sat up, suggesting the Lord lifting up the revived man to a sitting position. The Greek is only used in one other place, again by Luke, when Peter raises Tabitha and she sits up (Acts 9:40). This continues Luke\'s theme that the Lord\'s work and style of operation was continued in the ministry of His body of believers. Their work, as ours, was as if He was still on earth, present through them on account of the presence of His Spirit in the Comforter. And their whole style of working was therefore reflective of His.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2484','1','42','7','16','16','<p>7:16 <i>And fear took hold of all, and they glorified God, saying: A great prophet has arisen among us, and God has visited His people</i>- See on Mk. 1:2. Juxtaposition of the Lord&rsquo;s humanity and His exaltation is found all through Bible teaching about His death. He touched the coffin- so that the crowd would have gasped at how unclean Jesus was, and how He had identified Himself with the unclean to the point of Himself appearing unclean. It was surely shock that made the pallbearers stop in their tracks. But then the Lord raised the dead man- and the people perceived His greatness, convinced that in the person of Jesus &ldquo;God has visited His people&rdquo;. His humanity and yet His greatness, His Divine side if you like, were artlessly juxtaposed together. Hence prophetic visions of the exalted Jesus in Daniel call Him &ldquo;the Son of man&rdquo;. But again we notice another juxtaposition- of fear along with glorifying God. Why should they be fearful that God had visited them in His Son? The same idea has been used in Lk. 1:68,78 of how \'God visiting\' is parallel with \'God redeeming\' from sin. Why fear redemption and salvation? The only reason for such fear would be because they sensed that this visitation from God required their repentance and exposed their sin. The Gentiles were &quot;visited&quot; (s.w.) in order to take out a people for His Name (Acts 15:14). The visitation of God in His Son required that people respond, and thereby become &quot;His people&quot;. And this demanded too much for many in Israel.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2485','1','42','7','17','17','<p>7:17 <i>And this report about him went throughout all Judea and all the surrounding region</i>- The <i>logos</i> &quot;went out&quot;- similar language as used in John\'s gospel. It hardly refers to any personal pre-existence of the Lord. It seems that it was the spreading of this &quot;report&quot; which reached some of John\'s disciples (:18). The report in view could be of the resurrection in Nain, or that of :16- the idea that the Lord was indeed the promised Messiah or &quot;prophet&quot;. </p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2486','1','42','7','18','18','<p>7:18 <i>And the disciples of John told him of all these things</i>- They heard the &quot;report&quot; that Jesus of Nazareth was &quot;the prophet&quot; (:16) and that the time of Messianic visitation had come. As noted on :19, the &quot;report&quot; may have been that the Lord was not so much Messiah as the Elijah prophet. This would make John\'s enquiry of :19 not so much a lack of faith but more of genuine confusion as to the Lord\'s prophetic identity.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2487','1','42','7','19','19','<p>7:19 <i>And John calling to himself two of his disciples, sent them to Jesus, asking: Are you he that comes, or look we for another?</i>- Even John the Baptist, whose teaching had prepared most of the twelve to accept Jesus, seems to have not been altogether clear about what we might consider fundamental things. He speaks of Jesus as &ldquo;the one to come&rdquo;, a commonly understood description of the Elijah prophet, based on the phrase being used about him in Mal. 3:1- and not of Messiah Himself. Thus John the Baptist anticipated that this &ldquo;one to come&rdquo;, his cousin Jesus, would be a refining fire (Mt. 3:12)- which is exactly Malachi&rsquo;s language about the Elijah prophet (Mal. 3:2; 4:1). This would explain why John the Baptist had apparent &lsquo;doubts&rsquo; whilst in prison as to whether Jesus really was the Messiah. And it would also explain why the disciples expected Jesus to act like Elijah in Lk. 9:52-56. It was not until the baptism of Jesus that John the Baptist came to understand Jesus as the &ldquo;one to come&rdquo;; so the preparatory work which he had done with the disciples must have had what we would call a flimsy doctrinal basis. When Jesus called them to follow Him, and they so quickly obeyed, it is often assumed that John the Baptist had prepared them for this. But that preparation must at best have been very shallow and incomplete, given John&rsquo;s own admission that he did not recognize Jesus for who He was until His baptism. Why, however, was John&rsquo;s misunderstanding recorded in the Gospel records? Or the misunderstanding of his father Zacharias, that John was in fact the promised Messiah, &ldquo;the prophet&rdquo;, the one would bring forgiveness of sins and freedom from the Romans (Lk. 1:71-79)? Perhaps for the same reason as the language of demons is used, especially to describe the miracles at the beginning of the Lord&rsquo;s ministry. He didn&rsquo;t correct this. But over time it became evident that the sheer power of the Son of God meant that in practice, demons didn&rsquo;t exist. Likewise, as the ministry of Jesus unfolds to us in the Gospel records, it becomes apparent that He was Son of God, the Messiah- and not merely an Elijah prophet.&nbsp;</p><p>And yet for all this, it could simply be that John had a crisis of faith in prison. It can&rsquo;t be insignificant that John sends two disciples out just after the Lord had sent out&nbsp;<i>His</i>&nbsp;disciples two by two in Matthew 10. Surely this is a literary device to set up John in negative contrast to the Lord at this time; John sent out his pair of disciples in response to his crisis of faith. He knew Jesus was to do mighty works- but he had heard of them only by report. Those he sent out had already heard and seen the Lord&rsquo;s miracles (Mt. 11:4), and yet John sends them to Jesus to ask if He is Messiah. It all reads rather negatively about John. It could even be that he died at a low point in his faith, and yet the Lord&rsquo;s positive comment about Him surely suggests that He saw John as being ultimately saved. The records of the Kings of Israel and Judah, along with various passages in Ezekiel 18, place great emphasis upon how a man&nbsp;<i>finishes</i>&nbsp;his spiritual journey, and yet there are also Biblical examples of faithful men dying at low ebb spiritually; this will not necessarily exclude from the Kingdom, and John the Baptist may be another example.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2488','1','42','7','20','20','<p>7:20 <i>And when the men came to him, they said: John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask: Are you he that comes, or do we look for another?</i>- The emphasis may be on the word &ldquo;you&rdquo;. The coming one was a well-known term for Messiah, based upon Ps. 118:26. Despite John&rsquo;s clearly stated belief that Jesus was the promised bridegroom, the lamb of God and Son of God (Jn. 1:29-34), it seems things had not gone according to the prophetic program John had imagined- and he now had doubts about Jesus. For a man claiming (at least implicitly) to be Messiah, it would&rsquo;ve been an unnecessary question to ask Him &lsquo;Are you Messiah?&rsquo;. It could be inferred that John still believed in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, but had begun to wonder if He was only the&nbsp;<i>herald</i>&nbsp;of &ldquo;another&rdquo; whom they should be looking for in order to establish the Kingdom. It could be that John&rsquo;s understanding of himself as the Elijah prophet had led him to expect that all Israel would repent, and then Messiah Himself would come and establish His Kingdom immediately. For this is indeed how the prophecies of Isaiah 40 and Malachi 4 could be read. Perhaps John was full of such self-doubt that he wondered if he really had been the Elijah prophet, and was thinking that maybe he had just heralded the Elijah prophet, Jesus, who was in turn to herald &ldquo;He that should come&rdquo;. This is the problem with holding a dogmatic view of prophetic sequences- when they prove wrong, either because our interpretation was faulty or because human lack of response means they are to come true in another way than ideally planned, then often peoples&rsquo; faith in Christ Himself is damaged. If we have an open ended view of prophecy, whereby we understand it to state possibilities which may have other ways of fulfilment than what is ideally intended, then such crises don&rsquo;t arise. &ldquo;Look we for another?&rdquo; doesn&rsquo;t sound as if John was simply asking for a sign, in the spirit of Gideon. He had major questions about the whole prophetic program, sensing that something had changed; the word for &ldquo;another&rdquo; is also translated &ldquo;altered&rdquo; (Lk. 9:29). In this sense, his question may not necessarily reflect a crisis of faith in Jesus personally, but rather an earnest desire to know the new details of the revised prophetic program.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2489','1','42','7','21','21','<p>7:21 <i>In that hour he cured many of diseases and illnesses and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight</i>- Again we are being shown that the Lord\'s miracles were for a teaching purpose; in this case, to give a lesson to John\'s disciples and to John himself, proving beyond cavil that the Lord was Messiah, Son of God, and not simply a prophet. The Lord did heal from genuine feelings of compassion, as seen at Nain; and yet Luke seems to always stress that this was far from the only reason. Here His miracles were done in order to intentionally fulfilling prophecies in Isaiah, and then asking John to accept that (see on :22).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2490','1','42','7','22','22','<p>7:22 <i>And he answered and said to them: Go and tell John the things which you have seen and heard. The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up- </i>See on Mk. 6:3; Lk. 15:7. They had already told him once- the same word is used for how they initially had told John these things (:18). There is definitely the sense that John needed to work through the implications of what he was hearing, rather than having some specific explanation from the Lord. The request that John &lsquo;hear&rsquo; these reports more carefully begs connection with the Lord&rsquo;s frequent comment that the Jews heard but did not really hear (e.g. Mt. 13:13-17). John&rsquo;s lack of understanding appears to be in some sense culpable and at best disappointing to the Lord. The Lord is seeking to assure John that if he just thinks about the evidence, it&rsquo;s clear that Jesus is indeed Messiah, and as John had earlier preached- Son and lamb of God, who saves His people from their sins. He seems to be saying that that was so wonderful and fundamental, that the rearrangement of the prophetic timetable is in a sense irrelevant compared to that. Whether or not the timing or chronology of events surrounding the Kingdom comes true as we expect, or whether or not we discern how God has re-planned the fulfilment of prophecy- is all irrelevant compared to the wonder of knowing Jesus as the Christ and personal Saviour.</p><p>The teaching of Jesus included frequent quotations from and allusions to the Old Testament. When we go back and read around the contexts of the passages He quoted, it becomes apparent that He very often omits to quote the negative, judgmental, or conditional aspects of the blessings which He quotes. Consider the way He quotes Is. 29:18; 35:5,6 and 61:1 in the parallel record in Mt. 11:5,6. These are all talking about Messianic blessings. But they are embedded amidst warnings of judgment and the conditionality of God&rsquo;s grace. Likewise Luke records how Jesus read from Is. 61:1,2, but He stopped at the very point where Isaiah&rsquo;s message turns from promise to threat. None of this takes away from the terrible reality that future failure is a real possibility, even tomorrow. We can throw it all away. We may do. We have the possibility. And some do. There is an eternity ahead which we may miss. And each one who enters the Kingdom will, humanly speaking, have come pretty close to losing it at various points in his or her mortal life. But the Lord&rsquo;s positivity is a powerful example.</p><p><i>The poor have the good news preached to them</i>- This was as remarkable and significant as the previous miraculous signs, of the blind seeing etc. There was a deep impression that religion was for the middle class or wealthy. Teachers didn&rsquo;t bother preaching to the poor because there was no possibility of financial support coming from them. Yet the Lord opened His manifesto in the Sermon on the Mount by saying that His message was especially intended for &ldquo;the poor&rdquo; (Mt. 5:3 s.w.). In many Christian circles, the same is true today. Churches need money (or, they think they do), and so their focus is not on taking the Gospel to the poor but rather to the potential tithers. The disciples were amazed that the rich wouldn&rsquo;t be saved (Mt. 19:24,25), so deeply ingrained was this idea that spirituality and wealth were somehow supposed to go together. The Lord was teaching the opposite. There&rsquo;s no doubt that the Gospel is designed for the poor; and that if one were to bring &ldquo;the poor&rdquo;&nbsp;<i>en masse</i>&nbsp;into many churches / ecclesias today, the existing membership would up and go somewhere else. The Spirit was clearly upon the Lord Jesus exactly&nbsp;<i>because</i>&nbsp;He preached the Gospel to the poor (Lk. 4:18). Our preaching attitude to &ldquo;the poor&rdquo; is a reflection of our spirituality. &ldquo;The poor&rdquo; in the immediate context were the disciples, for the Lord had just looked upon them in love and commented: &ldquo;Blessed are you poor&rdquo; (Lk. 6:20). In the response of &ldquo;the poor&rdquo; to Him, the Lord saw a Divine confirmation of His ministry. And it is the same with us. Our ministry is to take the Gospel to the unbelieving poor, and not to get middle class Christian religionists to shift churches and allegiance to our group. James 2:5 is clear that God chooses the poor&nbsp;<i>more than&nbsp;</i>the rich to be heirs of His Kingdom; so in this case, our preaching focus should be specifically towards them.</p><p>The same passage alluded to in Is. 61:1 promised freedom and good news to the imprisoned- which was where John was at the time, according to Mt. 11. The Lord was encouraging him in a hidden kind of way that He was aware of where John was, and there would be ultimate freedom from that prison in the Kingdom.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2491','1','42','7','23','23','<p>7:23 <i>And blessed is he, whoever shall find no occasion of stumbling in me</i>- Clearly the Lord saw John as likely to be about to stumble. As explained earlier, the cause of stumbling was and is to this day that the Lord at times makes changes in the outworking of His prophetic program. Because things haven&rsquo;t gone just as mere humans imagined it, because they can&rsquo;t get their heads around God&rsquo;s huge sensitivity to human repentance and choices, nor His subsequent willingness to change His timetable to accommodate that&hellip; therefore people stumble at Christ. The Lord encountered a similar situation in Nazareth, where people again were &ldquo;offended in Him&rdquo; (Mt. 13:57) because His Messiahship was not as they supposed it ought to be. Likewise the death of the Messiah by crucifixion caused even the disciples to be offended- it was simply not how they had imagined Messiah&rsquo;s salvation. They were &ldquo;offended&rdquo; exactly because He was &lsquo;smitten&rsquo; (Mt. 26:31), even though the Lord had warned them ahead of time about His death so that they would not be offended (Jn. 16:1). The cross was therefore a rock of offence to many (1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 5:11). So often we see the process- people come to Jesus with preconceived notions of how things should be, and fit those notions into the structure of their &lsquo;Christianity&rsquo;. But the Christ&rsquo;s most fundamental teachings may in fact outlaw their beloved notions and favourite suppositions. And because their imagination of Jesus doesn&rsquo;t fit in with who He actually is- they stumble. It&rsquo;s like falling in love with an idea of a person, rather than with the person as they actually are. God&rsquo;s word presents Jesus as He actually is, and it is this which we must accept, allowing it thereby to jettison all preconceived notions we have of Him. The parable of the sower taught that persecution leads to people being offended (Mt. 13:21), and John was certainly undergoing persecution for the word there in prison. But persecution leads to spiritual stumbling largely because of the dashed expectations- that with Christ, all shall go well for us, and we in this life shall be delivered from problems. But the Lord is stressing throughout His teaching that that Jewish conception of Messiah and Messiah&rsquo;s Kingship over men was simply incorrect. Those who followed Him would suffer and die, in one form or another, the death of the cross.</p><p>The Lord tried not to offend / stumble people (Mt. 17:27) and yet people were indeed offended in Him. But in Mt. 18:6-9 He makes offence of others a serious sin. In this connection of thought we see an example of where there are some things which can be said of Jesus, some things He could do, which we simply cannot do. In forgiving others, we are often challenged to forgive&nbsp;<i>as</i>&nbsp;the Lord does. Not all that He does can be replicated by us, nor indeed is it possible. Thus for us, forgiveness is usually a process, whereas for the Father and Son it appears to be more instantaneous.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2492','1','42','7','24','24','<p>7:24 <i>And when the messengers of John had departed, he began to say to the crowds concerning John: What did you go out into the wilderness to see?- </i>The crowds whom the Lord was addressing were therefore eager listeners of John, even perhaps in a sense his disciples. We see her the fulfilment of John&rsquo;s commission- to prepare&nbsp;<i>in the wilderness</i>&nbsp;a smooth way for the coming of the Messianic King of glory. But the crowds didn&rsquo;t respond, and Messiah didn&rsquo;t come in His glorious Kingdom. I suggested on Mt. 10:11 that the mission of the disciples was initially to those who had responded to John the Baptist&rsquo;s teaching; and now whilst they were away on their preaching tour doing such follow up work, the Lord was doing the same, addressing a crowd who had also responded to John enough to trek out into the wilderness to hear him.</p><p><i>A reed shaken with the wind?</i>- See on :41. The reference is probably to the reeds growing in the Jordan where John baptized. Just as the people didn&rsquo;t go there to look at the reeds but at John as God&rsquo;s prophet, so the Lord is hinting that they should not look on John&rsquo;s weakness but upon who he essentially was. When John the Baptist had this crisis of faith, the Lord spoke of John to the multitude as if he was a strong believer, no reed shaken in the wind of doubt. And yet He didn&rsquo;t just paper over John&rsquo;s doubts and forget them, pretending He hadn&rsquo;t seen. The message He returned to John encouraged him to look back to the Isaiah prophecies of Messiah, and to remember especially the way that the weak, doubting ones would be made strong. The Lord evidently sought to strengthen the weak John by this allusion. The language of being&nbsp;<i>shaken</i>&nbsp;by&nbsp;<i>wind</i> is used elsewhere by the Lord in describing the process of condemnation at the last day (both Greek words are found in Mt. 7:25,27). The Lord&rsquo;s idea may therefore be: &lsquo;Sure, John is wavering at this very moment. But when you saw him in the wilderness, he wasn&rsquo;t; and in God&rsquo;s eyes, even now, he&rsquo;s not shaking in the wind, he&rsquo;s not going to be condemned at the day of judgment- even though, as you&rsquo;ve just heard, he has his doubts and weaknesses&rsquo;. Perhaps the Lord had John in mind when He soon afterwards spoke of how He would not condemn even a broken reed (s.w.- Mt. 12:20), but rather still use it as a channel for the oil of the Spirit. The whole situation with John is helpful in coping with others who clearly are passing through times of trial which is resulting in their faith wavering. Think positively of who they were, have been, and still essentially are&hellip;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2493','1','42','7','25','25','<p>7:25 <i>But what went you out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Look, they that are gorgeously apparelled and live delicately, are in kings\' courts</i>- The allusion is surely to Herod and Herodias, who had imprisoned John. John&rsquo;s clothing was rugged, not soft (Mt. 3:4). The Lord is drawing a contrast between John and Herod who imprisoned him. Herod Antipas had minted coins with a reed on them to celebrate the building of Tiberias. Perhaps the Lord is saying: \'OK, so John is weak for the moment, there in prison. But just think of the man he was when he was free, and how in God\'s eyes he compares so favourably against Herod who imprisoned him\'. In His gracious way, the Lord is teaching that the overall sum of a man\'s spiritual life must be considered, and not whether he ends it with some element of weakness. This approach is also to be found in the way the inspired record appears to comment upon some of the kings of Israel and Judah- weakness at the end didn\'t necessarily scribble God\'s overall judgment of their lives.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2494','1','42','7','26','26','<p>7:26 <i>But what went you out to see?- </i>Three times in :7-9 the Lord reminds them of their trek out into the wilderness to hear John; His point is that the respect they once had for him should remain, despite his wavering under extreme suffering. God\'s overall impression of Job appears similar, and it is a good teaching for we who are all too inclined to too harshly judge a good believer for a temporary period of weakness. The Greek phrase &lsquo;go out to see&hellip;&rsquo; is used in classical Greek about going out to a spectacle or show. The Lord is suggesting that perhaps that was all their interest in John might have been, just as today likewise, it&rsquo;s quite possible to visit the truest church and hear the truest teaching, yet unperceived by those who are merely &lsquo;going to church&rsquo;.</p><p><i>A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and much more than a prophet</i>- The idea is \'the greatest prophet\'. Judaism had various theories about who had been the greatest of the Old Testament prophets. The Lord was saying that actually, the greatest of them was that man who was now sitting in the grim prison cell, having a crisis of faith and understanding.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2495','1','42','7','27','27','<p>7:27 <i>This is he- </i>The emphasis is on the word &quot;is&quot;. He&nbsp;<i>was</i>&nbsp;the prophet who came to herald Messiah. And yet John had denied that he was Elijah, nor &quot;that prophet&quot; (Jn. 1:20), surely a reference to the Elijah prophet; even though he later stated that he had been \'sent before\' Messiah (Jn. 3:28), and was the voice of the Isaiah 40 prophet crying in the wilderness (Jn. 1:23). The Lord is saying \'Actually, John&nbsp;<i>was</i>&nbsp;that prophet. He initially denied it in his humility, but he really was and is &quot;that prophet&quot;. Now again his humility has led him to self-denial, he\'s wondering whether in fact I am the Elijah prophet and the Messiah Himself is yet to be \'looked for\'. But take it on My authority- he really was the Elijah prophet, even though his humility leads him to self-doubt at times\'.</p><p><i>Of whom it is written: Look- </i>An invitation to perceive, and the Lord was asking them to perceive in that imprisoned man a great prophet, to see beyond his temporary, surface-level crisis of John, to perceive that &quot;this&nbsp;<i>is&nbsp;</i>he&quot;.</p><p><i>I send My messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way before you</i>- The pronouns are somewhat different from the original in Mal. 3:1: &quot;Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before My face ... says Yahweh of Armies&quot;. Jesus, as the face and presence of God to men, interpreted the words of His Father as being spoken personally to Him. The way was prepared before God\'s face, according to Malachi, but God\'s Son applies that to Himself. That is not to say that Jesus was God in any Trinitarian sense. He was the supreme manifestation of God, and He quotes Malachi 3 in such a way as to teach that to those with ears to hear. We have a window here onto how the Lord Jesus read Scripture; passages about His Father were applied by Him to Himself, but that is no claim by Him to be God Himself in person.</p><p>The Lord is reminding the crowds who had gone out to hear John in the wilderness that&nbsp;<i>they</i>&nbsp;were the way which John had tried to prepare, and He was now the face of Yahweh standing before them. But they had become side-tracked from the essence of personal transformation by a worry about the credibility and humanity of the messenger; and again, this is a principle which badly needs our attention in our own path. So often believers leave the path, the way prepared, because of the perceived weakness or plain humanity of the one who taught them.</p><p>The Hebrew text being quoted in Mal. 3:1 has a word play here. &quot;Prepare&quot; translates&nbsp;<i>panah</i>, meaning to turn the face (s.w. Gen. 18:22 where the Angels &quot;turned their faces&quot;), and &quot;Before your face&quot; translates&nbsp;<i>paniym</i>. The idea is that the messenger would turn the faces of people towards the face of God. The height of the calling was hard for Jewish minds, indeed for any human mind, to take on board; that the God whose face even Moses could not see can be seen face to face, thanks to the work of John the &quot;messenger&quot; turning men\'s faces to the face of Christ, who is the image of God. No wonder the people so easily became distracted from the height and wonder of the invitation, by focusing upon the fact that a depressed and humble prophet awaiting death in a dark prison cell had some crisis of Biblical interpretation. And so, so often the wonder of our calling likewise is eagerly forgotten by us and eclipsed by petty gossip and speculation about the faith and possible spiritual status of another man.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2496','1','42','7','28','28','<p>7:28 <i>I say to you, among those that are born of women- there is none greater than John- </i>The Lord Jesus was Himself the greatest of all born of women (Gal. 4:4), but in His humility He adds no rider to the effect \'John was the greatest of all born of women, Myself excepted, of course\'. How we love Him for His humility.</p><p><i>Yet he that is but little in the kingdom of God is greater than he</i>- The little ones were the disciples, according to what the Lord had recently said in Mt. 10:42 (s.w.). He was urging them, yet again, to see their exalted status and to get over Judaism\'s attitude that the prophets were icons to whom the rank and file of God\'s people should never pretend. The Lord is using hyperbole here to make the point- that His immature \'little ones\' were going to be far greater than even John, the greatest prophet. Or He could be implying that there will be some element of rank in God&rsquo;s future Kingdom- ruling over different numbers of cities, one star differing from another in glory. And the least in that age will be far greater than John was&nbsp;<i>in this life</i>. And yet Jesus was proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom in the sense of the breaking in of God&rsquo;s principles in the lives of men. He could mean that John was the greatest under the old system, but the least of those within the new system were greater than John. Oscar Cullmann made a case for translating&nbsp;<i>mikroteros</i>&nbsp;here as &ldquo;the youngest&rdquo;, with reference to the Lord being younger than John the Baptist and yet greater than him (see Jn. 3:30).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2497','1','42','7','29','29','<p>7:29 <i>When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God\'s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John</i>- &quot;Acknowledge&quot; is the word for &quot;justify&quot;. They justified God, rather than justifying themselves as the impenitent Jewish leaders did (s.w. 16:15). God is justified by our recognition of sin (s.w. Rom. 3:4). Achan likewise was asked to give glory to God by repenting (Josh. 7:19), as are Israel (Jer. 13:16). And in mutual response, God justifies us through imputing righteousness to us in the process of forgiveness (Rom. 8:33). So this comment that they acknowledged God\'s justice, or justified God, is stating that they repented. They had already been baptized by John, but that baptism was unto repentance; see on Mt. 3:3,11. He baptized in order to lead to repentance, not to as it were set the seal upon a suitably cleaned up life. And in these cases, they did now repent as hoped for. But what was it which they heard which provoked this? Perhaps it was realizing that John their baptizer was also imperfect in faith and understanding, and yet was being comforted that despite his crisis of faith in prison, the Father loved and accepted him. And this inspired those he had baptized to repent further.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2498','1','42','7','30','30','<p>7:30 <i>But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized by him</i>- Some had been baptized by him, so the reference is to the Pharisees and lawyers in the crowd at that time. God will fulfil His purpose for us- if we align ourselves with it, and thus see in everything that happens in our lives <i>His</i> will being forwarded. We can choose to not align ourselves with His will. The Pharisees rejected the purpose of God against themselves by not being baptized by John (Lk. 7:30 ESV). His will is not that we should sit around doing Sudoku, watching movies, bantering on the internet, trying to get as much money as possible to finance our nice meals, expensive coffees and designer clothes. His will, as expressed in His very Name, is that He &lsquo;will be&rsquo; grace, love, care, justice, salvation, righteousness, all over the world and to every man and woman. If these things are our focus, our mission, our purpose, our passion, our underlying heartthrob, if <i>His</i> will is behind <i>our</i> will&hellip; then everything somehow comes together for us in a dynamic and fulfilling existence, both in this world and in the life eternal.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2499','1','42','7','31','31','<p>7:31 <i>And the Lord said: Unto whom shall I liken the men of this generation, and to what are they like?</i>- The Lord several times spoke of that entire generation as sinful and unresponsive to the Gospel. Yet the context here is talking of John the Baptist&rsquo;s work. This therefore was a tacit recognition that John&rsquo;s ministry had been unsuccessful in terms of converting all Israel, and therefore clearly&nbsp;there was to be a change in the prophetic program. As noted earlier in commentary on this chapter, it was this change in the prophetic program which was worrying John, even though unnecessarily in terms of his own salvation.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2500','1','42','7','32','32','<p>7:32 <i>They are like children that sit in the marketplace and call to each other, who say: We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep</i>- See on Mt. 21:32; Mk. 1:4. The Lord\'s enthusiasm for Israel\'s response to the Gospel comes out again when the grace of Jesus likens Himself to a street kid in the market who really wanted to get a game going with the other kids. He offered to play funerals with them (through His appeal through John the Baptist), but they refused. He then offered to play weddings (through His Gospel of grace, joy and peace), but still they refused (Lk. 7:32). By all means connect this with another market place parable, where Christ (the servant) comes there to try to recruit labourers, on almost unbelievably good rates.</p><p>John&rsquo;s ministry was like children wanting to play funerals, and taking the initiative by beginning with mock weeping- but not getting any response. The Lord&rsquo;s ministry was as children wanting to play weddings, piping to the other children, who would not respond by dancing. Note that in Mt. 10:42 the Lord has likened His preachers to little children. Children were considered non-persons in society, and yet the Lord uses children in this parable as representative of His preachers. We note that although He likened them to children, He had to sternly warn them that they still needed to be converted and become&nbsp;<i>as</i> children (Mt. 18:3). We see Him so often imputing status to His followers which they had not in reality attained. This is to help us appreciate how He can impute righteousness to we who are not righteous. The parable of preaching here pictures children appealing to children. The commonality between us and our audience is very attractive and persuasive. We are humans reaching out to humans, indeed, children to children; the children called out (cp. calling out the Gospel) to &ldquo;their&nbsp;<i>fellows</i>&rdquo;.&nbsp;</p><p>The marketplace was the town square. he Lord uses the same word in the parable of Mt. 20:3, where the call of the Gospel comes to men who are standing idle in the market place (s.w.). The picture is perhaps of society getting on with its existence, but the weak labourers and the children being left to one side, excluded from standard adult social and economic life. And it is to these that the call of the Gospel comes, in the midst of human busyness.&nbsp;</p><p>The Old Testament as well as the New is written in such a way as to encourage memorization, although this is often masked by the translation. There are several devices commonly used to assist in this. Not least is alliteration, i.e. similarly sounding syllables. &quot;We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced (<i>orchee-sasthe</i>); we have mourned unto you and ye have not lamented (<i>ekop-sasthe</i>)&quot; (Mt. 11:17) could be dynamically rendered: \'We piped for you, and you never&nbsp;<strong>stept</strong>; we dirged for you, and you never&nbsp;<strong>wept</strong>&quot;. We note that the Lord parallels the work of the children John&rsquo;s &lsquo;children&rsquo; or disciples, and His. Although both of them were somewhat negative about each other, the Lord saw both groups of children as doing the same work, despite a different culture and even doctrinal emphasis. The division in the town square was between the children begging the others to respond, and the children of this world who didn&rsquo;t want to, in the midst of those who didn&rsquo;t even have ears to hear and were just getting on with their worldly business and never &lsquo;heard&rsquo; the invitation from either group of children.</p><p>The Lord was speaking this whilst the disciples were away on their preaching tour. He could say that just as John&rsquo;s preparation of the way had not been responded to on the level of the whole &ldquo;generation&rdquo; or society, neither had His more upbeat and joyful invitation been accepted. Note that the call of the Gospel is a call to engage with the preacher, to dance in response to the tune piped. Community and fellowship are all part of response to the Gospel; it&rsquo;s not about delivering truths to an individual who then accepts them and has no further relationship with the preacher. This is why the father-son analogy is used for preaching and conversion later in the NT. There is the implication too that the initial preacher continues to call the tune, to direct the dancing of the convert, even after initial acceptance of the invitation.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2501','1','42','7','33','33','<p>7:33 <i>For John the Baptist came eating no bread nor drinking wine, and you say: He has a demon</i>- The Gospels give the impression that there was mass response to John&rsquo;s preaching, but according to the Lord&rsquo;s reasoning here, He felt that &ldquo;this generation&rdquo;, society as a whole, had rejected John&rsquo;s message and slandered him as in league with demons. Exactly the same was said about the ministry of Jesus (Jn. 8:48 uses the same term about Jesus- &ldquo;He has a demon&rdquo;). Surface level interest in the message, even applauding it and making a great effort to go out into the desert to hear it preached, was and is not the same as responding in real repentance.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2502','1','42','7','34','34','<p>7:34 <i>The Son of Man comes eating and drinking, and you say: Behold a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners</i>- See on Mt. 11:19. The Lord was accused of being a drunkard, a glutton, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners (Mt. 11:19; Lk. 7:34). This is all language reminiscent of the commands for the parents to slay the \'rebellious son\' of Dt. 21:18-21. It\'s conceivable that one of the reasons why His death was demanded was because of this. Hence His relatives sought to take Him away out of public sight. It\'s also been claimed that the Jews\' complaint that Jesus \'made Himself equal to the Father\' (Jn. 5:18) is alluding to a rabbinic expression which speaks of the \'rebellious son\' of Dt. 21 as being a son who makes himself equal to his father. The shame of being Jesus\' mother eventually wore off upon Mary, or so it seems to me. Just as the shame of standing up for Christian principles can wear us down, too. In passing, note that the prodigal son is likewise cast in the role of the \'rebellious son\' who should be killed; the correspondence suggests that the Lord Jesus can identify with sinners like the prodigal because He was treated<i>&nbsp;as if </i>He were a sinner, a rebellious son; even though He was not in actuality.</p><p>The criticisms of the Lord here were all related to His drinking, eating and table company. Jesus showed by His fellowship with &ldquo;the poor in spirit&rdquo; that He meant what He said. He, as God&rsquo;s Son, extended His Father&rsquo;s fellowship to them in the here and now of this life. Luke seems to have been especially perceptive of the fact that Jesus often accepted invitations to eat with those whom others despised (Lk. 5:29; 7:36; 10:38; 11:37; 14:1). In 1st century Palestine, to eat with someone was a religious act.&nbsp; The host blessed and broke the bread and then broke off a piece for each guest, thus binding together all present. This was why the many sects of Judaism carefully limited their table fellowship (notably the Pharisees and Essenes). Thus it was the Lord&rsquo;s desire to share table fellowship with the very lowest (apparently) within the community of God that brought Him such criticism (Mt. 11:19; Mk. 2:16). His teaching also made it plain that He saw table fellowship with Him at a meal as a type of the future Messianic banquet, to be enjoyed in His Kingdom at His return, when redeemed sinners will again sit and eat with Him (Lk. 22:29,30). To accept the gift of the bread of life at the breaking of bread is to symbolize our acceptance of the life that is in Him. If we believe what we are doing at the memorial meeting, we are showing our acceptance of the fact that we will be there, and that what we are doing in our humble breakings of bread is in fact a true foretaste of the Kingdom experience which awaits us.</p><p>The Lord was &lsquo;fond&rsquo; <i>philos</i> of sinners; He liked them and their company. In this we see His greatness, for most spiritual people admit to finding the company of the unspiritual somewhat of a burden. But the Lord&rsquo;s spirituality was beyond that. Truly He is the sinners&rsquo; friend.&nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2503','1','42','7','35','35','<p>7:35 <i>But wisdom is justified of all her children</i>- This could simply mean that both His and John\'s disciples would be justified in the end, despite their differences.</p><p>Appreciating the inter-relation between \'doctrine\' and practice will result in our seeing through the fallacy that because someone\'s deeds are good, therefore it doesn\'t matter too much about their doctrine. The spiritual fruit which God seeks is that which is brought forth by the seed of His word, the Gospel. To&nbsp;<i>really</i>&nbsp;understand the basic Gospel with one\'s heart is to bring forth fruit, to be converted. True wisdom is justified by the works she brings forth (Mt. 11:19). This is why true conversion involves understanding and perceiving, and not merely hearing doctrinal truth (Mt. 13:15). Yet the counter argument would be that there are people who know God&rsquo;s truth who behave poorly, and there are those who know little of it who act well. This is why the Lord speaks of &ldquo;wisdom&rdquo;, not &ldquo;truth&rdquo;; for wisdom is God&rsquo;s truth applied in practice.&nbsp;<br />On another level, we see here the Lord&rsquo;s response to slander, both of Himself and John. Wisdom is justified of her children- in the end. The &ldquo;children&rdquo; are those of Himself and John, who have just featured in His parable of the preachers, His children, meeting lack of response in the town square. Even if there is lack of response to the invitation, the Lord was confident that both His &lsquo;children&rsquo; (the &ldquo;little ones&rdquo; of Mt. 10:42) and John&rsquo;s would be the justification of the truth and wisdom which they were teaching. This is all a comfort to those undergoing slander. In the end, if we are on the side of wisdom, we shall be justified.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2504','1','42','7','36','36','<p>7:36 <i>And one of the Pharisees requested him to eat with him. And he entered into the Pharisee\'s house and sat down to the meal</i>- As noted on :34, to eat together and to enter into a house was a sign of religious acceptance. Perhaps it was done simply to try to catch the Lord out by the presence of the sinful woman. Or maybe the Pharisee had a genuine interest.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2505','1','42','7','37','37','<p>7:37<i> And a woman who was in the city, a sinner, when she knew that he was dining in the Pharisee\'s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment</i>- The three anointings of Luke 7, Matthew 26 and John 12 are similar but different. Here the scene is in Galilee; but it inspired Mary to do something similar in John 12 in Bethany, which in turn encouraged an anonymous woman in Matthew 26 to do the same kind of thing near Jerusalem. Self sacrifice and devotion are examples which spread. This is the reason for fellowship in practice- to be inspired and encouraged together by human examples of responses to the same Lord. &quot;A sinner&quot; with no reference to any change could suggest that she was right at that moment still working as a prostitute.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2506','1','42','7','38','38','<p>7:38 <i>And standing behind at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment</i>- The weeping was presumably for her sins, so ashamed that she stood behind Him, not facing His face. She believed that He was the Christ, the anointed one. And that understanding was not cheap nor painless for her; it motivated her to anoint the anointed one, the Christ, with her most valuable possession. Our belief in the most basic principles of the Lord and truths about Him should require likewise.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2507','1','42','7','39','39','<p>7:39 <i>Now when the Pharisee that had invited him saw it, he spoke within himself, saying: This man, if he were a prophet, would have perceived who and what manner of woman this is that touches him, that she is a sinner</i>- We note that the thoughts of a man within himself as he sat in his lounge many centuries ago... are recorded for us to this day. God notices all thoughts. When the woman touched the Lord, people reasoned that Jesus wasn&rsquo;t Messiah because He appeared not to know that He was being touched by a sinner. Yet this incident prepared the Lord for the time when He would be smitten and demanded to prophesy who smote Him, if He was the Christ (Lk. 22:64). At that moment, perhaps He thought back to this incident, realizing it had been a living out of the spirit of the cross, and it prepared Him for the final agony. &nbsp;</p><p>The Lord\'s response to Simon was not self-justification, but rather an enquiry as to how much Simon loved the Lord in response to the forgiveness of <i>his</i> sins (Lk. 7:39-48). And when the Pharisees criticized the disciples for mixing with sinners, the Lord\'s response was to appeal to them <i>personally</i> to repent (Lk. 5:30-32). And He went further in justifying His disciples, by answering another criticism of them by the Jews with the comment that unless they changed, they would be like old bottles broken by His new wine. <i>They</i> personally had to change- and they needed to focus upon that rather than criticizing others for their possible guilt by association.<br />Knowing the Lord Jesus as a person will excite real passion and feeling in response. Our reactions to the tragedy of the way He was rejected, and is rejected and mocked to this day, will be like those of the woman who was a sinner whom Luke records in Lk. 7. The Lord was invited to the home of a Pharisee, who clearly had only invited Him to insult and mock Him. For the Pharisee hadn\'t kissed Him, nor arranged for His feet to be washed- things which simply <i>have </i>to be done to an invited guest. And so that woman becomes passionate. She feels anger and hurt for the insult and rejection made against Jesus. She does what Simon the Pharisee didn\'t do- kissing Him, washing His feet. Having no towel to dry His feet, she let down her hair to use as a towel- and a woman could be divorced for letting down her hair in front of men. She touches the Lord\'s body- something deeply despised, for the Greek and Hebrew idea of \'touching\' has sexual overtones (Gen. 20:6; Prov. 6:29; 1 Cor. 7:1), the Greek word \'to touch\' also meaning \'to light a fire\'. The ointment she carried between her breasts denoted her as a prostitute- but she breaks it open and pours it on the Lord in repentance. Her attitude was surely: \'Yeah I\'m a whore, you all know that. And yes, you\'re all gonna misunderstand me and think I am just madly coming on at this Jesus. OK, misunderstand me as you will, I don\'t care, I truly love Him as my Saviour, and there, I\'m pouring out my ointment, I\'m through with this broadway life, I\'m repenting, in the abandon of freedom from sin I now feel, I\'m giving myself wholly to Him and His cause, mock me, be shocked and disgusted in your middle-class way all you like, but this is for real\'. And this, it seems to me, is the response of everyone who truly comes to the Lord Jesus as a person, and feels for Him as a real person whom we have met in a real, valid encounter. The Lord responded to that woman by doing something which may not seem a big deal to us, but which was radical in first century culture. He criticized strongly the hospitality of His host. This just wasn\'t done, and still isn\'t. He was angry- because despite the woman\'s sincerity, they still labelled her as a \'sinner\' (Lk. 7:39). He rebuked Simon through the parable of the two debtors, who owed 500 pence and 50 pence. As that woman went away &quot;in peace&quot;, with her Lord passionately behind her and on her side, defending her to the world, so we too walk away from our encounters with Him.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2508','1','42','7','40','40','<p>7:40 <i>And Jesus answering said to him: Simon, I have something to say to you. And he said: Teacher, speak</i>- Like David, the Lord Jesus saw through peoples&rsquo; actions to the self-talk behind it. He observed the body language of the Pharisee, despising the repentant woman; Lk. 7:39 records that the man &ldquo;said within himself... &lsquo;She is a sinner&rsquo;&rdquo;, but &ldquo;Jesus <i>answering</i> said to him...&rdquo; (Lk. 7:40). The Lord perceived the man&rsquo;s self-talk, and responded to it. For Him, the Pharisee&rsquo;s unspoken words were loud and clear, and Jesus acted as if He was in a conversation with the man. He correctly read the man&rsquo;s silent disapproval as actually saying something, and responded to it as if in conversation. Of course we could argue that the Lord was empowered by a flash of Holy Spirit illumination to be able to read the Pharisee&rsquo;s mind; but it seems to me altogether more likely that it was His own sensitivity, His own perception of the other&rsquo;s self-talk, that enabled Him to know what was being silently said within the man&rsquo;s mind.</p><p>The parables of Lk. 7 and 14 were told during a meal- perhaps many of the others were, too. The Lord would have been a brilliant conversationalist, drawing out unexpected challenges and lessons from what appeared to be everyday facts. The implications of the parables are not pleasant- they would have soured some of His table conversations if they were properly perceived. And likewise with us as we read them in this age; these stories are indeed profoundly disturbing if understood properly and allowed to take their effect upon us. Yet for all their challenge, the parables of Jesus reveal how deeply familiar He was with human life in all its daily issues and complexities. He artlessly revealed how He had meditated deeply upon the issues involved in farming, the problem of weeds, how much poor men were paid for a day&rsquo;s work, the desperation of the beggar Lazarus, problems faced by builders when laying foundations&hellip; He was and is truly sensitive and understanding of the everyday issues of our lives, and yet draws out of them something deeply challenging and radical. In this was and is His surpassing, magnetic brilliance. But the unanswered questions in the parables aren\'t all there is to them.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2509','1','42','7','41','41','<p>7:41<i> A certain lender had two debtors. The one owed five hundred denarii and the other fifty</i>- The Lord saw the hypocritical Pharisee Simon as being a man forgiven fifty pence, who therefore loved Him (Lk. 7:41). This shows the generous way in which the Lord reads people. In the same chapter, the Lord recognised that John the Baptist had suffered a crisis of faith. But He tells the crowd that John wasn&rsquo;t a reed shaken with the wind, an unstable believer (Lk. 7:24 cp. Is. 7:2), but the greatest of God&rsquo;s servants; He overlooked the temporary failure, and judged the overall spirit of John.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2510','1','42','7','42','42','<p>7:42<i> When they had nothing with which to pay, he forgave them both. Which of them therefore will love him most?</i>- See on :47. The forgiveness was granted <i>when</i> they had nothing to pay. Spiritually, having nothing to pay means a person is at rock bottom. They recognize that they cannot pay back, cannot turn the clock back, cannot make things right again. All they can do is to throw themselves upon God\'s grace. This is the idea of :29. The desperate sinners justified God in repentance. We wonder if this prostitute was one of the group mentioned there.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2511','1','42','7','43','43','<p>7:43 <i>Simon answered and said: He, I suppose, to whom he forgave the most. And he said to him: You have rightly judged</i>- There is a direct connection between amount of forgiveness and love for the Lord. And yet volume of forgiveness is also a matter of perception. Those who perceive the enormous extent of their sins and receipt of forgiveness are those who will love the Lord more. The woman\'s utter abandon towards the Lord was therefore because of this. Simon\'s minimalistic approach to the Lord was because he had little sense of personal debt to the Lord. The Lord\'s implication to Simon that he ought to have been more generous in entertaining the Lord is therefore another way of saying that he needed to repent the more and perceive the size of his debt.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2512','1','42','7','44','44','<p>7:44 <i>And turning to the woman, he said to Simon: Saw you this woman? I entered into your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wetted my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair</i>- It was rude to speak to a man without looking at them, let alone with back turned to the person and looking at a woman. The Lord is purposefully snubbing Simon and demonstrating the huge respect He had for this prostitute. The Lord saw Simon the proud Pharisee as having been forgiven a little, and as loving Him a little (Lk. 7:44-48). This isn&rsquo;t how we would have seen that man. This is surely something more than generosity of spirit, even though the Lord certainly had this. His attitude reflects a hopefulness for Simon, an earnest desire for his salvation that only saw and imagined the best.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2513','1','42','7','45','45','<p>7:45 <i>You gave me no kiss, but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss my feet</i>- The Lord saw a connection between the way the sinful woman kissed Him much, and the way she &ldquo;loved much&rdquo; (Lk. 7:45,47 RVmg.). He then told a parable about her and Simon the Pharisee. His point was that they both owed Him money and He had forgiven the debt, but He was looking for an appropriate response from them. Yet there is no evidence that Simon had repented before receiving that forgiveness.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2514','1','42','7','46','46','<p>7:46 <i>My head with oil you did not anoint, but she has anointed my feet with ointment</i>- The Lord makes a clear allusion to Ps. 23 in saying that<i> she</i> had anointed His head with oil, and His feet with ointment. There, it is <i>God </i>who is said to have anointed David\'s head, and prepared a feast in the presence of his enemies (Ps. 23:5). The historical background for this Psalm is when David fled from Absalom, and God manifested in Barzillai prepared an unexpected feast for him, just the other side of the valley from where his enemies were. Perhaps&nbsp;Barzillai also anointed David\'s head with oil at the time. It seems the Lord saw God as now manifest in a woman- He, through her, anointed His head with oil. And she did it at a time when the Lord was sitting at a great feast. It could logically follow that it was likewise she who had prepared the feast for Him, explaining her presence in the home. And if, as we have suggested, Simon the Pharisee was her brother or father or relative, then this would make sense. The whole thing surely has the ring of truth about it. Thus the Lord saw God as personally manifested through a sex worker. This should quieten all our doubts as to whether God really could be manifested through such as us.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2515','1','42','7','47','47','<p>7:47 <i>Therefore I say to you, that her sins, which are many, are forgiven (for she loved much). But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little</i>- Paul seems to have seen this woman as one of his patterns when he speaks of how he laboured more abundantly than anyone, because of the depth of grace he had known (1 Tim. 1:14,15)- for she &ldquo;loved much&rdquo; because she had been forgiven much (Lk. 7:47). In passing, was the Lord&rsquo;s comment &ldquo;she loved much&rdquo; an indication that He thereby knew how much she had sinned, without having the knowledge beamed into Him, because He observed how much she now loved Him? In the parable which the Lord told comparing Simon and the woman, He made the comment that it was only &ldquo;When they realized that they had nothing wherewith to pay&rdquo; (Lk. 7:42 RV) that they were forgiven. He perceived how Mary had come to that point, at His feet, weeping, of knowing that she had nothing to pay. And Paul, and us, must reach that point if we are to find the motivation to &ldquo;love much&rdquo; in response. &nbsp;</p><p>He who is forgiven much, the same will love much (Lk. 7:41-50). The purpose of the Lord\'s mini-parable was not that the druggies, the hookers, the murderers will love Christ more than you or me. It was to teach that according to a man\'s <i>perception</i> of his sin, so he will love his Lord. All too often we serve Him because we have a conscience that we should do so; and yet the service He requires is service, even the senseless service of that forgiven woman with her precious ointment, simply because we <i>love</i> Him. And that overwhelming, overflowing <i>love</i> will only come from a true sense of our desperation. By knowing our desperation, we will know the Lord, we will know the grace and fathomless mercy which is so essentially <i>Him</i>: &quot;Ye shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have wrought with you... not according to your wicked ways&quot; (Ez. 20:43,44).</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2516','1','42','7','48','48','<p>7:48 <i>And he said to her: Your sins are forgiven</i>- This was not so much a pronouncement of forgiveness in response to repentance; rather is it a reminder to her that her sins really had been forgiven, an encouragement to her to believe that which was already true.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2517','1','42','7','49','49','<p>7:49 <i>And they that sat at food with him began to say within themselves: Who is this that even forgives sins?</i>- They <i>began</i> to say within themselves. But, presumably, they didn&rsquo;t verbalize it, when they easily could have done. Why not? Was it not that the anointing was an unspoken testimony that indeed, Jesus had forgiven her sins? &nbsp;</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2518','1','42','7','50','50','<p>7:50 <i>And he said to the woman: Your faith has saved you. Go into peace</i>- Her faith is specifically her faith in forgiveness (:48) and the &quot;peace&quot; in view is therefore peace with God. This is what comes from faith (Rom. 5:1 s.w.). The woman therefore becomes representative of every believer.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2519','1','42','8','1','1','<p>8:1 <i>And it came to pass soon afterwards, that he went about through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom of God; and companying with him were the twelve- </i>The Synoptic Gospels use the same words for the activities of both the Lord Jesus and the disciples in respect of preaching, teaching, healing etc. Theirs was a shared ministry. Thus the Lord is recorded as &ldquo;<i>showing</i> the glad tidings of the Kingdom&rdquo;, but in the same context He asks&nbsp;a new convert to go home &ldquo;and <i>shew</i> how great things God has done&rdquo; (:39), as if he were to continue the &lsquo;showing&rsquo; of Jesus.</p><p>The Lord taught them how to preach by having them accompany Him as He went about preaching. We can too easily assume that the purpose of the Bible, or the teaching of Jesus, the doctrine of Christ, is merely and solely to impart information. We can underestimate the degree to which the immediate intention of doctrine, of Jesus, was the transformation of human life. Many of us have been educated in an environment where the aim of teaching is to bring people to know things that have no practical effect upon their lives; yet this is most decidedly not how we should approach the words of the Gospel. Our model of learning has been \'from jug to mug\', i.e. there is the assumption that the teacher simply pours out their knowledge into the student\'s passive mental space. And then the student is tested as to the degree of retention of that knowledge. But as disciples, students, of the Lord Jesus, we are about something different. If the Lord were scheduled to give a class in one of our ecclesial halls, my sense is we would turn up with our video cameras, tape recorders, note books, pens and pencils. But when in reality He delivered the \'sermon on the mount\', His listeners simply beheld a life lived, the reflection of His words in practice, &quot;the word made flesh&quot;. He both preached <i>and </i>shewed the Gospel- in His life as well as His doctrinal teaching. And so it should be with our teaching of others.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2520','1','42','8','2','2','<p>8:2 <i>And certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary that was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out</i>- Mary Magdalene was perhaps named after the town of Magdala. But named Magdalene may mean the Lord gave her that Name just as He gave names to His other disciples. The name derives from the Hebrew&nbsp;<i>migdol</i>, &lsquo;tower&rsquo;.&nbsp; So the repeated description of her as the Magdalene could be implying: Mary the tower- Magdalene. Just as the shaky Simon was described as &lsquo;the rock&rsquo;, Simon-the-rock, so the shady Mary was surnamed &lsquo;Mary-the-tower&rsquo;. It was common for Jewish rabbis to give their followers names, and it seems the Lord did this too- but the names He gave reflected the potential which He saw in His men and women. And the name He gives us likewise is a reflection of the potential we can live up to. &nbsp;</p><p>Mary Magdalene is the most frequently named person in the passion narratives. Clearly the Gospel writers, under inspiration, perceived her as the central figure amongst those who were witnesses of it all. In doing so they turned on its head the prevailing idea that the witness of a woman was worthless. They saw her as the main witness. The Gospel writers clearly see Mary Magdalene as of prime importance amongst the women who followed the Lord. Luke twice places her first in his lists of the ministering women (Lk. 8:2; 24:10). Matthew likewise focuses on how she was at Calvary, at the burial and at the empty tomb (Mt. 27:56, 61; 28:1,9). She clearly captured the attention of the gospel writers.</p>');
insert into `nev_dcomm` (`id`, `active`, `book`, `chap`, `startverse`, `endverse`, `html`) values('2521','1','42','8','3','3','<p>8:3 <i>And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod\'s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who ministered to them out of their means</i>- It is worth noting, though, that the NT does reflect the fact that a number of wealthy individuals came to the Truth too; and that these were bound together in fellowship with the poor. There were wealthy women amongst the earliest followers of Jesus; and James and John came from a family who owned their own fishing boat and could employ servants (Mk. 1:19,20). Zacchaeus was wealthy- and note that he wasn\'t commanded to divest himself&nbsp;of all that wealth (Lk. 19:1-10). Consider the Philippi ecclesia- the wealthy lady from Lydia, the homeless slave girl, the middle class, respectable jailer, and the slaves of his and Lydia&rsquo;s household. There was nowhere else in the ancient world that all these classes could come together in such unity. Paul himself was not poor- &ldquo;to be a citizen of Tarsus one had to pass the means test of owning property worth at least 500 drachmae&rdquo;. He was thought wealthy enough to be able to give a bribe (Acts 24:26). He assured Philemon that he personally would meet any debts arising from the situation with Onesimus. Consider the other wealthy converts: the Proconsul of Cyprus (Acts 13:12), Lydia, Jason who was wealthy enough to put down security for Paul, assisted by prominent women (Acts 17:4,9), Greek women of high standing at Berea (Acts 17:12), Dionysius and Damaris in Athens (Acts 17:16-34), Crispus the ruler of the Corinth synagogue (Acts 18:8 cp. 1 Cor. 1:14), Erastus the city treasurer (Rom. 16:23). Marta Sordi quotes evidence for there being Christians amongst the Roman aristocracy even during the first half of the first century. These few wealthy converts would have bonded together with the mass of poor and slaves who had also come to Christ. It was a unique unity.</p>');
