# comment

text:
<p><em>Remember Lot's wife!</em>- Lot seems to have gone to Sodom for material ends- our Lord holds up his wife as an example of those who love the materialism of this world more than the reality of his Kingdom. But the Angels speak of spiritually prepared people as being the only real possessions Lot had: "Whatever you have in the city, bring them out".</p><p>"But his wife looked back from behind him" (<em><a href='B:10 19:26'>Gen 19:26</a></em>) suggests the picture of the wife following behind Lot, filled with remorse at the loss of all she had held dear. Our Lord comments concerning not desiring our "stuff which is in the house" in the day of his coming: "Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever (like her) shall seek (Greek: 'plot') to save his life shall lose it". We can infer from this that she plotted and schemed how to save her possessions- i:e. her 'life', seeing that for her, her life did consist of the abundance of the things which she possessed (<em><a href='B:490 12:15'>Luk 12:15</a></em>). These feelings grew so strong that she paused to take a loving, wistful look at the city. Remember that the fire only fell after Lot was in Zoar; therefore the city was looking as it normally did. Their exodus was at night- "the sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar" (<em><a href='B:10 19:23'>Gen 19:23</a></em>), so she would have seen the flickering lights of the city in the distance. Compare this with how the virgins of Matthew 25 go out to meet their Lord at night. </p><p>"Remember Lot's wife" suggests that we should meditate upon her position as it has especial warning for the last days. Her leaving of Sodom appears to have been due to the personal influence of Lot her husband, yet ultimately she failed to have that personal desire to obey God. It would not be pushing the type too far to suggest that the wives of latter day believers may feel that they can enter the Kingdom in the spiritual shadow of their husbands. One cannot help wondering whether she left Ur not through personal response to the promises but because the others were leaving. Doubtless her uncle Abraham would have led her and the whole family in regular prayer and meditation during the journey towards Canaan. But somehow the reality of the God of Israel was never allowed to touch her inner being, and the years of the soft life in Sodom would have sealed her spiritual state. It is hard to avoid making the point that many of us may be in a similar position. <em><a href='B:10 19:14'>Gen 19:14</a></em> RVmg. brings out the likely immediate background to her decision. Lot’s sons in law “were to marry” his daughters. The Lord too perceived that they were marrying and giving in marriage the very day the flood came, and He pointed out the similarities with the Sodom situation (<em><a href='B:490 17:27-29'>Luk 17:27-29</a></em>). Could it not be that the very day of the double wedding, they had to leave? With all the build up to the wedding, Lot and his wife would so wanted to have stayed just another day to see the wedding of their two daughters. It is to the girls credit that they both left. But Lot’s wife had invested so much in it emotionally that she just had to look back.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever shall seek to gain his life shall lose it, but whoever shall lose it shall preserve it</em>- The Lord Jesus speaks of how a person can lose their place in the Kingdom as a person losing or forfeiting their own self; He was thereby teaching that a place in the Kingdom was possessing one’s own real self (<em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em> RV). To lose life is paralleled with the Lord to unashamedly witnessing to Him in an unbelieving world; and He calls us each one to lose our lives in this way (<em><a href='B:480 8:35'>Mar 8:35</a></em>). </p><p>The Lord had earlier taught in <em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em> that in the condemnation of the last day, it is God who will destroy [s:w. “lose”] life [“soul”, s:w:]. But here the Lord says that a man will lose / destroy his own life if his life consists in what he owns (<em><a href='B:490 12:15'>Luk 12:15</a></em>) and seeks to save it. The point is that ultimately the condemned will have condemned themselves; the process of losing / destroying life is initiated and performed by people in this life, and the final condemnation is simply giving them what they themselves wished for. And the Lord goes further to say that whoever ‘finds his life’ will lose or destroy it (<em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em>). To find life for ourselves, to think that by obtaining [‘finding’] the world, the ideal life for ourselves, is to actually lose or destroy life. The Lord had earlier taught that He had not come to destroy [s:w. ‘lose’] men’s lives, but to save (<em><a href='B:490 9:56'>Luk 9:56</a></em>). It is men who destroy / lose their own lives, they condemn themselves, rather than the Lord seeking to condemn them. The Father likewise has no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. Rather does He simply confirm their own self-destruction. John’s version of this saying about losing life is found in the context of the Lord speaking to Himself about the need to die on the cross: “He that loves his life shall lose it” (<em><a href='B:500 12:25'>Joh 12:25</a></em>). To avoid the cross is to love life- this fleeting life. Attitudes like ‘Spoil yourself!’, ‘You deserve it!’ and ‘Have a fun time- you only live life once’ are all examples of loving life rather than losing it in self-condemnation for the hope of the eternal life. And so <em><a href='B:490 17:33'>Luk 17:33</a></em> repeats the words, in the context of commenting upon Lot’s wife- her wistful look back to Sodom was because that was her life, the life she had loved.</p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you: In that night there shall be two men in one bed. One shall be taken, and the other shall be left</em>- Not only is the city of Sodom representative of the world of the last days, but Lot's calling out of Sodom by the Angels is typical of our being 'taken' by Angels to meet the Lord.</p><p>In that day, "One will be taken,&nbsp;whilst the other will be left [behind]" [<em><a href='B:490 17:34'>Luk 17:34</a></em>]. The Greek for "taken" is the same as in <em><a href='B:500 14:3'>Joh 14:3</a></em> - the Lord comes again to <em>take</em> us to be with Him. Seeing this passage also speaks of the second coming, it seems to fit more logically that the faithful are taken away; and the rejected 'left behind". The Greek word for "left" really has the idea 'sent away'. Whilst it's not the same Greek word, it is the same <em>idea</em> as in several pictures of the judgment- the rejected are 'sent away'; the idea of being 'left sitting' doesn't seem to be there. So in the very moment of the Lord's return, the essential division is made; the faithful are taken, whilst the rejected are "left", but their being "left [behind]" is actually their condemnation, their being sent away from the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>There shall be two women grinding together at the mill; one shall be taken and the other shall be left</em>- The present tense is used here: “One is taken, the other is left”. Perhaps this was to heighten our sense that the essence of judgment is now; the call of the Gospel is a call to journey to judgment day. So much of the Lord’s teaching sensitively gives examples including men, and then including women. He was so very far ahead of His time in being so gender inclusive:&nbsp;They were grinding using millstones, which are always used in the Bible as symbolic of condemnation. These people were working out their own condemnation. Perhaps the idea is that one [the responsible] would be taken away to destruction, the other [not responsible to Divine judgment] would be “left”. </p>


text:
<p><em>There shall be two men in the field; one shall be taken and the other shall be left</em>- I suggested on :34 that the taking away is to salvation and those left behind are destroyed with the world, after the pattern of Lot being saved and his family destroyed. But a case can be made the other way around. The 'taking away' is in judgment / condemnation / destruction, just as the unbelieving world were 'taken away' (<em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>). The ambiguity in interpretation is intentional. For we are to reflect that we shall be taken or left, and to where shall we be taken, and for what shall we be left. "Left" in the Greek has a wide range of possible meanings here- the word is translated 'forgiven', 'sent away', and perhaps there is here the hint that they will be preserved to hear the Gospel of the Kingdom. In this sense we must remember the Lord's definition that "the field is the word" (<em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>). And in the Olivet prophecy He has foreseen that the faithful who are called away will be "in the field" (<em><a href='B:470 24:18'>Mat 24:18</a></em>). The parable of the prodigal son likewise features the two sons, both in a field (<em><a href='B:490 15:15'>Luk 15:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:25'>Luk 15:25</a></em> s:w:). The prodigal leaves the field and goes to the Father. The older son refuses to ultimately leave the field and go in to the Father. Legalism and judgmentalism is therefore quite enough to warrant being 'taken away' to condemnation:&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:590 4:15'>1Th 4:15</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they answered and said to him: Where, Lord? And he said to them: Where the body is, there will also the eagles gather together</em>- God sometimes uses language in a way which we may find embarrassing or inappropriate, reading from the distance of our age and culture, where there is an awkwardness at talking about the raw side of human nature. Thus when creating a mini-parable to explain the gathering of the responsible to him at the second coming, Jesus likens himself to a rotting carcass which will instinctively attract the eagles, representing the responsible. One of the well known shames of crucifixion was that the body was pecked by birds, even before death occurred. The idea of an uncovered body attracting birds (i:e. the believers) would have been readily understood as a crucifixion allusion. But within our use of language, it seems inappropriate to liken the Lord Jesus Christ to a decaying carcass. It seems similarly inappropriate to liken God’s response to our prayers to an unjust judge who grudgingly answers requests (<em><a href='B:490 18:1-7'>Luk 18:1-7</a></em>), or to repeatedly compare Jesus to a thief (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:39'>Luk 12:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:33'>Luk 12:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:2-4'>1Th 5:2-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:3'>Rev 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). It seems out of place to liken believers struggling to enter the Kingdom to violent people trying to storm a city by force (<em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em>). The absentee landlords of Galilee were despised by all; and yet the Lord uses one of them as a figure for Himself (<em><a href='B:490 20:9'>Luk 20:9</a></em>). Most stunning of all is <em><a href='B:230 78:36'>Psa 78:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:65-66'>Psa 78:65-66</a></em>: “They (Israel) did flatter Him (God) with their mouth… then the Lord awaked… like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine. And he smote his enemies in the hinder parts”. This just isn’t what we expect; to read about God being flattered by foolish men, and for Him to be likened to a drunken soldier who goes on the rampage kicking others in their private parts (this is alluding back to <em><a href='B:90 5:9'>1Sa 5:9</a></em>). And the Lord likens His final appeal to Israel to casting dung around them (<em><a href='B:490 13:8'>Luk 13:8</a></em>).</p><p>This whole verse has various possible interpretations which each seem to me to have things to commend them and yet also their own problems. This verse is an expansion upon the Lord's teaching that His coming will be visible, will be as the lightning of judgment upon those who have not "gone forth" to Him, and no credence should be given to any claims He has come invisibly. The Lord may be likening His coming to the coming down from the sky of eagles upon the carcass- of Israel. This could have had an AD70 fulfilment in the 'eagles' of the Roman legions, just as Yahweh's Old Testament 'comings' in judgment upon Israel were at the hands of the Babylonian and Assyrian armies. But the final coming of Divine judgment will be in the literal, personal coming of God’s Son to earth in judgment. The same Greek word translated "where" is found in <em><a href='B:480 13:14'>Mar 13:14</a></em> - the abomination of desolation will stand "<em>where</em>&nbsp;it ought not". It could be that this location on the temple mount is what the Lord has in view. This is where He will come down in judgment. Upon the very location He was then standing upon with the disciples, the pride and glory of an apostate Judaism. It was already no more than a carcass in God’s eyes. The temple was "where [s:w:] the Jews always resort" (<em><a href='B:500 18:20'>Joh 18:20</a></em>). The carcass or dead body may not necessarily refer to Israel. In <em><a href='B:730 11:8-9'>Rev 11:8-9</a></em> we find the same Greek word used about the dead bodies of the faithful remnant who share their Lord's death in Jerusalem and lay exposed for three days- perhaps literal days. The metaphor of the eagles coming speaks of&nbsp;Divine judgment from Heaven, ultimately in the personal coming of Christ to earth. In this case, the eagles would come because of the dead bodies / carcass of those who had died the death of Christ in Jerusalem in the final tribulation. The Greek word for "carcass",&nbsp;<em>stoma</em>, literally means 'a fallen one', and is from the verb&nbsp;<em>pipto</em>, to fall. And this word is used about the fall of Jerusalem- also in Revelation 11. The city "fell" (<em><a href='B:730 11:13'>Rev 11:13</a></em>), just as Jerusalem was to "fall by the edge of the sword" (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>).</p><p>It’s possible that the Lord intended us to understand the carcass as Jerusalem, and the vultures as the latter day invaders of Israel (<em><a href='B:300 4:13'>Jer 4:13</a></em>):&nbsp; Or it has been suggested by Harry Whittaker that “If you (my disciples) show yourselves to be spiritually a carcass (as in <em><a href='B:730 3:1'>Rev 3:1</a></em>), you will certainly find yourselves the prey of these "vultures," the false teachers”:&nbsp; "Where, Lord?” may not necessarily mean ‘<em>to&nbsp;</em>where’. That the Roman invasion of AD67-70 was a detailed fulfilment of some parts of the Mosaic prophecies of curses for disobedience is well known and chronicled; here the quotation would be from <em><a href='B:50 28:26'>Deu 28:26</a></em> "your carcasses shall be meat unto the fowls of the air".</p><p>So this may refer to the coming of Christ down from Heaven in judgment upon either the carcass of Israel, or for the sake of the carcasses of the slain believers. The Greek for "eagle",&nbsp;<em>aetos</em>, literally means 'one of the air [<em>aer</em>]', and&nbsp;<em>aer</em>&nbsp;is used of how the Lord Jesus will come in the "air" [<em>aer</em>] with the faithful in judgment (<em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em>). This would be the pouring out of the seventh vial into "the air" [<em>aer</em>], when finally "It is done" (<em><a href='B:730 16:17'>Rev 16:17</a></em>):&nbsp;Yet here in <em><a href='B:490 17:37'>Luk 17:37</a></em> the Lord speaks of the gathering of the eagles in terms of explaining how His people will be gathered to Him and judgment. The same word for 'gather' is used repeatedly for the gathering of the faithful in the last days (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). Most notably, we find it used in <em><a href='B:590 4:14'>1Th 4:14</a></em>, comforting the believers that God will at the last day 'gather' the dead believers at the last day (AV "will God&nbsp;<em>bring</em>&nbsp;with Him"). This will be the "gathering together unto Him" (<em><a href='B:600 2:1'>2Th 2:1</a></em> s:w:). This is all impressive evidence that the language of 'gathering' is used about the gathering of the believers to Christ at His coming, and according to <em><a href='B:590 4:16-17'>1Th 4:16-17</a></em> this will involve a literal being snatched away [from persecution, according to the Olivet prophecy]. Just as the believers will be led / gathered to human judgment seats (<em><a href='B:480 13:11'>Mar 13:11</a></em>,&nbsp;<em>ago</em>), gathered / lead / brought [<em>ago</em>] before human kings (<em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>), so they will be gathered to the judgment seat of Christ the King [<em>sun-ago</em>]:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord responds to the question about how we will get to judgment by saying that eagles fly to where the body is. It’s possible to interpret eagles as Angels- e.g. <em><a href='B:730 8:13'>Rev 8:13</a></em> speaks of an Angel flying through the sky in the last day, crying ‘woe’- the Greek&nbsp;<em>ouai</em>&nbsp;would’ve been understood as an imitation of the noise an eagle makes. And there are other links between Revelation 8 and Matthew 24. So perhaps the Lord’s answer was that we are not to worry about getting there, as our Angels will take us to judgment. <em><a href='B:450 14:5'>Zec 14:5</a></em> speaks of the coming of the Lord Jesus “and all the holy ones with him”. But it is applied to the believers in <em><a href='B:590 3:13'>1Th 3:13</a></em> and to the Angels in <em><a href='B:600 1:7'>2Th 1:7</a></em>. In this sense, the believers come with their Angels to judgment; but because the process happens in a moment of time, it appears that in fact Jesus returns with the faithful. This is why elsewhere the Lord Jesus is described as returning both with Angels (<em><a href='B:470 16:27'>Mat 16:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:31'>Mat 25:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</a></em>) and with the saints (<em><a href='B:730 19:14'>Rev 19:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 17:14'>Luk 17:14</a></em>).</p><p>And yet the Lord may simply be saying that questions like 'Where?' and 'When?' are irrelevant. We shall be taken to judgment just as eagles find their way to the carcass, but we are to ensure that we are not that dead carcass.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke a parable to them, that they should always pray and not lose heart, saying</em>- This comes straight after the teaching in chapter 17 about readiness for the Lord's coming; and continued, intense prayer is part of that preparedness. There are so many allusions by Paul to this verse and the ensuing parable. This shows just how like us Paul was; he had his favourite parables, one or two that really stuck in his mind, just as we do. And he alluded to them! They were in his heart, to inspire and motivate him, just as the Lord intended. Paul picks up the idea of not fainting in <em><a href='B:600 3:13'>2Th 3:13</a></em>: "Brethren, be not weary (s:w. "not to faint") in well doing”. What well-doing did Paul have in mind? Attending the Sunday meetings? Being patient with some difficult sister in the ecclesia? The connection with <em><a href='B:490 18:1'>Luk 18:1</a></em> tells us what he had in mind: keep on praying intensely. It's no co-incidence that Paul started that section of 2 Thessalonians 3 (in v:1) with the exhortation: "Brethren, pray for us". And he concludes it with the same rubric: "Brethren, be not weary" (faint not), in your prayers. He knew from the parable that repeated prayer was powerful. And so he asks them to keep at it for him, because he needed it. Perhaps Paul had the same thing in mind when he wrote to the Ephesians (<em><a href='B:490 3:13'>Luk 3:13</a></em>): "In (Christ) we have boldness and access with confidence (to God, in prayer, cp. <em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em>)... <em>wherefore</em> I desire that you faint not (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 18:1'>Luk 18:1</a></em>) at my tribulations"; is he not implying 'You know how powerful prayer is, so don't faint in it, you know what struggles I'm having, <em>please</em> keep on praying for me, like that persistent widow in the parable'. This fits in with a number of other passages in which Paul unashamedly begs his brethren to pray for him. In this we see his humility, his high regard for other brethren who were almost certainly weaker than him, and also the physical desperation of his daily life:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>There was in a city a judge, who did not fear God and had no regard for man</em>- The judge, representing God, lived in the same city as the widow, representing us (:3). The Kingdom of God is likened to a city which we are to enter. We are in a sense within it now, having entered through the narrow gate. The unjustness of the judge is setting up the final point of this parable; the end stress of the parable is that if this is how an unjust judge acts, then how much more sensitive is God to our cries for justice. But we are to note that Israel were commended to appoint judges who feared God (<em><a href='B:20 18:21'>Exo 18:21</a></em>). The existence in Israel of judges who did not fear God was therefore a criticism of Israel as a whole. The judge did not "regard" man; the word means to respect to the point of reverence (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:9'>Heb 12:9</a></em>). The implication is that God so respects us, that He, unlike this judge, is eager to hear our prayers. And we are to respect others likewise; the implication here is that if we fear / respect God, we will respect men who are made in His image. And disrespect of human persons is thereby disrespect of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there was a widow in that city; and she came often to him, saying: Give me justice against my adversary</em>- Note the Psalmists' <em>joy</em> that judgment is coming (<em><a href='B:230 67:4'>Psa 67:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 96:12-13'>Psa 96:12-13</a></em>). The same spirit can be seen in the parable of the woman who keeps begging the unjust judge to open her case. She may have had her little piece of land taken away from her, whatever it was, she is confident she has a watertight case and this is why she so pesters the judge to judge her (<em><a href='B:490 18:1-5'>Luk 18:1-5</a></em>). Now this is a powerful challenge to those believers who seem to <em>fear</em> the judgment process. David shows the same spirit in asking God to 'avenge my cause' (<em><a href='B:230 35:23'>Psa 35:23</a></em>). There is the same confidence that by grace, he is in the right and longs for justice to be done. So much of Romans is dedicated to the images of the court room; we are justified, and we should&nbsp;be earnestly seeking the vindication of Spirit against flesh.</p><p>The parable speaks especially of faith in prayer in the last days before the Lord's coming (:7,8). The implication is that the woman, the church, is under persecution from a great satan / adversary; and her earnest prayers will elicit God’s dramatic judgment and intervention in this earth. This is all very much the language of the book of Revelation. </p><p>Much of the pain felt by the spiritually abused focuses upon the issue of injustice. They were treated like <em>this</em>, but others are treated like <em>that</em>; <em>you</em> can't break bread in a church, but <em>he</em> can; <em>she</em> isn't allowed to attend the gathering but <em>he </em>is, and so forth. The Lord told a parable about a woman who repeatedly asked for 'justice', with the implication that she would only eventually find it at the Lord's return. But He went straight on to tell another parable, about the repentant man who beat upon his breast saying "God have mercy upon me, the sinner"; this man "went down to his house <em>justified</em>". The theme of 'justification' is thus a thread which continues from the woman demanding 'justification' (Gk:) against her abuser (<em><a href='B:490 18:3'>Luk 18:3</a></em>). The Lord's point wasn't merely that justice will only be ultimately done at His return; but further, that we are all serious sinners, who have been 'justified' by God’s grace; and this colossal-scale experience of receiving undeserved justice / justification should mean that we're not so concerned about receiving justice in human matters in this life. There cannot be perfection this side of God’s Kingdom being established upon earth. To seek for perfection in relationships is perhaps reflective of a lack of faith or understanding relating to the Kingdom of perfection which is yet to come. One of the greatest things for me about that Kingdom is the unity and perfection of relationships which there will then be. It is, however, all so hard because the New Testament presents how the church should be- an ideal of loving, sensitive, caring relationships in the spirit of Christ. And this is very attractive to us. It's very hard, therefore, to face the reality that this great intention, this lofty possibility, has actually been left unachieved by the church. It's like reading the descriptions of God’s house in Ezekiel 40-48. This wonderful temple could've come about in Ezekiel's time. The possibilities are given in such great detail- but their fulfilment was quite simply dependent upon whether Judah wished to make it come real by living up to it (<em><a href='B:330 43:10-12'>Eze 43:10-12</a></em>). And they chose not to. It's the same with the ideal "house of God" presented to us in the New Testament. Those who tend towards perfectionism find this very hard to cope with. It is indeed a tragedy, that so much Divine potential is as it were wasted, not realized, by our dysfunction. But none of this should take away from the personal reality of salvation and relationship with God which we each have. This is not to say that exposing abuse and dealing with it shouldn't happen. It should. But let's not feel that if justice isn't done, we are somehow without justice. We are the ultimately justified, and our standing before God’s judgment seat is far more significant that our standing before that of mere humans.</p><p>First century Palestinian peasant courts have been described in some detail. They involved a mass of men shouting at the judge, who usually decided cases according to who gave the largest bribe. Women never went to court. It was a man's world there. This woman had no male in her extended family to speak for her. She had no money to pay a bribe. But still she went to court and sought to persuade the judge. In this element of unreality we see the bravery of prayer, the height of the challenge; that we who have nothing and no human chance of being heard, will indeed be heard. It would've struck the initial peasant hearers of the story as strange that above all the male shouting, somehow this heroic woman was heard- and was heard repeatedly. Again, we see an encouragement to prayer. And to liken powerful praying to a woman was in itself unusual in that male dominated age. </p>


text:
<p><em>And for a while he would not, but afterward he said to himself: Though I neither fear God, nor regard man</em>- The idea is that eventually there is response even from one who has no sensitivity to people nor fear of God; and how much more quickly and deeply will come the response from the just judge of all, who does "regard man" with great pity (<em><a href='B:230 144:3'>Psa 144:3</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Yet because this widow troubles me, I will give her justice, lest she wear me out by her continual coming</em>- The connection is perhaps with the man of the parable in <em><a href='B:490 11:8'>Luk 11:8</a></em>, who was so bold and confident in his request that he shamelessly 'troubled' the rich man to give him his request; and this too was explaining our confidence in prayer to the Father:&nbsp; </p><p>The widow by her continual coming in prayer 'wearied' the judge into responding; Strong defines this Greek word as meaning 'to beat and black and blue' (RVmg. gives "bruise"). It's a strange way of putting it, but this is another reminder of the intense struggle of prayer. Jacob's wrestling with the Angel was really a clinging on to him, pleading with tears for the blessing of forgiveness; and in this he was our example (<em><a href='B:350 12:4-6'>Hos 12:4-6</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em> RV speaks of the believer 'prevailing' with God in prayer. Our prayers are to give the Father no "rest" (<em><a href='B:290 62:7'>Isa 62:7</a></em>), no cessation from violent warfare (Strong). See on <em><a href='B:580 2:1'>Col 2:1</a></em>. Again, the idea is that if the unjust judge is so sensitive to this woman's words, to the point he feels beaten up by them- how much more sensitive is the Father to our prayers!</p><p>The parable of the widow who keeps nagging the free-wheeling judge is rather humanly unlikely. Would such a tough guy really pay attention to the repeated requests of the woman? But although he considers himself independent of both God and men, he ends up being controlled by the widow. This reflects the immense power which there is in human prayer, and God’s willingness to respond if we are importunate enough. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the Lord said: Hear what the unrighteous judge says</em>- Perhaps the fact the ungodly judge is worn out by the woman's requests is the element of unreality in the story; for usually, if she paid no bribe, she would not even get a hearing, let alone be repeatedly listened to. And it flags up the essential point of the parable, which is that God will be even more sensitive to us. The emphasis is on the word "unrighteous". The <em>righteous</em> judge is going to be even more sensitive and quicker to respond than the unrighteous judge. The justice of God as judge is emphasized throughout the Old Testament, and the Lord describes Himself likewise as a just judge who responds to what He hears [rather than to bribes or pressure from others in human society, <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>]. </p>


text:
<p><em>And shall not God give justice to His chosen, who cry to Him day and night?- </em>The unjust judge was worn down by the woman's repeated appeals. The implication is that God is far more sensitive and will therefore respond more quickly. Even though His response may appear slow, compared to the magnitude of our request, His response is quick. </p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>.</p><p>The many connections between Revelation and the Gospels need to be followed up; the incidents in Christ's earthly experience seem to be woven by him into the fabric of the visions he gives John. The theme of persecution is especially common. The widow crying to God because of persecution represents the prayers of the "elect" or "chosen" remnant of the last days (<em><a href='B:490 18:7'>Luk 18:7</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 13:20'>Mar 13:20</a></em>). They will be asking for vengeance against the beast which is persecuting them, and thus this parable is the basis for the souls under the altar crying out for vengeance (<em><a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a></em>). Christ's return is therefore the day of vengeance (<em><a href='B:490 21:22'>Luk 21:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:8'>Isa 34:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:2'>Isa 61:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 63:4'>Isa 63:4</a></em>) of his persecuted latter day ecclesia. Despite the power of prayer in bringing about the Lord's return in vengeance, <em><a href='B:490 18:9-14'>Luk 18:9-14</a></em> continues in this same context to warn that despite this: </p><p>- Perhaps the Lord won't find such faith in prayer when he returns </p><p>- Many will pray but be so sure of their own righteousness that their prayers are hindered </p><p>- The disciples will tend to despise the little ones in the ecclesia. </p><p>All these are latter day problems: abuse of "the little ones", self-righteousness and lack of real faith in prayer. </p><p><em>Will He be slow to help them?</em>- God <em>will</em> shorten the period of time of trouble before His return (<em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>); and we read that He <em>will</em> also lengthen the period of grace (<em><a href='B:490 13:6-9'>Luk 13:6-9</a></em>)… <em>if</em> His people ask Him. What He ‘will’ do perhaps should be read as what He <em>can</em> do. And this is why so much prophecy is conditional. Significantly, no other religion that I know contains this feature- of a God so passionate and so real that He will change His stated will and intention for the sake of His people’s prayers. </p><p>The AV "though he bear long with them" is accurate. <em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em> uses the same word in teaching that "The Lord... is longsuffering to us-ward" (AV) of the last days. This longsuffering of Jesus spoken of by Peter alludes to this parable of the persistent widow, whose continued requests should match our prayers for the second coming (the vengeance of our adversaries which she requested will only come then). "Though he bear long" (s:w. 'longsuffering') with us, "God shall avenge His own elect, which cry day and night unto Him" (<em><a href='B:490 18:7'>Luk 18:7</a></em> AV). The "us" whom Peter refers to as experiencing the Lord's longsuffering ('bearing long') are therefore to be equated with "the elect" in their fervent prayers for the second coming. The days being shortened for the elect's sake therefore refers to the hastening of the second coming on account of the elect's prayers (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>). In view of the later references to Matthew 24, it is not unreasonable to think that Peter is consciously alluding to <em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em> concerning the shortening of the days for the sake of the elect's prayers, through his allusion to the parable of the persistent widow of <em><a href='B:490 18:7'>Luk 18:7</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you, that He will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, shall he find faith on the earth?</em>- “Nevertheless", despite the fact God answers prayer, being far more sensitive to our cries than the unjust judge- it is still a question as to whether there will be faith in prayer in the last days, at the Son of Man's coming. Whilst the article is indeed used, <em>"the </em>faith" doesn't have to mean 'the set of doctrines which comprise the one faith'. It may refer to that, but the article may be used here simply for emphasis. Will He find faith, <em>the </em>kind of faith which there ought to be given His sensitivity to us? The implication is that the experience of answered prayer <em>ought</em> to develop faith, but such will be the spiritual perils of the last days and the lack of serious prayer, that there may well be no faith in the final generation. Lot has just been cited in chapter 17 as an example of the latter day believers- and he was weak in faith, although saved. Likewise even the five wise virgins of the parable are sleeping when they ought to have stayed awake for their Lord's return.</p><p>The theme of prayer continues. Despite the power of prayer in bringing about the Lord's return in vengeance, <em><a href='B:490 18:9-14'>Luk 18:9-14</a></em> continues in this same context to warn that despite this:</p><p>- Perhaps the Lord won't find such faith in prayer when he returns</p><p>- Many will pray but be so sure of their own righteousness that their prayers are hindered</p><p>- The disciples will tend to despise the little ones in the ecclesia.</p><p><em>May we not give way to these latter day temptations!</em></p><p>There is the real possibility that when Christ returns, none will hold the faith. Only eight people were truly&nbsp;watching when the flood came; and Peter cites this as an example for us at the time of Christ's return. No wonder there is such emphasis upon the need to watch. If we are the generation which will see Christ's appearing, we will be the only people who never physically die. And we will be those who welcome the Lord Jesus to this earth, who stand ready to welcome Him. This is an honour higher than we probably appreciate. No wonder there is this pressing need in these last days to watch our doctrine, our way of life, <em>to hold on</em> to the great salvation which we have been given in prospect:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke also this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt</em>- The theme continues from the previous parable. There, the woman [representing us] prays for justice. "Justice" and "righteousness" are connected ideas in Hebrew and Greek thought. The woman wanted justice / righteousness; but she did not have it of herself. It had to be granted by a judge, and we are in relationship with the just judge, who alone gives justice / righteousness. Those who think they are righteous of themselves do not therefore fear God and they therefore despise men, just as the unjust judge did. The Pharisee who "treated others with contempt" therefore equates with the unjust judge of whom we have just read; and the woman desperately begging for justice is the tax collector begging for forgiveness, for rightness with God, who goes down to his house justified, with justice / righteousness, just as the widow went away with justice.</p><p>Paul alludes here when he says that the sentence of death we have within our bodies requires a bodily resurrection and transformation of the body far beyond our power to achieve; and therefore we cannot trust in ourselves, i:e. our own righteousness (<em><a href='B:540 1:9'>2Co 1:9</a></em>). Rather must we cast ourselves upon God’s grace.</p><p>The Lord was "despised", the same word here translated 'to treat with contempt' (<em><a href='B:490 23:11'>Luk 23:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>). Those despised by religionists are fellowshipping their Lord's sufferings; and the religionists by doing so are taking the side of His abusers.</p>


text:
<p><em>Two men went into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector</em>- Many of the parables feature two people; the self-righteous, and the serious sinner. One saved, the other lost. The parable of the older and younger sons in chapter 15 is a clear example. We have it again here. If we don't identify with the serious sinner- then we have to identify with the self-righteous. </p>


text:
<p><em>The Pharisee stood and prayed thus- </em>AV "Prayed thus with himself". The OT idiom of prayer ‘returning into one’s own bosom’ is surely the quarry from which the Lord dug His image of a man praying <em>with himself</em>. It isn’t real prayer; it’s one part of the brain talking to a black box in another part of the brain, that we call ‘God’. We note how Luke especially records parables which focus upon the internal self talk of men; Luke introduces Jesus by recording that He would reveal the thoughts of many hearts (Lk. 2:35). For this is of such importance in the Lord's message of personal spirituality. The rich fool speaks within himself "What shall I do?" (indeed "I shall say to my soul, Soul, you have many goods stored up..."), the prodigal son and the unjust steward talk to themselves about their plans, the unjust judge talks to himself about what to do with the pesky widow, the owner of the vineyard talks to himself about sending his son, the unfaithful servant "shall say in his heart: My lord delays his coming" (Lk. 12:45). It is our self-talk which is clearly so significant to the Lord. The Gospel records themselves focus upon it- the Jews "said within themselves, This man blasphemes" (Mt. 9:3), they were warned not to "say within yourselves, We have Abraham..." (Mt. 3:9), the woman "Said within herself, If I may but touch..." (Mt. 9:21), the husbandmen said within themselves, This is the heir (Mt. 21:38 Gk.), in response to God saying within Himself "Surely they will reverence My Son", Simon the Pharisee says within himself that if Jesus were a true prophet, He would know the woman touching Him was a prostitute, Peter on release from prison says to himself "Now I know the Lord has sent His Angel..." (Acts 12:11), "Say not in your heart, Who shall ascend into heaven..." (Rom. 10:6). John's letters speak of the readership 'saying' things, and he surely means 'saying in your self-talk', that "we have fellowship with Him... we have no sin... we have not sinned" (1 Jn. 1:6,8,10)- because if we say we have not sinned, the word is not in us. If the word is in our hearts, our self talk within our hearts will not be like this. And this interest in human self-talk is reflected in the Old Testament too (e.g. Saul's self-talk about planning to make David be killed by the Philistines, 1 Sam. 18:17,21: "Saul thought, Don’t let my hand be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him... Saul said, I will give her to him so that she can be a snare to him"). Once we appreciate this, it will not seem at all out of place to consider the narratives of the Lord's wilderness temptations as a window onto His self talk. </p><p><em>God, I thank you that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector</em>- Luke uses the same term in recording how "the rest of men" would seek and find the Lord (<em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em>). Those despised as secular, non-religious and the hopeless sinners are the very ones whom the Lord came to save; rather than the self-righteous religionists. And these are the ones we should be reaching out to, rather than attempting to convert religionists from one flavour to another. The same word for "rest" has just been used in :9 for how the Pharisee despised "others". It means to put down, to set at nothing; and this is how the tax collector, and those in his category, are made to feel by the self-righteous. It's a big reason why secular folk who are searching for God won't attend church.</p><p>"Or even as" could as well be translated to the effect that "this tax collector" was the epitome of an extortioner, unjust and adulterer. And his deep penitence could suggest there might have been some truth in that accusation. But he, the "unjust", was the one who went away "justified" (:14). Luke was personal friends with Paul, and it could be argued that his Gospel record was preparation for Paul's later theological writings. The idea of the unjust being justified by faith through grace is exactly the theme of Paul in Romans and elsewhere. The Lord elsewhere makes the point that the Pharisees were all that this Pharisee prided himself upon not being. They were extortioners (Mt. 23:25), unjust (Mt. 23:23) and adulterous (so the Lord implies in Mt. 12:39; 16:4; 19:3-9). We have an example of their adultery in Jn. 8:1-11. So we have here a classic case of transference. The Pharisee clearly thought the tax collector was guilty of the very things which he himself did. He had transferred his sins onto that man, and now openly condemns the man for those sins. This is often seen in religious life; people condemn others for what they themselves commit, because they have transfered their sins onto those other people. This goes on at the level of the deeply subconscious. The point is, we are to face up to our sins and confess them, as the tax collector does. We are thereby justified; in this way our sins are removed by the process of God's forgiveness, and by those sins being as it were placed upon the Lord on the cross. And not by our subconscious transferal of them onto others.</p>


text:
<p><em>I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I get</em>- Fasting was only required by the Law on the day of Atonement; and tithing was only of cattle and agricultural produce. Obedience to law, and even exceeding legal requirements, was not the basis for justification; for it is the hopeless sinner who goes away justified (:14); as noted on :11, Luke seems to be preparing the way for Paul's later expositions on justification of sinners by faith and not legal obedience. Fasting in Biblical terms was associated with shame and desperate pleading for forgiveness; the Pharisee fasted only in a ritual sense. It was the sinner who was accepted, without fasting. The point is that repentance cannot be ritualized. A blanket "And forgive me all my sins of this day" muttered each evening, is perhaps the dynamic equivalent of this ritualized fasting.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the tax collector, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes to heaven, but struck his breast, saying: God, be merciful to me, the sinner</em>- <em><a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a></em> “Have mercy on me, O God…” is quoted by the publican in <em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em>. He felt that David’s prayer and situation was to be his. And he is held up as the example for each of us. In Romans 4, Paul quotes David’s sin with Bathsheba as our pattern. We along with all the righteous ought to “shout for joy” that David really was forgiven (<em><a href='B:230 32:11'>Psa 32:11</a></em>)- for there is such hope for <em>us</em> now. David is our example, and yet therefore the intensity of David’s repentance must be ours. He hung his head as one in whose mouth there were no more arguments, hoping only in the Lord’s grace (<em><a href='B:230 38:14'>Psa 38:14</a></em> RVmg:). Paul alludes here and sees this man as himself (<em><a href='B:610 1:15-16'>1Ti 1:15-16</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>.</p><p>Usually men prayed with hands crossed over their chest. But men even at funerals don't usually beat upon their breast: "The remarkable feature of this particular gesture is the fact that it is characteristic of women, not men". The man was quite exceptionally upset and in grief- because of his sins. Beating his breast suggested a blow to his heart, as if confessing himself worthy of death. And personal recognition of private sin wasn't a big feature of first century life. The Lord's initial audience would've been amazed at the contrition and grief which this man had because of his secret sins; and this is the lesson for us. The times of prayer in the temple coincided with the offering of the daily sacrifices. The man asks for God to 'have mercy on me' (<em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em>). But he uses a different word to that in <em><a href='B:490 18:38'>Luk 18:38</a></em>, where the same translation commonly occurs. <em>Hilastheti moi</em>, he says; and the noun occurs only in <em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:5'>Heb 9:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:2'>1Jn 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:10'>1Jn 4:10</a></em> to describe the atonement sacrifice. It seems the man was so extraordinarily moved by his own sin and the sacrifice offered. No wonder the same phrase occurs in <em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em> about people likewise beating their breasts in repentance when they saw the actual sacrifice of Christ on the cross. </p><p>The humble man “smote his breast, saying, God, be <em>merciful</em> to me a sinner". “Be merciful" translates the word elsewhere translated “make propitiation", in describing the atoning death of Jesus on the cross (<em><a href='B:650 2:17'>Heb 2:17</a></em>). The man’s sinfulness drove him to plead for the cross: ‘Please God, make a propitiation for me’ was his plea. He realized his need for the cross. And we should look back at the cross and feel and know the same need… According to the Lord's own teaching, there are in some ways only two types of believer: either we are the self-righteous Pharisee, or the publican who beats his breast in self-loathing, hating his corrupt heart, begging for “mercy” [Gk. propitiation], confessing that he is <em>the</em> sinner (<em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em> Gk:). Paul, in one of his many allusions to the Gospels, reached the same height of contrition when he said, in total honesty, that he was “[the] chief of sinners" (<em><a href='B:610 1:15-16'>1Ti 1:15-16</a></em>):&nbsp; <em><a href='B:660 4:9'>Jas 4:9</a></em> tells some believers in the Jerusalem ecclesia that their joy ought to be turned to heaviness, implying the downcast look of the publican who could not so much as lift up his eyes to God. This man is held up by the Lord and James as some kind of hero and example to us.</p><p>The man who ‘humbled himself’ smote upon his breast in knowledge of his own sin and his Lord’s grace. The Greek phrase occurs elsewhere only once, again in Luke’s thought, in describing how those humbled by the vision of the cross beat upon their breasts (<em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>)- surely in recognition of their sin and contrition before the grace of God outpoured. In the cross, we see self-humbling that we might be exalted. And we respond by likewise humbling ourselves, that others may be exalted. </p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you, this man went home rendered righteous rather than the other. For everyone that exalts himself shall be humbled, but he that humbles himself shall be exalted</em>- This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>. Paul told Corinth that he had abased himself so that <em>they</em> might be exalted, so that they could share the exaltation he would receive on account of his humility. In all this, of course, he reflected to his brethren the very essence of the attitude of the Lord Jesus for toward us. It was through refusing funding for his work from the Corinthians that he <em>abased</em> himself that they might be <em>exalted</em>- all language of the crucifixion (cp. <em><a href='B:570 2:8-9'>Phi 2:8-9</a></em>). Thus his refusing of legitimate help to make his way easier was an enactment in himself of the cross. We live in a world which has made the fulfilment of personal aims of paramount importance. It has affected the fabric of every society, and become embedded in every mind. To <em>live to serve</em>, to put oneself down that others may rise… this is strange indeed. John the Baptist had this spirit, for he rejoiced that he decreased whilst the Lord’s cause increased. Paul likewise abased himself that others might be exalted, after the pattern of the cross. God’s gentleness, His humility / bowing down (Heb:) has made us great, lifted us up (<em><a href='B:230 18:35'>Psa 18:35</a></em>). And we respond to it by humbling <em>our</em>selves.</p><p>So we are taught here that he who humbles himself in prayer will be exalted. Paul perhaps had this in mind when he spoke of how the Lord Jesus on the cross humbled Himself that He might be exalted (Philippians 2). Real prayer is a humiliating experience, a true humbling of self after the pattern of the Lord’s crucifixion. We really need to ask ourselves whether this is anywhere near true of our prayer life.  </p><p>"This man..." corresponds to how the Pharisee refers to the sinner as "this tax collector". "This..." person was a derogatory term. The older son speaks of "this son of yours" (Lk. 15:30);  the Jews mocked the Lord as being "this man receives sinners and eats with them" (Lk. 15:2). We have again 'the great reversal'. The one despised is the one justified. </p><p>There was a saying amongst the Jews that "whoever brought a sacrifice to the temple returned justified". The Talmud said that while the Temple stood, when every Israelite had offered sacrifice, ‘his sin was pardoned and he departed justified.’ This man is presented as bringing the sacrifice of a broken spirit and penitent heart. This is another connection between this man and David in his repentance concerning Bathsheba.</p><p>To come before "the throne of grace" is to come in essence before the judgment and before the cross of our Lord. Inevitably these things convict us of our desperation. The publican who beat upon his breast "went down to his house justified". Yet we were justified by the shedding of the blood of Christ (<em><a href='B:520 5:9'>Rom 5:9</a></em>). That man's faith was consciously focused upon the Lord's sacrifice. We believe on Him who justifies us, through the blood of the cross (<em><a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a></em>), and this faith is manifested through focusing upon the cross, and expressing it in prayer to be justified. The publican went home after prayer "justified rather than the other". It has been suggested that this reflects "a Semitic idiom which describes… an anticipation of his acquittal in the final judgment". </p><p>The language of justification ["rendered righteous"] as noted on :11 and :12 is preparing the way for Paul's inspired expansion of these ideas in Romans. "Went home" is Gk. 'went down to his house', just as in :9 the two men both "went up to the temple". But only one went back 'down' justified. This is typical of the 'great reversal' often developed by Luke; the sinners, the humble, are exalted and saved and the proud self righteous are demoted and revealed as sinners. And here, the "unjust" (:11) went home 'justified'. This parable began in :9 with the Greek connecting word "also", linking it with the previous parable- which has spoken of the unrighteous, unjust judge hearing the petitions of the widow. The hint is that the just judge will justify the sinner. The Pharisee proclaimed his own righteousness to himself, but God will proclaim the righteousness of those He justifies- to all. Lk. 16:15 has just spoken of the Pharisees as “those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your heart”. Again, it's the great reversal. The sinner is counted righteous, but by the just / righteous judge. This is Paul's great theme in Romans 1-8, that the unrighteous are counted righteous by a just and righteous process, without any moral short cuts, no get around, and without turning a blind eye to the sins of those on your team. The Pharisee and others "trusted" in their own righteousness (:9), just as the man in Lk. 11:22 trusted in his own armour but had it taken away; whereas justification is by faith / trust in God counting us as righteous. All because we are "in Christ". This makes sense of how the tax collector prayed "afar off" (:10). The Pharisee would have gone to pray in "the courts of the righteous" but the tax collector was far away from that. Yet the Pharisee sees him because he mentions the tax collector in his prayer to God. So the "afar off" was largely in the sinner's mind.
</p><p>
The two men went into the temple at the same time, suggesting it was a time of corporate worship when Jewish males entered the temple for prayer. It could have been the day of atonement; or the time when the daily "sacrifice of atonement", as it was called, was offered. The Pharisee commends himself for both fasting and tithing (:12), both of which were practiced on the day of Atonement. So like us in the presence of the symbols of the Lord's atonement, we can either consider ourselves righteous of ourselves; or be the smitten sinner who is justified at the end. Again we are left with the great reversal; humility is exalted, whereas in the first century world, humility was for losers and was something enforced upon a reluctant recipient. Whereas in the new spiritual world of the Lord Jesus, humility is to be aspired to, we are to humble ourselves, that we might be exalted in due time.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were bringing to him even their babies, that he should touch them- </em>His blessing was and is mediated without physical contact. The need for physical contact in order to receive blessing was embedded in the religious mentality of the time, and is seen to this day in so many rituals and traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. The sick woman thought to herself that if she could only&nbsp;<em>touch&nbsp;</em>Jesus, she would be made whole; but He responded that He made her whole because of&nbsp;<em>her faith</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 9:21-22'>Mat 9:21-22</a></em>). He was gently correcting her mistaken understanding of the power of touch. And yet the Lord made a concession to this misunderstanding by indeed touching the children as requested.</p><p>The touching was understood as a form of blessing. The implication is that the Lord agrees to the request, blessing little ones for the sake of the efforts of third parties who bring them to Him (as in <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em> and so often in the work of saving and curing men). As the children ‘received’ this blessing, so the Lord urges the disciples to ‘receive’ the things of the Kingdom- for <em><a href='B:480 10:15'>Mar 10:15</a></em> records the Lord’s further comment that “whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no way enter into it”. Those children receiving His grace and blessing, all the more gracious because they received it thanks to others bringing them to it, represent each disciple who receives the grace and blessing of the Kingdom.</p><p><em>But when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them</em>- Just as they had turned away the little one in Matthew 18, as they sought to send away the hungry crowds, forbad John’s disciples and tried to turn away the Syro-Phoenician woman. And they did this despite the Lord’s sober warning that turning away little ones is making them stumble, and will lead to eternal rejection from God’s Kingdom. The disciples in their preaching, of which the Gospels are transcripts, were stressing how they had so failed to grasp this vital teaching:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But Jesus called them to him, saying: Permit the little children to come to me, and do not forbid them. For to such belongs the kingdom of God</em>- The Lord rebuked the disciples for 'forbidding' John's disciples and the little ones to come to Him (<em><a href='B:480 9:38'>Mar 9:38</a></em>); and yet He uses the same word to describe how the lawyers hindered [s:w. 'forbad'] people to enter the Kingdom. There's a very clear parallel here between the disciples and their Jewish teachers who had so influenced their thinking. But they finally got there- for Peter insisted that Gentiles should not be forbidden [s:w. 'hinder'] baptism (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>); and he uses the same word again when he says that now, he will not "withstand [s:w. 'hinder'] God in hindering people to come to Him (<em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>). The awfulness of the disciples' attitude is brought out by the use of the word in <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>, where Paul says that the way the Jews 'forbad' or hindered the preaching of the Gospel was cause for the wrath of God to come upon them "to the uppermost". And the disciples initially followed their Jewish elders in this kind of behaviour. In passing, there is a sober warning here to those who would likewise 'forbid' baptism to those who sincerely seek it, and who will not allow ‘little ones’ to the Lord’s table.</p>


text:
<p><em>Truly I say to you, Whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no way enter into it</em>- ‘Be babes’ Peter later exhorted, ‘and grow as they do’ (<em><a href='B:670 2:2'>1Pe 2:2</a></em>). The same word occurs here in <em><a href='B:490 18:15'>Luk 18:15</a></em> in description of the “infants” whom Peter rebuked. The Lord’s response had been to tell Peter to be like them. And, having been humbled into learning something of a child’s teachableness, a babe’s desire for the sincere milk, Peter now asks others to learn the lesson:&nbsp;</p><p>The idea of “receiving” is often used about people accepting the Gospel. The implication is that one can receive the Gospel of the Kingdom of God- and yet not enter it, because we didn’t receive it as a child. We didn’t accept that we are the ‘little ones’, accepting we know so little, and just marvelling at the special grace being shown us which we accept in awed wonder. The language of ‘entering the Kingdom’ is used both of our final entry into the Kingdom when Christ returns (<em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>), and of our current entering the Kingdom. The rich man can enter the Kingdom right now if he sheds the load of his wealth (<em><a href='B:470 19:23-24'>Mat 19:23-24</a></em>). The Scribes stopped and hindered those who were entering the Kingdom from entering, locking the door through which the Kingdom could now be entered, all because they chose not to enter themselves (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:52'>Luk 11:52</a></em>). So it’s a case of ‘Now but not yet’. We do&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>enter into God’s rest, and yet we are promised that we&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;enter that rest at Christ’s return (<em><a href='B:650 4:1-11'>Heb 4:1-11</a></em>). The Lord had warned that our righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes, or we will likewise not enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>); but that righteousness is in accepting the blessing of righteousness as a little child; for without&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;we shall not enter the kingdom. Those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>)- and that will is to be as little children and accept gifts without seeking to justify ourselves or earn them.</p>&nbsp;<p>We will enter the Kingdom as shy children. It doesn't just mean that we must <em>now</em> be as little children, but more that we will enter the Kingdom as little children. For Jesus had just said that "of such is the Kingdom". Children unspoilt by the hardness of this world and this flesh… this is how we will be as we walk away from the judgment seat into the Kingdom. And we should live the Kingdom life now. See on <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord perceived spiritual prompts in the ordinary things of everyday life. He saw in those children the qualities of those who would be in His Kingdom. Those kids weren't 'spiritual' in themselves. They were just Palestinian kids with well meaning, superstitious mums who believed in the power of the touch of the holy man. Yet, the Lord explained, that was no reason to disregard them. They should be seen as reminders of spiritual qualities which should be in us all. And this was how He perceived everything in His daily round of life. He raised everything to an altogether higher level.</p>


text:
<p><em>And a certain ruler asked him, saying: Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?</em>- Mark adds that he came running to Him and kneeled before Him. The idea was: 'Give me a list of dos and don'ts, I'm game'. But the answer was ultimately: "Follow me" (:22)- 'don't worry about specifics, but have a spirit of life committed to following Me, bearing My cross'. For that is reward enough. Likewise Peter was interested in what the reward would be for having given things up for the Lord; and the final answer is really 'I'm going to die on the cross- please share that death with me' (<em><a href='B:490 18:28-33'>Luk 18:28-33</a></em> and parallels). </p><p>The man was clearly influenced by the Jewish idea that one supreme good deed could assure the doer of salvation. This was particularly popular amongst the zealots, who considered that suicidal attacks on the Romans could assure them of salvation; the same mentality is to be found in Islamic suicide bombers today. But in His typical manner, the Lord doesn’t address the misunderstanding but rather works with it. He ends up telling the man that if he sells all he has and gives to the poor, then he will have “treasure in Heaven” (:22). This, therefore, isn’t a global command to every Christian. It was designed especially for this young man who thought that just one great act of obedience would secure salvation. The Lord went along with this by giving him such an example; but added: “And come and follow Me”, thus gently correcting the idea that one great act is enough for salvation:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:520 7:19'>Rom 7:19</a></em> is Paul’s allusion here, where he laments that like the young man, the good that he would do [same Greek words "shall I do"] he finds himself unable to do because of the sin that dwells within him. But instead of walking away from the Lord as this man did, Paul threw himself upon the Lord’s grace. This zealous young man was also understood by Peter as representative of us all; for he clearly alludes to him in <em><a href='B:670 3:10-11'>1Pe 3:10-11</a></em>: “He who would love life and see good days [cp. the young man wanting to “have eternal life”]… let him… do good” (same Greek words):&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:480 10:17'>Mar 10:17</a></em> notes that he also asked what he must do to “inherit” eternal life, as if he considered eternity a right that he must receive if he does only one great deed. The disciples heard the Lord assuring His people that those who follow Him will “<em>have</em>&nbsp;eternal life”, enter the Kingdom, enter into life, etc. But having heard all that, Peter asked: “We have left all… what shall we&nbsp;<em>have</em>?” (<em><a href='B:470 19:27'>Mat 19:27</a></em>). The irony of it all is tragic. They’d just been promised they would “have” eternal life. But that wasn’t enough. Their focus was very much on this life; what shall we have&nbsp;<em>here and now</em>? They couldn’t see very much beyond the present, past the curvature of their earth:&nbsp; Ruth’s unnamed relative could have been her redeemer; but when he realized he would have to marry her and have children, and split up his fields into more strips so as to give those children an inheritance along with that of his existing children- he pulled out. He wouldn’t ‘mar his inheritance’. He saw ahead to his death, to the next generation. His horizon was 20 years at most. But Boaz who didn’t think like this established his spiritual inheritance eternally, and is therefore mentioned in the Lord’s genealogy. Whilst the short sighted man passed off the page of history anonymously; his name wasn’t preserved.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to him: Why do you call me good? None is good, save one- God!</em>- The Greek may not mean that the Lord was implying ‘Only God is good- I am not good’. Translators have added a number of words to try to flesh out the meaning of the words. The sense could just as well be ‘None is as good as the one God’- and therefore, we should keep&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;commandments. In other words, the Lord is not so much saying that He Himself is not ‘good’ but rather refocusing the man’s direction away from Himself towards the Father. For the man had come running to Him asking what he should do in order to inherit or rightfully have eternal life. And the Lord is refocusing the man upon the Father and the Father’s commandments. The Lord may therefore have a rhetorical sense in His question ‘<em>why</em>&nbsp;do you call Me good?’. His sense would have been: ‘Why are you so keen to call me “good”, setting me on a level with God? Instead, focus on obeying God’s commandments and tackle your hardest challenge- to give away your wealth, and then follow Me in the itinerant life towards the cross’. The man’s overly high and unrealistic view of Jesus, as if He were God Himself, was really an excuse for his own refusal to face the challenge of living the Christian life. Every false doctrine has a psychological basis, and the idea that Jesus is God and the Trinity are no different. To accept Jesus as less than God, as totally human, is a far deeper challenge to our living than accepting Jesus as being God Himself. If Jesus was human, sharing our own flesh, in which there dwells no good thing (<em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>), and yet was able to be perfect- this lays down a huge challenge to each of us. It’s far less challenging to accept Jesus as God and therefore good and perfect by nature. This is why I suggest the Lord is probing&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;the man called Him “good”- and redirected him towards the need for keeping the commandments and living the committed life in practice. So we have here a passage of deep significance for discussions about the Trinity. The Lord cites the unity of God as meaning that He alone is ultimately ‘good’, and challenges the man who wanted to treat Him as God as to whether this was not just an excuse for not doing the hard work of following Him in practice.</p>


text:
<p><em>You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not bear false witness. Honour your father and mother</em>- Harry Whittaker makes an interesting but not totally convincing case that the rich young man here was Barnabas and these commands were very relevant to him as a Levite- see&nbsp;<em>Studies in the Gospels&nbsp;</em>chapter 148. Paul's references to the Gospels suggests that he had carefully meditated upon the passages to which he consciously alludes. The fact and way in which he&nbsp;<em>alludes</em>&nbsp;rather than quotes verbatim reflects the fact he had thought through and absorbed the teaching of the passages rather than learning them parrot fashion. Here the Lord Jesus combines two quotations from the Law: <em><a href='B:20 20:12-16'>Exo 20:12-16</a></em> followed by <em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>. Paul, in a different context, to prove a different point, combines those same two passages, although separating them by a brief comment (<em><a href='B:520 13:9'>Rom 13:9</a></em>). This surely indicates that he had meditated upon how his Lord was using the Law, and mastered it so that he could use it himself.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: All these things have I observed from my youth</em>- The record in <em><a href='B:470 19:20'>Mat 19:20</a></em> stresses the incongruity and inappropriacy of the young man’s self-righteousness: “The&nbsp;<em>youth</em>&nbsp;answered, all these have I kept from my&nbsp;<em>youth</em>&nbsp;up”. He was young- and he says that since a young man he had kept all the commands. Now the Lord doesn’t lecture him about self-righteousness, nor does He point out that the young man is way over rating his own spirituality and obedience. Instead, the Master focuses on the positive- as if to say ‘You are zealous for perfection? Great! So, sell what you have and give to the poor. Go on, rise up to the challenge!’.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Jesus heard it, he said to him: One thing you lack yet- </em>Matthew records that this was in response to his question: "What do I still lack?". And <em><a href='B:490 18:22'>Luk 18:22</a></em> provides the Lord’s answer: “One thing you&nbsp;<em>lack</em>&nbsp;[s:w:]”, but the “one thing” was to distribute his wealth and to follow Christ. The two things seem therefore related; it was the wealth which was stopping the following of Christ. The man had come to the Lord asking what great deed he must do to obtain eternal life, and so he was aware of his obedience to the commandments. He obviously felt that obedience to Mosaic law was not going to be the basis of eternal life, and he sensed that there was some great deed he must yet achieve. Therefore “What do I still lack?” shouldn’t be read as an arrogant statement that he lacked nothing because he had been legally obedient. Rather is it a genuine question, seeking a concrete, clear and achievable answer:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord was quoting from the LXX of <em><a href='B:230 23:1'>Psa 23:1</a></em>. Because the Lord [Jesus] is our shepherd, "not one thing is lacking to me". The selling and sharing of his wealth is paralleled by the Lord with following Him. The one thing that was lacking was to shed his wealth&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;follow Christ. To follow Christ, to have Him as our shepherd, is therefore no merely intellectual affair, nor is it a question of legalistic obedience to a set of principles we inherited from our youth. It requires the most painful sacrifices.</p><p><em>Sell all you have and distribute to the poor- </em>Luke again uses the word in describing how the early believers did indeed sell their possessions and 'distribute' to the poor within the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:510 4:35'>Act 4:35</a></em>).</p><p><em>And you shall have treasure in heaven- </em>Alluded to in <em><a href='B:660 1:12'>Jas 1:12</a></em>. We note that the Lord treated each person differently. He approved Zacchaeus' distribution of only half of his possessions- whilst demanding that this rich young man give away literally all. And He never seems to have demanded that those of His followers who owned houses should sell them. The same principle is seen in His preceding teaching about divorce and remarriage- His ideal standard is not ‘given’ to everyone, just as it is not a requirement of everyone that they sell and they have and give to the poor. The Lord taught that we receive the Lord's goods [s:w. "what you have"] on conversion to Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>). We resign all, but receive all. By giving away our earthly wealth, we directly receive wealth in Heaven. <em><a href='B:490 12:15'>Luk 12:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:33'>Luk 12:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:44'>Luk 12:44</a></em> make a sustained play on this Greek word: "A man's life doesn't consist in the abundance of the&nbsp;<em>things which he possesses</em>&nbsp;[s:w:]... sell&nbsp;<em>what you have</em>&nbsp;[s:w:] and give alms... [the Lord] will make [such a man] ruler over all&nbsp;<em>that he has</em>&nbsp;[s:w:]". Whilst the specific command to the young man to sell all he had and give it to the poor was not in one sense universal, i:e. not a command to every believer, yet the spirit of it (according to Luke 12) is indeed to be followed by us all. We must at least "forsake ['to bid farewell to'] all that [we] have [s:w:]" (<em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). The early believers did not 'say' that anything they possessed [s:w:] was their own (<em><a href='B:510 4:32'>Act 4:32</a></em>)- Luke surely intends us to connect this with his earlier record of how the Lord had taught that our attitude, at very least, must be that we do not really 'own' those things which we apparently 'have':&nbsp;</p><p><em>And come follow me</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:42'>Luk 10:42</a></em>. In the first century, family and the family inheritance was everything. The way the Lord asked His followers to reject family and follow Him was far more radical than many of us can ever appreciate. Likewise His command to sell everything and follow Him implied so much- for the Middle Eastern family estate was the epitomy of all that a person had and stood for. And to be asked to give the proceeds of that inheritance to poor strangers... was just too much. It could seem, once one gets to know Middle Eastern values, that to abandon both family and the village home in favour of Jesus was just impossible- those things were more valuable to a Middle Eastern peasant than life itself. But still He asked- and people responded. </p><p>Consider the parallels between the Lord’s demand of the young man, and Peter’s comment (<em><a href='B:490 18:22'>Luk 18:22</a></em> cp. 28; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em> cp. 28):&nbsp; </p><table><tr><td></p><p>“Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor </td><td>“We have left all</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>…and come, take up the cross</td><td>[no comment by Peter- he censored this bit out in his hearing of the Lord's words]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>and follow me”</td><td>…and have followed you”</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Peter seems to have subconsciously bypassed the thing about taking up the cross. But he was sure that he was really following the Lord. He blinded himself to the inevitable link between following Christ and self-crucifixion; for the path of the man Jesus lead to Golgotha. We have this same tendency, in that we can break bread week after week, read the records of the crucifixion at least eight times / year, and yet not let ourselves grasp the most basic message: that we as followers of this man must likewise follow in our self-sacrifice to that same end. </p>


text:
<p><em>But when he heard these things, he became exceedingly sorrowful. For he was very rich</em>- Again Luke's record of the early church alludes here, speaking of how possessions were sold and the money distributed to the poorer believers (<em><a href='B:510 2:45'>Act 2:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:1'>Act 5:1</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp; <em><a href='B:480 10:22'>Mar 10:22</a></em> describes him as "sad", literally the Greek means that he became overcast, as the sky clouding over. His joy, therefore, was because he had wrongly assumed that he could do some simple dramatic act well within his comfort zone, and thus attain an assurance of salvation. But his face clouded over when he realized that he was being called outside of his comfort zone. This is an exact picture of the disillusion which clouds so many once they perceive that the call of Christ is not to a mere social club or to surface level religion:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus looking at him, said: How hard it shall be for those that have riches to enter into the kingdom of God!</em>- <em><a href='B:480 10:24'>Mar 10:24</a></em> speaks of the man who trusts in riches; the parallel <em><a href='B:490 18:24'>Luk 18:24</a></em> speaks of him who <em>has</em> riches. To have riches is, almost axiomatically, to trust in them. This is the nature of wealth 'possession'. For the man who has / trusts in riches, he must bow down like the camel wriggling through the small gate on its knees, having shed <em>all</em> its mountain of goods. This parable was given in the context of the Lord's straight statement: "He that humbles himself will be exalted" (<em><a href='B:490 18:14'>Luk 18:14</a></em> cp. 25). As the camel rose up from its knees the other side of the gate, so within the Kingdom's gates, those who have shed their trust in possessions will likewise be exalted. </p><p>The sense is not simply that it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom, but that he shall enter with difficulty. The Lord goes on to say that such shall enter the Kingdom only by God’s grace and possibility of saving those who do not rise up to the higher levels that He bids us to (:27). In what, then, is the hardness or difficulty- if God is willing to accept our living on lower levels? The difficulty is in not walking away from Christ as the young man did, because of our pride; what is hard is to be like a child, the model throughout this entire discourse, and simply accept God’s grace in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em>For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God</em>- The man walked away, whereas if he had cast himself upon the Lord's grace, or better still, sold what he had and given to the poor, then he could have right then begun to enter into the Kingdom. We begin entering the Kingdom right now; we are, according to another teaching, walking on the road to the judgment, and must get right with our brother who walks on the way there with us. The parable of the camel (i:e. the rich would-be believer) being unloaded of its wealth before it enters the city (<em><a href='B:470 19:23-24'>Mat 19:23-24</a></em>) represents a rich man entering the Kingdom (the city = the Kingdom, as in <em><a href='B:730 22:14'>Rev 22:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:14'>Heb 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em>; a city can also represent believers). If he sheds his riches now, it follows he is then able in some sense to enter the Kingdom now. In these few words is our highest challenge in this age:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>In the beauty and depth of His simplicity, the Lord comprehended all this in some of the most powerful sentences of all time:&nbsp;<em>It is very hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom:&nbsp;</em>He&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;shed his riches, like the camel&nbsp;<em>had&nbsp;</em>to unload to pass through the needle gate. This is such a powerful lesson. And it's so simple. It doesn't need any great expositional gymnastics to understand it. Like me, you can probably remember a few things very vividly from your very early childhood. I remember my dear dad showing me this as a very young child, with a toy camel and a gate drawn on a piece of paper. And I saw the point, at four, five, maybe six. It is&nbsp;<em>so clear</em>. But what of our bank balances now, now we're old and brave? It's easier for a camel, the Lord said. Why? Surely because someone else unloads the camel, he (or she) has no say in it. But in the story, surely we must be the camel who unloads himself, who shakes it all off his humps, as an act of the will. And as we've seen, the spirit of all this applies to every one of us, including those without bank accounts.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they that heard it said: Then who can be saved?</em>- They were really so shocked (Mt:) that wealth made it hard to enter the Kingdom, implying they were strongly persuaded that wealth was a gift from God and a sign of His approval of a man. This of course was quite foreign to the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount and other teaching of the Lord, and so we see how far they had been from understanding His most basic teachings. </p><p>"Can be..." translates the same word the Lord uses in the next verse to say that with God, even the saving of the wealthy who don't quit their wealth is "possible"- on the basis, therefore, of His willingness to accept a lower standard of achievement to that He ideally requires. </p>


text:
<p><em>But he said: The things which are impossible with men are possible with God</em>- The status of&nbsp;<em>para&nbsp;</em>God is often applied to the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:46'>Joh 6:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:27'>Joh 16:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>). The suggestion could be that because of the status of the Lord Jesus with the Father, such gracious salvation is possible which would be impossible if men simply had to have the steel will to obey the Father’s ideal principles. </p><p>The idea of possibility with God is lifted from the Septuagint of the word to Sarah about the birth of Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 18:14'>Gen 18:14</a></em>). Those Old Testament heroes were not merely stained glass figures- our own belief in salvation regardless of wealth is as dramatic as the belief of an old woman that she could have a child. The context here, however, is talking of how those who choose a lower level- in this case,&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;selling their wealth and giving to the poor- can still be saved by God’s gracious possibility. </p><p>There are at least two instances in the Gospels where the Lord Jesus is quarrying his language from the book of Job, and shows a certain identification of himself with Job. Here the Lord explains the irrelevance of riches to the spiritual good of entering the Kingdom, saying that "with God all things are possible"- without money. This is almost quoting <em><a href='B:220 42:2'>Job 42:2</a></em>, where Job comes to the conclusion that all human strength is meaningless: "I know that You can do everything". It may be that Jesus is even implying that through the tribulation of his life he had come to the same conclusion as Job:&nbsp;See too <em><a href='B:470 5:27-30'>Mat 5:27-30</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Peter said: We have left our own</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>. The family based structure of the first century is hard to fully empathize with from our distance. Family was all. Peter comments that the disciples had “left our own homes” (<em><a href='B:490 18:28'>Luk 18:28</a></em> RVmg:), and the parallel <em><a href='B:470 19:27'>Mat 19:27</a></em> says “left <em>all</em>”. Your home was your all. To have to leave it for the sake of Christ was the most fundamental thing you could do. Hence the real meaning in the first century of the Lord’s response that such converts would receive families in this life, i:e. in their relationships in the ecclesia. And yet the radical call of Christ is no less demanding and intrusive as men and women meet it today, the only difference being that the starkness of the choices is less pronounced today- but just as essentially real.</p><p><em>And followed you</em>- Just as Peter’s claim to have “left all” was perhaps questionable, likewise Peter seems to have under-estimated what ‘following Christ’ really meant- for the idea of carrying the cross is strongly connected with following Christ (<em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>). And Peter failed to carry that cross to the end, for he denied the Lord when the going got tough.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Truly I say to you- </em>This is in response to Peter's claim that they had "left all and followed You" (<em><a href='B:470 19:27'>Mat 19:27</a></em>). The Lord doesn't comment upon Peter's claim. This may well have been because He knew that Peter had not in fact "left all" to the degree that Peter thought he had. They hadn’t then grasped the idea of what really following involved; they hadn’t in one way or another laid down their lives with Christ. The Lord was so generous spirited towards His disciples. He knew that Peter would not follow Him as planned, to the cross- indeed, none of them would (<em><a href='B:500 13:36-37'>Joh 13:36-37</a></em>), but He speaks to them as if they would be successful ultimately in following Him.</p><p><em>There is no one that has left house, or wife, or brothers, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>. This list of things to be forsaken, with Matthew adding houses and lands, recalls the language of the Levites forsaking these things in order to serve God (<em><a href='B:20 32:26-29'>Exo 32:26-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:8-10'>Deu 33:8-10</a></em>). The secular disciples again are encouraged to see themselves as the Levites of the new Israel the Lord was creating. And note that the Lord speaks of how His followers will each have left mother, brother etc. to serve Him, referring to how Moses blessed Levi for forsaking these very things so as to God’s service (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>). And there is no Christian who has heart and soul committed themselves to the Gospel's work, either in the world or amongst their brethren, who has not lived to see the truth of this definition of priesthood.</p><p><em>"</em>For My Name’s sake<em>" </em>is parallel with<em>&nbsp;</em>“The kingdom of God’s sake” (<em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em>). The things of the Name and the things of the Kingdom were therefore not two different things, rather were they different ways of referring to the same realities.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who shall not receive many times more in this time- </em>&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:470 10:27'>Mat 10:27</a></em> for the allusion to Job. The Lord’s prophecy that the believer receives fathers, mothers, houses, lands etc. only has its fulfilment insofar as the ecclesia is willing to share these things and relationships with its members. But the condition of the fulfilment was&nbsp;not explicitly stated. We forsake all human relationships to follow the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 19:27-29'>Mat 19:27-29</a></em>). And He promises to compensate for this even in this life. But it depends to what extent we are willing to accept and perceive it. Through meaningful fellowship with our brethren we will find those relationships which we have given up compensated for, even if we aren’t physically close to our brethren. In reference to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt we read: “God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains” (<em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em>). To be set in a new family is paralleled with being brought out from slavery. Part of the process of our redemption is that we are set in a new ecclesial family. This must be a reference to how Israel were brought out on Passover night, where the families and lonely ones had to join together into households big enough to kill a lamb for. The implication of Psalms 68 could be that it was in these family groups that they travelled through the wilderness. The N:C:V. reads: “God is in his holy Temple. He is a father to orphans, and he defends the widows. God gives the lonely a home. He leads prisoners out with joy...". The very house / family of God becomes the house / family of the lonely. Hence the ecclesia&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the house of God (<em><a href='B:530 3:16'>1Co 3:16</a></em>). We find true family in the new family of God. By baptism we are “added together” with those others who are likewise saved in Christ (<em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em> RVmg:). We will live together eternally with the other members of this new body and community which we enter. The links between us within that new family are even stronger than those with our natural family; and hence any division amongst the family of God is the greatest tragedy. What this means in practice is that we must fellowship each other. Even if we are isolated from other believers, one can always write letters, make phone calls, invite others to visit them, attempt to meet others… </p><p><em>And in the age to come, eternal life</em>- These are the very words of the rich young man earlier in the chapter. The answer to that man’s question was that we have to lose now, if we are to win eternally; we must forsake material things if we are to inherit the life eternal. As he was only a young man, it’s likely that his wealth had been inherited. He was being told that the greatest inheritance was of life eternal, but this didn’t come easily nor by good luck or circumstance, but in response to a lifetime of following Jesus. The things which were to be forsaken include [putting the records in Mark and Luke together with Matthew]: family, brothers, sisters, father, mother, lands, houses etc. These were all the things which the young man had received by inheritance, and to forsake association with his family, on behalf of whom he had received his wealth, would’ve been crazy and social suicide. It was as crazy as trashing a winning lottery ticket and walking away the same you were before you bought it. But this is the radical calling of those who must forsake materialism in order to inherit eternity. Therefore all seeking for material advantage in this life is surely inappropriate if in fact we are to forsake it even if it comes to us without our seeking it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he took aside the twelve- </em>The implication is that there were others travelling with them, and the Lord wished to explain the reality of the cross to the disciples alone.</p><p><em>And said to them: We will go up to Jerusalem, and all the things that are written through the prophets about the Son of Man shall be accomplished</em>- Mark adds: “And Jesus went before them, and they were amazed; and as they followed they were sore afraid”:&nbsp;They went “up”, uphill to Jerusalem. These small details all support the position that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses and were not created many years later by people who were not present. They were going the opposite direction of man in the parable of the Good Samaritan, who went&nbsp;<em>down</em>&nbsp;from Jerusalem to Jericho. We may be able to infer that the Lord intended us to read that man as one who was not going in the way of the cross, who was going away from Jerusalem rather than towards it- and who was still saved by the grace of the Samaritan / Jesus:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For he shall be delivered up to the Gentiles, and shall be mocked and shamefully treated, and spat upon</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:590 2:2'>1Th 2:2</a></em>. As noted on :15, this refers to the judgments upon Israel in <em><a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a></em>. The Greek for "delivered up" means literally ‘to hand over’; the idea of betrayal was maybe implicit, but not as explicit as in the English word ‘betrayed’. The word is very common on the lips of the Lord, as if He saw the moment of ‘handing over’ as the quintessence of all His sufferings- the hand over from God’s providential protection to the powers of darkness. He has just spoken of how the Pharisee treated the tax collector shamefully, and the unjust judge had no shame in shaming those who needed justice. The Lord is asking them to see that He is the one identified with those weak, marginalized, sinful people; and will suffer at the hands of those in secular power just as they had done.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they shall scourge and kill him, and on the third day he shall rise again</em>- The scourging alludes to the punishments upon Israel in <em><a href='B:60 22:13'>Jos 22:13</a></em>. Indeed so many of the judgments on Israel were experienced by Jesus on the Cross:</p><p><em><a href='B:350 2:3'>Hos 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 2:6'>Hos 2:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 27:27-29'>Mat 27:27-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:60 22:13'>Jos 22:13</a></em> = <em><a href='B:490 18:33'>Luk 18:33</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:230 89:30-32'>Psa 89:30-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 28:18'>Isa 28:18</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 27:30'>Mat 27:30</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:330 22:1-5'>Eze 22:1-5</a></em> = Jesus mocked by Gentile Roman soldiers, <em><a href='B:470 27:27-31'>Mat 27:27-31</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:67'>Mat 26:67</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:30'>Mat 27:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:32'>Luk 18:32</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:300 18:16'>Jer 18:16</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 27:39'>Mat 27:39</a></em></p><p>These similarities are too close to have been engineered humanly; if it is accepted that Jesus was crucified, it does not seem unreasonable to accept that the sufferings of Jesus described in the New Testament really did happen. It therefore follows that Jesus of Nazareth did bear the sin and judgments of Israel, and therefore He is their saviour-Messiah. Judaism struggles with this observation.</p><p>The Lord's detailed knowledge of His sufferings could have been beamed into Him, or He could have worked some of it out from Old Testament types and prophecies. But it seems to me that because He gave His life of Himself, it was not taken from Him by the machinations of others, He therefore arranged the entire scenario so that these things would happen.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they understood none of these things, and this saying was hid from them, and they did not understand the things that were said</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>. Luke earlier notes that the saying about the cross was “hidden” from them (<em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>), in confirmation of their own refusal to understand it because it demanded that they too suffer with their Lord. And yet in prayer to the Father, He rejoices that these things are not hidden from them (<em><a href='B:490 10:21'>Luk 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>). This gives insight into the Lord’s present mediation for us in prayer- speaking of us as far better than we are. The message of Christ crucified was “hid” from them (<em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:34'>Luk 18:34</a></em>)- and Paul surely alludes to this when he says that this message is hid by the veil of Judaism from those who are lost (<em><a href='B:540 4:3'>2Co 4:3</a></em>). Matthew adds that there arose a controversy as to who should be the leaders in the new community; and when the Lord earlier explained His passion, Luke also adds that straight afterwards, “there arose a dispute among them, which of them was the greatest” (<em><a href='B:490 9:46'>Luk 9:46</a></em>). Time and again we see this in the Gospels- when the Lord speaks of His upcoming death, the disciples change the subject. This explains our own problem with mind wandering at the breaking of bread or in the study or even reading of the crucifixion accounts. This difficulty on focusing upon Him there is likely because His death requires our death and suffering, and subconsciously we realize that- and would rather not.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as he drew near to Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging</em>- Matthew's account of the healing of the two blind men as they <em>left</em> Jericho must be compared with the healing of Bartimaeus as He left Jericho (<em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>), and now the healing of a blind man as He <em>approached </em>Jericho (<em><a href='B:490 18:35'>Luk 18:35</a></em>). These accounts are not in contradiction. One of the two blind men was Bartimaeus, and he is the one Mark focuses on. The healing of the first blind man is indeed described in the same terms as the healing of the other blind men, but the similarity of the language is in order to demonstrate how the Lord worked in the same way in different lives at slightly different times. And there are other examples of incidents repeating in Biblical history but being described in similar language. We are left with an abiding impression that what happens in our lives has been in essence repeated in other lives. And surely the healing of the first blind man inspired the others to take the same leap of faith, just as we are to be inspired by the way others have responded to the Lord's hand in their lives.</p><p>If indeed there are major bloomers in the Gospels and in the Bible generally [as the critics suggest regarding these incidents of healing the blind men], then naturally the question arises as to how reliable the Biblical text really is. Liberal Christians tend to argue that some is, other parts aren't. But no basis is given for deciding which parts are reliable and which are not. Nor does there seem any reason why God would inspire some parts of the Bible but not others. But the wonder is that the Bible, and the Gospels particularly, can be analysed at depth and found not to contradict but rather to dovetail seamlessly in a way in which no human piece of writing ever could. This is particularly seen in the four Gospels, and it is this seamlessness and lack of contradiction which led sceptics like Frank Morrison in&nbsp;<em>Who Moved the Stone?</em>&nbsp;to become committed believers in the bodily resurrection of Christ. In musical terms, the whole united record reads as a symphony. There is no need to remove one note from it, or a few notes here and there. The overall wonder is lost by doing so, to the point that it is a desecration of the Divine product. If there are passages which we cannot reconcile, the way of humility is surely to accept that we are still waiting for more insight and understanding- rather than arrogantly insisting that Divine inspiration somehow faltered at that point:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And hearing a crowd going by, he inquired what this meant</em>- The idea is not 'Whatever is going on?' but rather is he enquiring of the significance of all this. There is a similar incident in <em><a href='B:470 21:10-11'>Mat 21:10-11</a></em>, where part of the crowd ask: "Who is this?", and the other part answer back: "This is Jesus the prophet". They were trying to echo <em><a href='B:230 24:8'>Psa 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 24:10'>Psa 24:10</a></em>: "Who is this king of glory?" is answered by "The Lord strong and mighty". This was understood as how the crowds were to call to each other in the Messianic procession. Perhaps this man was attempting to have a part in what he believed to be a Messianic event; in this case, he would have accepted that the Lord was Messiah. He was inspired by previous healings of blind men in <em><a href='B:470 9:27'>Mat 9:27</a></em>, who would have surely spread the message that they considered their healer to be Jesus the Messiah.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they told him, that Jesus of Nazareth passes by</em>- As noted on :36, this could be understood as their participation in some Messianic procession, whereby one shouted "Who is this?" and the answer was then given. This would explain why the man addresses Him as "Son of David", a title associated with Messiah's enthronement.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he cried, saying: Jesus, you son of David, have mercy on me!</em>- These were exactly the words of the two blind men of <em><a href='B:470 9:27'>Mat 9:27</a></em>, who were likewise cured by the Lord on the outskirts a town, just as here the cure happened as He approached Jericho. They are also similar words to the healing of the blind men recorded after the Lord leaves Jericho. The similarity and connection is obvious. From God’s side, we see how He works according to pattern in the lives of people. And humanly, the blind man had somehow passed on to other blind men the truth that there was mercy / grace in the Son of David, which could be manifested in the restoration of sight. In this lies the significance of the fact that according to Matthew and Mark, other blind men said exactly these words and made exactly this request as the Lord<em>&nbsp;</em><em>departed</em> from&nbsp;Jericho. Far from being [as supposed by the critics] a jumbling up of material by uninspired writers, we see rather the development of a theme- that blind men at various places and times approached the Lord with the same words, and made the same connection between His mercy and Him being the Son of David. They may simply have thought that as the Son of David, He had the characteristics of David- which included remarkable mercy and grace to his enemies. We also see how once a community is broken into with the Gospel, it spreads within that community, expressed in the words and concepts which that community understands, and in the style which originated with the first ones in the community who accepted the Gospel. I have seen this happen in communities of the deaf, Gypsies, HIV patients, ethnic minorities under persecution, language groups etc. And so it happened amongst the blind beggar community in Palestine. Such communities have amazing links to each other and paths of communication:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The connection between "the son of David" and "mercy" is surely rooted in the description of the promises to David as "the mercies [<em>chesed</em>] of David" (<em><a href='B:290 55:3'>Isa 55:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:34'>Act 13:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 1:8'>2Ch 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 89:49'>Psa 89:49</a></em> "The mercies which You promised unto David"; <em><a href='B:290 16:5'>Isa 16:5</a></em> "In mercy shall the throne be established... in the tent of David"). These promises were utter grace; "mercy" translates&nbsp;<em>chesed,</em> which is about the closest the OT comes to the NT concept of grace. David rejoiced in this&nbsp;<em>chesed&nbsp;</em>/ mercy shown to him (<em><a href='B:100 22:51'>2Sa 22:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 101:1'>Psa 101:1</a></em>). Solomon pleaded for grace on the basis of the fact that God had shown such covenant mercies to David (<em><a href='B:140 6:42'>2Ch 6:42</a></em> "Remember the mercies of David"). The mercies of David surely also refer to God’s mercy, the mercy of grace, shown to David in forgiving him the sin with Bathsheba and Uriah- he begged for forgiveness on the basis of God’s "tender mercies" (<em><a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a></em>). It could be argued that David’s forgiveness was on account of his pleading for the mercies shown to him in the Davidic covenant to be continued to him. For in that covenant God had promised that <em>chesed </em>would not depart from David (<em><a href='B:100 7:15'>2Sa 7:15</a></em>), and David therefore begs for forgiveness on the basis that grace /&nbsp;<em>chesed</em> would indeed not be withdrawn from him (<em><a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a></em>). From all this, David pleaded in crisis towards the end of his life to fall into God’s hands because "His mercies are great" (<em><a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a></em>). In response to the<em> chesed</em>&nbsp;["mercy", or grace] shown David, he too was characterized by humanly senseless&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;to his enemies in the family of Saul (s:w. <em><a href='B:90 20:15'>1Sa 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 2:5'>2Sa 2:5</a></em> "you have shewed this kindness /&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;unto Saul"; <em><a href='B:100 3:8'>2Sa 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 9:1'>2Sa 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a></em>) and to Hanun his Ammonite enemy (<em><a href='B:100 10:2'>2Sa 10:2</a></em> "I will shew kindness /&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;unto the Hanun"). What is so impressive is that the network of blind men, from Galilee to Jericho, had figured this out, or at least part of it. They saw the connection between grace and David, and were inspired to throw themselves upon the grace of David’s Messianic Son. There was in those times [as there is in much of the world today] a deep belief that blindness was the direct result of sin (<em><a href='B:500 9:2'>Joh 9:2</a></em>). These blind men almost certainly felt that their blindness was a result of their sin, and so they felt a moral need for forgiveness, so that the blindness would be lifted. According to <em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>, one of the blind men was called Bartimaeus, literally 'Son of the unclean'- doubtless this was what he had been dubbed by others, for no Hebrew mother would have named her son that. And they believed that Jesus could indeed cleanse them, morally forgive them, and thereby restore their sight. This would explain why they screamed [Gk:] "Have mercy on us!". This was a moral request; they didn’t simply call out for healing.</p>


text:
<p><em>And those who led the way rebuked him- </em>This is yet another example of where the Lord is presented as eager to accept, when men [including disciples] are more eager to reject. The same word has just been used for how the disciples rebuked the little ones from coming to the Lord- and were in turn rebuked. The impression is that in the disciples' exclusivity, they weren't being [as they supposed] more spiritual than the world around them, but rather were they being simply as that world. Soon afterwards, the Pharisees told the Lord to "rebuke" His disciples, and He replied that it was impossible for them to "hold their peace" (<em><a href='B:490 19:39-40'>Luk 19:39-40</a></em>). These are all words and phrases taken from this incident. Now it is the disciples who refuse to be quiet, and it is the Pharisees who want them to be quiet. Again the point is made that the desire to silence and exclude others is from the world, and not of Christ. The Lord's acceptance of people is consistently painted by the Gospels as being far more inclusive and extensive than that of men. The human tendency to reject and erect barriers is simply not there in Christ.</p><p><em>Saying that he should be quiet; but he cried out all the more: You son of David, have mercy on me!</em>- This could be seen as the result of the Lord's piquing their sense of urgency for Christ by not responding immediately. This is also a factor in some of His delayed responses to our own&nbsp;needs.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus stopped and commanded him to be brought to him; and when he came near, he asked him</em>- The Lord could have walked up to the man as He did to others when curing them. But on this occasion He wished to teach that His calling of men to Him for healing often uses a human mechanism. The "call" comes through people bringing others to the Lord. The Lord "calls" just as the people "called" the man. The Lord's calling and our calling of men are thereby paralleled. The experience of being called by the Lord is not to be seen as an onerous call to responsibility before Him; rather is it the source of "courage". His calling is because He wants to do something good for us, rather than saddle us with the weight of responsibility to judgment.</p>


text:
<p><em>What do you want me to do for you? And he said: Lord, that I may receive my sight</em>- The Lord had a way of focusing men upon their need. Thus He would have passed by the desperate disciples as they struggled in the storm, He would have gone further on the road to Emmaus, and He later asked the blind men the obvious question: “What will you that I shall do unto you?” (<em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>). He only partially cured another blind man, to focus that man’s mind on the faith that was needed for the second and final stage of the cure (<em><a href='B:480 8:23-25'>Mar 8:23-25</a></em>). He elicited from the father of the epileptic child the miserable childhood story of the boy- not that the Lord needed to know it, but to concentrate the man on his need for the Lord’s intervention (<em><a href='B:480 9:21'>Mar 9:21</a></em>). He wanted them to focus on their need: in this case, for sight. He let Peter start to sink, and only then, when Peter’s whole heart and soul were focused on the Lord, did He stretch forth His hand. The Lord deliberately delayed going to see Lazarus until he was dead and buried; to elicit within His followers the acuteness of their need. And was He&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>sleeping in the boat with the storm all around Him? Was He not waiting there for them to finally quit their human efforts and come running to Him with faith in no other (<em><a href='B:480 4:38-39'>Mar 4:38-39</a></em>)? Only when men were thus focused on their desperate need for the Lord would He answer them. The Lord further focused men’s need when he asked the lame man: “Do you want to be made whole?” (<em><a href='B:500 5:6'>Joh 5:6</a></em>). Of course the man wanted healing. But the Lord first of all focused his desire for it.</p><p>The one thing&nbsp;he wanted was to see. The healed blind man is a type of us. True understanding (seeing) should be the one thing we want. "Wisdom is the&nbsp;<em>principal&nbsp;</em>thing; therefore get wisdom" <em><a href='B:240 4:7'>Pro 4:7</a></em>). This was obviously a rhetorical question, and it succeeded in the intention of making the men verbalize their dominant desire. Likewise the Lord works with us to make us focus and understand what is our dominant desire- and then seeks to reposition that focus. In this section He has done that by placing all human desires and requests in the shadow of His death for us. For how could we want anything 'extra' after He has done that for us, with all it enabled.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to him: Receive your sight; your faith has made you whole</em>- The Greek term for "receive your sight" is literally 'look up', and is the word used for how the Lord had a habit of praying to God with open, uplifted eyes. There is surely the hint that the gift of sight was to encourage the man in his relationship with God, and likewise "whole" suggests that the man as a person was now "whole". The miracle was a gift of spiritual things as well as literal sight; which is why the man now follows the Lord (:43). The 'gift of heavenly health' is by grace; the Lord is eager to act directly upon willing hearts to give us the spiritual energy to follow Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God; and when all the people saw it, they gave praise to God</em>- As the Lord left Jericho, two other blind men were healed and they too followed the Lord in the way (<em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em>). So surely they had heard of His healing power from the testimony of this blind man who followed Him throughout Jericho and then out the other side. We notice that he witnessed to blind men; we most powerfully take the gospel to those in our situation, and not to those in far off lands of other cultures. This is to be done; but witness is essentially personal and is to those of our own background and experience. And even before meeting those blind men, this man's praise of God influenced "all the people" to do likewise.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he entered Jericho and was passing through</em>- As noted at the end of chapter 18, the blind man healed on the Lord's approach to Jericho followed Him through Jericho, and led to the conversion of two other blind men as the Lord left Jericho. So we can imagine this healed blind man following the Lord as He passed through Jericho. </p>


text:
<p><em>And a man named Zacchaeus, who was a chief tax collector, and rich</em>- Meyer suggests there was a profitable balsam trade in Jericho, which would have enriched the tax collectors. Lightfoot quotes evidence that such people were not allowed to be legal witnesses: "These are persons not capable of giving any public testimony, shepherds, exactors, and publicans". The same was true for women. And yet it was exactly these kinds of people and categories whom the Lord chose to be His witnesses. To this day, He delights in using those who have little human credibility nor ability as witnesses. In this sense our sense of inadequacy to witness is our adequacy; it is in fact the prime qualification. This incident is a natural follow on from the Lord's parable about the repentant tax collector and the Pharisee. Only Luke records that, and this historical account is also unique to Luke, so he appears under inspiration to be exemplifying how the parable worked out in practice. 'Zacchaeus' in Hebrew means 'pure'; he who was far from pure was justified by faith and grace, as was the tax collector of the parable.</p><p>"And rich" connects with the recently recorded teaching of the Lord that it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom; but with God it is possible, and the conversion of Zacchaeus is again a worked example of this. It is only by deep conviction of sin and fellowship with the Lord personally that the rich can be led to part with their wealth. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he ran ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was to pass that way</em>- The Lord likewise foreknew Nathanael when he was far off under a tree (<em><a href='B:500 1:48'>Joh 1:48</a></em>). The similarity simply shows that the Lord works in similar ways in parallel lives. And this is the basis of our fellowship in Him- shared experience of the same style of the Lord's operation with us. Running ahead of a person and association with tree leaves can be seen as heralding the triumphant entry of Messiah. This will be recorded later in this chapter, but perhaps the idea is that the Lord saw His triumphal entries at this stage as being into the homes of sinners rather than into the Jerusalem temple. "Sycamore" really means 'fig tree'. Zacchaeus nestled amongst its branches suggests that he was the fruit on the fig tree, the sign of spiritual fruit in a repentant Israel.</p><p>"Small of stature" is a Greek phrase used in contemporary literature for a dwarf. This would explain why he was so small that he literally couldn't see the Lord; and how a sycamore bush / tree could support him. Dwarfism was seen as a sign of Divine displeasure; outward appearance was seen as a reflection of a person's inward and spiritual state. Physical deformity was seen as reflective of spiritual disformation. Dwarfs were forbidden access to the temple on the basis of the Mosaic proscription of men with some deformities [although dwarfism isn't specifically mentioned] being priests. Dwarfs were also thought to be comical characters. Running, climbing trees etc. was not seen as the behaviour of the wealthy or noble [hence the significance of the Father running to meet the prodigal]. This places Zacchaeus in a difficult position- seen as unable to come to God, thought to be non-standard and weird, wealthy in a generally poor society, seen as a national traitor, with a career that isolated him from people. But he saw that the Lord Jesus called individuals regardless of those things. </p><p>
We note that the crowds were a barrier for him coming to the Lord- just as they were, Luke notes, for the blind beggar (Lk. 18:35-43) and the man who had to be let down through the roof because the crowds stopped him coming to the Lord (Lk. 5:17-19). Crowds, comprised of members of the people of God [Israel], with a professed interest in Jesus of Nazareth... stopped sincere individuals coming personally to the Lord. Just as the disciples tried to stop the little children and their mothers coming to the Lord, and also the Syro Phoenician woman. Luke notices this situation, and how the Lord was aware of it. And called people despite it.  </p>


text:
<p><em>And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him: Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house</em>- The same words for "come down" and "house" have just been used in Lk. 18:14, where another repentant tax collector 'goes down to his house' justified. Tax collectors were baptized by John, and the Lord rather liked eating with them, in the hope they might repent. So clearly, there was interest in the Gospel amongst tax collectors.  The Lord had taught His preachers to enquire who in a town was "worthy" and stay at their home (<em><a href='B:470 10:11'>Mat 10:11</a></em>). He is forcing the conclusion that He can declare the unworthy to be worthy, just as the unjust tax collector of the earlier parable was declared just. This is all Luke's way of paving the way for his friend Paul's later expression of all this in terms of justification by grace and faith.</p><p>By calling Zacchaeus by name, when apparently they had never before met, the Lord was showing that He knew His sheep and was calling him by name (<em><a href='B:500 10:3'>Joh 10:3</a></em>). He urges him to respond quickly, and this fits in with a major theme in Luke of quick response to the Lord, culminating in the apparently 'quick' baptisms recorded in Acts. Speed of response is not only appropriate to any call from the Lord, but unless we respond quickly, the flesh tends to kick in and reason us out of the response we need to make. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he made haste and came down- </em>The speed of his response is significant. Subconsciously, the message of Jesus which he had heard must have been working within him. When he then encountered the Lord, it all came together. The word was made flesh. There was something in Him which was and is incredibly compelling. </p><p><em>And received him joyfully</em>- Luke is presenting Zacchaeus as the parade example of how whoever receives the Son receives the Father, and Luke in <em><a href='B:490 9:48'>Luk 9:48</a></em> recorded Him saying that and immediately commenting that "the least", the littlest, is the greatest. The "little" height of Zacchaeus may also allude to the Lord's recent ultimatum that the Kingdom must be "received" (s:w:) as a little one (<em><a href='B:490 18:17'>Luk 18:17</a></em>). The joy of Zacchaeus is that joy which is so often mentioned in Luke-Acts as accompanying true conversion. We note that the Lord alludes to His parable of seeking and finding the lost sheep in the context of what His 'finding' Zacchaeus (:10). When the sheep was found, the shepherd rejoices (<em><a href='B:490 15:5'>Luk 15:5</a></em>). This is the same word translated "joyfully". There is a mutuality between the Lord and His people; His joy is their joy. </p><p>Receiving the Lord into his home presents Zacchaeus as the host. But he is a dwarf, who typically were used as comic characters to provide entertainment at a meal. But he is here presented as the host, showing the inversion of values which there is in the Lord and His ways. Receiving the Lord into his home presents Zacchaeus as the host. But he is a dwarf, who typically were used as comic characters to provide entertainment at a meal. But he is here presented as the host, showing the inversion of values which there is in the Lord and His ways. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying: He is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner</em>- Presumably Zacchaeus had been disobedient to the teaching of John the Baptist to “Exact no more than is appointed". Here was a totally secular person, uninfluenced by John's preparatory work, simply coming to the Lord because he sensed the truth in Him. "Lodge" suggests He spent the night there (s:w. LXX <em><a href='B:10 24:23'>Gen 24:23</a></em>). Again we notice the guilt by association mentality of the people. Who you stayed with and ate with was seen as a religious act; and the Lord was doing this without any statement of repentance from Zacchaeus. It was by offering this kind of open, outgoing fellowship that the Lord sought and found Zacchaeus; and the repentance was elicited from that radical acceptance. This was in marked contrast to the attitude that such signs of fellowship should only be granted once a person had cleared certain bars and demonstrated their spiritual level. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord: Behold Lord, half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have wrongfully exacted something from anyone, I restore fourfold</em>- The rich young ruler has recently been told, recorded by Luke, to sell <em>all</em> he had and give to the poor. Zacchaeus offered half of his wealth to the poor. And this was acceptable. Or it could be that he means that half of his goods would be spent restoring what he had stolen, and the other half would go to the poor. The fourfold restitution seems far above that of the Jewish law (<em><a href='B:40 5:7'>Num 5:7</a></em>), but apparently Roman law required fourfold restitution of stolen goods. But I see this as an example of how God's law is not a chain; for man is not a dog, tied against his will by an inconvenient leash. Rather, Divine law is a springboard to greater devotion. The principle of restitution was followed by Zacchaeus to a far greater extent than the law required. Just as Boaz went far beyond the Mosaic legislation about gleaning and redeeming poor relatives, although the legislation was used by him as a springboard to far greater devotion.</p><p>The way he stands and addresses the Lord could perhaps be Luke framing this as a public confession of faith and repentance, of the kind seen before baptism in the early church. Zacchaeus is being set up as a role model.</p> <p>
However, there is another take on the story, although it requires attention to the tenses used here in this verse. The tense of didomi, "I give to the poor", is definitely indicative of regular, habitual action. Never is didomi used by Luke in the present tense [as it is here] in order to express intention or a future action. This point is argued at length in Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Zondervan, 1996) pp. 521,522. The same verb tense is used by the Pharisee in Lk. 18:12 when he says "I fast... I tithe". The present tense there means 'I regularly do these things'. Similarly in English, "I pay taxes" means I do so regularly, "I go to school" likewise; it doesn't mean 'I have not yet gone to school but from now on I will be going to school'. So we could read the incident as Zacchaeus vindicating himself, rather than repenting and promising to put things right in future. The way he "stood and said" could therefore imply 'standing his ground', standing up and saying something as a public statement. In response to the murmuring against him of :7, he justifies himself. And that would explain why several elements are missing here which we find in the other accounts of the Lord meeting sinners- they confess sin or there is at least remorse and contrition, they are deeply moved by His forgiveness, and we meet the language of forgiveness. There is also the declaration of forgiveness by the Lord Jesus (Lk. 5:20; 7:48; 8:48). But there is none of that here. In this case, the incident is an account of a man who appears sinful, who is the subject of all manner of gossip because of his employment and his physical appearance being like some Scrooge character... when in fact he is very righteous, although condemned in the court of public opinion. The Lord knew all this, and justifies him. Which would be a comfort to all labouring under misunderstanding, gossip, inuendo and harsh, wrong judgment in the eyes of society. For it was not impossible for a tax collector to be a spiritual, committed Christian. We think of Obadiah, steward of the court of Ahab and Jezebel, who appeared to God's man Elijah to be apostate because of his secular position- when in fact Obadiah had done great things for Yahweh's people, despite his very difficult employment. Just as Joseph, Daniel and others worked in pagan courts at a high level, and still retained integrity. This approach would also explain why Zacchaeus addresses Jesus as "Lord"- because he already believed in Him, despite not having ever got close up to Him. But he surely had heard of His teachings, and had been persuaded by them. Perhaps he had stood at the edge of the huge crowds, and was impressed by the message. Zacchaeus, according to this reading, would have been a victim of generalization and stereotyping; most tax collectors were corrupt, and so he was tarred with the same brush. Abnormally short people were understood as greedy and small minded; tall people were thought to be born leaders (hence Samuel being warned not to be impressed by human height in searching for a king, 1 Sam. 16:7). Just as people from certain towns were thought to have inevitably bad characteristics ["Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"], and physical handicaps and illnesses were thought to reflect sin (Jn. 9:1,2). And we have all surely been victims of generalization in some way at some point. But Jesus sees and knows, and fellowships with us at our table which becomes His table. The way the Lord speaks of His inviting Himself in to our table, and if we agree, then He sits down and eats with us... all sounds rather like the scene between Himself and Zacchaeus. Again, he becomes representative of us all. And that is what sitting at the Lord's table is all about. In this case, Zacchaeus would be saying that whenever he in the course of his job had to "wrongfully exact" tax from people because of the policies of his employers / overlords, he always restored to the abused person four times over, from his own private wealth. Of course it could be that his wealth had arisen from unethical behaviour in the past, before his conversion by Jesus' teachings. The idea of being a true son of Abraham (Mt. 3:9) is in fact exactly what John the Baptist had taught. And there were tax collectors baptized by him: "And there came also tax collectors to be baptized; and they said to him: Teacher, what must we do? And he said to them: Collect no more than what you have been ordered to" (Lk. 3:12,13; 7:29). We note they were not told to resign from their jobs. The fact it is Luke who records this would suggest we are to assume Zacchaeus was one of those baptized tax collectors. Zacchaeus says he would restore whatever was "taken by false accusation", and the only other occurence of the Greek word is in John the Baptist's command to the soldiers he baptized not to take from others by false accusation (Lk. 3:14). These connections all lead us to understand Zacchaeus as a convert of John's, who had not physically gotten close to Jesus but believed John's message about Him. John came to prepare the way of the Lord Jesus, to go before Him and prepare people. Zacchaeus was a parade example- he went ahead of the Lord Jesus in "the way" (:4) and was prepared for Him when He came to him. Indeed, Zacchaeus "ran before" Jesus just as John had done (:4). He had grasped the spirit of Jubilee which Luke so labours. He was into releasing debt, helping those oppressed by the taxation system, relieving poverty... and yet, like the Lord, was despised and rejected of men. He regularly gave away half of his "goods", the payment in kind which he received for his work. For tax was paid in kind rather than cash, and he received his cut of that. But he gave half of it away. And yet for all that, just like the Lord Himself, he was misunderstood. And true to life, no good deed goes unpunished, and so often the kindest, most generous people are the ones most slandered and misrepresented in the court of public opinion. It is certainly true to my own experience in a lifetime of working with such fine individuals in the mission field. They are slandered and misjudged. And that misjudgment hurts them deeply. And the comfort of all this would be that (as ever), Jesus totally understands and fellowships with them. And the experience of misjudgment is far more common than might appear. So many, in various ways, labour beneath it. We note that Zacchaeus makes this statement directly to Jesus; he doesn't seek to justify himself to the crowd who are making the insinuations against him (:7). That too is a pattern for all who are misjudged by the court of public opinion, weighed down by the weight of public opinion, labour beneath the judgment that comes from generalization and not being judged as an individual person. The climax of the incident however is the Lord's comment that He has come to seek and save the lost (:10). But so often, His parables and teachings have an end stress, which frequently is different to what we might expect. We think of His commendation of the unjust steward. In this case, although He was addressing Zacchaeus, He was actually speaking to the crowd. This is confirmed in :11: "And as they heard these things, he added and spoke a parable". "Forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham" certainly is effectively addressed to the murmuring, gossiping crowd. That day salvation had come to "this house"- the house of Israel, "forasmuch" or because of Zacchaeus being a true seed of Abraham, behaving in the saving spirit of the Lord Jesus. He had brought them a foretaste of Jesus- and they rejected it. They would have heard Him speak of salvation coming to this house and assumed He referred to salvation for sinful Zacchaeus. But the spiritually minded would then have perceived that He spoke about them. And relevant to them too, therefore, was His final comment that He has come to seek and save the lost- and they were the "lost", and not Zacchaeus. They would at first hearing have assumed He was speaking about Zacchaeus; but then would have realized that He was really addressing them. This would be so typical of how the Lord ends His teachings. Thus the parable of the good Samaritan, when thought about, is saying that we are not so much called to be the Samaritan- as to recognize that we are the wounded man, needing the Samaritan's grace to save us. And this would be similar.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to him: Today salvation has come to this house, as he also is a son of Abraham</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:510 16:34'>Act 16:34</a></em>. The stress on "house" was presumably to meet the criticism that He had entered the house (:7). But the "house" probably refers to the household. The family would see a huge drop in their wealth- and it was that which converted them to salvation. It was the very inverse of the claims of the prosperity gospel. It is as if Zacchaeus is being set up as the opposite of the rich young man of <em><a href='B:490 18:23'>Luk 18:23</a></em>. When the synagogue excommunicated a man, he was stated to no longer be a "son of Abraham". The Lord is demonstrating His authority to utterly override all such statements that excommunication from a religious group means that a person is not in the wider community of God’s true people. He sets Himself up as the ultimate deciding authority in a new Israel comprised of serious sinners and secular, non-religious types. Zacchaeus presumably continued in his daily work and therefore remained outside the synagogue system- but a "son of Abraham". </p><p>The Lord predicates salvation upon being a son of Abraham. But this man was Jewish already; the conclusion is that natural descent would not bring salvation, but rather a faith in Messiah as Abraham had, continuing the family characteristic. Perhaps Zacchaeus is called a son of Abraham in that he too repented of his self-centred materialism, walking away from much wealth to become a nomad. </p>


text:
<p><em>For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:54-55'>Luk 9:54-55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:2'>Luk 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:33'>1Co 10:33</a></em>. As noted on :7, the Lord extended fellowship to sinners in order to bring them to repentance; rather than giving it to them as a reward for attaining some level of understanding or spirituality. And this should be reflected in our open approach to people. The allusion is clearly to the parable of the shepherd seeking the lost sheep; the joy of the shepherd in that parable is described with the same word as the joy of Zacchaeus (:6; <em><a href='B:490 15:5'>Luk 15:5</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And as they heard these things, he added and spoke a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear</em>- The question was: 'Will the Kingdom come really soon, like, in our lifetimes?'. Answer: the parable of the minas. Trade <em>your </em>personal talent- because there is such a thing as people being rejected at the last day because they didn’t do this. See on <em><a href='B:490 21:7'>Luk 21:7</a></em>. The disciples clearly thought that arrival at Jerusalem meant the appearing of the Kingdom of God in its political form. They had totally missed His teaching that Jerusalem meant death on a cross for Him; and that the gospel of the Kingdom is now about life lived under God’s Kingship and dominion, rather than political freedom from the Romans. They had missed the obvious and basic point of His teachings because they would not budge from their preconceived theological and natural convictions. And this happens with so many today, and in some ways with us all. </p>


text:
<p><em>He therefore said: A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom and then return</em>- The Lord has recently spoken of how <em>we</em> are to 'receive the kingdom' as a child if we are to enter it (<em><a href='B:490 18:17'>Luk 18:17</a></em>). The nobleman here refers to the Lord Jesus. He doesn't ask us to do anything which in essence He has not done. He received the Kingdom as God’s "holy child" (<em><a href='B:510 4:27'>Act 4:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>), and He asks us to do likewise. This makes 'receiving the Kingdom' mean accepting that really, we shall be there. It is ours, even now. "Yours [God’s] is the Kingdom", but it is given to the Lord Jesus "for himself", just as it is to us too. For us it is an ongoing experience- "we receiving a Kingdom... let us have grace" (<em><a href='B:650 12:28'>Heb 12:28</a></em>). </p><p>The parable has some similarities with events recorded by Josephus. Herod Archelaus travelled to Rome in order to be given his kingdom; the Jews sent an embassy to Augustus, the Caesar, while Archelaus was travelling to Rome, to complain that they did not want Archelaus as their ruler; when Archelaus returned, he arranged for 3000 of his enemies to be brought to him at the temple, where he had them slaughtered. The palace of Archelaus was near Jericho, and as the Lord has just left Jericho, this would explain the allusion to him in this parable- perhaps the Lord was building on a passing discussion about Archelaus, ever eager to turn secular chit chat into spiritual teaching- just as we should be.</p>&nbsp;<p>Absentee landlords were unpopular; and the accusation was that they reaped what they had not sown, demanding harvest which they had not laboured for. And the one mina man makes just this complaint. The Lord presents Himself in this parable as a man deemed to be unreasonable and unpopular- when in fact this was not the case.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he called ten servants of his- </em>A picture of how the Lord considers us to be His very own.</p><p><em>Gave them ten minas and said to them- </em>A mina or "talent" was worth 6000 denarii, or pennies. And a penny a day was the going wage for a worker in time of harvest, according to another parable. This is therefore in total about 20 years’ salary. The element of unreality in this parable is that this was a huge amount of money to entrust in cash to only ten servants. And they are asked to "trade with this", to take the initiative, apparently without much prior instruction by their master. All is in their court. He has no mechanism in place to check up on them nor practically advise them on a day to day basis. They as slaves would not have been accustomed to taking much initiative. The only pattern they had was the example set by their master in <em>his </em>trading whilst he was with them. All this speaks of the huge and risky delegation that was and is made to God’s people. In a personal sense, according to the promise of the Comforter in John 14-16, the Lord is no absent from us. He is not distant, He is with us by His Spirit, so that He is just as really present with us as He was during His ministry on earth. But for the purposes of the parable, emphasizing the huge extent of freewill and initiative required from us, He is 'absent'. He doesn't tell them to simply keep his property intact and maintained. He asks them to proactively trade and increase His wealth. This idea vastly broadens our horizons. Such work is to be our career, the ideal, Divinely intended outlet for all our creativity, resources and abilities. </p><p><em>Trade with this until I return</em>- How far His affairs prosper is dependent upon the zeal and initiative of us His stewards (<em><a href='B:490 19:12-13'>Luk 19:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:1-2'>1Co 4:1-2</a></em>). In this parable, the servants as a group are given the wealth, but they trade with it as individuals. This is a helpful way to view all that has been given to the community of believers. Division and argument between them, arguing over who has what, is a sure way to impede the overall intention of the nobleman who has so trusted us on both a collective and individual level. All the riches are hidden "in Christ" and are displayed in the entire unity of the body of Christ across both Jew and Gentile (<em><a href='B:580 1:27'>Col 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:2'>Col 2:2</a></em>). What has been given to the church collectively is the Holy Spirit, in order to build up the church and powerfully witness in the world. The one talent man is in denial of this, without the Spirit, and simply holding onto the mina without using it.</p><p>As a whole, the church of all ages will fully have manifested His character, His total riches. This is why it may be that the true church has been concentrated on different aspects of spirituality at different times. It also explains why the final date of the coming of Christ is in some way dependent upon our spiritual development. And it also explains why the whole body of Christ is told collectively "trade until I return", using the Greek <em>pragmateuomai</em>, i:e. be pragmatic, be realistic, and develop these characteristics, so you may as a body reach the full reflection of Christ. See on <em><a href='B:560 4:15'>Eph 4:15</a></em>.</p><p>The believer is called to his Lord to receive his minas, and yet is also again called to Him in judgment at His return (<em><a href='B:490 19:13'>Luk 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:15'>Luk 19:15</a></em>). The repetition of the idea of being called to our Lord surely suggests that our calling to Him in the first place is in fact a calling to judgment. We are being gathered to judgment <em>now </em>(<em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:52'>Joh 11:52</a></em>) although we will be gathered then to meet the Lord (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>). The point is, we must act now as men and women will do when they are on their way to judgment, and the meeting with their ultimate destiny. Then we will not be bickering amongst ourselves or worrying about our worldly advantage; then, only one thing will matter. And so now, only one thing matters. The Christian life is likened to a man on his way to his judge along with his adversary (<em><a href='B:490 12:58'>Luk 12:58</a></em>); and evidently, he ought to settle his differences with his brother before he arrives, for this judge will be extremely hard upon those who cannot be reconciled to their brethren.</p><p>We notice that in this parable, the Lord hints nothing about His death. He simply says He is going away and shall return. This was a concession to their weakness; He had explained His upcoming death many times, and they had ignored it. He accepted their blindness to His death, and worked with it by not featuring His death as part of the parable. We too need to work with an acceptance of others' blindness on some points. </p><p>The same word for "trade" is translated "work" in the parable of the sons working in the vineyard (<em><a href='B:470 21:28'>Mat 21:28</a></em>). Whilst salvation is on the basis of grace and not works (<em><a href='B:520 4:4-5'>Rom 4:4-5</a></em>), there is all the same a fundamental call to "work" in response to that grace. If we do not, then we have to remember that "faith without works is dead, being alone" (<em><a href='B:660 2:17'>Jas 2:17</a></em>). And this is a severe temptation. To believe, to assent to Christian and Biblical ideas, but not to respond further, thinking that the mere possession of the ideas is enough. This was the one talent man; his faith remained "alone". The "work" was to be done within the vineyard. The ecclesia of Christ, the body of Christ, is merely a structure enabling our response in practice. The "work" was to harvest the fruit of the vine- to work with others bringing them in to the final harvest of salvation. In another metaphor, we ourselves are to bring forth fruit on the vine; but the metaphor of harvesting used in <em><a href='B:490 21:28'>Luk 21:28</a></em> and in other parables of the vineyard surely speaks of harvesting others for the Kingdom. The same word will be used by the Lord in saying that the Son of Man has left his house and given to each man in the household his "work" (<em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>). We each have a specific work or trading to do, tailored personally to what the Lord has given us. Sadly, the structure of church life has often become so developed and defined that the average church member assumes that the work is being done by the specialists. "Get professional help" is the comment made on so many cases of personal need encountered; "Read the book... come to the seminars... to the meetings" can all be a passing up of our personal responsibility to work. The judgment seat is largely about presenting to the Lord our work in this life. And yet John uses the same word in recording the Lord's comment that the deeds ['trading', s:w:] of the faithful are even now "made manifest that they are wrought in God" if we come to the light of the cross which is the basis of all self-examination and self-understanding (<em><a href='B:500 3:21'>Joh 3:21</a></em>).</p><p>We can indeed prove / examine our own work [s:w:] even in this life (<em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em>). People are never better than when they perceive clearly their calling and the work they are intended to do- and give their lives to doing it. Barnabas and Saul were 'called' just as the servants here were 'called' (:13) to do the 'work' [s:w. 'trading'] of spreading the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>), and experienced the Spirit confirming them in the "work" [s:w:] they were 'fulfilling' (<em><a href='B:510 14:26'>Act 14:26</a></em>). The idea of 'fulfilling' a work given suggests that they were fulfilling God’s intention for them. And again we note that the work was related to bringing others to Christ. Just as the servants 'went' to 'trade', so Paul talks of 'going' to "the work" [s:w. 'trade'], again in the context of missionary work (<em><a href='B:510 15:38'>Act 15:38</a></em>). God will render to every man according to his "works" (s:w. <em><a href='B:520 2:6'>Rom 2:6</a></em>). Our trading is the basis upon which we will be judged. The gift has been given by pure grace, as it was to the servants; but we have to respond to that grace, lest we have believed and accepted in vain. It is the works&nbsp;<em>of the law</em>&nbsp;[of Moses] which will not justify (<em><a href='B:520 3:20'>Rom 3:20</a></em>); rather our works are to be those in response to the Lord's great gifts to us. <em><a href='B:530 3:13-15'>1Co 3:13-15</a></em> uses this same word for 'working / trading' and again applies it to our work in building others up- and the day of judgment will declare the quality of that work. The Corinthians were therefore Paul's "work in the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 9:1'>1Co 9:1</a></em>), even though he baptized virtually none of them, his efforts for them were his attempt to trade / work with the talents given him. God clearly has intended works / trading for each of us, "Good works [s:w:] which God has before ordained that we should walk in them" (<em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>). And the NT usage of the idea of works / trading is nearly always in the context of preaching or caring for others. Paul may well have himself in mind when he promises the Philippians that "He who began a good work in you [Paul's initial preaching at Philippi] will work at finishing it right up to the day of Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:570 1:6'>Phi 1:6</a></em> cp. 22). The key is to be open to God’s leading. Thus Paul urged Timothy to purge himself from bad company so that he might be prepared or ready "unto every good work" (<em><a href='B:620 2:21'>2Ti 2:21</a></em>), and to devote himself to the Scriptures that he might be "equipped unto all good works" (<em><a href='B:620 3:17'>2Ti 3:17</a></em>). These works are surely those "Good works [s:w:] which God has before ordained that we should walk in them" (<em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>). And we should be "ready to every good work... thoughtful to be ready for good works" (<em><a href='B:630 3:1'>Tit 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:8'>Tit 3:8</a></em>), thoughtfully open to God’s leading in response to our prayer to be shown what exactly is the work / trading intended for us. A functional church will be a place where the members are all devoted to this principle personally, and thus will "consider one another to provoke unto love and good works" (<em><a href='B:650 10:24'>Heb 10:24</a></em>). And God will confirm our openness and willingness; He will "frame you in every good work to do His will" (<em><a href='B:650 13:21'>Heb 13:21</a></em> Gk:):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying: We do not want this man to reign over us</em>- "They hated Joseph" because of his dream that one day he would reign over them (<em><a href='B:10 37:4'>Gen 37:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 37:8'>Gen 37:8</a></em>). The Lord Jesus likewise had problems with His brothers (<em><a href='B:500 7:3'>Joh 7:3</a></em>); the Jews hated Him and would not have him reign over them even though they were potentially the citizens of His Kingdom. His Kingdom is that of the Father, and Israel at that time were His Kingdom. But because they refused His Son as King, they ceased to be the Kingdom of God (<em><a href='B:330 21:25-27'>Eze 21:25-27</a></em>). The delegation gives no reason for their refusal; for there was and is no credible reason to refuse the Lord's kingship over men.</p><p>Here's a question. Luke clearly takes the side of the poor. But in this parable, an absentee landlord, hated by his tennants, represents the Lord Jesus. And the servants who are left money to trade with are rewarded according to how they succeed in their homespun capitalism. The man who doesn't steal but is no good at that kind of thing is condemned. We could read the latter observations as a kind of Lucan inversion. Instead of homespun capitalism, the Lord's servants are to focus upon making spiritual increase for Him. Rather than increasing their stash of coins in life's game.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, when he had returned, having received the kingdom, that he commanded these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading</em>- If we are to take the judgment figures literally, the question arises: Does the Lord know beforehand who will be accepted, and the degree of their reward? If we take the judgment figures to have a literal meaning, then it sounds as if He doesn't know. <em><a href='B:490 19:15'>Luk 19:15</a></em> suggests that perhaps He doesn't know; the Lord calls the servants "that he might know how much every man had gained by trading". He is ordained <em>to be</em> judge of all (<em><a href='B:510 10:42'>Act 10:42</a></em>). However, as Lord of Heaven and earth, with all power given to him, this seems unlikely- although it must be remembered that in the same way as God is omnipotent and yet limits His omnipotence, so He may limit His omniscience. The shepherd sees the difference between sheep and goats as totally obvious. It needs no great examination. Surely the idea is that the judge, the omniscient Lord of all, will act at the judgment <em>as if</em> he needs to gather evidence from us and thereby reach his verdict. The parables give this impression because they surely describe how the judgment will feel to us.</p><p>The believer is called to his Lord to receive his pounds, and is called to Him in judgment at His return (<em><a href='B:490 19:13'>Luk 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:15'>Luk 19:15</a></em>). The repetition of the idea of being called to our Lord surely suggests that our calling to Him in the first place is in fact a calling to judgment. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the first came before him- </em>He comes to us and the faithful come to Him. This will have a literal element to it. When we know for sure that the Lord has come, we will have the choice as to whether to go to Him immediately or delay. Those who go immediately will be confirmed in that by being snatched away to meet the Lord in the air (<em><a href='B:590 4:16-17'>1Th 4:16-17</a></em>). One of the great themes of Matthew's gospel is that various men and women 'came to Jesus' at different times and in a variety of situations. The Lord uses the same term to describe how at the last day, people will once again 'come unto' Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:20-24'>Mat 25:20-24</a></em>). The same Jesus whom they 'came before' in His ministry is the one to whom they and we shall again come at the last day- to receive a like gracious acceptance. He will judge and reason the same way He did during His mortality. </p><p><em>Saying: Lord, your minas have made ten minas more</em>- We note that it was "your minas" which produced the profit, not the wit nor effort of the user of them of itself. The purpose of the judgment is for our benefit, to develop our appreciation and self-knowledge. This is perhaps reflected by the ten pound man saying that the Lord' minas had gained, had worked to create (Gk:) the ten he could now offer. The man who achieved five pounds uses a different word in describing how the mina given him had made five minas, while the men in&nbsp; <em><a href='B:470 25:20'>Mat 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:22'>Mat 25:22</a></em> use yet another word to say the same thing. This is surely a realistic picture, each of the faithful comes to the same conclusion, that what spirituality they have developed and the work of the Spirit which they did is an outcome of the basic Gospel given to each of us at our conversion; yet&nbsp;they have used them in different ways and they express this same basic idea in different words:&nbsp; </p><p>All those who will be in the Kingdom will feel that really we should not be there, we don't deserve it, we will be hesitant to enter it and therefore Christ will have to almost make us go into the Kingdom. It's the same in the parables of Matthew 25, at the judgment Jesus will praise the righteous for doing so many good things, and then they will disagree with him, they will say 'No, we didn’t do that, really we didn’t', and He will say 'Yes, in my eyes, you did'. Their good works had not been consciously done. This is surely what the Lord was driving at in saying that our left hand must not know what the right hand does. We aren't to be self-consciously brooding on our own generosity. It would seem that with a spirit of amazement and surprise the man says 'Your minas gained [more] minas!':&nbsp;It's the self-righteous, those who think they have done so much and therefore they must be in the Kingdom, who will be rejected.</p><p>“Made” translates&nbsp;<em>poieo</em>, a very common word; but it is used by the Lord, again in talking about His servants, in saying that the faithful servant will be found ‘doing’ care to his brethren (<em><a href='B:470 24:46'>Mat 24:46</a></em>). And the word is twice used about ‘doing’ good unto the least of Christ’s brethren, and this being the basis for our judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em>). Again we see that our work / trading involves fruitfully sharing the spiritual riches we have received with others. It’s worth noting that this teaching is alluded to in the record of the woman anointing the Lord’s feet; and all the records of it use the same Greek words to describe it. She “did it” (<em>poieo</em>, <em><a href='B:470 26:12-13'>Mat 26:12-13</a></em>), she “worked” (s:w. “traded”) a good work [‘trading’] on the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 26:10'>Mat 26:10</a></em>). It’s as if her humanly senseless pouring out of her wealth for the Lord was in fact smart trading in the spiritual sense. The story line implies that we can add to the total wealth of the Lord Jesus. Yet the extension of His glory, the progress of His work, depends upon us, and we are left to our own initiative in this. This is the meaning of the element of ‘absence’ of the Lord, and the immediacy of His leaving the servants with such huge amounts of silver without instructing them specifically how to use them:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>This idea of using one’s own initiative was more startling then than it is now. Today, students are 'trained' to think for themselves, be creative, develop their own opinions, push forward their own independent research, using question / problem-based learning as a paradigm for their education. 'Education' in the first century wasn't like that at all. The idea was that "every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher" (<em><a href='B:490 6:40'>Luk 6:40</a></em>). 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 (<em><a href='B:470 25:15-28'>Mat 25:15-28</a></em>)... 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<em> His</em>&nbsp;standards, perceptions and judgment of us- that was and is so totally opposite to the expectations of society. People were educated to be embedded in society, rather than to come out of their world and live in the new world in which Christ was the light, and all things were made new in a new creation, a new set of values.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: Well done, you good servant. Because you were found faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities</em>- <em><a href='B:530 4:2'>1Co 4:2</a></em> speaks of us as stewards being "found faithful" in this life by our actions; there is a definite sense in which the Lord's judgment and assessment of our stewardship is ongoing in this life. The judgment process, from His perspective, is now. And "we make the answer now". </p><p>"A very little" reflects how the sums were very small. Especially when compared to the talants of the Mt. 25 parable. “In a very little” (<em>elachistos</em>) is the very same word found later in Matthew 25, when we read that the final judgment will be based around how we have treated “the very least” of the Lord’s brethren (<em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em>). The minas we have been given relate to them- how we have used them, what we have done for them, how we have served them with the riches given us by the Lord. There is obviously a connection between the manner in which we rule over the “few things”, and how we shall be given “many things” to rule over in the Kingdom age. Clearly what we are doing now is in essence what we shall eternally be doing, but on a greater level. If our lives are centred merely around ourselves and doing what we want, developing ourselves, rather than developing the Lord’s work and doing&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;work, then we will be out of step with the life eternal. We are to start living that now. And then we shall live it eternally. Our care for the little one or two individuals now is related to how we shall care for whole cities in the Kingdom.</p><p>The parable describes the reward of the faithful in terms of being given ten or five cities. This idea of dividing up groups of cities was surely meant to send the mind back to the way Israel in their wilderness years were each promised their own individual cities and villages, which they later inherited. The idea of inheriting "ten cities" occurs in <em><a href='B:60 15:57'>Jos 15:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:5'>Jos 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:26'>Jos 21:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 6:61'>1Ch 6:61</a></em> (all of which are in the context of the priests receiving their cities), and "five cities" in <em><a href='B:130 4:32'>1Ch 4:32</a></em>. As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. The language of inheritance (e.g. <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em>) and preparation of reward (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>) in the NT is alluding to this OT background of the land being prepared by the Angels for Israel to inherit (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em> Heb; <em><a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 68:9-10'>Psa 68:9-10</a></em> Heb:). We must be careful not to think that our promised inheritance is <em>only</em> eternal life; it is something being personally prepared for each of us. The language of preparation seems inappropriate if our reward is only eternal life.</p><p>The reward was way out of proportion, both to what had been given, and to what they had achieved with it: ten cities! The Master's words almost seem to be a gentle rebuke: "Because you were found faithful in <em>a very little</em>, have authority over ten cities"; "you have been faithful over a <em>few things</em>, I will make you ruler over many things" (<em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em>). The "Truth" we have now (and it is that) is "a very little... a few things". We mustn't see it as an end in itself. Yet because of our humanity, our limited vision, the way we are locked up in our petty paradigms and parameters, we tend to think that the Kingdom will be rather similar to our present experience of "the Truth”. Yet the Lord emphasizes, at least twice, that what we have now is pathetically limited compared to the infinitely greater spiritual vision of the Kingdom. We (personally) will then be made ruler over <em>all </em>that Christ has (<em><a href='B:470 24:47'>Mat 24:47</a></em>; the "many things" of <em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em>); and in him are hid <em>all </em>the riches of spiritual wisdom (<em><a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And the second came, saying: Your minas, Lord, have made five minas</em>- The faithful in the parable of the talents / pounds realize that "your minas have made" what spirituality they can now offer Christ at the judgment. They understand that their growth was thanks to that basic deposit of doctrine delivered to them. Each of us have been given different aspects of Christ's character to develop from the same basic doctrines, and therefore we will each have an individual discussion with our Lord. We shouldn't think of the judgment as being a process which is more or less identical for each of us. This misconception arises from failing to recognize that our meeting with Christ is only <em>likened</em> to a human judgment court. The similarities aren't exact:&nbsp; </p><p>We are to “gain” or 'make' more for the Lord on the basis of what He first gave us. The Greek word translated “made” is elsewhere usually used about gaining men and women for Christ- a wife ‘gains’ her unbelieving husband (<em><a href='B:670 3:1'>1Pe 3:1</a></em>); Paul sought to ‘gain’ people for the Lord (<em><a href='B:530 9:19-22'>1Co 9:19-22</a></em>); we ‘gain’ a lost brother by pastoral effort with him (<em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>). Be that going for a coffee with him, sending an email, trying to imagine his feelings and approaching him appropriately. </p><p>Significantly, the other usages of this word translated ‘gain’ are about the folly of gaining material wealth, even gaining the whole world. We can’t be successfully about the Lord’s business, of gaining folks for Him, if we are selling our soul to gain material things. That’s the point. We were “delivered” talents by God. It’s the same word used about how the Lord Jesus exhaled His last breath on the cross; how “that form of doctrine” was ‘delivered’ to us before baptism (<em><a href='B:520 6:17'>Rom 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:3'>1Co 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:3'>Jud 1:3</a></em>). We can’t say we have no talents. Christ died for you, for me; He bowed His head towards each of us personally and gave us His last breath, the riches of His Spirit within us who stand before His cross.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: And you are to be over five cities</em></p><p>- See on :17. We think of how in the Kingdom, "five cities shall speak the language of Canaan and swear to Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:290 19:18'>Isa 19:18</a></em>). Such groups will be under the authority of someone who in this life traded their talents well. Again we note the total lack of proportion of the rewards; a faithful slave who took some initiative and was faithful during the master's absence becomes a ruler over cities. And this is the lack of proportion we shall experience. What this means is that every moment of human life today has huge and eternal significance, and will have moment far beyond anything we can now imagine. The gross lack of proportion doesn't mean that there is no relationship between the trading of this life and the nature of our eternity. There is; and that is the point. Our entire lives therefore should be bent toward spiritual things and the Lord's work. No longer can this be mere religion, a Sunday hobby, a social network. We are right now forging the nature of our eternity. The trading of the minas refers to our usage of the Spirit for the benefit of others, to God’s glory. It is related to what we shall be eternally doing; for our authority over the nations is in order to help them to glorify the Lord.</p><p>We have already been made ruler "over" and in the Lord’s household in order to feed the members (<em><a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a></em> s:w:). Our whole church experience, our relations with others and efforts for them, is to prepare us for being made ruler over all the Lord’s goods, over whole cities of persons in the Kingdom. We cannot of course accurately imagine what new dimensions await us, but all we can say is that we are in training for them, and that training involves the care of others within the household now; for this is in essence what we shall eternally do on a far grander scale. To separate ourselves from that household, or cast others out of it, is to deny both ourselves and others the environment required for us to prepared for eternity:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>There is an element of unreality in the parable of the minas: wise use of a few coins results in power over several cities. We are left to imagine the men marvelling in disbelief at the reward given to them. They expected at most just a few minas to be given to them. And in their response we see a picture of the almost disbelief of the faithful at their rewards. In that moment we will grasp the deep significance of all we did in this life. And we need to perceive that now. For at times it can appear that we live the lives which our secular neighbours live, smelling, eating, acting, experiencing more or less as they do; just that we have religious beliefs which they don't share. But this is an illusion. Our lives, decisions, attitudes, actions and spirit are freighted with an eternal significance which is not so in their lives.</p><p>he Lord gave a related teaching in <em><a href='B:490 16:10-12'>Luk 16:10-12</a></em>: “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?”. What is given to us now is to test our faithfulness. If we don’t perceive what we have been given, and so many believers tell me they are unsure about this,&nbsp;<em>then you need to ask the Lord to show you</em>. Urgently. And give your life to developing those things. The Luke 16 passage appears to say that in this life, we are stewards of the Lord’s wealth, just as in this parable of the minas; but if we manage that well, then we will be rewarded with wealth which is actually and personally our own. For eternity. That ‘wealth’ will be of the same nature as that given to us by the Lord initially. Here we have a rare insight into the nature of our eternity. There is nothing that is the Lord’s which will not be shared with us and in some sense give to us to exercise our initiative over.</p><p>The "Truth" we have now (and it is that) is "a very little... a few things". We mustn't see it as an end in itself. Yet because of our humanity, our limited vision, the way we are locked up in our petty paradigms, we tend to think that the Kingdom will be rather similar to our present experience of "the Truth". Yet the Lord emphasizes, at least twice, that what we have now is pathetically limited compared to the infinitely greater spiritual vision of the Kingdom. We (personally) will then be made ruler over&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>that Christ has (<em><a href='B:470 24:47'>Mat 24:47</a></em>; the "cities" of His Kingdom); and in him are hid&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>the riches of spiritual wisdom (<em><a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And another came, saying: Lord, behold, here is your mina- </em>So many of the parables build up to a final climax which is the essence of the point the Lord was trying to get across; and this ‘end stress’ is also seen in the talents parable. The warning is not to be like the man who didn’t have the vision to do anything with his mina, but returned it unused to the Lord. This perhaps is our greatest temptation in our postmodern age of passivity, of staring at computer screens and clicking a mouse. “Behold, here is your mina” suggests an air of confidence in this man; he really didn’t get it, that he was asked to trade what he’d been given. The fact he had retained it pristine appears to have been his reason for thinking that he ought to be accepted, or at least, didn’t ought to be condemned. The story line penetrates deep into the mentality of many small time Protestant sects, according to which the ultimate test of loyalty to the Lord is whether we have retained our understanding of whatever curious or specific interpretations were entrusted to us via the charismatic founder of the sect. This man thought that that was all there was to it. He didn’t spend it on himself, he wasn’t like the prodigal son. But too late he was to learn that sins of omission are the ground for condemnation. To do nothing with God’s Truth is described by the Lord as ‘wickedness’. The grammar emphasizes personal possession:&nbsp;<em>You&nbsp;</em>have what&nbsp;<em>belongs to You</em>. As if to say ‘I didn’t steal it! It’s yours, and it remains yours’. But the whole point was that the Lord had given the talents to the servants and gone away- they had to trade in their own name, as if they were theirs. We’re not simply receptacles of intellectual truths which are to be preserved for the sake of it until the end of our days. That would be of itself pointless, a kind of mind game played between God and man for no ultimate purpose. We are given God’s Truth, the riches of Christ, in order to use it for others; the whole talk of ‘preserving the Truth in its purity’ is dangerously close to inculcating the mentality of the one talent man- the mentality that led to his condemnation.</p><p><em>I kept it laid away in a piece of cloth</em>- The judgment of the righteous comes before that of the rejected. The faithful respond first to the news that ‘He’s back’, and their willingness to go and be with Him is effectively their judgment. Those who delay are the unworthy and are therefore judged slightly later.</p><p>One of the Lord's pen pictures of the rejected included that of the man who thought that because he had preserved the mina (the basic doctrines of the Gospel) intact, therefore he was entitled to a place in the Kingdom. We are left to imagine him half-proudly, half sheepishly, holding it out to the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>). But he should have traded with his pounds (<em><a href='B:490 19:13'>Luk 19:13</a></em> RV)- done something with it all. The crowds hung upon Jesus' every word and teaching; it was so fascinating for them, so wonderful (<em><a href='B:490 19:48'>Luk 19:48</a></em> RV); and yet they still crucified Him. Those words, those wonderful ideas, didn’t pierce deep within.</p><p>In the culture of the orient, it was not usual for a person to keep money in a cloth. Their culture was to trade and barter with what they had. That a man should just bury such a talent was therefore unreal for the original hearers. The point of this unreality is surely that spiritual laziness is <em>so</em> bad. It was better to have traded and lost through genuine mistakes, through naivety, through the betrayal and deception of others, than to simply <em>do nothing</em>. I fear, really fear, that our Christian culture has bred for many of us a ‘do nothing’ culture- which is exactly what this element of unreality is warning against. We can delegate responsibility to church committees, to others, to our leaders; or we can do nothing out of fear, fear of making a mistake, fear of taking a risk, fear of what other brethren may think of us… all the time denying this principle of Divine delegation. And it might be added that the ‘do nothing’ man of the parable emphasized that the talent or money was not <em>his</em>; he returned to his Lord what was his [“your [singular] mina”]. In order to trade it, or even to put it in the bank and get interest, he had to take personal ownership of it. And this he failed to do. And it is just this that we are being asked to do by our Lord- that His truth, all that He has given us, is in a sense <em>ours</em> now, to be used on our initiative, for His glory and service. Indeed, the reward of the faithful will be to be given <em>more</em> of their Lord’s riches in the Kingdom, with which likewise to use their initiative in order to bring Him glory. We are left to think how the story might have gone on- the faithful were given <em>more</em> talents and they go away and do, in the Kingdom age, what they did in this life- using what they were given for <em>His glory and service, on their own initiative.</em></p><p>We are <em>expected</em> by the Lord to realize that our relationship with Him means total commitment to His cause. In this sense Jesus is a demanding Lord. Thus when He gave the talents to His servants, He doesn't tell them to trade with them; it seems that the one talent man is making this point when he says 'You gave me your money to look after, and I looked after it, I didn’t steal it; you're unreasonable to think I should have done anything else with it, you're expecting what you didn’t give'. And the Lord is; He expects that if we realize we have the honour of knowing His Truth, we should get on and do something with it, not just keep it until He comes back. He doesn't have to ask us to do this; He takes it as being obvious. The anger of the rejected man comes over as genuine; he really can't understand his Master. He's done what he was asked, and now he's condemned because he didn’t do something extra. He was a Lord that man never knew- until all too late. You can imagine how you'd feel if someone gives you some money to look after, and then expects you to have doubled it, although he didn’t ask you to do anything with it.</p>


text:
<p><em>For I feared you- </em>Fear of the judgment of others is a source of false guilt. It is this which militates against the true and free life of which the Lord speaks so enthusiastically. We fear showing ourselves for who we really are, because we fear others’ judgments. This fear makes us uncreative, not bearing the unique spiritual fruits which the Lord so eagerly seeks from us and in us. The Lord said this plainly, when He characterized the man who did nothing with his talents as lamely but truthfully saying: “I feared you". Think about this: What or whom was he afraid of? His fear was not so much of his Lord’s judgment, but rather perhaps of the judgments of others, that he might do something wrong, wrongly invest, look stupid, mess it all up... And thus John writes that it is fear that leads to torment of soul now and final condemnation. The Lord’s words in the parable are almost exactly those of Adam. The rejected one mina man says ‘I was afraid, and so I hid&nbsp;<em>my mina</em>’. Adam said: ‘I was afraid, and I hid&nbsp;<em>myself</em>’. The talent God gave that man was therefore himself, his real self. To not use our talent, to not blossom from the experience of God’s love and grace, is to not use ourselves, is to not be ourselves, the&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;self as God intended.</p><p><em>Because you are a hard man- </em>The problem was the man’s wrong attitude and laziness to do anything. The prodigal son was given much of his Father’s wealth, and he wasted it rather than trading it. But he recognized the Father’s grace and was prepared to work just as a servant. And this attitude was his salvation. So this man’s rejection wasn’t simply because he had failed to do any trading.</p><p>Another take on this is that there is a sense in which the Lord is indeed a “hard man”, a demanding Lord, His expectations were (and are) high. And yet His parables reveal an immense sympathy and empathy with our weakness. In a normal human situation, it would be difficult to build a relationship with someone who had such apparently contradictory trends in His character. Perhaps we have the same problem in our struggle to know the Lord. He never denied that He came over in some ways as "a hard man" with high expectations; all He said was that seeing this was the case, we ought to act accordingly (<em><a href='B:470 25:24'>Mat 25:24</a></em>). And yet He is also a man of grace and understanding far beyond anything reached by anyone else. He is truly the Jesus who understands human weakness. And note that He is described even now as “the man Christ Jesus”, able to feel the pulse of our humanity. This, in passing, opens a window into what Divine nature will be like: we will be able to completely feel the human experience, to the extent of still bearing the title ‘men’ even in immortality.</p><p><em>You demand what you did not deposit, and reap that which you did not sow</em>- He clearly didn’t know nor love his master; or else he would not have had this inappropriate fear. He is accusing him of being a typical absentee landlord. But his master was not away enjoying himself. He had gone to receive a kingdom and to return and share it with his workers. The man who didn’t develop as he should have done accuses the Lord of reaping what He didn’t sow. But the Lord does sow the seed of the basic Gospel, as the parable of the sower makes clear. The point is that the unworthy fail to let that seed bring forth fruit, they fail to see that the Lord expects fruit from those&nbsp;doctrines they have been given. But they fail to see the link between the basic Gospel and practical spirituality; they feel he's reaping where He didn’t sow. They are in denial of "the power thereof", whilst theoretically possessing it. The Lord will require his own, i:e. that which he has sown, the basic Truths of the Gospel, the gift of the riches of His grace, His Spirit, with usury (<em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em>). The parable of the tiny seed moving the great mountain was surely making the same point; the basic Gospel, if properly believed, will result in the most far reaching things (<em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 13:31'>Luk 13:31</a></em>). </p><p>The moment of conversion is the beginning of the gathering to judgment (<em><a href='B:490 11:23'>Luk 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>). The one talent man didn’t appreciate this; he objected to the Lord reaping and gathering him (<em><a href='B:470 25:24'>Mat 25:24</a></em>). But whatever human objections, the responsible from all nations&nbsp;<em>will be gathered&nbsp;</em>to judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>). The servants are called to receive their talents, and then called again to account (Luke 19; Luke 13, 15); there is something in common between the calling to know the Gospel, and the calling to judgment. If reaping refers to judgment [which it clearly does in the Lord’s teaching], then the man could hardly claim to have known the Lord on the basis of how He reaps. Because the man hadn’t experienced the Lord’s reaping. The man says he ‘knows’ [<em>ginosko</em>] the Lord is like this; the Lord answers that if indeed the man has ‘known’ [<em>eido</em>- which more means to see / experience] that He is like this, then he should have acted accordingly. The suggestion may be that even if a person’s understanding of the Lord Jesus is slightly wrong, the important thing is to live within and according to that understanding, even if it involves breaking some Divine principles [lending for interest]. If the desire to respond to the Lord’s gift was there, the desire to progress His work, then although such response was not ideal and not as good as that achieved by the other two servants, then the Lord would accept it. The language of sowing, reaping and gathering is all described using the same Greek words in the Lord’s comment that the birds don’t do these three things, and yet God still feeds them (<em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>). Perhaps the man was making a garbled, incoherent attempt to say that he had understood those words of the Lord to mean that He was somehow going to be an unreasonable judge with unreal expectations, therefore he had done nothing, although he had not spent the talent [unlike the prodigal son- who desperately wanted to be with the Father]. We may be intended to understand his reasoning as being ‘You created birds who don’t sow, reap nor gather into barns, they just expect food. And God thinks that’s good. So, He is like what He creates’. And perhaps the man also had in view <em><a href='B:500 4:38'>Joh 4:38</a></em>: “I sent you to reap that whereon you bestowed no labour. Other men laboured…”. The harvest of people was reaped by those who hadn’t fully worked for it, and the man desperately tries to turn that around to justify his own lack of action. Such desperate twisting of Bible verses can be seen at every hand today, as people wriggle by all means to justify their inaction and selfishness.</p><p><em>And gathering where you did not scatter seed</em>- The Lord is clearly the sower of seed, the seed of the word of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 13:3'>Mat 13:3</a></em>). But the man is complaining that the Lord ‘reaps’ or calls to judgment those who had not received that seed. That is not the case- for knowledge of the Gospel is what makes responsible to judgment. The Lord could have corrected him by reminding him of the sower parable. But He doesn’t. He reasons with the man according to the belief system which he claims to have, assuming for a moment that it is in fact true. His whole style ought to be programmatic for us in our frequent encounters with those who misuse Scripture and the Lord’s words. The Lord does&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>expect a harvest from ground He has not sown; and in any case, the man had heard the word, received the talent. He was ground which had been sown, and the Lord could therefore expect a harvest from him. Like many people today, he started to raise philosophical questions about the fate of those who have not heard, and justified his own inaction [as one who definitely&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;heard and been called] on the basis of his doubts as to the Lord’s justice in dealing with those who had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;been called. Truly these ancient teachings speak to the heart of postmodern man today.</p><p>"Gathering" was highly relevant to the man, for the language of ‘gathering’ is often used about the gathering of God’s servants to judgment (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>). The man was implying that his ‘gathering’ to judgment was unreasonable because the Lord had not sown in his land, had not strawed where he has. He felt he was being gathered to give an account when the Lord had given him nothing to account for. And yet the obvious fact was, the elephant in the room, that the Lord had given him minas, 20 years’ wages, $1 million. And yet the man reasoned as if he had not been given anything to account for. He totally refused to perceive the immense value of what he had been given. And this is so true for us- we for whom Christ died, the blood of God’s Son shed, we who have been called to eternity, who by status are “saved” and showered with all spiritual blessings… can complain that we have not been given anything. Because in our minds we have buried it away, and reason as if we never received it. Here again, the Lord’s ancient words pierce to the core of modern Christian self-perception.</p><p>The Greek&nbsp;<em>diaskorpizo</em>&nbsp;can mean ‘to scatter’ and can therefore be used about sowing; but it also has the specific meaning ‘to winnow’. In this case, the picture would be of a man who has not winnowed and yet expects to come and gather up wheat. Again, the man may be attempting to twist the Lord’s words about ‘gathering wheat into His barn’ (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>, repeating John’s words of <em><a href='B:490 3:12'>Luk 3:12</a></em>). His idea would be ‘You expect the wheat to be waiting for You without even winnowing it’. But of course the point was that winnowing represented judgment, and this was exactly what the Lord had come to do. But in His grace, the Lord doesn’t make that obvious point, but runs with the man’s words and reasoning and shows him that however wrong his imaginations were about the Lord, he should have acted according to them if he truly loved his Lord. But he hadn’t done so; because he was selfish and lazy.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said to him: Out of your own mouth will I judge you, you wicked servant- </em>The Lord’s only other reference to a wicked servant is in the parable of the wicked servant who runs up a huge debt, is forgiven, and then refuses to forgive a far smaller debt, putting the debtor in prison (<em><a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a></em>). The two men are clearly intended to be compared. The one of <em><a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a></em> was dishonest with his Lord’s money [for how else did he amass such a huge debt to his Lord? Was it not that he was found out for dishonesty?]; he was materialistic in the extreme; and he was incredibly ungrateful and unforgiving. He committed many sins. The “wicked servant” here does nothing wrong, is not overtly materialistic; but his sin of omission, meant that in reality he had done just the same as the man who committed so much wrong.</p><p>The Lord’s parable was clearly alluding to a contemporary Jewish rabbinic parable later recorded in the Zohar Chadash, folio 47: “A certain king gave a deposit to three of his servants: the first kept it; the second lost it; the third spoiled one part of it, and gave the rest to another to keep. After some time, the king came and demanded the deposit. Him who had preserved it, the king praised, and made him governor of his house. Him who had lost it, he delivered to utter destruction, so that both his name and his possessions were blotted out. To the third, who had spoiled a part and given the rest to another to keep, the king said, Keep him, and let him not go out of my house, till we see what the other shall do to whom he has entrusted a part: if he shall make a proper use of it, this man shall be restored to liberty; if not, he also shall be punished”. The point of contrast is that the Lord is far more demanding. The Jewish story praised the man who simply preserved the deposit. The Lord Jesus condemned the same man for doing nothing positive with it. The third man in the Jewish parable was given the possibility of repentance. But the third man in the Lord’s parable was condemned with no possibility of changing the verdict- for this life is our sole time of responsibility. The Lord is purposefully alluding to this parable, and deconstructing it. Passivity, ‘holding on to the faith’ in a passive sense, much glorified by both Judaism and Protestant Christianity, is what may be glorified in human religion; but it’s exactly this attitude which will be the ground of condemnation.</p><p><em>You thought that I am a hard man, demanding back what I did not deposit, and reaping that which I did not sow?</em>- The Lord’s response could actually be translated as meaning: ‘You [really?] saw Me reap where I did not sow…?’. The process of reaping definitely refers to the last judgment, and so the man had no basis upon which to make this claim, because he had never actually ‘seen’ the Lord act like that. But I prefer to understand the Lord as taking the man’s ideas and working with them, without specifically correcting them- and saying that even if the man’s understanding of Him was correct, then He expected him to act appropriately to that understanding. Instead of doing nothing.</p><p>The metaphor of a man travelling into a far country is a sign of His recognition that on one level, that is indeed how it will appear to us. And clearly the idea is based upon the experience of absent landlords, who left their estates in the hands of their servants and went away to enjoy the good life in some better part of the Roman empire. Such landlords were despised as non-patriotic and disinterested in the welfare of their people. And yet the Lord consciously employs this image concerning Himself. He is not ultimately like that, but through this choice of imagery He gives a nod of recognition towards the fact that indeed this is how it will appear to some. Joseph likewise appeared tough and disinterested to his brothers, when beneath that mask his heart was bursting for them; His whole plan of action was simply to lead them to repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest- </em>The Lord may have in view the money exchangers whom He so despised and whose tables He overthrew in <em><a href='B:470 21:12'>Mat 21:12</a></em>. It’s as if the Lord is saying that He was willing to make major concessions to the man- if he had done at least something, even if that ‘something’ was far less than ideal. A Rabbinic teaching claims that bankers should never be trusted and therefore “Money can only be kept safe by placing it in the earth” (<em>b. B. Mes’ia</em>&nbsp;42A, quoted in R:T. France,&nbsp;<em>The Gospel of Matthew</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) p. 954). The Lord is consciously deconstructing Rabbinic views. If we had more access to such contemporary texts, we would likely understand many of the more enigmatic and difficult passages of Scripture- probably they are alluding to and deconstructing contemporary writings. </p><p>The Lord will&nbsp;<em>receive&nbsp;or </em>collect back His own. Strong defines this as "to carry off, away from harm" (the same word is used in <em><a href='B:650 11:19'>Heb 11:19</a></em> about&nbsp;Abraham&nbsp;<em>receiving</em>&nbsp;Isaac from the dead). There is the suggestion that the Truth which the Lord has given us is valuable to Him, and He fears our losing it; those who lose the faith lose the personal possession of the Lord Jesus. But at the judgment, when we hand it back to the Lord, He (not to say, we) will have that deep knowledge that now we can't fail Him any more, we no longer have the possibility of causing harm and loss to the treasured wealth which has been entrusted to us:&nbsp;We need to remember, however, that there was no banking system as we have today. Lending money to exchangers was a highly risky business and often resulted in the loss of money; money was safer stored in the earth, as the man did. So the Lord’s point was that he should have taken a risk; indeed, all such trading requires risk taking which may leave us looking foolish. But the Lord may be implying that if he had taken that risk for the right reasons, all ultimately would have worked out well.</p><p>"My own [money]" reminds us of the fact that He is Lord&nbsp;<em>of all</em>. This means He is owner of absolutely everything to do with us (<em><a href='B:510 10:36'>Act 10:36</a></em>). At the judgment, this fact will be brought home. The Lord will ask for “my money... my own"; we will be asked what we have done with our Lord's money (<em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:27'>Mat 25:27</a></em>). All we have is God’s; it is not our own. Therefore if we hold back in our giving and trading, we are&nbsp;<em>robbing God</em>. Israel thought it was absurd to put it like this: But yes, God insisted through Malachi (<em><a href='B:490 3:8-12'>Luk 3:8-12</a></em>), you are&nbsp;<em>robbing me</em>&nbsp;if you don't give back, or even if you don't give your heart to Him in faith:&nbsp;<em>And will a man rob God?&nbsp;</em>Will a man…? We must give God what has His image stamped on it: and we, our bodies, are made in His image (<em><a href='B:470 22:21'>Mat 22:21</a></em>); therefore we have a duty to give ourselves to Him. We are not our own: how much less is 'our' money or time our own! Like David, we need to realize now,&nbsp;<em>in this life</em>, before the judgment, that all our giving is only a giving back to God of what we have been given by Him: "Of your own have we given you" (<em><a href='B:130 19:14'>1Ch 19:14</a></em>). The danger of materialism is the assumption that we are ultimate owners of what we 'have'.</p><p>Explaining how the man could have entered the Kingdom is surely the basis for the gnashing of teeth. To have it explained like that… is harder than any hell fire of classical imagination. He ought to have given the talent to the exchangers. Either he should’ve given it to the Gentiles, or he should have at least done something, in lending it to his Jewish brethren- even against the Law. Very possession of the minas meant we have to, we must, share it with others in some way- we are all preachers:&nbsp; </p><p>The man being told how he could have entered the Kingdom is after the pattern of rejected Adam and Eve having the way to the tree of life clearly shown to them after their rejection (<em><a href='B:10 3:23-24'>Gen 3:23-24</a></em>). Again, notice how the judgment is for the education of those judged and those who witness it. He will shew them how they should have given their talent, the basic Gospel, to others, and therefore gained some interest. This has to be connected with the well known prohibition on lending money to fellow Israelites for usury; usury could only be received from Gentiles (<em><a href='B:50 23:20'>Deu 23:20</a></em>). Surely the Lord is implying that&nbsp;<em>at the least</em>&nbsp;this person could have shared the Gospel with others, especially (in a Jewish context) the Gentile world. This would have at least&nbsp;brought some usury for the Lord. This would suggest that issues such as apathy in preaching, especially the unwillingness of the Jewish believers to share their hope with the Gentiles, will be raised by the Lord during the judgment process. Of course, the Lord hadn't told the servant (in the story) to lend the money to Gentiles; he was expected to use his initiative. The overall picture of the story is that at least the man should have done&nbsp;<em>something!</em></p><p>Alternatively, it could be that we are intended to understand that the Lord would even have accepted him if he lent money on usury, something which the Law condemned; if he'd have done&nbsp;<em>something</em>, even if it involved breaking some aspects of God’s will... Instead, his attitude was that he had been given the talent of the Gospel, and he saw his duty as to just keep hold on it. He was angry that the Lord should even suggest he ought to have done anything else! We really must watch for this attitude in ourselves. He justifies himself by saying that he has "kept" the money (<em><a href='B:490 19:20'>Luk 19:20</a></em>), using the word elsewhere used about the need to&nbsp;<em>keep</em>&nbsp;or hold on to the doctrines of the One Faith (<em><a href='B:610 1:19'>1Ti 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 3:9'>1Ti 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:13'>2Ti 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a></em>). He had done this, he had held on, he hadn't left the faith. And he thought this was enough to bring him to the Kingdom. Sadly, many understandings of spirituality has almost glorified this very attitude. Any who show initiative have been seen as mavericks, as likely to go wrong. The emphasis has been on holding on to basic doctrinal teaching, marking your Bible with it, attending weekly meetings about it (even if you snooze through them), regularly attending…&nbsp; And, son, you won't go far wrong. The Lord, in designing this parable as he did, had exactly this sort of complacency in mind:&nbsp;In view of the man’s beliefs about the Lord, he still should’ve acted accordingly.</p><p>Both sheep and goats register their surprise at their Lord's comments on various specific actions of theirs which he discusses with them- "When did we see you…?" (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>). The thought that at least some of our deeds will be discussed with us at the judgment should surely make some impact on our present behaviour. <em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em> implies not only that there will be a discussion with our judge, but that Jesus will point out to the rejected what they should have done to be accepted. </p>&nbsp;<p>The parables of the Kingdom speak of the eternal consequences of the judgment. The Lord will require His own at the judgment (<em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em>). This doesn't mean, as the one talent man thought, that He will require us to give back to Him the basic doctrines of the Gospel which we were given at conversion. The Greek means to exact regularly, in an ongoing sense (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 3:13'>Luk 3:13</a></em>); Strong defines it as meaning "to perform repeatedly... not a single act". When the Lord examines our lives at the judgment, He will expect to keep on receiving the result of what we have achieved for Him in this life. This is the ultimate encouragement for us in our preaching and encouraging of others, as well as ourselves; what we achieve now will yield eternal, continual fruit to the Lord. &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:470 25:27'>Mat 25:27</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to those that stood by: Take away from him the mina and give it to him that has the ten minas</em>- "Them that stood by" must surely be a conscious reference by the Lord to Zechariah's prophecy of the Angels as "these that stand by" Christ (<em><a href='B:450 3:4'>Zec 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 3:7'>Zec 3:7</a></em>); note that he too speaks in a judgment/reward context. If our Lord is referring to the Angels, then we have a fascinating picture of them taking away the opportunities given to the unworthy and granting them to the accepted. Their query of the amount of reward being given fits in with what we know about their limited knowledge, and the fact that our reward will be far greater than their present status (Hebrews 1, 2). Hence their reverent questioning of the extent of reward being given (:25) suggests that "them that stood by" somehow questioned the Lord's judgment; their sense of equality was not that of their Lord. They felt that the gloriously strong brother with his wonderful reward didn’t need it to be made even more wonderful. "Them that stood by" could refer to the Angels, or to the way in which the judgment will in some sense take place in the presence of all the believers. The fact is, even with God’s nature, it will be difficult to appreciate the principles of judgment which the Lord uses; and so how much more difficult is it today! </p><p>The man 'having' ten talents as his own is in sharp contrast with the way the one talent man speaks of how the talent is not his but the Lord’s: “Here You have what is Yours”. The Lord is making the point that the faithful will now personally own the talents they were first given, plus they will be allowed to keep for their personal, eternal possession what talents they made during the trading of this life. The progress achieved in this life will be kept eternally. The Lord’s teaching here must be given its due weight.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they said to him: Lord, he has ten minas!</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>. The "they" could be the disciples; or the Angels at judgment; or the faithful at judgment day who still do not fully understand all things. If it was the disciples who interrupted the parable, clearly not understanding it, we must compare this against how the Lord said that His parables were only not understood by the unbelieving Jewish world. So we see His grace towards them, and their slowness to understand. If the "they" refers to saved believers at the last day, then we reflect that some will be in the Kingdom who have big questions about the justice of God (<em><a href='B:470 20:12-13'>Mat 20:12-13</a></em> "friend"); the elder son is apparently accepted in the Father's fellowship, although his attitude to his weak brother is so wrong (<em><a href='B:490 15:31'>Luk 15:31</a></em>); the wise virgins, apparently selfishly, won't give any oil to the others; some will sit in the Kingdom in "shame" because they thought they were greater than other brethren (<em><a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a></em> - cp. the elder brother?); some remonstrate that a highly rewarded brother already has ten pounds, and surely doesn't need any more exaltation (<em><a href='B:490 19:25'>Luk 19:25</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you, that to everyone that has, shall be given- </em>This repeats the Lord’s earlier teaching in <em><a href='B:470 13:10-12'>Mat 13:10-12</a></em> about the giving of understanding to those who have some: “And the disciples came and said to him: Why do you speak to them in parables? And he answered and said to them: To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given:&nbsp; For whoever has, to him shall be given and he shall have abundance, but whoever has not, from him shall be taken away even what he has”. Clearly there is an upward spiral in spiritual life, and this will come to ultimate term in the outcomes of judgment day.</p><p><em>But from him that has not, even that which he has shall be taken away from him</em>- This is a paradox. Does the rejected man have minas, or not? He did, of course, have a mina; but as far as the Lord is concerned, we only have what we have developed. If we don't develop, we have nothing; the fact we received the talent at baptism won't save us. It’s only what a man has developed from that in the service of others which counts as truly “his”. This likewise is the sense of “To him that has shall be given”; all we have is what we have developed.</p><p><em>"</em>Taken away" is perhaps a special reference to the Kingdom of God being “taken away” [s:w:] from Israel and given to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:470 21:43'>Mat 21:43</a></em>). The same Greek word is used about the taking away of the rejected individuals at judgment day (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>). But here, it is the unused mina that is “taken away”. The man was therefore to be identified with the mina- it was to be him. And yet he is most careful to speak of the mina as not his, but the Lord’s: “Here you have what is yours”. The Lord intended that we identify with the mina, rather than see it merely as his.</p><p>At judgment day, the rejected who have nothing will find that even what they have is taken from them. This surely means that the spirituality they appeared to have, what they thought they had, actually they never had, and even the appearance of it will be taken away from them. We can appear to have spirituality, when in fact we have nothing, nothing at all. The man who built his house on the sand had the sensation of spiritual progress; he was building, he was getting somewhere, apparently. Likewise Israel were an empty [fruitless] vine, but they brought forth fruit- to themselves. In reality they had no fruit; but they went through the fruit-bearing process (<em><a href='B:350 10:1'>Hos 10:1</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:300 5:13'>Jer 5:13</a></em>, God mocks the false prophets as being "full of wind", or 'ruach'- with which His true prophets were filled. This play on words reveals that spirituality is either the real thing, or a being filled with wind in such a way that apes the true spirituality. </p>


text:
<p><em>But bring here my enemies, and slay them before me, those who did not want me to reign over them</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>. We do well to try to imagine the tone of voice in which the Lord spoke these words. For in :41,42 He weeps over Jerusalem at the thought of her coming judgment. They did not wish to be under His Kingship; and so they will not be in His Kingdom. They made the choice.</p><p>It is fairly certain that time will be compressed at the judgment seat; there will therefore be no problem in such an individual discussion between each of the responsible and Christ. Several Bible passages suggest a going through of <em>works; </em>and yet we know that the basis of acceptability with God is not works but rather faith. The judgment of our works seems not to be related to as it were weighing up our salvation chances. For salvation is a gift, unrelated to works. That's what grace is about. But our use of our talents will be related to who and how we will eternally be. </p><p>A case could be made that the word "but" suggests that the one talent man is saved and doesn't share in the condemnation of the wicked which will happen at the final judgment. The 'going through' of works is therefore for our benefit, to teach us- not as a basis upon which the Lord decides worthiness. Salvation itself is not on the basis of our works (<em><a href='B:520 11:6'>Rom 11:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em>); indeed, the <em>free gift </em>of salvation by pure grace is contrasted with the <em>wages</em> paid by sin (<em><a href='B:520 4:4'>Rom 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem</em>- It was as if the Lord was determined Himself to trade His wealth, regardless of whether others did. And for Him, this required death in Jerusalem. We note His feature of walking ahead of them; we are left with the image of them following, setting us a pattern.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, when he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount that is called Olivet- </em>'The house of figs'. There is likely a connection to the incident when the Lord curses the fig tree (:19). Perhaps we are to assume that He hoped for figs in Bethphage too, and was likewise disappointed. Bethphage has even been given the meaning 'House of unripe figs', which would confirm this impression (See Marcus Jastrow,&nbsp;<em>Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature</em>&nbsp;(Jerusalem: Horeb, 1903, reprint) p. 1132).</p><p><em>He sent two of the disciples</em>- The question arises as to why He didn’t simply take the two animals Himself. The practical answer would be that if He had gone further into Jerusalem to get them, then he would as it were have entered Jerusalem but not in the way He intended to, which was to consciously fulfil the prophecy about the humble King entering Jerusalem on a donkey. But that explanation throws the question one stage further back. Why was it specifically a donkey from that village and person which was required? Could He not have found one in Bethphage? The effort required to send two disciples ahead of Him to get the animals and then bring them back to Bethphage seems considerable, when donkeys were common enough. The answer is not clear, but it could be that there was an anonymous person who specifically wanted to give those animals to the Lord in order to fulfil that prophecy. The Lord knew this and had obviously discussed it with the owner previously, because the owner would recognize Him as "the Lord" (:31), and would provide them once he perceived the Lord wanted them. In this little incident we see therefore the extent the Lord will go to, now as well as then, in order to take up the initiative of those who love Him. If we take that initiative in service, the Lord will surely use it, and make every effort to do so.</p>


text:
<p><em>Saying: Go into the village in front of you, where on entering you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever yet sat. Untie it and bring it here</em>- </p><p>The Greek words translated "tied" and "untie" occur together several times, usually rendered 'bind' and 'loose'. Earlier, the idea of binding and loosing has been used about the way that the decisions and actions of believers can have eternal consequence upon others, and our bind and loosing is to some extent reflected in and confirmed by Heaven (<em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:18'>Mat 18:18</a></em>). This conception of binding and loosing was surely intended by the Lord. Verse 4 makes clear that all this was done in order to fulfil the prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> that Messiah would come to Zion riding on a donkey and her foal. But that prophecy had to be consciously fulfilled. Whether or not the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled was therefore left to the initiative of the Lord and His followers. And it's the same in our last days- if, e.g., we choose to fulfil the prophecy that the Gospel must go into all the world before the end comes, then in that sense the actual time of Christ's coming is left in our hands. There are other Messianic associations with a donkey- Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed on a donkey (<em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:5'>Gen 22:5</a></em>); Solomon rode to his coronation on David’s donkey (<em><a href='B:110 1:33-44'>1Ki 1:33-44</a></em>).</p><p>The question arises as to why both a donkey and foal were required. He surely didn’t straddle both at the same time. He rode on the donkey whilst the colt followed. Perhaps this has reference to the way that the Lord's final entry into His Kingdom would be on the backs of both Jews and Gentiles; the immature foal with no rider would therefore look forward to the Gentiles. Another possibility is that "A donkey,&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;on a colt, the foal of a&nbsp;donkey" is a Semitic parallelism effectively meaning 'A donkey, actually, a foal of a donkey'. If that's the case, then the Lord rode the foal of a donkey, not yet broken in. It would've been hard to ride, probably trying to throw Him; His journey into the city would've been almost comical, because He would nearly have been thrown and would've hardly made a sedate, solemn procession. The parallel records stress that no man had ever sat upon it (<em><a href='B:480 11:2'>Mar 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:30'>Luk 19:30</a></em>). This would've spoken clearly of the difficulty of the Lord's entry to His Kingdom whilst riding on Israel. However, <em><a href='B:470 21:2'>Mat 21:2</a></em> speaks in the plural, of loosing the animals and bringing&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to the Lord. It may simply be that a donkey nursing her foal, distracted by this, was the most unmilitary, non-glorious form upon which the Lord could've entered Jerusalem. Perhaps it was a parody of how triumphal entries require a King to be on a charger pulling a chariot. The Lord had a donkey instead of a charger, and instead of a chariot being pulled by the charger, the foal was in tow behind the donkey:&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:480 11:4'>Mar 11:4</a></em> says that the donkey was tied at a gate, at "a place where two ways met<em>":&nbsp;</em>This translates the word&nbsp;<em>amphedon&nbsp;</em>which in the LXX (e.g. <em><a href='B:300 17:27'>Jer 17:27</a></em>) is used for a palace. Herod had a palace on the Mount of Olives and maybe this is what is being referenced. It could be that the donkey and foal were provided by Herod's servants, because Joanna was a disciple of Jesus who provided for Jesus from her "substance"- and she was the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (<em><a href='B:490 8:3'>Luk 8:3</a></em>). In this case, the Lord was further parodying a King's triumphant entry by riding upon Herod's donkey.</p>


text:
<p><em>And if anyone asks you: Why do you untie him? You are to say: The Lord has need of him</em>- God in a sense is in need of man, just as Jesus was, or allowed Himself to be:&nbsp;See on :30.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they that were sent went away and found as he had said to them</em>- This is to note their obedience to an otherwise very strange command. They surely secretly hoped that He would achieve a dramatic Messianic salvation. And He was teaching them that that salvation was not now, and He was deconstructing the whole idea of a triumphal entry, as noted on :30. It is to their credit that they humbled themselves beneath this idea.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as they were untying the colt, the owners of it said to them: Why do you untie the colt?</em>- This was all clearly part of a prearranged plan, as noted on :30. But there was a purpose in it. The Lord wanted them to ask the question as to why ever He was making a triumphal entry on a colt and not a charger. Perhaps the stress was on the word "colt", when perhaps a finer horse stood there. He wanted them to realize that He was deconstructing a triumphal entry. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they said: The Lord has need of him</em>- The usage of the term "the Lord" suggests that the owners were also believers. I suggested on :30 that they were believing members of Herod's household. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they brought it to Jesus, and they threw their garments upon the colt and sat Jesus on it</em>- Using their garments as saddles. The fact both animals were saddled (Matthew) was to make the point that one rider was missing. For according to the other Gospels, the Lord sat upon the colt. The mother donkey was saddled, but without a rider. This added to the strangeness of the spectacle. The missing rider was perhaps a reference to how Israel had not as a whole responded in bringing Messiah to Zion. Maybe it referred to the Gentiles who had yet to be converted. Or perhaps to the fact that Israel had rejected John the Baptist and he had been killed- and therefore there was no Elijah prophet bringing Messiah into Zion. Elijah was the great horseman of the Divine chariot (<em><a href='B:120 2:12'>2Ki 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 13:14'>2Ki 13:14</a></em>; he is called the “horsemen” plural, but this is an intensive plural for ‘the one great horseman’). Elijah was the chariot horseman, the one who was to ride on the horse which pulled the chariot in which there was Messiah [this was a Rabbinic understanding of the Elijah prophet]. But he was strangely absent in this acted parable. The saddle was there for him, provided by the few disciples who had responded to John / Elijah; but he wasn’t there. This absence of the Elijah prophet was surely indicative of the fact that John had not been the Elijah prophet for most of Israel- they hadn’t responded properly to his message. Therefore the true triumphant entry of Messiah was yet future. This is why the phrase “bringing salvation” is excluded from the quotation of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>. It was not so much a ‘triumphant entry’, but a&nbsp;<em>parody</em>&nbsp;of a triumphant entry.</p><p>When they put their clothes on the colt and started mistakenly proclaiming Jesus as the triumphal Messiah entering Jerusalem to begin His political Kingdom, the Lord doesn’t rebuke their misunderstanding. Instead, He defends them to the critical Pharisees (<em><a href='B:490 19:35-37'>Luk 19:35-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:40'>Luk 19:40</a></em>):&nbsp;He imputed righteousness to them, as He does to us today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he went, they spread their garments on the road</em>- Matthew says that "the crowd" did this. The crowds who accepted Him in the wrong way very soon rejected Him; so in a sense, they cut themselves off. And they did this because they misunderstood Him, expecting Him to give immediate deliverance.</p><p><em><a href='B:500 12:13'>Joh 12:13</a></em> says they waved palm branches. But palms and the shout of "Hosanna" (Mt:) are associated with the feast of Tabernacles. And this was Passover, not Tabernacles. All the way through this brilliant visual stunt by the Lord, there was the message that He was not as they had imagined, He had come to die as the Passover Lamb, not to immediately give them the Tabernacles celebration which they wanted to see there and then.</p><p>The behaviour in this verse was exactly that associated with the triumphant entry of a victorious king. The much laboured account of the Lord’s obtaining a donkey and her foal and thus riding into the city was really a studied parody of that whole conception of Messianic victory. For Him, the victory would be to hang lifeless upon a cross. True greatness was in humility. And instead of beaming with pride, <em><a href='B:490 19:41'>Luk 19:41</a></em> adds the detail that He wept over the city, knowing how they had rejected Him. According to Harry Whittaker,&nbsp;<em>Studies in the Gospels, "</em>The rabbis had a saying: "If Israel be worthy, Messiah comes with the clouds of heaven (<em><a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a></em>); if unworthy, riding upon an ass" (<em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>)". So the entire triumphant entry was indeed a parody which sooner or later the Jews came to grasp. Hence their anger- for the whole incident declared them unworthy.</p><p>Whilst what the Lord arranged was indeed a parody of a triumphant entry, designed to highlight the importance of humility and sacrifice, He was surely conscious that He was acting out, however dimly, the prophesied future and ultimate triumphal entry of Messiah into Jerusalem and the temple, coming from the Mount of Olives (<em><a href='B:450 14:4'>Zec 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:11'>Isa 62:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he was now drawing near, at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen, saying</em>- <em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em> specifically states that they misunderstood at this point. They were so ecstatic because they really believed that He was going to establish the Kingdom there and then. His previous parable about going away to receive the Kingdom had fallen upon deaf ears. The gospel records are transcripts of how the disciples preached the Gospel; and continually they emphasize their own weakness and slowness to understand, thereby reaching out to their hearers, urging them as it were to do better than they had done.</p>


text:
<p><em>Blessed is the King that comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!</em>- As noted on :37, they thought that finally the Kingdom was being established. They failed to perceive that the Lord was mocking and deconstructing the whole idea of a triumphal entry, instead glorying in humility and the need to die on a cross in order to establish His Kingdom. </p><p>The Lord didn’t turn round and correct them for their misapplication of Scripture. Neither did He reject them or call fire down from Heaven upon them because of their misunderstanding. He said nothing, and let the crowd live on in their misunderstanding and see His death – in order to teach them something about what was needed in order to enable the Kingdom. And the same ‘long term’ approach of the Lord is found in His dealing with the demons issue. The elder son in the parable falsely claims to God that he has never broken one of His commands; but although this is evidently untrue, the father (representing God) does not correct him in so many words (<em><a href='B:490 15:29-31'>Luk 15:29-31</a></em>). </p><p>God has inspired His word in order to interpret certain facts to us. This is further proof that we are not intended to insist on a strictly literal meaning to everything we read (for example, that the sun literally rises). Thus Matthew records that the people cried ‘Hosanna’ at Christ’s entry into Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:470 21:9'>Mat 21:9</a></em>). Seeing that first century Israel spoke Aramaic, this is doubtless what did actually come out of their lips. But Luke says that the same group of people shouted “Glory” (<em><a href='B:490 19:38'>Luk 19:38</a></em>). Luke’s Gospel seems to be designed for the Greek speaking world, and so he uses the Greek equivalent of ‘Hosanna’, even though they did not actually say that word. The way the New Testament quotes the Old with slight changes without pointing this out is another example of how God’s word mixes interpretation with direct transmission of facts (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 32:1-2'>Psa 32:1-2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 4:6-7'>Rom 4:6-7</a></em>). This fact is not irrelevant to the issue of demons. We have seen that the accounts of demons being cast out are framed in such a way as to show the supremacy of God’s power over the vain traditions of the first century world.</p>


text:
<p><em>And some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him: Teacher, rebuke your disciples</em>- Even though the disciples were so deeply mistaken and inappropriate, as explained above, the Lord always takes their side when they are under criticism. The same defensive, justifying Lord is ours too, and looks at our weaknesses and refusals to understand in the same way.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he answered and said: I tell you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out</em></p><p>- See on :39. Often Scripture alludes to or quotes other Scripture which may seem out of context, if we insist on seeing everything from our viewpoint of time. Thus <em><a href='B:490 19:40'>Luk 19:40</a></em> quotes <em><a href='B:420 2:11'>Hab 2:11</a></em> concerning the stones of apostate Israel crying out, and apparently applies it to the misguided acclamation of faithful men. Matthew particularly seems to quote Scripture which is relevant to the Lord's second coming as applying to His first coming. Indeed, the way the NT quotes the OT apparently out of context is a sizeable problem. There are times when we may quote or allude to the words of a Bible passage quite out of context, just because the words seem appropriate. And it seems the NT sometimes does just the same. Search and try as we may, the context seems just inappropriate. This may be explicable by understanding God to have the ability to take words from one time-context and insert them into another, in a way which to us is not contextual. <em>We </em>have no authority to do this; but He can. <em>He </em>can speak as if "the resurrection is past already"; but for us to do so is to deny the Faith. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it</em>- His previous parable about slaying those who refused Him was therefore said with deep sadness in His voice. <em><a href='B:670 2:12'>1Pe 2:12</a></em> defines the "day of visitation" as that of the Lord's return to earth to establish His Kingdom. But a similar idea is to be found in <em><a href='B:490 19:41-44'>Luk 19:41-44</a></em>, where the Lord 'sees' or visits / views the city on 'this day'. See on <em><a href='B:490 21:20-24'>Luk 21:20-24</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Saying: If you had known in this day, even you, the things which belong to your peace! But now they are hid from your eyes- </em>On :44 I will observe that the Lord has the potentials in view. The whole planned program of His death and the AD70 judgments could have been averted. The time of Zion's peace could have come there and then if they accepted Him on His true terms.</p><p>The pain that arises from knowing what might have been is so poignantly brought out by the grief of Martha and Mary over their brother's death- they knew that if Jesus had have been there, Lazarus wouldn't have died (<em><a href='B:500 11:21'>Joh 11:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:32'>Joh 11:32</a></em>). Jesus as God’s Son had something of this ability to see what might have been- hence He could state with absolute confidence that if Gentile Tyre and Sidon had witnessed His miracles, they would've repented in sackcloth and ashes (<em><a href='B:490 10:13'>Luk 10:13</a></em>). He lamented with pain over the fact that things would have been so much better for Jerusalem if she had only known / apprehended the things which would bring her ultimate peace (<em><a href='B:490 19:42'>Luk 19:42</a></em>). The Lord Jesus was deeply pained at what might have been, if the things of God’s Kingdom had not remained wilfully hidden from Israel's perception. His pain was because of realizing what might have been. In this He was directly reflecting the mind of His Father, who had previously lamented over Jerusalem: "O that you had hearkened to my commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river" (<em><a href='B:290 48:18'>Isa 48:18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies shall set up a barricade around you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side</em>- These were the days that would come, when instead if they had accepted the Lord, there would have been days of peace, the Messianic Kingdom, when Israel would not be fenced in by Gentiles but would instead remove the barriers and go forth to the Gentiles with peace "on every side". </p>


text:
<p><em>And shall dash you to the ground, and your children within you; and they shall not leave in you one stone upon another- </em>The judgment of the leprous house was to be thrown down, stone by stone (<em><a href='B:30 14:41'>Lev 14:41</a></em>). At the time of the final assault on Jerusalem in AD69, Titus commanded that the temple was to be spared. But the Lord's words came true, just as all prophetic words will, despite every human effort to deny their power. Josephus claims that the gold of the temple melted and therefore each stone was prized apart to remove the gold.</p><p>There was a strong belief in Judaism that the temple would last eternally. Hence the disciples’ question about “the end of the age” was because for them, any talk about the end of the temple meant the end of the world. This prophecy of the destruction of the temple implied an ending of the Mosaic law:&nbsp; </p><p><em>All this will happen because you did not perceive the time of your visitation</em>- Because Jerusalem knew not "the time of your visitation", she didn’t perceive the things of "her peace" "in this day" (:42), <em>therefore</em> days of destruction would come upon her in AD70. The implication surely is that had Jerusalem accepted Jesus as Messiah, the events of AD70 need never have happened, and His first coming could have been the day of "visitation" to establish God’s Kingdom. Of course God’s program functioned differently because this never happened; but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was truly possible.</p><p>All major events in God’s purpose have occurred within the approximate period when true students of the word expected them to - the Flood, the desolation of Jerusalem and its rebuilding, the Lord's first coming, the events of A:D. 70 etc. are all good examples:&nbsp;&nbsp; How much more then with the time of the second coming and the consummation of God’s purpose?&nbsp;"The Lord God will do nothing, but he reveals his secret unto his... prophets" (<em><a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a></em>), and the purpose of their writing was so that we might understand. The Lord rebuked the Jews because they couldn't discern the signs that Messiah's first advent was with them (<em><a href='B:470 16:3'>Mat 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:44'>Luk 19:44</a></em>); and his first advent was a type of his second. The coming of judgment through the Babylonians was another type of the last days; and Israel were criticized for not perceiving the approach of that day, whereas "the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed time; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming" (<em><a href='B:300 8:7'>Jer 8:7</a></em>). This means that as the natural creation have an inherent knowledge of the seasons, so God’s people should have a sense of the time of the Lord's coming. The Lord said the same when he spoke of how our internal awareness of the approach of Summer should correspond to our certain knowledge of the Kingdom's approach.</p><p>The grace of Jesus and His Father, so great, <em>so</em> free, was a challenge for even the Lord to express in any verbal medium. The way He spoke was grace itself. He wept over the men of Jerusalem, sorrowing that their destruction must come because "you knew not the time of your visitation". He could have quite well said: "because you have rejected me...". But His grace was greater than to say that. The utter inappropriacy of our salvation is brought out time and again in His teaching. The oil lamp with the bruised reed and smoking flax which annoyingly filled the house with smoke was nurtured and tolerated in hope by this Lord of ours. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he entered into the temple- </em>This again was a conscious parody of Judaism’s Messianic hopes. Their idea was that Messiah would enter Jerusalem in triumph against their Gentile enemies, and enter the temple. This was based upon their reading of <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em>: “The Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to His temple”. But the context of Malachi 3 required a positive response by Israel to the herald of Messiah, i:e. John the Baptist. And this had not been forthcoming. And the next verse goes on to suggest that this coming of Messiah will not be of much blessing to Israel- “But who may abide the day of His coming [i:e:, “to His temple”]? And who shall stand when He appears?” (<em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em>).</p><p>Mark’s record appears to state that the Lord first entered the temple, looked around and walked out (<em><a href='B:480 11:11'>Mar 11:11</a></em>) and the next day returned to cleanse the temple of traders. It could be that He cleansed the temple twice. Or it could be that this silent looking around and walking away, returning to Bethany, ‘the house of the poor’, was another intentional creation of an anti-climax. The Jews expected Him to do something dramatic- and He simply looked around in sadness and left for ‘the house of the poor’- to return and cast out the traders and thus make the performance of sacrifice impossible there.</p><p><em>And began to throw out those that were selling there</em>- A verb elsewhere used by the Lord about condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:39'>Mat 21:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). Instead of bringing salvation to Israel's temple, He entered it and condemned the orthodox, casting them out of God’s house and forbidding them to enter it to carry things through it (Mk:, Lk:). Instead of them, the Lord in their place welcomed children and the handicapped into God’s house. Sacred space was a major concept in Judaism; the Lord's expulsion of the Orthodox from it and replacing them with those considered unworthy of entry was a highly significant thing to do.</p><p>The Lord had not long earlier described Sodom as the place where the wrong kind of buying and selling went on, and He had likened His generation to Sodom (<em><a href='B:490 17:28'>Luk 17:28</a></em>). This, again, was hardly what the crowds expected to hear- a likening of their most sacred place to Sodom, and a prophecy of its destruction at the hands of the Gentiles. The Lord was thereby proclaiming the court of the Gentiles, where such trading was allowed to be conducted, as being as holy as the rest of the temple building. Note that in Matthew the Lord also expelled those who were&nbsp;<em>buying</em>&nbsp;the animals for sacrifice- ordinary Jews wanting to offer sacrifice. Sacrifices were therefore unavailable, because the Lord stopped the sale of them. This surely hinted at an ending of the Mosaic law in view of the Lord's upcoming sacrifice. This was all so much what the Jewish masses did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;want to hear. There needed to be no more sale of animals for sacrifice; for the Lord was paying the price, and was the final sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p><em>Saying to them- </em>The Lord several times quoted an Old Testament passage which if quoted further would have made a telling point. Thus here He quoted <em><a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a></em>: “My house shall be called a house of prayer”, leaving His hearers to continue: “…for&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;people”. He recited <em><a href='B:230 8:2'>Psa 8:2</a></em>: “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise”, leaving them to complete: “…that you might still [through their witness] the enemy and the avenger”. For the Bible minded, these things ought to have taught them. There is reason to think, in the subsequent response of a Jewish minority after Pentecost, that at least some did make these connections. They made use of the spiritual potential they had been given.</p><p><em>It is written</em>- The Lord quotes from <em><a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a></em>, but the surrounding context of the quotation is relevant to the Jewish leadership who were present and deeply critical of the Lord's actions. <em><a href='B:290 56:10-11'>Isa 56:10-11</a></em> condemns Israel's elders as "blind watchmen... dumb dogs... greedy dogs which can never have enough, shepherds that cannot understand, every one looking for gain". "Dogs" was understood as a reference to the Gentiles- and the Lord is saying that they are effectively Gentiles. Significantly, <em><a href='B:290 56:6'>Isa 56:6</a></em> has spoken of "the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, and to love the name of the Lord... taking hold of His covenant". This is often how God works- for those who are sensitive to His word, the quotations given speak far more deeply. The potential for greater understanding is thereby given to those familiar with His word. This is one reason why I encourage perseverance in reading the Bible even if at the point of reading we feel we are not understanding much and simply building up a familiarity with the text. That familiarity can be a basis for later revelation to us.</p><p><em>My house</em>- Just as the "feasts&nbsp;<em>of the Lord</em>" are described as "feasts&nbsp;<em>of the Jews</em>",&nbsp;<em>God’s</em>&nbsp;house becomes "<em>your</em>&nbsp;house" (<em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>). They had hijacked God’s religion for their own ends, just as so many do today.</p><p><em>Shall be a house of prayer</em>- Luke uses the present tense, implying "<em>is</em>&nbsp;called". The Lord surely said both, His point being that prophecies of the future Kingdom are to be lived out by us in essence today:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But you have made it a den of thieves</em>- The Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 14:21'>Zec 14:21</a></em> that there will no longer be a trafficker in the Lord's house was fulfilled by the Lord's casting out the traders from the temple. Many of the Kingdom prophecies of healing were it seems consciously fulfilled in the Lord’s healings: <em><a href='B:290 35:6'>Isa 35:6</a></em> LXX the stammerer healed = <em><a href='B:480 7:32-35'>Mar 7:32-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:3'>Isa 35:3</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 2:3-12'>Mar 2:3-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:1-6'>Mar 3:1-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:8'>Isa 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 11:1'>Mar 11:1</a></em> Bartimaeus following on the Jerusalem road. This doesn’t mean that these passages will not have a glorious future fulfilment. But in the person of Jesus and in the record of His life we see the “Kingdom come nigh”, as He Himself said it did. We can so focus on the future fulfilment that we can forget that He was the Kingdom in the midst of men; the essence of our eternal future, of the coming political Kingdom of God, was and is to seen in Him. Satan fell from Heaven during His ministry ((<em><a href='B:490 10:18'>Luk 10:18</a></em>), as it will at the second coming (Revelation 12).</p><p>This invites us to see the thieves who robbed the man in the Samaritan parable as the Jewish leadership, whose priests and Levites refused to help people after the damage they themselves had caused (<em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>). The thieves "stripped him of His clothing" just as they later did to the Lord Jesus. The Lord uses the same figure of thieves for the Jewish leadership in <em><a href='B:500 10:1'>Joh 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:8'>Joh 10:8</a></em>. The Lord quotes here from <em><a href='B:300 7:11'>Jer 7:11</a></em>, which speaks of the temple being profaned by adultery and Baal worship, resulting in the Babylonian invasion. He is saying that Israel's hypocritical piety in His day was none less than Baal worship, and therefore the Gentiles would come and destroy that place.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men of the people sought to destroy him</em>- I have argued elsewhere that the Lord gave His life, in the way and at the time He wished. It was not taken from Him. The role of His mock 'triumphal entry' was to whip up enthusiasm for Him- and then purposefully self-deflate it, so that the people would turn against Him and empower the Jewish leaders to do what they wished, in getting him crucified that Passover. This verse notes the success of His plans. He really was the master psychologist, the chess grandmaster who foresaw every possible move, and accommodate them all within a program and progression of events which He was supremely in control of. This is one reason why He could predict with such detail the events to be associated with His death that Passover.</p>


text:
<p><em>But they could not figure out what they might do, because all the people so hung upon his words</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 19:13'>Luk 19:13</a></em>. The Lord's mass popular support is what had apparently stymied their desire to murder Him on previous occasions. I suggest His purpose behind the mock 'triumphal entry' was to whip up that support to a crescendo, and then bitterly disappoint it. In this way, He left the Jewish leadership free to pursue their long held plans to destroy Him. And we observe too how unstable is human nature, how fickle is apparent devotion to the Lord... that the crowds could turn so quickly. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, on one of the days he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, there came to him the chief priests and the scribes with the elders</em>- Matthew says the Lord "entered" the temple to teach. "Entered" is&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>, and is matched by the priests and elders 'coming' to Him,&nbsp;<em>proserchomai</em>. The impression is created of direct confrontation, head on:&nbsp;His teaching was the preaching of the Gospel- of the Kingdom of God. But His take on the good news of the Kingdom, as witnessed by multiple parables about the Kingdom, was that the principles of the future political Kingdom on earth must be lived now. All the people wanted was to see the Messianic Kingdom come literally. In chapter 19 we saw how He set up a mock triumphal entry to explain that this was not for now. And now He backs that up by explaining what "the Kingdom" at this stage was really all about in personal terms. Indeed, His view of the Kingdom was totally opposed to theirs. And so in His next parable, He explains that actually Israel must kill their king as they killed their prophets, in order for the Kingdom to come as they wished.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they spoke, saying to him: Tell us. By what authority do you do these things?- </em>Presumably they thought they had Him caught out, because&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&nbsp;was supposedly solely with Rome. He could hardly say the Romans had given Him such authority. And yet if He said anything other than 'Rome', then He could be reported to the Roman authorities. However, their reference may have been to what we noted at <em><a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a></em> - the Lord had held back the temple guard from arresting Him and stopping His forceful overthrowing of the temple traders. This question was quite to be expected of a man who had recently used violence to overthrow tables and force men off the premises. Who had given Him such authority?&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Or, who is he that gave you this authority?</em>- To this day this question is heard. People, especially religious people, find it so hard to accept that somebody can have a personal relationship with God which enables and empowers them to operate as sovereign free agents amongst mere men. This cry is especially heard from those who themselves think they have authority and seek to hold on to their petty power at all costs. It is the typical cry when someone obeys their Lord's command to baptize people, takes the initiative to extend fellowship to another etc:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he answered and said to them: I also will ask you a question. Now tell me</em>- It is not necessarily wrong to avoid answering a question- although few of us could do so in the spiritually and logically flawless way the Lord did here, let alone at a moment's notice.</p><p>The AV is mistaken in translating "If you tell me, I will tell you". The sense rather is: 'If you answer this question, then in that answer you will have My telling you the answer to your question'. They finally answered in :7 that 'We cannot know' (Gk:).</p>


text:
<p><em>The baptism of John- </em>Perhaps John's message was so centred around the appeal for baptism that "the baptism of John" is being put for 'the teaching and ministry of John'. Or maybe the Lord has in view His own baptism by John. In this case, His reasoning would be that His authority came from the fact that He had been baptized by John. Seeing John's work was from God and had Divine authority, this meant therefore that the Lord was empowered by that baptism to operate with God’s authority. If that is indeed what the Lord intended, then we have another window onto the perplexing question of why the Lord was baptized by John:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Was it from heaven, or from men?</em>- Gamaliel uses the same logic in <em><a href='B:510 5:38-39'>Act 5:38-39</a></em> in urging the Jews to boil all the personal feelings and doubts down to a simple issue: Are these men and their work of God or man? This approach is helpful to us too, assailed as we are by unclarity about others. Is a man in Christ or not? Does God work through him or not? Is he of God or men? There is no middle ground here. This is what I submit concerning myself to those who doubt me, and it is the approach I seek to take with others with whom I have to engage in spiritual life. And Gamaliel rightly concluded that if something is of man and not of God, then we have little to worry about. Finally it will come to nothing. We should be concerned rather with the eternal consequence of refusing those who are clearly of God. If of God, we must accept them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And they discussed it among themselves, saying: If we shall say from heaven, he will say, why did you not believe him?</em>- This could imply they withdrew for discussion amongst themselves. But such a withdrawal would've been a sign of weakness. More likely we have here an insight into their own internal reasonings. In this case, the statement in :7 that they answered that they couldn't tell was uttered by each of them in turn as the Lord asked them individually.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if we shall say, from men, all the people will stone us- </em>The punishment for religious heretics. They all considered John as a prophet, whereas the chief priests and elders did not. We see here a marked difference between the people and their religious leaders. Indeed, the leaders despised the common people: "This people who know not the Law are cursed" (<em><a href='B:500 7:49'>Joh 7:49</a></em>). And yet very soon now, the leaders would be apparently controlling the people to cry for the blood of Jesus. But this chapter so far has shown that this was not really the reason why the masses turned against Jesus. They turned against Him because of His dashing of their hopes and refusal to pander to their expectations, exemplified by His wilful parody of a triumphal entry into the city and temple. The huge gap between the elders and the masses was so great that it cannot be credible that the elders managed to manipulate them so quickly to turn 180 degrees and to reject the Jesus whom their hero John had insisted was the Messiah.</p><p><em>For they are persuaded that John was a prophet</em>- And yet the Lord had said that “the men of this generation” held John to be demon possessed, i:e. crazy (<em><a href='B:490 7:33'>Luk 7:33</a></em>). We can on one hand feel and state respect for someone, whilst in reality not accepting them as any authority at all, and effectively considering them as if they are mad, not to be taken seriously:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And they answered that they did not know</em>- They had set themselves up as defenders of the Faith, whose duty it was to analyse the claims of teachers and decide whether or not they were false prophets. But now they are beaten in fair intellectual fight. They can give no answer, and yet by saying they could not judge John's claim to be a prophet, they were abdicating the very role of assessors of teachers which they claimed to have, and which they were using against the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to them: Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things</em>- He meant that they knew in their consciences and did not need Him to spell it out to them in words. This was again His style in His silence before His judges, and in His brief answer to Pilate: "You are saying it" (<em><a href='B:490 23:3'>Luk 23:3</a></em>). The answer was in Pilate's own words rather than the Lord's.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he began to speak to the people this parable- </em>'From where do you get your authority? What is your exact nature and relationship to God?' was answered by the parable of the servants who refused to receive the Son and give fruit to the owner (<em><a href='B:490 20:9-16'>Luk 20:9-16</a></em>). The Lord could've answered: 'My authority? From God, He's my Father, I had a virgin birth, you know'. But He wasn't so primitive. Instead He appealed to them to realize their own responsibilities to their creator and to accept His authority by giving fruit to the Father. The absentee landlords at times demanded fruit in lieu of repayment of debt. Perhaps the idea was that Israel were deeply in debt to God. Matthew 21 prefaces this parable with the one about the son who refused to even work in the vineyard. </p><p>There are strong similarities between the Lord's parable and the song of the vineyard of <em><a href='B:290 5:1-7'>Isa 5:1-7</a></em>, especially in the LXX:</p><p>"<em>Let me sing for my well beloved a song of my beloved about His vineyard</em>&nbsp;[The genre is significant; what begins as a joyful, idyllic harvest song turns into bitter disappointment and declaration of judgment]<em>. My beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill&nbsp;</em>[The environment was ideal]<em>. He dug it up&nbsp;</em>[to dig was the work of the lowest servant, but God did this]<em>, gathered out its stones&nbsp;</em>[the effects of the curse were ameliorated]<em>, planted it with the choicest vine&nbsp;</em>["the men of Judah"]<em>, built a tower in its midst, and also cut out a wine press therein. He looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes. Now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, please judge between Me and My vineyard. What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?&nbsp;</em>[Absolutely all has been done to enable our fruitfulness. The Father wants fruit above all- in the Luke 20 parable, the owner seeks the actual fruit, rather than cash payment. This element of unreality serves to show His passionate interest in fruit]&nbsp;<em>Why, when I looked for it to yield grapes, did it yield wild grapes? Now I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard. I will take away its hedge, and it will be eaten up. I will break down its wall of it, and it will be trampled down&nbsp;</em>[The downtreading of the temple at the hands of the Gentiles]<em>:&nbsp;</em><em> I will lay it a wasteland. It won’t be pruned nor hoed, but it will grow briers and thorns&nbsp;</em>[The language of the curse in Eden. The land was as the Garden of Eden, but Israel sinned "as Adam"]<em>. I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain on it&nbsp;</em>[the language of Elijah, prototype of John the Baptist]<em>. For the vineyard of Yahweh of Armies is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant: and He looked for justice, but, behold, oppression; for righteousness&nbsp;</em>[the fruit required was justice and righteousness- instead, as Isaiah 5 goes on to explain, there was materialistic selfishness]<em>, but, behold, a cry of distress</em>".</p><p><em>A man planted a vineyard- </em>The language of planting a vineyard and eating the fruit of it is used in <em><a href='B:530 3:6'>1Co 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:7'>1Co 9:7</a></em> about&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;work of preaching. Paul was unafraid to interpret the parable on multiple levels. We are to be fruitful; but in our work of sharing the Gospel with others we are also the planters who come seeking fruit on our converts. The suggestion could be that the owner personally did the planting and preparing. I say this because Isaiah 5, upon which the parable is based, includes this feature- of the owner doing so much personally. Matthew's version stresses that all has been done so that we can produce spiritual fruit; but so often we excuse our lack of fruitfulness by blaming environment factors. The situation in our country, our town, workplace, marriage, family, health etc. And we can put huge effort into trying to change environment because we consider that we can be more fruitful for God in a different environment. But whilst passivity and fatalism are just as wrong, it must be accepted that our environment in the bigger picture has been uniquely and thoughtfully prepared by God so that we might be fruitful. For it is clear from the parable that our fruitfulness is God’s most passionate desire and intention for us. He would hardly place us in any other environment, therefore, than one ideally prepared by Him in order to enable and enhance our fruitfulness.</p><p><em>And rented it to husbandmen, and went into another country for a long time</em>- Not necessarily the ascension of the Lord Jesus. It could be a reference to God’s entry of covenant with Israel, at which "God came down on mount Sinai" (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:19'>Exo 20:19</a></em>) and then "ascended up on high" (<em><a href='B:230 68:18'>Psa 68:18</a></em>):&nbsp; The Greek specifically means to go into a foreign, i:e. Gentile, country. It is used of the prodigal son going into a far country (<em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>). Let us remember that the Son in the parable represents the Lord Jesus, the owner is clearly God. This going away is not therefore representative of the Lord's ascension to Heaven, although it appears to be used that way in <em><a href='B:470 25:14-15'>Mat 25:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em> ["the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey"]. This may just be the furniture of the parable, alluding to the common experience of absentee landlords. These were often characterized by being uncaring for their land; but this owner was particular careful for his project to the point of obsession. He wanted the fruit, not money. It therefore may be part of the impression given, that the owner appears to be absent and disinterested- but in reality He is passionately interested. And this is exactly the position with God, who is perceived as somehow distant and passionless about His project on earth. There may also be the hint that even before He considered giving His precious vineyard to the Gentiles, which appears at the end of the parable, He had in fact initially envisaged this, and had in some form gone to the Gentiles right from the start of His project with Israel.</p><p>Initially, the parable would've got the hearers on the side of the labourers; because it was a frequent complaint that absentee landlords abused their tenants, who worked hard just to send cash off to the landlord in another country. But the parable twists around, so that after initially identifying with this group, the people came to see that it was they who stood condemned.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the time came- </em>A phrase used by Matthew about the drawing near of the Kingdom at Christ's time (<em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:17'>Mat 4:17</a></em>). But by the end of His ministry, the Lord was warning that false teachers would wrongly claim that "the time draws near" (<em><a href='B:490 21:8'>Luk 21:8</a></em>). Clearly He taught that the time had drawn near, but not come. He taught at the end of His ministry how He was as a man who had gone to&nbsp;a far country for a long time. This invites us to understand that with each appeal of the prophets, and of John as the last prophet, the time potentially could have come. God’s purpose is thus open ended. Peter uses the same word to speak of how the end of all things is drawing near (<em><a href='B:670 4:7'>1Pe 4:7</a></em>), and Paul likewise (<em><a href='B:520 13:12'>Rom 13:12</a></em>). It could have come in AD70- but again, a great delay, until our last days. This is why setting any date for the second coming is inappropriate- for it is a case of fulfilling preconditions, rather than awaiting a day fixed on a calendar. "The season" for fruit (<em><a href='B:480 12:2'>Mar 12:2</a></em>) had indeed come, many times- all was potentially ready for it, but human failure meant there was no harvest.</p><p><em>He sent- </em>The Greek&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>&nbsp;again encourages the apostles to see themselves as the equivalent of the Old Testament 'sent ones'- the prophets.</p><p><em>To the husbandmen a servant, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard; but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty handed</em>- The prophets (<em><a href='B:120 9:7'>2Ki 9:7</a></em> and often). Note that the prophets were sent from God, as the Lord Jesus was; but this doesn't imply they were in Heaven with God before their sending, and neither was the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he sent yet another servant, and him also they beat, and handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty handed</em>- When the world reviled him, Paul saw himself as the beaten prophets Jesus had spoken about (<em><a href='B:540 11:24-25'>2Co 11:24-25</a></em>). The first servant could be the former prophets, the second servant the latter prophets; for Judaism strongly recognized this distinction. Beating, shaming, stoning and killing [according to Matthew's version] are Mosaic punishments for apostasy, and so the idea may be that Israel excused their lack of spiritual fruitfulness by judging as apostate the prophets who demanded this of them. This is typical- the unspiritual transfer their own anger with themselves and awareness of their own coming judgment onto others, whom they condemn as worthy of judgment and punishment.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he sent yet a third, and him also they wounded and threw him out</em>- <em><a href='B:480 12:4'>Mar 12:4</a></em> adds that the last servant was “wounded in the head”, surely a reference to the beheading of John the Baptist and shameful treatment of his severed head. He was the last of the prophets; their ministry was until John the Baptist. Although we have just read that the crowds recognized John as a prophet (:6), in reality they didn’t. They rejected his message of the true nature of Messiah. Mass enthusiasm for a Christian teacher is not the same as real belief and spirituality, and acceptance of the real spirit of Christ. "You taught in our streets!" , i.e. we accepted you as a teacher, is not the basis for acceptance at the last day. We note that the "beloved son" was "sent" (:13) after John the Baptist. 'Sending' was therefore at the start of the Lord's ministry, and not at His birth, as Trinitarians like to think.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the lord of the vineyard said: What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. It may be they will respect him</em>-God sent His Son to Israel, thinking "they will reverence him when they see him" (<em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em> AV). But Isaiah 53 had prophesied that when Israel saw Him, they would see no beauty in Him and crucify Him. Yet God restrained that knowledge, in His love and positive hope for His people. Likewise Jesus, it seems to me limited His foreknowledge of Judas. He knew from the beginning who would betray him. One of the 12 was a traitor. Yet Judas was His own familiar friend in whom He trusted. "It may be they...", Gk. <em>isos,</em>&nbsp;is tantalizingly hard to understand. It could mean 'Perhaps'; or equally it could mean 'They will, surely'. We wonder of course how the Father could truly feel like this if He is omniscient. My suggestion is that He limits His omniscience in order to enter fully into our human experience; which means that His expressions of shock and disappointment are legitimate reflections of how He actually feels.</p><p>“My beloved Son” means that the joyful harvest song of <em><a href='B:290 5:1'>Isa 5:1</a></em>, the "song of my beloved”, becomes the tragedy of "My beloved son":&nbsp;</p><p>We have here an example of how several of the parables recorded in Luke all feature this internal dialogue- in this case, the owner asking Himself 'What shall I do?'. This features here in Luke's version of this parable, but not in Mark's version. Luke as a doctor was perhaps interested in things like self-talk and psychology. He also begins his Gospel by recording that the Lord Jesus would reveal the thoughts of many hearts, i.e. to ourselves (Lk. 2:35). He personally, and the things concerning Him, elicit the question "What shall I do?". The outcome of God's internal dialogue is to give His Son, in the face of every evidence that gift will not be appreciated, and that it will cost Him all He has. The allusion is to Is. 5:4,5 LXX where God twice asks Himself "What shall I do to my vineyard?". He had "done" everything for it. The answer is provided in more detail by the Lord Jesus, here in this parable. What God decided to "do" was not simply to destroy the vineyard; but rather to send His Son, destroy the tenants but not the vineyard- and preserve the vineyard by giving it to other tenants. We could perceive here a slight change of plan within God, brought about by the experience of His Son. The vineyard is now not destroyed- the tenants are. God does not give up on His project, i.e. His strong desire for spiritual fruit in His land. The question "What shall I do?" may well have been a cliffhanger moment in the first telling of the story. The audience was left to think about it. They naturally would have wondered why the owner took such a risk in sending His Son. Surely the landowner guessed what was likely to happen to His Son? And so the audience would have wondered whether this landowner was perhaps so obsessed with getting the rent, i.e. the fruit, that He did take the risk. That surely is the conclusion any audience is led to at this point. And that indeed is the point- that God is so passionate for spiritual fruit that He would risk and give His Son for it. But we surely have here another element of unreality- no matter how he wanted the rent, no owner would surely send His beloved Son given the previous history with His servants. This unreality in the story serves to highlight God's desperate desire for fruit. And we see here His supreme interest in our developing the fruit of the Spirit. Our perspective should be the same, seeking to exclude influences which damage the fruit, and practically surrounding ourselves with influences which elicit spiritual fruit. And this has huge impact upon what we watch and listen to.</p><p> The Bible is full of people who are brought to ask themselves "What shall I do?". The answer is the same as God's answer to Himself- to give all. He had asked Himself the same question about His people earlier: "Ephraim, what shall I do to you? Judah, what shall I do to you?" (Hos. 6:4). And the painful answer was 'Keep on loving you'. The rich fool asks himself the same question: "What shall I do?" (Lk. 12:17). The rich fool instead thinks only about where he can store his wealth, talking to himself from the wrong assumption that wealth lasts and can be stored up. The idea of course is that all of us, God and man, debate "What shall I do?". Saul / Paul asked "What shall I do?", the dishonest steward likewise when he is convicted of sin (Lk. 16:3), "What shall I do with Jesus?" Pilate effectively asked himsef (Mt. 27:22), the rich young ruler also ["What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"], the jailor ["What shall I do to be saved?"] as did the crowds at Pentecost (Lk. 18:18; Acts 2:37; 22:10) and the crowds who came to John ("What shall we do then?", Lk. 3:10,12,14) and the Jews who saw the Lord's miracles twice asked themselvs the same ("What shall we do? This man does many miracles", Jn. 11:47; Acts 4:16). The answer was begged really by the question; the questioners knew the answer was always to repent, resign all they had once held dear, and cast themselves and their lives upon the Lord Jesus. The rich fool debates with himself about how he is going to treat and pamper his "soul"; but then his soul or life is required of him, in that he dies. The reality of death just didn't figure in the man's self talk. He talks about his plans for his soul / life, and doesn't consider that God has other plans for his soul; he has left the Divine perspective quite out of account, speaking to himself about his life rather than to God, who in fact owns his soul / life. The answer ought to have been, to give his all for God and His people, and to repent of his materialism. The fool "said within himself", not 'thought within himself'. The idea is definitely of internal monologue and self talk. Job 31:14 has Job asking himself the same question but with the correct perspective, of final judgment: "What then shall I do when God rises up?".</p><p>
The prodigal son asks himself what he could do in his predicament; the unjust judge and dishonest steward likewise. All the humans in these parables are spiritually weak; their self-talk, we can assume, was related to their weakness and, in some cases, condemnation. Here we see the huge importance the Bible places upon internal dialogue and thought processes. And here in Lk. 20 we see how this is also a feature of God, in whose image man is made. Our self talk is therefore of critical importance; and it is this which God judges. The things of the deepest and most essential spirit. It is therefore no surprise that the records of the wilderness temptations are in fact perfectly in line with the general focus of the Gospels upon self talk and internal dialogue. The Old Testament has a similar focus- consider how Saul 'said within his heart...' in 1 Sam. 18:17,21. And in Lk. 12:45, the unfaithful servant reasons "My lord delays his coming...". </p>


text:
<p><em>But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned one with another, saying- </em>That is, they conspired. This is quoting the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:18'>Gen 37:18</a></em>. And the allusion is also to&nbsp;<em>"When they shall see him,&nbsp;</em>there is no beauty that they should desire him" (<em><a href='B:290 53:2'>Isa 53:2</a></em>). "Shamefully handled" (<em><a href='B:480 12:4'>Mar 12:4</a></em>) is s:w. <em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em> LXX "despised". </p><p><em>This is the heir!-</em> The leaders of first century Israel initially recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (cp. <em><a href='B:10 37:20'>Gen 37:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>). They saw (i:e. understood, recognized) him, but then they were made blind by Christ (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>). It was because they "saw" Jesus as the Messiah that the sin of rejecting him was counted to them (<em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>). This explains why the Roman / Italian nation was not held guilty for crucifying Christ, although they did it, whereas the Jewish nation was. And yet there is ample Biblical evidence to suggest that these same people who "saw" / recognized Jesus as the Christ were also ignorant of his Messiahship. "You both know me, and you know whence I am... You neither know me, nor my Father... when you have lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know that I am he" (<em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>) were all addressed to the same group of Jews. Did they know / recognize Jesus as Messiah, or not? As they jeered at him on the cross, and asked Pilate to change the nameplate from "Jesus, King of the Jews", did they see him as their Messiah? It seems to me that they didn’t. In ignorance the Jewish leaders and people crucified their Messiah (<em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em> RV). And yet they knew him for who he was, they saw him coming as the heir. I would suggest the resolution to all this is that they did recognize him first of all, but because they didn’t want to accept him, their eyes were blinded, so that they honestly thought that he was an impostor, and therefore in ignorance they crucified him. And yet, it must be noted, what they did in this ignorance, they were seriously accountable for before God.</p><p><em>Let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours</em>- Their assumption therefore was that the landlord must have died, for otherwise, killing the son would not have given them the inheritance. They acted, as we can, as if God is dead; although they would never have admitted that. The apparent non-action of God can likewise lead to the wrong impression that He is effectively dead. Seizing a vineyard for personal possession reminds us of Ahab’s actions in <em><a href='B:110 21:15-16'>1Ki 21:15-16</a></em> - making Naboth a type of Christ, and associating the Jewish religious leadership with wicked Ahab. However, Ahab did repent- and one wonders whether the Lord built in this allusion in reflection of His amazing hopefulness for Israel’s repentance. The allusion to Ahab may have been born in the Lord's Bible-saturated mind by the way that <em><a href='B:290 5:6'>Isa 5:6</a></em> spoke of rain being withheld from the vineyard, as happened in Ahab and Elijah's time. The confirmation of Israel in their evil way was brought to its climax in the crucifixion of Christ. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them?</em>-Surely a reference to the Lord being crucified outside Jerusalem. In this case, the vineyard specifically speaks of Jerusalem and the temple. <em><a href='B:480 12:8'>Mar 12:8</a></em> appears in English to suggest a different order: Took, killed, cast out of the vineyard. But the Greek text doesn’t have to be read strictly chronologically. The killed-and-cast-out need not be chronological. Or it could be that the Lord is teaching that effectively, they had killed Him before casting Him out and crucifying; the essence of the cross was ongoing in His life. That is clear enough in a number of Gospel passages.</p><p><em>"</em>Cast Him out<em>"</em> has obvious connection to the way in which the Lord was crucified outside the city limits of Jerusalem. But 'cast him out' is parallel with the stone being "rejected" by the builders (:17). The 'casting out' therefore speaks of religious rejection from the community. The same word is used of how the Lord was cast out of Nazareth (<em><a href='B:490 4:29'>Luk 4:29</a></em>), and how believers would be cast out from Judaism (<em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>) and the synagogue (<em><a href='B:500 9:34'>Joh 9:34</a></em>); and even from the legalistic church (<em><a href='B:710 1:10'>3Jn 1:10</a></em> "casts them out of the church"). Any who experience being cast out of the visible body of God’s people are thereby fellowshipping the Lord's crucifixion sufferings. Yet sadly the experience destroys many- when it can be taken as a share in His sufferings, knowing that if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him. It is the same word used for the </p>


text:
<p><em>He will come and destroy these husbandmen-</em> The Lord spoke of how the owner Himself would “come and destroy these husbandmen”. This is a shocking change in tempo- the owner has appeared impotent, distant and naive, to the point that the husbandmen considered He was effectively dead:&nbsp; They reasoned that if they killed the Son, then the vineyard would be theirs. But this is exactly the nature of Divine judgment. The God who appears effectively dead, at least impotent, distant and naïve, will suddenly reveal Himself in direct judgment. We believe that now by faith, but it shall surely happen.</p><p><em>And will give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said: God forbid</em>- The Lord will&nbsp;<em>give&nbsp;</em>the vineyard to the others. And yet He will come and destroy the vineyard, and the new nation He will choose will not just give Him some of the fruit, but will themselves become part of the vine, and themselves bear fruit to Him (<em><a href='B:470 21:43'>Mat 21:43</a></em>; John 15).</p><p>The Lord’s initial Palestinian hearers were well used to the scenario of absentee landlords. The parables of Israel would have been easily understood by them. The landlords lived far away, were never seen, and sometimes their workers took over the whole show for themselves. The Lord’s parable of the absentee landlord in <em><a href='B:490 20:9-16'>Luk 20:9-16</a></em> alludes to this situation. He sends messengers seeking fruit from the vineyard, but the tenants abuse or kill them, and he does nothing. When his son shows up, they assume that he’s going to do just as before- ignore whatever they do to him. After all, they’d got away with not giving him any fruit and ignoring his messengers for so long, why would he change his attitude? He was so far away, he’d been in a “far country” for a very long time (<em><a href='B:490 20:9'>Luk 20:9</a></em>), they didn’t really know him. The Lord asked the question: “What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?” (<em><a href='B:490 20:15'>Luk 20:15</a></em>). The obvious answer, from the context provided within the story, would be: “Judging on past experience, not much at all”. But then the Lord presented the element of unreality in the story, as a sudden, biting trick of the tail: No, the lord of the vineyard would actually personally come and destroy them, and give the vineyard to other tenants. Even though his experience of having tenants farm his land had been a fruitless and painful experience that had cost him the life of his son. And it was that element of unreality that brings home to us the whole point of the story. The Father does appear distant and unresponsive to our selfishness, our rebellion, and our refusal to hear his servants the prophets. But there is a real judgment to come, in which He will personally be involved. And yet even His destruction of the Jewish tenants hasn’t taken away His almost manic desire to have workers, in His desperate desire for true spiritual fruit. The parables of Israel surely speak encouragement to each of us. The parable of the absentee landlord has a telling twist to it. Absentee landlords who had never visited their land for ages, and found the people they sent to the property beaten up, would usually just forget it. They wouldn’t bother. In the parable which draws on this, the Lord asks what the landlord will do (<em><a href='B:490 20:15'>Luk 20:15</a></em>). The expected answer was: ‘Not much. He got what he could, he was never bothered to go there for years anyway’. But <em>this</em> landlord is odd. He keeps on sending messengers when any other landlord would have given up or got mad earlier on. But God’s patience through the prophets was likewise unusual. And then, when the tenants thought they must surely be able to get away with it because the Lord seemed so distant and out of touch… He suddenly comes Himself in person and destroys them. He doesn’t hire a bunch of people to do it. He comes in person, as the Lord will in judgment. And instead of deciding he’d had his fingers burnt and giving up vineyards as a bad job, this Lord gives the vineyard to others- He tries again. And so the Lord is doing with the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>But he looked upon them, and said: What then is this that is written- </em><em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em> "Did you never read in the scriptures". They spent their whole lives reading Scripture, and Psalms 118 was a well known Passover Hallel. But we can read and yet never really read as God intends.</p><p><em>The stone which the builders rejected- </em>The Lord would be "rejected of the elders, chief priests and scribes" (<em><a href='B:480 8:31'>Mar 8:31</a></em> s:w:); indeed, "rejected by this generation" (<em><a href='B:490 17:25'>Luk 17:25</a></em>).</p><p><em>The same was made the headstone of the corner?</em>- If the builders rejected this stone, the implication is that another set of builders used it in another building, which became the temple of God. This is precisely the situation with the vineyard being taken away from the Jewish tenants and another group of workers being taken on. The quotation is seamlessly in context with the parable.</p>


text:
<p><em>Everyone that falls on that stone shall be broken to pieces, but on whoever it shall fall, it will grind him to dust</em>- There is an unmistakable allusion here to the stone destroying the image, the Kingdoms of men, in <em><a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a></em>. The choice we have is to fall upon Christ and break our bones, to get up and stumble on with our natural self broken in every bone; or to be ground to powder by the Lord at his return, to share the judgments of this surrounding evil world- being&nbsp;“condemned with the world...". Yet strangely (at first sight) the figure of stumbling on the stone of Christ often describes the person who stumbles at his word,&nbsp;who rejects it (<em><a href='B:290 8:14-15'>Isa 8:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7-8'>1Pe 2:7-8</a></em>). In other words, through our spiritual failures we come to break ourselves, we become a community of broken men and women; broken in that we have broken our inner soul in conformity to God’s will. As Simeon cuddled that beautiful, innocent baby Jesus, he foresaw all this: "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again (resurrection) of many in Israel... that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed" (<em><a href='B:490 2:34'>Luk 2:34</a></em>). If we are to share his resurrection, if we are to experience such newness of life in this life, we must fall upon him, really feel the cutting edge of his word. We must be broken now; or be broken and ground to powder at the judgment. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p>A passage in Psalms 118 is referred to in <em><a href='B:490 20:18'>Luk 20:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:20'>Eph 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:6-8'>1Pe 2:6-8</a></em>. One wonders if this was a proof text which the early believers would have known by heart. And one wonders likewise about Psalms 2 - it is referred to so often.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the scribes and the chief priests sought to arrest him in that very hour, but they feared the people. For they perceived that he spoke this parable against them</em>- The connection with Isaiah 5 was so clear, and that song of the vineyard was a well known passage understood as the justification for the destruction of the first temple. The fear of the people was the reason why they didn’t take the Lord. He realized this, and I suggested on chapter 19 that His mockery of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem was calculated to turn the people violently against Him. He was the psychologist <em>extraordinaire</em>. By manipulating things in this way, the Lord held total control over His death and the timing and manner of it, so that His arrest and crucifixion were in fact His giving of His life, rather than it being taken away from Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they watched him and sent out spies, who pretended to be sincere- </em>Rightly had the Lord called them hypocrites. Their attempt at acting as sincere enquirers would have been laughable. All the way through, the Lord is presented as the one totally in control, with the Jews and Romans acting exactly as He had set them up to act.</p><p><em>So that they might catch him in something he said; so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the Roman governor</em>- The same word used of how&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to be entangled in condemnation (<em><a href='B:490 21:35'>Luk 21:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:9'>Rom 11:9</a></em>). As they treated the Lord, so they were treated. Our attitude to Him is in a way our attitude to ourselves and our eternal destiny. We note they could <em>not</em> in fact catch hold of His words (:26). His death was not going to be because they outsmarted Him, but rather because He willingly set up a situation through which He willingly gave His life rather than it being taken from Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they asked him, saying: Teacher, we know you say and teach rightly- </em>Gk:&nbsp;<em>orthos</em>, from whence 'orthodox'. They were thereby trying to lead Him to make a right wing, conservative answer, namely, that tribute should be given to God and not Caesar. And then the Herodians with whom they were working in this plan (see Matthew) could legally swoop upon Him and have Him arrested for disloyalty to the empire:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And show no favouritism to any person- </em>This was an appeal to Jewish orthodoxy, whereby the righteous Jew was supposed to be obedient to God regardless of what others thought. They were trying to lead the Lord into a position whereby He said 'No' to the question about giving the tribute money. And the Herodians were ready to pounce on Him if He did; for according to Matthew, they were working together with the Pharisees in this. We can reconstruct how the Pharisees and Herodians worked together in this; the Pharisees were trying to lead the Lord by a path of theology and logic to a position whereby He denied the need to pay tribute- and then Herod's supporters could pounce on Him. The verisimilitude and internal agreement of the record is again strong encouragement to accept this as the inspired word of God, recording he actual words spoken rather than giving a mere summary or imagination of them from a distance of time and space.</p><p><em>But in truth teach the way of God</em>- John the Baptist had attempted to prepare the way or path over which God’s glory in Messiah could come to Zion. The only other occurrence of "the way of God" is when we read that Apollos, who knew only John's teaching, had to have "the way of God", i:e. John's message about the way, explained more fully to him (<em><a href='B:510 18:26'>Act 18:26</a></em>). It may be that John had been so unworldly that he had not paid tribute to Caesar, or at least, he had been interpreted that way; and so now the Pharisees were commenting that if the Lord truly upheld John's teaching, then what was his answer about paying the tribute money? Because it was perceived, at very least, that John had advocated not paying it.</p>


text:
<p><em>Is it lawful- </em>This was purposefully vague, because they didn’t clarify whether they meant the law of Moses or that of Rome. This was part of the trap. If the Lord said it was lawful according to Roman law, then they could accuse Him of breaking the law of Moses. If He said it was lawful according to the Law of Moses, and therefore that law must surely be obeyed, then He was breaking the law of Rome. But the Lord majestically rises above the trap, by (as usual) taking the whole issue to a far higher level.</p><p><em>For us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?</em>- The word translated "tribute" was used by the Jews for the poll tax of <em><a href='B:20 30:12-16'>Exo 30:12-16</a></em>; the argument was that this should be paid to the temple and not to Gentiles. By pushing the Lord for a yes / no answer, they thought they would force Him into an untenable position. Judas of Galilee had agitated about not paying the tribute money to the Romans (<em><a href='B:510 5:37'>Act 5:37</a></em>) and had been executed for this in around AD6, in recent memory. The Lord as always appealed to higher principle- if it has Caesar's image, then give it to him; but what has God’s image, your own body, then give it to God. The giving of our entire person to God made paying an annual tax to the temple seem cheap and irrelevant.</p>


text:
<p><em>But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them</em>- <em><a href='B:470 22:18'>Mat 22:18</a></em> says He perceived their wickedness. The wickedness could be their hypocrisy. But their "wickedness" could refer to their personal sins, and because in that moment the Lord perceived those sins, He thereby perceived their hypocrisy and therefore challenged them about their hypocrisy. He may have been given that perception of their sins by some flash of Divine insight, or it could be that His supreme sensitivity to people led Him to imagine correctly the kind of stuff going on in their secret lives:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Show me a denarius- </em>The Pharisees claimed that pagan coinage should not be brought into the temple courts. This is why the coin had to be brought to the Lord, according to Matthew. By so doing, the Lord was purposefully provoking the Pharisees; likely the Herodians (<em><a href='B:470 22:16'>Mat 22:16</a></em>) brought it, not the Pharisees. </p><p>The tribute money had the inscription&nbsp;<em>Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus Pontifex Maximus</em>- “Tiberius Caesar, august son of the divine Augustus, High Priest”. Pedants would’ve quickly assumed that such blasphemous language and appropriation of titles appropriate to the Lord Jesus would mean that such coinage should not be used, nor should such tribute be paid to any man on this basis. But the Lord saw a bigger picture. He was quite OK with such token behaviours, but the far bigger issue was giving to God our own bodies and lives which bear His image.</p><p>The coin bore an image which strict Jews considered blasphemous, denoting Tiberius as son of God, the divine Augustus. The Lord doesn’t react to this as they expected – He makes no comment upon the blasphemy. He lets it go, but insists upon a higher principle. ‘If this is what Caesar demands, well give it to him; but give what has the image of God, i:e. yourself, to God’. He didn’t say ‘Don’t touch the coins, they bear false doctrine, to pay the tax could make it appear you are going along with a blasphemous claim’. Yet some would say that we must avoid touching anything that might appear to be false or lead to a false implication [our endless arguments over Bible versions and words of hymns are all proof of this]. The Lord wasn’t like that. He lived life as it is and as it was, and re-focused the attention of men upon that which is essential, and away from the minutiae. Staring each of us in the face is our own body, fashioned in God’s image – and thereby the most powerful imperative, to give it over to God. Yet instead God’s people preferred to ignore this and argue over the possible implication of giving a coin to Caesar because there was a false message on it. Morally and dialectically the Lord had defeated His questioners; and yet still they would not see the bigger and altogether more vital picture which He presented them with.</p><p><em>Whose image and superscription has it? And they said: Caesar's</em>- He was setting them up for His point that whatever bears God’s image and superscription is to be given to Him (:25); and that refers to our body and whole lives. We have His signature on us; perhaps the Lord had in mind by this the idea that Israel were God’s covenant people, His servants bearing His marks. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's- </em>The Jews were looking for immediate deliverance from Caesar. The Lord's parody of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem was designed to show that He was not bringing that kind of a Kingdom, that sort of salvation. By saying that tribute must indeed be rendered to Caesar, He was further dashing their Messianic hopes concerning Him, and further demonstrating that He was not the Messiah they were looking for. Thus He was consciously bringing about a situation whereby His popularity was turned into hatred, because of the whole psychology of dashed expectations making love turn to hate. The accusation that "We found this fellow... forbidding to give tribute to Caesar" (<em><a href='B:490 23:2'>Luk 23:2</a></em>) was so utterly untrue.</p><p>The memories of the Maccabean heroes and their rebellion were strongly in the minds and consciousness of first century Israel. Their exploits were recited yearly at the feast of Hanukkah. Yet the Lord purposefully subverts the history of the Maccabees. Mattathias had taught violent resistance to Gentile occupation in the slogan: "Repay the Gentiles in their own coin" (<em>1Ma_2:68</em> N:E:B:). But the Lord alludes to this, at least to the LXX form of the saying, when He advocated paying the Roman temple tax, giving the coin to them, and not violently resisting. See on <em><a href='B:650 5:6'>Heb 5:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>And to God the things that are God’s</em>- The Lord taught that whatever bear's God’s image must be 'rendered' to God, just as what bore Caesar's image must be rendered to Caesar (<em><a href='B:490 20:25'>Luk 20:25</a></em>). Seeing that the human body bears God’s image, He was clearly teaching that we should 'render' to God our whole being in the course of our human lives. But the same idea of rendering to God is picked up in <em><a href='B:670 4:5'>1Pe 4:5</a></em>, where we are told that in the final judgment, we will 'render' [s:w:] ourselves to God. By the way we live now, the manner in which we render to God all that is not Caesar's, we are effectively rendering to Him our judgment account. And so we also find this Greek word for 'to render' in <em><a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:27'>Mat 16:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:520 2:6'>Rom 2:6</a></em> - at the day of judgment, where we render ourselves to God, He will "give" [s:w. 'render'] to every man according as his works have been. We're rendering ourselves to God right now, here in this life. And He will render that back to us in the last day- for we are right now giving our account to God. And there are times in life where perhaps God specifically intervenes in order to give us a taste of that final day of 'rendering' of ourselves to God- hence in the parable of <em><a href='B:490 16:2'>Luk 16:2</a></em>, the man is asked to 'render an account' of his stewardship [s:w:]. It may be through illness, tragedy, loss, the intense introspection of depression, conviction of sin... in these things we are led to a specific preview of the 'rendering an account' which lies ahead. And we should be grateful that we have such opportunities.</p><p>What bears God’s image, which is our whole body and mind (<em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>), is to be given to God. We have God’s superscription written upon us, moreso if we are in Christ (<em><a href='B:730 3:12'>Rev 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:3'>Rev 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:1'>Rev 14:1</a></em>). "It is he that hath made us, and [therefore] we are his" (Psalms 100 RV). We must be His in practice&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;He is our creator. So it is not that we merely believe in creation rather than evolution; more than this, such belief in creation must elicit a life given over to that creator.</p><p>The things which are God’s are to be 'rendered' to Him. The Greek word means to pay back, to return; even giving our very bodies only giving back what He has given us:&nbsp; The same word had been used recently by the Lord in teaching that we have a huge debt to God which must be 'rendered' or paid back to Him (<em><a href='B:470 18:25-26'>Mat 18:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:28'>Mat 18:28</a></em>). We can read the Lord's words here as meaning that concerns about pedantic issues relating to coinage are irrelevant compared to the paramount issue- that we owe God everything. Because we are created in God’s image, the structure of our very bodies is an imperative to give ourselves totally to His cause (<em><a href='B:470 22:19-21'>Mat 22:19-21</a></em>). Whatever bears God’s image- i:e. our very bodies- must be given to Him. "It is he that hath made us, and [therefore] we are his" (<em><a href='B:230 100:3'>Psa 100:3</a></em> RV). We must be His in practice&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;He is our creator. So it is not that we merely believe in creation rather than evolution; more than this, such belief in creation must elicit a life given over to that creator.</p><p>"Should we give tribute to Caesar?" was answered with the comment that whatever has God’s image on it should be given to God- and seeing we're made in God’s image, the Lord was asking that they gave their very personal selves to God, every part of their mind and body- rather than worrying about the 'guilt by association' that might come from paying your taxes to Caesar (<em><a href='B:490 20:23-25'>Luk 20:23-25</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were not able to catch him in what he said in the presence of the people, so they marvelled at his answer and held their peace</em>- The Greek for “catch him” is elsewhere used about the Jews finally taking hold of the Lord in arrest and crucifixion. The Jews are also recorded as not being able to do this physically to Him in public, “before the people”. But Luke speaks of the Jews doing these things in relation to “His words”. This is Luke’s way of saying what John says in so many words- that the Lord Jesus was so identified with His words, which were God’s words, that He was “the word made flesh”, the living personification of His own words, in whom there was perfect congruence between His essential self and His words.</p><p>They perceived what He was saying- for they "marvelled". Just as in the parable, the Jews heard the invitation to the banquet, and perceived that "this is the heir". But Matthew records that they went their way- and that way was the way to crucifying the Lord, killing the messenger of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there came to him- </em>Over 100 times we read in the Gospels of various people coming to Jesus- His enemies, the crowds, His disciples, people in need. Each came with their various motivations, agendas and pre-understandings of Him. His invitation to ‘come to Him’ was to come&nbsp;<em>in faith</em>. The repeated repetition of the phrase ‘came to Him’ is perhaps to invite us to see ourselves likewise as amongst those who ‘come to Him’ as we read or hear the Gospel record, ensuring that we are truly coming to Him and not merely on a surface level as so many did.</p><p><em>Certain of the Sadducees, they that say that there is no resurrection</em>- The obvious response to a question from such people about the resurrection would be ‘But you don’t believe in a resurrection!’. They <em>antilego,</em>&nbsp;spoke against publicly, the resurrection. Mark’s record adds that they also said that “In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise…” (<em><a href='B:480 12:23'>Mar 12:23</a></em>). But the Lord was not so primitive as to point out their obvious untruth. He took their position as they stated it, and worked to demonstrate that even given that position, they were woefully ignorant of Divine truth. Long term, His approach stood a chance of working. If He had simply denounced them as liars and self-contradictory, there was no chance He would’ve ever contributed towards their possible repentance and change of heart. This approach needs to be take to heart by us. For there are large numbers of believers who seem to think that their service to God involves cruising internet forums or endlessly arguing with their neighbours in order to prove them wrong and self-contradictory about doctrinal matters. This may give a slight ego rush for a moment, but it is not in fact any real victory. For the victory we seek is not to tie another up in mental knots, but to lead them to repentance, to the Lord Jesus, and to His Kingdom. We also need to note that recently the Lord had resurrected Lazarus, with the result that He appeared to have won over many who had previously supported the Jewish leadership. They were now trying to prove that resurrection doesn’t happen. The Lord could’ve called many witnesses to the resurrection of Lazarus, but instead He takes their argument and works from it.</p><p>It has been observed that the Sadducees were generally hedonistic- and this surely was a result of their denial of the future resurrection and judgment. Their belief was that only the Torah was inspired, and it was Israel’s duty to live according to it in this life. They were a parade example of the effect of doctrine in practice.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they asked him, saying: Teacher, Moses wrote to us- </em>Matthew: “Moses <em>spoke </em>unto us”. The Lord picks this up in His answer in <em><a href='B:470 22:31'>Mat 22:31</a></em>: “Have you not read that which was&nbsp;<em>spoken</em>&nbsp;unto you by&nbsp;<em>God</em>”. He is telling them that God and not Moses was the ultimate speaker to them; and that the word was not merely&nbsp;<em>written</em>&nbsp;but is a living word, actively&nbsp;<em>speaking</em>&nbsp;unto them. For all their much vaunted belief in Divine inspiration of the Scriptures, these men had failed to perceive that God was speaking to them personally through the human authors. And that criticism needs to be remembered today by those equally wedded to a declared belief in Divine inspiration of the Bible. It is to be to us a word&nbsp;<em>spoken</em>&nbsp;and not a dead letter written on paper.</p><p><em>That if a man's brother dies, having a wife but he is childless, his brother should take the wife and raise up seed to his brother</em>- The Lord could have replied that if they read the entire passage in <em><a href='B:50 25:5-7'>Deu 25:5-7</a></em>, they would see that God actually made a concession in this matter; and the whole principle only applied to “brethren dwelling together”. A man did not&nbsp;<em>have to</em>&nbsp;marry his brother’s wife. In any case, as most adult men were married, it would have usually been a case of polygamy. But again, the Lord didn’t point out that expositional error, but goes on to develop a far greater and higher principle concerning the nature of His Kingdom, in which such casuistry about marriage will be simply irrelevant. And again, He sets an example to those who have spent their religious lives arguing about divorce and remarriage and fellowship issues. Their arguments could be demonstrated to be expositionally faulty. But the higher principle is that such issues shall be irrelevant in God’s Kingdom; and we are to live the essence of the Kingdom life now as far as we can, in spirit at least. The Sadducees made a big deal of the fact that the word translated “raise up seed” is that used generally in the Septuagint for resurrection. Their idea was that resurrection is not of the body but through family life. To die childless was therefore tragic indeed. The same error is made by many today who effectively believe that family life is the ultimate form of spirituality. It is not, and God seeks to build a personal relationship with each of us, He is the personal God of Abraham, Isaac etc:, and we shall experience a personal bodily resurrection at which we shall appear before God stripped of our family, and relate to Him as a single individual.</p>


text:
<p><em>There were therefore seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died childless</em>- This must have been a most unfortunate family. The Old Testament speaks of the failure to build up a house / family and the death of men in youth as being a curse from God for disobedience (<em><a href='B:220 18:19'>Job 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 107:38-39'>Psa 107:38-39</a></em>). Again, the Lord could have made capital of this- but He didn’t. There was no element of personal attack, but rather an appeal to higher principle.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the third took her, and likewise the seventh also left no children, and died</em>- Instead of asking 'And who and where was this family?', picking up the obvious contradictions within the story, the Lord let all that go. He wanted to focus upon essential principles, rather than getting caught up in proving that His opponents were lying. He sets an example which so many of His followers have not well followed.</p>


text:
<p><em>Afterward the woman also died</em>- She would have been judged to be a most unfortunate woman, likely under God’s judgment (see on :29). But the Lord doesn’t question the very unlikely story nor the contradictions within it- instead He works from what was presented to Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>In the resurrection, whose wife of these shall she be? For the seven had her as wife</em>- The Lord could’ve pointed out that they were well known for denying / speaking against the resurrection. But He doesn’t make that obvious point, instead focusing on the higher principles rather than point scoring.</p><p>'Who will be married to whom in the Kingdom?' was well answered by the Lord, but His final cut was that God is the God of the living and "all live unto Him", i:e. the fact <em>we</em> are alive means we are responsible for our actions to Him right now- and we must be moved by that, rather than by speculation about the physicalities of how <em>others</em> may be in God’s Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 20:33-38'>Luk 20:33-38</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry and are given in marriage</em>- The Lord attacks their assumption that the Kingdom will be a continuation of life as it is in this world, just minus some of the limitations and complications. That is not the case; "this world" is contrasted radically to "that world" (:35). Whilst we rightly look forward to seeing beloved family members again who were believers, we have to be aware that family relationships as we now know them are for "this world". The age to come will not be "this world" and its relationships somehow revived in a human sense. The question of the Jews was therefore a reflection of deep immaturity. And this was the context at the time- the Lord was being asked to set up a literal Kingdom in Israel, with Israel 'marrying and giving in marriage' in their own kingdom, totally independent of Rome. But His message was far beyond that. His Kingdom was to come in an age where all such things would be no more. The world of Lot and Noah's time married and gave in marriage right up until the day of judgment- and no longer, after that.</p>


text:
<p><em>But they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage</em></p><p>- See on :34. "Accounted worthy" means to be counted totally without blame and thereby totally worthy. I suggest this is another example of where Luke is preparing his readers for the Pauline explanations in Romans- that only through imputed righteousness, by faith through grace, can anyone be saved. The same word is used when Paul prays that God would count the Thessalonians "worthy" of their calling (<em><a href='B:600 1:11'>2Th 1:11</a></em>). The Jews were assuming that they would be in the age to come, on account of their relation to Abraham by the flesh; and the Lord is saying that the only ones who shall be there are those counted totally worthy. The thoughtful hearer would have realized that this would mean that worthiness and righteousness had to somehow be imputed. </p>


text:
<p><em>Neither can they die any more; for they are equal to the angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection</em>- Note the present tenses. They are most striking in Greek: “Neither&nbsp;<em>can they die</em>… they&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;equal to the Angels: and&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;sons of God, being sons of the resurrection”. Greek tenses, unlike Hebrew tenses, are precise. We would expect ‘They shall not die… shall be equal… shall be…’. But the present tenses are striking. The Lord is building up to His point that the question about marriage is inappropriate because God is outside of our kind of time; He sees the believers in Him as even now immortal, a point made more strongly in John’s Gospel. This is not the same as having an immortal soul, nor does it imply conscious survival of death. Rather is it a reflection of how God from His perspective outside of time sees His children. <em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em> makes the same point, that we are born again of water and spirit even in this life, and thereby are living the life eternal. But that is from God’s standpoint outside of time as we experience it. </p>&nbsp;<p>The Sadducees denied the existence of Angels (<em><a href='B:510 23:8'>Act 23:8</a></em>). The Lord’s teaching that Angels do not marry was surely additionally an attack on the Jewish myths becoming popular at the time concerning the supposed marriage of Heavenly Angels with the daughters of men in Genesis 6. These myths are deconstructed in Jude and 2 Peter, but the Lord here is also correcting them. We marvel at how apparently ‘off the cuff’ He could speak in such a multi-faceted and profound way, addressing various issues simultaneously. Although His intellectual and spiritual ability was doubtless capable of such instant responses, I prefer to imagine the Lord reflecting deeply upon God’s word and preparing His ideas throughout the years of spiritual mindedness that preceded His ministry.</p><p>"We shall be as “the sons / children of God”, thereby answering the Sadducees' idea that it is a human duty to have children and thereby continue the race, for therein do we have our ‘resurrection’. Again the Lord is lifting the whole question to a far higher level. Luke adds that the Lord first said that “the children of this world marry…”. The Sadducees were assuming that the Kingdom of God would be a kind of continuation of this present life, just with eternity of nature. Whilst there are similarities and aspects of continuity between who we are and who we shall eternally be, we are mistaken in imagining the future Kingdom of God as some kind of ideal earthly situation, a tropical paradise holiday, which shall last eternally. This is the same mistake as thinking that we shall eternally be doing what “the children of&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;world” currently do. Instead of criticizing and exposing the faults in the argument presented, the Lord makes the point that the Kingdom of God will not be about marriage nor about casuistic arguments about the definition of marriage- the very arguments which have occupied the minds of far too many of His children. Paul uses the same logic in reasoning that arguments about food are irrelevant because the Kingdom of God will not be about such behaviour, but about love, peace and joy (<em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>). Paul, like the Lord here, could have exposed the fallacies of exposition being engaged with, but instead reasons on a higher level- that seeing we shall not be arguing about such things eternally, let us not do it now.</p><p>The fact Angels cannot die means they can't sin, for sin brings death (<em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>). This is therefore a fairly strong argument against immortal Angels being sinful. </p>


text:
<p><em>But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, when he called the Lord: The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob</em>- The Greek here says that Moses “calls” [present tense] God “the God of Abraham…”. Not only does this imply a living word which speaks to us today, but again the point is made throughout the passage that God is outside of time. This choice of tenses in this passage is purposeful, for elsewhere we read of how Moses said or commanded things in the past tense (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em> “things which Moses commanded”, “Moses wrote”, <em><a href='B:490 20:28'>Luk 20:28</a></em>; “Moses gave you…”, <em><a href='B:500 6:32'>Joh 6:32</a></em>). </p><p>If the Lord was looking merely for a reference to God being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He had many places He could have quoted from. I suggest He chose <em><a href='B:20 3:6'>Exo 3:6</a></em> partly to show that the supremely intimate, personal revelation of God to Moses was just the same now to all individuals within Israel. It was a living word spoken to them personally. But also because the Lord wants to make the point that God is outside of time- and that passage goes on to climax in the revelation of that same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the “I am that I am” (<em><a href='B:20 3:14'>Exo 3:14</a></em>). The God outside of time, witnessed by the way the tetragrammaton somehow straddles past, present and future tenses, therefore sees the dead as alive “unto Him”. The question put to the Lord was very much rooted in the assumption that time as we now know it is going to continue in the Kingdom of God, and the Lord is making the point that this is an immature way of looking at it; and therefore the question was irrelevant. The Exodus 3 passage also contains repeated assurance that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will receive what God has promised- which requires bodily resurrection for them. We need to ever remember that the Lord was not merely demonstrating intellectual prowess in all this reasoning and allusion. He considered them as the sheep who erred / were astray, and through all His teaching here He was merely seeking to steer them to Him and ultimate salvation.</p><p>At the time of the burning bush, Moses seems to have forgotten God’s covenant name, he didn’t immediately take off his shoes in respect as he should have done, he feared to come close to God due to a bad conscience, and he resisted God’s invitation for him to go forth and do His work (<em><a href='B:20 3:5-7'>Exo 3:5-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:10-11'>Exo 3:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:18'>Exo 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:1'>Exo 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:10-14'>Exo 4:10-14</a></em>). And yet at this very time, the Lord says that Moses showed faith in the way he perceived God. This is indeed imputed righteousness. </p><p>God is His word (<em><a href='B:500 1:2'>Joh 1:2</a></em>). Moses is likewise spoken of as if he is his word (<em><a href='B:510 15:21'>Act 15:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:21'>Act 21:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:22'>Act 26:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>), so close was his association with it; just as we shall be judged by our words. The words and commands of Moses were those of God. “In the bush God spoke unto (Moses), saying, I am the God of Abraham... Isaac and Jacob” (<em><a href='B:480 12:26'>Mar 12:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:31'>Mat 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:6'>Exo 3:6</a></em>). Yet <em><a href='B:490 20:37'>Luk 20:37</a></em> says that “that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when <em>he calls the Lord the God of Abraham</em>” etc. Yet this was what God said of Himself. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. For all live to Him</em>- This Greek construction could mean ‘Not only the God of the dead, but also of the living’. But the context is the Lord demonstrating that the understanding of the Sadducees was very much a dead religion and their God was effectively dead. They denied the resurrection and considered that we have reward only in this life. In this case, God was the God of Abraham only in the past. The Greek phrase could literally mean ‘Not the God the dead, but the living [God]’, alluding to the well known phrase “the living God”. If God only acted for Abraham etc. in the past, then the God Abraham knew effectively died when Abraham died. But the living God seeks to impart life to the faithful.</p><p>"All live to Him” is the Lord is critiquing their division between this life and the life to come- by saying that the faithful live on now in God’s memory as they will eternally; He speaks of things which are not as though they are (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>), and in this sense whether we live or die we are the Lord’s (<em><a href='B:520 14:8'>Rom 14:8</a></em>). Although the soul is mortal, the spirit returns to God and will be eternally “saved” at the last day. And the spirit refers to who a man essentially is, his thinking and character. This is preserved by God in His memory, and in that sense the faithful dead “live” before Him now. John’s Gospel puts this in so many words by saying that we can live the eternal life right now. Whilst bodily resurrection is so significant from our point of view, the God who is outside of our kind of time sees the dead as effectively living as He extends forwards into eternity from the present- in a way we cannot now do. I made the point above that recently the Lord had resurrected Lazarus, with the result that He appeared to have won over many who had previously supported the Jewish leadership. They were now trying to prove that resurrection doesn’t happen. The Lord at that time had emphasized that the resurrection of Lazarus was a visual reminder of the new life which those who believed in Him could experience right now: “Whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die” (<em><a href='B:500 11:26'>Joh 11:26</a></em>). Luke’s comment that “all live unto Him” is saying roughly the same thing. If our spirit is focused upon living and thinking the Kingdom life now, then this spirit is preserved by God upon death. And it is this which God sees after our death, and the sense in which we live unto Him. See on <em><a href='B:520 14:8-9'>Rom 14:8-9</a></em>.</p><p>"All live to him" is a phrase used by the Rabbis concerning the existence of the faithful Jews as immortal souls in Heaven; Adam Clarke quotes several examples from Jewish writings. It seems the Lord uses their phrase in order to deconstruct it. Salvation is through being 'counted worthy' by grace (:35), the same idea as being counted as live "to Him", and depends upon the resurrection of the body (:35). It is not at all automatic, as would be required by the idea of immortal souls. </p>


text:
<p><em>And certain of the scribes answering said: Teacher, you have said well</em>- This was the kind of admission of defeat which was not typical of the Lord's enemies; perhaps these were the scribes of the Pharisees who did later believe in the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 15:15'>Act 15:15</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And after that they dared not question him anymore</em>- They dared not even try to engage Him in debate because He was as it were winning, and the crowds were realizing this:&nbsp; These very words are used of how the disciples after the resurrection dared not ask who Jesus was (<em><a href='B:500 21:12'>Joh 21:12</a></em>), which is the very context here. The connection is clearly to show that they too through their being too influenced by Jewish thinking found themselves in the same category as the unbelieving Jews- the difference being that they repented of it. The Greek for “questions” isn’t in the original; they dared not ask Him again. The implication from the context could be that they dared not ask Him ‘Who are You?’, for the answer was clear in their consciences. They knew, on one level, that He was Messiah, that He was the heir to the vineyard, whom they knowingly sought to murder.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Why do they say that the Christ is David’s son?</em>- The Lord had clearly done well in answering the questions, and it’s easy to misinterpret this as Him now going onto the thrust of an offensive, having successfully parried the attacks. But He was trying to steer them to Him, to repentance and salvation, and not to merely win an intellectual battle for its own sake. All the same, He capitalized upon their continued presence to seek to correct another major misunderstanding. His desire to save them is breathtaking. The fact there were Pharisees who later converted to Christ is proof enough that His strategy worked, at least for some (<em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>). And remember that Saul the Pharisee was living in Jerusalem at the time, and may well have been listening carefully.</p><p>They were surely aware that Jesus was a son of David, on both the sides of Mary and Joseph. For the Jewish leaders would’ve done their homework as to His [apparent] family of origin. </p><p>Matthew records that the Lord addressed a question to the Pharisees about Messiah as David’s son. Having let the Pharisees give the answer, He then asks others how this can be the case. Again, the Lord’s dialogues with the Pharisees was not simply to try to convert them, but in order that the audience would learn. See on <em><a href='B:470 22:33'>Mat 22:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When the multitude heard this:&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:480 12:37'>Mar 12:37</a></em> concludes the section by observing that “the common people heard Him gladly”, so again we see how the records seamlessly complement each other.</p>


text:
<p><em>For David himself said in the book of Psalms: The Lord said- </em>Clearly Yahweh. If the Divine Name was to be used in the New Testament, surely this would be the place for it. The fact it is not, when some Hebrew words are used (e.g. ‘Sabaoth’), shows clearly enough that the literal usage of the Tetragrammaton is not something God sees as important or even required.</p><p><em>To my Lord, Sit on My right hand- </em>Biblically and historically, David’s immediate ‘Lord’ was Saul. Psalms 110 was originally a revelation to David of the potential possible for Saul, who was an anointed ‘Messiah’ figure. But Saul failed, and so the fulfilment of the prophecy was rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord Jesus. The “how” doesn’t imply that David’s Lord is not his son, but rather is a rhetorical question. How is the Messianic son of David, David’s “Lord”, to be his son or descendant? <em><a href='B:480 12:37'>Mar 12:37</a></em> says the Lord reinforced the question by asking “<em>From whence</em>&nbsp;is He his son?”. The answer had to be: ‘Through a woman in David’s direct line giving birth to Him’. And the questioners were fully aware that Jesus was in the direct line of David through Mary.</p>


text:
<p><em>Until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet</em>- The Lord’s enemies stood around Him as He applied this Psalm to Himself. And yet being at the footstool of the Lord doesn't have to mean being dominated by Him in judgment. It can refer to the great paradox whereby the Lord's enemies become His loyalest and most humble citizens, at His feet in submission, and thereby also at the Father's right hand of acceptance.</p>


text:
<p><em>David therefore calls him Lord, so, how is he his son?</em>- Judaism’s concept of Messiah has always been vague and not commonly agreed, but there was and is the idea that the likes of Abraham, Moses and David are greater than Messiah. The Lord is pointing out that David considered Messiah to be his “Lord”, just as Messiah was greater than Abraham (<em><a href='B:500 8:58'>Joh 8:58</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And in the hearing of all the people, he said to his disciples</em>- This is typical of how the Lord intentionally focused upon the disciples. The accounts of the sermons on the mount and on the plain have the same feature; the crowds are gathered, but the Lord addresses the disciples. He realized they were His only hope; the masses were fickle, and He focused upon those who were open to His real teaching. </p>


text:
<p><em>Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes and love greetings in the marketplaces- </em>The Lord’s reason for going to the market was to invite men to work in the vineyard and receive the penny of salvation (<em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>); and His people sitting in the markets sought to persuade others of the need to respond to the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 11:16'>Mat 11:16</a></em>). The Pharisees went to the markets to simply flaunt their external spirituality. Again, note how their behaviour was the very inversion of true spirituality.</p><p><em>And chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts</em>- They wanted to be publicly seen as spiritually superior. The whole structure of church life, whereby some must have public roles, is such that people can fall so easily into a love of publicity. The Lord realizes this, and often removes His beloved from such temptations. This explains the otherwise inexplicable way in which the Lord allows some of His most talented and capable servants to be removed from the public eye to serve Him in human obscurity:&nbsp;Note that the Lord here is repeating almost word for word what He has previously said about the Pharisees in Luke 11. To repeat so much text twice in the Gospel records, and for the Lord to give identical word-for-word teaching on two occasions, shows how important these warnings are for all readers. This consideration alone suggests that we each have the same tendency as the Pharisees; they are but epitomes of our own deepest tendencies and desires.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who devour widows' houses- </em>The language used here about the behaviour of the Scribes and Pharisees is elsewhere used about the righteous behaviour of the Lord and His followers; the Jewish leaders were living a religious life, but it was but a parody of true spirituality. The same words for “devour” and “house” are used of how the Lord Jesus was ‘eaten up’ or ‘devoured’ with zeal for His Father’s “house”. But by contrast the Scribes thought only of how they could devour the houses of widows, scheming how to get the house of a vulnerable single old woman left to them, and how they could devour that wealth upon themselves. We note that Mark and Luke conclude this section with the account of the widow who gave her entire wealth to the temple coffers (<em><a href='B:480 12:42'>Mar 12:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:1'>Luk 21:1</a></em>). This was surely to add assurance that although her donation was misused, it was carefully noted by God to her eternal credit.</p><p><em>And for a pretence make long prayers- </em>They were hypocrites. The word was used about an actor’s cloak, and thus connects with the theatrical term ‘hypocrites’, play-actors. The Lord uses the same word in <em><a href='B:500 15:22'>Joh 15:22</a></em>: “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no&nbsp;<em>cloak</em>&nbsp;for their sin”. When did He come and speak unto the Jews about their hypocrisy? Surely here in Mark 12. Although they did have a cloak for their sin before men, the Lord is saying in John 15 that they have no such cloak before Him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>These shall receive greater condemnation</em>- There will be degrees of punishment, although it will be self-inflicted.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he looked up and saw the rich men that were casting their gifts into the treasury</em>- The context is at the end of Luke 20, where the Lord is recorded as telling the disciples to beware of the Scribes. He said this, we can infer, looking at the ground, surrounded by the disciples. He said it, therefore, in sadness. Not aggressively shouting out warning. Condemnation saddens Him, because in essence He is a saviour. The saviour. And He is the same yesterday, today and forever. At the day of judgment, it will be men who condemn themselves more than Him condemning them. We note too how the cameraman is zoomed close in on the Lord at this point; even the movement of His eyes is noted and relayed to us. The word becomes a living word, and the real Lord Jesus comes over alive to we who read and hear these words and think about them.</p><p>He "looked up" because Mark notes He was sitting. There was no seating in the temple. It was not like a church building today, with benches and seating. The Rabbis made a great deal of the fact that God alone was seated in the temple, and in line with their targum on 2 Sam. 7:18, only Messiah would sit there in the same way as His ancestor David had sat in the temple in gratitude for the Messianic promises ("David the king went in and sat before Yahweh; and he said, Who am I, Lord Yahweh, and what is my house, that You have brought me thus far?"). The Lord sitting in the temple, and sitting in judgment, was therefore a Messianic claim. But His judgment is shown for what it really is- a searching of hearts and motives, and a positive noticing of obscure people and their obscure acts of devotion.
As he looked up and saw Zacchaeus, so the same term is used here of how He looked upon this poor widow; who was clearly another one of His people known to Him ahead of time. The many small coins the rich threw in make a loud clanging noise in the collection trumpets. They were literally trumpeting their good deeds before men in God's house. The widow threw in the same kind of coins which they threw in in abundance. What she threw in was scarcely audible to men; but the Lord noticed. The only other references to the Lord sitting are to Him sitting in judgment. And that judgment was ongoing even then; it does and will finally take into account the things not audible to men.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he saw a certain poor widow throwing in there two small coins</em>- She could have kept one of the coins; but she threw both of them in. The thin coins (Mk.) were what were typically thrown to beggars; we are left to conclude that she gave to God all that was given to her. We must be ever aware of our tendency to come to the Biblical text with our mind already made up about what it means, viewing it through the lens of our pre-existing images of what we are going to read. The incident of the poor widow is a classic case. We tend to imagine the Lord "sitting opposite the treasury" as meaning He sat opposite the 'trumpet' into which people poured their coins. But the Lord taught the people "in the treasury" (Jn. 8:20 cp. 2 Kings 23:11; Ezra 10:6; Neh. 10:38,39), so the reference is to the chamber called "the treasury". And we too easily assume that she was an old, wizzened woman, leaning heavily on a cane. But seeing male life expectancy in Palestine was so low, the image of a "widow" would more likely refer to a woman around 30 years old, with dirty children in tow, looking malnourished. Likewise we assume an overall positive image, in spiritual terms: 'What a wonderful example of poor people being generous!'. And that cannot be denied. But there is also a strongly negative image evoked by the incident, when we bear in mind that the Gospel records have just noted that the Jews were covetous and avaricous; and built their wealth through "devouring widows' houses" (Mk. 12:40). The image, in this case, is negative; we are intended to contrast her with the wealthy, public donors- and be incensed that she had been so spiritually abused and mentally manipulated that she believed that giving her two coins to those men was in fact serving God. We leave the incident lamenting spiritual abuse, rather than simply being inspired to generosity. And yet without doubt, the image of total sacrifice must be given its due weight. Mark's record appears to use this incident to unite the two halves of his Gospel; Mark 1-12 concern the Lord's public ministry, and Mark 13-16 focus upon the events in the last week or His life. But those sections are linked with this picture of total sacrifice, as if to preface what we will go on to read about the Lord's total sacrifice. We note that we are provided with the context about how the religious leaders were "devouring widows' houses" (Mk. 12:40). It could even be that we are to conclude that this woman's poverty was because she had been financially abused by the scribes. The Lord condemns the temple as a den of robbers (Mk. 11:17), with specific reference to the treasury. And yet she returns to the temple to give her pennies to them. In this case, she is being held up as an example of a woman who still served God despite spiritual abuse, and didn't allow her bad experience with church to stop her serving God. And we see too how despite her loyalty to and membership of a corrupt system, the Lord still noticed her sincerity and did not at all reject her for the sake of any kind of guilt by association. This is ultimate comfort for many who laboured beneath spiritual abuse and corrupt systems. The incident is the prelude to the Olivet prophecy- of destruction of the temple and all its wealth. Criticism of the temple cult is therefore a big factor in the story.
From what we know of the second temple, there were several 'trumpets' for financial offerings. The offerer told the priest what the offering was for; and there are records of the offerer being told that their offering couldn't be accepted as it was too small for the purpose stated. What is noteworthy, therefore, is that the priests allowed the woman to make such a tiny offering. Perhaps we are to imagine the priest not noticing her as she crept up to one of the "freewill" offering trumpets and threw in her coins; but the Lord did notice her. The sound of the coins in the trumpets apparently indicated to the priest the size of the gift. Her coins would have made no recognizable noise; but the Lord noticed, and the Gospel records immortalized the otherwise imperceptible sound of her offering. As the Lord taught, our giving is to be by its nature unnocited by men, in order for it to be noticed by God. And we must examine ourselves as to when we last did this. The record goes straight on to mention that the temple was adorned with costly gifts (Lk. 21:5)- which were all to soon be destroyed. Exactly because of the systemic abuse of people like that widow. We note that her giving was at Passover time- which was the time for almsgiving to the poor and widow. The clear irony is that she gave what little she had, and got nothing from the temple cult.
Mark's record stresses how the focus of the record zooms in upon the widow; from the crowd casting in money, to the rich doing so, and then to the poor widow. His use of tenses assists the effect. Literally 'the crowd are throwing money [present tense]... the many rich were throwing [imperfect tense]... the widow threw [aorist tense, a completed, once and for all action]' (Mk. 12:41). The idea may be that the rich were regularly throwing money into the trumpets; but the widow made just her one offering at one point in time, because she was not accustomed to go there and make offerings. The suggestion, therefore, is that their 'giving' was a regular religious observance; but her giving was of all that she had, and so by nature could only occur once. Likewise the focus upon the woman is achieved by speaking of "the crowd" (Mk.), then the "many that were rich"- whereas the woman comes alone, literally "one widow, a poor one" (Mk. 12:42). Her giving was not therefore inspired by any crowd mentality or herd psychology, giving because others give. Just as our giving must be a totally personal response to God's grace in Jesus, inspired by Him alone.
The two lepta ["small coins"] were the smallest coinage in the Roman system. They amounted to 1/64 of a denarius, the "penny" paid for a day's work in harvest time. They could buy a handful of flour, seen as the measure of a meagre meal. Eight lepta made one ass, and inscriptions from Pompeii show that daily bread for four people cost around four asses or 32 lepta coins. Cheese for four people for one meal cost one ass or eight lepta. Remember that as a "widow" she may well have had young children to provide for as well. Her gift, which is held up as our pattern, was ultimately insignificant in secular terms. And this is the point. Our giving is of itself insignificant, but the spirit behind it is eternally important. The woman likely thought that she may as well not offer her tiny gift. But she did so. Exactly because she understood that she was giving of her spirit, giving her all, symbolized in sacrificing at best a day's food. The Lord understood that she who gave least actually gave most- because His scale of measurement is of the spirit and not of the external. He commends her for giving all- in that going to the effort to give that tiny amount reflected how she wanted to give her all. She likely had a few material things somewhere and a place where she slept. But she is not recorded as giving these. But her attitude of giving is seen as reflective of a desire to give, and a total surrender of herself to God.
The impression we get is that these were her last coins, all that she had. The same idea is found in Lk. 12:59, where the man who will not settle things with his brother must pay all that he had, down to the last lepton. That is a picture of condemnation. The man will pay his last "mite" / lepton, but still not be saved. The woman gave her last mite to the Lord now. It's bankruptcy, giving all, right now, for His sake- or the loss of all things at the day of judgment. There is an absolute logic to the path of total devotion.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Of a truth I say to you: This poor widow threw in more than all of them</em>- The Lord condemned how the Pharisees “devoured widow’s houses”- and then straight away we read of Him commending the widow who threw in her whole living to the coffers of the Pharisees. It wasn’t important that the widow saw through the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and didn’t ‘waste’ her few pennies; her generosity was accepted for what it was, even though it didn’t achieve what it might have done, indeed, it only abetted the work of evil men.</p><p>The Lord taught that one must forsake all that he has in order to truly be His disciple (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). But at the end of His ministry, He as it were chose to exemplify this aspect of discipleship by drawing attention to a woman who gave to God “all the living that she had” (<em><a href='B:490 21:3'>Luk 21:3</a></em>). Putting the passages together, the Lord is saying that she is to be the model for us all in this aspect of devotion. </p>&nbsp;<p>So clearly, God accounts not as man does. We are judged according to our possibilities and not according to volume of achievement. She threw in "more", literally she 'exceeded', that the others had thrown in. The same word is used of how our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>). She is again presented as the model disciple. The word has just been used&nbsp;in <em><a href='B:480 12:33'>Mar 12:33</a></em> of how love of God and neighbour is "more" than all sacrifices. She achieved that love not by volume of achievement but in her attitude.</p>


text:
<p><em>For all these out of their abundance have put in offerings, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on</em>- The Lord pointed out to the disciples how the extreme generosity of the widow, giving the two pennies of her business capital, her "living", to the Lord, was worth far more than the ostentatious giving of the wealthy Jewish leadership (<em><a href='B:480 12:44'>Mar 12:44</a></em>); but the next incident recorded by Mark is the disciples marvelling at the ostentatious buildings of the temple, and the Lord explaining that all this needed to be thrown down (<em><a href='B:480 13:1-2'>Mar 13:1-2</a></em>). Their slowness to perceive is such a theme of the gospel records. To give from that which is over and above and remaining, "abundance", is not giving much at all really. "Out of her poverty" could suggest that it was her poverty which motivated her gift, as if to say that her greater generosity was not surprising, because she was poor; and in her case, total giving was motivated by her poverty. So it is poverty and not wealth which, as the Lord observed, motivates to the kind of radical giving which He seeks.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and offerings, he said</em>- These words are taken over in the later New Testament to describe the adorning of a new temple with precious stones, comprised of the believers in Christ (<em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:19'>Rev 21:19</a></em>). Their praise of the ostentatious "offerings" reflects how they had apparently failed to grasp the lesson about the real nature of offerings just given by the incident with the widow woman (:1-4). </p><p>The temple buildings were thrown down&nbsp;<em>in order that</em>&nbsp;a new and spiritual building comprised of believers could be built up through the Lord's work in the hearts of His people. The group of believers are "All the building [which] grows into a holy temple in the Lord" (<em><a href='B:560 2:21'>Eph 2:21</a></em>). Paul, writing before AD70, may have had this contrast indirectly in mind when he wrote that when the earthly house is destroyed, we should remember that we have a "house not made with hands" built by God (<em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>). The same struggle and angst at the loss of physical structures of our religion can be seen today; some find it hard to believe that relationship with God is ultimately personal, and that relationship continues even when surrounding, much loved traditional structures are removed.</p>


text:
<p><em>As for these things which you behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be left here one stone upon another; all shall be thrown down</em>- This expands upon His previous use of this word in <em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>: "Your house is&nbsp;<em>left</em>&nbsp;unto you desolate". He is asking the disciples to see with the eye of faith- that effectively, the great stones of the temple were already thrown down, the temple was already "desolate" (Gk. 'a deserted place'). The judgment of the leprous house was to be thrown down, stone by stone (<em><a href='B:30 14:41'>Lev 14:41</a></em>). At the time of the final assault on Jerusalem in AD69, Titus commanded that the temple was to be spared. But the Lord's words came true, just as all prophetic words will, despite every human effort to deny their power. Josephus claims that the gold of the temple melted and therefore each stone was prized apart to remove the gold.</p><p>There was a strong belief in Judaism that the temple would last eternally. Hence the disciples’ question about “the end of the age” was because for them, any talk about the end of the temple meant the end of the world. They are not therefore asking about different chronological events when they ask when this shall be, and what sign would indicate the end of the age. This prophecy of the destruction of the temple implied an ending of the Mosaic law. Hence the same word translated "thrown down" is ascribed to Stephen when he was accused of preaching that the Lord Jesus would "<em>destroy</em>&nbsp;this place and [therefore] change the customs which Moses delivered us" (<em><a href='B:510 6:14'>Act 6:14</a></em>). Paul uses the same word about his 'destruction' of the things of legalistic dependence on the law for salvation, by preaching salvation by grace in Jesus (<em><a href='B:550 2:18'>Gal 2:18</a></em>). It is also the word used in <em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>, a passage which seems to have some reference to the impending destruction of the temple and its replacement with the spiritual house of God’s building: "Our earthly house of this tabernacle be&nbsp;<em>destroyed</em>&nbsp;[s:w. "thrown down"], we have a building of God, an house not made with hands...". All this would suggest that there was a changeover period envisaged between the Lord's death and the final ending of the jurisdiction of the Mosaic law. Seeing the end Lord ended the Law on the cross, this again is to be seen as a concession to the conservatism of the Jews.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they asked him, saying: Teacher, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign when these things are about to happen?</em>- They clearly expected one particular sign, and&nbsp;<em>semeion</em>&nbsp;is typically used of a miraculous wonder. Instead, the Lord gave them a series of signs which they were to discern. The fulfilment of these signs in our times is no less than a miracle- that such detailed predictions could start to come true before our eyes. Such fulfilment of prophecy is therefore itself a miracle. The disciples repeat the Pharisees' question about when the end will come- in almost the same words. They were clearly influenced by them (<em><a href='B:490 17:20'>Luk 17:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 13:4'>Mar 13:4</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>Martin Hengel concludes that the early Gospel records were so radical that they would’ve been part of an “underground literature”. He suggests that the Roman law forbidding oral or written prophecies about the fall of the Roman empire- on pain of death- was enough to make the Olivet prophecy alone a highly illegal document.</p><p>If none of us can know the time of the Lord's return, the whole spirit of the Olivet Prophecy is hard to come to terms with. When the disciples asked "When shall these things be, and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" (<em><a href='B:490 21:7'>Luk 21:7</a></em>), the Lord didn’t cut short the conversation by saying 'Well actually you can't know, so your question isn't appropriate'. He gave them just what they asked for: signs whereby the faithful would know "when these things shall come to pass". The primary application of all this was that the faithful knew exactly the approaching end of the Jewish age in AD70- everything went according to plan, for those who correctly understood the prophecies. Therefore James, Peter and Paul could assuredly teach that "the judge stands before the door" (<em><a href='B:660 5:9'>Jas 5:9</a></em>) etc. And it is apparent that the situation in the run up to AD70 was typical of that in our last days. Likewise, the position of the faithful remnant in Babylon at the time of the restoration is another type of latter day events. And they too had an opening of their eyes to the prophetic word, resulting in an ability to clearly see where they were, and that the time of restoration of Israel's Kingdom was imminent.</p><p>'What will be the signs of the last days?' was indeed answered quite directly, but building up to a personal, incisive appeal to pray constantly that we will be preserved from those horrors and be accepted before the final judgment seat of God’s Son (<em><a href='B:490 21:7'>Luk 21:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em>). It was as if the Lord was adding a powerful caveat- as if to say 'Now don't go and get obsessed and distracted trying to match these signs to current events- worry about how <em>you</em> will survive the last days, and whether, when you stand before Me in the very end, you will stand or fall before Me'. And 'Are you really the Messiah? Do you really fulfil all the Old Testament prophecies?' was met by an appeal to not stumble in faith (<em><a href='B:490 7:21-23'>Luk 7:21-23</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 19:11'>Luk 19:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Take heed you are not led astray. For many shall come in my name, saying: I am he, and, The time is at hand- </em>Coming in the name of the Lord was the formula used in Judaism to describe Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 21:9'>Mat 21:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>). The false claims to be Jesus the Christ are hardly persuasive nor vaguely credible. That they should be a source of mass falling away amongst the Lord's people seems hardly likely. We must assume, therefore, that such persons will have a credibility or a surrounding context which makes them far more attractive than they currently are. Revelation speaks of false miracles being done in the last days. Perhaps views of prophetic fulfilment will become so dogmatically held, suggesting that Christ&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;come once certain things happen in the world, that the believers will be open to easy deception. This scenario would be the more likely if a doctrine of&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>, the "coming" of Christ", is adopted which postulates that His coming will be somehow secret, invisible to the world and perceived only by the faithful.</p><p>Josephus describes the period before AD70 as being when “The country was full of robbers, magicians, false prophets, false Messiahs and impostors, who deluded the people with promises of great events” [<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;20:10:13 5,6].</p><p><em>Do not be led astray by them</em>- “Be not deceived" is extensively quoted later in the NT concerning the need not be deceived by false teachers <em>within the ecclesia</em> (<em><a href='B:530 6:9'>1Co 6:9</a></em>, <em><a href='B:530 6:15'>1Co 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:17'>Gal 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>, as <em><a href='B:470 24:4'>Mat 24:4</a></em> = <em><a href='B:690 3:7'>1Jn 3:7</a></em>). The deceivers the Lord spoke of were not just bogus Messiahs out in the world, but apparently Spirit-gifted brethren who will arise within the ecclesia.</p><p>Warnings against being deceived are a major theme in the Lord's message here (<em><a href='B:470 24:5'>Mat 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:11'>Mat 24:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>). Paul read the prophecy of deceivers arising in the last days as referring to deceivers arising within the ecclesia, i:e. people who were already baptized, consciously deceiving the majority of the ecclesia. He repeats this conviction at least three times (<em><a href='B:470 24:4'>Mat 24:4</a></em> = <em><a href='B:560 5:6'>Eph 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:8'>Col 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:3'>2Th 2:3</a></em>). The later NT writers make the same appeal using the same Greek words, with reference to not being deceived by the allurements of the fleshly life (<em><a href='B:530 6:9'>1Co 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:33'>1Co 15:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:7'>Gal 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:16'>Jas 1:16</a></em>). And warnings against "them that deceive you" are common, along with lament that many believers in the first century had indeed been deceived (s:w. <em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:19'>Jas 5:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:26'>1Jn 2:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:7'>1Jn 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:20'>Rev 2:20</a></em>). Indeed, Revelation is full of warnings and judgment against "the devil" who deceives God’s people (s:w. <em><a href='B:730 12:9'>Rev 12:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 13:14'>Rev 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:23'>Rev 18:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:20'>Rev 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:3'>Rev 20:3</a></em>). Perhaps this is one reason why the Olivet prophecy was not fulfilled in AD70- the warning with which the Lord opened the prophecy was not heeded by the majority.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when you shall hear of wars and revolutions, do not be terrified. For these things are necessary and must happen first, but the end will not be immediately</em>- The dramatic growth of the media and communication will mean that everyone 'hears' of such things. And our generation as none before is in this situation. We can likewise understand the related word (in the Greek): "<em>rumours</em>&nbsp;of wars". <em><a href='B:490 21:9'>Luk 21:9</a></em> adds to the other records "and commotions", disquiet, mental upset and confusion. Hence the appeal not to be "troubled" within our hearts. <em><a href='B:490 21:26'>Luk 21:26</a></em> speaks of human hearts failing them for fear in worry and expectation (AV "looking after") about the world's future. This sign, therefore, is not so much concerning the proliferation of war, but of human worry about the geopolitical situation. And our generation has been the only one capable of fulfilling this situation. Note, however, that&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;shall hear these things- and the "you" was initially the listening disciples. Clearly the prophecy was intended to have fulfilment in the lifetime of the disciples, but this didn’t happen. Because the Divine program was rescheduled.</p><p>They were not to be terrified / disturbed. The word is only used outside the Olivet prophecy in <em><a href='B:600 2:2'>2Th 2:2</a></em>, where Paul warns that believers should not be "troubled" by any idea that "the day of Christ is at hand", because the prophecy concerning the great falling away and the man of sin sitting in the temple of God must be fulfilled first. This connection shows that the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2 must have a specific latter day fulfilment on the very eve of the Lord's visible return in glory when "the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to nothing by the powerful glory of His coming" (<em><a href='B:600 2:8'>2Th 2:8</a></em>). The "day of Christ" is therefore the visible return of the Lord, and this, therefore, is the burden of the Olivet prophecy too. For Paul is taking that language and applying it to the second coming of Christ. And that did not happen in AD70. In <em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em> the Lord spoke of "fearful sights" being seen in latter-day Israel. During their tribulation, Israel will experience intense "terror" (<em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>), which would be enough to kill them (<em><a href='B:50 32:24'>Deu 32:24</a></em>). This extraordinary level of fear will be modelled upon that of Jacob as he faced Esau- representing Israel's confrontation with the Arabs in the last days (<em><a href='B:300 30:5'>Jer 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>). This state of fear will result in many Jews going to live in Jerusalem, as happened during the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions (<em><a href='B:300 35:11'>Jer 35:11</a></em>). Ezekiel had prophesied of this time:&nbsp;"Terrors (perhaps an intensive plural - i:e. 'the one great terror') by reason of the sword shall be upon My people" (<em><a href='B:330 21:12'>Eze 21:12</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>These things were necessary (Mt:), they must happen (Lk:), must take place (Mk:). Quoting <em><a href='B:340 2:28'>Dan 2:28</a></em> LXX, as if the prophecy of Daniel 2 could have had its fulfilment at the time of the destruction of the temple in AD70. Again we encounter the idea of potential fulfilments of prophecy which in fact didn’t happen when they could have done. The AV inserts in italics "all these things", but the Lord has only given the sign of worry about wars at this stage in the discourse. He used the identical phrase in predicting that the "all things" of the Mosaic system were to be fulfilled in His death on the cross (<em><a href='B:490 5:18'>Luk 5:18</a></em>). The same term is used in <em><a href='B:500 1:3'>Joh 1:3</a></em>: "All things were fulfilled [AV "made"] in Him"- surely a reference to the fulfilment of the Mosaic law in Christ. The "old things" of the Mosaic system passed away, and in Christ "all things are fulfilled [AV "made"] new" (<em><a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a></em> - same Greek words). There was a changeover period permitted between the Mosaic system and that of Christ, which finished when the temple was destroyed in AD70 and obedience to the Mosaic law thereby became impossible. If this line of interpretation is correct, then we have the Lord hinting that the Mosaic system would be ended, the temple destroyed, but the end was still not to be then. This would again indicate that the events of AD70 were not the "end" which the Lord had in view. "The end" (s:w:) would only come when the Gospel was preached in the entire habitable world (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>) and the believers had been persecuted of all men (<em><a href='B:480 13:13'>Mar 13:13</a></em>). But again, the Lord had in mind the possibility that the disciples themselves would endure "unto the end" (<em><a href='B:490 10:22'>Luk 10:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:13'>Luk 24:13</a></em>). It could have come in their lifetime; but it didn’t. John's Gospel replaces the Olivet prophecy with the upper room discourse, in which the Lord spoke of His spiritual presence in the hearts of believers through the Comforter. And John's equivalent of "the end" in that discourse is the comment that the Lord Jesus loved His people "unto the end" through dying on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em> s:w:). This is not to downplay the reality of the second coming, but it is a foil against a mindset that thinks solely in terms of fulfilling prophecy and the literal coming of the Lord. True and wonderful as that is, the essence of the Lord's presence is in His abiding presence in the hearts of spiritually minded believers in Him, and the "end" is His death for us, which in one sense is enough for us all regardless of when He will literally return. But again, Paul, like his Lord, felt that "the end" could have come in the first century; for he writes of how the believers then were living at "the end [s:w:] of the age" (<em><a href='B:530 10:11'>1Co 10:11</a></em>), when God’s wrath against Israel was about to burst "unto the end (AV "to the uttermost"; <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>):&nbsp; Likewise Peter: "The end [s:w:] of all things is at hand" (<em><a href='B:670 4:7'>1Pe 4:7</a></em>). Likewise <em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em> could then have had its fulfilment:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Then said he to them: Nation shall rise against nation- </em>Any first century fulfilment is unlikely because the&nbsp;<em>Pax Romana</em>&nbsp;meant that the Roman empire was firmly in power and such a situation did not therefore occur.<em>&nbsp;</em><em>Ethnos</em>&nbsp;is the word commonly translated "Gentiles". The picture of nations and kingdoms rising up against each other was simply not fulfilled in the run up to AD70- the Roman empire with their&nbsp;<em>Pax Romana</em>&nbsp;did not permit such a situation. And the system of world empires which disintegrated in the 20th Century likewise didn’t permit much of this in recent times, especially in the area around Israel, or in the land promised to Abraham, which is the focus of all Bible prophecy. Only in our times has this become a reality, especially in the Arab world and amongst the nations located in the territory promised to Abraham. The language of 'rising up' in revolt is now common amongst them. The picture, however, is of the Gospel going into all those "nations" at this time (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>), all those nations persecuting the believers (<em><a href='B:470 24:9'>Mat 24:9</a></em>), and the nations [AV "Gentiles"] taking Jerusalem and treading it down (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>); despite their internal struggles, these same "all nations" will be confederated under a latter Babylon (<em><a href='B:730 17:15'>Rev 17:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:23'>Rev 18:23</a></em>). The overall picture is of Gospel preaching going on at a time when the nations are rising up against each other, and at the same time persecuting the believers. This scenario is developing- but is as yet unfulfilled on a global scale. But it is daily fulfilling in the nations surrounding Israel, who are persecuting Christians, rising up against each other, and to whom the Gospel is being powerfully preached. Never before has my own mission organization received such major expression of serious interest from the Muslim nations surrounding Israel, thanks largely to the growth of the internet and the growing disillusion with the existing social and religious situation. People from all nations will be gathered before the Lord for judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>) and people from every nation will be saved (<em><a href='B:730 5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>)- confirming that the Gospel will indeed spread to all nations before the Lord's return; it must at least be "proclaimed" to them all, thereby making people amongst them responsible to judgment; the "fullness of the Gentiles" must "come in" to Christ before the end comes and Israel repent (<em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>). The Lord sent the disciples out to "all nations" (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> s:w:); the implication is that they failed to take the Gospel to them all, and therefore the intended scenario didn’t fulfil as initially intended in the first century. <em><a href='B:490 21:25'>Luk 21:25</a></em> speaks of how there will be "upon the earth [land- that promised to Abraham] distress of nations", suggesting that the situation amongst the Gentile nations living within the land promised to Abraham is the particular focus of the prophecy. The same language is used of how there were devout Jews in "every nation under Heaven" (<em><a href='B:510 2:5'>Act 2:5</a></em>)- and the list of nations in Acts 2 corresponds with the Middle Eastern Moslem world of today. We note that the promise that Abraham should be father of "many nations" was fulfilled in a literal sense in that Abraham is the ancestor of the Arab nations living in the land promised to him (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). And it is those nations particularly who have stated their desire to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jews, as required in <em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>.</p><p><em>And kingdom against kingdom</em>- It seems likely from Revelation that ‘Babylon’ of the last days will rise to political and military dominance in the territory promised to Abraham, the earth/ land of which the Bible speaks so much:&nbsp;The 10 nations / horns / leaders which exist in the land promised to Abraham- the “kings of the earth / land”- will give their power to Babylon, by force and by political manoeuvre, and this system will then invade Israel. The horns hating the whore implies there will be inter-Arab friction apparent in the beast system throughout its existence. "Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 24:7'>Mat 24:7</a></em>) will be a sign of the last days. In the AD70 context, this referred to friction between the Semitic peoples living around Israel; and the Lord's words are clearly an allusion to <em><a href='B:140 15:6'>2Ch 15:6</a></em>, which specifically uses the phrase about inter-Arab friction. The fragile alliance between them will then be broken by the Lord’s return, the horns will hate the whore and destroy her. They give their power to the beast for but “one hour”. Daniel seems to associate a covenant which is then broken with the latter day Antichrist. <em><a href='B:290 30:27-31'>Isa 30:27-31</a></em> speaks of the latter day Assyrian as placing “a bridle in the jaw of the people causing them to err”, referring to some kind of covenant / agreement which forces others to follow their direction. The Lord’s especial fury will be against the individual latter day Nebuchadnezzar who leads the invasion. The future leader of Babylon, the whore riding the beast, will see themselves as Nebuchadnezzar. Isaiah and Micah describe the latter day invader of the land as “the Assyrian” (<em><a href='B:290 10:5'>Isa 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:25'>Isa 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 30:31'>Isa 30:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 5:1-6'>Mic 5:1-6</a></em>). This itself suggests we are to see the individual who heads up the invasion, the rosh / chief prince of <em><a href='B:330 38:2'>Eze 38:2</a></em>, as an ethnic Assyrian / Iraqi. <em><a href='B:340 8:24-25'>Dan 8:24-25</a></em> invites us to see the same- the “king of fierce countenance” stands up out of the area of northern Iraq / northern Iran:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And there shall be great earthquakes- </em>Just as there was at the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:470 27:54'>Mat 27:54</a></em>), yet another reason for thinking that the tribulation of the last days will enable Israel to identify with the sufferings of their crucified Messiah. Again, earthquakes feature in the seals of <em><a href='B:730 6:12'>Rev 6:12</a></em>; and in the judgments upon Israel's enemies in <em><a href='B:730 11:13'>Rev 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:19'>Rev 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:18'>Rev 16:18</a></em>. Again, it seems that Israel will initially experience the judgments upon their enemies, just as they did in the lead up to their Passover deliverance in Egypt which also prefigures their final salvation. The fig tree nation- Israel- is to be shaken of a mighty wind (<em><a href='B:730 6:13'>Rev 6:13</a></em>), and the word "shaken" is a form of that translated "earthquake". The forcing of fruit from the fig tree will be brought about by the experience of the earthquake:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And in various places-</em> The word "various" is added by the translators to try to make sense of the otherwise obvious statement that earthquakes will occur in "places". There is no suggestion in the Greek text that earthquakes will occur in various places worldwide where they have not been known to occur. But maybe we have here an intensive plural- the one great place. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 24:15'>Mat 24:15</a></em> about "the holy<em> place</em>". There are rumours that an earthquake hit the temple area around AD70. But seeing that the temple mount is the bone of contention between Israel and her neighbours, an earthquake splitting the mount would be appropriate. And of course this would link directly with the prediction of Zechariah 14, that when Christ returns there will be an earthquake which splits it. And yet this is used by the Lord as a sign of His coming, rather than a statement about what will happen at His return. It could be that this is an example of how the meaning of time will be somehow collapsed around the second coming; a sign of His return is in effect His return. Or it could be that the events described in the Olivet prophecy will all happen in a very short period of time, a matter of days rather than years or decades [as is assumed by those who seek to connect the predictions with current world events]. <em><a href='B:480 13:8'>Mar 13:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em> speak of the earthquakes in&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;places, but this doesn't necessarily mean 'various' places, but could equally mean 'around'- earthquakes around the holy place would then be signs and portents of the earthquake under the Holy Place which will happen when Christ returns. In <em><a href='B:510 6:13-14'>Act 6:13-14</a></em> Stephen's enemies appear to have twisted his quotations of the Lord's Olivet prophecy to mean that Christ would destroy the "holy place" [s:w. "places" here in Matthew 24].</p><p><em>Famines and pestilences- </em>There was an acute famine in Israel during Elijah's ministry of three and a half years, as part of God’s appeal for Israel to repent and respond to Elijah's message (<em><a href='B:490 4:25'>Luk 4:25</a></em>). And so it will be in the final three and a half year tribulation. Likewise it was famine which led the prodigal to repent and return to the Father (<em><a href='B:490 15:14'>Luk 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:17'>Luk 15:17</a></em>), a clear prototype of Israel's repentance. And perhaps the greatest prototype of their repentance is in the coming of Joseph's brothers to bow before Him; and this too was provoked by famine throughout the region around Israel (<em><a href='B:510 7:11'>Act 7:11</a></em>). There will be a purpose in all the sufferings which precede the Lord's return- and that purpose is to bring about Israel's repentance, which is the key condition required for His second coming. There were indeed major famines in the lead up to AD70 (<em><a href='B:510 11:28'>Act 11:28</a></em> "a great famine throughout all the world"); again, the signs which depended upon Divine intervention were fulfilled in the first century, but those which depended upon Israel and the believers did not, because they chose not to. And thus the second coming was delayed. “In the reign of the Emperor Claudius (AD41-54) there were four seasons of great scarcity. In the fourth year of his reign, the famine in Judea was so severe that the price of food became enormous and great numbers perished. Earthquakes occurred in each of the reigns of Caligula and Claudius” (R. C. Sproul,&nbsp;<em>The Last Days According to Jesus</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids, MI, 2000: Baker Books), p. 36). Paul encourages his first century readers that famine and other elements of the Olivet predictions would not separate believers from the love of God- as if he expected those signs to be fulfilled in their lifetimes (<em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>). The seals of Revelation 6 are full of reference to the Olivet predictions, as if they could all have been fulfilled in the first century (<em><a href='B:730 6:8'>Rev 6:8</a></em> speaks specifically of "famine"). Famine can come quicker than ever in our modern world, where most countries depend upon imported food; and this is especially the case in the area around Israel, where the climate doesn't enable the support of the relatively large population living in the area without food being imported. This explains how Babylon's famine comes in one day (<em><a href='B:730 18:8'>Rev 18:8</a></em>). This could never have been possible in the ancient world, where famine required a period of time to develop. Just as Israel initially experienced the early plagues upon Egypt, so it may be that the judgments poured out upon the [Arab?] world at the very end do initially affect Israel too, and lead them to repentance:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And there shall be terrors and great signs from heaven</em>- During their tribulation, Israel will experience intense "terror" (<em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>), which would be enough to kill them (<em><a href='B:50 32:24'>Deu 32:24</a></em>):&nbsp;This extraordinary level of paranoia will be modelled upon that of Jacob as he faced Esau - representing Israel's confrontation with the Arabs in the last days (<em><a href='B:300 30:5'>Jer 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>):&nbsp;This state of fear will result in many Jews going to live in Jerusalem, as happened during the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions (<em><a href='B:300 35:11'>Jer 35:11</a></em>). Ezekiel had prophesied of this time: "Terrors (an intensive plural - i:e. 'the one great terror') by reason of the sword shall be upon my people" (<em><a href='B:330 21:12'>Eze 21:12</a></em>):&nbsp;Likewise our Lord spoke of "fearful sights" being seen in latter-day Israel (<em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>But more significantly than all these things, they shall lay their hands on you and shall persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my name's sake</em>- "The synagogues... the prisons" - implying both a religious and civil persecution of the saints? The Lord predicted that His people would be cast out of the synagogues, as if He was happy that Christianity remained a sect of Judaism until such time as Judaism wouldn’t tolerate it. His prediction that His people would be beaten in synagogues (<em><a href='B:480 13:9'>Mar 13:9</a></em>) implies they would still be members, for the synagogues only had power to discipline their own members, not the general public. The Lord had no fear of ‘guilt by association’ with wrong religious views such as there were within Judaism. </p><p>They were to be "delivered up" just as the Lord was 'betrayed' [[s:w. <em><a href='B:470 10:4'>Mat 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:18-19'>Mat 20:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:2'>Mat 26:2</a></em> (also verses 15,16,21,23,24,25,45,46,48); <em><a href='B:470 27:3-4'>Mat 27:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:22'>Mat 17:22</a></em> "the Son of Man shall be betrayed"] to the Jews and 'delivered up' to the Gentiles [s:w. <em><a href='B:470 27:18'>Mat 27:18</a></em>, <em><a href='B:470 27:26'>Mat 27:26</a></em>, <em><a href='B:470 27:2'>Mat 27:2</a></em> "delivered Him to Pontius Pilate"] for suffering, death- and thereby to resurrection. Again, there is an attempt to make those enduring these things identify with Him in His time of suffering. They too would be delivered up to both Jews and Gentiles- to synagogues [Jews; <em><a href='B:490 10:17'>Luk 10:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>] and to prisons, rulers and kings [Gentiles; <em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:9'>Mar 13:9</a></em>]. Mark adds "They shall deliver you up to councils and in the synagogues you shall be beaten". Clearly the Lord had in mind a first century fulfilment of His words, but as we have seen, not all the signs fulfilled in the first century and the Lord's&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;did not literally happen when the temple was destroyed. We therefore have to look to a re-scheduled fulfilment of these words in the persecution of the disciples in the last days.</p><p>The "persecution" is in Matthew "to tribulation", the "great&nbsp;<em>tribulation</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 24:21'>Mat 24:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:29'>Mat 24:29</a></em>). The Lord was addressing the disciples, and yet their sufferings were not completely in line with the picture presented here, whereby their suffering was at the same time as Jerusalem was surrounded by armies. Clearly the intended program was delayed. John's equivalent of the Olivet prophecy is the upper room discourse, and the same idea of a woman in the sorrows of labour is to be found there, and also this same word for 'afflicted' is found, translated "anguish" and "tribulation": "A woman when she is in labour has…&nbsp;<em>anguish</em>... in the world you shall have&nbsp;<em>tribulation</em>" (<em><a href='B:500 16:21'>Joh 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em>). The Lord seems to speak as if these experiences will be those of all His true followers, but just as His anguish and sorrow came to term in His triumphant resurrection, so for all who are in Him. John uses the language of the Olivet prophecy but seems to apply it in more general terms to the suffering of the believer in all ages. Surely this was consciously done as a response to the fact that the Olivet prophecy had been rescheduled in fulfilment. Again we find the idea of 'affliction' associated with the Lord's sufferings. Joseph, His clearest prototype, was 'afflicted' (<em><a href='B:510 7:10'>Act 7:10</a></em> s:w:), just as his brothers were 'afflicted' to lead them to repentance and acceptance of how badly they had treated Joseph / Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 7:11'>Act 7:11</a></em> s:w:). Stephen's use of the same word for the sufferings of both Joseph and his brothers was surely to teach that Israel's affliction was in order to teach them what they had done to Joseph, and to thereby identify with Him and repent. And this is exactly the purpose of Israel's latter day afflictions as outlined in the Olivet prophecy, and likewise the reason for the new Israel experiencing them- to help us identify with our crucified Lord. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?". Here Paul lists the kinds of tribulation outlined in the Olivet prophecy and assures his first century readers that these will never separate them from God’s love- he clearly expected the prophecy to have a first century fulfilment. Likewise the Lord foresaw the possibility of the "great tribulation" coming upon the first century church (<em><a href='B:730 2:22'>Rev 2:22</a></em>), and uses the same term "great tribulation" to describe the experiences of those Jewish Christians who would finally be saved (<em><a href='B:730 7:14'>Rev 7:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>It shall turn out to be your opportunity to give a witness</em>- This is Luke's equivalent of Matthew and Mark predicting that the Gospel will be preached to all nations. Luke's angle on this is that the preaching will arise out of persecution and fleeing from it- which is just what happened in the first century:&nbsp;</p><p>But the AV speaks of how when a believer is persecuted, “it shall turn to you for a testimony”. What does this really mean? For me, the most satisfactory explanation would be that the Angels give a positive testimony of the faithful believer in the court of Heaven. Or could it mean that the way we respond to our trials during the tribulation will determine our verdict at the judgment? It will be a testimony in our favour at the day of judgment. In view of this, "Settle it <em>therefore</em> in your hearts" to make this witness in God’s strength (<em><a href='B:490 21:14'>Luk 21:14</a></em>). "In the endurance of you (in the tribulation), ye will gain the souls of you" (<em><a href='B:490 21:19'>Luk 21:19</a></em> Marshall's Interlinear). The run up to the tribulation will provoke a "praying always, that ye may be accounted worthy... to stand before the Son of man" (<em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em>). Peter describes the tribulation of the believers in the run up to AD70 (and therefore the last days too) as judgment taking place on the house of God, in which even the righteous are "scarcely saved" (<em><a href='B:670 4:17-18'>1Pe 4:17-18</a></em>). This suggests that the last generation of believers will only be saved due to their response to the tribulation which comes upon them; but even then, only by the skin of their teeth. Lot in Sodom and the parable of the virgins, among others, are hints that the last generation of believers will be in a weak state.</p><p>For those who suffer persecution, prison etc. for the Lord's sake, "it shall turn to you for a testimony" (<em><a href='B:490 21:13'>Luk 21:13</a></em>). When? How? Surely in that these things will be 'gone through' with them at judgment as a testimony to their faithfulness.</p>


text:
<p><em>Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate beforehand how to answer</em>- They were to decide so definitely not to work out their answer ahead of time, because their answer or testimony was with God (:13). He had made an answer / testimony for them in the court of Heaven; and He would put that in their mouths at the right time. </p>


text:
<p><em>For I will give you the words and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to contradict</em>- This is alluding to <em><a href='B:20 4:12'>Exo 4:12</a></em>, where God tells Moses at the time of the Egyptian persecution of God’s people, "I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say". This persecution lead to intensified prayer to God, resulting in&nbsp;the deliverance of the suffering saints at Passover time, after a period of especial distress and 'time of trouble' for the surrounding world due to the plagues. After this deliverance, God’s people went into the wilderness and were declared God’s Kingdom. We have earlier shown how all these events form a remarkable latter day prophecy. This verse also suggests that the gifts of the Spirit may be given to some in the Elijah ministry in order to enable them to make a more powerful witness (as in <em><a href='B:730 11:6'>Rev 11:6</a></em>). The fact they are given personally by Christ would indicate that in some way, Christ is already back at this stage. Time and again we will see how the prophecies of events in the last days are ambiguous as to whether Christ is already back at the time of their fulfilment, or whether they herald his return. Seeing that we will never know the exact time of Christ's return, this is understandable. Similarly Joel 2 prophesies the pouring out of the gifts " before the great and terrible day of the Lord" (:31). Malachi surely refers to this passage when prophesying the Elijah ministry "before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:460 4:5'>Mal 4:5</a></em>). This suggests that the three and a half year Elijah ministry of the last days (<em><a href='B:660 5:17'>Jas 5:17</a></em>) will be accompanied by Spirit gifts, and will coincide with the time of persecution. Note that the gifts were given "before the day of the Lord" in AD70 too. It is possible that because of this possession of the gifts by 'Elijah', false teachers within the ecclesia at the end will also claim to possess them (<em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>), so convincingly that all but the elect within the ecclesia will be duped into following them. Yet it must be stressed that it is a feature of the gifts that they are unmistakable and obvious to identify (cp. <em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>); it will be evident enough if and when they are poured out in the last days.</p>


text:
<p><em>But you shall be delivered up even by your parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they shall kill some of you</em>- This indicates that the persecuting power will infiltrate the ecclesias, as the Jews and Romans did to the early church in order to bring about their persecution. <em><a href='B:400 7:2-9'>Mic 7:2-9</a></em> is a clear prophecy of Christ's sufferings. But embedded in it are words which are quoted in <em><a href='B:490 21:16'>Luk 21:16</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 10:36'>Mat 10:36</a></em> concerning the latter day tribulation of the believers: "the son dishonoureth the father…a man's enemies are the men of his own house”. In similar manner, some of the prophecies of Israel's latter day sufferings speak in the same context of those of Christ. <em><a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a></em> is an example: "…he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel (Christ) with a rod upon the cheek". The whole of Amos 5 can be scanned for connections with both the future tribulation of Israel, and also the sufferings of Christ. See on <em><a href='B:480 13:13'>Mar 13:13</a></em>.</p><p>"Some of you shall they cause to be put to death... but there shall not an hair of your head perish" can only be reconciled by appreciating how miraculously the disciples were preserved in order to inspire and co-ordinate the rest of the body. Perhaps a similar group of elders ("the two witnesses"?) will be preserved in the last days too.</p>


text:
<p><em>And you shall be hated of all men for my name's sake-</em>&nbsp;&nbsp; This hating by all men may imply a world-wide persecution. Matthew: "hated by all nations":&nbsp; But the Gospel will then be preached to “all nations” (<em><a href='B:480 13:10'>Mar 13:10</a></em>). It seems that the persecution will result in preaching, perhaps through highly publicized legal cases. If the Gospel is taken to all nations, then this will not need to happen. "For my Name’s sake" is a&nbsp;phrase which rarely occurs outside of the Olivet prophecy; one other time is in the upper room discourse, which is John’s parallel with the Olivet prophecy as recorded in the synoptic Gospels. Here we read again that the believers will be “hated… for My Name’s sake” (<em><a href='B:500 15:18'>Joh 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:21'>Joh 15:21</a></em>). But in John 15 the Lord seems to be angling His words not just to the twelve, but to all in Him; for His reasoning is that the world’s attitude to Him will be their attitude to us, and all in Him will suffer as He did. Again we can conclude that John, the latest of the Gospels, was re-adjusting the emphasis of the Olivet prophecy, knowing that it had been rescheduled and would not fully come true in an early coming of Christ in the first century.</p>


text:
<p><em>But not a hair of your head shall perish</em>- Primarily concerning the disciples, seeing that some believers were to die for their faith in the period around AD70 (cp. :16). The figure of not a hair of the head perishing is used in the Old Testament concerning sudden deliverance from what seemed like certain death, e.g. Jonathan in <em><a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a></em>. This is fitting, seeing that "except those days should be shortened there should no flesh be saved" (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>). It is also the language of the faithful few among an Israel who wouldn't stand up and be counted being miraculously preserved from Babylonian tribulation (<em><a href='B:340 3:27'>Dan 3:27</a></em>). There are many instructive parallels here with the latter day tribulation, which the majority of natural and spiritual Israel may try to avoid by some tokenistic acquiescence to the dictates of the King of Babylon.</p><p>We must lose our lives, one way or the other. If we lose them for Christ, we will find eternal life. If we keep them for ourselves, we will lose that eternal life. This teaching is picked up by the Lord in <em><a href='B:490 21:16-18'>Luk 21:16-18</a></em>, in stating that some of His people would be put to death, but actually, not a hair of their heads would perish. Surely He was saying that yes, they would lose their lives, but in reality they would find eternal life. Those men and women who died on crosses, were burnt as human torches, were thrown to the lions... the Lord foresaw them, and implied that their sacrifice was <em>in principle</em> the process that must be gone through by each of us: a losing, a resigning, of our life and all the things that life consists of in everyday experience. Either we die to sin now, living out in practice the theory of baptism, or we will die to sin in rejection at judgment day; sin has it’s end in death (<em><a href='B:330 21:25'>Eze 21:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a></em>), either now, or then. So we may as well die to the things of sin in this life. </p>


text:
<p><em>In your patience, you shall win your souls</em>- The idea may be that those who endure the final tribulation will be saved; they will be the only generation who will not die. For they will be immortalized at the Lord's return. The same group are in view in <em><a href='B:470 10:22'>Mat 10:22</a></em>: "He that endures to the end shall be saved". Although it is the Lord who purchases / redeems ["wins"] our souls, we must play our part in this. It is our endurance in faith in His work for us which enables all this to become true for us in reality.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that her desolation is at hand</em>- Jerusalem was truly “compassed with armies” in Hezekiah’s time, and perhaps the Lord has this in mind when He predicted that Jerusalem would again be like this in the last days. His subsequent warning to those in the country areas not running into Jerusalem for refuge is also an allusion to the situation in Hezekiah’s time- for this was exactly what happened then. </p><p>We need not get overly worried about the supposed discrepancies between prophecy and its historical fulfilment. Such differences don't negate the Divine inspiration of the original prophecy- rather do they show how God’s intentions can be worked out in different ways because of the open-ended approach He takes to human response. Thus it's been observed that the siege of Jerusalem in AD66-70 doesn't exactly follow the descriptions in <em><a href='B:490 19:41-44'>Luk 19:41-44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:20-24'>Luk 21:20-24</a></em>. This would be because there were within the Olivet prophecy a number of possible scenarios of what could happen <em>if</em> the believers fled the city as commanded; and of course, <em>if</em> Israel repented and accepted Christ at His AD70 'coming' in judgment. Additionally we must remember that this prophecy was only having its initial fulfilment in AD70- the final fulfilment will be in our last days.</p><p>The placing of the abomination is what will bring about the desolation, according to Mk. and Mt. On Revelation 17, 18 I suggest that the whore Babylon will enthrone herself in Jerusalem, through the building of some Islamic and blasphemous religious building or capital there. And this will lead to her desolation. Luke records the Lord as saying that&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;Jerusalem was surrounded by armies,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;His people should know that the "desolation" of it was near. The desolation is therefore of Jerusalem rather than specifically the temple (<em><a href='B:490 21:20'>Luk 21:20</a></em>). The abominating desolation could therefore refer to the invading armies. Seeing&nbsp;<em>them&nbsp;</em>was the signal to flee. "Abomination" in the Old Testament typically refers to idolatry or paganism. One interpretation is that the desolator would place some pagan religious symbol in the temple. But this is the sign to flee, and this was only done by the Romans after the city had fallen. That, therefore, doesn’t really fit the requirements of the prophecy. The AD70 interpretation notes the pagan standards of the Roman legions, but even they were not placed in the temple. This was defended until the end, until the Romans forced entry, pulled it down and burnt it. As with many details of this prophecy, a future fulfilment is required. And yet we need to note that such desolation was only a visual reflection of the abomination the Jews had committed in the temple: "Because of the evil of your doings, and because of the&nbsp;<em>abominations&nbsp;</em>which ye have committed; therefore is your land a&nbsp;<em>desolation&nbsp;</em>and an astonishment, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at this day" (<em><a href='B:300 44:22'>Jer 44:22</a></em>). The abomination which caused desolation may not simply refer to some pagan symbols in the temple area. Josephus records that the Jewish zealots came into the Most Holy place, "placed an imposter in office as high priest, and ordained unqualified misfits to the priesthood" (<em>The Jewish Wars</em>&nbsp;4:3:6–9; 4:5:4). The pagan Idumeans were invited into the Most Holy by the zealots in order to murder the chief priest Annas.</p><p>The word "desolation" is used again about the desolation of the Babylon system (<em><a href='B:730 17:16'>Rev 17:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:19'>Rev 18:19</a></em>). Yet Babylon will be judged according to what it did to God’s people- the judgment for 'desolating' will be 'desolation'. Yet the Olivet prophecy clearly intended the Roman armies to be the means of the desolation, but I suggest that Revelation extends the prophecy by giving more detail, and describing the system of desolation as 'Babylon'. And that system clearly has similarities with Rome- it could have been fulfilled in Rome, but because the fulfilment of the prophecy was rescheduled, we can look for another equivalent of the enigmatic 'Babylon' of the last days. The "desolation" referred to is clearly to be understood as the fulfilment of <em><a href='B:340 9:26-27'>Dan 9:26-27</a></em> LXX, which says that the abomination that desolates will come "after the cutting off of Messiah the Prince". Whilst how long "after" is not defined, we are surely intended to understand that the desolating abomination comes soon after the death of Messiah:&nbsp; "The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and&nbsp;<em>the end&nbsp;</em>thereof ("then shall&nbsp;<em>the end</em>&nbsp;come", <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>) shall be with a flood, ("as the days of Noah..."), and unto&nbsp;<em>the end&nbsp;</em>shall be war;&nbsp;<em>desolations&nbsp;</em>are determined . . . and upon the temple of&nbsp;<em>abominations&nbsp;</em>shall come one that makes&nbsp;<em>desolate&nbsp;</em>(cp. "your house is left unto you desolate", <em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>),&nbsp; even unto the consummation, and that determined shall be poured out upon the desolated" (LXX). And yet note that that prophecy itself had had various potential fulfilments which didn’t come true. So it is fair to think that it could have had a fulfilment in AD70, but this was again deferred- for the same reason as ever, Israel’s lack of repentance.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:730 11:1'>Rev 11:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>Then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let them that are in the midst of her depart, and do not let them that are in the countryside enter therein</em>- As the faithful remnant were miraculously allowed to leave Sodom, immediately unleashing the Divine judgments by doing so, the faithful Christian remnant were allowed to leave Jerusalem just before the final Roman onslaught of AD70, doubtless spurred on by their Lord's command: "Let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it (Jerusalem) depart out" (<em><a href='B:490 21:21'>Luk 21:21</a></em>). The reference to fleeing to the mountains would have suggested a conscious allusion back to&nbsp; the command to Lot to flee out of Sodom "to the mountain" (<em><a href='B:10 19:17'>Gen 19:17</a></em>):&nbsp;"Then let them which be in Judaea flee to the mountains" means that there will be Jewish believers in Jerusalem in the last days, seeing the whole prophecy has a latter day application. <em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em> says that in the final tribulation of Israel, those Jews who are "written in the book", i:e. who are acceptable saints (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:27'>Rev 21:27</a></em>) will be delivered. So there will be a minority in latter day natural Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal, as in Elijah's time- which is typical of the situation at the latter day Elijah ministry.</p><p>This is the equivalent of the plea in Revelation to flee out of Babylon, the latter day Islamic complex to be built in Jerusalem on the temple mount. </p><p>The same word was used by the Lord in introducing the Olivet prophecy in <em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>: "How can you&nbsp;<em>escape</em>&nbsp;the condemnation of Gehenna?". The way of escape was through obedience to His word. Clearly the Lord intended His words to be fulfilled in that immediate generation; but fleeing to the mountains did not bring ultimate salvation because the Lord did not return as intended. His coming has been rescheduled, and perhaps utter salvation for the Jewish remnant in the land will likewise depend upon 'fleeing'. The Old Covenant had specified that Israel would flee before their enemies if they broke the covenant; the command to 'flee' may therefore be an invitation to accept guilt for their sin, and thereby be saved through the very act of recognizing the justice of their judgment. For this is the essence of the salvation of every man in Christ. It could be that <em><a href='B:730 12:6'>Rev 12:6</a></em> provides more details, in speaking of the faithful fleeing into the wilderness and thereby being saved. This was the way to flee the coming condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>). The Lord's words require[d] some faith to accept, because if Jerusalem were surrounded by armies, how could the faithful flee? Josephus explains that the Roman legions did in fact withdraw for a time, allowing civilians to flee (B:J:2:19:6,7).</p><p><em>"</em>To the mountains" is better, 'toward'. Clearly this was capable of fulfilment in the Jewish war, in a fairly literal sense. But what is the latter day equivalent? "The mountains" could be an intensive plural for the one great, special, obvious mountain. The same word is found earlier in the chapter- the Lord is saying these words sitting on "the mount" of Olives (<em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>). And it is to that mount that He will return, according to <em><a href='B:510 1:12'>Act 1:12</a></em> and Zechariah 14. It could be, therefore, in a literal or figurative sense, an appeal to move towards the mount of Olives to meet Him at His return. Perhaps in a literal, geographical sense, that area will be the only area left by the invading armies, and they will surround the faithful Jewish remnant on that mount- and then the Lord shall come. But such speculation is unhelpful, because the principle of prophecy is that when it happens, then we shall understand. I do not believe we are intended to work out a sequence of events ahead of time. Indeed, given the conditional nature of Bible prophecy, that is impossible to do anyway:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled</em>- This is the day ["days" may be an intensive plural referring to the one great day] when vengeance will be poured out; God will take revenge on the system which has persecuted His natural and spiritual people (<em><a href='B:600 1:8'>2Th 1:8</a></em> s:w:). Revelation puts this in terms of the beast system receiving revenge for all she has recently done to the Lord's people. In a sense, "all" the written prophecies and words of God shall come to their final fulfilment in the Lord's return. </p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to them that are with child in those days, and to those nursing babies!- </em>This may well match Paul's warning against marrying&nbsp;in the last days in 1 Corinthians 7. He understood the Olivet prophecy as having the real prophecy of fulfilment in his generation. As He hung on the cross, our Lord quoted this part of His Olivet prophecy to the women who stood by (<em><a href='B:490 23:29'>Luk 23:29</a></em> “blessed are [those] who never gave suck” = <em><a href='B:470 24:19'>Mat 24:19</a></em> “Woe to them… who give suck”, s:w:), concerning the sufferings of the believers in the 'last days'. Here we see His matchless selflessness; going out of His own sufferings, to think, with anguish, how they would be experienced by His followers in the tribulation. "Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves... for if they do these things (to) a green tree (the spiritually healthy Lord Jesus), what shall be done (to) the dry", the spiritually barren tree of Israel. This is a superb essay in the Lord's selflessness and minimizing of his own sufferings: he felt that what he was going through was less than what the spiritually weak would have to go through in the AD70 tribulation (and that of the last days). In the other 11 occurrences of “woe” in Matthew, the objects of the “woe” are clearly the unfaithful and the condemned; this category of those “with child” are therefore not amongst those who obediently ‘flee’. <em><a href='B:490 21:23'>Luk 21:23</a></em> states that they would be amongst those who would suffer the “wrath upon this people”. In <em><a href='B:490 23:29'>Luk 23:29</a></em> the Lord clearly envisaged the women of His generation, the ones who lined the road to Golgotha, as experiencing the trauma He predicted in the Olivet prophecy. And yet it is clear enough that the final fulfilment is yet to come- because His coming was rescheduled.</p><p><em>For there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath upon this people</em>- Paul's later comment that "Wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" (<em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>) suggests he believed that these words were being fulfilled completely at his time. But the Lord did not come, many aspects of the prophecy were left unfulfilled, and the complete fulfilment has yet to come. </p><p>"Great distress" could mean 'the greatest ever distress'. This would connect with <em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em> - that immediately prior to the Lord's return, there will be a time of distress for Israel such as they have never experienced- far worse than the holocaust. The LXX uses this same word for "distress" or "tribulation2 in several passages pregnant with latter day significance: </p><p>“The day of my [Jacob’s] <em>distress</em>” at the hands of Esau (<em><a href='B:10 35:3'>Gen 35:3</a></em>)</p><p>“The <em>anguish</em> of his [Joseph’s] soul” at the hands of his half brethren and the Ishmaelites (<em><a href='B:10 42:21'>Gen 42:21</a></em>)</p><p>“I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and <em>troubles </em>shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?” (<em><a href='B:50 31:17'>Deu 31:17</a></em>)- a passage in the Song of Moses regarding Israel’s latter day tribulations. </p><p>“Thus says Hezekiah, This day is a day of <em>trouble</em>, and of rebuke, and blasphemy” (<em><a href='B:120 19:3'>2Ki 19:3</a></em>)- Sennacherib’s Assyrian invasion at this time was a clear prototype for the latter day invasion described in Ezekiel 38 and elsewhere. </p><p>“The time of Jacob’s <em>trouble</em>” from which he will be delivered (<em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>)</p><p>“There shall be a time of <em>trouble</em>, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time your people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book” (<em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em>). This time of trouble is specifically for Israel in the last days. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations- </em>The downtreading of Jerusalem during the tribulation, the "times" of the Gentiles, the three and a half year [1260 days, 42 months, "time, times and a half"] domination of the land, will be long enough for some Jews to led captive into the "all nations" surrounding Israel who form the coalition of the beast. Such mass deportations would be performed in conscious imitation of the Babylonian and Assyrian dominations. The Greek word for "sword" is literally a dagger; we would have expected the more common word for sword to be used. But we recall images of Islamist extremists killing those whom they consider apostate by cutting their throats with the edge of a knife / dagger; and it seems this is what we can expect. The phrase is alluding to <em><a href='B:300 21:7'>Jer 21:7</a></em> LXX, where those in Judah who escaped the plagues and other calamities [which have also been mentioned here in Luke 21] are then slain by the edge of the sword of the Babylonians. The Babylonian invasion clearly is the prototype of Jerusalem's latter day tribulation.</p><p><em>And Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled</em>- The "times of the Gentiles" (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>) appears to refer to the time of Gentile opportunity to learn the Gospel, according to how Paul alludes to it in <em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>. This however is going to be particularly true of the final period when Jerusalem falls to the Gentiles and is trodden underfoot. When that downtreading is completed, then likewise the opportunity for Gentile response will close.</p><p><em><a href='B:450 12:3'>Zec 12:3</a></em> is being alluded to: "In that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people (i:e. all around Israel, as this often means): all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it". The Septuagint renders the first phrase as "a stone trodden down by the Gentiles", clearly alluded to here. Those who are 'gathered together' against Jerusalem must be the Arab neighbours of Israel, according to the Zechariah context. The rejected likewise will be burdened with a heavy stone (<em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>), showing that they will share the judgments of Israel's enemies.</p>&nbsp;<p>The allusion is to <em><a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a></em>: "The transgression of desolation gave both the sanctuary and the host (i:e. the people of Israel) to be&nbsp;<em>trodden underfoot":&nbsp;</em>This part of Luke 21 is clearly alluding to Zechariah 14, a prophecy about the final desolation of Jerusalem:</p><table><tr><td></p><p></td><td>Luke 21</td><td></td><td>Zechariah 14</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20.</td><td>Jerusalem surrounded by armies</td><td>2.</td><td>All nations against Jerusalem to battle</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20.</td><td>The desolation of Jerusalem is near</td><td>2.</td><td>The city shall be taken</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>21.</td><td>Let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains</td><td>5.</td><td>You shall flee to the ... mountains</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>22.</td><td>Great distress in the land</td><td>2.</td><td>Houses ransacked, women raped.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>24.</td><td>Led away captive into all nations</td><td>2.</td><td>Half the city shall go into captivity</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>24.</td><td>Jerusalem trodden down by the Gentiles.</td><td><em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em></td><td>LXX Jerusalem a stone trodden down by the Gentiles.</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The context of Zechariah 14 is clearly concerning the last days and the literal appearance of Messiah in Israel. The way the Olivet Prophecy alludes to it, indeed is based upon it, shows that it too requires reference to the last days. Any limited fulfilment in AD70 was only a partial foretaste of the final outworking of the prophecy. <em><a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a></em> itself was a prophecy which had already had various possible fulfilments and had already had its fulfilment rescheduled a few times. It is therefore unsurprising if its intended, or possible, fulfilment in AD70 was again rescheduled.</p><p>It may well be that the "all" which will be fulfilled in <em><a href='B:490 21:32'>Luk 21:32</a></em> is to be equated with "the times of the Gentiles" being fulfilled (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>). "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles" for three and a half years, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 'Jebus', the old name for Jerusalem, means 'downtrodden'. This&nbsp;hints that the liberation of Jebus at the beginning of David’s reign was seen by Christ as typical of the time when He would liberate Jerusalem from downtreading, at his return. This suggests that the times of Gentile domination of Jerusalem are to be ended by the establishment of the Kingdom at Christ's second coming; we are yet to see, therefore, a Gentile domination of Jerusalem before Christ's coming. </p><p>"The times of the Gentiles" are often taken to have finished in 1967. But at least three major problems arise with this: </p><p>1) The temple site, Biblical 'Zion', is still not totally under Jewish control due to the presence of the Mosque there. </p><p>2) "Trodden down" has clear links with <em><a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a></em> and <em><a href='B:730 11:2'>Rev 11:2</a></em>, which describe the temple being blasphemously desecrated for certain periods of time. How can they have ended in 1967, seeing the 'Dome of the Rock' still stands there? And 1967 minus 2300 day/years (<em><a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a></em>) or 1260 day/years (<em><a href='B:730 11:2'>Rev 11:2</a></em>) do not appear to yield any significant starting points. </p><p>3) The times of Gentile opportunity, as some read it, are still with us now as much as they were in 1967. If anything, numbers of baptisms have mushroomed <em>since</em> 1967, notably in distant Gentile lands. </p>


