# comment

text:
<p><em>And came to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine, and he put him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him</em>- He "bound up his wounds", alluding to the manner in which Christ was to bind up the broken hearted (<em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em>). He cured those mental wounds by pouring in oil and wine, symbols of his word and his blood respectively. So the brutal beating up of that man, leaving him half dead, refers to the broken-heartedness which the sin of this world and our own natures inflicts upon us. Picture the scene on that Jericho road, the body covered in blood and dust, massive bruises swelling up, flies buzzing around on the congealed blood, face in the dust, frightened donkey neighing among the scrub somewhere. That is the very picture of our broken heartedness, the broken heartedness which hrist came to heal. The physical grossness of those wounds is a picture of our mental state. Yet the flesh deceives us that there is nothing really that wrong with our minds, with our natures. Yet there <em>is</em>, and we need to come to terms with it more and more completely, to realize our deep mental need for Christ's healing. Once we do this, we will be able to see the need, the urgent need, for his healing of our <em>minds</em>&nbsp;through his spirit, his&nbsp;perfect, clean mind, being in us. And how were those wounds healed? How are our mental wounds healed? By the Son of God tearing up his own garments to bandage up the wounds (how else did he do it?), and healing us with his blood and his word. </p><p>"He brought him to the inn" can also be translated "He led it [the donkey] to the inn". In this case, the Samaritan is acting as a servant, for it is the master who rides on the donkey and the servant who walks on foot, leading it there. Remember how Haman has to lead the horse on which Mordecai rides (<em><a href='B:190 6:7-11'>Est 6:7-11</a></em>). All this speaks of how the Lord took upon Himself the form of a servant in order to lead us to salvation- when at the time we could do nothing, and had no awareness of the huge grace being shown to us. The Samaritan was of course making himself vulnerable to attack by robbers by doing this. But think through it some more. There was an eye-for-eye vengeance syndrome alive and well at that time. If a Samaritan turned up with a wounded Jew, it would look for all the world like <em>he</em> was responsible for the damage. It would be the first time a Samaritan was known to have done such an act of kindness. And he risks himself all the more, by staying at the inn, leaving, and then returning there, thus willing to face the inevitable suspicion that <em>he</em> had attacked the man, or was somehow involved in the incident. This risking of His own salvation was what the cross was all about. The parable gives a rare window into the Lord's self-perception on this point. And so for us- we may stay up all night serving someone's need, only to make ourselves irritable and impatient and more prone to sin ourselves the next day. And in any case, it's my experience that no good deed goes unpunished; we have to pay various prices for it in this life. In all these things we are living out the spirit of the Samaritan saviour.</p><p>Until the good Samaritan's return, the man was kept in the inn, with everything that was needed lavishly provided. Surely the inn is symbolic of the ecclesia; in the ecclesia there should be a common sense of spiritual improvement, of growing in health, of remembering our extraordinary deliverance, realizing our weakness, looking forward to seeing the Samaritan again to praise him for the wonder of it all. This ought to characterize our gatherings as the church. Who is the innkeeper? He may just be part of the furniture of the parable, as I have yet to find a convincing interpretation.</p><p>The parables, especially those which Luke records, appear to end leaving us with unanswered questions. Does the wounded traveller survive and get better? When does the Samaritan return? How much does it cost him? Was the beaten man happy to see the Samaritan when he returned? Who inherits the property of the rich fool? Does the barren fig tree produce a crop in the end? Does the elder brother finally join in the party? Does the unjust steward succeed in getting himself out of his problems after his dismissal? What happens to the rich man’s five brothers, seeing Lazarus isn’t allowed to go and warn them? Do they hear Moses and the prophets? Do the riff raff come in from the lanes to the Great Supper? Does the unjust judge actually resolve the widow’s complaints? How does the rich merchant survive, after having sold all he has for the one pearl, thus discarding his entire past, his life’s work…? And what does he do with the pearl? He, presumably, sits and treasures it, but can do nothing with it in order to prosper materially… And yet we are left to reflect upon this. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:32'>Luk 14:32</a></em>.</p><p>In the culture of the time, strangers were to be welcomed and put up for the night according to their culture of hospitality. "Hotels" as we know them weren't common. The word used for "inn" is rather strange and one commentator says that "These places had a dubious character: everybody was welcome, monies had to be paid for lodging, and the female workers at the inn offered sexual favors to guests as a rule". And yet the Lord used this word for a place which represented His church. A different word is used for the Government operated lodging houses- and most travellers in those days were on Government service. A different word is used for the "inn" where Joseph and Mary stayed in Bethlehem. But the Lord doesn't use that word for this "inn". Wealthy travellers would rather pitch tents and sleep in them for the night, protected by their own guards, rather than use an "inn". Strabo, Philo and other ancient writers all give a negative picture of "inns", as noisy and immoral, frequented by lower classes and outcasts / criminals who had no relatives nearby to stay with, and to be avoided by all good people. Strabo speaks of inns as brothels. And innkeepers are always presented as not trustworthy and morally dubious. We note the confusion in describing Rahab as both an innkeeper and a prostitute. Samaritan doesn't just put the injured man there for one night, as an emergency. He chooses this as the place of healing for him. The ambience of an inn was not conducive to rest or recuperation- they were typically associated with noise, theft, drunks and prostitutes. The church is indeed a strange place. Again we have an inversion of stereotypes; just as the 'bad' Samaritan becomes the good Samaritan, so the despised innkeeper plays a part in the man's salvation. Contra to the idea that two pennies meant a return after two days, "According to Joachim Jeremias, a day’s board cost one twelfth of a denarius; the Samaritan’s advance payment was sufficient for several days and bound the inn-keeper to look after the man as long as was necessary". He envisaged, in this case, a long stay. In a questionable place that was usually only stayed in for one night. Again, the church is presented as unusual... and not as secular people would like to imagine it.
</p><p>Given the bad reputation of innkeepers, the Samaritan is entrusting the innkeeper with money. And promising to pay anything else that might be needed. This is an element of unreality in the story. The Samaritan seems both wealthy, or generous, and very trusting of a stereotypically weak and dubious person. In this we see something similar to the parables which speak of the Lord giving His wealth to others to manage, in an apparently too trusting manner and extent. In this we see the Lord's empowerment of His weak church to do the work of saving sick humanity, and He will give all the resources required for this. The Samaritan "took care of him" and then uses the same words to tell the innkeeper in :35 to "Take care of him". He is asking the innkeeper, dubious as he supposedly was, to show the same care as the Samaritan had shown, to save the man. This is an exact picture of the Lord's delegation of His own saving work to the church, and His assurance that He will provide all human resources to enable that. We could argue that the two characters who failed to help / care (Levite and priest) are matched by two characters who did care- the Samaritan and the innkeeper. The Samaritan and innkeeper would thereby be linked together as co-workers in the man's salvation.
</p>


text:
<p><em>And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the host, and said: Take care of him, and if you spend more, I, when I come back again, will repay you</em>- "If you spend more..." was perhaps to guard against the way that unpaid debts could lead to the indebted person being enslaved (as in Mt. 18:23-35) or otherwise abused until they had paid the debt. The Samaritan, like the Lord, is absolutely thoughtful and sensitive to our every possible spiritual need. And the gift of the two denarii to the dubious innkeeper was an act of entrustment by the Samaritan- for typically, the innkeeper would have kept the money for himself and then billed the Samaritan a huge amount at his return. There is no contract made, not even a verbal agreement as to what the innkeeper's duties are. He is simply asked to care for the person as the Samaritan had cared for him. And being an innkeeper, he might appear the least qualified. He is a dodgy innkeeper, not a medical man. We would be more comfortable if the Samaritan brought the man to a physician and paid him in advance to care for him. The Samaritan's example so far in the story was the pattern- and it speaks of the Lord's death on the cross. He expects the dubious innkeeper to grasp that, and continue it. The trust and lack of agreed contract is an element of unreality that would have caused the first hearers to shake their heads muttering 'That wasn't wise'. The Lord likewise entrusts us with His wealth, as the parable of the talents makes clear. He trusts us to not act as we humans typically do. But to be moved by His example of loving salvation of others, to with integrity do the same and play our part with Him in the ultimate salvation of others. And the innkeeper also had to show some faith / trust- because for all he knew, the Samaritan wouldn't return, or might himself be mugged along that notorious road. And he accepts that, accepting that he might be left out of pocket if the Samaritan doesn't return. And caring for a "half dead" man, who would take weeks to recover and might still die from infections, was no small thing to undertake. And quite possibly it might stop him from serving his regular or usual customers. Especially with no rock solid guarantee that the Samaritan would return and reimburse him. The two pennies were indeed a deposit guaranteeing the return [cp. the Holy Spirit gift]. But still faith was required by the innkeeper. The Samaritan's example [cp. the cross] was what inspired him to rise out of his shrewd, short termist, calculating mindset and accept the challenge. And so with us. Both the Samaritan and innkeeper take a risk, they risk their own possible loss in order to save. If this inn were at the top of the Jerusalem-Jericho road, it would have been near Bethany- and a house in Bethany is the next scene in Luke's account.
</p><p>We note that these are the only recorded words in the parable. The parable largely functions without words, because contrary to the attitude of the lawyer to whom the parable was first addressed, the issue is all about action and not words. Nor is it about striving over words and meanings to do with the word "neighbour". The injured man had no money- he had been robbed. The Samaritan paid for him. This isn't a story about the need to be generous to strangers; but more is it a challenge to accept we are naked and without anything to our names, no money, and purely dependent upon the grace of the Samaritan Saviour.
</p><p>"The next day" suggests the Samaritan also stayed a night in the inn, and then left. We note that innkeepers and staying in inns were all somewhat stigmatized. Inns weren't good places. But the inn was used to heal the injured man. This has quite some implications, once we interpret the inn as the church. 
</p><p>His promise to come again after two days (he gave two pence, and a penny a day was a fair rate, <em><a href='B:470 20:2'>Mat 20:2</a></em>) is a clear connection with the Lord's promise to come again (after 2000 years from his departure?). </p><p>The ‘two pennies’ paid by the Samaritan are the equivalent of the half shekel atonement money under the Mosaic Law, whereby a man could be redeemed. Our redeemer is of course the Lord Jesus. The redemption was ‘paid’ in His blood- which implies His putting us on <em>His</em> beast of burden and carrying us to the inn, where He paid the money, is a picture of His final sufferings which lead up to the actual shedding of His blood.</p><p>The parable of the good Samaritan explains how Christ took compassion on the stricken spiritual state of us His people, picked us up, made Himself vulnerable to attack by placing the man on His donkey, and caused us to be fully healed. The Samaritan was less vulnerable than the robbed man, on account of having a donkey. But he made himself even more vulnerable than the robbed man had been, in order to take him to the inn. The picture of the wounded man straddled over the donkey and the Samaritan walking patiently alongside shows what easy prey they would have been. The whole process of the man's redemption by this Samaritan is an account of the cross of Christ (not least the pouring in of wine and oil). The implication is that through seeking to save us, Christ made Himself more vulnerable than He would have been if He sought only His own salvation. And the Samaritan's speed of progress was more than halved; he had to walk rather than ride, keeping the wounded man balanced on the donkey. This parable seems to reveal that Christ realized at least in some abstract sense that His concern for us in some ways made it more difficult for Him; although the reality was that the motivation for His victory was largely due to His sense of responsibility for us. The idea of him taking care for the man is expressed in the language of <em><a href='B:20 21:19'>Exo 21:19</a></em>, which says that if a man wounds another, "he shall pay... and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed". This somewhat odd allusion (at first sight) surely indicates that the Lord took upon Himself the full blame for our stricken condition, presumably in the sense that as the second Adam He took upon Himself the guilt of Adam. This is why there are so many connections between His death and the effects of Adam's sin (e.g. the crown of <em>thorns</em>, the Garden etc:). The way Christ compared Himself to a Samaritan, half Jew and half Gentile, shows that especially on the cross, this is how He felt. He was mindful of both Jewish and Gentile aspects of His future body as He died. The Jews (and His own brothers, <em><a href='B:230 69:8'>Psa 69:8</a></em>) treated Him as half Gentile (from a Roman soldier, the Midrash claims). </p><p>So we are as it were in the inn, thinking back to our salvation by that suffering Samaritan, the strangeness and yet the glorious <em>wonder</em>&nbsp;of it all. I'm sure we are meant us to fill in the unspoken details in his parable. Of course the saved man would have re-lived time and again his wondrous salvation, how he had come to with the eyes of that man peering earnestly into his, the laying on the ass, and the slow journey to the inn. As Israel remembered their Passover deliverance through the Passover feast, so we lie on our sickbed in the inn, as it were, and remember our great salvation. </p>


text:
<p><em>Which of these three, do you think, proved a neighbour to him that encountered the robbers?</em>- "Proved a neighbour" takes us back to the initial question; to love God is to love our neighbour as ourselves. The Samaritan parable appears to be an example of the way the Lord left His parables open to multiple interpretations and reflections, all of which express aspects of the many truths He was expressing to us. We need to reflect who the ‘neighbour’ actually Is. The parable is told in extension of the Lord’s approval of the statement that to love God is to love our neighbour, and vice versa (:27). The Lord was explaining that what we have to ‘do’ to get eternal life is to perceive that <em>God</em> is our neighbour. This is and was a challenging idea. As challenging and provocative as when a black sister in southern USA said to me once ‘Ya know, God’s ma nigger’. She meant, ‘God’s my buddy, my close one’. The turning point of the parable is in its end stress [as so often in these stories of the Lord]: “Which of these three… was neighbour unto him that fell among thieves?” (<em><a href='B:490 10:36'>Luk 10:36</a></em>). Obviously, the neighbour was the Samaritan, whom we have shown to be symbolic of God and His Son. <em>This</em> is the answer to the question of the lawyer: ‘And who is my neighbour?’. Answer: God / Jesus. The lawyer was wondering to whom he should do his good deeds. So he asks ‘Who is my neighbour?’. He misunderstood the whole thing, as people do today. The Lord was turning the question around. Who is your neighbour? God / Jesus is your neighbour. You are lying there stricken. Your fellow lawyers and legalists / Priests / Levites can’t help you. To receive eternal life, you must let God be your neighbour. <em>This</em> is the work of God, to believe on the one whom He sent (<em><a href='B:500 6:29'>Joh 6:29</a></em>). This was the Lord’s response to a similar question about what good works ought to be done. And the Samaritans were despised and rejected… yet the Lord chose them as a symbol of Himself. It's easy to under-estimate just how much the Jews despised Samaritans- "The Samaritans were publicly cursed in the synagogues; and a petition was daily offered up praying God that the Samaritans might not be partakers of eternal life" (W:O:E. Oesterley, <em>The Gospel Parables In The Light Of Their Jewish Background</em> (London: SPCK, 1936) p. 102). We see the sheer bravery of the Lord in framing the parable as He did. He doesn't chose to speak of a good Jew helping a stricken Samaritan; it's the other way around. The watchful student will find up to 12 allusions in the Good Samaritan parable back to <em><a href='B:350 6:1-10'>Hos 6:1-10</a></em> - which portray the Jews as the robbers, and God as the Samaritan saviour. It is none less than Yahweh Himself who "will bind us up... revive us... raise us up... come to us"- all the very things which the Samaritan did. In all this was a huge challenge to the Lord's audience- as to whether they would accept His grace. "Oil and wine are forbidden objects if they emanate from a Samaritan" (J:D:M. Derrett, <em>Law In The New Testament</em> (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970) p. 220)- hence the challenge to the Jews in accepting the Lord's teaching. We in our turn struggle with the extent and purity of His grace.</p><p>But of course, we are intended to be the Good Samaritan too- in that we are to manifest and replicate the saving work of Jesus in our lives and in our interactions with people. There are details in the parables that need to be thought about, the story reconstructed. The Samaritan ‘happened’ to have “oil and wine” with him, i:e. medicaments for a wounded man (the wine would have been an antiseptic). And he was travelling alone, when people usually travelled in convoys. And the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans, they wouldn’t even talk with them on the street (<em><a href='B:500 4:9'>Joh 4:9</a></em>). So perhaps the Lord intended us to figure that the Samaritan was actually going to help one of his fellow Samaritans who needed attention, but on the way, he met one of another race in even greater need, and changed his plans in order to save him. In all this we have an exquisite example of the self-revelation of Jesus in His own parables- for He saw Himself as the Samaritan. And for us too, the call to save often comes when we are on our way to do something else, at the most inconvenient moment, to people we would never have considered would need nor accept our help towards salvation.</p><p>The parable of the good Samaritan needs careful reflection before we see in it a command to concentrate on giving to the world:&nbsp; It is used as Biblical evidence for a social gospel. The Samaritan was "neighbour unto him that fell among thieves" (<em><a href='B:490 10:36'>Luk 10:36</a></em>)- i:e. the story shows how he fulfilled the command to love our neighbour. We have shown above that this command refers to love for those related to the Covenant. The Samaritan represented Christ. The mugged man was those He came to save; not the world generally, for they have not all accepted His healing. We must go and do likewise; in showing the love of Christ to the world. But we have earlier defined that love as being paramountly <em>spiritual</em>, and relating to the work of the cross. The parable was teaching the inability of the Law to save man <em>spiritually</em>, not materially:&nbsp;</p><p>The injured man is every man. But he can do nothing. Apart from accept grace. He has a passive role in the story. So again the Lord is turning the lawyer's question on its head. It's not about what we can do, nor to whom we should do good. We can in fact do nothing, but accept grace.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: The one who showed him mercy. And Jesus said to him: Go and do likewise</em>- The lawyer could not bring himself to say the word "The Samaritan". They were hated and despised so deeply. There's ample evidence that the despised Samaritan of this parable refers to the Lord Jesus. He was 'neighbour' to stricken humanity, he came near to us, binding up our broken hearts, and carried us to the haven of the ecclesia. "Go and do likewise" is therefore a real challenge to us: to have the same dedication for others' salvation as Christ had. His zeal to achieve God’s plan of redemption should be ours. Remember how the good Samaritan parable is an exposition of how to love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind (:27). Every fibre of the Lord's mind and body was bent <em>for us,</em> for bringing about God’s plan of redemption. He loved us, his neighbour, as himself. Because of this it is impossible to separate Christ from the work He came to do, i:e. our redemption. The point of the good Samaritan parable is to teach us that his same devotion to the work of conquering sin should be seen in us; our concern for the salvation of others should be as great as that for our own. We need to be totally filled with the idea of bringing about God’s glory, of seeing the conquest of sin achieved through Christ. So all our strength, our mind, will be given over to the conquest of sin in ourselves, to the spreading of the Gospel to others, and to the binding up of the broken hearts of our brethren.</p><p>The preface to the good Samaritan parable is there in :27,28, about loving God with all our strength and our neighbour as ourself; and "this do, and you shall live" (eternally). To define this statement more closely, the Lord told the good Samaritan parable. "Go and do likewise" is referring back to :28, where the Lord commands the man "<em>this do</em>", i:e. loving God with all the heart, soul etc. So the example of the good Samaritan is a practical epitome of loving God with all the heart, soul etc. To love our neighbour as ourself is to love God with all the heart and soul and strength and mind. Therefore the good Samaritan needs to represent us, although we are also the wounded man.</p><p>"Be going on, and do likewise", the Lord concluded (:37 YLT). Verse 38 appropriately continues: "Now it came to pass, <em>as they went</em>”, in the same way as the Samaritan Saviour "as he journeyed" (:33) showed such energetic compassion, with all his heart and strength, to the stricken man. We must be able to use our own realization of our own desperate need for Christ's grace to motivate us to zealously devote ourselves to ministering to others. Our lack of zeal in this is largely due to our own failure to appreciate our own need, and the degree to which this has been satisfied by the Lord. He knew (and knows) the feelings of the stricken man. </p><p>Like most Jews, the Lord would have prayed the <em>shema </em>("The Lord our God is one") upon rising and going to bed- just as He had a garment like that of the Pharisees, with the traditional tassels hanging from its edge (<em><a href='B:470 9:20'>Mat 9:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:5'>Mat 23:5</a></em>). Yet He thought about what He prayed. When asked which was the greatest of the commandments, He replied that it was the fact that God is one. He saw the unity of God as a commandment that elicited action; and He says [note His grammar] that this plus the command to love our neighbour is the [singular] great commandment (<em><a href='B:480 12:31'>Mar 12:31</a></em>). And He again combines these two commandments in <em><a href='B:490 10:27'>Luk 10:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:37'>Luk 10:37</a></em>, saying that to love God with all our heart is parallel with loving our neighbour and showing mercy to him. He quoted two commandments as one, so deeply had He perceived that we can't claim to love God without loving our brother. How had He worked that out? Perhaps by daily reflecting upon what to many was merely a ritual saying of words. And we too read and have pass our lips, ideas which can work radical transformation in us <em>if only we will put meaning into the words</em> and reflect upon them. He speaks of giving His <em>shalom</em> [peace] to us, not as the [Jewish] world gives it; each time He called out <em>shalom </em>across the street or to the guys at work each morning, He meant it. And He perceived that it would take His death on the cross to really achieve what He was giving to them in His words. &nbsp; </p><p>A feature we need to bear in mind with all the parables is the almost constant stress on the end of the story as the part which makes the main point which the Lord is seeking to get over. Likewise the emphasis is often upon the last person mentioned in the story, the last action, the last words. Think of the parable of the prodigal; or how the Samaritan, the last man on the scene, is the example for us. “Go and do likewise” (<em><a href='B:490 10:37'>Luk 10:37</a></em>) invites us to go forth and be like the Lord Jesus in bringing salvation to others. Or the man who buried his talent and did nothing with it; the crux of the story is that indifference to our potential is <em>so</em> awful. The parable of the sower focuses in the end on the good seed which brings a great harvest. The fact so much of the seed is lost is in itself an element of unreality- but the focus is on the fact that some seed brings forth wonderfully. And isn’t this just the encouragement every preacher needs? That despite all the hard hearts, the initial responses that come to nothing, all is worth it because <em>someone</em> responds truly.</p><p>We wonder if the Lord closed the parable with a gentle smile on His face. The parable engaged with the question of 'Who is my neighbour?', but also with 'What shall I do to inherit eternal life?' (:25). The answers to that is, nothing. We can "do" nothing. The parable turns everything on its head. We are the stricken man. Not anyone else in the parable. The story of course invites us to think we are to act as the Samaritan. But any thoughtful reader comes to see that this is not the point. The Lord is the Samaritan. We are the stricken man, unable to do anything to be saved. Like the lost sheep, frozen and unable to make any move back to the fold. To fret about questions about the definition of "neighbour" was to ask the wrong questions. There are actually no questions to be asked. It's a case of accepting the grace of a saviour. The real question is 'So will you let the despised Samaritan save you?'. To read the parable as simply meaning 'Be a top bloke to random people' is to fall into the same trap as the lawyer was in.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now as they went on their way, he entered into a certain village, and a certain woman named Martha welcomed him into her house</em>- This incident is recorded perhaps to demonstrate the outworking of 'going and doing likewise' in the preceding parable (:37). But the 'doing' was not doing works, but rather listening to the Lord's teaching of salvation by grace and believing it.</p><p>The parable of the good Samaritan features Jesus as the Samaritan helping the stricken man, representative of us all. However, the parable is followed immediately by the account of the Lord visiting the Bethany home of Martha and Mary. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho went via Bethany. The home where the sick man was taken was surely intended to be understood as that of Martha and Mary. The attacked man is called “a certain man”, and then we read straight on that the Lord was entertained by “a certain woman”, Martha (<em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:38'>Luk 10:38</a></em>). The Samaritan “as he journeyed” came to the stricken man; and yet “as they went on their way, he entered into a certain village…” (<em><a href='B:490 10:33'>Luk 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:38'>Luk 10:38</a></em>). The Samaritan Jesus ‘cared for him’; and yet Martha unkindly challenges the Lord ‘Don’t you care…?’ (<em><a href='B:490 10:35'>Luk 10:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:40'>Luk 10:40</a></em>). The similarities aren’t just co-incidence. Surely the Lord is teaching that whether or not Martha perceives it, she and Mary are actually the wounded man of the parable, and He is taking care of them, not vice versa as Martha thought, in the teaching He was giving them in their home. He was spiritually pouring in oil and wine. And yet Martha and Mary, especially in Martha’s incomprehension of the Lord’s spiritual and saving care for her, are set up as types of all of us who are saved and cared for in Christ.</p><p>The disciples literally did give up most of what they had and follow the Lord. And yet there were evidently others who responded to His teaching without doing this- Peter’s family (<em><a href='B:480 1:29'>Mar 1:29</a></em>); Mary and Martha (<em><a href='B:490 10:38'>Luk 10:38</a></em>); Simon the leper <em><a href='B:480 14:3'>Mar 14:3</a></em>). They made use of the Lord's concessions to human weakness:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at the Lord's feet and heard his word</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 8:27'>Luk 8:27</a></em>. "Also sat" is a positive comment on Martha; despite her obsession with hospitality, she also loved the Lord's words and was His disciple- 'sitting at the feet' is an idiom for being a disciple of a rabbi. What is challenging is that many Jewish teachers considered it better for the Law to be burnt than to be taught to a woman. But the Lord taught women, as He did the Samaritan woman; and Martha and Mary were also amongst those 'at His feet'. This again is typical of how Luke emphasizes the Lord's radical acceptance of women and the marginalized.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said: Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me</em>- We can so easily be like Martha, "distracted" even by the secular dimension to our supposed service of the Lord. The parable of the sower can be interpreted as fulfilling every time we hear the word sown in us. Thus some seed is "choked with cares" (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>)- exactly the samewords used about Martha being "distracted" with her domestic duties so that she didn’t hear the Lord's word at that time. We bring various attitudes of mind- stony, receptive, cumbered etc:- to the word each time we hear it. And it is our attitude to it which determines our response to it. </p><p>"Do you not care?" is the language of the distracted disciples in the boat at <em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>. His whole life and death were because He <em>did</em> so care that they would not perish (<em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>). It’s so reminiscent of a child’s total, if temporary, misunderstanding and lack of appreciation of the parent’s love and self-sacrifice. We note in <em><a href='B:480 12:14'>Mar 12:14</a></em> that the Lord was again accused there of 'not caring'. The most ultimately caring person was at times perceived as not caring; and when our care is ignored or misread, we can take comfort from this.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the Lord answered and said to her: Martha, Martha, you are anxious and disturbed about many things</em>- Nearly every one of the 19 occurrences of the Greek word for "anxious" is in the Lord's teachings <em>not </em>to take anxious thought but instead to focus upon the things of the Kingdom. The focus upon only "one thing" in life empowers us to handle the stress of "the many" secular things. Without that focus, life appears full of "many things" and the fact we cannot sufficiently multi-task leaves us stressed and distracted from that one thing which is needful. </p>


text:
<p><em>But one thing is needful. For Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her</em>- Martha was “anxious and disturbed about many things” (:41), but the Lord perceived that Mary was anxious and troubled about the “one thing” that was “needful”- and the context demands we understand this “one thing” as hearing the Lord’s words. For her, as she sat there at His feet, it was an anxious and troubling experience. To hear the Lord’s words is in this sense a troubling experience. Whilst we are saved by grace, the extent of the imperative within the Lord’s teaching is without doubt ‘troubling’ to the sensitive believer in Him. For we cannot hear Him without perceiving the enormous imperative which there is within those words for the transformation of our human lives in practice. &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:570 4:6'>Phi 4:6</a></em>. The one thing that was needful is surely to be connected by the incident, also recorded by Luke, where the Lord tells the rich young man that he lacks “the one thing” (<em><a href='B:490 18:22'>Luk 18:22</a></em>)- which in his case, was to give his wealth away. Yet Mary did this, when she poured out her life savings on the Lord’s feet. Sitting at His feet, hearing His words, led her to anoint those feet. She chose “the one thing”, of anxiously hearing His words, the lines in her forehead showing in intense concentration. And yet that learning of Him issued in something practical- she gave her life to Him in practice, by giving all she had to those feet. The rich young man lacked the one thing- for he was not then ready to give his life’s wealth to the Lord. Moving the spotlight onto ourselves, we can hear, and yet do nothing. We can read our Bibles without the intensity of devotion which Mary had, and without there being any direct translation of what we hear and read into practice. We can be as the rich young man, intellectually impressed, and yet totally failing to accept the tremendous practical demands behind the most simple, basic teachings of the Lord. &nbsp;</p><p>Local Jewish culture stressed that the place of the woman was about domestic matters rather than spiritual ones. Yet in the incident of Martha and Mary, the Lord commended Mary for neglecting her domestic duties in order to concern herself with spiritual development. She sat at his feet, as if a student at the feet of a rabbi. As noted on :39, it’s easy to forget that to sit at the feet of a Rabbi [and the Lord was called ‘Rabbi’] meant to be a disciple of that Rabbi. And women… couldn’t be disciples of a Rabbi. It was all radical stuff.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as he was praying in a certain place- </em>Perhaps Bethany, following on from the context of chapter 10. But we have the impression as in <em><a href='B:480 1:36'>Mar 1:36</a></em> of the disciples finding Him praying, in some secluded spot; and wishing to have that same intimacy with the Father which exuded from Him. The Comforter promises us that same relationship with God as Father which the Lord experienced; and so He teaches them in practice how to move towards it.</p><p><em>That when he ceased, one of his disciples said to him: Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples</em>- This means that this teaching of prayer is different to that recorded in Matthew 6. It would seem therefore that He replies to their request to share His intimacy with the Father by repeating an earlier teaching which [like us] they had not given due attention to. They knew John had taught his disciples forms of prayer, and they wanted one. The Lord is reminding them that He actually had given them one , but they had not paid attention to it. Or it could be that because John's disciples were well known for their prayers (<em><a href='B:490 5:33'>Luk 5:33</a></em>), the disciples of the Lord wanted a different prayer to that which the Lord had given them, one more in line with common Jewish prayer forms. And the Lord replies by repeating the prayer He had originally taught them, which they apparently weren't satisfied with. Again we see their immaturity, chronicled by they themselves in these gospel records, as an encouragement to their hearers and readers to mature more quickly than they had.</p><p>The model prayer given by the Lord can of course be used just as it Is. But it’s worth noting that the Lord’s own subsequent prayers, and some of Paul, repeated the essence of some of the phrases in it, but in different words. This may be a useful pattern for us in learning how to formulate prayers. There was therefore no need for Him to give another prayer. The prayer of Jesus in John 17 is in some ways an expanded restatement of the model prayer. In it, the Lord asks for the Father’s Name to be hallowed or glorified (<em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:11-12'>Joh 17:11-12</a></em>); for His work or will to be done or finished (<em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>); for deliverance from the evil one (<em><a href='B:500 17:15'>Joh 17:15</a></em>). The prayer of John 17 can be divided into three unitsof about the same length (<em><a href='B:500 17:1-8'>Joh 17:1-8</a></em>; John 9-19; Joh. 20-26). Each has the theme of glory, of directly addressing the Father, and of the needs of God’s people- all clearly taken from the model prayer.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: When you pray, say, Father- </em>The model prayer begins with the words "Our Father" (AV, textus receptus). Straight away we are bidden remember that no man is an island; the Lord intended us to be aware of the entire community of believers in our private prayers.</p><p>His teaching about our having a <em>Heavenly </em>Father (AV) may appear quite painless to accept; but it was radical, demanding stuff in the first century. The family then was “the centrally located institution maintaining societal existence… it [was] the primary focus of personal loyalty and it [held] supreme sway over individual life”. “Our father, <em>who is in Heaven</em>” was a prayer hard to pray if one really accepted the full import of the words; every bit as much as it is today. The idea of belonging to another family, of which the invisible Lord Jesus in Heaven was the head, belonging to a new society of world-wide brothers and sisters, where the Lord from Heaven held “supreme sway over individual life”, was radical indeed. It took huge commitment and a deep faith in this invisible head of the new family to step out from ones existing family. And the call of Christ is no less radical today. The social circle at uni, the guys at work, our unbelieving&nbsp;family members… now all take a radical second place to our precious family in Christ. And yet we so easily abuse or disregard the importance of our spiritual family; we too easily exclude them, won’t meet with them, can’t be bothered about them. &nbsp; </p><p><em>Hallowed be your name- </em>Hallowed / sanctified be Your name" uses an aorist tense which implies that it will be accomplished as a one-time act; at the coming of the Lord. Indeed, the aorist tenses in the Lord's model prayer are arresting; each phrase of the prayer asks for something to be done in a one-time sense. This alone suggests an intended 'answer' in terms of the final establishment of the Kingdom. “Hallowed be Your Name” was actually one of the Eighteen Benedictions used by most Jews at the time. This common phrase was consciously seen as a reference to the YHWH Name (Hal Taussig,&nbsp;<em>Jesus Before God: The Prayer Life of the Historical Jesus</em>&nbsp;(Santa Rosa, CA: The Polebridge Press, 1999) p. 76). But the Lord purposefully juxtaposes&nbsp;<em>Abba</em>, “Father”, with that phrase. This Aramaic, non-Hebrew, familiar word, an equivalent of “Daddy!”, is placed by the Lord next to Judaism’s most well known and frequently used blessing of the YHWH Name. By doing so, He was making the Name even more hallowed and glorious- by showing that the essence of that Name speaks of familiar family relationship with us, and is no longer the carefully guarded preserve of Hebrew people, thought, culture and language. The Lord prayed this in Gethsemane; and it took Him so long to say these words that the disciples fell asleep.</p><p><em>Your kingdom come</em>- It has been pointed out that "Your Kingdom come!" was violently in conflict with the Roman view that the lives of a subject people like Israel belonged to Caesar's kingdom. "'Your kingdom come!' is therefore a word of defiance; to pray it is a subversive activity. This is also how the authorities understand the ministry of Jesus: it is subversive and not to be tolerated". And so with us, the seeking of the future Kingdom is a radical denial of the spirit of our age, which seeks its Kingdom now; it demands a separation from the world around us. The well known description of the Kingdom in <em><a href='B:290 2:1-4'>Isa 2:1-4</a></em> is in the context of appealing to Israel to change their ways. Because they would <em>then</em> walk in the ways of the Lord, therefore "O house of Israel [therefore] Come ye [now] and walk in the ways of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:290 2:5'>Isa 2:5</a></em>). The hope of Israel ought to motivate Israel to live the Kingdom life here and now.</p><p>Greek scholars have pointed out that some phrases in the Lord's prayer show a remarkable lack of etiquette and the usual language of petition to a superior; literally, the text reads: "Come Your Kingdom, done Your will”. Is this part of the "boldness" in approaching God which the NT speaks of? That God should encourage us in this (although He also encourages us in reverential fear of Him) reflects something of His humility. The Kingdom of God refers to that over which God reigns. We are “a colony of Heaven” in our response to His principles (<em><a href='B:570 3:20'>Phi 3:20</a></em> Moffat). We are to pray for His Kingdom to come, so that His will may be done on earth (<em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em>). The Kingdom and the doing of His will are therefore paralleled. His Kingdom reigns over all in Heaven, for there, all the Angels are obedient to Him (<em><a href='B:230 103:19-21'>Psa 103:19-21</a></em>). By praying for the Kingdom to come on earth we are not only praying for the Lord’s second coming, but for the progress of the Gospel world-wide right now. Not only that more men and women will hear it and respond, but that those who have accepted it might work God’s will rather than their own to an ever-greater extent. Whether or not we can physically spread the Gospel is in this sense irrelevant; our prayer should be, first and foremost if the pattern of the Lord’s prayer is to be taken exactly, for the triumph of the Gospel world-wide. It has been pointed out by Philip Yancey that "Thy Kingdom come!" was violently in conflict with the Roman view that the lives of a subject people like Israel belonged to Caesar's kingdom.</p><p>"'Your kingdom come!' is therefore a word of defiance; to pray it is a subversive activity. This is also how the authorities understand the ministry of Jesus: it is subversive and not to be tolerated" (Philip Yancey,&nbsp;<em>The Jesus I Never Knew</em>&nbsp;(Harper Collins, 1998). The word&nbsp;<em>basileia&nbsp;</em>translated “Kingdom” definitely brought to mind the imperial reign or empire of Rome. Thus Hal Taussig comments: “Whenever anyone in Jesus’ time used the term “basileia”, the first thing people thought of was the Roman “kingdom” or “empire”. That is, “basileia” really meant “Roman empire” to most people who heard it… It was to many ears a direct insult to the Roman empire. Uttered in the presence of Roman soldiers, such a prayer could have gotten [a person] in immediate trouble” (Hal Taussig,&nbsp;<em>op cit</em>&nbsp;pp. 21,96). And so with us, the seeking of he future Kingdom is a radical denial of the spirit of our age, which seeks its Kingdom now; it demands a separation from the world around us. The well-known description of the Kingdom in <em><a href='B:290 2:1-4'>Isa 2:1-4</a></em> is in the context of appealing to Israel to change their ways. Because they would&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;walk in the ways of the Lord, therefore "O house of Israel [therefore] Come ye [now] and walk in the ways of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:490 2:5'>Luk 2:5</a></em>). The hope of Israel ought to motivate Israel to live the Kingdom life here and now.</p>


text:
<p><em>Give us day by day our daily bread</em>- This may appear hard for comfortably off Christians to pray- until they grasp that they are praying for "our" daily bread, not "my" daily bread. There are so many in the brotherhood for whom having daily bread is indeed a constantly uncertain question. We should be aware of the whole brotherhood; and pray that "we" will be given our bread for today.</p><p>This has long been recognized as an inadequate translation of a very strange Greek phrase. The adjective&nbsp;<em>epiousios</em>&nbsp;in "our daily bread" is one example of Christ’s radical use of language; there in the midst of the prayer which the Lord bid His followers constantly use, was a word which was virtually unknown to them. Our bread only-for-this-day was the idea; the word is used for the rations of soldiers. The idea is 'Give us today, right now, the bread / food of tomorrow'. In ancient Judaism,&nbsp;<em>mahar&nbsp;</em>means not only tomorrow but the great Tomorrow, i:e. the Kingdom. Jesus spoke of the inauguration of the future Kingdom in terms of eating food together (<em><a href='B:470 8:11'>Mat 8:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:21'>Mat 6:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:15'>Luk 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:29-30'>Luk 22:29-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:16'>Rev 7:16</a></em>). 'Give us the future Kingdom today, may it come right now' is perhaps one of the levels on which He intended us to understand the prayer. The aorist implies: 'Give us this once and final time' the bread of tomorrow. The Lord was surely alluding to the way that Israel in the wilderness had been told that "in the morning [tomorrow] you shall be filled with bread"; and this was widely understood in first century Palestine as being typical of the coming of Messiah's Kingdom. Notice too how <em><a href='B:290 55:10'>Isa 55:10</a></em> connects the descent of God’s word made flesh in Jesus, with the giving of bread. And one practical point. Even though we may have daily bread, we are still to pray for it. It’s rather like <em><a href='B:450 10:1'>Zec 10:1</a></em>: “Ask ye of the Lord rain in the time of the latter rain”; even when it’s the season, still ask Him for what it appears you naturally already have. Israel were fed with manna one day at a time- this is so stressed (<em><a href='B:20 16:4'>Exo 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:19-20'>Exo 16:19-20</a></em>).</p><p>The idea of 'daily bread' recalls the gift of manna. There was to be no hoarding of manna- anything extra was to be shared with others (<em><a href='B:20 16:8'>Exo 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:15'>2Co 8:15</a></em>). But we live in a world where the financial challenges of retirement, housing, small family size [if any family at all]... mean that there appears no other option but to 'hoard manna' for the future. To some extent this may be a reflection of the way that life in these very last days is indeed quite different to anything previously known in history; but all the same, we face a very real challenge. Are we going to hoard manna, for our retirement, for our unknown futures? Or will we rise up to the challenge to trust in God’s day by day provision, and share what's left over? "Give us this day our bread-for-today" really needs to be prayed by us daily. Let's give full weight to the Lord's command to pray for only "our daily bread", the daily rations granted to a soldier on active duty. It's almost impossible to translate this term adequately in English. In the former USSR and Communist East Germany (DDR), there was the idea that nobody in a Socialist state should go hungry. And so if you were hungry in a restaurant after eating, you had the right to ask for some food, beyond what you paid for. In the former East Germany, the term&nbsp;<em>Sättigungsbeilage&nbsp;</em>was used for this in restaurants- the portion of necessity. It's this food we should ask God for- the food to keep us alive, the food which a Socialist restaurant would give you for free. We shouldn't be thinking in terms of anything more than this. It's an eloquent essay in what our attitude to wealth, materialism and long term self-provision ought to be:&nbsp;</p><p>To steal is to take the Name of Yahweh called upon us in vain (<em><a href='B:240 30:9'>Pro 30:9</a></em>), and therefore we ask to be given&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;our daily bread and no more (NIV); not so much that if we are found out, the Name will be brought into disrepute, but rather that we personally will have blasphemed the imperative of Yahweh which is heavy upon us; these words of Agur are applied to us here.</p>


text:
<p><em>And forgive us our sins. For we ourselves also forgive everyone that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation</em>- There is a parallel between "sins" and being "indebted"; probably an allusion to the jubilee. We release / forgive men their debt to us, as God does to us. If we chose not to participate in this Jubilee by not releasing others, then we cannot expect to receive it ourselves (note the Jubilee allusions in <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). Around 90% of Old Testament references to sin use the metaphor of a weight or burden, which can be lifted by forgiveness. The Lord Jesus prefers to speak of sin as a debt, which can be forgiven by not being demanded and the debt erased. The metaphor of debt is somewhat richer than that or burdens. It opens the possibility that God lent to us, that He allowed us to get into that debt- because He didn’t strike us dead for the sin. 'Debt' also carries with it the idea that we would like to repay, but cannot. This is the flavour of the Lord's opening to the Sermon- that He is the solution for those who would like to be spiritual but feel unable to be as they would wish to be (see on <em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>). The release of debt carries with it a greater sense of gratitude, knowing that we should not have got into the debt in the first place. All this was foreseen by the Lord in His change of metaphor from sin as weight to sin as debt. It has been noted that sin was not spoken as debt until Jesus introduced the idea. We are in debt to God. And yet so many have the idea that God owes them, and big time. The prayer of Apollonius of Tyana was that “O ye gods, give me the things which are owing to me”. And that ancient attitude is alive today, leading to some who think it is their right not to work and to be supported, or expect some kind of material blessing from God. When actually, we are in deep debt to God, and forgiven it only by pure grace.</p><p>Those “indebted” to us are those who have a debt to us. But Biblically, who are those who are ‘indebted’? The same Greek word occurs often in the New Testament. <em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em> explains that there is a debt to us if we have been sinned against andit’s not been reconciled. The debt our brethren have to us, and we to them, is to love one another, to lay our lives down for each other, to entertain and receive each other at home (s:w. <em><a href='B:710 1:8'>3Jn 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:11'>1Jn 4:11</a></em>). A wife has her husband in her debt if he doesn’t love her with the love of Christ (<em><a href='B:560 5:28'>Eph 5:28</a></em>); our brethren are in debt to us if they don’t give us material help when we truly need it (<em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em>); or if they don’t wash our feet (<em><a href='B:500 13:14'>Joh 13:14</a></em>). A debt implies that it’s not been paid; and so I come to the conclusion that the&nbsp;<em>forgiveness&nbsp;</em>of our debtors is forgiving our brethren when they don’t love us as they should, don’t care for us… and never apologize or rectify it. The debt is outstanding; they’ve not cleared it. But we are to forgive it; we are to forgive unconditionally, without demanding restoration or grovelling repentance before us. This is the challenge of that phrase in the Lord’s prayer. For we ask for “our sins” in general to be likewise forgiven; and they surely include many ‘secret sins’ which we don’t even perceive or haven’t repented of. And further. “As we also forgive every one that is indebted to us” (<em><a href='B:490 11:4'>Luk 11:4</a></em>) can actually be read as a word of command, a statement that is actually a request. The request is that the sins of those who’ve sinned against us be forgiven- in this sense, “whosesoever sins ye remit [s:w. forgive] they are remitted unto them” (<em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em>). That’s another challenging thought. If they’re impenitent, how can they be forgiven? But if&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;forgive them, perhaps we are to understand that God is happy to forgive them. If we feel, as I do, that we’ve been sinned against so much… then we have a wonderful opportunity to gain our own forgiveness and even that of those people… by forgiving them. The more I hurt at how others have treated me, the more I realize my own desperate need for forgiveness. The two things, as the Lord foresaw in His model prayer, dovetail seamlessly together.</p><p>Further evidence that Jesus prayed in Aramaic is found by comparing the two records of the Lord's prayer; Matthew has "forgive us our debts", whilst Luke has "forgive us our sins". The Aramaic word&nbsp;<em>hobha</em>&nbsp;means both 'sin' and 'debt'. The conclusion is therefore that Jesus taught the disciples to pray in their native Aramaic dialect rather than in Hebrew or Greek. Further, the Lord's prayer has many links to the&nbsp;<em>Kaddish</em>, an ancient Aramaic prayer which included phrases like "Exalted and hallowed be his great name... may he let his kingdom rule... speedily and soon".</p><p>"As we<em>..." </em>is a challenge:&nbsp;The crucial little Greek word&nbsp;<em>hos</em>&nbsp;is elsewhere translated: according as, as soon as, even as, like as, as greatly as, since, whenever, while. Clearly enough, our forgiveness by God is dependent upon and of the same nature as our forgiveness of others.</p><p>"Forgive us our / debts sins as we have forgiven those who sin against us" uses the aorist which implies 'Forgive us this once'. Could this not be an anticipation of the state of the believer before the judgment seat of Christ- 'forgive me please this once for all my sins, as I have forgiven those who sinned against me'. If so, we have a powerful exhortation to forgive&nbsp;<em>now</em>; for in that awesome moment, it will be so apparent that the Lord's gracious acceptance of us will be directly proportional to how deeply we accepted and forgave our brethren in this life. Notice how strongly Jesus links future judgment with our present forgiveness (<em><a href='B:490 6:37'>Luk 6:37</a></em>). He teaches us to pray now for forgiveness on the basis of how we have forgiven others, knowing that in prayer, we have a foretaste of the judgment. Now we can come boldly before the throne of grace in prayer, just as we will come before that same throne in the last day.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go to him at midnight and say to him: Friend, lend me three loaves</em>- After teaching the model prayer earlier, the Lord went straight on to teach about the need to forgive others. And quite possibly, the parable of the friend at midnight is similar. For it connects with other parables and their images of the Lord's return at midnight, and the door being shut and not opened to those who then knock. But in this parable, one man can knock and get the door opened at midnight for the sake of his friend, who has "gone out of the way" (Gk., "in his journey is come"). We can save others from condemnation- and, the implication is, we can do that by forgiving them and praying to God for their salvation. And the man who goes and asks the rich man for sustenance is clearly poor. </p><p> According to Prov. 3:28, this man didn't even have a loaf of bread for his friend: "Do not say to your neighbour, ‘Go, and come again, tomorrow I will give it’ – when you have it with you". But despite his poverty, he can do something of eternal significance- he can get the Lord to open the door at midnight for the sake of another poor man. And he is shameless and bold in doing so, for he sees the huge importance of his request. The visitor has arrived at night, when usually travel was only done in the day time. The night time arrival would suggest the traveller had been refused hospitality at other homes, hence his arrival in the middle of the night at this man's home, desperate for food. 
The request to the rich man (God) for loaves is the Lord's interpretation of His previous teaching to pray "Give us this day our daily bread". "Our", not "my", is taken by the Lord here to mean we can pray for others to get their daily bread. And yet as noted above, the allusion is to the manna, which in Jn. 6 is taken to represent salvation. It's amazing how the Lord's teaching dovetails so perfectly. The rich man knew that he would never be repaid, but he gives the loaves anyway. And the point is, how much more will God give salvation, "the Holy Spirit" (:13), to those who ask it especially when motivated by others' needs. The message is powerful: A poor man has the ambition and persistence to get a rich man to open his door at midnight. Just as the obscure but prayerful man can actually get salvation from condemnation for another man. The poor man treats the rich man as if he is a man on his level, to whom he could go for a special favour, and he is shameless in this; the need was the call and motivation. And that is an outcome of being able to call God Almighty "abba", daddy, Father, as taught in the model prayer that this parable follows on from so directly. In some cultures, in Asia especially, the rudeness of a request is a reflection of how intimate one views the friendship. It's the same here- the shamelessness of the request reflects the intimacy the poor man feels towards the rich man. </p><p>
"Persistence" is an unfortunate translation. The idea really is of shamelessness. And likewise in the possibly parallel parable of the widow and the unjust judge. The idea is not that we are knocking at Heaven's door trying to awake or get the attention of an otherwise sleepy or distracted God. The sheer number of times we make a request has no relation to the likelihood of God answering us. Hence the fallacy of prayer beads, rosaries and the like. The idea is that the poor man treats the rich man as if is his familiar friend, his neighbour from whom he can shamelessly ask and receive because of the nature of relationship between poor village people, most of whom were relatives anyway. And as he views the rich man, who can give him not just three loaves but whatever he needs, so the rich man view himself- this is the force of "because he is his friend". All this is the Lord's interpretation of what it means to call God "Abba", daddy, a familiar friend and relative. It is the Lord's model prayer which must be the basis for interpreting this parable.
</p><p> A man finds a friend comes to him at midnight, wanting food. So he goes to <em>his</em> friend, notwithstanding the inconvenient hour, and asks for some loaves, but actually he's given whatever he wants. His want, his will, was to find sustenance for his friend / brother. And therefore his friend gives abundantly above all he asks or thinks, indeed, whatever he wants is provided. The promise of boundless response to prayer is therefore true, but in the context of seeking to help others. This parable comes straight after 'the Lord's prayer'. In Matthew's record, the prayer is followed by a reminder that we must forgive our brother, if we are to be forgiven (<em><a href='B:470 6:14-15'>Mat 6:14-15</a></em>). So perhaps the friend coming to the man at midnight starving hungry, represents a brother sinning against us. Our response must be to go to the Father in prayer and seek forgiveness / spiritual food for our brother. And in that context, we will be given whatever we desire. Note that banging on the shut door is elsewhere a symbol of asking for forgiveness (<em><a href='B:490 13:24-25'>Luk 13:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>).</p><p>The parable of the man coming to his friend at midnight and asking for loaves (<em><a href='B:490 11:5-13'>Luk 11:5-13</a></em>) occurred in the context of the Lord's teaching about forgiveness (see the parallel Gospels). Yet the terms of the parable are replete with reference to the Lord's return and judgment:</p><p>At midnight- the Lord comes "at midnight" in other parables (cp. <em><a href='B:480 13:35'>Mar 13:35</a></em>)</p><p>Door now shut- the door is shut on those rejected, never to be opened (<em><a href='B:470 5:10'>Mat 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>)</p>


text:
<p><em>For a friend of mine has arrived from a journey and I have nothing to set before him</em>- Perhaps those not from an Eastern background can never understand the pressing urgency of the hospitality culture; you <em>must</em> feed the visitor. It just has to be done. But he is poor, and he doesn’t have any bread. So, he goes to his richer friend, friend number three, and wakes him up, disturbing the whole household, to ask him to give him some bread with which to entertain the first friend.</p><p>The friend who came on his journey with "nothing" is intended by the Lord to be understood primarily as referring to the disciples whom He had sent out on their journey with nothing ("take nothing for your journey", <em><a href='B:490 9:3'>Luk 9:3</a></em>). When He told them to "eat such things as are set before you" (<em><a href='B:490 10:8'>Luk 10:8</a></em>), He didn’t just mean ‘Don’t be picky about your food’. He used the same word in <em><a href='B:490 11:6'>Luk 11:6</a></em> to describe how the faithful friend "set [food] before" his visitor. As they travelled around, the disciples were to be received in the way He was describing. Those in that early brotherhood of believers who received and supported them were to do so knowing that these brethren were in their turn responding to human need, and they could be fellow-helpers in the Gospel’s work by showing hospitality. John says just the same: "Because that for his name's sake they went forth [alluding to the great commission to go into all the world], taking nothing <em>of the Gentiles</em> [i:e. the unbelievers]. <em>We</em> therefore ought to help receive such, that we might be fellow-helpers to the truth" (<em><a href='B:710 1:7-8'>3Jn 1:7-8</a></em>). </p><p>Does the 'traveller' needing sustenance of <em><a href='B:490 11:6'>Luk 11:6</a></em> refer to our sinful tendencies, in the light of <em><a href='B:100 12:4'>2Sa 12:4</a></em>? <em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em> describes those in sin whom the Lord saved as “out of the way”. The same idea is found in <em><a href='B:490 11:6'>Luk 11:6</a></em> AVmg:, where the man “out of his way” comes knocking on the Lord’s door. The image of the shut door is that of rejection; but here the door is opened, and the man given “as much as he needs” of forgiveness and acceptance:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he from within shall answer and say- </em>The sentence begins with "Who among you?". The idea is, 'No one among you would answer like this', as in Lk. 17:7; 14:28. So the message of the parable is that God is sure to say "Yes", and that fits with the context seamlessly. But the request is for others, and for "the Holy Spirit" (:11), for spiritual things, for forgiveness and the opening of a closed door at midnight, the removal of condemnation from another.</p><p>"From within" is always used in the Bible about the inner man, rather than meaning indoors. The Greek word occurs twice in the same context: "your <em>inward part… </em>that which is <em>within</em>" (<em><a href='B:490 11:39-40'>Luk 11:39-40</a></em>). Inside himself, he spoke to his friend: "Trouble me not". Yet that satan within him, that desire to be selfish, was overcome by his realization of his friends need, and <em>why</em> it had arisen. And if we have this same emboldened conscience to overcome our innate selfishness and ask of our Father <em>for the sake of others</em>, then we will s the work of the ministry will be provided by Him- that is His sober promise. <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em> is one of John’s versions of the great preaching commission: " I chose you and appointed you, that ye should <em>go</em> and bear fruit…whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you”. The promise of support and help and answered prayer is again held out- in the context of preaching and ministering to the Gospel.</p><p><em>Do not trouble me! The door is now shut and my children are with me in bed, I cannot rise and give anything to you?</em>- This gives further insight into how prayer is heard- the householder, God, is in His house (Heaven) with the door shut and his children with him in bed, and in order to get up- corresponding to God answering our prayer in the parable- the <em>whole </em>household, the children of God (a description of the Angels- <em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em> etc:), have to be roused. Thus all the Angels are conscious of one specific action on our behalf. See on <em><a href='B:490 15:6'>Luk 15:6</a></em>.</p><p>The man who knocks is answered, the Lord taught. He may have meant that all true prayer is answered in its essence, rather than its particularities. But forour purposes we note that the first knocks weren’t heard. Only by continual knocking was the request responded to. And so “knock, and it shall be opened” doesn’t just mean ‘ask for something and you’ll get it’. The first knocks produced nothing. It surely means ‘Keep on and on knocking, driven to your utmost desperation and entreaty; <em>this</em> is what I call knocking’:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord will one day come to <em>us</em> at midnight, and the unworthy will not open to Him (Song of Solomon 5). And He right now stands at the door and knocks (<em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em>). The rejected will know what it is like to stand knocking at the Lords shut door and be unanswered (<em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>). He surely intended us to make such links within His teachings. The message is quite clear- those who can’t be bothered to respond to the knocking of others, who refuse to feel for others in their desperation… these are the ones who will then come to know just how that feels, as in ultimate spiritual desperation <em>they</em> hammer at the Lords door. From this it surely follows that in our response to the desperation of others, we are working out our own eternal destiny. We are deciding whether or not the Lord will respond <em>to us</em>, as we lay there prostrate before Him at judgment, knowing our desperation whilst at the same time believing and hoping in His love and response. When we see others in their needs, the sister who can’t get to meeting because nobody will baby-sit for her once in a while, the brother who just needs someone to talk to, someone to listen, an evening of someone’s time, the man over there who is so lost in his Catholicism, that guy so addicted to his dreams of personal wealth, the woman back there hooked on dope, the single father with two spastic children, the grandmother left to bring up three children on a tiny pension in one room with broken windows and severe winters, the refugees streaming over that border day after day… we are confronted with these pictures daily. </p><p>They are knocking at our door, at midnight. And we would rather not be disturbed. We would rather acknowledge their status as our friends, our brothers and sisters, but make excuses as to why here and now we can’t respond. To tell the friend that, well, give him bread tomorrow…this was quite inappropriate. It could have been argued that they didn’t <em>need</em> bread right then. They could wait till morning. But the friend appreciated the <em>shame</em> and the <em>awkwardness</em> of his friend…his heart felt for him, and he responded. It isn’t just dire material need we should feel for, therefore; but feel for others in the sheer humanity of their life situations, and have a heart willing to try to give them all they need in them. </p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you, though he will not want to rise and give anything to him, yet because he is his friend, and because of the man's persistence, he will get up and give him as much as he needs</em>- The knocking on the door is specifically a symbol of prayer. If we see our brothers need, even if we can do nothing physically to help (and so often, we can’t); we will <em>pray</em> earnestly for them. If we truly feel for them, we will pray for them. The friend troubles his friend for help (<em><a href='B:490 18:7'>Luk 18:7</a></em>), just as in another parable about prayer the desperate widow "troubles" the judge for a response (<em><a href='B:490 18:5'>Luk 18:5</a></em>). </p><p>The poor neighbour asks with "importunity" (AV)- with shamelessness. He is confident of being heard and has no shame or hesitation to his request because he knows he really does have nothing to give the visitor. This is of course the prerequisite for prayer which will be heard. The Lord drives the point home that whoever asks in this way, receives. And yet the Lord addresses this comment to those who although "evil", knew how to give gifts to their kids. Surely the Lord was speaking to the Pharisees present, who prayed regularly. Perhaps He is saying that they had never really prayed the prayer of earnest desire, motivated by others' needs. </p>&nbsp;<p>Because of his "importunity", the rich friend gave to him. The Greek translated "importunity" means lack of shamefacedness, lack of reverence. The Greek word is <em>an-aideia</em>: without <em>aidos</em>. What does <em>aidos</em> mean? It is used twice in the New Testament: in <em><a href='B:610 2:9'>1Ti 2:9</a></em> "shamefacedness", and in <em><a href='B:650 12:28'>Heb 12:28</a></em> "serve God acceptably with <em>reverence</em>". The man (who the Lord invites us to see as representing us) comes to the rich friend (cp. God) <em>wit out</em> this reverence. Now of course we should serve our God with appropriate reverence. But there ought to be times when we as it were rush to God, because He is our father and our friend, without that formality which our worship of Him might more usually include. Contrary to the ideas of popular religion, God is not merely something to be worshipped; He is Father and friend, the one to run to in time of urgent need <em>when that need arises from the requirements of His people and His work. &nbsp;</em></p><p>Paul’s writings are packed with allusions back to the Lord's parables. In his reference to the tale of the three friends, Paul seems to have understood just as we have done. <em><a href='B:520 16:1-2'>Rom 16:1-2</a></em> comments that the ecclesia should welcome "Phoebe our sister receive her in the Lord, as becomes saints, and that you assist her in whatever business she <em>has need</em> of you: for she has been a succourer of many". "Has need" is the same Greek word as in <em><a href='B:490 11:8'>Luk 11:8</a></em> - the friend gave whatever <em>was needed</em> to the friend who arrived from his journey. And Paul says this should be done for Phoebe because she lived a life of giving out to others needs. <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>And I say to you: Ask and it shall be given you, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you- Jesus likens requesting things from God to a man asking a favour of his friend at midnight (<a href='B:490 11:5'>Lk. 11:5</a>,<a href='B:490 11:9'>9</a>). We are to see God as our friend to whom like Abraham, we respectfully and rather awkwardly present ourselves. And He sees us as His friends. There's a wonderful mutuality between a man and his God. As noted above, the guaranteed answer of prayers refers to the requests we make for others when we truly do not have the resources to provide for them. And this is true in spiritual terms; for so often we feel utterly lacking in ability to provide for the spiritual needs of those who come to us at midnight.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The connections with the Sermon on the Mount surely send us back to <a href='B:470 5:42'>Mt. 5:42</a> &quot;Give to him that asks&quot;. The same Greek words are used. Our responsiveness to others will be reflected in God’s responsiveness to us. And yet the Lord's style throughout the sermon is to elevate the natural onto a higher, spiritual plane. This is not a blank cheque promise, as is clear from both personal experience and Bible teaching. What we can be utterly assured of being given is God’s grace and salvation. The Lord surely foresaw that the initial mental objection to His words would be 'But that's not true! I don't get everything I ask for, and neither did many Bible characters!'. But He wanted us to therefore think further as to what He might be really saying- and what He is saying is that forgiveness and salvation will surely be given to whoever asks. These things are summarized in <a href='B:470 7:11'>Mt. 7:11</a> as God for sure giving &quot;good things to them that ask Him&quot;. The parallel here in <a href='B:490 11:13'>Lk. 11:13</a> summarizes those &quot;good things&quot; as &quot;the Holy Spirit&quot;.</p>


text:
<p><em>For everyone that asks receives- </em>Passages like this can be read to teach that every one who seeks in prayer, receives. This just isn't true in terms of the words of our actual requests being answered. But once we understand that God sees the spirit behind our words and answers this rather than the specific request, then these promises become more realistically believable; and the entire context is about asking for loaves for our needy visitor which we truly do not have to give him. </p><p><em>And he that seeks finds- </em>As David "found" God through experiencing His forgiveness, so can "every one that is Godly" today (<em><a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a></em>). It is quite possible that "seek and you shall find”&nbsp;was uttered by the Lord with his mind on <em><a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a></em> and David’s experience. After all, we cannot expect this to be a blank cheque offer, that whatever we seek for we must receive. But if these words are an allusion to David’s seeking and finding forgiveness in <em><a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a></em>, then the promise is more realistic. If we seek for forgiveness and a living relationship with God, then we have this unconditional promise that we&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;find this. Yet in a sense, the time when we will ultimately find God will be at the judgment: we will "find mercy of the Lord in that day" (<em><a href='B:620 1:18'>2Ti 1:18</a></em>), so that "ye may be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless" (<em><a href='B:680 3:14'>2Pe 3:14</a></em>). We will find God, as He will find us, in that great moment of consummation; "for then shall (we) know (God), even as also (we) are known" by Him (<em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>;). Then we will "be&nbsp;<em>found</em>&nbsp;in him... that I may (then)&nbsp;<em>know</em> him" (<em><a href='B:570 3:9-10'>Phi 3:9-10</a></em>). Yet David says that after forgiveness, we can find and know God. It is as if whenever we sin, we in a sense face our judgment seat. And the knowledge and 'finding' of God which we will then enjoy should be prefigured in our present experience of forgiveness. Should we not therefore pray for forgiveness with the intensity with which we would at the judgment, if we were then offered the chance to do so? &nbsp;</p><p>The 'seeking' which is in view is clearly of spiritual things. In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord had used the same word in encouraging us to above all "seek the Kingdom of God" (<em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>). And now He is encouraging us that if we seek it, we will 'find' it- the word for "find" is elsewhere translated "obtain". If we really want the things of the Kingdom and to eternally be in that environment- we will be. The Lord Jesus Himself went out seeking for goodly pearls- and found them (<em><a href='B:470 13:45-46'>Mat 13:45-46</a></em>). He goes seeking His sheep- and finds it (<em><a href='B:470 18:12-13'>Mat 18:12-13</a></em>). He "found" faith in a Gentile (<em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em>), He was as the woman who sought and found her precious coin (<em><a href='B:490 15:8-9'>Luk 15:8-9</a></em>). Our seeking the things of the Kingdom is therefore not merely our personal seeking a place in its future establishment upon earth. We can seek the progress of the Kingdom principles which comprise the reign and kingship of God on earth right now. Part of that is in seeking men and women to submit to that Kingship / Kingdom. And that too shall ultimately succeed, as the Lord Jesus demonstrated in His own life despite so many setbacks and failures in response to Him. 'But nobody's interested!' is really the cry of unbelief in this promise. If we are seeking for men and women to submit to the things of God’s Kingdom, then we shall find them- even if they may not join our denomination or agree totally with all of our theology.</p><p><em>And to him that knocks it shall be opened</em>- This is the language of preaching. For Paul appears to allude to it three times in speaking of how doors of opportunity have been opened for him in the work of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:530 16:9'>1Co 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:12'>2Co 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:3'>Col 4:3</a></em>). The implication is surely that he had knocked in prayer, and the doors had been opened. If we pray for opportunities to preach, to save people (rather than spending our mental energy on condemning our brethren), then God will respond. According to our principle of letting the Sermon interpret itself, it may be that the idea of the door being opened looks back to <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em> - in prayer, we are to shut our door and pray. And our knocking means that the door is opened. The particular metaphor of knocking upon a door and it being opened is used in <em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em> about the Lord knocking on our doorat the second coming, and us opening; yet He stands today and knocks at the door, and we are to open to Him (<em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em>). The point is surely that our relationship with Him is mutual, we knock and He opens, He knocks and we open. And at the last day, tragically too late, the rejected knock and the door will not be opened to them (<em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>). Their knocking is a desperate plea for salvation. But if we ask for it in this life- we shall receive it. So the metaphor speaks of seeking salvation and a relationship with the Lord in this life, but in context of the rest of the verse it also refers to our desire for others to have the door opened to them. John's equivalent to all this is perhaps His description of the Lord Jesus as the door, through whom any man may enter in to salvation. It's the same idea- the door is easily opened in this life, indeed the implication is that Jesus is effectively an open door for all who believe in Him:&nbsp;</p><p>The language of knocking and opening is used in other parables about spiritual acceptance with the Lord; it is this which He is also willing to provide us with, for others' sake.</p>


text:
<p><em>What father among you- </em>We can imagine Him looking around at them.</p><p><em>If his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a snake?</em>- The Lord sensed that His promise of Divine response to prayer for salvation would be so hard for them to accept. He is here persuading them by all manner of methods to simply accept that reality. We are God’s children, and He will not be cruel to us. It would be unnatural and counter-instinctive for Him to not save us. For His is the Kingdom- therefore He desires to give it to us, He designed it for us:&nbsp;</p><p>There were some fish (similar to eels) caught in the sea of Galilee which looked like snakes. The Lord is penetrating deep into the psychology of His people. We fear that the promised salvation may only be an appearance. And we are being shown here that that is to effectively accuse God of a cruel trick. At what stage the fish became a symbol of Christianity is not clear (there is a distinct similarity in sound between the Aramaic for 'Jesus' and for 'fish', something like 'Iisus' and 'Ikfus'), but the combination of fish and serpent tempt us to interpret this as also having the sense: Do you think that Christianity, the whole offer of the Kingdom I am making, is really such a cruel trick that it's really the serpent, the symbol of evil incarnate? Because that really is how it would have to be. It's either that, or gloriously true. And if we accept God as our loving Father, then with childlike faith we must also believe that His offer of salvation is simply true for us- if we ask. Again we see a connection with earlier teaching in the Sermon; for the Lord had taught His people to pray to "Our Father". Like all of the Lord's prayer, that is harder to pray than might first appear. Because if He really is our loving Heavenly Father, then we are to believe that if we ask Him for salvation and the things of His Kingdom, we shall surely receive:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Or if he shall ask for an egg, will he give him a scorpion?</em></p><p>- See on :11. Eggs and small scorpions could look similar. But in the life of a mature believer, there is no possible doubt that every gift from the Father is good- ultimately. Our environments are all given us by Him to develop our spirituality, and not because He hates us or wishes us to suffer. The song of the vineyard in Isaiah 5 makes the amazing point that the Father does all things possible so that we might bear fruit.</p>


text:
<p><em>If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em>. Quite simply, we have to believe that prayer changes things. God can change the course of a nation's destiny, or even in a sense the whole course of the universe, because some finite, ignorant, sinful human being has the neck to fervently ask Him to. We are encouraged by the Lord to persist in prayer (<em><a href='B:490 11:5-13'>Luk 11:5-13</a></em>). Elijah had to pray for rain seven times before the cloud came. Daniel prayed 21 days before an answer came. Why doesn't God answer immediately? Is it not simply because He sees it is for our good to develop this habit of knocking on Heaven's door with the same request?</p><p>The power of spiritual victory, the real way to holiness in practice, a spiritual mind, unity through forgiveness with God’s mind / spirit, is assured to those who simply ask for it in faith. Seeking and finding, knocking on the door and it being opened, are likewise metaphors elsewhere used for God’s assured positive response to our spiritual requests. John's equivalent to this part of the Sermon is perhaps the Lord's assurance that He will definitely<em> give</em>&nbsp;"living water" to whoever&nbsp;<em>asks</em>&nbsp;Him (<em><a href='B:500 4:10'>Joh 4:10</a></em>); and the frequent references to us being given "the Holy Spirit" or whatever we ask in His Name if it results in the Father being glorified (<em><a href='B:500 14:13-14'>Joh 14:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:23-24'>Joh 16:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:26'>Joh 16:26</a></em>). The letter of James is full of reference to the Sermon, and his allusion to 'ask and you will be given' is that if any man ask for&nbsp;<em>wisdom</em>, he will be given it (<em><a href='B:660 1:5-6'>Jas 1:5-6</a></em>), but a man will&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;be given things if he asks for material things to fulfil his own natural desires (<em><a href='B:660 4:2-3'>Jas 4:2-3</a></em>). It's as if James is answering the primitive objection: 'Jesus said if you ask, you will be given- but I asked for stuff and never got it'. And his answer is that the blank cheque promise is obviously about asking for spiritual things, not material things. <em><a href='B:690 3:22'>1Jn 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:14-15'>1Jn 5:14-15</a></em> likewise speak of receiving whatever we ask- in the context of saying that we can look forward to the day of judgment and be confident of acceptance there. God is willing and eager to save us, as the whole wonder of the crucifixion makes clear. If we ask for forgiveness, salvation and the strength to be spiritual, then He has promised to give those things to us. The wonder of that means that any attempt to try to as it were extort material blessing from God is sadly inappropriate and will not enter the mind of those who are rejoicing in His salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he was casting out a demon that was dumb. And it came to pass, when the demon had gone out, the dumb man spoke- </em>This is the language used at the time for explaining medical situations which today we would diagnose differently. Blindness (Mt:) and deafness are explicable in medical terms. The verse states that the Lord 'healed' the man and therefore, because of that healing, the blindness (Mt:) and deafness left him. The language of healing of persons is not what we would expect if the Lord instead ngaged in battle with demonic entities in Heaven or at least, outside of the man.</p><p><em>And the crowds marvelled</em>- This is a strong word, meaning utterly astonished, and even used about madness (<em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:13'>2Co 5:13</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>But some of them said- </em>The Pharisees (Mt:). Their comment appears to have been made in very hot blood, for it was logically contradictory to claim that someone who cast out demons must therefore be in league with the prince of the demons; because their own sons (either literally or in the sense of their disciples) claimed to cast out demons. And if Jesus was actually on the side of the prince of demons, why then was he as it were fighting for the other side by casting out demons. Such gaping error in logic was exactly what the Pharisees were constantly careful to avoid; but their intense jealousy of the Lord led them to make this logical error. Again we note that the Lord's style was not so much to directly state the errors of his opponents, but to work on the assumption that their beliefs were correct- and to then follow those beliefs to their logical conclusions, thus showing how those positions contradicted themselves to the point they could not be true. This is one explanation for the use of the language of demons in the Gospels, even though demons don't in fact exist.</p><p><em>By Beelzebub the prince of the demons he casts out demons</em>- By the instrumentality of Beelzebub. They were driven to assume that the Lord was in league with some higher power in order to perform His miracles. If it wasn't the Holy Spirit of God- it had to be by some other power, and the only option in their theology was some form of the Satan myth. Their logical desperation is a reflection of the undeniable nature of the Lord's miracles (as in <em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>). Any who claim to be able to do miracles through the Holy Spirit should likewise be producing healings which even their most sceptical opponents cannot deny are miracles; but that feature is not seen in many claims of healings today. When accused of being in league with ‘satan’, the Lord didn’t read them a charge of blasphemy. He reasoned instead that a thief cannot bind a strong man; and likewise He couldn’t bind ‘satan’ unless He were stronger than Satan (cp. <em><a href='B:480 3:23-27'>Mar 3:23-27</a></em>). He doesn’t take the tack that ‘Satan / Beelzebub / demons’ don’t exist; He showed instead that He was evidently stronger than any such being or force, to the point that belief in such a concept was meaningless. Faith must rather be in Him alone.</p><p>The Jews accused the Lord of being in league with the prince of the demons, Beelzebub. His comment was that if the family / house of Satan was so divided, then Satan “has an end” (<em><a href='B:480 3:26'>Mar 3:26</a></em>). His approach was ‘OK you believe in demons, Beelzebub etc. Well if that’s the case, then according to the extension of your logic, Satan will soon come to an end, will cease existence. That’s the bottom line. As it happens, I am indeed ‘binding the strong man’, rendering Satan powerless, making him ‘have an end’, and so whichever way you look at it, believing in demons or not, the bottom line is that My miracles demonstrate that effectively Satan is powerless and not an item now’. The way the New Testament is written reflects the same approach. When the Lord was alone with His disciples, He explained further: “If they have called the Master of the House [i:e. Jesus] ‘Beelzebub’, how much more shall they call them of his household?” [i:e. the disciples] (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>). By saying this, the Lord was clarifying that of course He didn’t&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>mean that He was part of the Satan family, working against Satan to destroy the entire family. Rather was He and His family quite separate from the Satan family. But He didn’t make that clarification to the Jewish crowds – He simply used their idea and reasoned with them on their own terms. Note in passing how the Jews actually thought Jesus was Beelzebub, or Satan. This would be one explanation for their mad passion to kill Him; for those labelled ‘Satan’ were hunted to their death in such societies, as seen later in the witch hunts of the middle ages. The Jews say Jesus as a false miracle worker, a false Messiah, a bogus Son of God – all characteristics of their view of ‘Satan’. Some centuries later, the Jewish sage Maimonides described Jesus in terms of the antichrist: “Daniel had already alluded to him when he presaged the downfall of a wicked one and a heretic among the Jews who would endeavour to destroy the Law, claim prophecy for himself, make pretences to miracles, and allege that he is the Messiah” (<em>Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen</em>). It’s been suggested that the way the Jewish rabbinical writings call Him&nbsp;<em>Yeshu</em>&nbsp;is an acronym for the Hebrew expression&nbsp;<em>yemach shemo vezichro</em>– “May his name and memory be obliterated”). This was the very Jewish definition of Satan. They saw Jesus as Satan himself; hence they were so insistent on slaying Him. Yet by the deft twist of Divine providence, it was through the death of Jesus that the&nbsp;<em>real&nbsp;</em>Devil (i:e. the power of sin) was in fact slain (<em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em>). To those with perceptive enough minds to see it, yet once again the Jewish ideas had been turned back upon them to reveal the real nature of the Devil to them, within their own frames of reference and terminology. Likewise Beelzebub means literally ‘the lord of the house’; and the Lord Jesus alludes to this in describing Himself as the Master of the House of God:&nbsp;</p><p>Judaism had taken over the surrounding pagan notion of a personal ‘Satan’. And the Lord Jesus and the Gospel writers use this term, but in the way they use it, they redefine it. The parable of the Lord Jesus binding the “strong man” – the Devil – was really to show that the “Devil” as they understood it was now no more, and his supposed Kingdom now taken over by that of Christ. The last Gospel, John, doesn’t use the term in the way the earlier Gospels do. He defines what the earlier writers called “the Devil” as actual people, such as the Jews or the brothers of Jesus, in their articulation of anadversarial [‘satanic’] position to Jesus.</p><p><em>Archon</em>, "the first" ["prince"], would imply that Beelzebub was also a demon, the "first" or leading one. Thus the fallacy of their argument is the more apparent- if Beelzebub really existed, why would he cast out his own fellow demons?</p>


text:
<p><em>And others, testing him, sought from him a sign from heaven</em>- They considered this to be a sign connected with the 'devil'. The Lord could have just walked away from such obvious blasphemers. But He works with them from whatever position they stated, and thereby sets us a huge challenge in dealing with difficult folks.</p>


text:
<p><em>But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them- </em>But they had "said" these things (:15). Perhaps they said these things within their own minds. Or maybe the contrast is to highlight the upcoming teaching that thoughts are as good as words (<em><a href='B:470 12:34-37'>Mat 12:34-37</a></em>). To hear their words was to know their thoughts.</p><p><em>Every kingdom- </em>Again the Lord accepts their position for one moment as true, and yet takes it forward to its logical implication. If Beelzebub was fighting against his own side, then all the same, Satan's Kingdom was divided against itself and would soon crumble into self-destruction. Therefore what Jesus had done ought to be seen as a presage of Satan's Kingdom ending and, by implication, the soon triumph of God’s Kingdom.</p><p><em>Divided against itself- </em>The Lord Jesus framed His parable about Satan's kingdom rising up and being divided against itself in the very language of the Kingdom of Israel being "divided" against itself by Jeroboam's 'rising up' (<em><a href='B:110 12:21'>1Ki 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 13:6'>2Ch 13:6</a></em>)- as if Israel's Kingdom was Satan's kingdom.</p><p><em>Is brought to desolation- </em>The Lord only uses the Greek word elsewhere with regard to latter day Babylon's destruction as a result of her followers rising up against her (<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>). This typically been how God destroyed Israel's enemies in the Old Testament- by them turning upon themselves. It follows another great Biblical theme- that those who ultimately will be condemned are in practice self-condemned and bring about their own condemnation:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And a family divided against a family falls apart</em>- A divided house is the characteristic of Satan’s house or kingdom, and it will fall- just as the house built on sand fell at the day of judgment. This is the strongest condemnation of any divided Christian community. The Lord is teaching that the breakup of a Kingdom, even Satan's, must start on the household level and progress higher. Perhaps this is a hint at the growth of&nbsp;<em>God’s</em>&nbsp;kingdom beginning with the household conversions and house churches with which Christianity started.</p>


text:
<p><em>And if Satan- </em>Mark adds that the Lord spoke all this "in parables" (<em><a href='B:480 3:23'>Mar 3:23</a></em>). 'Satan' was a parable and is being used here in a non-literal sense. The Lord reasons with them on their own ground, assuming for a moment that their wrong ideas were true- hence "<em>if</em>&nbsp;Satan...". The one who cast out Satan / demons was of course Jesus personally. Their false logic and theology had led them to label a good man as Satan just because He did a good work of healing. So quickly, false logic and theology drives jealous people along a path of demonization, negative labelling of others and religious hatred:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Also is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? Because you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub</em>- <em><a href='B:330 17:14'>Eze 17:14</a></em> uses this language about how Old Testament kingdom of Judah no longer 'stood' because of their disobedience. The true Kingdom of God would 'stand' for ever (<em><a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a></em>). The Lord may be hinting that Israel was no longer God’s Kingdom and was in fact therefore Satan's kingdom- for the true Kingdom of God would always stand. It is Satan's Kingdom which falls, not God’s.</p>&nbsp;<p>Bible readers are familiar with the personification of sin as a man called 'Satan', the enemy. This symbolic man is in fact the antithesis of the Lord Jesus Christ. As we follow this theme through Scripture, it becomes apparent that we are just at the tip of an iceberg. This symbolic man has a kingdom&nbsp;and almost every attribute of the Lord Jesus and <em>His</em> Divine Kingdom of righteousness. Consider the similarities: </p><p>Satan has a Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 11:18'>Luk 11:18</a></em>) </p><p>The power and glory of which have been <em>delivered</em> to him by God, and which he can give to&nbsp;whomsoever he will (<em><a href='B:490 4:6'>Luk 4:6</a></em>) </p><p>Angels (<em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em> Gk:) </p><p>The power of death (<em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:350 13:14'>Hos 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 1:18'>Rev 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:6'>Rev 20:6</a></em>) </p><p>Power to condemn men (<em><a href='B:610 3:6'>1Ti 3:6</a></em>) </p><p>A judgment seat and system of rewards based on that of Christ (<em><a href='B:470 6:1'>Mat 6:1</a></em> cp. 2,16) </p><p>Condemned sinners are invited to the 'feast' of God’s judgments and given suitable wedding clothes (<em><a href='B:430 1:7-8'>Zep 1:7-8</a></em>) in parody of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 22:2-3'>Mat 22:2-3</a></em>) </p><p>Is a father (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>) </p><p>Has children (<em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:10'>1Jn 3:10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:650 2:13'>Heb 2:13</a></em>) </p><p>And a wisdom that is opposed to God’s wisdom (<em><a href='B:660 3:15-17'>Jas 3:15-17</a></em>) </p><p>Armour (<em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em>) </p><p>Power (<em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>) </p><p>Spiritual "depths" (<em><a href='B:730 2:24'>Rev 2:24</a></em>, s:w. <em><a href='B:520 11:33'>Rom 11:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:18'>Eph 3:18</a></em>) </p><p>Seed which he sows (<em><a href='B:470 13:39'>Mat 13:39</a></em>) </p><p>A throne (<em><a href='B:730 2:13'>Rev 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:4'>2Th 2:4</a></em>) </p><p>A mystery (<em><a href='B:600 2:7'>2Th 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:24'>Rev 2:24</a></em>) </p><p>"Power... signs and... wonders" (<em><a href='B:600 2:9'>2Th 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 13:13'>Rev 13:13</a></em>) </p><p>Stands at the right hand of men (<em><a href='B:230 109:6'>Psa 109:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:8'>Luk 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 110:1'>Psa 110:1</a></em>) </p><p>Is likened to lightening (<em><a href='B:490 10:18'>Luk 10:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 17:24'>Luk 17:24</a></em>) </p><p>Puts things in men's' hearts (<em><a href='B:500 13:2'>Joh 13:2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:540 8:16'>2Co 8:16</a></em>) </p><p>He is a son who will be "revealed" (<em><a href='B:600 2:4'>2Th 2:4</a></em>), as Christ will be (<em><a href='B:490 17:30'>Luk 17:30</a></em>, same Gk:) </p><p>He is "he that comes" (<em><a href='B:540 11:4'>2Co 11:4</a></em>), a phrase so often used about the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 7:19-20'>Luk 7:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:27'>Joh 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:31'>Joh 7:31</a></em>) </p><p>He will be "revealed <em>in his time</em>" (<em><a href='B:600 2:6'>2Th 2:6</a></em>), as Christ will be (<em><a href='B:490 17:24'>Luk 17:24</a></em>) </p><p>"The god of this world" who emits a bright light into the hearts of men (<em><a href='B:540 4:4'>2Co 4:4</a></em> cp. 6) </p><p>Enthroned in God’s temple (<em><a href='B:600 2:4'>2Th 2:4</a></em>) </p><p>He has "works" (<em><a href='B:690 3:8'>1Jn 3:8</a></em>) </p><p>Figuratively comes down from heaven to earth in the last days (<em><a href='B:730 12:12'>Rev 12:12</a></em>) </p><p>Has bread and wine of wickedness (<em><a href='B:240 4:17'>Pro 4:17</a></em>) </p><p>His followers "hold" Christ, as the true disciples do (same words in <em><a href='B:580 2:9'>Col 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:48'>Mat 26:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>) </p><p>Will be 'apocalypsed' as Christ will be (<em><a href='B:600 2:8'>2Th 2:8</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And even if I- </em>Three times in succession the Lord uses the "if... " clause. Logic and consequence of position is therefore significant to Him. If it were not, it would totally not matter what we believed about anything.</p><p><em>By Beelzebub- </em><em><a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a></em> clearly tells us that Beelzebub was a false god of the Philistines. Jesus did not say, ‘Now look, <em><a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a></em> says Beelzebub was a false god, so your accusation cannot be true’. No, He spoke as if Beelzebub existed, because He was interested in getting His message through to His audience. So in the same way Jesus talked about casting out demons – He did not keep saying, ‘actually, they do not exist’, He just preached the Gospel in the language of the day.</p><p><em>Cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?- </em>The miracles claimed by the Jews would've compared poorly with the Lord's, rather like the attempts by the Egyptian magicians to imitate the miracles of Moses. he Lord never makes that point directly. He accepts that these people claimed to 'cast out demons' and reasons as if that is true- in order to clinch the greater point, that their whole belief system was deeply flawed. It seems to me that this is one reason why the NT writers go along with the idea of demons- to demonstrate by colossal implication that either they do not exist, or they are utterly powerless. “By whom do your sons cast them [demons] out?” (<em><a href='B:490 11:19'>Luk 11:19</a></em>) shows the Lord assuming for a moment that there were demons, and that the Jews could cast them out. He doesn’t directly challenge them on their false miracles, their exaggerated reports of healings, nor on the non-existence of demons. He takes them from where they are and seeks to lead them to truth.</p><p><em>Therefore shall they be your judges</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>. </p><p>Their own sons who had claimed to do miracles would be presented at the day of judgment when their lives were examined. The point would be made that they had condemned Jesus for something which their own sons did, and yet they had not condemned&nbsp;<em>them</em>, and therefore they would be condemned / judged at the hands of their own sons. Likewise the Lord reasoned that the presence of the Queen of Sheba at judgment day would be a condemnation for some in first century Israel (<em><a href='B:490 12:42'>Luk 12:42</a></em>). Judgment day will not be a mere yes / no encounter. Our lives will be laid bare, specific incidents raised and the implications of them discussed, with the persons involved or implicated standing there giving testimony; or at least, this is how it shall be for the rejected. There is a colossal importance to life and living, to justice, to the implications of actions. It’s no good just shrugging and hoping for the best, allowing the passage of time to work a kind of pseudo-atonement, whereby we forget the implications of our actions.</p><p>The fact the Pharisees' children cast out demons condemned the Pharisees. Noah's very example was a condemnation of his world (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>); the very existence of believing Gentiles judges the Jews as condemned (<em><a href='B:520 2:27'>Rom 2:27</a></em>); and the very existence of the repentant Ninevites condemned first century Israel (<em><a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a></em>). The faithful preaching of the Corinthians would judge an unbeliever (<em><a href='B:530 14:24'>1Co 14:24</a></em>). Noah's very act of righteousness in building the ark condemned / judged those who saw it and didn’t respond (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). This is why the rejected will be shamed before the accepted; they will bow in shame at their feet (<em><a href='B:730 3:9'>Rev 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). Perhaps it is in this sense that "we shall judge angels" (<em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>)- rejected ecclesial elders, cp. the angels of the churches in Revelation 2, 3? The point is, men's behaviour and conduct judges others because of the contrast it throws upon them. And this was supremely true of the Lord. No wonder in the naked shame and glory of the cross lay the supreme "judgment of this world".</p><p>However "your sons" could refer to the Lord's disciples, who were ethnic Jews and many had previously been "sons" or disciples of the Jews. The immediate context in Lk. 10 is of the Lord's 72 disciples casting out demons. They thereby became judges of the Pharisees.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if I by the finger of God- </em>A comparison of <em><a href='B:470 12:28'>Mat 12:28</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 11:20'>Luk 11:20</a></em> shows that “the finger of God” and “the spirit of God” are parallel - God in action is His spirit. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth” (<em><a href='B:230 33:6'>Psa 33:6</a></em>). One reason the Lord did miracles was to try to drive people towards a final decision about Him- see <em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>. Either He did them by the Spirit, and was therefore attested at God’s Messiah and providing a true foretaste of the Messianic Kingdom- or, as the Pharisees claimed, the source of power He was clearly tapping into must be from 'the other side', from evil. The population were therefore faced with a deep choice- either He was who He claimed, or He was an agent of Satan. There was no middle position. It was clear that Jesus, a manual worker from Nazareth, had access to some cosmic power on a scale previously unknown in the earth. The Bible clearly teaches that there is no power but of God. And there is only one God. Those teachings alone make redundant any concept of a personal cosmic Satan and demons. If I had faced off against first century Palestinians deeply persuaded of demonic forces, I think I would've gone down the road of arguing that the God of Israel is omnipotent, quoting <em><a href='B:290 45:7'>Isa 45:7</a></em> etc. But the Son of God did it differently. He demonstrated beyond doubt, even by his fiercest enemies, that He had access to superhuman power. He was happy to bear with their idea that there were two 'powers' in the cosmos- of good (from Yahweh) and evil (from Satan). But He then argued that seeing He was doing good, He must therefore have access to that good power. He must, therefore, have unique relationship with Yahweh. Those who clung on to their beliefs in Satan and the power of evil were left with no option but to accept that either He was of Satan, or of God. And seeing His works were&nbsp;<em>good</em>&nbsp;(as they grudgingly admit in <em><a href='B:500 10:33'>Joh 10:33</a></em>), they really had to accept He was of God. And clearly His power was such that effectively, the supposedly 'evil force' was of no account. The next verse goes on to develop the point- that these miracles were a plundering of the palace of 'Satan', so therefore the power of Jesus was such that He had effectively subdued this being and left 'him' powerless. This was a far more effective path to take than a point blank denial of the existence of any evil power or Satan figure. </p><p><em>Cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>phthano</em>&nbsp;can carry the idea of to anticipate or precede; it is translated "go before" in <em><a href='B:590 4:15'>1Th 4:15</a></em>. The Lord's miracles were a foretaste of how the Kingdom of God on earth will be, with no sickness and total healing, spiritually and physically. In the ministry and person of Jesus we see a foretaste of how the Kingdom of God will actually be; and 'the Kingdom' was a title of Christ, so closely was He personally the epitome of that time (<em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>). If we want to know what the future Kingdom of God on earth will be like- look at the person and actions of Jesus. He was in Himself the proclamation and essence of that Kingdom. The descriptions of a renewed earth in Isaiah focus very much on the physicalities of that time, and at best describe the situation during the initial part of God’s Kingdom. But the ultimate spiritual essence of life in eternity is to be found in Jesus as a person.</p>


text:
<p><em>When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe</em>- The strength of sin, and thereby the extent of the Lord’s victory, is brought out by another unreal element in the Lord’s picture of “a strong man fully armed [guarding] his own court” (<em><a href='B:490 11:21'>Luk 11:21</a></em> RV). This householder is fanatic; he wanders around fully armed to protect his own courtyard and his goods, rather than getting servants or guards to do it. The Lord being “stronger than he” through the cross was therefore indeed strong. See on <em><a href='B:490 13:9'>Luk 13:9</a></em>. 'Beelzebub' can mean 'Lord of the house'. The 'strong man' is clearly 'Satan' in the parable the Lord is creating here (<em><a href='B:480 3:23'>Mar 3:23</a></em>). Note the allusions to Samson (<em><a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But when one stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him his whole armour in which he had trusted, and divides his spoils</em>- The idea of the Lord binding satan (the "strong man"), stealing his goods and sharing them with His followers is a picture of His victory on the cross. It is full of allusion to <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>, which says that on account of the fact that Christ would pour out His soul unto death and bear our sins, "he shall divide the spoil with the strong (Heb: 'those that are bound')”. With the same thought in mind, Paul spoke of how through the cross, Christ "<em>spoiled</em> principalities and powers" (<em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em>). It may be that this is one of many examples of the New Testament writers thinking in a Hebrew way, despite writing in Greek. "Principalities and powers" is perhaps an intensive plural, referring to the <em>great </em>principality and power, i:e. Satan. The way He 'triumphed over them in himself' (Gk. + AVmg:) would certainly make more sense if they referred to the Biblical devil / satan which was overcome within Christ (cp. the language of <em><a href='B:650 2:14-18'>Heb 2:14-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>). <em><a href='B:560 2:15-16'>Eph 2:15-16</a></em> appears to be parallel to <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em>. It speaks of how Christ "abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments... for to make <em>in himself</em> of twain one new man, so making peace; and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby". <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em> speaks of the Lord on the cross as the victorious champion, killing "principalities and powers" and then triumphing over them by sharing their spoils with his soldiers. <em><a href='B:560 2:15'>Eph 2:15</a></em> speaks of the Lord on the cross "slaying the enmity" (the Biblical Devil) and achieving peace and reconciliation for all those within His body. Yet in the immediate context, the Lord is offering an explanation of why His miracles proved He was the Messiah. He hadn't yet died on the cross; but He was doing the works which were possible as a result of the binding of Satan which He would then achieve. This is yet another example of the Lord's confidence that He would overcome, and God going along with Him in this. The Lord's miracles were a physical foretaste of the great spiritual blessings which would be made available as a result of the binding of Satan by the Lord's death and resurrection. </p><p>The "spoils" of Satan are those things which he has taken away; surely the spoils taken from Satan by Christ refer to the righteousness which our nature takes away from us. <em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em> adds another detail to the story. The "armour" of Satan which he depends upon is taken away by Christ on the cross, and then Satan is bound, and his spoils shared out. The armour of Satan is the antithesis of the armour of righteousness (<em><a href='B:560 6:11'>Eph 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:13'>Eph 6:13</a></em>). As the Kingdom of God has a God who dwells in darkness, a Prince, an armour, a Christ, a dominion, a will and spirit, fruits, rewards etc:, so does the kingdom of (the personified) Satan. The armour of righteousness is the fruit of the Spirit, the righteous characteristics of the Spirit. The armour of Satan is the fruits of the flesh nature. These have been taken away by Christ, He has bound Satan, and therefore what Satan has robbed us of, the fruits of righteousness, his spoils, can be taken at will by the Lord Jesus. We have shown that Christ was alluding to <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>, which says that through the cross, Christ divides the spoil with the bound ones, i:e. us. In this lies a paradox. Binding is associated with sin (<em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 1:14'>Lam 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:16'>Luk 13:16</a></em>). We are bound, in many ways, intrinsically limited by our own natures. Only at the second coming will Satan be bound, i:e. the Lord's personal achievement will be physically shared with the world (<em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>). Yet we, the bound ones, are given the goods which the Lord personally took away from the bound Satan. Those goods are the righteous attributes which our natures stop us possessing as we should. The dividing of the spoils to us by the victorious Lord (<em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>) recalls how the Lord divided <em>all</em> His goods between His servants (<em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>), the dividing of <em>all</em> the Father's goods between the sons (representing the good and bad believers, <em><a href='B:490 15:12'>Luk 15:12</a></em>). We have elsewhere shown that these goods refer to the various aspects of the supreme righteousness of Christ which are divided between the body of Christ. The spoils divided to us by the Lord are the various aspects of righteousness which He took for Himself from Satan. The picture of a bound strong man having his house ransacked before his eyes carries with it the idea of suspense, of daring, of doing something absolutely impossible. And so the idea of Christ really taking the righteousness which the Satan of our very natures denies us, and giving these things to us, is almost too much to believe. </p><p>It is normally the fellow-soldiers who share the spoils (cp. <em><a href='B:650 7:4'>Heb 7:4</a></em>). But we didn’t even fight; the spoils are divided amongst the bound ones (<em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em> Heb:). Satan in general is still unbound (cp. <em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>). Christ bound the Satan within Himself personally, and took the spoils of victory for Himself. <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em> says that Christ "spoiled" as a result of His victory on the cross; and the Greek specifically means 'to completely divest <em>for oneself</em>'. He is being painted as the lone hero who took it all for Himself; of the people there was none with Him in His great battle on the cross (<em><a href='B:290 63:3'>Isa 63:3</a></em>). And indeed, He was the lone hero. But the point is that He has shared with us the spoils of righteousness which He took for Himself as a result, even though we are not worthy to receive them. Seeing the teaching of the Lord is just outline principle, it is evident that through His death He gained possession of absolute righteousness, and then shared this with us. In the first century, the outward demonstration of this was in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. "He led captivity captive (more language of the heroic victor), and gave gifts unto men", the miraculous gifts, in the first century context (<em><a href='B:560 4:8'>Eph 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:11'>Eph 4:11</a></em>). But what was taken away from Satan was not only power over illness. If this was the main meaning of Satan being bound and his spoils shared with us, then it would follow that the effect of Christ's binding of Satan was only in the first century; for those miraculous gifts of the Spirit are no longer available; illness still triumphs over God’s people. The spoils of Satan refer to the righteousness which Satan limits and denies. It is this which has been taken from him, and divided to us all as a result of the cross. The miracles of the first century were a physical reflection of this, just as the rending of the temple veil and resurrection of some dead saints was a physical foretaste of the spiritual possibilities opened up by the Lord's death. </p><p>There are many references to the spiritual blessings which are even now mediated to us (as the whole body of Christ) on account of the Lord's death; we (as a community) are given peace and "eternal life" (<em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:2'>Joh 17:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:11'>1Jn 5:11</a></em>), knowledge (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>), wisdom (<em><a href='B:560 1:17'>Eph 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:15'>Jas 1:15</a></em>), peace (<em><a href='B:600 3:16'>2Th 3:16</a></em>), understanding (<em><a href='B:530 2:12'>1Co 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:7'>2Ti 2:7</a></em>), love in our hearts (<em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>), grace (<em><a href='B:560 4:7'>Eph 4:7</a></em>), comfort (<em><a href='B:600 2:16'>2Th 2:16</a></em>), righteousness (<em><a href='B:520 5:16-17'>Rom 5:16-17</a></em>), confidence (<em><a href='B:620 1:7'>2Ti 1:7</a></em>), sexual self-restraint (<em><a href='B:530 7:7'>1Co 7:7</a></em>). All the different aspects of the 100% righteousness of our Lord, <em>all</em> His goods, the spoils He personally took from Satan, are divided up amongst ourselves, some having spiritual possibilities in one area, others in another. As a community we are counted as if we have overcome the world, overcome Satan, as Christ did, although on a human level we are still bound (<em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:690 2:13-14'>1Jn 2:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:4'>1Jn 5:4</a></em>). Only at the day of judgment will we have overcome all (<em><a href='B:730 21:7'>Rev 21:7</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em> s:w:), but we are treated as if we have already done so. </p><p>Grasping this extensive theme helps explain the deep sense of paradox which is central to all serious self-examination. We are counted righteous, we are given spiritual gifts of righteousness now, and our self-examination reveals this to us; but we are expected to develop them (according to the parable of the pounds). Yet we also see that we are pathetically bound by our Satan, somehow held back from that life of righteousness which we would fain achieve. All these things were deeply foreseen and appreciated by the Lord when He constructed this parable of binding Satan. Christ in His own life has overcome Satan, and has graciously shared the various aspects of righteousness with the whole of His body. This is the very idea of the body of Christ; between us, over time, we will approximate to the perfect reflection of our Lord. We have each been given different aspects to develop, different parts of His personality. This explains the difference in emphasis which can be observed within the different parts of the present body, and also in the history of the body over time. </p>


text:
<p><em>He that is not with me is against me- </em>The original is memorable- either&nbsp;<em>meta</em>&nbsp;Me, or&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;Me. The Lord is speaking here from&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;perspective. For He Himself observed that Judas 'ate&nbsp;<em>with Me</em>', but lifted up his heel '<em>against</em>&nbsp;Me' (<em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em>). It's simply not so that all those who claim to be with the Lord are therefore with Him and on the same side as we who know we are in truth 'with' Him. He is simply observing an ultimate truth- that finally, there will be (and therefore is not now) any middle position in relation to Him. It's not therefore for us to insist that anyone who claims to be 'with Him' is so merely because they say so. Let His words sink in to you personally: “He who is not with me is against me… he that is not against us is for us”(<em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:40'>Mar 9:40</a></em>). We may think we are not against the Lord’s cause, even if we’re not as committed to it as we might be; many an unbaptized young person has told me this. But to be ‘not against’ Jesus means we must be&nbsp;<em>with Him</em>. Nobody can be passively ‘not against’ Jesus. If we’re not whole heartedly with Him, we’re against Him. That’s how His demanding logic goes. A relationship with Him demands the whole person;&nbsp;<em>you</em>, your very heart and essence.</p><p><em>And he that does not gather with me scatters</em>- In connection with the gathering of spoil from the strong man's house. There is a tendency to use this verse as a general statement of principle, but the surrounding context is specifically about the Lord's healing miracles being part of the spoil He has plundered from the 'Lord of the house', Beelzebub / Satan. People were faced with the choice of accepting the Lord's miracles were performed using either God’s power, or Satan's. The whole issue pushed the audience to a crucial choice- of accepting of Jesus as God’s special Son, or as Satan. The miracles were proof that the Lord Jesus had bound the power of Satan- the power which people believed was behind illness. If you didn’t want to go and gather the spoil, then you were actively scattering it abroad. This hyperbole was used to force all the cautious people who remained undecided to realize that ultimately, there is no such thing as agnosticism. If you are not eagerly gathering the spoil the Lord has now released, then you are actively working against Him:&nbsp;</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 <em>will be gathered </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. </p>


text:
<p><em>When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and finding none it says-</em> The ministry of the Lord Jesus was a follow up to that of John the Baptist, and that theme is never far from us in Luke's Gospel. Those not against who are for in :23 may well refer to John's disciples. The unclean spirit was cast out of Israel due to their surface level response to John's preaching- this was the sweeping of the house. But it returned and that generation became more evil than before. This lays the basis for the parable of the sower, which was told the same day- the seed initially experienced some growth, but then the 'evil one', the Jewish system, stunted that growth. Demons supposedly didn’t like water (as in <em><a href='B:470 8:28-34'>Mat 8:28-34</a></em>). Again we find the Lord using the language of the day without correcting it. The reference is also to the Jews going into the wilderness to hear John’s preaching.</p><p><em>I will return to my house from which I came</em>- The Greek word is elsewhere translated to convert (<em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em>). Israel's rejection of Jesus was effectively a re-conversion away from John's message. The same word is used of how John was to convert Israel to their God (<em><a href='B:490 1:16-17'>Luk 1:16-17</a></em>). "Came [out]" is the same word used thrice about that generation going out into the wilderness to hear John (<em><a href='B:470 11:7-9'>Mat 11:7-9</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he comes, he finds it swept and put in order</em>- The only other usage of the word "swept" is in the Lord’s self-description of His ‘sweeping’ the house of Israel in order to find the lost (<em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>). The house of Israel had been swept- but the nation had not been ‘found’ because they would not come to Jesus in repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first</em>-&nbsp;“State” is an addition from the translators. “The last” was the state of condemnation which that generation ended up in. The Lord’s comments that the first would be “last” (<em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>) could therefore be taken as a reference to the final condemnation of the Jewish religious leadership, “the first”. However, “the last”, the&nbsp;<em>eschatos</em>, could refer to their status at the judgment of the last day. But the essence of judgment is now, and the Lord saw them as already in that state. It “<em>is</em>&nbsp;worse” and yet thus ‘it&nbsp;<em>shall&nbsp;</em>be’ for that generation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as he said these things, that a certain woman out of the crowd lifted up her voice and said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts which you did suck</em>- The woman was not merely making a passing comment, but alluding somehow to the repeated blessedness attached to Mary (<em><a href='B:490 1:28'>Luk 1:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:42'>Luk 1:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em>). Perhaps the Angel's words to Mary were already known and publicized; or perhaps this was a close relative whom Mary had told this to; or maybe Luke is just demonstrating the truth of the Angelic promise that all generations would call Mary "blessed".</p>


text:
<p><em>But he said: Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it</em>- The Lord shifts all focus away from considering Mary to be blessed just because she happened to be the physical channel used for His conception. Rather her blessedness was to be understood in terms of how she heard God’s word and kept it, meditating upon it in her heart (<em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:51'>Luk 2:51</a></em>). Likewise we can take the warning that even if the Father clearly uses us as a channel, this doesn't of itself mean we are acceptable with Him. It is personal spirituality, of the kind Mary had, which is all significant. </p><p>Paul Wyns has spotted the following connections:&nbsp; </p><table><tr><td></p><p><em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</em> Revelation 1</td><td>Luke 11</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things that are written therein. (v:3)</td><td>Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it. (v:28)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Seven spirits (angels) before the throne. (v:4)</td><td>Contrast – seven unclean spirits invited into the house. (v:24-26)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The resurrected Christ – I was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore. (v:12-19)</td><td>The sign of Jonah the prophet. (v:29-32)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The seven golden candlesticks. (v:12,13,20)</td><td>The parable of the lighted candlestick. (v:33-36)</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The lesson for us is that the Lord even in His Heavenly glory alluded to His dear mother’s attitude, and held her up as the pattern for all His people. She had an eternal influence upon Him. Even in His Heavenly glory, the incidents of that day in Luke 11, and the example of His mother, remained with Him. This is surely a tremendous incentive to parents- their influence on their children may be a factor in how their children will eternally be. The Lord was alluding to how His mother had “kept” God’s word in her heart in devout meditation (<em><a href='B:490 2:51'>Luk 2:51</a></em>). He didn’t say ‘Blessed is <em>she</em> because <em>she</em> heard the word and kept it’. Rather, “blessed are <em>they</em>”. He was surely saying: ‘Don’t just dumbly admire my mother, with some kind of distant, spectator admiration; she is the pattern for <em>all</em> of you. Follow her, make her the pattern of <em>your</em> life with respect to God’s word, rather than just gasp at her example’.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the crowds were gathering together to him, he began to say: This generation is an evil generation. It seeks after a sign- </em>Ahaz was likewise rebuked for seeking a sign instead of believing in faith the Messianic prophecies. The Lord had been clearly doing signs / miracles. They were maybe claiming that they personally had not been present when the signs were done, and now they wanted to see one:&nbsp; But <em><a href='B:490 11:16'>Luk 11:16</a></em> adds the detail that they sought a "sign&nbsp;<em>from Heaven</em>". This continues the issue under debate; the Pharisees accepted that Jesus was doing signs / miracles, but they considered them to be from 'Satan'; the Lord has responded by saying that His good works show He is a good man working on God’s behalf, and that they would be called to account at the last day for their blasphemy. But it seems this other group of Pharisees continue in the blasphemous position- their response is to assume that the earlier miracles were signs from 'Satan', but now they give the Lord a chance to do a sign / miracle from God ("Heaven"). They repeated this request later (<em><a href='B:470 16:1'>Mat 16:1</a></em>), and again the Lord answered them with "the sign of the prophet Jonah". It's not necessarily wrong to require a sign- Gideon's example comes to mind. The disciples themselves asked for a sign (<em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>), and the Lord answered them to the effect that there would be "the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven" (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>). "In" Heaven can mean 'by the instrumentality of [Heaven]'. The similarity of words and concepts is so close that there must be some continuity in meaning. It could be that the sign of the Son of Man given by Heaven in the last days is the sign of Jonah- the successful preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles and the resurrection from the dead.</p><p><em>But there shall no sign be given to it</em>- The idea could be 'no&nbsp;<em>further</em>&nbsp;sign', as if the Lord was saying that He would do no further dramatic miracles to seek to persuade the Pharisees. In this case, the allusion would be to the Egyptians not believing the signs given them (<em><a href='B:20 4:9'>Exo 4:9</a></em>), resulting in their final destruction. Unbelieving Israel are no better than Egypt / the world, and will "be condemned with the world". Note that here as often we have to read in an ellipsis: 'No&nbsp;<em>more</em>&nbsp;sign'. For He had been doing signs / miracles in abundance. Or perhaps, seeing that He did continue doing miracles: 'No sign&nbsp;<em>greater than</em>&nbsp;[that of Jonah]'.</p><p><em>Except the sign of Jonah-&nbsp;</em>The ‘resurrected’ Jonah was a type of the Lord- and he was a ‘sign’ to the Ninevites presumably in that he still bore in his body the marks of a man who had been three days within a fish. It could be that the fish beached itself, and vomited Jonah out of its stomach in its death throes (this is how beached whales meet their end). In this case, the fish would have drawn the attention of the local population, as would have the man with bleached hair and strange skin who walked away from it. We too as witnesses of Christ will have something about us that is unintentionally striking in the eyes of those with whom we mix. There was no human chance that Jonah would be listened to when he came to preach judgment against Nineveh. Some guy standing on the edge of town, saying ‘You’re all gonna be destroyed’. People would have laughed, ignored him, or told him to shut up. But there was something about him that was gripping and arresting. He was living proof that the judgment of God is real, and that His mercy is just as real. Presumably Jonah must have said far more than “Nineveh is going to be destroyed”.</p><p>It is a worthwhile speculation that for Jonah to be a sign to the Ninevites by reason of being three days in the whale (<em><a href='B:470 12:38-40'>Mat 12:38-40</a></em>), he must have borne in his body the marks of his experience for all to see, as our Lord did. Being inside the fish for that period may have made his flesh change colour or bear some other physical mark so that he could be a sign to them of what had happened. Doubtless he recounted his story to them- so that they were encouraged by the fact of God’s love to the resurrected Jonah to repent and likewise throw themselves on God’s mercy. In all this we see Jonah as a type of Christ. They would have looked upon that man as we look upon Jesus, to see the love of God manifested in him; they responded by repenting in sackcloth, casting off their materialism, and living in a way that showed their complete belief that "the judge stands before the door". What is our response to Jonah/Jesus?&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For even as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of Man be to this generation</em>- As Jonah was three days in the whale and then came up out of it to preach to the Gentiles, so the Lord would be three days in the grave and then would rise- as a sign to the Jews. But how was His resurrection a sign to them, seeing they never saw His risen body? Yet the Lord’s reasoning demands that His resurrection be a sign to them, just as tangible as the re-appearance of the drowned Jonah. But, the Jews never saw Him after the resurrection…? The resolution must be that in the preaching of the risen Jesus by those in Him, it was as if the Jews saw Him, risen and standing as a sign before them, every bit as real as the Jonah who emerged from the whale after three days.</p>


text:
<p><em>The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and shall condemn them. For she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here</em>- “Rise up” translates&nbsp;<em>egeiro</em>&nbsp;whereas “stand up” in :32 translates&nbsp;<em>anistemi</em>. The Ninevites will “rise in judgment”, as a judge arises to pronounce a verdict; whereas the Queen of the South arises “in&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;judgment”, with the article. The difference may be because the Queen of the South is being portrayed as being resurrected along with the people of the Lord’s generation. The reference is perhaps more to resurrection than to arising in judgment.</p><p>If Sheba is at the very end of 'the earth', we have another confirmation that the 'earth' or land in Scripture often refers to the land promised to Abraham, and not the entire planet. The point is that she made a huge effort to come to hear Divine truth, whereas Christ as "the wisdom of God" stood before their eyes and they refused to believe and repent. The parallel is between the Queen of Sheba and the Ninevites, who repented. We may be able to infer that she likewise repented upon hearing Solomon's wisdom. The whole theme in this section is of the need to make an abiding repentance upon hearing God’s Truth as spoken by His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it- </em>We must read in an ellipsis, ‘[the people of] this generation’. For individuals and not entire generations will be judged. 'Standing up' is possibly an allusion to the resurrection of the responsible at the last day, but more likely the figure is of a judge arising in judgment to state the verdict; which in this case, is condemnation. The Lord in :19 has spoken of how the children of the Jews would judge those Jews in the last day. The Lord clearly seems to envisage the judgment process as having a public dimension to it. The fact one person was spiritually responsive, given a similar or harder set of circumstances than what another has had who did not respond, will therefore as it were be the judgment of the person who didn’t respond. It clearly won’t be merely an awards ceremony nor a yes / no decision, but rather will context and precedent from others be taken into account. ‘If&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;responded and&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;did not, given similar circumstances, then&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;will condemn&nbsp;<em>you</em>’- that seems to be the Lord’s reasoning.</p><p>The truly righteous among the remnant "shall tread down the wicked... (as) ashes under the soles of your feet" (<em><a href='B:460 4:3'>Mal 4:3</a></em>). "The wicked" are those of <em><a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 4:1'>Mal 4:1</a></em> - the unspiritual element amongst the latter-day Jewish 'remnant' in Jerusalem. This implies that in some way the spiritual Jews acceptable to Jesus will mete out judgment on the rejected ones:&nbsp;Perhaps in similar fashion the men of Nineveh will condemn the first century Jews at the judgment (Luk 1132), and we will judge Angels (<em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>). In this way the righteous remnant shall "discern (judge) between the righteous and the wicked" (<em><a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a></em>). The men of&nbsp;Nineveh will condemn first century Israel, just as the folly of the rejected will be made manifest unto all men (<em><a href='B:620 3:9'>2Ti 3:9</a></em>). This is not so as to simply humiliate the rejected. It is so that the faithful&nbsp;<em>learn&nbsp;</em>something too. This was all foreshadowed in the way that Israel experienced their judgments in the sight of the nations, so that God’s principles would be taught even to the Gentile world (<em><a href='B:330 5:8'>Eze 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 5:15'>Eze 5:15</a></em>). Indeed, the idea of God executing judgment on His people&nbsp;<em>in the sight</em>&nbsp;of others is quite common (e.g. <em><a href='B:330 5:8'>Eze 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:41'>Eze 16:41</a></em>). But we can learn the principles of God’s judgments right now, from His word.</p><p><em>For they repented- </em>The Lord has explained that initially the people had responded to John’s message- the demon had been as it were cast out and the house of Israel left swept and cleaned. But both John and Jesus appealed for repentance, in the very same words: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (<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 they had not really repented; they had responded to a religious message but not really repented. And the challenge comes down to us- as to whether our repentance, along with any spiritual act, is indeed the real thing or a mere appearance.</p><p><em>At the preaching of Jonah, and behold, a greater than Jonah is here</em>- This effectively is a noun, referring to "the preaching" as in the message of Jonah. What he preached was judgment to come, and the Ninevites repented on hearing it. The Lord was teaching not only judgment to come, but was making specific the call to repentance implicit within that message, and urging people to accept God’s grace. Hence those who heard Him were even more guilty before the Ninevites. Jonah's preaching occurred&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;he had been three days within the whale; after the Lord had been three days in the earth, He too would preach mightily, through the ministry of those 'in Him' who were effectively His representatives and appealed on His behalf. But He reasons as if that appeal was already being made- as if in essence He had already passed through the cross and resurrection. This is not the only time He reasons in this way; in proclaiming Himself Lord, the serpent lifted up on the pole, the One who had already "overcome the world", He reasoned as if the successful outcome of His death had already occurred. Such was His faith that He would come forth triumphant.</p>


text:
<p><em>No one when he has lit a lamp puts it in a cellar, neither under a bucket, but on the lightstand, so that they who enter in may see the light</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>. We may wonder why the Lord at this point appears to be repeating so many elements from the sermon on the mount recorded in Matthew 5-7. That sermon was given in Galilee; now He is near Bethany in the Jerusalem area (at the end of chapter 10). He is repeating His Galilean teachings for the southerners. </p><p>The Lord speaks of how we are the light of the world, giving light to the world in the same way as "they" light a lamp. Who are the "they"? The point has been made that to first century Palestinian ears, the answer was obvious: Women. Because lighting the lamps was a typical female duty, which men were not usually involved in. Could it not be that the Lord Jesus even&nbsp;<em>especially</em>&nbsp;envisaged women as His witnesses? Did He here have in mind how a great company of women would be the first to share the news that the light of the world had risen?</p><p>The Greek article in "the lamp / candlestick" refers to the specific candlestick, and to Jewish minds this would surely have referred to the candlestick in the Holy Place (s:w. <em><a href='B:650 9:2'>Heb 9:2</a></em>). This continues the theme of the Lord teaching a new form of Judaism, for His sermon on the mount is full of allusions to previous Mosaic practice, but redefining it. The implication is that ordinary men are present in the Holy Place too, who will see our light. Or it could be that Jesus has in mind how it was the priests who alone entered the Holy Place- and He is saying that the light from those who followed Him would illuminate the Jewish priesthood. The light of the candlestick is both the believer (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em>) and the Gospel itself (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>). We are to be the Gospel. We must burn as a candle now, in shedding forth the light, or we will be burnt at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> use the same words). This is but one of many examples of the logic of endurance; we must burn anyway, so why not do it for the Lord's sake and reap the reward.</p><p>The story of the candle that was put under a bucket brings out an issue related to that of the desire to root up the tares: the candle was put there (presumably) on account of an almost paranoiac fear that the wind would blow it out; but this over-protection of the lamp in itself caused the light to go out (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em>). Time and again, preaching the light, holding up the beacon of the word of Christ's cross, has been impeded or stifled in the name of preserving the truth, strengthening&nbsp;what remains (words taken out of context). And because of this lack of witness, this lack of holding out the light to others, the fire of Christ has waxed dim amongst us. This ties in to the theme that preaching is not just commanded as a publicity exercise for Almighty God; He doesn't need us to do that for Him. It is commanded for the benefit of the preacher more than those preached to. To put a candle under a bucket or bed seems senseless; yet this is how senseless and inappropriate it is to hold back preaching for the sake of defending the Faith. Indeed to put it under a bed (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>) and then go to sleep (candles are normally only lit at night) is likely to destroy the person who does it, to burn them while they are asleep. All who have the light but don't preach it (in whatever form) are likely to suffer the same; notice how the Lord (by implication) links night time and sleepiness with an apathy in preaching. Evidently the Lord foresaw the attitude that has surfaced amongst His people: 'We must concentrate on keeping the Truth, new converts are often problematic, too much energy goes to preaching rather than building up ourselves in the faith'. Probably the resistance to preaching to the Gentiles in the first century used similar reasoning. The Lord may have had in mind a Talmud entry (<em>Shabbat</em>&nbsp;107a) which permitted the covering of a lamp with a bowl on the Sabbath if it was done in order to stop the entire house catching fire. He is arguing that such a fear based attitude, fearful of possible consequence if we share the light, will result in the light going out. And that lesson needs to be learnt time and again.</p>


text:
<p><em>The lamp of your body is your eye. When your eye is single, your whole body also is full of light- </em>This observation about single-mindedness ["healthy" = 'single'] follows on from the Lord’s teaching about the overall direction of the human mind, observing that we cannot have two overall directions for our heart. Our eye must be single, the entrance of light must be only from one source. God gives to all men with a single eye (<em><a href='B:660 1:5'>Jas 1:5</a></em> Gk:); and in response, we too must be single eyed in our giving (s:w:). If our eye / world-view / outlook on life is&nbsp;<em>single</em>&nbsp;[s:w. ‘simple’ in the passages quoted], then our whole body / life will be full of light. In daily work, in private reflection and planning for our immediate futures and present needs, there must be a direct and undiluted belief of the teachings of the Gospel, connecting those teachings to our daily life of faith. In this simplicity of the life of faith, in a world that makes life so complicated [especially for the poor], we will find humility. With that simplicity and humility will come peace, and the ability to pray with a concentrated and uncluttered mind, without our thoughts wandering off into the petty troubles of life as we frame our words before Almighty God each morning and night.</p><p>I’ve always sensed that the more complex a person, the harder it is for them to be generous. But we are all commanded to be generous to the Lord’s cause, knowing that nothing we have is our own. And I am not only talking to wealthy brethren:&nbsp;<em>All</em>&nbsp;of us have something, and all of us can give something to our brethren. Consider how the poor believers of the first century such as Corinth [amongst whom there were not many rich or mighty, Paul reminds them] collected funds for the poor brethren in Judea. There is a Greek word translated “simplicity” which is related to the word translated "single" here. It occurs eight times in the NT. Five of these are in 2 Corinthians, written as it was in the context of Corinth giving funds for the Jerusalem poor.</p>&nbsp;<p>Consider how the word is translated:</p><p>- Paul had “<em>simplicity</em>&nbsp;and Godly sincerity” (<em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>)</p><p>- They had “<em>liberality</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>)</p><p>- “<em>Bountifulness</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em>)</p><p>- Their “<em>liberal distribution</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em>)</p><p>- He feared lest they be corrupted from “the&nbsp;<em>simplicity</em>&nbsp;that is in Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>).</p><p>Evidently Paul saw a link between generosity and the simplicity of the faith in Christ. It doesn’t need a lexicon to tell you that this word means both ‘simplicity’ and also ‘generous’. The connection is because the basis for generosity is a simple faith. Not a dumb, blind faith, glossing over the details of God’s word. But a realistic, simple, direct conviction. This is why Paul exhorts that all giving to the Lord’s cause should be done with “simplicity” (<em><a href='B:520 12:8'>Rom 12:8</a></em> - the AVmg. translates ‘liberally’). Give, in whatever way, and don’t complicate it with all the ifs and buts which our fleshly mind proposes. Paul warns them against false teachers who would corrupt them from their “simplicity”- and yet he usually speaks of ‘simplicity’ in the sense of generosity. Pure doctrine, wholeheartedly accepted, will lead us to be generous. False doctrine and human philosophy leads to all manner of self-complication. Paul was clever, he was smart; but he rejoiced that he lived his life “in simplicity…by the grace of God” (<em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>):&nbsp; If our eye is single (translating a Greek word related to that translated ‘simple’), then the whole body is full of light- and the Lord spoke again in the context of generosity. An evil eye, a world view that is not ‘simple’ or single, is used as a figure for mean spiritedness:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>But when it is evil, your body also is full of darkness</em>- A bad or evil eye was an idiom for mean spiritedness. It continues the theme of materialism from the previous verses. To follow materialism is to be mean spirited- towards God. Speaking in the context of serving<em> either</em>&nbsp;God&nbsp;<em>or</em>&nbsp;mammon, the Lord uttered these difficult words: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth... the light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness... how great is that darkness!" (<em><a href='B:470 6:19-22'>Mat 6:19-22</a></em> AV). All this is in the context of not being materialistic. The Lord is drawing on the OT usage of "an evil eye" - and consistently, this idiom means someone who is selfishly materialistic (<em><a href='B:240 22:9'>Pro 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 23:7'>Pro 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 28:22'>Pro 28:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a></em>). The NIV renders some of these idioms as "stingy" or “mean".</p>


text:
<p><em>Look therefore whether the light that is in you is not darkness</em></p><p>- See on 1Co 44:&nbsp;A single eye refers to a generous spirit (<em><a href='B:130 29:17'>1Ch 29:17</a></em> LXX), and a related Greek word occurs in <em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em> with the sense of “generous". So surely the Lord is saying that our attitude to wealth controls our whole spirituality. Whether we have a mean or generous spirit will affect our whole life- an evil [stingy] eye means our whole body is full of darkness. Just let this sink in. If we are materialistic, our whole life will be filled with darkness, whatever our external pretensions may be, and there is a definite link to be made here with the "darkness" of rejection. The riches of Jericho are described with a Hebrew word which means both a curse, and something devoted (to God; <em><a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a></em>). This teaches a powerful lesson: such riches of this world as come into our possession will curse us, unless they are devoted to the Father.</p>


text:
<p><em>If therefore your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it shall be wholly full of light, as when the lamp with its bright shining gives you light</em>- The Lord Jesus likens Himself to a candle that has been lit and displayed publicly, giving light to us. He then continues that imagery in some rather difficult words. He says that in our lives, the eye is "the light of the body"- a good eye lets light and vision in, thus totally and fundamentally affecting how we are inside us, as persons. But if the eye is faulty, then there is darkness within. But when the eye is good and functioning, the whole person is "full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle gives you light" (<em><a href='B:490 11:33-36'>Luk 11:33-36</a></em>). But earlier, He's defined Himself as the candle which gives light. He seems to be saying that our "eye", our perception of Him, is vital. And this is exactly the context of this passage- He's been lamenting how Israel haven't perceived Him for who He Is. If we perceive Him rightly, if our "eye" is good, then our whole body will be filled with the light which comes from Him. But it all depends upon our image / perception of / eye for Jesus. Hence the vital and ultimate importance of understanding and perceiving Him correctly. The subject we're now studying actually couldn't be more important; for the correct perception of Him will fill our whole lives with light, totally affect our internal world-views, granting us an ability to understand and make sense of all around us and within us in the light of the person of Jesus. And if we don't perceive Him aright, our inner lives will be dark and formless, whatever external trappings of culture and knowledge we may have. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now as he spoke, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, and he went in and sat down to eat</em>- Eating together had a religious dimension in the first century. But the Jews were more open in their view of fellowship than many are today. Clearly the Pharisee wanted to find fault, but he had no problem at this stage in eating with the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner</em>- Rabbi Joses claimed that “to eat with unwashen hands is as great a sin as adultery”. And Rabbi Akiba in captivity used his water ration to wash his hands rather than to drink, resulting in him almost dying of dehydration:&nbsp;The Lord seems to have purposefully ignored this tradition in order to provoke the inevitable conversation about it. The Lord Jesus had asked the disciples to be obedient to every jot and tittle of the teaching of the Scribes, because they “sit in Moses’ seat”. But He was no literalist nor legalist. He broke that principle in order to establish higher ones in this context.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the Lord said to him: Now you the Pharisees cleanse- </em>The Lord Jesus is described [using the same word for "cleanse"] as making others clean (<em><a href='B:470 8:2-3'>Mat 8:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:5'>Mat 11:5</a></em>). The Pharisees were concerned with making&nbsp;<em>themselves&nbsp;</em>look clean externally. They are a parody of the Lord. He was concerned with making&nbsp;<em>others</em>&nbsp;clean, and really clean. This tension, between making ourselves look clean and making others clean, is highly relevant to us all. For there is such a thing as being spiritually selfish.</p><p><em>The outside- </em>The tension between outside and inside, along with the idea of cleanliness, is to be found in the Lord’s earlier teaching in <em><a href='B:480 7:15'>Mar 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 7:18'>Mar 7:18</a></em>. Nothing on the&nbsp;<em>outside</em>&nbsp;can defile a man, it is the&nbsp;<em>inside</em>, the thoughts, which must be cleansed. If we ask&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;there is a desire for good appearances externally, the answer may not simply be ‘so as to look good to others’. It can also partly be a recognition of our own inner defilement and our sense that we ought to be doing something about it. Peter explores the same tension in <em><a href='B:670 3:3'>1Pe 3:3</a></em>, teaching that a woman should not focus on&nbsp;<em>outside</em>&nbsp;[s:w:] adorning, but not on&nbsp;<em>internal</em> attitudes. He’s not saying that ‘outward adornment’ is wrong of itself, but rather that her focus should be on&nbsp;<em>inner</em>&nbsp;spirituality rather than focusing on the&nbsp;<em>external</em>&nbsp;to the exclusion of the&nbsp;<em>internal</em>. Thus obsession with external cosmetic issues, and literal cosmetics, can likely be a running away from internal issues which need serious addressing. So often pedantic attitudes to externalities conceal insecurity, and in spiritual terms, that insecurity is a reflection of disbelief that the inner conscience has been cleansed of sin in Christ.</p><p><em>Of the cup and plate, but your inward partis full of extortion- </em>The plate and cup refer to the Pharisees personally. The picture is of silverware being cleansed and shining outwardly, whilst it contains unclean things within. “Even so&nbsp;<em>you also</em>&nbsp;outwardly appear righteous” (<em><a href='B:470 23:28'>Mat 23:28</a></em>). Here <em><a href='B:490 11:39'>Luk 11:39</a></em> speaks of 'them' as their inward part: “<em>Your&nbsp;</em>inward part is full of ravening [Gk. ‘extortion’] and wickedness [Gk. ‘plots’]”. They were ever scheming how to get money out of people. But why choose these two items as examples? The presence of the article both times,&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;cup and&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>plate, suggest they have specific relevance. The Gospels were written as the handbook for the early Christian converts and ecclesias. They would largely have been recited or read at the breaking of bread meetings. It’s hard therefore to avoid the reference to the memorial cup and plate of the communion meetings. And again, the warning comes so close to home. The memorial meeting is the time to look within, at the likely wickedness within us, rather than appearing in our Sunday best and making ourselves shine externally.</p><p><em>And wickedness</em>- The Greek suggests complete lack of restraint. And here is the paradox. The most rule-governed people were actually without any sense of restraint. Obedience to rules, and elevating rules, does not of itself mean we are restrained. It can mean the very opposite.</p>


text:
<p><em>You foolish ones, did not He that made the outside make the inside also?</em>- Cleaning the inside of a cup doesn’t make the outside clean. But that is the jump of faith required. The inside is the outside- in God’s eyes. He created the aspect of external appearance, as well as the mind and "inward part" (:39). He perceives the precise interplay between appearances and internal reality- because He is creator and designer, not merely of our bodies, but of human psychology. To think we can hide our thoughts from Him is indeed "foolish".</p>


text:
<p><em>But give for alms those things which are within, and behold, all things are clean to you</em>- This textual reading [not supported by AV] would be saying that giving of alms is one of the external things which is not the essence. What is essential is to give our "inward part", our inner thoughts, to God. To be filled with <em>His </em>Spirit in <em>our</em> spirit. "To be spiritually minded" is the very and essential core of Christianity. No amount of giving money and external things can compensate for a deficit in this.</p><p>The AV reads as if giving alms makes all things clean. In <em><a href='B:490 16:9'>Luk 16:9</a></em>, the Lord is saying that the use of our material possessions is <em>so</em> important that it's <em>almost as if</em> (in the hyperbole) we can buy our way into the Kingdom. He made the point in so many words in <em><a href='B:490 11:41'>Luk 11:41</a></em> AV: "Give alms of such things as ye have (i:e. regardless of how small); and, behold, all things are clean unto you". Paul seems to have these words in mind when says that to the pure, all things are pure (<em><a href='B:630 1:15'>Tit 1:15</a></em>)- as if he saw the epitome of purity as being in giving what we have. “The ransom of a man’s life are his riches” (<em><a href='B:240 13:8'>Pro 13:8</a></em>) likewise suggests that our attitude to riches is one of the things that decides our eternal destiny. </p>


text:
<p><em>But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe- </em>The Greek can equally mean to both take or receive tithes. They demanded and perhaps paid themselves tithes on absolutely everything:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Mint, rue and every herb- </em>These plants grew on windowsills, and a tenth of their 'crop' would've been very light in weight. The lightness of the 'crop' is contrasted with the 'heavier' things which were required of believers. Again, the Lord could've deployed convincing Biblical arguments that the tithe was to be paid from harvested crops, and given to the Levites / priests- not the Pharisees. For they were not the same as the priests. There is no hint in the Mosaic legislation that a tenth of such things was to be given to support the livelihood of the priests. But the Lord goes along with their position- and doesn't say they should not do this. Rather He lifts the issue to a higher and 'heavier' level. In engagement with those who wilfully misunderstand Scripture, it's easy to present a strictly Biblical case which demolishes their position. And the Lord could so easily have done this in the matter of tithing kitchen herbs. But He doesn't. He simply raises weightier issues and principles:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And neglect justice and the love of God; but these you should have done-</em> In line with the teaching in :41, it seems they thought that by such alms giving and tithing, they were excused from being spiritually minded within. "The inward part" of :40,41 is therefore a mind focused upon "justice and the love of God". To think justly of and for others is far more than making a material donation. </p><p><em>And not to leave the other undone</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>aphiemi</em>&nbsp;occurs again in <em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:2'>Mat 24:2</a></em>: "Your house is left [<em>aphiemi</em>] unto you desolate", and there would therefore not be left [<em>aphiemi</em>] one stone upon another in that temple / house; not one part of the masonry would be omitted or overlooked, every stone would be thrown down. They had omitted the weightier matters of justice etc:, thinking they were justified in this because they did not omit to tithe kitchen herbs. But the Lord is saying that effectively they&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;omitted "the other", the tithing of kitchen herbs. So although they did tithe them, effectively they had not done so. Because they had omitted the weightier matters of justice, mercy and faith. So theytithed, but they did not tithe. Just as we can pray, but not pray; think we believe, when we do not; forgive, when we do not really; read God’s word, when we do not really do so [as the Lord often pointed out to them in saying "Have you never read…?", when clearly on one level they had read]. Omitting justice, mercy and faith meant that their tithing of the small stuff was also omitted, in God’s final view of them. The spiritual life is intended to be all encompassing, it's not a case of a series of specific obediences to a long list of specific commandments, whereby our omission of the heavier issues is compensated for by our commission of the lighter issues. And this again is a challenge to us all; for surveying God’s expectations of us, we can so easily cut ourselves slack in some areas because we feel we are being obedient in others. Thus the failure of the Pharisees in this becomes not something to merely shake our heads at, but a challenge to our deepest internal reasonings in our own walk before God:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the synagogues- </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;</p><p><em>And the 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>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without knowing it</em>- A month before Passover, the graves were painted white so that the pilgrims coming to keep the feast would not be defiled. This was therefore something fresh in everyone’s minds, for the Lord was speaking at Passover time. It was as if they had not whitened / cleansed themselves before Passover as was required, and thereby led men into defilement rather than the purity which they so emphasized and demanded.</p>


text:
<p><em>And one of the lawyers answering said to him: Teacher, in saying this you reproach us also</em>- This particular lawyer perhaps said this in recognition of their sin. For the context is of the Lord accusing the Pharisees of hypocrisy; and the lawyer speaks up and says that actually, this was true of lawyers too. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens- </em>John appears to allude to this in saying that the true commandments are “not grievous” (<em><a href='B:690 5:3'>1Jn 5:3</a></em>, s:w. “heavy”). The fences created by men around God’s law are in fact higher than the actual Divine law. God’s laws have a creative intention, whereas human fences around them are totally negative in their intention. The Lord uses the same word later in the discourse, in stating that the ‘heavier’ matters of the law are justice, mercy and faith. Yet even those things are not “heavy” (<em><a href='B:690 5:3'>1Jn 5:3</a></em>) in the sense that the regulations of the Pharisees were. The Lord’s burden is light compared with the weight of carrying unforgiven sin (<em><a href='B:470 11:30'>Mat 11:30</a></em>). The parallel between sin and heavy burdens is also found in David’s comment about carrying the weight of his unforgiven sin with Bathsheba (<em><a href='B:230 38:4'>Psa 38:4</a></em>). The burden of sin was thus tied upon people by giving them religious rules which they were unable to keep due to human weakness, and because sin is partly a matter of conscience, it was still counted to the people as sin if they broke it. Therefore to enforce such rules upon people was effectively lading them with sin. This principle needs to be considered by those who ‘bind’ isolation from other brethren upon believers, or who ‘bind’ them to a single life after divorce.</p><p><em>Hard to bear- </em>The Lord sensitively commented that He had many things to command His disciples, “but you cannot bear / carry [s:w:] them at this time” (<em><a href='B:500 16:12'>Joh 16:12</a></em>). In teaching others God’s requirements, we must be sensitive to human weakness, rather than present them with a whole set of Divine standards as a package and demand their immediate acceptance of it. The Lord still accepted the disciples, even though He had not asked them to do all the things He would like to have asked them to do. And there are likewise levels of discipleship for us too. The same word is also used about carrying the cross of Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:17'>Joh 19:17</a></em>). This is the ultimately hard to be carried burden. If people have signed up to carry this, who are we to seek to add to it by our demands upon them. James surely had the Lord’s teaching here in mind when he reasoned that neither the disciples nor the Jewish fathers had been able to carry the yoke of the Mosaic law (<em><a href='B:510 15:10'>Act 15:10</a></em>). Any teaching that the Mosaic law must be obeyed [and there are plenty of Christians teaching this, sadly] is therefore seeking to bind a heavy burden upon men which will lead to their spiritual collapse and thereby to our own condemnation.</p><p><em>And you yourselves do not touch the burdens- </em><em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em> they will not move or 'remove' them. The Lord by contrast used touch frequently in order to connect with sinful people and their conditions, and to thereby heal them. The Pharisees would not touch them for fear of contamination; they would not associate or engage with sinful people and the results of their sins. The Lord used His fingers to enter the ears of the deaf and touch the eyes of the blind, secreting unclean body fluid. This is the way to remove burdens- to engage with them. And yet closed table policies effectively do the same, by refusing association with those judged by latter day Pharisees to be too serious sinners. The fear of guilt by association is utterly selfish, and results in the burdens never being removed or made lighter for the person struggling to carry them.</p><p><em>With one of your fingers</em>- The contrast is between the weight of the burdens on the shoulders of men, so great it crushed them; and the ease with which the law-makers could remove them with their fingers, perhaps referring to their ability to write things with a few strokes of the fingers which would removethose burdens. This is ever more true today- a few taps with a finger on a keyboard to change traditional demands on fellow believers, and burdens can be removed.</p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed</em>- <em>Oikodomeo</em>&nbsp;means not only to build but carries the sense of ‘to confirm’, and is also translated in the NT in this sense. On one hand, building the tombs of the prophets was a sign of respect, but the Lord read it negatively, as if by doing so they were confirming the decision to murder them made by their forefathers. We have here an example of where the same action can be judged positively or negatively by the Lord; and this of itself disproves the mentality of salvation by works. Because it depends with what motive or background attitude the works are done, and this decides whether the work was an act of righteousness or a sin. And this is a further warning against the impossibility of judging another’s works. For we fail to see those background, internal attitudes behind the work. See on <em><a href='B:470 23:30'>Mat 23:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Our fathers</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>So you are witnesses and consent to the works of your fathers; for they killed them and you build their tombs</em>- "Witnesses against yourselves<em>":&nbsp;</em>The rejected are witnesses against themselves (<em><a href='B:290 44:9'>Isa 44:9</a></em>). Herein lies the crass folly and illogicality of sin. Jeremiah pleaded with Israel: "Wherefore commit ye this great evil against your souls [i:e. yourselves], to cut off from you man and woman... that ye might cut yourselves off" (<em><a href='B:300 44:7-8'>Jer 44:7-8</a></em>, cp. how Jerusalem cut her own hair off in <em><a href='B:300 7:29'>Jer 7:29</a></em>). In the same passage, Yahweh is the one who does the cutting off (<em><a href='B:300 44:11'>Jer 44:11</a></em>); but they had cut themselves off. Likewise as they had kindled fire on their roofs in offering sacrifices to Baal, so Yahweh through the Babylonians would set fire to those same houses (<em><a href='B:300 32:29'>Jer 32:29</a></em>). And note the present tense of the Lord’s words here. In that the judgment process is now ongoing, we&nbsp;<em>are right now&nbsp;</em>witnesses against ourselves when we sin. And we are not only witnesses, but also the judge who pronounces the verdict of condemnation: for the sinner is condemned&nbsp;<em>of himself&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:630 3:11'>Tit 3:11</a></em>). In this lies the illogicality of sin and the utter blindness of man to the implications of his actions before God. They right now fulfil or live out the judgment of the wicked (<em><a href='B:220 36:17'>Job 36:17</a></em>).</p><p><em><a href='B:470 23:31'>Mat 23:31</a></em> "You are the sons of them that slew the prophets":&nbsp;The idea of being a ‘son of’ someone or something meant to be in agreement with them, or to be a disciple of them. Again, this seems an example of imputing iniquity. Their usage of the term “our fathers” was taken by the Lord to mean that they ‘allowed’ or [Gk:] ‘had pleasure in’ the murder of the prophets (<em><a href='B:490 11:48'>Luk 11:48</a></em>). But the same words “our fathers” are used by Paul to describe his faithless Israelite forbears- and he is not condemned for it (<em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:25'>Act 28:25</a></em>). Clearly, the same words can be used by men with different background meanings, and this is seen by God and His Son. But all we hear are the words- we cannot therefore judge them. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore also the Wisdom of God said- </em>This certainly sounds like a quotation from extant literature, possibly from an apocryphal book no longer known. The Lord Jesus was indeed “the wisdom of God” (<em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>), and so it could be that the Gospel writers were pointing out that these words of Jesus were a proof text amongst their persecuted converts; perhaps by quoting Matthew's words here, Luke is treating them as "the wisdom of God". Certainly the Lord’s words here would’ve been a good mission statement for the early church. Or it could be that the Lord is quoting some now unknown text with approval. There can be no doubt that every part of the verse has direct relevance to the first century witness to the Jews. The source of the quotation is therefore of secondary importance; the Lord places it in His own mouth, at any rate, in predicting the outcome of the great commission. And yet clearly enough, at the time He spoke these words, that bunch of mixed up, largely secular men, who misunderstood so much, who knew so little, and whose ideals were so misplaced, were far from being the preaching machine which the Lord’s words imply here. We can take one simple lesson from this- He had a profound hopefulness in people, a hopefulness which against all odds so often paid off. We, by contrast, tend to be highly cynical of people because we fail to see what they might turn into in spiritual terms.</p><p><em>I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute</em>- <em>"</em>Send them" is a reference to the sending of the great commission. The Lord’s desire was that the worldwide witness began at Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>), and Paul’s interpretation of the commission was clearly that it involved being sent&nbsp;<em>firstly</em>&nbsp;to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles. The secular disciples were the equivalent of the prophets in the old Israel. There may be particular reference to the New Testament prophets, those who had the Spirit gift of prophecy. Clearly the witness of the early Christians is in view.</p>


text:
<p><em>So that the blood of all the prophets- </em>This stands for ‘<em>judgment for</em>&nbsp;all the righteous blood shed’. Note how language is being used here. The sin is put by metonymy for&nbsp;<em>the judgment for</em>&nbsp;the sin. Sin is its own judgment. To sin is to ask for judgment / condemnation. In this lies the utter lack of logic in any sin. And iniquity was added to their iniquity (<em><a href='B:230 69:27'>Psa 69:27</a></em> - a specific prophecy of the Jews who killed Jesus), just as righteousness can be imputed:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation</em>- "Upon you", <em><a href='B:470 23:35'>Mat 23:35</a></em>. One would’ve expected God to be so hurt by the death of His Son that judgment came immediately upon those responsible. But instead, the Lord predicted that the judgment would come only after the Jews had further persecuted the apostles as they went out to fulfil the great preaching commission to the Jews. This apparent delay was not because God was not hurt or not angry. He was. But His patient love and desire for human repentance, to give them yet more chances, was simply greater. The delay was so that the Lord could send out the apostles to appeal to Israel for repentance. But they had been given final appeal after final appeal. And still God waited for their repentance. With what eagerness must He have watched for response to the preaching to them, and with what generous provision He would’ve provided for all those who wished to make that appeal to the Jews. And nothing has changed to this day. The idea of blood coming upon,&nbsp;<em>epi</em>, a person clearly meant ‘guilt for their death’. Soon the Jews were to be using this very term in asking for the blood of Jesus to be ‘upon’ them (<em><a href='B:470 27:25'>Mat 27:25</a></em>). Because Jesus was the personification of God’s prophetic word and thereby the summary of all the prophets, their desire for&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;blood to be upon them was effectively taking upon themselves the blood of the prophets.</p><p>Even in this prediction of terrible judgment there is grace. Because the AD70 judgments didn’t come until nearly 40 years afterwards. Male lifespans in first century Palestine were estimated at an average of 29 years by J:D. Crossan, basing his research on tomb inscriptions and analysis of bones from graves. So the actual ‘elders’ who were responsible for the Lord’s death likely died in their beds rather than in the Jewish-Roman war or the final holocaust in Jerusalem. I can only explain this on the basis of God’s grace prolonging that final coming of judgment, in the earnest hope that Israel would yet repent. In the context of AD70, this would appear to be the teaching of 2 Peter 3. We would expect those men to have fairly soon received their judgment in this life. They will be judged- at the last day. But it would seem that God’s desire to judge them was in tension with His desire to give Israel the maximum opportunity for repentance. We can only draw a sharp breath at God’s grace. Another approach would be to understand that the threatened judgment upon that generation simply didn’t happen- in their lifetimes. The entire Divine program was delayed until the last days, when that generation shall be resurrected and receive their judgment. The events of AD70 were simply a foretaste and prefigurement of the final judgment at the Lord’s second coming.</p><p>"This generation" is a phrase often used by the Lord concerning those who heard and dealt with Him. It is surely the same generation in view in <em><a href='B:470 24:34'>Mat 24:34</a></em>: “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled”:&nbsp;<em>This</em>&nbsp;generation is used elsewhere by the Lord concerning those right in front of Him. It is the same “this generation” as in <em><a href='B:470 24:34'>Mat 24:34</a></em>. The Lord doesn’t, therefore, mean ‘The future generation which shall exist and see these things will not pass until all is fulfilled’. He is saying that the generation,&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;generation, would not pass until all was fulfilled. The fact all wasn’t fulfilled simply in that generation shows that there was a major delay or change in the Divine program. And the reason for the delay was not simply that Israel hadn’t repented, but because God’s loving patience was still awaiting their repentance- and He so wished them to repent.</p>


text:
<p><em>From the blood of Abel- </em>If that generation were guilty of Abel’s murder, this associates them with Cain. The Jewish false teachers are likened to Cain (<em><a href='B:690 3:12'>1Jn 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>); and the Lord says that the Jews seeking to kill Him are the sons of the one who was a “murderer from the beginning” (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>). Cain was the first murderer:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>To the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation</em>- The prophet Zechariah would fit this description, but there’s no record of him being murdered. Josephus in&nbsp;<em>The Jewish War</em>&nbsp;4:5:4 speaks of a Zacharias ben Baruch (as in <em><a href='B:470 23:35'>Mat 23:35</a></em>) who was assassinated by the Zealots in the Sanhedrin. But he was not a prophet, and this event was still future. And he wasn’t killed in the temple. However, there was a prophet Zechariah who was stoned to death in the temple (<em><a href='B:140 24:19-22'>2Ch 24:19-22</a></em>). He was the son or grandson of Jehoiada, so it’s feasible he was the son of a Baruk. The Hebrew Bible ended with 2 Chronicles, and so the mention of this murder would form an appropriate inclusio with the first murder, of Abel. All the murders of the faithful, from the first to the last as recorded in the Hebrew Bible, were going to have their judgment exacted from the generation who crucified God’s Son:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you lawyers! For you took away the key of knowledge-</em></p><p>The Kingdom therefore remained 'locked' to people. We see here that "knowledge" does play a role in coming to the Kingdom. The same figure of the door of the Kingdom beingshut [but by the Lord, not men] is found in <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>. The similarity is such that we may be intended to understand the foolish virgins are those who were locked out of the Kingdom because of the Pharisees. Their lack of oil, of personal spirituality, was because their religious leaders had not inculcated this in them, nor any sense of their own fallibility and frailty- in that the reason they ended up locked out of the Kingdom was because they had not considered that their oil would likely fail. They had "the key of knowledge" in a spiritually ignorant and illiterate society which depended upon them for knowledge of God’s word. Likewise if the elders / judges of Israel had been wise, the entire people would have entered the land (<em><a href='B:50 16:20'>Deu 16:20</a></em>). The whole of Israel would’ve stayed in the wilderness and not entered the Kingdom / land if Gad and Reuben hadn’t initially gone over Jordan (<em><a href='B:40 32:15'>Num 32:15</a></em>). Wrath would come upon all Israel if the Levites weren’t encamped around the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:40 1:53'>Num 1:53</a></em>). We really can cause others to not enter God’s Kingdom by limiting their access to God’s word [a sin of omission], or by making demands on them in the name of His Kingdom which are too heavy for them to bear [a sin of commission]. This imparts an urgency and eternal importance to all our interactions with others. No longer can we see the community of believers as a mere social club, nor the world around us as simply the dead furniture of our lives. We have their salvation or stumbling away from it within our power. This fact also denies us from assuming that whether we fail or not in our interactions with others, God will somehow make good our failures and save others anyway. He has delegated His work into our hands, and to some extent the degree to which it prospers or fails is our responsibility. Otherwise the whole language of delegation of His wealth into our hands is somehow meaningless:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You did not enter in yourselves, and those that were entering in, you hindered</em>- As if they kept locked the door in the face of ones eager to enter the Kingdom:&nbsp;If we believe that we ourselves will be there, we will spark off an upward spiral of positive thinking in the community of believers with whom we are associated. Think carefully on the Lord’s words to the Pharisees: “For you neither go in yourselves, neither suffer you them that are entering to go in” (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>). If we don’t believe we will be there, we end up discouraging others. There is a sense in which we will enter the Kingdom at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>; “Not every one that says Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom”, <em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em> s:w:), and yet in another sense we are entering now through the gates (“enter in at the narrow gate”, <em><a href='B:470 7:13'>Mat 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:17'>Mat 19:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:24'>Mat 19:24</a></em>). Our lives now are on a path, a journey, which is entering the Kingdom. The significance of life and living could not be more intense.</p><p>The same word for ‘hindering’ is used about how the disciples ‘forbad’ children to come to Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 19:14'>Mat 19:14</a></em>) and about ‘forbidding’ baptism (<em><a href='B:510 8:36'>Act 8:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>). This is exactly how people can be hindered or not ‘allowed’ to enter the Kingdom today- by refusing them baptism because of some inadequacy of knowledge or behaviour, or because they are simply felt to be in a category [like “children” were by the disciples] who are inappropriate for the Kingdom. These reflections make us realize that the Pharisees were not a mere phenomenon in history, but have their direct equivalents today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he got out from there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to press upon him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things</em>- They were experts in winding up a person; they rightly perceived that the Lord had passion and emotion, and they sought to play upon that by a series of provocatively worded questions and statements. </p>


text:
<p><em>Lying in wait for him, to catch him in something he might say</em>- The same word used of how&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to be entangled or caught up 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. They are presented as the robbers on the way to Jericho, lying in wait like bandits. </p>


text:
<p><em>In the mean time, when the many thousands of the crowd were gathered together, so much so that they trod one upon another, he began to say to his disciples first of all- </em></p><p>As in the account of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, we get the idea of the Lord purposefully focusing upon the disciples, despite the presence of crowds of well over 10,000. His interest was in developing that small core, rather than getting superficial acceptance from thousands.</p><p><em>Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy</em>- The disciples were overly influenced by the Pharisees. They were worried that the Pharisees were not happy with the Lord’s teaching (<em><a href='B:470 15:12'>Mat 15:12</a></em>). He had to warn them <em>above all</em> of the danger of the influence [yeast] of the Pharisees (Luk 121 Gk:). And yet they still misunderstood Him- they thought He was talking about literal bread (<em><a href='B:480 8:15-16'>Mar 8:15-16</a></em>). He encouraged His followers 'be themselves'. He spoke much of not being a <em>hupokrites</em>, an actor. Those who follow Him are not to act a part before others, as if all the world's a stage, being what others want in the audience of the world of eyes that surround us, acting as an actor does, merely to please others. He continued the image when He warned of not doing things "to&nbsp;be seen [Gk. <em>theathenai</em>] of men". Don't let them be a mere theatre audience to you- be yourself, living life in the constant presence of God’s eyes, not man's. This was a major theme with the Lord. Paul likewise teaches us that every man should “be as he is” (<em><a href='B:530 7:26'>1Co 7:26</a></em> RV). This is why the Lord Jesus taught His men "first of all", i:e. most importantly, to beware of hypocrisy. This was a cardinal point in Christ's manifesto. We must ask whether it has this place in our discipleship. It can be that the ecclesial audience is a kind of theatre, showing gratitude for the pleasing entertainment of the speakers. Yet the opposite should be true- God is the audience, we are living bared lives before His gaze.</p><p>The Lord taught that hypocrisy was like leaven- once it begins in a community of believers, it so easily spreads and engulfs all (<em><a href='B:490 12:1-3'>Luk 12:1-3</a></em>). In this context He went on to say that “there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed... whatever you have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light”. It is so easy, and we have all done this, to say something about somebody, and ask our hearer not to repeat it. But even in this life, as well as at judgment day, what is spoken in the ear comes out on the housetops. In discussion about fellowship matters, divorce etc. we can so easily say one thing to one group of brethren and something quite different to another. But this, the Lord taught, is hypocrisy. Let us decide our principles and live and speak by them, in humility and sensitivity and simplicity. Because all will be revealed, both in this life and in the coming day of judgment, we ought to be without such hypocrisy.</p><p>The Lord taught His followers “first”, or ‘most of all’, to beware of hypocrisy. For us, all the world is <em>not </em>to be a stage, and we are <em>not </em>to be merely actors upon that stage. Hypocrisy is that living out of a persona, acting, rather than being the person God created us to be. In the Lord Jesus men saw the word made flesh (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). There was perfect congruence between the person He presented Himself as, and the person He essentially was. This was why He could so easily touch the true person in others. And I think this is the meaning of the otherwise enigmatic insistence that the Cherubim’s faces, their appearances, and ‘themselves’ were all one (<em><a href='B:330 10:22'>Eze 10:22</a></em>). The Russian [Synodal] version translates this: ‘Their view, was who they themselves were’. So often in our encounters with others there is no real dialogue, rather a conflict of monologues. This is why so many a debate between a Christian and a Mormon, e.g., has come to nothing; for perhaps both of them are merely showing one of their personas.</p>


text:
<p><em>But there is nothing covered up that shall not be revealed, and hid that shall not be known</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 10:27'>Mat 10:27</a></em>. </p><p>Whatever we have spoken in darkness will be revealed for all to hear and know (<em><a href='B:490 12:2-3'>Luk 12:2-3</a></em>)- our words will as it were be cited back to us before others in that day. The Lord says this in the context of warning us not to have the leaven of hypocrisy in the matter of our words- there's no point in saying one thing to one person and something different to someone else, because our words will be gone through at the judgment and will be open for everyone to hear. We should live, He implies, as if we are now before the judgment; speaking things we wouldn't be ashamed for anyone to hear. Note in passing how he says that hypocrisy in our words is like leaven, that corrupts and spreads within an individual and a community. Once somebody starts being hypocritical with their words, someone else does. Even every word of murmuring against each other will be judged; and hence, James points out, it is bizarre that we should be doing this with the judge standing before the door (<em><a href='B:660 5:9'>Jas 5:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore whatever you have said in the darkness shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors shall be proclaimed upon the housetops</em>- The reference to “closets” (AV) takes us back to <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>, where He uses the same word to speak of how we should pray in closets and then we will be openly rewarded by the Father. The ‘open reward’ is clearly in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 6:4'>Mat 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:18'>Mat 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:17'>Luk 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). Could this not be saying, then, that in the Kingdom, the answers to the prayers we are <em>now </em>making will be openly proclaimed to all from the housetops? Hence there is an awesome connection between our feeble words of prayer now, and the nature of our eternal existence in the Kingdom.</p><p>"God shall judge the righteous and the wicked (at the second coming): for there is a time there for <em>every</em> purpose and for <em>every</em> work... for God shall bring <em>every</em> work into judgment, with <em>every</em> secret thing, whether it be good or bad" (<em><a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 12:14'>Ecc 12:14</a></em>). Note the emphasis on "<em>every</em>". Even what we have spoken in the ear will be shouted out (<em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em>) -implying others will somehow observe our judgment, cp. <em><a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a></em>. If the judgment is merely a yes/no statement which has been worked out taking our whole life into consideration, then this emphasis on every work having a time for consideration and judgment "there" is pointless. However, these verses must be considered in conjunction with those which speak of God’s 'forgetting' of bad deeds on account of how people later chose to live. However, this need not mean that they are erased from God’s infinite knowledge; all too often we perceive God’s memory as a vast memory bank which can have our sins erased from it. But His knowledge knows no such bounds of human perception; yet He is willing not to hold those things against us, and to therefore count us as having never committed them.</p><p>Ultimately, nothing remains secret; at the day of judgment, what we spoke in darkness (i:e. In our own minds) will be heard in the light of God’s Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em>). Note how Paul read the Lord’s words here in this way – for he surely alludes here when he speaks of how “the hidden things of darkness” are “the counsels of the hearts” which will be revealed at His return (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). The implications of this are awesome. The thoughts and intents of our hearts in this life will be eternally open and manifest in the eternal light of God’s Kingdom. In that day, our brethren will see every one of our hidden thoughts. To live now according to the principle ‘I can think what I like, but I won’t act like it, for the sake of appearances to others’ is therefore foolish. Who we are now in our hearts is whom we shall ultimately be revealed to be. So we may as well get on and act according to how we really think; for throughout eternity, what we think now will be manifest to everyone, seeing that a man <em>is</em> as he thinks in his heart.</p>


text:
<p><em>And I say to you my friends- </em>Assuring them that they had nothing ultimately to fear at the last day; for we are His friends. If we are His friends, the friends of the Son of God, the prince of the kings of the earth- why fear audience response when we witness? The laboured assurances of the next verses about being of more value than sparrows etc. are all in the context, therefore, of assuring us that we need not ultimately fear negative response to our witness.</p><p><em>Do not be afraid- </em>The Lord was quite clear that His followers should expect death and serious suffering for preaching Him. He perceived that fear of audience response would be a strong factor in the temptation not to preach Him. But He gave the reason for not fearing in :3- all shall be revealed at the day of judgment. Belief in the doctrine of final judgment therefore has huge impact upon life in practice- in this case, giving us strength not to fear the consequences of our witness. For many believers today, persecution unto death is not a likely consequence of witness; fear of slight embarrassment, being thought ‘odd’ for turning a conversation around, is a very small price. The Lord is asking us here to accept that witness for Him may well cost us death. If we accept that, accept it as part and parcel of the Lord’s basic message, then our approach to witness will be quite different. Fear of audience response will no longer be a major factor, if we have solemnly accepted that we are prepared to die for the sake of preaching the Gospel. </p><p><em>Of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do</em>- <em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em> adds: "But are not able to kill the soul"<em>. </em>"They" cannot touch our essential self. It is our ‘real self’ which will eternally endure. In this sense, for the faithful, their body may be killed but their soul cannot be. I take this to mean that who they essentially are is for ever recorded by the Lord, and they will be given that same personality at the resurrection. Significantly, the Bible speaks not of the ‘resurrection of the body’ [it’s the creeds which speak of this], but rather “the resurrection of the just”, “the resurrection of the dead”. The resurrection is more about resurrected characters than resurrected bodies, although the process will involve a new body being given.</p>


text:
<p><em>But I will warn you about whom you shall fear. Fear Him, who after He has killed has power to cast you into Gehenna. Yes, I say to you, fear Him!</em>- The fear of the eternity we might miss, condemnation, is to be infinitely greater than our fear of death in this life:&nbsp; The Jews believed that ‘hell’ had three sections: Gehenna, a place of eternal fire for those Jews who broke the covenant and blasphemed God; ‘the shades’, an intermediate place similar to the Catholic idea of purgatory; and a place of rest where the faithful Jew awaited the resurrection at the last day. This distinction has no basis in the Bible. However, it’s significant that the Lord Jesus uses ‘Gehenna’ and the figure of eternal fire to describe the punishment of people for what the Jews of His day would’ve considered incidental sins, matters which were far from blasphemy and breaking the covenant – glancing at a woman with a lustful eye (<em><a href='B:480 9:47'>Mar 9:47</a></em>), hypocrisy (<em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:5'>Luk 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:27-33'>Mat 23:27-33</a></em>), not giving a cup of water to a “little one”, forbidding a disciple of John the Baptist to follow Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 9:39-43'>Mar 9:39-43</a></em>); not preaching the Gospel fearlessly and boldly (<em><a href='B:470 10:25-28'>Mat 10:25-28</a></em>). These matters were and are shrugged off as of no eternal consequence. But just like the prophets of Israel did, the Lord Jesus seizes upon such issues and purposefully associates them with the most dire possible punishment which His Jewish hearers could conceive – Gehenna. Time and again, the Bible alludes to incorrect ideas and reasons with people from the temporary assumption those ideas might be true. The language of demons, as we will show later, is a classic example. And it’s quite possible the Lord is doing the same here with the concept of Gehenna – the punishment for the Jew who breaks the covenant and blasphemes. The Lord was primarily teaching about behaviour, not giving a lecture about the state of the dead. And so He takes the maximum category of eternal punishment known to His audience, and says that this awaits those who sin in matters which on His agenda are so major, even if in the eyes of the Jewish world and humanity generally they were insignificant.</p>


text:
<p><em>Are not five sparrows soldfor two very small coins? And not one of them is forgotten in the sight of God</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 10:29'>Mat 10:29</a></em>. Two sparrows were sold for one coin; and five were given for two coins. The sparrows were so little worth that one was thrown in for free. Yet the sparrows are represented in the presence of God (Gk:); even animals have their representative Angels there. This is ‘how’ in one sense a personal God sees and knows all things; because His Spirit / Angels are in His presence reporting all things to Him. At least this is how we are invited to perceive it. The sparrows aren’t forgotten in the presence of God, and we are of more value than many sparrows (<em><a href='B:490 12:6-7'>Luk 12:6-7</a></em>); Matthew has: ‘Your Father feeds the sparrows; are you not of more value [same Greek as in Luke] than many sparrows?’; ‘no sparrow falls to the ground&nbsp;without your Father knowing... you are of more value than many sparrows” (<em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:29'>Mat 10:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:31'>Mat 10:31</a></em>). The sparrows being in God’s presence is paralleled with His feeding them [Gk. ‘to bring them up’] and being aware of what is happening to them on earth. God feeds / raises the sparrows through His Angelic messengers.</p><p>“An inscription of the Emperor Diocletian setting out the maximum prices that might be paid for various articles of commerce shows that sparrows were the cheapest of birds used for food..." (Leon Morris,&nbsp;<em>The Gospel According to Matthew</em>&nbsp;(Leicester: I:V:P:, 1992)). This is another example of the Lord’s radical collision course with the Rabbis; He taught that God’s care even embraces sparrow. For the Rabbis explicitly forbad prayers that mentioned God’s care for birds, because they argued that it was dishonouring to God to associate Him with something so small as a bird (<em>Berith</em>&nbsp;5:3). And the Lord purposefully stood that idea upon its head. The Rabbis had a whole list of unforgivable sins, like murder, apostasy, contempt for the Law, etc. But the Lord went further. His many words of judgment weren’t directed to the murderers and whores and Sabbath breakers; they were instead directed against those who condemned those people, considering themselves righteous. He calls those who appeared so righteous a ‘generation of vipers’. The publican, not the Pharisee, finds God’s acceptance, according to Jesus. And again, the Lord is making a telling point- because Rabbis held that repentance for publicans was almost impossible, because it was impossible for them to know exactly all the people they’d cheated. Very clearly, the Lord’s message was radical. He was out to form a holy people from whores and gamblers, no-good boys and conmen. And moreover, He was out to show that what God especially judges and hates are the things that humanity doesn’t think twice about: hypocrisy, self-righteousness, judgmentalism, exclusion of others…&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But the very hairs of your head are all numbered- </em>The redeemed are a community whom man cannot number (<em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>), as many as the stars in the sky which neither Abraham nor any man could number. The Lord may be making an allusion to this in order to highlight the scale of knowledge which God has- He numbers the community of believers exactly, over space and over time, and He also numbers the hairs on every one of His people. This vast knowledge of God is often referred to in the Psalms as a guarantee that therefore God will ultimately protect His people. <em><a href='B:490 21:18'>Luk 21:18</a></em>, which we have shown to have similarities with the preaching commission of Matthew 10, comments that “there shall not an hair of your head perish”. The question is whether the Lord is assuring His preachers that they will not ultimately die; it might sound like it, from such assurance. And yet earlier verses in the preaching commission sound as if the preachers will indeed suffer, quite possibly unto death. And we know that some of them did suffer death. So what are we to make of these assurances of protection, so strong that the preacher should be fearless and not fear death as a consequence for preaching? I suggest that the Lord, as often in His teaching, is speaking on an elevated, spiritual level. The possibility of death for witness is a clear theme of His, especially in Revelation. These strong assurances of protection and salvation from death would therefore be His way of saying that His ultimate salvation of His preachers at the resurrection will involve the preservation of them as unique personalities, down to the hairs of their head. And therefore they should not fear death in this life. For He knows them. The fear of death revolves around the sense that I as the sum of all my experiences, my uniqueness, shall be no more- and the Lord is urging us to believe that God not only knows our unique attributes better than we do, but shall ultimately preserve them in the resurrection of the body and in the nature of the life eternal.</p><p><em>Fear not!- </em>The Lord is asking a lot here; He’s asking for us to preach without fear of consequence and audience reaction. That is a step beyond preaching knowing the likely price, and being willing to pay that price. To know that price and yet preach without fear is a step beyond being willing to accept consequence.</p><p><em>You are of more value than many sparrows</em>- The same word is used in the same context in <em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>. Having spoken of how God provides for the birds of the air, the Lord drives home the comparison: “Are you not much better [s:w. “of more value”] than them?”. The term is again used in <em><a href='B:470 12:12'>Mat 12:12</a></em>: “How much then is a man better than a sheep”. We must give full weight to this triple emphasis on how much more valuable we are than the mortal animals whom God is so careful for. The request that we do not fear is repeated and laboured throughout the section. It is fear of what others think and may do which so often holds us back from witness, be it to family members or literally approaching people on the street. With such laboured assurances, we are to overcome fear and therefore confess Him openly (:8).</p>


text:
<p><em>And I say to you, every one who shall confess me before men- </em>Confessing Christ before men can also be an allusion to baptism, not just bucking up the courage to give someone a tract at work (<em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em>). This allusion is confirmed when we realize that “confess” translates two Greek words, ‘to confess in’. We confess in Christ by baptism into Him. In another sense, our witness is because we are in Christ, we are Him to the world, and therefore His fearlessness unto death in witness should be ours. The Lord spoke of how if we confess Him before men, He will confess knowledge of us before the Father; and if we deny Him, He will deny us. This language is applied by John to John the Baptist- for he comments that John the Baptist "confessedand denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ" (<em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>). In this sense, John Baptist is being set up as our example in preaching- and again, John comments that we too are to confess the Son and not deny Him (<em><a href='B:690 2:23'>1Jn 2:23</a></em>), after the pattern of John the Baptist. And yet note what John's 'confession' was- it was a profession of his unworthiness, that although he was the herald of the Christ, he was not Jesus. Again, we see here a pattern for our witness to the Lord. <em><a href='B:560 6:15'>Eph 6:15</a></em> speaks of our each being 'sandaled' with the preparation of the Gospel. Who prepared the way of the Lord by preaching, wearing sandals? John the Baptist. It seems Paul is alluding to John here, setting him up as the preacher's example. The reference to "loins girt" (<em><a href='B:560 6:14'>Eph 6:14</a></em>) would also be a John allusion- the record twice (in <em><a href='B:470 3:4'>Mat 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:6'>Mar 1:6</a></em>) stresses how John had his 'loins girded'.</p><p><em>Him shall the Son of Man also confess before the angels of God</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 10:32'>Mat 10:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:8'>Luk 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 5:21'>1Ti 5:21</a></em>. So close are the Lord and the Angels and such His respect and love for them, that it seems that Jesus will even feel ashamed or embarrassed before them when He comes to consider one of the unworthy at the day of judgement- <em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em> implies that the same feeling of embarrassment and shame which the unworthy have now when backing out of preaching will be felt by Jesus when He looks on them at the judgement. And it is quite possible that one of the things which motivated our Lord to continue hanging on the cross was the thought of praising God in the midst of the Angels at His ascension: "My praise shall be of Thee in the great congregation (of Angels?): I will pay my vows before them that fear Him".</p><p>But in the same way as the Angels minister condemnation, they&nbsp;also joyfully&nbsp;give&nbsp;eternal&nbsp;life to their faithful charges, on Christ's command at the judgement- "him shall the Son of man also confess before the Angels of God" (<em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>). This is perhaps the fact alluded to in <em><a href='B:540 10:18'>2Co 10:18</a></em>: "not he that commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends (at the judgement)". To be commended implies&nbsp;to be commended <em>to</em> somebody- the Angels?</p><p>When He says He will confess&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;before the Father, He means He will confess&nbsp;<em>our name</em>&nbsp;before God (<em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>); He knows us according to our names / characters. He speaks of ecclesial members as "names" in <em><a href='B:730 3:4'>Rev 3:4</a></em>; He calls His own sheep by name, and they each know His voice, responding to His word&nbsp;<em>individually</em>. The call to one sheep will only be recognized by that sheep; the others won't respond (<em><a href='B:500 10:3'>Joh 10:3</a></em>). He will take individual note of each sheep, treating them accordingly, as the shepherd leads more gently those that are with young (<em><a href='B:290 40:11'>Isa 40:11</a></em>). It seems that even now, we each have our own individual name with the Father and Son, encompassing their understanding of our essential character. It may even be that in the record of Scripture, God inspired the writers to record the names of individuals according to His judgment of them (or at least, how the faithful viewed them at the time), rather than by the names they actually went under. What mother would have named her child Nabal (fool), or Ahira (brother of evil, <em><a href='B:40 1:15'>Num 1:15</a></em>), or 'sickness' or 'wasting' (Mahlon and Chilion)? These names were either given to them by others and the use adopted by God, or simply God in the record assigned them such names:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The same two words for "confess [in]" are found in <em><a href='B:520 10:9'>Rom 10:9</a></em> “If you shall&nbsp;<em>confess with</em>&nbsp;your mouth the Lord Jesus… you shall be saved”. The idea of&nbsp;<em>homolegeo</em>&nbsp;seems to be of public confession; literally to&nbsp;<em>homo-logos</em>. The Lord uses the word&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;with reference to the “words” of our preaching before men (<em><a href='B:470 10:14'>Mat 10:14</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Homo</em>&nbsp;has the sense of being together with others. It can carry the sense of ‘assent’, in that our<em> logos</em>&nbsp;comes together with the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of another; but the majority of NT usage is clearly with the sense of professing, making our&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;before others. At the day of judgment, the Lord will “profess” His verdict to men (<em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em>) and here we learn that He will “profess” it to His Father too. The weight of evidence on the basis of usage is that this word refers to public profession of a&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, of our innermost thought- which is exactly in line with the themes of the Lord's teaching here: that our internal thought and position, our&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, is crucially important; but if it is a Christ-like&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;then it will be impossible to conceal it, it must naturally become public, for a city set on a hill cannot be hid. Consider the evidence:</p><p>-Herod&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;[AV“promised”] with an oath” in front of witnesses to give Herodias’ daughter whatever she wished (<em><a href='B:470 14:7'>Mat 14:7</a></em>)</p><p>- John the Baptist&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;in his preaching (<em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>)</p><p>- If anyone&nbsp;<em>confessed&nbsp;</em>openly that Jesus was Messiah, then they would be cast out of the synagogue (<em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>)</p><p>- The Pharisees&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;their doctrinal positions, i:e. they openly taught them (<em><a href='B:510 23:8'>Act 23:8</a></em>)</p><p>- Paul&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;his beliefs publicly when on trial (<em><a href='B:510 24:14'>Act 24:14</a></em>)</p><p>- Timothy&nbsp;<em>confessed&nbsp;</em>his confession before many witnesses (<em><a href='B:610 6:12'>1Ti 6:12</a></em>)</p><p>- Some openly&nbsp;<em>confess</em>&nbsp;their knowledge of God when their private lives don’t match that public confession (<em><a href='B:630 1:16'>Tit 1:16</a></em>)</p><p>- The faithful&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;their faith in God’s promises before all (<em><a href='B:650 11:13'>Heb 11:13</a></em>)</p><p>- Teachers&nbsp;<em>confess</em>&nbsp;a doctrinal position about Jesus in their teaching and must be assessed by their audience accordingly (<em><a href='B:690 2:23'>1Jn 2:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:2-3'>1Jn 4:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:15'>1Jn 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:700 1:7'>2Jn 1:7</a></em>).</p><p>According to the Lord's teaching here, he who refuses to make this public profession will not be accepted in the day of judgment; the Lord Jesus will not confess such a person before “My Father”. <em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em> likewise predicate salvation upon this public confession. And the contrast in <em><a href='B:470 10:32-33'>Mat 10:32-33</a></em> is between&nbsp;<em>confessing</em>&nbsp;Christ and&nbsp;<em>denying&nbsp;</em>Him before men, leading to being&nbsp;<em>denied</em>&nbsp;by Jesus before “My&nbsp;<em>Father</em>”. Without doubt, <em><a href='B:690 2:23'>1Jn 2:23</a></em> has all this in mind when teaching that “Whosoever&nbsp;<em>denies</em>&nbsp;the Son, the same has not&nbsp;<em>the Father</em>, but he that&nbsp;<em>confesses</em>&nbsp;[s:w:; AV “acknowledges”] the Son has the Father also”. Taken together, these usages of&nbsp;<em>confession</em>&nbsp;present a solid case- that salvation is related to public confession. That is not to say that salvation is by works, nor is it to say that evangelism is the be all and end all of the Christian life- after all, we all have different gifts, some are more pastoral than evangelical. Salvation is by grace&nbsp;<em>through faith</em>; and if we believe, then we cannot be passive, we become a city set on a hill which cannot be hid. Otherwise, as the Lord teaches several times in the Sermon on the Mount, we have not really believed in God’s grace. The Sermon teaches that there is no such thing as a secret Christian, a candle lit which nobody else sees or gets a hint of. In this area particularly, we are faced with the temptation of sins of omission- to consider that we are believers because we have mentally assented to certain theological propositions about Christ, but not making any public commitment or confession about them. No wonder the Lord raised this theme in encouraging His preachers to go forth fearlessly.</p>


text:
<p><em>And everyone who shall speak a word against the Son of Man- </em>The sin of stating that Jesus was Satan's agent rather than God’s could not be forgiven whilst it continued to be the position of a person- although repentance was always possible. For those who had accepted Jesus as God’s unique agent, they can be forgiven all manner of failure, including speaking "a word" against Him. Maybe the Lord foresaw the situations in which persecution could be avoided for an apparently few words calling Him accursed. And He, along with Matthew, wanted to assure those who would do this in the weakness of a moment that in fact they had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;blasphemed the Spirit and were not beyond forgiveness. The 'speaking against' is clearly parallel to 'blaspheming'. Blaspheming the name of Jesus was and is required by various anti-Christian regimes such from Judaism through the Roman empire to fundamentalist Islamic states today. Surely the Lord had this in mind. And the encouragement is that this is forgivable. But to decide He is not the Son of God but the embodiment of evil is a situation for which there is no forgiveness because it is wilfully continued in. The Lord has just stated that whoever is not with Him is against Him (:30), but here He foresees a situation when one of those who is ultimately 'with Him' will speak 'against Him'- and yet be forgiven. Because that moment of failure was not the overall position of a man's life. The denials by Peter, replete with curses / blasphemy, would surely be the parade example.</p><p>The “son of man” here could refer to the Lord Jesus, but it could just as comfortably mean ‘human beings’. One angle on this passage is to remember that the Gospels were written as a means of preaching to Jewish people at some point after the Lord’s resurrection. The message may be: ‘Whatever sin you committed against Jesus, even to the point of crucifixion, is forgivable. But now the Holy Spirit is witnessing to you through the apostles to repent and accept His forgiveness. If you refuse&nbsp;<em>that</em>, then there will [obviously] be no forgiveness for you’. The Lord foresaw the situation as it would be in the lives of his audience, and that explains His language here.</p><p><em>It shall be forgiven him, but to him that blasphemes against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven</em>- Whenever we sin, we are judged by the court of Heaven as deserving condemnation. Yet now is our day of opportunity; the verdict really is given, but we canmercifully change it. Consider the implications of the parallel <em><a href='B:480 3:29'>Mar 3:29</a></em>: "he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness but is in danger of&nbsp;<em>eternal</em>&nbsp;damnation". Not being&nbsp;<em>ever</em>&nbsp;forgiven is paralleled with having&nbsp;<em>eternal </em>damnation. The implication is that when we sin and are unforgiven, we are condemned. But in this life we can be forgiven, and therefore become uncondensed. Abimelech was "but a dead man" for taking Sarah (<em><a href='B:10 20:3'>Gen 20:3</a></em>), as if although he was alive, for that sin he was in God’s eyes condemned and dead. But that verdict for that case was changed by his change of the situation:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious how or what you shall answer, or what you shall say</em>- The Lord wanted His truth to be witnessed by His people to the authorities in "heavenly places" (<em><a href='B:560 3:10'>Eph 3:10</a></em>). The Lord wanted to give even kings and rulers the chance of repentance. We too should not consider anyone anywhere beyond The legal language suggests that a court case was going on- in the court of Heaven, situations on earth are tried, and the witness of the apostles at their earthly court cases against&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;was used in the court case&nbsp;<em>against the rulers</em>&nbsp;which was going on in Heaven.</p>


text:
<p><em>For the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very hour what you should say</em>- Luke's later volume records how indeed this happened to the persecuted apostles (<em><a href='B:510 4:8'>Act 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 6:10'>Act 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:2'>Act 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:53'>Act 7:53</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:55'>Act 7:55</a></em> and throughout the trials of Paul). But there is a very clear application to the events of the very last days, which the run up to AD70 prefigured. The allusion is 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. All these events form a remarkable latter day prophecy. 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>). 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. </p>


text:
<p><em>And one out of the crowd said to him: Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me</em>- The Lord replies by asking the man to think again about <em>who</em> had given Jesus authority- for if indeed God really had given Jesus authority, then the man ought <em>himself</em> to fear the judgment of Jesus- for as the Lord goes on to show in the parable of the rich fool, He has the power to reject those who are materialistic, exactly because He has such authority from God. The Lord is pushing the man to look at himself and think of himself at the end of his life and before the final day of judgment; and to cease paying a mere lip service respect to the authority of Jesus, but to take this for real, realizing what it means for his own personal responsibility.</p><p>The law required an elder brother to inherit a double portion (Dt. 21:17), but the Lord replies that He is being asked to be a "divider"- perhaps hinting that this man is asking the Lord to support his request for a simple division. Presumably because he considered his brother to be wealthy enough and he considered he needed the wealth more. The Lord's reply is to call their deceased wealthy father a "fool" and to warn the man against covetousness and materialism.</p><p>The Lord’s response was to tell the parable of the rich fool- a parable which ought to be seriously worrying for every one of us, rich or poor. He put the immediate argument between the brothers in the perspective of eternity; the eternity we may miss because we got too distracted with the immediate argument of the moment. And the Lord’s basic message in this case was: “Be rich toward God. Give Him whatever you have”. This cut right across the issues of life’s unfairness, missing out on wealth, not getting our share of respect... to the essential question which should have made both brothers feel uncomfortable. Had they, have we, given all they had to the Lord’s cause? We may lack the quick thinking or penetrating analysis required to make this kind of fast response when confronted by others’ conflicts. But we can surely analyse our own conflicts, at our own pace, in the light of eternity; and regain perspective, even if our opponent fails to do this. We need to cut to the essence of why we are feeling as we are; pray for God to help you in this, for accurate self-examination is so hard. If we don’t connect and engage with the core issues, then even if the immediate problem [e.g. the argument about the inheritance] is resolved, then other issues will still then arise:&nbsp; It will only be a matter of time. The more we focus on resolving just one conflict, the more we will realize that in fact we are dealing with a tangled web of multiple conflicts. We cannot change others, but we can come to understand ourselves, and to define and engage with the essential issues which we personally face in the whole conflict. </p>


text:
<p><em>But he said to him: Man! Who made me a judge or a divider over you?</em>- As noted on :13, this is not to be read as meaning 'I am not your judge, why ever would you think that?'. The answer to this rhetorical question is 'God'. The man was to quit worrying about material issues and conflicts with his brother, and focus instead on his relationship with God. The Father and Son will indeed judge and divide between men at the last day- but on the basis of spiritual and not secular things. The ultimate judgment and division between men will be made on the basis of how they have handled such issues of judgment and division in their secular lives; and seeing we need His absolute grace in the time of the final judgment and division, we need to show it now. All such conflicts with our brethren are therefore a dry run of judgment day; we make the answer now. Note too the allusion to <em><a href='B:20 2:14'>Exo 2:14</a></em>, whereby the Lord presents Himself as a new Moses.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Take heed and keep yourselves from all covetousness. For a man's life consists not in the abundance of the things which he possesses</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 17:32'>Luk 17:32</a></em>. As noted on :13 and :14, the true life is that to come, and that will be predicated upon how far in this life we have judged and divided rightly with secular issues now. The Lord seeks to prize apart the connection between a person and their possessions; a connection which has become the dogma of our materialistic age. The life, the personality, is to be seen as of paramount importance; 'Who "am" I?' is to be the question we return to time and again in our self-examination. The way of naming houses and lands in the name of the owner indicates the chronic degree of identification between possessions and personhood which there is in so many minds. But we are to make a great divorce in our minds between who we really are, and what we possess.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke a parable to them, saying: The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully</em>- The aorist could imply that the ground was about to bring forth plentifully. The way the man talks about building bigger barns in order to store his "goods" suggests he is fantasizing about wealth, about actually getting a large harvest and turning it into goods; to spend time and labour demolishing existing barns and building greater when the intensity of harvest is upon him is foolish, and suggests an unreal fantasy about wealth rather than reality. Likewise his assumption that his harvest would be so huge that he could live from it for the rest of his life... is perhaps somewhat unrealistic.</p><p>The man's wealth was because of the "ground"- stressing that his wealth actually was from God's blessing. By fixating upon it as if the wealth was personally his, the man became an effective atheist, the fool who says in his heart that there is no God (Ps. 14:1).</p>


text:
<p><em>And he reasoned within himself, saying: What shall I do, because I do not have anywhere to store my crops?</em>- Jesus pinpointed the crucial importance of self-talk in this parable of the rich fool, who said to himself that he had many goods, and discussed with his own “soul” or self the need for greater barns etc. If we at least realize that our self-talk is potentially our greatest adversary [‘Satan’], then we will find the strength to move towards genuine spiritual mindedness, bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. </p><p>Luke's Gospel opens with the record of Simeon's prediction that the Lord would reveal the thoughts of many hearts. One way He does that is through the parables recorded by Luke; they all feature the inner speech, the self talk, of people. The rich fool (12:16–20); the unfaithful servant (12:42–46); the prodigal son (15:11–32); the unjust steward (16:1–8); the unjust judge (18:2–5) and the owner of the vineyard (20:9–16). By hearing the self talk of those characters, our own inner self talk is revealed to us. The rich fool's "What shall I do?" becomes our own question: "What should I do?". This was significant in the first century world, where outward appearance was seen as so important and most people were disinterested in their self talk. Appearance and external action was seen as all important; and yet the Lord repeatedly persuades His audience to look at their hearts. </p><p>
His ground is bringing forth plentifully, but the bumper harvest hasn't yet come- because he would hardly build bigger barns after the harvest has been gathered. He foresees a bumper harvest, and decides to build bigger barns and fantasizes about the luxury retirement this could bring him. And then, zap, his soul / life is required of him. He dies. The point of the parable is that the man's attitudes were wrong; it is a critique of what he thinks, his self talk, rather than his actions.  
</p><p><p>"What shall I / we do?" is a question which keeps occurring in the Gospels and Acts. It is one of those phrases which flies out of the text, forcing us to engage with it and to ask ourselves the same question (<em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:40'>Mat 21:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:22'>Mat 27:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:17'>Mar 10:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:28'>Joh 6:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:47'>Joh 11:47</a></em>). And especially in <em><a href='B:490 3:10'>Luk 3:10</a></em>, <em><a href='B:490 3:12'>Luk 3:12</a></em>, <em><a href='B:490 3:14'>Luk 3:14</a></em> [the whole account of the gospel begins with people being forced to ask this question]; <em><a href='B:490 10:25'>Luk 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:17'>Luk 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:3-4'>Luk 16:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:18'>Luk 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:41'>Luk 18:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:15'>Luk 20:15</a></em>. And Luke brings the question to a head when the crowds ask Peter: "What shall we do?", and the same question is on the lips of the repentant Saul (<em><a href='B:510 2:37'>Act 2:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:6'>Act 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:6'>Act 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:10'>Act 22:10</a></em>). The answer of course is to repent and be baptized. But the rich fool ignored that and identified himself with his possessions (:15), and answered accordingly. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: This will I do. I will pull down my barns and build greater ones, and there will I store all my grain and my goods</em>- The Greek phrase for bestowing / gathering / storing into barns is to be found in <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:490 3:17'>Luk 3:17</a></em> - every time in the context of gathering God’s people into God’s Kingdom. This is what he should have been doing with his time and wealth. The barn represents the Kingdom. The man should've sought the things of God’s Kingdom or barn, rather than his own, trying to build his own fake Kingdom here on earth (: 31). As noted on :17, the answer to the question "What shall I do?" ought to have been to devote himself to the Lord.</p><p>Solomon's obsession with building the temple and his own houses shows a massive attraction towards material things. Ecc. 2 chronicles how he crazily tried to accumulate every branch of material possession. Solomon figuratively chastised the people with whips in the form of the excessive tax he raised in order to build store cities (<em><a href='B:110 9:15'>1Ki 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a></em>), in which to store all his accumulation. Surely this is behind the Lord's parable of the rich fool, devoid of wisdom in practice, who built ever bigger barns because of his lack of understanding about the future Kingdom. The Hebrew for "<em>store</em> cities" (<em><a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a></em>) is also translated "to heap up", strengthening the connection with the rich fool (<em><a href='B:490 12:15-28'>Luk 12:15-28</a></em>). That parable stresses the self-centredness of the fool- just circle all the occurrences of the word "I". A similar over-use of personal pronouns in Ecc 24-8 makes the same point. <em><a href='B:250 2:26'>Ecc 2:26</a></em> records how Solomon reflected that the sinner "heaped up" treasures- using the same word as for his "<em>store</em> cities". He saw his error, but wasn't bothered to do anything about it:&nbsp; </p><p>It has been posited: "Roman farming manuals, for example, contain admonitions that storage facilities should be used so that the farmer can wait until a more propitious time to sell his crops. Cato, for one, advises that a farmer should "have a well-built barn and storage room and plenty of vats for oil and wine, so that he may hold his products for good prices; it will redound to his wealth, his self-respect, and his reputation" (On Agriculture 3.2). Prov. 11:26, on the other hand, says that "people curse those who hold back grain"".</p>


text:
<p><em>And I will say to my soul: Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years</em></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:32'>1Co 15:32</a></em>. The rich fool reasoned that because he had had a big harvest, he would build bigger barns and relax, because he had enough to last him “many years” (<em><a href='B:490 12:18-19'>Luk 12:18-19</a></em>). The unreal element here is that a harvest doesn’t last many years, especially in a Middle Eastern climate with no way of effectively preserving it. And the lesson, on reflection, is obvious. Riches don’t last for ever, he who earns big wages puts them into a bag with holes in… and yet there is the genuine conviction that they will last much longer than they do. Another unreal element here is that the rich man is described as speaking <em>with himself</em>. It's hard for some cultures to appreciate how Middle Eastern culture is a collective affair. Decisions are taken through much discussion with other people. Likewise, the rich man plans out how to enjoy his wealth <em>alone</em>. There is no speech to his family; he invites <em>himself</em> to rejoice with <em>himself</em>. But all these unreal elements about this man signpost to us the loneliness, insulation and selfishness which is brought about by excess wealth and the increase of investments. It's so relevant to the 21st century. By the way, there's a word play going on here. The man whose land brings forth many things (<em>eu-phoreo</em>) and therefore wants to be merry (<em>eu-phraino</em>) is actually a fool- <em>aphron</em>- an <em>a-phron</em> person, a person without those things. All those things were "required" of him, as a loan is required. They weren't really his. And as so often, the parable is left hanging, with no actual response from the man. We have to imagine where the man's mind turned, what he thought... and take the lesson. </p><p><em>Take your ease, eat, drink, be merry</em>- A direct quotation from Epicurean philosophers. The Lord is directly engaging with secular ideas current at the time. But no quotation marks or used, nor acknowledgment of sources given. Many of the Bible's 'difficult passages' are because of these kinds of allusions to contemporary phrases, ideas and literature, many of which are not preserved today.</p><p>This is also a direct quote from the LXX of Ecc. 8:15: "there is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and enjoy”. But that is the perspective of the man who lives with no perspective of future judgment.</p><p>For each aspect of true spirituality, there is a fake counterpart; an appearance of peace when a man has no peace with God; a semblance of prayer and Bible study when actually these are performed as exercises devoid of meaning. The pseudo-believer takes “ease” (<em><a href='B:490 12:19'>Luk 12:19</a></em>) in his materialism; and yet this is the same word used about the true “rest” which the Lord gives in His ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>). If we allow ourselves to be caught up in this, then we are effectively having our part in the spirit of antiChrist. There will not only be a fake Jesus, but there is already within our natures a shadow spirituality, which apes the real thing, and thereby seeks to persuade us that we can take the crown without the cross. In this lies the colossal practical relevance of this theme to the serious believer. </p>


text:
<p><em>But God said to him: You foolish one, this night is your soul required from you, and the things which you have prepared, whose shall they be?</em>- The parable of the rich fool is the Lord's response to a man asking him to get involved in persuading the man's brother to share the inheritance of their late father. As ever, the Lord replies to such questions obliquely and always in terms of overarching higher principle. His parable here features the question of who shall receive what a man has carefully laid up and saved during his life. It's as if He is asking the man to stop worrying about receiving the inheritance- and instead consider his father to actually have been a fool for laying it all up in store and not using it himself for God. Here again we see the Lord's apparently simply stories actually having a radical twist to them. The fool's children and family aren't mentioned. But most wealthy men were married at that time or at least within some wider family context. They aren't mentioned because the Lord was focusing on the fact the man was so self centered. Whether or not they existed, the man saw his wealth as for his own enjoyment. The Lord is also cutting hard into the idea that a man who built up wealth and left it to others was actually a good man, a relative to be proud of. Indeed, a wise man who saved his wealth for future use rather than spent it. But the Lord calls the man a fool. This is all built in to His question "Whose shall [these things] be?".  </p><p>
God calls the man a "fool"; for the fool has said in his heart [and this parable talks much of this man's heart] that there is no God (Ps. 14:1). He speaks to himself and the voice of his own self talk is his authority. But then God speaks to him- and takes away his life. He has acted as if God doesn't exist. His life consisted in what things he owned, rather than in God. Such materialism is hereby branded effective atheism. 
</p><p>Gk. / RVmg. "They shall require of thee". Who are the "they"? The reference could be to "the goods" of :19, "the things" of the latter part of :20. The things required his life. He didn't own them, they owned him. And so he had no life of his own. Or the "they" could be the Angels, to whom we shall give account at the day of judgment (:9). A similar, related Greek word is in :48- as God has given much to us, so "they"- the Angels- will require of us during the judgment process. But the exact same Greek word translated "required" occurs only in <em><a href='B:490 6:30'>Luk 6:30</a></em> - we should give to others and not 'ask again' of them. The connection teaches that insofar as we 'require' of others, so it will be 'required' of us. If we forgive freely without demanding repentance, so God will treat us; if we 'require again' of others in this life, so God will of us. In a sense our lives are required of us when we die in that our next conscious moment will be the judgment. </p><p>The word for "required" was a commercial term, used of a loan. The man, every man, has life and whatever wealth we have as a loan from God. It must be repaid- if we don't use it. Like the one talent man, he had not used it at all but had become lost in narcissism. Jim Elliot's words are so true: “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose”. This reasoning cuts so hard against the modern ideal of building up a pension pot large enough to empower a retirement of luxury living.</p><p>This is an allusion to various passages from the Apocrypha, especially Ecclesiasticus- as noted on :19, the Lord is again&nbsp;engaging with contemporary ideas.</p><p>"Prepared" is the same word as "prepared" in v. 47. We must prepare ourselves, our character and personality; we provide or prepare by being generous to others, v. 33. Because we do not have an immortal soul that is somehow recycled into us through reincarnation, our soul / life is given to us by God. In the parable of the rich fool, the Lord says that in the day of his death, his soul was “required” of him. The Greek word for ‘required’ means ‘to ask back, to request to be given again’. The fact we have life [a ‘soul’] makes us responsible to God; and at the judgment we will be asked to give that life back to Him with an account. And, as the parable shows, this utterly precludes a focus upon material acquisition. The Lord goes on to say that therefore we should take no anxious thought about what our soul will eat or wear- because our soul / life is in fact God’s soul / life, and He will care for it until He takes it back to Himself (<em><a href='B:490 12:22'>Luk 12:22</a></em>). The soul is greater than food and clothes (<em><a href='B:490 12:23'>Luk 12:23</a></em> Gk:). The wonder that we are alive, with God’s life in us, should be far greater to us than what we feed or clothe it with. Because we can’t take that life out of ourselves until God does, nor can we give it to another person, nor can we make our body / soul grow taller, <em>therefore </em>we should not take anxious thought for the material things related to it, which are all peripheral compared to the wonder of the fact that we have life from God: “why take ye thought for the rest [Gk. ‘the things that are left over / extraneous’]?” (<em><a href='B:490 12:26'>Luk 12:26</a></em>). And to drive the point home, we are bidden “consider” (s:w. ‘discover’) the birds and plants, who are simply content with the life God has given them. This was the Lord’s way of doing what Solomon did in <em><a href='B:250 3:17-20'>Ecc 3:17-20</a></em> - showing that man and plants and animals are all possessed of the same God-given spirit / life. As <em><a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a></em> make clear, the spirit / life is given by God to our bodies; it doesn’t come from anywhere else. There is no reincarnation. And this is no painless Bible fact; it demands that we live lives that are <em>His</em>, and not lived out as if our spirit / life / soul is <em>ours</em>. The fact that God “holdeth our soul in life”, a reference to <em><a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a></em>, means that David wanted to “make the voice of his praise to be heard” (<em><a href='B:230 66:8-9'>Psa 66:8-9</a></em>). This was the meaning of the basic facts of creation for David!</p><p>The man who built greater barns realized on the night of his death that all his laid up treasures could not be his after his death. And yet this is couched in the very language of Ecclesiastes. We can come to that attitude and understanding right now; and if we don’t, we will come to it on our deathbeds or at judgment day. The parable of the pounds may be intended to describe our dealing with wealth. This is how it would have appeared to the Lord’s first hearers. </p>


text:
<p><em>So is he that lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God</em>- Without in any way seeking to teach justification by works, it is also true that there are Bible passages which imply that there will be a reckoning up of a man’s good works at the last day. The rich fool should have been “rich toward God” (<em><a href='B:490 12:21'>Luk 12:21</a></em>); he should have hoarded up spiritual wealth and fruit against his last day rather than material things. Yet this of course will not have been consciously done; yet the judgment process will reveal the good works of the righteous to them and others. </p><p>"Rich towards" is a phrase only used elsewhere in <em><a href='B:520 10:12'>Rom 10:12</a></em>, where Paul observes that the Lord is "rich towards" all believers. The fool had failed to perceive God’s richness, or generosity, towards him; and so he was rich towards, or generous to, himself rather than God. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to his disciples: Therefore I say to you, do not be anxious for life, what you shall eat. Nor yet for your body, what you shall put on</em>- This is all building up to the momentous challenge of :33 to sell what we have and give to the poor. The allusion is to how God provided food and clothing for Israel as they journeyed through the desert to the promised land. </p><p>The Lord' teaching is concerned with how we think, with inculcating spiritual mindedness. The exhortations in this section against materialism arise out of that- they are appeals not to be materialistic and faithless in God’s provision, because this leads to our thinking, our heart and mind, being on those things rather than with the Lord. It's true that the Greek translated 'thought' can mean 'no&nbsp;<em>anxious</em>&nbsp;thought'. But the problem is that we can make this mean that we are in fact allowed to spend a lot of time thinking about material things, so long as we're not 'anxious'. This line of interpretation seems to ignore the wider context. We can be spiritually minded, the Lord is teaching, if we simply accept that we shall never go hungry or naked. God will provide for His children who trust in Him. The Lord clearly saw material concerns as being the great enemy of daily spiritual mindedness. The emphasis upon not taking thought is considerable- the Lord uses the word five times in swift succession (<em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:27-28'>Mat 6:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>). And He repeats the command not to take thought for what we shall eat or drink (<em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>). Luke's record records this warning not to worry about what we shall 'eat and drink' only once (<em><a href='B:490 12:29'>Luk 12:29</a></em>), but it is prefaced by the parable of the rich fool, upon whose lips we find the same words. After he has spent a lifetime amassing wealth, he says to himself "eat, drink and be merry" (<em><a href='B:490 12:19'>Luk 12:19</a></em>). Clearly we are to understand him as a man who failed to live by the Lord's principles not to worry about eating and drinking. Yet he was not poor. He was fabulously rich. The point is thus established that the rich, or at least those who have enough to eat and drink, are not to consider the Lord's principle as speaking only to the desperately poor who are tempted to worry about what they shall eat. The principle applies to the rich too. For it is a basic human principle that all of us, rich or poor, are tempted to expend mental thought about how we shall basically survive. The omission of the Sermon in John is typical of how John omits much of the Synoptic material, and yet repeats it in essence. He records the same 'eat and drink' language about our need eat and drink of the flesh and blood of the crucified Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:53'>Joh 6:53</a></em>). The point perhaps is that instead of expending mental energy worrying about how we shall eat and drink, we are to instead focus upon absorbing the Lord Jesus into our lives. And all material things will somehow fall into place. A similar idea is to be found in the Lord's warning not to worry about what clothing to "put on", because He uses the same word about how the rejected man had not 'put on' the wedding garment of the Lord's righteousness (<em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>). Repeatedly the later New Testament appeals for us to "put on [s:w:] the Lord Jesus" (<em><a href='B:520 13:12'>Rom 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 13:14'>Rom 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:27'>Gal 3:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:24'>Eph 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:11'>Eph 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:14'>Eph 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:10'>Col 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:12'>Col 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:8'>1Th 5:8</a></em>), so that in the last day we may 'put on' the clothing of immortality (s:w. <em><a href='B:530 15:53-54'>1Co 15:53-54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:3'>2Co 5:3</a></em>). If putting on&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;garment is our mental focus, then we need not worry about what we shall 'put on' for clothing in this life.</p><p>This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:570 4:6'>Phi 4:6</a></em>. How do we obey that command to "take no thought for your life"? By praying consciously for every little thing that you need in daily life, e.g. daily bread. We do not have two masters; only one. Therefore, the more we grasp this, the more we will give ourselves solely to Him. And this leads on, in the thinking of Jesus, to having no anxious thought for tomorrow; for a life of total devotion to Him means that we need not worry about tomorrow (<em><a href='B:470 6:24-25'>Mat 6:24-25</a></em>). If we seek first His Kingdom, then we will not be anxious for tomorrow (<em><a href='B:470 6:33-34'>Mat 6:33-34</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>For the life is more than the food, and the body more than the clothing</em>- I noted on :15 that the Lord is teaching us to make a radical divorce between our life and our possessions. The presence of the articles focuses attention upon&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;life and&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>body- and surely the Lord has in view the life to come, which will involve having a glorious&nbsp;<em>body</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:570 3:21'>Phi 3:21</a></em>), not existence in any disembodied sense. The contrast is therefore between this present life, and&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;life to come; this present body, and&nbsp;<em>the</em> body which is to be given us. It's a question of identification; whether we focus upon this present life and body, or perceive that this life is but a miniscule percentage of our eternal existence, when we will not be living this life with this body. The life and the body to come are "more" than the present life and body; and the Greek for "more" is elsewhere translated 'the greater part', the idea being 'the major portion'. The vastly greater part of our existence will be with&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;life and&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>body which is yet to come. If we are secure in Christ and confident of our eternal destiny by His grace, then issues pertaining to this life and this body become insignificant.</p><p>When the Lord taught that “the life is more than the food” which we worry about today (<em><a href='B:490 12:23'>Luk 12:23</a></em> RV), and “the body [which we shall receive] is more than the raiment”, He surely means that our hope of eternal life, <em>the</em> life, the only real and ultimate life worth having, should eclipse our worries about today’s problems of survival. Not worrying about food, drink and clothing, which God will provide, is likely an allusion to His provision for Israel during their wilderness journey to the promised land. And in this context the Lord encourage us: “Seek ye the Kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you… fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:490 12:31-32'>Luk 12:31-32</a></em>). If it is God’s pleasure to give us the Kingdom, then surely He will give us all basic necessities until that time comes. Our certainty of being there thus greatly relieves us from earthly cares, compared to the person who has no such hope.</p>


text:
<p><em>Consider the ravens, how they do not sow nor reap. They have no store nor barn, but God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds!</em>- Gk. 'gaze into'. Surely He drew attention to some birds flying around. And the Greek words behind "Behold" mean more than a casual glance. He asks us to look for some time with deep penetration at the birds of the natural creation, and learn a lesson.</p><p>As always, the Lord applied His words to Himself. For we sense in <em><a href='B:470 8:20'>Mat 8:20</a></em> that He had really thought about His words. Yes, the Father feeds the birds- but they have nests, and the Son of Man at least that night had nowhere to lay His head. Note too that the birds of the air are generally unclean (<em><a href='B:510 10:12'>Act 10:12</a></em>). The fact God feeds even the unclean animals ties in with the Lord's opening comfort when He began the Sermon that His message is for those who worry about their uncleanness and spiritual inadequacy before God.</p><p>Sow... reap... gather into barns&nbsp;are words repeatedly used by the Lord Jesus, especially in Matthew, for the work of the Gospel. The seed of the word is&nbsp;<em>sown&nbsp;</em>(Matthew records three sowing parables- <em><a href='B:470 13:3'>Mat 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:31'>Mat 13:31</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>); then&nbsp;<em>reaped</em>&nbsp;at Christ's return (<em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em> - as in <em><a href='B:540 9:6'>2Co 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:7-9'>Gal 6:7-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:15'>Rev 14:15</a></em>), and finally&nbsp;<em>gathered</em>&nbsp;(by the preachers and Angels, <em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></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:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>), "into my barn" (<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 Kingdom. We cannot simply ignore all this use of identical language in Matthew's Gospel. I noted at <em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em> and elsewhere that the Lord is often saying 'Do not worry about the activities which are part of this life, but focus instead on doing those activities in a spiritual sense'. I gave the example of how the command not to worry about what we shall physically eat and drink implies that we should instead be concerned about our spiritual eating and drinking. Remembering the focus of the Sermon upon the need for outgoing, proactive sharing of the Gospel, it would be fair to conclude that the Lord wishes us to not worry about sowing, reaping and gathering into barns in the literal sense, but instead to concern ourselves with doing those things&nbsp;<em>in the work of the Gospel</em>. 'Focus on sharing the Gospel, and all the material things will fall into place if you just trust that they will work out OK'.</p><p>God consciously feeds the birds with their every mouthful. In the same way, God individually and consciously cares for each blade of grass. Fundamentally, they do not grow so much as a result of chemical combination or photosynthesis, but due to the conscious care of God using such processes. The idea of every little thing in life and the world being controlled by Angels contradicts the notion that God has set this world in motion according to certain natural laws, and that things continue without His direct intervention- as if the whole system is run by clockwork which God initially wound up. Intervention in this system by God has been called 'the hand of providence'. However, these ideas surely contradict the clear Biblical teaching that every movement in the natural creation is consciously controlled by God through His Angels, thus needing an energetic input from Him through His Spirit for every action to occur:&nbsp;"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither&nbsp;do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your Heavenly Father feeds them" suggests that God consciously feeds the birds with their every mouthful. See too <em><a href='B:470 5:45'>Mat 5:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:29-31'>Mat 10:29-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 38:12'>Job 38:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 38:32'>Job 38:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 39:27'>Job 39:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:6'>Amo 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:7'>Isa 40:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 90:3'>Psa 90:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 104:13'>Psa 104:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 11:1'>Pro 11:1</a></em>.</p><p>Things being "better than" or "of more value than" is quite a theme in the thinking of the Lord Jesus. The Greek word is used by Him at least three times in this way. Better than the birds, than many sparrows (<em><a href='B:470 10:31'>Mat 10:31</a></em>), than a sheep (<em><a href='B:470 12:12'>Mat 12:12</a></em>). Doubtless this thought was developed in the Lord by His observation of birds, flocks of sparrows and sheep- developing the implications of the simple thought that we are of more value than them to God. For we are made in His image in a way in which they are not.</p>


text:
<p><em>And which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to the measure of his life?</em>- As always, the emphasis is upon the state of the heart. No amount of mental worry can add anything to us. And so our hearts and minds should instead be devoted to the God who can transform our body into an eternal state of existence. The same word for "add" occurs in <em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>. We cannot ultimately 'add' anything to ourselves in secular life; if we seek first the things of God’s Kingdom [i:e. 'take thought' for them rather than our material life], then what is necessary for the material, human life will be added to us. The concept of 'addition' suggests we are to see ourselves as ourselves&nbsp;<em>without</em>&nbsp;the issues of food, clothing and survival. We are then to decide how we are to take care of those 'additional' issues. And the Lord is teaching that we are to focus upon spiritual things and the service of God’s Kingdom, believing that He will 'add' these things to us. To perceive ourselves independent from our human, secular needs and position is hard. But Paul got the idea right when he spoke of how we bring nothing into this world and can take nothing out (<em><a href='B:610 6:7'>1Ti 6:7</a></em>). 'We' come into this world; we exist, but have nothing added to us initially. And 'we' exit this world, likewise without anything 'added'.</p><p>No amount of secular thought can add age to our lives. Because life, the eternal life, comes only from God. So it is to Him that our hearts belong. Again, the Lord Jesus was the word of the Sermon made flesh in His own example. For we read that He grew in stature before God (<em><a href='B:490 12:52'>Luk 12:52</a></em> s:w:)- not by anxious worldly thought. Perhaps Zacchaeus thought upon the implications of the Lord's words, because Luke uses the same word to note that he was of inadequate stature (<em><a href='B:490 19:3'>Luk 19:3</a></em>). The 'stature' that we seek to attain is not any physique or longevity in this life- but the "stature of the fullness of Christ" (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em> s:w:). The amount of thought and effort that goes into trying to live longer, adding a cubit to our lifespan, is immense. And understandably so, for those who have only this life. Surely the Lord is saying that we should give no anxious thought to this, but rather, give our mental energy to growing into the age / stature of Himself.</p>


text:
<p><em>If then you are not able to do even that which is least, why are you anxious concerning the rest?</em>- The least is to add age to our lives, even just a little bit. The Lord is arguing from the viewpoint that "life" is the most important thing we have. To add a fraction to its length is "the least"; and therefore concerns about what we do with that life is "the rest" which should not be worried about exactly because we cannot add length to our lives. This is an unusual but powerful argument against anxious worry. We cannot extend our lives; and therefore, given our inability, we shouldn't worry about "the rest" because we simply have no power to change it anyway. All we can do is to surrender our lives and existence into the hands of a loving Father and His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>Consider the lilies- </em>Gk. 'to study deeply', used only here in the NT. Whilst no doubt the Lord with a wave of the hand did draw attention to the mountain lilies growing where He was teaching, He was most definitely not inviting us to take a cursory glance at them. But rather to study them; and the unusual Greek word used for "consider" drove home that point. Perhaps He picked one and invited the disciples to gaze at it in silence for some time.</p><p><em>How they grow- </em>The Greek can mean 'in what way' and also 'how much', 'to what great extent'.</p><p><em>They do not toil, nor do they spin- </em>As so often in the Lord's teaching and parables, He was careful to balance what He said with relevance to both men ['toiling' in Greek has the idea of heavy labour], and women [spinning]. The appeal for those who are 'toiling' in heavy labour to come to Christ (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>) is an invitation to know in this life a lifting of the curse of labour which came upon Adam. This is not to say that we shall not have to labour, but the desperate toiling for survival is mitigated by the knowledge that God will ultimately provide for His people.</p><p><em>Yet I say to you, even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these</em>- </p><p>It is hard to avoid the connection with the description of the righteous as being clothed in glory at the last day. The clothing metaphor is repeated throughout the NT in this connection (e.g. <em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:18'>Rev 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:13'>Rev 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>). Of course we are dealing with metaphor here- plants are not literally clothed, although perhaps the Lord was alluding to them flowering as their 'glory'. The lily is glorious for what it is, not because it has laboured to make itself something other than it Is. We will be made glorious by God in Christ. The city set on a hill cannot be hid. We are who and as we are before God. There is nothing to cover with clothing. This consideration alone puts the whole issue of present clothing into perspective.</p><p>The Lord Jesus hinted indirectly at Solomon's pride when he said that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one wild flower, symbolic of how God would clothe, with imputed righteousness, even the weakest believer:&nbsp; This reference to Solomon is only one of several hints that our Lord read Solomon in a negative light:&nbsp;&nbsp;In this context He warns against excessive attention to food, drink and clothes- all things which the court of Solomon revelled in to a quite extraordinary extent. "Take therefore no (anxious) thought for the morrow... sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" (<em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>) sounds like a rebuke of the way Solomon did just this in Ecclesiastes, as he intellectually battled with the sadness of knowing that all his achievements would mean nothing in the future. "But", says Jesus, "seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you" (<em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>)- clearly a reference to Solomon seeking Divine wisdom and subsequently being blessed; surely the Lord is telling us to follow Solomon's example in this, but to avoid his pride and materialism. Solomon didn’t seek the future Kingdom of God, but rather his own. The Lord taught that we should love our enemies, and not fall into the trap of only loving those who love us (<em><a href='B:470 5:44-46'>Mat 5:44-46</a></em>). He seems to be alluding here to Solomon’s claim that wisdom says: “I love them that love me” (<em><a href='B:240 8:17'>Pro 8:17</a></em>). Maybe I’m wrong, and the Lord didn’t have His mind there on that passage; but in the context of Him re-interpreting and re-presenting Solomon to us, it seems likely that He was consciously showing that God’s grace is in fact the very opposite of what Solomon thought. God loves His enemies, and doesn’t only love those who love Him; and this is to be our credo likewise:&nbsp;The record of how Solomon spoke of his building of the temple can now be seen as blatant pride in his external appearance of spirituality;&nbsp; without the foregoing analysis of the&nbsp;<em>hints&nbsp;</em>of Solomon's pride, this wouldn't necessarily be a correct conclusion to reach;&nbsp; but with all these inspired links, surely we can read the following as pure pride: "Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven (hardly praying in his closet!&nbsp; Was the Lord alluding to Solomon in <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>?)... the house that I have built for thy name" (<em><a href='B:110 8:22'>1Ki 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:44'>1Ki 8:44</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;Solomon's frequent emphasis on the fact that&nbsp;<em>he&nbsp;</em>built the house makes a telling connection with the principle that God does not live in houses&nbsp;<em>built</em>&nbsp;by men (<em><a href='B:510 17:24'>Act 17:24</a></em>?)&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But if God does so clothe the grass in the field, which today is- </em>The blessings God gives us do not come by clockwork- we thankfully recognize they are individual acts of mercy towards us. Perhaps&nbsp;our sometimes 'clockwork' prayers are an indication that we think God’s blessings of food etc. are clockwork too? In the same way, God individually and consciously cares for each blade of grass. Fundamentally, they do not grow merely as a result of chemical combination or photosynthesis, but due to the conscious care of God using such processes. The worry-free life is a characteristic of the true believer. If God gave us His Son, how much more will He not give us “all things”?&nbsp; “Clothe” translates the Greek&nbsp;<em>amphi-hennumi</em>- to enrobe around. The Lord seems to have been referring to a type of wild flower that appears to be draped around by its natural skin, rather like an irIs. God gives the wild flowers robes… although they do not spin them or work for them. Solomon’s robes weren’t as beautiful as them. And how&nbsp;<em>much more</em>&nbsp;will God clothe us, both literally and with salvation (for this is how the Bible usually uses the idea of God clothing us). God does so much for the lilies, who are to be ‘thrown into the fire’… a phrase which inevitably connects with the Lord’s other uses of that idea to describe the final condemnation of the wicked (as in <em><a href='B:660 1:11'>Jas 1:11</a></em>). God cares for flowers, and He even cares and provides for those whom He will one day condemn. For God to keep such people alive is a conscious outflowing of His lavish energy, His gracious gift of life and health. If He does that for things and persons which will ultimately be ‘thrown nto the fire’, how&nbsp;<em>much more</em>&nbsp;will He clothe us. Let’s remember that creation isn’t run on clockwork; God makes His rain come, and His sun to rise, on the just and unjust; He’s aware when a bird falls from the air; counts the hairs on our heads, as a mother dotes over a new-born baby’s features. Just by keeping alive humanity (indeed, all of creation), God is lavishing His grace and consciously outgiving of Himself.</p><p><em>And tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more shall he clothe you- </em>The idea of 'casting' is used by the Lord with reference to condemnation at the last day; and 'the oven' is reminiscent of the imagery of Gehenna fire to destroy the rejected. If God shows so much care and gives so much passing glory to that which shall be rejected and be ultimately unused by Him in eternity- how much more will he clothe us whom He loves and has accepted with His nature. All worry about what garment we shall physically put on, let alone whether it has a brand name on it or not, becomes subsumed beneath the wonder of the metaphor of our final clothing.</p><p><em>O you of little faith?</em>- The Lord tells the disciples that they are “of little faith” if they don’t perceive and live by what He is teaching about God’s care for the flowers. The ‘faith’ is surely faith in the simple fact that God lavishes His loving care upon us, just because, like a flower, we are here as His creation, in His eternal purpose. All flesh is as grass, and yet the Lord speaks as if God treats us as better than the grass “which is today in the field and tomorrow is cast into the oven” (<em><a href='B:490 12:28'>Luk 12:28</a></em>).</p><p>The "little faith" is not so much in God’s promised provision of physical clothing, but in the promise of final clothing in salvation. But God’s care even for those whom He shall condemn, keeping them in life, and the glory He gives to the plant and animal creation which last but for days, is sure encouragement that He shall so much more super abundantly clothe us with salvation- and also, will ensure we don't go physically naked in this world. The Gospel records, as transcripts of the disciples' early preaching, show the disciples appealing to others to have faith, to believe and be baptized. And yet the same accounts record so often how weak and small was the disciples' faith. Matthew is a classic example: <em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:8'>Mat 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>. It was on the basis of this acknowledged weakness of their own, that the disciples could appeal so powerfully to others. The more real they showed themselves to be, the more credible was their appeal.</p>


text:
<p><em>And do not seek what you shall eat and what you shall drink, neither be of doubtful mind</em>- Clothes have been mentioned in :28. These are the three things God provided for Israel in their wilderness journey. The same old clothes, food (manna) and water, of course. But He provided for them. God will provide, but the question is, how does He provide? The same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 25:36'>Mat 25:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:38'>Mat 25:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:43'>Mat 25:43</a></em> about the believer in Christ who is not clothed, and needs to be clothed by other believers- some of whom refuse to, whilst others do. If God really does provide food and clothing for His people- why are some apparently without them? One window onto that question might be that potentially all such needs have been met, in that the food and clothing is within the brotherhood. But there can be a dysfunction, in that it is not shared out as it should be- meaning that some go without the provision which God has potentially provided. But another window is that David could say that he had never seen the seed of the righteous begging bread at any time in his long and varied life (<em><a href='B:230 37:25'>Psa 37:25</a></em>). And despite a lifetime in the poorer world I also have yet to encounter this. The promise holds true, in my observation.</p><p>We are to firmly believe in His provision, without being in any sense "doubtful" about it. This lack of doubt will remove all materialism and concern about providing for our futures.</p>


text:
<p><em>For all these things the nations of the world seek after, but your Father knows you have need of these things</em>- God’s people who worry and spend their thoughts on eating, drinking and clothing are no better than the Gentile world. This was a radical thing to say to first century Jews. It is a common Biblical theme that the unspiritual amongst God’s people shall share the judgments of the world whom in spirit they are like. The idea of the Gentiles seeking is of course from <em><a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a></em>, where we read that finally the Gentiles will seek unto Christ (as in <em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em>). Perhaps the idea is that we should right now have that changed direction of 'seeking' which the Gentile world will have in the future. Our practical life in Christ is really all about our response to the abounding nature of God’s grace. If we really believe it, then we will trust in Him and not worry. The difference between the Gentile world and the believer in Christ is quite simply that we believe that our Father has this level of care and concern for us; and therefore we will not worry, whereas the unbelieving world worry constantly about material things. This is how much of a ‘first principle’ this really Is.</p><p>God knows our human situation. Our faithlessness and lack of spiritual mindedness is because of an unspoken sense that actually He is unaware of our needs and the nature of being human. But the God who knows all things is not unaware of humanity and the needs which accompany being human. Frequently the prophecies directed to the Jews returning from Babylon spoke at length of God’s amazing knowledge- because the sense was that whilst God existed, He did not know close-up about the human situation. He does, of course, know perfectly.</p>


text:
<p><em>Seek His kingdom- </em>Seeking is paralleled with taking thought in :29,30. The overall direction of our lives must be towards the Kingdom of God above all. If that is put "first", then actually there is no room for thought about much else. The idea is not 'Seek the Kingdom first, and other things secondly'. Rather must the 'seeking' of our thinking be towards the Kingdom. 'Seeking' was a common Hebraism for 'worship'. But the Lord has defined 'seeking' as thinking, as the overall direction of our mental state, our heart. It was not merely a question of going through the worship rituals of Judaism in a holy space such as the temple. True worship is redefined as the state of our heart. </p><p>The Lord's prayer asked us to pray firstly for the things of His Kingdom; this reflects our priorities. I noted under <em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em> that the coming of the Kingdom in our lives is through the doing of God’s will. The Lord's message is not simply that we should long for the coming of the Kingdom at His second coming; it is that starting right now, we should seek above all things to extend the principles of the Kingdom (as taught in the Lord'sparables of the Kingdom) in our lives and in the world around us.</p><p><em>And these things- </em>Semitic languages such as Aramaic and Hebrew can often have various levels of meaning in a phrase. The phrase may mean or say one thing, but also suggest something else. We are of course reading the expression of those phrases in Greek:&nbsp;<em>Pas tauta</em>&nbsp;(usually translated "all these things") need not necessarily be translated as a plural. The idea could equally be 'The whole, complete thing'- we might say 'The real deal'. And that would make sense of the connection between 'added' and <em><a href='B:470 6:27'>Mat 6:27</a></em>, which speaks of how we cannot 'add' a cubit to our lifespan. The implication could be that 'the real deal', the&nbsp;<em>real</em> thing- eternal life, salvation in God’s Kingdom- shall be added if we seek that Kingdom first and foremost. Alternatively, we can interpret more in line with the common translations and understand that 'all these things' is the same 'all these things' of the preceding verses- the material things which God knows we need. These things&nbsp;<em>will be added</em>&nbsp;to us if we do not seek them first, but rather seek God’s Kingdom first. But there is the suggestion that the real 'all things' for us is eternity in God’s Kingdom. For a discussion of what may have happened if these basic things are apparently&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;added to a believer, see on <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>.</p><p><em>Shall be added to you</em>- The same word is used just a few verses earlier, where the Lord has pointed out that we are unable to 'add' a cubit to our length of human life nor to our body height. </p>


text:
<p><em>Fear not little flock. For it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em>. The pleasure or will of our loving Father is that we should share His Kingdom, and that pleasure / will prospered through the cross of Jesus (<em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>). God isn’t indifferent. He wants us to be there. That’s why He gave His Son to die. It’s as simple as that. The deepest longings we feel in our earthly lives, as parents, as lovers, are mere flickers of the hungering desire God feels for us. It is a desire that cost Him His very own crucified son. The Lord Himself knew our basic tendency to disbelieve the certainty of our salvation when He comforted us here not to fear- and the implication is not to fear condemnation, not to fear exclusion from the Kingdom.</p><p>He spoke of us all as a little flock, fearing it is <em>not</em> the Father's pleasure / will to give us the Kingdom. In doing so, He was as ever drawing on the language of the OT. Joshua-Jesus encouraged Israel that Yahweh delighted / willed that they should enter the land (<em><a href='B:40 14:8'>Num 14:8</a></em>); but instead, they were too caught up with doubts... doubt about salvation, about what they could eat and drink day by day, and the giants in the land. This is the very context in which the Lord was speaking- fearing “the nations of the world”, doubting where food and clothes would come from, just as Israel did (<em><a href='B:490 12:22-29'>Luk 12:22-29</a></em>). Yet the pleasure / will of Yahweh is that we should share His Kingdom, and that pleasure / will prospered through the cross (<em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>):&nbsp;Therefore we should not fear or worry about our lack of material things, because God is eager to give us His Kingdom. The certainty of salvation which we may have ought to mean that worry about all human things of this life becomes irrelevant.</p>


text:
<p><em>Sell that which you have and give alms. Make for yourselves purses which do not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail- </em>The disciples were told to sell what they had (<em><a href='B:490 12:22'>Luk 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:32-33'>Luk 12:32-33</a></em>); but it seems they kept their fishing business. After having asked them this, the Lord again had to speak to them about forsaking all that they had (<em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). Their claim to have left literally all and followed Him (<em><a href='B:490 18:28'>Luk 18:28</a></em>) appears somewhat exaggerated. To follow Him meant taking up a cross (<em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>).</p><p>He warns the crowd not to everlastingly worry about where the next meal was coming from; and then in that very context, tells <em>them</em> to sell what they have (<em><a href='B:490 12:29-33'>Luk 12:29-33</a></em>). He wasn't just talking to the rich. He was telling the desperately poor to forsake what little they had, so as to seek His Kingdom. He probably didn’t mean them to take His words dead literally (cp. cutting off the offending hand or foot); what He surely meant was: 'Resign, in your mind, the possession of everything you have, concern yourselves rather with the needs of others and entering my Kingdom'. No wonder those crowds turned round and soon bayed for His blood. See on <em><a href='B:470 6:19'>Mat 6:19</a></em>.</p><p>The idea is of incremental growth. It’s as if spirituality, both in personality and deed, is carefully noted in Heaven as it occurs:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Where no thief draws near nor moth destroys</em>- Or, "corrupt". <em><a href='B:660 5:2'>Jas 5:2</a></em> alludes here and states that wealth is already rusted and moth-eaten. So this perhaps was the Lord’s idea here, although the grammar is unclear. The idea of gold is that it doesn’t rust. What appears to be permanent material wealth is not, and is already rusted in God’s eyes.</p><p>The Lord’s return is going to break up the house of those not looking for His return (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em> s:w:). It may be that ‘thieves’ is an intensive plural referring to the great thief, whom Jesus likens to Himself in <em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>. In this case He would be saying that He will take human wealth anyway at the last day- so we should give it to Him now and not seek it.</p><p>Because we know people (and brethren) who are richer and more wealth-seeking than we are, it's fatally easy to conclude that therefore we aren't rich, therefore we aren't materialistic. This is part of the subtle snare of aterialism; that we all think that this is an area where we're not doing too badly; that really, we don't care&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;much where we live, or what the furniture's like, or whether we have money to take a holiday... But remember, our attitude to materialism is the litmus test of all our spirituality. None of us should be so quick to say that we're OK in this area. These words were spoken to a huge crowd of Jewish peasants. The Lord wasn't only referring to the few rich men who might be hanging around on the edge of the group. He was talking to all of them. He knew their mud walled homes which thieves could so easily dig through. That little cheap bangle, that ring, thinly buried under the bed mat after the pattern of Achan, that prized tunic... the petty riches of the poor which they so strove for, which&nbsp;<em>to them</em>&nbsp;were priceless treasures. This is what the Lord was getting at; and His point was that&nbsp;<em>every one of us</em>, from beggar to prince, has this 'laying up' mentality. He is almost ruthless in His demands.</p>


text:
<p><em>For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also</em>- Gk. ‘to there’. The direction of our heart is towards where our treasure is. If our treasure is in Heaven, with God, then our life direction will be towards Him and not towards earthly things. The emphasis of the Lord throughout the Sermon has been on the state of the heart. The overall direction of our heart, our thinking, is all important. That direction cannot be both to earthly things and Heavenly things. Laying up treasure on earth cannot be done whilst having treasure in Heaven. The emphasis of course is on ‘laying up’, wilfully incrementing, not the mere possession of wealth which the Lord may send into our hands. ‘Laying up’ means to increment, not to merely possess. But it is the overall direction of our hearts which will be the deciding factor in our eternal destiny; ‘to where’ they are directed. And we can direct them by deciding what our treasure really is, and where it is.</p>


text:
<p><em>Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning</em>- </p><p><em><a href='B:490 12:35-39'>Luk 12:35-39</a></em> speaks of the Master coming at night and then sharing the Passover meal with those who are "watching":&nbsp; Israel were told to 'watch' throughout that first Passover night (<em><a href='B:20 12:42'>Exo 12:42</a></em> RV mg:), eating the meal with loins girded:&nbsp;Our Lord matches this with "let your loins be girded, and your lamps burning", referring to the virgins parable:&nbsp;Israel eating that meal together, huddled around the slain lamb, the oil burning lamps revealing their tense faces, is therefore a picture of what the new Israel should be like just prior to their deliverance.</p>


text:
<p><em>And be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 17:31'>Luk 17:31</a></em>. How we respond to the Lord now is how we will respond at His return. Those who open to Him immediately will be saved. The wise virgins go immediately and are thereby accepted, whereas the foolish delay their response. The implication is surely that those who are ready to drop all and go when He knocks, will be saved. Our reaction in that split second of knowing ‘He’s back!’ will determine our eternal destiny; it will effectively be our self-judgment. And yet in this life too, the figure of the Lord knocking at our door is used to describe our response to Jesus in this life (<em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em>). If there is no immediacy of response now, there will not be then.</p><p>The faithful watching for the Lord's return are here described as men waiting for their master to <em>return</em> from a wedding. But Christ's coming is also described as His coming <em>to</em> the wedding to marry the faithful. This difference may simply indicate that metaphor cannot be pressed too strictly or literally in the process of Biblical interpretation.</p>


text:
<p><em>Blessed are those servants, whom the master when he comes shall find awake- </em>Passover night was to be "a night of watching" (<em><a href='B:20 12:42'>Exo 12:42</a></em> RV mg:), strongly suggesting&nbsp;"watching in prayer" (<em><a href='B:560 6:18'>Eph 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:7'>1Pe 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:27'>2Co 11:27</a></em>). Similarly those who are found "watching" at the Lord's midnight coming (cp. that of the Passover angel) will be found acceptable. The picture of Israel in their family units huddled together around the Lamb, desperately focusing their attention on that saving blood, watching and praying, examining themselves- this is us, right now. For there can be no serious doubt that the second coming is almost upon our generation.</p><p>Our attitude to the second coming decides whether we will be in the Kingdom. In this sense we are judging ourselves, right now; we are formulating the outcome of the judgment seat by our attitude now towards the second coming:&nbsp; The proof for this lies in a group of passages which suggest that everyone who truly loves the return of his Lord will be in the Kingdom. Of course, a true love of His coming is only possible if we hold correct doctrine, and if our faith and behaviour is mature enough to be able to look with quiet joy and confidence towards that day. Thus our Lord said that all those whom He finds <em>watching</em> will be welcomed into the marriage feast. And <em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em> is plain enough: "All them also that love his appearing" will be rewarded along with Paul. Paul's own confidence in salvation was because he knew the earnestness of his desire to be "present with the Lord" Jesus (<em><a href='B:540 5:8'>2Co 5:8</a></em>), such was the closeness of his relationship with Him. Is this really our attitude too? Can we feel like Simeon, that we are quite happy to die after we have just seen our Lord with our own eyes (<em><a href='B:490 2:29'>Luk 2:29</a></em>)? Is there really much <em>love</em> between us and our Lord? </p><p>The foolish virgins knock on the door, i:e. ask for acceptance. At the second coming, the Lord knocked on their door, and they didn’t answer immediately. They had decided their own fate by their dilatory response. </p><p><em>Truly I say to you, that he shall dress himself for service and make them sit down to eat, and shall come and serve them</em>- The Lord’s self-crucifixion spirit was seen not only in His life and then finally in His death and subsequent life; but who He was in His mortal life, He will <em>eternally</em> be. He is the same yesterday as today and as for ever. He will dress Himself to serve us, as a servant, in His future Kingdom, reminiscent of how at the last supper and on the cross He in principle did the same (<em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>). Thus the spirit of the cross must be a way of life, and this feature of our characters will be seen in the Kingdom too. </p><p>The Lord’s exalted view of the disciples is reflected in how He washed their feet. To wash the feet of guests was more menial than we might imagine. It was normal to provide water for the guest to wash his own feet. The Midrash <em>Mekhilta</em> on <em><a href='B:20 21:2'>Exo 21:2</a></em> taught that a Jewish slave should never be required to wash his Master’s feet. But as a sign of extreme devotion and respect, some disciples of the most respected rabbis would wash their feet. Yet the Lord Jesus, having reminded them that He was indeed their Lord and Master, does this to them. And according to <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>, He will do this again to us in His Kingdom, in that He will then tie a cloth around Him and come forth and serve us. It would seem the Lord was referring back to this prophecy when He tied a cloth around Him and washed the disciples’ feet. This was how highly He thought of them; and that incident was an enacted prophecy of the attitude He will have to <em>us</em>, whom the 12 symbolize, even in the glory of His Kingdom. He surely totally redefined the nature of Lordship and respect. &nbsp;</p><p>The Master is so delighted that his servants are watching for Him that He immediately sits down and gets a meal ready for them, doing the serving Himself. There is an arresting element of unreality here. Would a Master really do this, at such an unlikely time at night, would he really serve himself, and would he really be so glad that the servants were waiting up for him? But these elements of unreality serve to teach the lessons: that the Lord will have unspeakable joy at His return because of our expectancy of the second coming, and He will surprise us by His glee and enthusiasm for us. See on <em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>.</p><p>The master makes the servants "recline at table"; they are made to feel like the Master, by the Master Himself! This is what it means to be "in Christ". There's a kind of out of scale inappropriacy about the idea that if the Master comes and finds the servants awake, then He will gird Himself and serve them. Of course they ought to be awake! But it's as if He is so especially impressed by this fact. And we who live awaiting His return need to take note. And the idea of the master serving is of course the idea behind the description of the cross in <em><a href='B:570 2:6-7'>Phi 2:6-7</a></em>. We should have the same awkward sense of wonder at the cross as we have when we recline at the breaking of bread. This implies that those who serve the emblems are in fact manifesting the Lord Jesus, and are actually of far greater significance than the president or the speaker. See on <em><a href='B:490 13:7'>Luk 13:7</a></em>. </p><p><em><a href='B:230 36:8'>Psa 36:8</a></em> says that God will "make us" partake of the blessings of the Kingdom of God. It reminds us of how the Lord Jesus said that in his Kingdom, he will "make us" sit down at a table, and he will come and serve us, knowing full well that he who sits at meat is greater than he who serves (<em><a href='B:490 22:27'>Luk 22:27</a></em>). It isn't so difficult to imagine this scene: the Lord of glory wanting us to sit down to a meal, and then <em>He</em> comes and serves us. He <em>will</em> have to "make us" sit down and let ourselves be served. Perhaps "<em>Come</em>, you blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>) likewise suggests a hesitancy of the faithful to enter the Kingdom. And perhaps the way the Lord had to 'make' the healed blind man look up and use his new sight was some kind of foretaste of this. There is even the suggestion in <em><a href='B:730 7:15'>Rev 7:15</a></em> that after the judgment process, the Lord will come down off His throne and mix with us, after the pattern of Joseph. See on <em><a href='B:490 18:17'>Luk 18:17</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. It is wrong to think that the Lord was only humble in His ministry, but will return with almost bitter indignation. This is not so. He girded Himself and served His men in the days of His flesh (<em><a href='B:500 13:4'>Joh 13:4</a></em>); and He will do <em>exactly</em> the same again, in the glory of His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>). That same essential humility of God and Jesus will be with Him; He won't have changed. It is His fundamental, eternal characteristic. The fear of God lest Israel would not attain the promised land ("lest peradventure...", <em><a href='B:20 13:17'>Exo 13:17</a></em>) shows His humility, in being so concerned for the salvation of petty man; and that characteristic likewise will be His, right up to and through and beyond the day of judgment:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord who will judge us knows us each individually. The question arises, ‘Why would <em>all</em> the servants stay awake in order to open the door (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>)? Why not just the night watchman? The answer is that there is a totally unique and special personal relationship between this Master and <em>all</em> His servants. </p>


text:
<p><em>And if he shall come in the second watch and if in the third and find them waiting, so blessed are they</em>- We must speak the word as others are able to hear it, expressing the Truths of Christ in language and terms which will reach them. There are some differences within the Gospels in the records of the parables. It could be that the different writers, under inspiration, were rendering the Lord's Aramaic words into Greek in different styles of translation. Also, we must bear in mind the different audiences. Mark speaks of the four watches of the night which would have been familiar to Romans (<em><a href='B:480 13:35'>Mar 13:35</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 6:48'>Luk 6:48</a></em>), whereas <em><a href='B:490 12:38'>Luk 12:38</a></em> speaks of the Jewish division of the night into three watches (cp. <em><a href='B:70 7:19'>Jdg 7:19</a></em>). Yet Luke seems to translate the Palestinian style of things into terms which were understandable by a Roman audience.</p>


text:
<p><em>But know this- </em>Our focus should be on‘knowing’ that we don’t ‘know’ the time of His coming; and therefore watching at all times, living&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;His return is imminent. This would be one explanation of why Paul and Peter write in their letters as if the Lord’s return is imminent when in fact He did not return in the first century.</p><p><em>That if the master of the house had known in what hour the thief was coming- </em>The Lord is drawing a parallel between the householder watching, and the disciples / believers watching, being aware of the possibility of the Lord's return at any moment. He will only come unexpectedly, as a thief, to those who are not watching and are caught unprepared. But almost every usage of&nbsp;<em>oikodespotes</em>&nbsp;in the parables is concerning the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:27'>Mat 13:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:1'>Mat 20:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:33'>Mat 21:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>). As so often, the Lord was speaking to the disciples but not forgetting to speak also to Himself. He was soon to ask them in Gethsemane to watch and pray&nbsp;<em>with Him</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 26:38'>Mat 26:38</a></em>); as if His watchfulness was to be theirs. In <em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em> He does also use this term about every scribe instructed in the things of the Kingdom. We are all the master of the house in the sense that we are to all be watching out for the household as a whole; the work of the Lord Jesus is to be our work. 'Watching' is thereby defined as not only watching ourselves, but watching out for the rest of the household. This is being presented here as the supreme way of not becoming unwatchful. By watching out for others we are watching for the Lord's return, living with the imminence of His coming over before us.</p><p><em>He would have stayed awake- </em>The point is surely that if we were to know when the Lord is coming, then we would watch for Him&nbsp;<em>at the time of His coming</em>; just as a householder would watch out for a thief if he knew ahead of time when the thief was coming. Because we do not know when the Lord is coming, we must watch for His coming all the time, living&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;He is coming imminently even though we do not&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;for sure whether He is or not. Therefore our living as if He is about to come is to be done independently of any hunches we may have that He is about to return, based as they usually are upon prophetic interpretations. </p><p><em>And not have left his house to be broken into</em>- This is the key; recognizing that the household of God is in fact our household, and we are to watch out for it as we would for our very own family. Indeed, it&nbsp;is<em>&nbsp;</em>our family. The connection is to <em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em> “<em>Your house</em>&nbsp;is left unto you desolate”. Here, “<em>his house</em>” is “broken up”. The Lord is saying that they were in the status of condemnation already. The physical breaking up of the temple would be the result of the elders of Israel not ‘watching’ as intended.</p>


text:
<p><em>You also- be ready- </em>The Lord was initially speaking to the disciples, the future elders of the church. The elders, represented by "the goodman of the house", have a special responsibility in this watching, so that the Lord's return is not thief-like to the 'house' of their ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>):&nbsp; They "watch for your souls" (<em><a href='B:650 13:17'>Heb 13:17</a></em>). But in a sense, the duty of watching falls to each of us: we're all elders (<em><a href='B:490 12:41-46'>Luk 12:41-46</a></em>). All believers are called to watch, and that watching involves watching for others. The connection with <em><a href='B:590 5:2'>1Th 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:6'>1Th 5:6</a></em> therefore suggests that one of the reasons for the unworthy experiencing the second coming "as a thief" will be the lack of awareness by their elders concerning the spiritual trials of the last days. The reverse is also true:&nbsp;A good latter-day elder will have to give his very soul to the work of watching over the flock, fully aware of the many dangers they face in the last days:&nbsp;&nbsp; It is difficult to see how this vital role can be filled by those who have sold their souls to demanding employers. This work can’t be simply left to others. This passage teaches that the servant who must feed the household with appropriate food represents each of us; he must watch for the Lord's return and be diligent in feeding the household; yet (it must be stressed), this parable is intended for each of us (cp. <em><a href='B:480 13:37'>Mar 13:37</a></em>). If he doesn't do this, he is rejected. We are set a high standard here. Christ is "the goodman of the house" (<em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>), but here "the goodman of the house" represents each of us (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:39-40'>Luk 12:39-40</a></em>). We are in Him, and therefore we must try to share his level of concern for his household. He carried his cross for us, for our salvation. And he asks us to share His cross, i:e. His devotion to the body of believers, even unto death. If we are in Him, we too must devote ourselves to the saving of the body.</p><p>The very same word and idea for "ready" is repeated in <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>. Those who were "ready" and responded immediately to the news of the Lord's return were accepted. The 'readiness' is in being constantly ready to leave all and go to&nbsp;be with the Lord. We shouldn't be so surprised, therefore, that life in this world is so unbearable for the believers; for we are being led to a point where we will be ready and eager to leave all for the sake of being with the Lord.</p><p><em>For in the hour you do not expect- the Son ofMan comes</em>- The fact we do not know the date of the Lord's return is what makes us live in a spirit of constant readiness for His coming. The point is that we should be “ready” even when we “think not” that the Lord’s coming is near. The contrast is being drawn between on one hand our ‘readiness’, and on the other, our ‘thinking’, our computing, our calculations, the seeming to us, that the return of Christ is near. "The Son of Man comes" uses the present tense, whereas “Be… ready” would properly require the future tense. There may be here a hint that the future coming of the Son of Man in essence is ongoing in the life of the believer.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Peter said: Lord, are you telling this parable aimed at us, or to everyone?</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:1'>Luk 13:1</a></em>. Peter perceived that the parable was aimed at those who had responsibility for the Lord's house / family. He wondered whether it could really be so that he and those immature disciples were really being spoken to as the elders of the new Israel; and he wondered whether actually the Lord meant that we are all elders. The Lord rarely answers questions directly, but lifts them to a higher level. And He does so here. He urges us each to take responsibility, and to grasp the urgency of living as if He will return any moment- knowing that this will mean giving an account for our responsibilities toward others.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the Lord said: Who then is the faithful and wise steward</em></p><p>- See on :41 and <em><a href='B:610 3:15'>1Ti 3:15</a></em>. One aspect of spirituality leads to another. Thus the Lord commends the one who is watching for His coming, and then speaks of how those who are to be accepted at His coming are those busy preparing spiritual food for their brethren (<em><a href='B:490 12:39'>Luk 12:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:42'>Luk 12:42</a></em>). The implication is that he who is watching, truly watching, for the return will be busy about the brotherhood’s needs; and in caring for them is our own personal preparedness:&nbsp; “Let patience have her perfect work... let brotherly love continue" sounds as if we must allow the process of righteousness inspired by spiritual acts of love and patience. We can obstruct that process (<em><a href='B:660 1:4'>Jas 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:1'>Heb 13:1</a></em>). </p><p>The Lord is replying to Peter's question as to whether we the hearers and readers are to assume that it is our responsibility to feed others in the household. The answer seems to be that yes it is, because this is what is naturally elicited by watching and being alert for the Lord's return.</p><p>Our ‘watching’ is to be expressed in terms of ensuring that all the household have their food at the appropriate time. In <em><a href='B:480 13:34-35'>Mar 13:34-35</a></em> the Lord expands on this parable in saying that each of the servants are given a different work, but He wants us to be like the doorkeeper [AV “porter”], whose job it was to simply watch- and “You, watch, therefore!”. Putting together the various images, we see that we are likened to the very master of the house; then to the chief steward who was to provide food for the household; and then to the lowest doorkeeper. We are thoroughly representative of the Lord Himself, the steward of the household, and the lowest servant, the doorkeeper. But throughout the analogies, we are to above all mirror the way in which they watched / looked out for the wellbeing of the household. Being occupied with this is what makes a person ready and watching for their Lord’s return.</p><p>This is the “good and faithful [s:w:] servant” of <em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em> who is commended for trading his Lord’s goods and making increase of them. Here, the duty of the faithful servant is to care for the household. These are different metaphors for the same reality- spiritual care for others is a way of increasing the overall wealth of the Lord and the progress of His household. We have been delegated a huge amount, and the Lord is ‘absent’, not in the sense that He is not spiritually with us, but in that He will not intervene in how we carry on His work. The salvation and spiritual prosperity of others is therefore in our hands. By laziness and unwise behaviour we can seriously damage them and limit the progress of the Lord’s business; and He being ‘absent’ will not forcibly intervene to stop us, in this life. The “wise servant” is likewise to be connected with the “wise [s:w:] virgins” (<em><a href='B:470 25:2'>Mat 25:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:4'>Mat 25:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:8-9'>Mat 25:8-9</a></em>). The connection is, however, slightly odd. The wise servant is to provide food for the others in the household. The wise virgins were unable to provide oil for the weaker members of the household, because they were themselves weak and had fallen asleep when clearly they were intended to remain awake. If the connection with the next parable is indeed purposeful, then we are left with the picture of the wise virgins being wise only in that they&nbsp;<em>intended</em>&nbsp;to provide for others, although in reality they were too weak themselves to follow through with that intention in practice. But their intention to do so was counted to them as wisdom.</p><p><em>Whom his master shall set over his household to give them their portion of food in due season?</em>- The idea is surely that if we are doing that now, we shall do it eternally. If we are found ‘doing’ care and provision for the household, then we shall be empowered to eternally do this in essence. The important thing is that when the Lord comes, He finds us engaged [at least mentally] with what we shall eternally be doing, living the essence of the Kingdom life now. We have been made ruler over the household now; we shall be set over it eternally if when the Lord comes He finds us doing what He has appointed us to do. When the Lord comes, He finds the servant either smiting the servants (<em><a href='B:470 24:49'>Mat 24:49</a></em>), or feeding and caring for them (<em><a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a></em>). Our attitude to our brethren in the moment of our Lord’s coming will decide our eternal future. The structure of the parable allows of no half way position. Thepurpose of any authority given to any of us within the household is in order to feed others. If that, in the end, is not being done, then we are abusing the trust and authority given us by the Lord. The “food” is called their&nbsp;<em>sitometron&nbsp;</em>in <em><a href='B:490 12:42'>Luk 12:42</a></em>, their “portion of food”, or ration. The impression is given of a steward providing the right food [‘nourishment’] for the right persons at the right time. This is the essence of all care for others:&nbsp;<em>Kairos</em>, “due season”, means literally ‘time’, and is often used about ‘the time’ of the Lord’s return (<em><a href='B:470 8:29'>Mat 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:3'>Mat 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:34'>Mat 21:34</a></em>). Indeed it is used in the Olivet prophecy for this moment: “You know not when the time is” (<em><a href='B:480 13:33'>Mar 13:33</a></em>). The idea seems to be that instead of worrying about calculating “the time” of the Lord’s coming, we are instead to be concerned with feeding others in the household at that&nbsp;<em>kairos</em>&nbsp;or time. This is the sign of our preparedness and watchfulness, and not our [apparent] skill in matching world events to Bible prophecies.</p>


text:
<p><em>Blessed is that servant, whom his master, when he comes, shall find so doing</em>- ‘Watching’ is a major theme here in the context; but the blessing in view here is for “doing”, actually providing nourishment for the household. Again we see the parallel between watching and doing. Watching can never be an academic interest in Bible prophecies. It has to be active, or else it isn’t ‘watching’ in the sense intended.</p><p>In "Shall find" we find emphasized the eternal importance of our attitude of mind at the moment of the Lord’s coming. Those who want to go to the Lord are confirmed in their desire by being snatched away to meet Him, whereas those who don’t have that immediacy of desire will be left behind, to be forcibly gathered to Him later.</p>


text:
<p><em>Of a truth I say to you, that he will set him over all that he has</em>- We each individually have this promise of being made ruler over <em>all</em> that Jesus has. The "all things" refers to the believers; a concordance study of these two words gives fair testimony to this. The ecclesia <em>is</em> the body of Christ, "the fullness of him that filleth all in all" (<em><a href='B:560 1:22-23'>Eph 1:22-23</a></em>). Let us pause to exult in this fact; that Jesus <em>exists</em> for no one else except the believers. Each of us is promised by Him that He will make us ruler over "all that he hath", i:e. all the saints. We will each rule over each other because we will each be so closely identified with the Lord Jesus; yet in another sense there will be a hierarchy of spiritual glory in the Kingdom.</p><p>If we are doing what we have been empowered to do for the household now, then we shall be appointed to eternally do this. The state of perfection in the Kingdom is described as us (the complete church of all ages) having reached, "a perfect man... the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", having grown up into Christ, who is the head of the body (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:15'>Eph 4:15</a></em>). When the Lord comes, we will each individually be made ruler over&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;that He has, we will each individually be fully righteous, fully manifesting the Lord Jesus. There seems to be marked connection with the fact (brought out in the parable of the talents) that we will each have&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the Master's goods, and the description in the next parable of those goods being distributed between us in this life (<em><a href='B:470 24:47'>Mat 24:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:15'>Mat 25:15</a></em>). In the Kingdom we will no longer know partially, as a result of seeing parts of the whole picture; we will see face to face (<em><a href='B:530 13:9'>1Co 13:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em> Gk:).</p><p>In this life, the servant was ‘made ruler over’ [s:w:] the household, his job was to feed his fellow servants. If he is found so doing at the Lord’s return, he will be made ruler over literally all that his master owns, “all his goods” (AV) is literally ‘all that He has’. This is a profound insight into the nature of eternity. All that God has will be put under us. God has not subjected the world to come to the Angels but to us (<em><a href='B:650 2:5'>Heb 2:5</a></em>). This is because “all things” are to be put in subjection under the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 2:8'>Heb 2:8</a></em>), and all that is true of Him is true of us. But that being part of Him is dependent upon our serving of our brethren within the household. He is the householder, but we also are, because we are in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if that servant- </em>The parable of <em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>; Mat 2530 likewise features two types of servant; the “faithful” servant [s:w:], and the equivalent of this "servant” is the “wicked and lazy servant… the unprofitable servant” (<em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>, <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). That servant who did nothing is paralleled with the servant who proactively got drunk, thought his Lord delayed, and beat his brethren. Despite all that bad behaviour, the real issue was that he did nothing positive for his Lord. So often, the fellow servants are effectively beaten because of the sins of omission, inaction, refusal to stand up for the abused:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Shall say in his heart-</em> The Bible knows nothing of a personal, cosmic Satan. Rather the real adversary is presented as the human heart, and therefore a huge amount of attention is given to the state of the human heart and the significance of our self-talk. Nobody consciously says ‘The Lord is delaying, great, now I can drink and abuse my brethren’. But the Lord puts His finger on the self-talk that goes on in our deep subconscious, and He does so in the context of warning against having a specific date in mind for the second coming.</p><p><em>My lord delays his coming- </em>There is no turning to atheism or rebellion against the Lord, but rather the root cause of the misbehaviour is placed by the parable upon the man’s mentality that because he knows the date of his Lord’s coming, he can just ensure he’s behaving properly when He comes. And this is the purpose of the parable- to challenge that idea and explain why the date must be left unknown by us. This is the same idea as the foolish virgins not taking oil with them in the next parable. The idea is simply that the foolish take no oil because they are certain they know the day and hour of the bridegroom’s coming; whereas the wise recognize that they do not know the exact day and hour, and therefore act accordingly by taking more oil in case there is a delay. This is exactly the point being made in the Lord’s teaching at the end of Matthew 24. Those who are convinced they know the day and hour, for whom the idea of flexibility or delay in the Lord’s purpose is anathema, are in fact those who fall asleep and are caught unprepared.</p>&nbsp;<p>The Lord Jesus / bridegroom “tarries” (<em><a href='B:470 25:5'>Mat 25:5</a></em>), the same Greek word translated ‘delay’ in “my Lord delays His coming”. The Lord&nbsp;<em>does&nbsp;</em>delay His coming- the man’s mistake was in acting inappropriately because of this. God’s judgments likewise “waited”, or delayed, in Noah’s time (<em><a href='B:670 3:20'>1Pe 3:20</a></em>)- presumably for the 120 year period of <em><a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a></em>. In a similar way, the judgment on Nineveh preached by Jonah also delayed- it came in the end, but their repentance meant that it delayed at that time:&nbsp;In the first century, all things were ready for the Supper- supper time had come. But the start of the supper has been delayed 2000 years by Israel’s rejection of the invitation to participate (<em><a href='B:490 14:17'>Luk 14:17</a></em>). The evil servant misbehaved because he thought the Lord had delayed and therefore he could misbehave, so long as he got his act together at the time of the Lord’s coming. This parable is therefore an explanation of why we must recognize that we don’t know the date of the Lord’s return; if we do think we know it, then this will lead us into misbehaviour. Those with a determinate, black and white view of God and His prophetic style have often shown us the truth of this parable. They thought the Lord would return at a certain date, or once certain conditions had been fulfilled. These things happened, and the Lord didn’t come- and their behaviour went seriously downhill:&nbsp;</p><p>Moses' sprinkling of Israel with blood and then going away for forty days (the period of probation), returning after a perceived delay to a people lost in revelry with only a faithful minority, must point forward to our Lord's ascension to the Father's presence after the blood sprinkling of the cross, and His subsequent return. The Lord's words here suggest he read this incident along these lines: "That evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delays his coming (cp. "Where is the promise of his coming?" and the people feeling Moses had delayed to return); and shall begin to... eat and drink with the drunken (cp. "the people sat down to eat and drink", <em><a href='B:530 10:7'>1Co 10:7</a></em>); the Lord of that servant shall come... in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder"- recalling the Levite's sudden massacre of the people on Moses' return. If the return of Moses from the mount is indeed typical of the second coming, then it would follow that the majority of the new Israel will be unprepared at the Lord's return also.</p><p>"The Lord (Jesus) is not slack concerning his promise (to return- of <em><a href='B:500 14:3'>Joh 14:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:18'>Joh 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:28'>Joh 14:28</a></em>), as some men (in the ecclesia) count slackness", but is longsuffering (<em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>). The Greek for "slack" here means 'delay'; this is assurance that God is not 'delaying' as men dilly-dally in the execution of their plans, but is rather postponing this for a good reason. There’s an allusion here to <em><a href='B:290 30:17-19'>Isa 30:17-19</a></em>, which records how Israel would suffer for their sins, but then God would wait for a certain time until they cried to Him in repentance, before bringing about a time of blessing on the earth based around the Lord's presence in Jerusalem: "One thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one (Deuteronomy 28 language)... until you are left as a tree bereft of branches (how Paul describes what happened to Israel in the first century, Romans 11)... and therefore (i:e. because you are such sinners) will the Lord wait, that He may be gracious unto you, and therefore will He be exalted (through your repentance), that He may have mercy upon you: for the Lord is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for Him. For the people shall dwell in Zion at Jerusalem: you shall weep no more (the language of <em><a href='B:290 65:17-25'>Isa 65:17-25</a></em>, quoted in <em><a href='B:680 3:13'>2Pe 3:13</a></em>): He will be very gracious unto you at the voice of your cry (of repentance):&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;He shall hear it, He will answer you". Not only is God delaying the Kingdom until there is repentance in Israel, but such is His&nbsp;<em>mercy&nbsp;</em>that He will not bring it about until such repentance. His purpose should not be seen, therefore, just in terms of the cold equation 'Repentance in Israel= second coming', but the supreme&nbsp;<em>mercy</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>love&nbsp;</em>which this arrangement shows should be appreciated. "And&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;will He be exalted" Isaiah comments- by those who understand these things. <em><a href='B:520 11:32-36'>Rom 11:32-36</a></em> is a marvellous example of this.</p><p><em>And shall begin- </em>The idea is that only soon after he has begun his misbehaviour, the Lord comes. This highlights the point that because the man was sure that he knew the exact time of the Lord’s coming, and that time was not right now,&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;he did these bad things. The whole point of the parable is to explain&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;we do not and should not ever think we know the date of His coming. For it is this which is portrayed in the parable as the root reason why he begins beating the fellow servants and being self-indulgent, mixing with the unbelievers rather than the believers.</p><p><em>To beat the menservants and the maidservants- </em>Smiting the fellow servants is related to keeping other company- with the drunken. It could be that this parable is intended to have a specific latter day fulfilment, in that it speaks of the last few days or little while before the Lord’s return. For the evil servant has only just begun to beat, eat and drink, when his Lord comes. The ‘smiting’ might suggest that the evil servant joins in the persecution of the Lord’s servants which will be ongoing in that final period of tribulation:&nbsp;</p><p>The idea of the steward of the house smiting the fellow servant is referred to by Paul (in the Greek text) in <em><a href='B:530 8:12'>1Co 8:12</a></em>, concerning&nbsp;<em>wounding</em>&nbsp;the conscience of weak brethren. Paul's vision of the latter-day ecclesia was therefore that materialistic elders would act with no thought as to their effect on the consciences of the flock, and thereby many would stumble. The Lord’s only other reference to fellow servants is in <em><a href='B:470 18:28-33'>Mat 18:28-33</a></em>, where the deeply indebted servant ‘beat’ a fellow servant who owed him a relatively small amount. The beating of the fellow servants may therefore be intended to be understood in terms of refusing to forgive, and demanding what is due.</p><p><em>And to eat and drink and to be drunk</em>- His duty was to feed his fellow servants, but instead he became obsessed with feeding himself. The Lord spoke of ‘eating and drinking’ as characterizing Noah’s world- and also Lot’s world (<em><a href='B:490 17:28'>Luk 17:28</a></em>). There’s nothing wrong with any of the things Noah’s world were doing in themselves, but they were indulged in to the point of obsession. The man called to go in to the ark and care for those within it had instead gone outside into the world and engaged with them in their way of life. </p><p>The man himself becomes drunk; he is influenced by the company he now keeps. He is alluded to in <em><a href='B:590 5:3-7'>1Th 5:3-7</a></em>, where the picture is graphically created of a man who has been hard drinking for a whole evening, now at home stupefied, late at night. It is then that the thief comes; whilst dimly aware of his coming, the man is quite unprepared to meet him and keep his (spiritual) house intact. This will be the tragic position of those who through belief and practice are unready for their Lord. It seems that a materialistic eldership, uncommitted to the real needs of the household, indifferent to guarding the house, will contribute to our latter-day apostasy as a community. And note the correspondence between those who are harsh on their brethren being those who are also caught up in the things of the world. The drunken servant starts to beat the fellow servants, using a Greek word which means to punish. This creates the picture of a worldly ecclesial elder over-disciplining others, whilst himself being guilty of the same things. He is transferring his guilt onto others, and punishing them with the punishment he subconsciously knows he deserves. No wonder there will be so much friction and disunity amongst spiritual Israel of the last days.</p>


text:
<p><em>The master of that servant shall come in a day when he does not expect, and at an hour he does not know- </em>The implication is that the unfaithful servant should have ‘known’ and ‘been aware of’ his Lord’s coming. He should have lived every moment as if&nbsp;<em>this&nbsp;</em>were the day and hour of the Lord’s coming; even whilst recognizing that he does not finally know it. There is another possibility, discussed in a separate digression- and that is simply that the faithful in [literally] the very last few days&nbsp;<em>will&nbsp;</em>in fact know that the day and hour. The language of the Olivet prophecy brims with certainty as to the faithful&nbsp;<em>knowing</em>&nbsp;the time: "When you shall see these things come to pass,&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;that it is near... you&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;that Summer is near…&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;you shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;that the desolation thereof is near... when you therefore shall&nbsp;<em>see</em>&nbsp;(same Greek translated "know") the abomination of desolation... when you&nbsp;<em>see</em>&nbsp;(Gk. know, understand, perceive) all these things come to pass,&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp; that the Kingdom of God is near". The idea is that we will understand clearly certain signs, and know&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;that the Lord is imminent. This all seems in marked contrast to the Lord's conclusion to the prophecy: "of that day and that hour&nbsp;<em>knoweth</em>&nbsp;no man". There is a marked connection here with the fact that he has just been saying that it will be possible to know once the signs are seen and understood. Surely he must be talking specifically to the twelve;&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;didn’t&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;know the time, neither could they; but those who saw the signs by implication&nbsp;<em>would</em>&nbsp;know. In the context of these words about them not&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;knowing the day and hour, the Lord said that the believer&nbsp;<em>at the time of his return</em>&nbsp;who didn’t know the day and hour of his coming would be found unprepared (Mat 2450). This is surely proof enough that the last generation&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;in some way know the day and hour, i:e. the appointed time (cp. <em><a href='B:730 9:15'>Rev 9:15</a></em>), of the Lord's return. This point is a very powerful one.</p><p>This word&nbsp;<em>ginosko </em>is used of how the world of Noah’s day did not “know” until all too late (<em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>). We are to “know” the time (<em><a href='B:470 24:33'>Mat 24:33</a></em> “know that it is near”, “know this” <em><a href='B:490 21:31'>Luk 21:31</a></em>). And yet we cannot know the time in terms of a calendar date. Therefore we are to “know” the time in living according to the principle that the Lord&nbsp;<em>could&nbsp;</em>come imminently, at this very moment:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And shall cut him into pieces- </em>Gk. ‘to cut him in two’, literally ‘to dichotomize’. This unreal and severe punishment- to cut a slave in half as punishment- emphasizes the extreme nature of the wrongdoing. This may also allude to the idea of cutting a covenant. The parties to the covenant passed between the pieces of the covenant sacrifice and thereby proclaimed that they should be cut in two if they broke the covenant. These condemned persons, in this particular teaching, would therefore refer to those who had already entered covenant with God and are being judged for it. And the hint is that they broke that covenant because they preferred to be hypocrites, to look good in the eyes of men when their heart was somewhere else. The evil servant will be "cut asunder", i:e. his hypocrisy will be openly revealed for the first time (remember, he was an ecclesial elder in mortal life, according to the parable). There will be a public dimension to the judgment process, for the whole purpose of it is for the learning of those present at it, rather than for God’s benefit. What we have spoken in the Lord's ear will be revealed by him openly ("from the housetops") at the judgment (<em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em>). When the righteous receive their inheritance (i:e. at the judgment), then the fool will be held up to shame (<em><a href='B:240 3:35'>Pro 3:35</a></em> NIV).</p><p><em>And put him with the unbelievers</em>- The Lord will appoint (the wicked servant) his portion with the unbelievers, his portion with the hypocrites (<em><a href='B:470 24:51'>Mat 24:51</a></em>), reminiscent of a "goat" in the later parable&nbsp;being told to go to the group of goats at the left-hand side. They represent "the unbelievers", i:e. those responsible but lacking in real faith (the word is used concerning this group in <em><a href='B:500 20:27'>Joh 20:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:20'>Rom 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:12'>Heb 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:15'>Tit 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:8'>Rev 21:8</a></em>). The Lord’s self-indulgent servant will be cut asunder at judgment day- revealed for who he really is- and then be appointed his portion with the [other] hypocrites (<em><a href='B:470 24:41'>Mat 24:41</a></em>). The rejected servants, who appeared to believe but who only play-acted, are in fact unbelievers. They have as little faith as the unbelieving world, although they think they believe and serve the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>And that servant, who knew his master's will and did not prepare or did not do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes</em>- Beating with stripes was a synagogue punishment. The Lord is developing the idea that He a new Israel is coming into being. "Prepare" is the same word used of John seeking to prepare the way for Messiah's coming in terms of getting people morally prepared (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>). Those who had heard John's message, been baptized and potentially prepared for the Lord's coming... would be beaten much if they refused to respond further and instead rejected the Lord, as many of John's apparent converts did. "Prepared" is the same word just used in :20 of the rich fool 'preparing' for his wealth. The rich fool is therefore the servant who knew his master's will, but prepared for himself rather than for his Lord. Our efforts to 'prepare' for eternity are in step with the Lord's work through the Spirit to 'prepare' our places in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em> s:w:). We pray "Your will be done" (<em><a href='B:490 11:2'>Luk 11:2</a></em> s:w:) as a way of saying that we want the will of God, which is that we shall inherit our prepared place in eternity, to become our will; His preparation works therefore in tandem with our own. It is therefore a desire to 'do' the master's will which is a lead characteristic of those who shall be finally saved (<em><a href='B:500 7:17'>Joh 7:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>But he that did not know and did things worthy of stripes, he shall be beaten with few stripes- </em>We have here a clear statement of the principle that knowledge makes us responsible to judgment, being 'asked the more' at that day if we have been 'given much'. </p><p>"A fool's mouth is [will be] his destruction, and his mouth calleth for strokes [i:e. condemnation at the judgment, <em><a href='B:490 12:47-48'>Luk 12:47-48</a></em>]" (<em><a href='B:240 18:6'>Pro 18:6</a></em>). By our words we may be <em>shouting out for condemnation</em>. </p><p>We all commit sin worthy of "stripes". The word is only found elsewhere in the gospels in <em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>, of the wounding of the mansaved by the Samaritan. And that man is each of us. </p><p><em>And to whom much is given, of him shall much be required-</em> The judgment will 'require' of us a life lived in accordance with the knowledge of the Lord's will which we have been given. This is helpful to bear in mind when considering whether those who know less than we do are in fellowship with the Lord. Many of them are- it's just that we have been given more knowledge, and more shall be required of us:&nbsp; The same word is used of how the Father seeks or requires fruit from His trees (<em><a href='B:490 13:6'>Luk 13:6</a></em>); the more effort He has made with them, the more fruit is required. And that seeking of response from us is ongoing now in the Lord's relationship with us; He in this sense searches for us until He finds us (<em><a href='B:490 15:6'>Luk 15:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:23'>Joh 4:23</a></em> s:w:). </p><p><em>And to whom people commit much, of him will they ask the more</em>- Speaking of the principle of responsibility upon which our judgment will be conducted, the Lord hints at Angelic involvement in the judgment: "to whom men (our guardian angels?) have committed much, of him they will ask the more" (<em><a href='B:490 12:48'>Luk 12:48</a></em> AV). See on <em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em>. We who are literate, living in an age of mass ease and technology, we who have the benefit of hindsight in looking back upon the development of God’s purpose with this earth... have had much committed to us. And much is therefore required. </p>


text:
<p><em>I came to cast fire upon the earth, yet it is already kindled!</em>- The Lord wished that the fire He came to kindle had already been kindled. This may be an allusion to a common Latin saying at the time: <em>Nemo accendit nisi ipse ardet</em>, 'No one can kindle another unless he himself burns'. In this case Jesus is likening Himself to a fire which ignites others; and yet He so wished that someone else had earlier come and been Messiah. Some of the Messianic passages describe Him being amazed that there had been no man, and He Himself therefore dressed for action and did the Messianic duty. It is an essay in His humility that He should have held such a view. It also reflects how there had been previous opportunities for Messiah to come.</p><p>The Gehenna fire of condemnation of the wicked is "already kindled" by men's attitude now. The tree that will not bring forth good fruit "<em>is</em> hewn down, and cast into the fire" (<em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>)- alluding to the figure of Gehenna, into which the rejected will be 'thrown'. The ungodly <em>are</em> already like the chaff that will be blown away after the Lord's return (<em><a href='B:230 1:4-5'>Psa 1:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 35:5'>Psa 35:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 21:18-20'>Job 21:18-20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 5:24'>Isa 5:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 17:13'>Isa 17:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 29:5'>Isa 29:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 2:35'>Dan 2:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:17'>Luk 3:17</a></em>). Those who lose their first love are <em>now </em>condemned (<em><a href='B:610 3:6'>1Ti 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 5:12'>1Ti 5:12</a></em>). The Lord Jesus stands with the sword of judgment <em>now </em>going out of His mouth (<em><a href='B:730 1:16'>Rev 1:16</a></em>), as it will do at the final judgment (<em><a href='B:290 11:4'>Isa 11:4</a></em>).</p><p>The disciples had wanted to bring fire down as Elijah had done, to consume their opponents. The Lord replied that His spirit is different; they didn’t know His Spirit, without which, Paul says, “we are none of his”. And yet still He patiently bore with them. However, He also says that He has come to send fire on the earth at the last day- an evident reference to Elijah. We could read the Lord’s treatment of the disciples’ request as saying ‘The time to act like Elijah will come- but it’s not now’. Likewise His comment that He came to bring division rather than peace. Elijah was renowned as the prophet who would turn the fathers to the children and bring peace in the land (<em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>; <em>Sir_48:10</em>). The Lord may be saying: ‘You think, like some of the Jews, that I am a re-incarnation of John the Baptist, the Elijah prophet. I’m not. I’m the Messiah Himself. My spirit is different’. In that very context, the Lord stressed that He had a baptism to undergo, rather than to dispense to others as had John (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em>). Perhaps the immaturity of the disciples was so great that they, former disciples of John, somehow believed that Jesus had turned into a re-incarnation of John. In this case, they would have been caught up in the surrounding world’s view of Jesus- for there was much speculation that Jesus was John the Baptist <em>redivivus</em>. The way John in his gospel labours the point that John the Baptist “was not that light”, i:e. Messiah (<em><a href='B:500 1:8'>Joh 1:8</a></em>), perhaps is John’s recognition that finally, they got it right. You can imagine him preaching in those early days: ‘After John’s death we thought at times that Jesus was some sort of reincarnation of John. But Peter got it right, and now, I’m just making it clear also what the truth was. He wasn’t John the Baptist <em>redivivus</em> as so many thought. We were caught up a bit in that thinking; but we were wrong’.</p><p>The Lord Jesus spoke of how “I am come to send fire on earth [after the pattern of Elisha against apostate Israel]... I am come to give…division”. He parallels the fire of condemnation with division. And yet He says that this figurative fire is “already kindled”. If we are divided willingly, of our creation, then we stand self-condemned. This is how serious this matter is. I fear, really fear, that in the day of final account it may be that a brother or sister has lived separately from the world, believed all the right things, and yet his or her divisiveness means that they are condemned together with the immoral and the worldly. </p><p>The idea of fire from Heaven in <em><a href='B:490 12:49-54'>Luk 12:49-54</a></em> is associated by the Lord with division in the brotherhood. And the Lord went on to say that the Pharisees could interpret a cloud arising in the West as a sign that rain was coming, but they could not forgive their brethren, which was what was essential (<em><a href='B:490 12:54'>Luk 12:54</a></em>). This just has to be a reference to Elijah, who saw a cloud arising from the West as a sign of rain. The Lord is, it seems, sadly associating Elijah with the Pharisees. And yet... despite all this,&nbsp;the Lord Jesus likens Himself to Elijah. He sent fire on earth as Elijah did (<em><a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a></em>). And the context of the <em><a href='B:490 9:54'>Luk 9:54</a></em> reference to Elijah is that the Lord’s time had come that he should be received up, and he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 9:51'>Luk 9:51</a></em>). This is all very much the language of Elijah (<em><a href='B:120 2:1'>2Ki 2:1</a></em>). And elsewhere Jesus quotes Elijah’s words “Your son lives” (<em><a href='B:110 17:23'>1Ki 17:23</a></em> = <em><a href='B:500 4:50-53'>Joh 4:50-53</a></em>). What this shows is that the Lord saw what was good in Elijah, and He didn’t separate Himself from someone who didn’t have His Spirit. He simply wanted His followers to learn better from him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and great is my distress until it be accomplished!</em>- These words almost seem to be the Lord speaking to Himself. The immediate context is of judgment to come, and the divisive effect the Lord's work will have upon relationships. But <em>His</em> focus was upon His upcoming death for the salvation of His people. This was what He sought above all to 'accomplish'. </p><p>The cross was to the Lord a baptism He was being baptized with, it was not only accomplished in His physical death; the process was ongoing. He saw His death as the baptism with which He must be baptized (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 6:3-4'>Rom 6:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:10-12'>Col 2:10-12</a></em>, His 'baptism-unto-death' Gk:); and yet He spoke of the baptism with which He was being baptized in an ongoing sense (<em><a href='B:470 20:22'>Mat 20:22</a></em>). The Lord's fear of death was, it seems to me, to a far greater extent than what even we experience- doubtless because He knew all that was tied up with <em>His</em> death and how much depended upon it. Hence His "distress" He spoke of how "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Do you think that I came to give peace in the earth? I tell you no, but rather division</em>- Peace on earth was a feature of the messianic Kingdom. The Lord is emphasizing that His Kingdom had not yet come. Until then, there would be division between the kingdom people and the others. To be unwillingly caught up in a divided house / family is not, therefore, a sin or a sign of our personal condemnation. There must be schisms amongst us, that they might make manifest who the faithful are, by their attitude to them. </p><p>The Lord surely has in mind what He had commanded in <em><a href='B:470 10:13'>Mat 10:13</a></em>, where He uses the same words to describe how the apostles were to let their&nbsp;<em>peace</em>&nbsp;<em>come</em>&nbsp;upon the households they entered- the peace of&nbsp;<em>shalom</em>&nbsp;with God, the salvation of Jesus. But that peace could return to them unclaimed, and the Lord's words here seem to imply that He is warning them that generally, their message of peace will not be accepted. </p><p>"Peace on the earth<em>" </em>is an allusion to the prophecies of peace in the Messianic Kingdom, and to the Angelic proclamation that there would be peace on earth through Christ (<em><a href='B:490 2:14'>Luk 2:14</a></em>). The disciples were prone to be influenced by Jewish expectations and hopes for an imminent Messianic Kingdom to be established. The Lord's point is therefore surely that they were not to preach a gospel of immediate peace on earth, but rather one to come in the future; He made the point later that He had come to <em>take</em> peace from the earth (<em><a href='B:730 6:4'>Rev 6:4</a></em>), but of course He offered&nbsp;<em>peace with God</em>&nbsp;through forgiveness and reconciliation which He would achieve through His life and death (<em><a href='B:580 1:20'>Col 1:20</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three</em>- Salvation, as Robert Roberts so frequently said, is an individual matter. It is not a collective affair. Compare two passages within the Lord’s teaching, which each use the same Greek words: “I am come to give… division. From henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three [i:e. sometimes they would be <em><a href='B:490 2:3'>Luk 2:3</a></em> and other times <em><a href='B:490 3:2'>Luk 3:2</a></em> - there would be a series of disagreements over various issues]... a house divided against a house falls” (<em><a href='B:490 12:52'>Luk 12:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:52'>Luk 12:52</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 11:17'>Luk 11:17</a></em>). What are we to make of this? Every divided house or Kingdom will “fall”, i:e. be condemned at judgment day (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:12'>1Co 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em>). And yet Jesus inevitably divides ‘houses’. Surely the Lord is teaching that every Kingdom and family will fall, because it will be divided, and therefore the only hope of salvation is purely individual. This was radical thinking in first century Palestine, where the destiny of the extended family was held to be uniform; i:e:, you would end up in the last day wherever your extended family did. But the Lord is cutting through all this, and teaching that salvation is a personal matter. No single extended family will, as a unit, avoid being divided by the result of the judgment. The Lord’s teaching surely has some relevance to some Christian cultures which can likewise give the impression that large, well established Christian families will almost automatically all be saved.</p>


text:
<p><em>They shall be divided, father against son and son against father- </em>Division within families, especially between sons and fathers, was seen as far more awful than it is today. But the offer of Christ to be Lord, to be our head, is so compelling and colossal in implication that there can simply be no other option than division, at least emotionally and psychologically, between those members of a household who accept Him as Lord and head, and those who will not. The implications of what the Lord is teaching here outlaws any thought of marriage out of the faith; to consciously create a divided family from the start can only reflect a very low level of commitment to Him as Lord, Master and household head.</p><p><em>Mother against daughter and daughter against her mother. Mother in law against her daughter in law and daughter in law against her mother in law</em>- Why these specific examples? Perhaps the Lord envisaged the younger generation being more responsive than their elders. But maybe His point was that the younger members of an extended family were expected to obey the head of the household- and the good news of His Kingdom, His dominion over men and women, was that loyalty was no longer to be to the head of the family, but to Him. For He was offering men and women entrance into a new King-dom, where He was King and His dominion was accepted in the lives of those who accepted the Gospel of that Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to the crowds: Also, When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, Here comes a shower- and so it comes to pass</em>- Showers are figures for the Messianic blessings. They were to perceive that His coming was imminent. This is all in the context, before and after, of forgiving our brother and living at peace. A joint focus on living as if the Lord's coming is imminent, reading life's signs to mean that we are living on the brink of His coming... this will enhance our relationship with our brother. For who, on their way to judgment day, is going to get into argument with his brother (:58):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And when you see a south wind blowing, you say, There will be a scorching heat- and it comes to pass</em>- As noted on :54, they were to interpret life as meaning that the Lord's return was imminent- and live with their brother accordingly (:58). The "scorching heat" is the language of condemnation. As they could discern that such heat was coming in the weather, so they ought to be able to have a sense of the reality of the two destinies before them: condemnation, or the showers of Messianic blessing (:54). And awareness of these things would affect how they lived with their brother and remove all divisions- which is the context.</p>


text:
<p><em>You hypocrites- </em>Hypocrisy may seem a strange charge to level at men who could read the weather but did not want to perceive the fact that there were definite outcomes to their lives, either showers of eternal blessing, or the scorching heat of condemnation. The charge of hypocrisy would seem to me to imply that they realized indeed who Jesus was, but were acting as if they didn’t. The Lord said as much in designing a later parable to have the Jews saying “This is the heir; come, let us kill Him” (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>). Another option is that their ability to read basic signs in the weather made them responsible to discerning who Christ was and their need to repent; and to not use our potential abilities is perhaps seen by the Lord as hypocrisy.</p><p><em>You know how to interpret the signs of the earth and the sky, but how is it you do not know how to interpret this time?</em>- The "time" can be seen as the whole work of Jesus, rather than specifically the signs of His coming again. The “sign[s]” which they sought for were in front of them at the time of their asking for them. They therefore cannot really refer to fulfilled latter day prophecies. The lesson is that as farmers and shepherds act accordingly as they interpret the weather, so we ought to respond to the reality of Christ, knowing that we stand before either eternal life or eternal death, very soon. </p>


text:
<p><em>And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?</em>- We are to have an abiding sense of the imminent coming of the Lord, and the two possible outcomes it brings for us (showers of eternal blessing, or scorching heat of condemnation). If we have this perception, then we will judge rightly "for" or "among" ourselves. There will be no division amongst us (:51), only urgent forgiveness (:58)- which is the only 'right judgment' we can make.</p><p>The Lord warned the Jews that they were not discerning the signs of their times as they ought to- i:e. they were not paying heed to the imminence of the day of the Lord which was to come in AD70, and neither were they perceiving that Israel's king was in fact amongst them. He went straight on to tell them a parable about the need to agree with our brother, because they were on their way to judgment. He links these two themes, of their not discerning the signs of the times and their disagreement with their brother, with the question as to why they cannot judge rightly. He seems to be saying that their discernment of the reality of His coming in judgment was to be connected with their discernment of the need for love and forgiveness of their brother. The same basic link is found in <em><a href='B:650 10:25'>Heb 10:25</a></em>, where we are exhorted to meet together and encourage one another "and so much the more, as you see the day approaching". See on <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Foras you are going with your adversary before the magistrate, on the way give diligence to be rid of him. Lest he drag you to the judge and the judge shall deliver you to the officer, and the officer shall throw you into prison</em></p><p>- See on :57 and <em><a href='B:490 6:47'>Luk 6:47</a></em>. There is an urgency here- related to the fact that very soon, relatively speaking, we shall stand before judgment day and face either eternal showers of blessing, or the eternal death symbolized by the "scorching heat". </p><p>The Christian life is likened to a man on his way to his judge along with his adversary; 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. This would suggest that the Lord foresaw that getting along with our brethren would be a major part in the development process of His people; and as they draw closer to the day of meeting with Him, the more urgent is the need to settle their disputes, as He will be unsympathetic towards them. The Lord prefaces this parable by appealing for His people to ‘judge righteously’ because His judgment is about to come (<em><a href='B:490 12:57'>Luk 12:57</a></em> Gk:). By forgiving our brother and reconciling with him, we are judging righteously; we are in essence deciding our own judgment which is to be revealed at the Lord’s return</p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord taught that our focus upon Him and His return should affect how we feel about others, even our enemies. <em><a href='B:490 12:54-59'>Luk 12:54-59</a></em> continues a theme of living appropriately to a belief that we shall all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. The Lord pictures us as walking to meet our judge, along with our adversary. And His parable assumes that we will automatically be found in the wrong, the case will go against us; and so therefore we better make peace with our adversary and drop the case. We are walking towards the day of judgment, our meeting with our Judge. The bottom line is that we should not be walking to judgment day carrying with us a case against our brother. Drop it, whatever it is. At least, in our hearts. It's simply impossible to live at peace with all- Paul spoke from much personal experience of living at peace with others insomuch as it depends upon<em> us</em>: "If it be possible, as much as depends upon you, live peaceably with all men" (<em><a href='B:520 12:18'>Rom 12:18</a></em>). Again, this doesn't mean that abuse shouldn't be challenged and exposed. It should be. But we as sinners shouldn't be walking to judgment day carrying with us the weight of a case against our brother. </p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you, you shall never get out, until you have paid the very last coin</em>- This could mean that the only reconciliation is in death, the last coin we have being our own life itself. This is the price for refusing to forgive and be reconciled. Whilst the Catholic idea of purgatory is incorrect, it could also be that judgment will be for our education; for it is for our benefit, not the Lord's, who already knows all things. And we can imagine those who have been unforgiving in this life learning the error of their ways, experiencing the dread prospect of condemnation before them, and then 'getting out' by grace. To live eternity in humbled awareness of grace, and how they ought to have been more forgiving in this brief life. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now there were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices</em>- We see here Pilate's apparently total lack of conscience, which fits with the picture we get of him from other historical sources. Yet the Gospels present him as a man of finely tuned conscience who wriggled terribly and felt awful about allowing the Lord's death. There is no contradiction. He was as history states; but encounter with the Lord in His time of dying is enough to soften the conscience of even a Pilate. We should never think that anyone is too far gone, or is utterly insensitive to our message of a crucified Jesus. We can tend to assume that the questioners were asking for the Lord's take on the problem of suffering, as if to say 'So why did those people suffer and others didn't?'. But that is to retroject our questions into the mouths of the people we read of. More likely is that they were not commending these Galileans as martyrs, but rather pointing out that these people had, in their view, suffered Divine vengeance. Rather like the people of Malta assuming anyone who was especially suffering, like Paul, must have been a sinner. The questioners were therefore asking the Lord to accept that some of His fellow Galileans were sinners; the view was that although they had been slain by Pilate apparently by random, they must therefore have been serious sinners.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he answered and said to them: Do you think that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they have suffered these things?</em>- The Lord assumes here that all Galileans are sinners, but those Galileans might be supposed to be worse sinners. And yet the Lord was perceived and self-identified as a "Galilean". We have here an example of how the Lord identified with sinners and was within the 'sinner' category, without being a personal sinner.</p>


text:
<p><em>I tell you no, but unless you repent, you shall all in like manner perish</em>- He answers that <em>all</em> humanity are under danger of eternal judgment and they needed to start worrying about themselves rather than worrying about God’s justice [or otherwise] with those Galileans. And the Lord follows this up with the parable of the unfruitful tree which by rights should be cut down, but He was urgently pleading for more time in order that it might bring forth fruit. In other words, the Lord's audience were to realize the intense urgency of <em>their</em> position rather than worrying about the justice of others' judgment. Their personal situation was <em>so</em> urgent, they really were to worry about bringing forth fruit, rather than being side-tracked by the issues connected with the suffering and possible judgment of <em>others</em>. It's not that these matters don't have importance; it was simply that those asking those questions of Jesus were in such a personally urgent position that they just had to get that right. And this seems to me most relevant to those who will not get personally themselves right with God because of their complaint about His justice with others. And Luke's record develops the theme yet further. In <em><a href='B:490 13:23'>Luk 13:23</a></em> we read of Him being asked the perennial question- why will only few be saved? His answer is simply to speak of the utter horror of personal rejection by the Lord Jesus at the day of judgment- knocking on the door, thinking this is your old friend's house, to be told "I never knew you". The idea is clearly to worry about the future which <em>we</em> may personally miss rather than debating the unsearchable issues of why, apparently, few will be saved. Same again with Peter's question as to whether the Lord's predictions of condemnation refer to the disciples or to the unbelieving world (<em><a href='B:490 12:41'>Luk 12:41</a></em>)- the Lord's response was simply to speak about the need to personally be always prepared for the Lord's coming. And so it is with us- don't worry about who may be condemned, worry about your own personal readiness and how you will respond in that split-second moment when we know for sure 'He's back!'. </p><p>"In like manner" may have had a literal element to it; for Josephus records how in AD70 the blood of the slain rain together with the blood of the sacrifices. "In like manner" may have had a literal element to it; for Josephus records how in AD70 the blood of the slain rain together with the blood of the sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p><em>Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them. Do you think that they were offenders above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem?</em>- The number 18 clearly connects with the woman we shall soon read of who had been bent over for 18 years. The idea appears to be that the woman represented not some unfortunate person more afflicted than others, but in fact, all humanity. We are all bowed down and need the Lord's deliverance.  Urgent response in view of coming judgment is a repeated theme in the teaching of Jesus. His servants are to wait in hourlyanticipation of His return (<em><a href='B:480 13:34-36'>Mar 13:34-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:36-38'>Luk 12:36-38</a></em>); the day of reckoning is even now at hand, all our guilt will be uncovered, and we should act now before it is too late (<em><a href='B:490 16:1-8'>Luk 16:1-8</a></em>). We are as a guilty man about to be hauled to court, whose only way out is to make peace with his offended brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:25-26'>Mat 5:25-26</a></em>). Unless we repent, a great tower is about to fall upon us. Jesus saw Divine judgment as something imminent, something which is essentially happening now, and therefore day by day we need to live accordingly. He insisted that any supposition that life will simply carry on as it is… was a fatal delusion. He piercingly dismantles our natural human assumption that life can be broadly maintained as it is or simply adapted a little. There is an urgent need to <em>change </em>and to keep on being <em>transformed </em>in the new life in Him. So the urgency of response is because the Lord is coming back soon, but also because He is right now our constant and insistent judge. Our generation particularly ought to have a sense of urgency. For I will go on record as saying that I do truly believe the Lord may very well come in our time. He is near, even at the doors. Written in our lives, as a neon sign in the black of our human lives, should be the simple reality: <em>Jesus Is Coming</em>. "Offenders" is literally 'debtors', and the connection is with the preceding teaching at the end of Luke 12- that we are all desperate debtors. We are all sinners. The significance of death is that it is the end of our opportunity to repent. How that death comes is therefore unimportant; rather should our concern be with our personal need to repent whilst we have life. That is the Lord's perspective on the whole complaint that some appear to die premature or harder deaths than others.

As noted on :1, the assumption was that those who had died in apparently random acts of misfortune were in fact serious sinners. Pilate had built the aqueduct to the Pool of Siloam with the "corban" donations to the temple. Probably the builders who died in a constrution accident related to this were thought to have been slain by Divine judgment for their sins.  </p>


text:
<p><em>I tell you no, but unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish</em>- In AD70, many were killed by falling masonry, and Josephus claims that the blood of the priests was indeed mixed with the blood of their sacrifices in the final collapse of masonry. But this is likely not the Lord's idea, for given the short lifespans of the time, those He was then speaking too largely died in their beds rather than in the calamities of AD70, some 37 years later. His point was that the common death of all men is no more nor less significant than the dramatic deaths of people in tragedies.Or it could be that indeed the fall of Jerusalem was intended in their lifetimes- but as 2 Peter 3 implies, it was delayed by grace, in order to give yet more time for repentance. This section concludes with the Lord likening Himself to a protective mother bird, wishing to gather her young beneath her wings- as if to save them from disaster. But the people of Jerusalem refused to come under the wings of the Lord Jesus. And yet despite this, their judgment was delayed.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke this parable: A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit thereon and found none</em>- The element of unreality is that there was a fig tree amongst vines. It has been observed that this was never done, because the fig would take up too much of the ground water, the shade of the fig tree would stop anything else growing, and the fig would attract birds which would eat the grapes from the vines. But Israel were God’s special enthusiasm and He did this. The idea is perhaps that this tree was the special project of the man. In Matthew 21, the Lord uses the unfruitful <em>fig</em> tree as a springboard for telling the parable of the vineyard. Israel were God’s special concern and focus. His passion for them led to Him breaking His own principle, of not planting different seeds together (<em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:9'>Deu 21:9</a></em> "do not sow&nbsp;a field of yours with two different kinds of seeds"). Likewise, the Father likens Himself in the prophets to a man who has divorced His wife (Israel) and yet still wants her to come back to Him, even though that was an abomination to Him. Or the Lord telling the one talent man that he ought to have lent out the money for interest, when this was forbidden by the Law.</p><p>Or it could be that the Lord is using the fig tree as it was used in Judaism- a metaphor for the religious leaders, in whose shadow their students sat. We would have soon ran out of patience with them; but the Lord's strong desire was that even they should be saved. And some of them did repent and accept baptism after the Lord's resurrection. He set us an example of hoping against hope for response even from the most unlikely; and it paid off. </p>&nbsp;<p><em><a href='B:490 13:7'>Luk 13:7</a></em><em> And he said to the vinedresser- </em>Again the unreality is emphasized; a <em>vine</em>dresser is asked to pay special attention to a solitary<em> fig</em> tree. See on :6. </p><p><em>Behold, these three years I came seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?</em>- The allusion is to the Mosaic principle that such fruit was only clean after three years. After the three years of His ministry, during the Lord's final six months, God suggested to Him that the nation of Israel be cut down (this is but one example of the private intercourses between Father and Son). The Lord knew when He must die soon; He had already steadfastly set His face to go to die at Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 9:51'>Luk 9:51</a></em>). It seems to me that He knew He would be killed by the Jews in a few months’ time. But He asks the Father to spare Israel for at least another year- as if to show that He knew they wouldn't accept Him even after His death, but He's saying to God: 'Give them a chance even after they kill me'. Those who think further along the lines suggested by the parable will see that in reality, Israel were not cut down by God for another 37 years. The implication is that this was due to Christ's pleading with God during those&nbsp;years for patience to be shown to the nation who rejected and&nbsp;crucified Him. The element of unreality in the story reflects the grace of Jesus- for it was unthinkable for a servant to argue back with his master, asking not to do what he had been ordered to do. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he answering said to him: Master, leave it alone this year also, I shall dig about it and fertilize it</em>- We have here another element of unreality, in that fig trees needed little attention compared to vines. But there was a huge effort made to get fruit from this fig tree, as if it were an almost idiosyncratic obsession of the owner. This speaks of the deep, passionate level of concern that there should be fruit.</p><p>The relationship between servants and master in the parables is also at times somewhat unreal. It’s hard for us to imagine how slaves belonged to their masters and had to do their will and not their own. Yet in the parable of <em><a href='B:490 13:7-8'>Luk 13:7-8</a></em>, the servant is commanded by his master to cut down the fig tree. Not only does the servant take a lot of initiative in saying that no, he will dig around it and try desperately to get it to give fruit; but, he says, if even that fails, then <em>you</em>, the Master, will have to cut it down… when he, the servant, had been ordered to do it by his master! This servant [the Lord Jesus] obviously has a most unusual relationship with the Master. He suggests things on his own initiative, and even passes the job of cutting off Israel back to God, as if He would rather not do it. And it’s in a way the same with us. See on <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:22'>Luk 14:22</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord of His own volition asked the Father not to destroy Israel at the time He planned, but to give them longer to repent. This was exactly the spirit of Moses' pleas for Israel. But this is not the same as 'relaying' the words of human prayers to God. This is undoubtedly how many of us conceive of Christ's intercessory role for us; but is this actually what Scripture teaches? Many of the relevant Scriptures which speak of Christ's activity for us before the Lord God are not in this context; they suggest that He of Hisown will prays to the Father on our behalf concerning things which are on His agenda for us, not ours. If we confess Christ before men, i:e. reveal Him to them, He will confess us, reveal us favourably, in the court of Heaven, before the Father and the Angels (<em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>).</p><p>This parable could suggest that the Lord's attitude to Israel was even more patient than that of God Himself; yet because their feelings to Israel are identical, the implication is perhaps that the Son enables and thereby persuades the Father to be even more patient with us than He would naturally be!</p><p>So often, the parables [as well as the Lord's teaching generally] appear to be Him almost talking to Himself. The Lord spoke of how it was His Father's plan to cut down the Jewish fig tree; but He asked His Father if it could remain for another year, until He had dug around it and spread dung by it (<em><a href='B:490 13:8'>Luk 13:8</a></em>)- and <em>then</em> it could be destroyed, if there was still no fruit. The Lord Jesus was thinking here of His crucifixion- for this was the reason for the final cutting down of the Jewish fig tree. To dig was the work of a slave- recall how the disgraced steward felt ashamed to dig (<em><a href='B:490 16:3'>Luk 16:3</a></em>). And to spread dung was the work of the very lowest slave. And yet this was how the Lord foresaw His death- becoming as the lowest slave. Yet His hope in doing this was that Israel would bear spiritual fruit. This, then, is to be the motivational effect upon us of meditating upon the Lord's ultimate servanthood in His death- spiritual fruit in <em>our</em> lives just <em>has</em> to be elicited by it, lest we too will be cut down.</p><p>He sent His servants the prophets to find the fruit- but they were beaten and murdered. He finally sent His Son, reasoning that "<em>surely </em>they will reverence my son" (<em><a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a></em>). But they murdered Him. I have suggested elsewhere that this language can only suggest that God in some sense limited His omniscience and omnipotence in order to fully enter into our dimensions; and hence His experience of dashed hope and deep disappointment. Amazing as the Father's hopefulness was, His Son's was even greater. This Father who had had all this experience of simply not getting any fruit, asked His vinedresser (the Lord Jesus) to cut down the tree of Israel, as for the three years of Christ's ministry He had sought fruit from them and not found any; and further, this tree was 'cumbering the ground', taking away nutrients which He could have given to another (Gentile) tree. But His servant argues back with Him; the servant asks to be allowed to dig and dung around the tree; and then, he says, '<em>You </em>can cut it down, although you asked <em>me</em> to do this job'. This was quite unusual for a servant to talk like this; but it's an insight into the way the Lord Jesus was even more hopeful than His longsuffering Father. The Lord was prepared to dig around the tree- and digging was the lowest, most shameful occupation (<em><a href='B:490 16:3'>Luk 16:3</a></em>). Further, He would shovel dung, making Him unclean and despised of men. He <em>so</em> wanted fruit on Israel. This describes the intense effort of the Lord Jesus during the last six months of His ministry. His attitude was summarized when shortly before He died, He came hungry to a fig tree, expecting to find just the immature beginnings of fruit there, which He would gladly have eaten. But that particular tree had nothing on it. His deep hunger and willingness to eat anything reflected His willingness to find some spirituality from Israel. But He "found none", just as there was "not found" any of those Jews He healed who would glorify God (<em><a href='B:490 17:18'>Luk 17:18</a></em> s:w. <em><a href='B:490 13:6'>Luk 13:6</a></em>). This longsuffering, patient, passionate desire for spiritual fruit in the Lord Jesus is presented as being even stronger than it was in His Father. No wonder John the Baptist misunderstood the extent of Christ's grace- he proclaimed that Jesus already had the axe aimed at the bottom of the trees (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:9'>Luk 3:9</a></em>), and was about to fell them. The situation truly demanded this- but actually the Lord Jesus waited three years for fruit, and when it didn’t come, even then He pleaded with the Father not to fell the tree but let Him dig and dung it... We must factor all this into our understanding of <em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>, where the Lord apparently in a bland, matter-of-fact manner teaches that the tree that doesn't bear good fruit will be hewn down and burnt. This burning is ultimately at the judgment day; but all our lives He is earnestly seeking to develop spiritual fruit upon us; as in the parable of the sower, only those who produce totally nothing will be rejected. Of course our fruit must be the fruit that abides- the changes in personality which are permanent, the converts who remain, the forgiveness which is maintained on a felt level, the generosity never later regretted... But if there's even something of this, then it seems this is what the Lord is so eagerly seeking. Earlier, Israel were the vine and the Lord Jesus the vinedresser (<em><a href='B:490 13:7'>Luk 13:7</a></em>). But now <em>we</em> are the vine, and God Himself the vinedresser (<em><a href='B:500 15:1'>Joh 15:1</a></em>). We are in good hands; and the Father and Son who through Biblical history showed themselves so sensitive to spiritual fruit are the very same ones who will meet us in the last day. </p>


text:
<p>In the parable of <em><a href='B:490 13:8-9'>Luk 13:8-9</a></em>, the Lord portrays Himself as even reasoning with God, who had decreed the Jewish tree be cut down in the third year of His ministry. He as it were persuades God to allow His efforts to continue for another six months, in desperate hope against hope that there would be some fruit of repentance. We, to a man and to a woman, would have given up on Israel, and would have somehow been gratified that the Father wanted to treat them like this. I would have turned to the Gentiles a long time before the Lord and Paul did.</p><p><em>Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you shall cut it down</em>- Here we have another insight into the open-ended nature of God’s purpose. His intention was to bring an end to the fig tree, either Israel or the Jewish leadership represented by the fig tree; but His Son argued for more time, and He agreed. The amazing extent and power of the Lord Jesus is further brought out in the story of the worker in the vineyard who can almost direct His boss- the Father- not to cut down the barren fig tree of Israel until it has more chance to bear spiritual fruit- “if not,<em> you</em> shall cut it down”. Speaking to crowds of day labourers and farm workers, this would have struck them as strange- that this worker had such power over his boss Seeand even insisted upon his difference of judgment with the boss. This is typical of the parables- homely, imaginable scenes that have elements of unreality in them, which flag the essential point, the extraordinary in the midst of the ordinary. Which here, is the amazing patience of Jesus for repentance. And God's longsuffering deferal of judgment in order that men might repent. This parable is left with open questions- does the tree bear fruit, if it doesn't, is it in fact cut down? It would seem that what happened was that the tree was not cut down the next year- it was left until AD70, 37 years later. This fits with the threat that the inhabitants of Jerusalem surrounding the Lord were to be destroyed by falling masonry- when in fact God's patient and desperate desire for repentance meant that most of the died in their beds rather than from the destruction of Jerusalem. Perhaps we are to infer that at the end of the agreed period, the Lord Jesus went back to God, the owner, and asked for even more grace for this tree- 37 years, in fact. The point is that as Paul puts it, the goodness of God, His patient longsuffering, ought to lead us to repentance. Or as Peter puts it, God's longsuffering is so that all might come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9) . See on <em><a href='B:490 11:21'>Luk 11:21</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath day</em>- This "teaching" would have been in the period when comments were invited; He was not a synagogue rabbi with His own local congregation. His continued teaching effort is an exemplification of His continuing work with the fig tree (:8).</p>


text:
<p><em>And a woman was there who had had a disabling spirit for eighteen years; she was bent over and could in no way straighten herself</em>- Bullinger has some interesting comments upon the woman with an unclean “spirit of infirmity” (<em><a href='B:490 13:11'>Luk 13:11</a></em>) that resulted in her being unable to lift herself up straight. “The negative is <em>me</em>, not <em>ou</em>; and is therefore subjective. She <em>felt as if </em>she could not do so… it appears, therefore, to have been a <em>nervous disorder</em>; and had to do with her <em>pneuma</em>” or mind. And yet she is described as having been ‘bound by Satan’. The ‘Satan’ or adversary to her standing upright was her own mindset. And it was this spirit or mindset “of infirmity” from which the Lord released her. Here we clearly see the connection between ‘spirits’ and mental disorder or dysfunction; for ‘spirit’ in Scripture so often refers to the psychological mindset of a person. </p><p>The description of the woman has several links with the time of the Judges; there were two periods of 18 year domination (<em><a href='B:70 3:14'>Jdg 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 10:18'>Jdg 10:18</a></em>), and they were likewise stooping in affliction and unable to stand up in their own strength because of the power of their oppressors. She was a "daughter of Abraham" (:16), representative of Israel. All the judges / saviours of Israel pointed forward to the Lord as Israel's 'Jesus', Yah's salvation. We may also note that the number 18 is written here in Luke 13 as the letters IH, 10 and 8, which are the initials in Greek for Iisus Hristos, Jesus Christ. As if the Lord Jesus totally share in this general suffering of humanity. As noted on :3, her 18 year affliction connects with the 18 slain when the tower of Siloam fell. She is to be seen, therefore, as representative of us all- and not just some unusually unfortunate individual. Just as we shall all likewise perish like the 18 men, unless we repent; so likewise, the woman of 18 years bondage to 'Satan' is everyman.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Jesus saw her, he called her and said to her: Woman, you are free from your infirmity</em>- "Free" is literally 'let loose', and is also used of forgiveness. So often, the Lord's healings were acted parables of freedom from sin. She was 'freed' before the Lord laid His hands upon her. The two stages in the healing were perhaps to give her a chance to respond to His calling of her and then to believe in His promise of freedom / release. When she responded positively, then the potential was unleashed by His touch (:13). The same process is seen in His work with people today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he laid his hands upon her, and immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God</em>- Again we note the Lord's usage of physical touch. This touch was technically unnecessary; in that He had just stated that she was freed from her weakness by His word alone (:12). But He wished to demonstrate His total identity with human weakness, which is one reason why He was baptized. This healing happened as the Lord was teaching in the synagogue (:10), so presumably He called the woman out of the audience to be cured. He presented the healing as an acted parable of the power of His word in human life.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the ruler of the synagogue, being moved with indignation because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, answered and said to the crowd- </em>This anger was at the same time as the woman glorified God, presumably in words of genuine praise (:13). The Lord had healed the woman during the synagogue service as He was teaching, in order to demonstrate and exemplify the real power of His word. The synagogue ruler had never been able to do anything like it. The anger was therefore rooted in jealousy. The words and teaching of that man were nothing like those of the Lord. And so jealousy led him to latch on to the Lord's technical infringement of rabbinic law. </p><p><em>There are six days in which men ought to work. In them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day</em>- The Sabbath was a day of "rest". The Hebrew word for "rest" means not only a cessation of labour, but literally a sending away, a departing; and it is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word used in :12 for how the woman had been set free, sent away, released from her burdens (:15). The Lord had in fact fulfilled the spirit of the Sabbath by this healing. The synagogue ruler either capitulated to the glorious Spirit being revealed in all this; or turned away into the anger and bitterness of legalism. And religious people today face the same choice when they encounter the gracious action of the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the Lord answered them and said: You hypocrites! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath release his ox or his ass from the stall and lead him away for watering?</em>- The Lord described His healing of her as losing her from a bond in order to lead her away to the water of life- this is the very cameo of all the redeemed in <em><a href='B:730 7:17'>Rev 7:17</a></em>. "Release" is similar in meaning to the Hebrew word for "rest". The Lord had not only released or 'sabbathed' this woman, but was leading her away to the water of the Spirit filled life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham whom Satan had bound for eighteen years, to have been freed from this bond on the Sabbath day?- As noted above, the Hebrew idea of 'sabbath' was of release and freedom. It was appropriate for her to be healed on the Sabbath of all days. The idea of being 'freed' or 'released' connects with how Luke opens his account of the Lord's message- it was a proclamation of release, of freedom (Lk. 4:18). Therefore again we conclude that the woman is to be seen as representative of us all, her condition [like that of the 18 men killed in Siloam] was not atypical; it is actually how we all are. In this reflection we have a perspective on the apparent 'unfairness' of how some are born with, or develop, terrible debilitation.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The woman &quot;had&quot; a spirit which was associated with her being bent over (<a href='B:490 13:11'>Lk. 13:11</a>). She was not attacked by a &quot;spirit&quot; from outside of her, but she &quot;had&quot; this spirit within her. &quot;Spirit&quot; is commonly to be understood in Biblical usage as an attitude of mind. She had an attitude of mind which disabled her. And this spirit came from an adversary, a satan. And that adversary is explained in the context- the &quot;adversaries&quot; were the Jewish system who had so crippled the woman (<a href='B:490 13:1y'>:17</a>). There is no explicit statement that &quot;Satan&quot;, the adversary, controlled the &quot;spirit&quot;. That has to be assumed by those who wish to see that idea, but the text itself doesn't support it. The Lord is not recorded as doing spiritual battle with Satan or any evil spirit; He simply said &quot;Woman, you are free from your infirmity&quot;. He dealt directly with the issue of her illness. And it was &quot;your infirmity&quot;, just as the woman &quot;had&quot; a disabling spirit. The source of her illness was within her, internal to her rather than having been imposed by some external, cosmic entity.<br />
	<br />
	I have elsewhere outlined the connection between &quot;Satan&quot; and the Jewish opposition to Jesus; for they were the main adversary / satan to His work and that of the early church. The connection is made explicit in this passage- the Jews are called Christ's &quot;adversaries&quot; (<a href='B:490 13:17'>:17</a>), as if explaining who the 'satan' was who had 'bound' the woman. The woman's binding by Satan is connected with the fact she was &quot;a daughter of Abraham&quot;, a Jewess. Why make this otherwise throwaway comment, that she was a Jewess? For we are led by the context to assume that obviously she was Jewish. The point surely is that the Jewish system had 'bound' this woman. I suggested elsewhere that many of the diseases the Lord cured had a psychological basis to them; His healing of minds was reflected in the healing of bodies from conditions which had been brought about psychologically. Just as He &quot;loosed&quot; the woman from her illness, so He &quot;loosed&quot; sinners from the burden of their sin [the same word is used in <a href='B:470 18:27'>Mt. 18:27</a> in this connection, and is twice translated &quot;to forgiven&quot; in <a href='B:490 6:37'>Lk. 6:37</a>]. It may've been that it was her sense of unforgiven sin which was the actual psychosomatic cause of her strange physical condition. The woman's physical condition- being chronically bowed down- may well have been her body reflecting how her mind felt, bowed down by the heavy burdens the Jewish leaders placed upon her. And of course the Lord uses that very figure in describing the weight placed upon Jewish people by the teachers of Judaism (<a href='B:470 23:4'>Mt. 23:4</a> &quot;They bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders; but they will not move them with their finger&quot;). The context of the miracle is that the Jews loosed their tied up animals on the Sabbath, and Jesus reasoned that He likewise could loose His sheep who had been bound or tied up by Satan. But who tied up the animals whom the Jewish leadership loosed? They themselves bound / tied them and loosed them. Jesus says that He looses / unties those whom Satan has tied up. He thus draws a parallel between the Jewish leadership and Satan, the adversary to His work. The unloosing was performed on the Sabbath- the very day whose Mosaic regulations the Jews had abused to burden people. Significantly, <a href='B:500 5:18'>Jn. 5:18</a> uses the same word translated &quot;loose&quot; to describe how Jesus was accused of 'breaking' or 'unloosing' the Sabbath. He did not come to destroy the Law of Moses itself during His lifetime, but to teach Israel that the Jewish additional laws were to be unloosed. The same Greek word is used in other contexts of how Jesus through His death unloosed ['took down'] the wall of partition which excluded Gentiles (<a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph. 2:10</a>). </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Without doubt there is a word play going on: &quot;And ought [dei - must] not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham whom Satan had bound [deo - a form of dei, literally, 'must-ed'] for eighteen years, to have been freed from this bond [deis-mon, another form of dei, this 'must-ing'] on the Sabbath day?&quot;. Who was it who had taught the woman 'You must this, that and the other; you must not this or that'? Was it Satan in the sense of a personal, cosmic being? Was it surely not the Jewish system who were 'must-ing' people? They, therefore, were the adversary in this context.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he said these things, all his adversaries were put to shame, and all the crowd rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him</em>- "Adversaries" suggests the Jewish opposition were His 'satan' or 'adversary'; see on :16. The synagogue ruler was not alone in being jealous. Shame was a huge issue in first century Palestinian society. We can assume that those who were shamed went away to scheme how they could destroy the Lord. The tension is clearly brought out between "the crowd" and the religious leaders. This was only six months before the Lord's death (:7). Yet this fickle "crowd" were to be so easily manipulated by the religious leaders to scream for the Lord's crucifixion. We see here how limited is the power of miracle to achieve abiding conviction in human hearts, and this explains why the Lord used miracles so sparingly compared to what He was capable of. </p>


text:
<p><em>He replied: To what is the kingdom of God like? And unto what shall I liken it?</em>- The parables of the mustard seed and yeast are to therefore be read as continued commentary upon the healing of the once bound woman. The surrounding theme is of repentance. The idea may therefore be that the huge change she experienced was in response to her repentance; or perhaps the idea is that she was cured without repentance in order that she might repent. And the results of repentance, an internal disposition, are huge. Repentance is the narrow door through which we must enter. Repentance is what was lacking in those who said "Lord, Lord!" and yet continued in sin, as "workers of iniquity", impenitent. Perhaps we are to sense here the struggle to compress the wonder of God’s Kingdom into any parable or simile. The small seed of the Gospel of the Kingdom can produce a mighty tree in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 13:18-19'>Luk 13:18-19</a></em>). It is easy to under-estimate the power of that seed- the Lord's parable seems to be making that point. I would seriously suggest that <em>all</em> of us ought to regularly study the basic doctrines of our One Faith for ourselves, personally. The writer told the Hebrews that he would have to lay<em> again</em> the foundation teachings of the Gospel, in order to renew them <em>again</em> unto repentance (<em><a href='B:650 6:1-4'>Heb 6:1-4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:490 6:47'>Luk 6:47</a></em>.</p><p><em>It is like a grain- </em></p><p>Gk. 'a kernel'. The element of unreality is that a man would not consciously sow one tiny seed in a garden. But the Lord does this, knowing the potential power within that one tiny seed. He 'takes' this&nbsp;one tiny seed [in his palm, we are to imagine] out into the garden and sows it. And the mustard bush was perceived as a weed, a wild bush, not a crop. But it grows into a tree, it grows far greater and more majestically than could ever be expected. Here again is the Lord's encouragement to His disillusioned preachers- the growth of the Gospel, rather like the unreal increase on the good ground, is out of all proportion to what it initially is. Preaching appears 'foolish' (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:21'>1Co 1:21</a></em>); that by sharing the Gospel with others, the vast majority of whom ultimately reject it, something so wonderful and eternal can really come. This parable thereby highlights the faith of the Father and Son, the sowers, that the word of the Kingdom really would survive and grow out of all proportion to its beginnings. This was exactly the encouragement which the disciples needed to hear, disillusioned as they were by the pathetic response to John’s ministry and the Lord’s real spiritual demands upon people. Mustard seed was a weed, part of the curse upon the earth. Indeed it was the weed which specifically grows up at harvest time amongst the wheat; and the Lord will speak of this kind of mustard seed weed as representing those to be condemned at the last day. In this it connects with the yeast, which is elsewhere a symbol of sin. Remember that the context here is of repentance. The idea is that out of sin, out of the weakness common to all men, there can arise something beautiful- a huge beautiful tree, a raised loaf of fresh bread. And both of these are of benefit and blessing to others. But sin will only turn into that if we repent. And that apparently small beginning is the foundation of so much. An obvious element of unreality is that the man [representing God or Jesus] plants this weed seed in His garden, probably alluding to the garden of Eden, where weeds were first introduced as part of the curse. Why would a man plant a weed seed in his garden? Especially when mustard seed was known to be invasive of fields, and was battled against rather than encouraged by farmers. If the man was obedient to Lev. 19:19 ["you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed"], he would have been unable to plant any other kind of seed in his garden plot. Medicinal plants were grown in pots rather than in the garden plot exactly because of this. But this man plants the weed in his garden. As if it was his special project. Rather like the fig tree planted in a vineyard, just a few verses earlier. Here we see another picture of God's unusual interest in us sinners, and His desire that we grow up from that sinful beginning, through repentance, into the tree of His Kingdom.</p><p><em>Of mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden- </em>But mustard trees aren't&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;big. Surely the point is that the small seed of the Gospel produces a quite out of proportion result- by reading literature, spotting a press advertisement, getting baptized... we will by grace become part of the Kingdom of God, and provide shelter to the nations of this world. This is the extraordinary power of the Gospel. This is how far it will take us and the extent to which we can, through the Gospel, become saviours of men. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:33'>Mat 13:33</a></em>. Each of the records of the great preaching commission in the Gospels ties in with earlier passages within the same Gospel record. Mark’s “preach the gospel to every creature” is to be understood in the context of the Lord’s prophecy that the seed of His Gospel would be sown by preaching, and would result in creatures&nbsp;of all kinds coming under its’ shadow (<em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 4:32'>Luk 4:32</a></em>). The extent of witness we make is our choice; and according to how well we do it, so the extent of the shadow of the Kingdom gives shelter to many kinds:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And it grew and became a tree- </em>The tiniest seed was only supposed to grow into a bush, but this unusual seed ‘became’ a tree,&nbsp;<em>ginomai</em>&nbsp;carrying the sense of being ‘caused to become’. This was another element of the unreal- a shrub became a tree. The emphasis is on the word “it”- when&nbsp;<em>this&nbsp;</em>particular tiny seed grows… The point is that this particular tiny seed had extraordinary growth. This on one hand speaks of the amazing growth experienced by the believer from the apparently tiny beginnings of the Gospel. The entire parable may refer to the Lord Jesus, the ultimate seed, tiny and despised, yet who grew to become the Kingdom of God under whose branches the Gentile world would find blessing. For 'the Kingdom' was a legitimate title for Jesus, the King of the Kingdom who embodied it in His very person (<em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>). If here the Lord (as elsewhere) is speaking parables to and about Himself, it would in this context be in encouraging others as to the huge extent of growth possible. For Jesus is the parade example of how something which began so small- an egg within the womb of a barefoot unmarried teenager- could become so great.</p><p><em>And the birds of the sky lodged in the branches of it</em>- A mustard bush doesn't have 'great' branches, but in this unreal story, it does have them. According to the Lord's parable of <em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>, the branches represented the disciples: "I am the vine, you are the branches". The total greatness of the Lord Jesus depends to some extent upon the degree to which we grow into great branches. The disciples were depressed at the lack of response to their message, and the failure of John's ministry in first century Palestine. The Lord is encouraging them personally that from their&nbsp;<em>mikro</em>, tiny beginnings, they would become great branches, and be able to provide shelter for the birds of the Gentiles; although the "birds" in the earlier parable of the sower were representative of the Jewish religious leaders. When the disciples later baptized priests and Pharisees, the Lord's ambitious vision began to come true.</p><p>There are a number of insights throughout the parables into how the Lord perceived His future Kingdom. Significantly, His emphasis in the parables of the Kingdom is upon our spiritual status then, rather than on the physical wonders which His reign will bring on the earth. He&nbsp;foresaw how although our faith is so puny now, as a mustard seed, we will be those who will be as a solid tree, a real place of refuge, to the nations of the Millennium (<em><a href='B:470 13:31-32'>Mat 13:31-32</a></em> = <em><a href='B:330 17:23-24'>Eze 17:23-24</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>The parables reveal how the Lord was so sensitive to us. He realized that his audience thought in pictures; and so He turned concepts and ideas into imaginable pictures in a truly masterful way. He wanted to radically change people; and He realized that the way to do this was not by a catechism, not by pages or hours of intellectual, abstract droning, but by helping them to relate real, imaginable life to the things of His Kingdom. Truly did W:H. Auden reflect: "You cannot tell people what to do, you can only tell them parables; and that is what art really is, particular stories of particular people and experiences". The way the Lord Jesus constructed and taught His parables was indeed an art form, of exquisite beauty. He took ordinary, homely stories and introduced into them the elements of unreality which we will explore in this study. By being so normal, He created the possibility of participation in the minds of His hearers; because they could relate to the very normalcy of the stories. And so when the unreal elements are perceived- e.g. the mustard seed becomes not just a bush but a huge tree- there is an element of surprise and joy. Out of, and indeed right within, the most ordinary things of life, there await for the believer the surprise and joy of&nbsp;’the Gospel of the Kingdom' intersecting with their ordinary lives:&nbsp; </p><p>The Lord Jesus was highly sensitive to the gender division. He did not just ignore it. The parable of the mustard seed which a man planted is followed by that of the leaven which a woman hid in the meal (<em><a href='B:490 13:18-21'>Luk 13:18-21</a></em>). Likewise in <em><a href='B:490 15:3-10'>Luk 15:3-10</a></em> Jesus speaks firstly of the joy of a man finding a lost sheep, and then of the joy of a woman on finding a lost dowry coin. He spoke of the lilies of the field which do not physically exert themselves in labour, as men must do, but also who do not spin (women’s work). Christ spoke of the second coming as finding two men in the field and two women grinding at the mill. This parallelism of attention between men and women can be profitably followed through the Gospel records: <em><a href='B:490 8:14-15'>Luk 8:14-15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 8:16-17'>Luk 8:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:5-8'>Luk 11:5-8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 18:1-8'>Luk 18:1-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:24-27'>Luk 4:24-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:43-51'>Mat 24:43-51</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 25:1-13'>Mat 25:1-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:40-41'>Mat 24:40-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:31-33'>Mat 13:31-33</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 13:18-21'>Luk 13:18-21</a></em>. This approach contrasts sharply with the male-centred teaching approach of the contemporary rabbis and other religious leaders. Thus His parables were consciously designed to appeal to both men and women. Luke particularly seems to rejoice in observing how the Lord treated men and women in parallel. Both Martha and the male ruler lack one thing (<em><a href='B:490 10:41-42'>Luk 10:41-42</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 18:22'>Luk 18:22</a></em>); there are two parables on answered prayer for men and women (<em><a href='B:490 11:5-8'>Luk 11:5-8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 18:1-8'>Luk 18:1-8</a></em>); the men of Nineveh and the queen of the South are paired (<em><a href='B:490 11:29-32'>Luk 11:29-32</a></em>); justice is for both male and female servants (<em><a href='B:490 12:45-46'>Luk 12:45-46</a></em>); both men and women would be divided (<em><a href='B:490 12:51-53'>Luk 12:51-53</a></em>); a woman and a man are both healed on the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:490 13:10-16'>Luk 13:10-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:1-6'>Luk 14:1-6</a></em>); a ‘daughter of Abraham’ and a ‘son of Abraham’ are healed (<em><a href='B:490 13:16'>Luk 13:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:9'>Luk 19:9</a></em>); the woman loses a coin, a man loses a sheep (<em><a href='B:490 15:4-10'>Luk 15:4-10</a></em>). Indeed, a profitable study could be made of how the Old Testament prophets liken God to both male and female figures in tandem- e.g. “The Lord goes forth as a mighty man… I will cry out like a woman in travail” (<em><a href='B:290 42:13-14'>Isa 42:13-14</a></em>). </p>


