# comment

text:
<p>7:5&nbsp;<em>You hypocrite</em>- This phrase was usually on the Lord's lips with reference to the Pharisees whom the Lord clearly detested and whom the rank and file disciples whom He was addressing likewise despised. Here, the Lord is saying that the disciples' critical, condemnatory attitude to each other would make them no different than the Pharisees.</p><p><em>First</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>proton</em>&nbsp;suggests that the following clause is of ultimate, supreme importance; it's not simply a chronological statement that 'first do this, then do that'. If we condemn ourselves in our self-examination, we will not be condemned (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). We are to most importantly [Gk:&nbsp;<em>proton</em>] “cast out” the beam from our own eye (<em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em>)- and the Lord uses the same word about the ‘casting forth’ of the rejected at the last day. We are to judge our own weaknesses as worthy of condemnation.</p><p><em>Remove the plank from your own eye and then shall you</em>- We are to condemn ourselves firstly, recognizing our major blindness, and then with the humility of spirit elicited by this, we will have crystal clear vision with which to assist others.</p><p><em>See clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>dia-blepo</em>&nbsp;is related to the verb&nbsp;<em>blepo</em>&nbsp; (see clearly) in <em><a href='B:470 7:3'>Mat 7:3</a></em> ("why do you&nbsp;<em>behold/see</em>&nbsp;the splinter..."). The judgmental believer sees the splinter in his brother's eye and wants to condemn him for it, but the one who has repented of his judgmentalism and removed that plank from his spiritual vision will 'dia-blepo' ('through' is really the sense of&nbsp;<em>dia</em>). The translation "see clearly" doesn't seem to me to have much to commend it, but the one who has repented of the plank of his judgmentalism will see 'through' casting out/condemning the splinter in his brother's eye. "Then" (Gk. 'tote') you will see through casting out the splinter from his eye-&nbsp;<em>tote</em>&nbsp;more comfortably carries the sense of 'right then'. The moment you repent of your condemnatory judgmentalism, you immediately see through condemning your brother's weakness. And so the Lord has powerfully enforced His principle which He began with at the start of this section- do not condemn. And through this profound parable of casting out splinters and planks, He has brought us to see through our brother's splinter. The only way we can do that is to cast out/condemn our own condemnatory attitudes. It is often claimed that those who have committed what some would see as 'major' sins feel unable to judge others for their sins, and this is seen as a weakness, but actually, we are all major sinners. Those who have repented or matured into softer, non-condemnatory attitudes are mature, and not 'weak' as they are portrayed by their hard line brethren.</p><p>The Lord foresaw the problems we would have within our community of believers in Him; from the schisms of the first century to the struggles of latter day believers. This story of the carpenter with a beam in his own eye who is so keen to extract the splinter from the eye of his fellow worker is a classic(note how he almost forces himself upon his brother to do this!) There is something grotesque, absurd, over the top in this story. </p><p>In Luke, having spoken of the need to tolerate our brother, the Lord Jesus repeated His common theme using a fruit tree analogy: that there is no third road (<em><a href='B:490 6:41-43'>Luk 6:41-43</a></em>). There's no third position. Either we love our brother, and bring forth good fruit; or we don't get down to it, and bring forth bad fruit. We can't sometimes bring forth good, sometimes bad. At heart, we are either loving or selfishly hateful. Anything less than following Yahweh with all our heart is seen as doing evil in His eyes (<em><a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a></em>).</p><p>If we can achieve true self-examination, perceiving what needs to be cast out of our lives and doing so, we have achieved something extremely valuable. We need to ask ourselves what real, practical influence the Gospel is having upon us; for life in Christ is about change, not mere acceptance (let alone inheritance) of a theological position which we loyally preserve to the end of our days as many misguided religious folk do. The value of true change is brought out powerfully when the Lord speaks of casting our pearls before pigs, to be trodden underfoot by them. He says this immediately after stating that we are to “remove/cast out” the beams from our own eyes; but we are not to “cast [out]” our pearls before pigs (<em><a href='B:470 7:5-6'>Mat 7:5-6</a></em>)- the Greek words for “remove/cast out” here in 7:5 (<em>ek-ballo</em>) and “cast” in <em><a href='B:470 7:6'>Mat 7:6</a></em> (<em>ballo</em>) are related. Clearly verse 6 belongs in the section about judging which begins in <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>. The idea of being “cast out” is found earlier in the Sermon on the Mount, where the Lord warns of how saltless salt will be “thrown/cast out” and trodden underfoot (<em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>), the unforgiving will be thrown/“cast out” into prison (<em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>), those without fruit will be “cast out” into the fire (<em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>). To be cast out is to be rejected at the last day. By condemning ourselves now in our self-examination, casting out the eye that offends (<em><a href='B:470 5:29-30'>Mat 5:29-30</a></em>), we avoid having to be “cast out” at the last judgment. If we condemn ourselves now in our self-examination, we shall not need to be condemned at the last day (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). But we are not to cast out our pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and attack us. In this context, I take this to mean that the offending eyes etc. which we cast out are not to be cast out to the world, lest they condemn us (which is how the Lord used the figure of trampling underfoot in <em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>). Thus the teaching about not casting pearls before pigs is seamlessly in context with the previous teaching about casting the beam out of our eye. Our repentances are to be before God and not necessarily the uncomprehending world. The pigs would’ve confused true pearls with swine feed, and become angry once they realized those stones weren’t food but stones. They just wouldn’t have appreciated them. This isn’t any justification for hypocrisy; it’s simply stating that repentance is a private thing before God. The point to note is that the offending eyes etc. which are cast out are likened by the Lord to “pearls”; they are of such priceless value. Thus we see the colossal importance of true change, of self-examination resulting in the transformation of human life in practice.</p>


text:
<p>7:6&nbsp;<em>Do not give</em>- We are not to condemn (see on <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>), but clearly, verse 6 requires us to show discernment.&nbsp;</p><p><em>That which is holy to the dogs-</em>&nbsp;<em>Hagios</em>, "the holy", could be translated 'the holy ones', the saints. They were not to be thrown out to the dogs- i:e. to be condemned. This command not to condemn would then fit in seamlessly with the teaching of the preceding verses. The dogs which were on the edge of the city are associated with condemnation in both Jewish thought and Biblically (<em><a href='B:230 59:6'>Psa 59:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 59:14'>Psa 59:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:15'>Rev 22:15</a></em>). We are not to condemn, to throw the saints out to the dogs.</p><p><em>Nor cast</em>-&nbsp;<em>Ballo</em>, related to&nbsp;<em>ekballo</em>&nbsp;("remove/cast out") in <em><a href='B:470 7:5'>Mat 7:5</a></em> where I have noted that 'casting out' is used in the Lord's thought for condemnation.</p><p><em>Your pearls</em>- Pearls represent the believers. The 12 pearls of <em><a href='B:730 21:21'>Rev 21:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:27,28'>Mat 19:27,28</a></em> represent the 12 disciples. The Lord Jesus in His work with us is "seeking fine pearls" (<em><a href='B:470 13:45'>Mat 13:45</a></em>). The pearls are 'ours' in the sense that all that are Christ's are ours, as He makes explicit in <em><a href='B:500 17:20-23'>Joh 17:20-23</a></em>. His pearls are our brethren.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Before the pigs, lest they trample them under their feet</em>- Trampling by pigs was another Jewish figure of condemnation, of rejection into the Gentile world. Earlier in the Sermon, the Lord used the figure of trampling [s.w.] to describe condemnation and rejection (<em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>). To trample/be trodden under foot meant to despise and specifically, to reject (s.w. <em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em> "trodden underfoot the Son of God"). Again the point is being made- don't condemn your brethren and treat them as mere worldlings, or even worse, those who shall be rejected from God’s Kingdom. To refuse to fellowship them is treating them just like that.&nbsp;</p><p><em>And turn again and tear you to pieces</em>- If we condemn our brethren, as it were, casting them out to the pigs, then those same pigs will turn on us and tear us to pieces  i.e.,&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;will share the same condemnation which we gave our brethren. Thus the point of <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em> is repeated: if you condemn, you shall be condemned. The same word translated "tear" is used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 9:17'>Mat 9:17</a></em> about how the wine of the new covenant will "burst" or destroy the old wineskins and the wine will run out from them. The bursting or tearing of the wineskins is a picture of destruction and condemnation. The pigs of condemnation to whom we consigned our brethren will turn again and trample&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;underfoot. Therefore- do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. This interpretation of verse 6 fits snugly into the context of the preceding verses. Any attempt to make it apply to not offering the Gospel to "pigs" in case we get hurt by them would seem out of context and contrary to the spirit of taking the Gospel to all men without discrimination (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:12'>2Tim 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:2-4'>2Tim 4:2-4</a></em>), and never holding back in sharing the Gospel from fear that we might get beat up for it.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:7&nbsp;<em>Ask and it shall be given you</em>- The connections within the Sermon surely send us back to <em><a href='B:470 5:42'>Mat 5:42</a></em> "Give to the one who begs from you/him that asks-AV" where 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 up to 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!' Jesus wanted us to then, think further as to what He might be really saying which is that forgiveness and salvation will surely be given to whoever asks. These things are summarized in <em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em> where God, for sure, gives "good things to them that ask Him". The parallel <em><a href='B:490 11:13'>Luk 11:13</a></em> summarizes those "good things" as "the Holy Spirit". 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 (<em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>), are likewise metaphors 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>&nbsp;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 asks 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'. 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 extort material blessing from God is sadly inappropriate and will not enter the mind of those who are rejoicing in His salvation.</p><p><em>Seek and you shall find</em>- As David "found" God through experiencing His forgiveness, so can "every one that is Godly", 'find' God today (<em><a href='B:230 32:5,6'>Psa 32:5,6</a></em>). It is quite possible that "seek and you shall find”&nbsp;was uttered by the Lord with this in mind. 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, 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, even though, 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 "you may be found 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 fully), even as also (we) have also been fully 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>&nbsp;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 therefore know God (<em><a href='B:230 32:5,6'>Ps 32:5,6</a></em>). 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 later enjoy will 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;<br/>The 'seeking' which is in view is clearly of spiritual things. Not long previously in the Sermon, 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>). Now, in <em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>, He is encouraging us that if we seek it (the Kingdom of God), we will 'find' it, for 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. 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>Knock and it shall be opened to you</em>- This again 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, in the context of <em><a href='B:470 7:6'>Mat 7:6</a></em>), 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> where 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 door at 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. This metaphor speaks of seeking salvation and a relationship with the Lord in this life, but in the 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 (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>). 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>


text:
<p>7:8&nbsp;<em>For everyone that asks receives, and he that seeks finds, and to him that knocks it shall be opened</em>- Note that the first two clauses [asking and seeking] are in the present tense. If we ask and seek for spiritual things, we shall receive them, but the metaphor of knocking and opening, I suggested on <em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>, has a specific reference to seeking salvation at the last day. Hence the Lord uses the future tense (it 'shall' be opened). His repetition of what He has said in 7:7 is to drive home the wonder of it all: that if we ask for salvation, for ourselves as well as opportunities for others to have it, for the extension of God’s Kingdom and glory- we really will receive it.</p><p>The second and third couplets here in 7:8 use the same Greek words as in <em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em> (seek... find; knock... opened), however in the first couplet, 'Ask' is the same Greek word, but&nbsp;<em>lambano</em>&nbsp;is used in 7:8, ('receive') rather than&nbsp;<em>didomi</em>&nbsp;('given', 7:7). The words 'ask... receive' are to be found again in <em><a href='B:500 16:24'>Joh 16:24</a></em>, where the Lord says that in the era of the comforter, whatever is asked for in His Name will be received. This would not be the only time that the Sermon appears to look ahead to the promises of the Comforter era- see on <em><a href='B:470 5:4'>Mat 5:4</a></em>. <em><a href='B:660 4:3'>Jas 4:3</a></em> continues James' commentary on the Sermon by saying that his readership asked and did not receive (same Greek words) because they asked for the wrong things from the wrong motives. He was correcting the impression some had taken that the Lord was offering a blank cheque for anything. Our commentary so far has shown that the Lord is promising salvation and the things connected with the extension of His Kingdom principles in our lives and those of others.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:9&nbsp;<em>Which one of you</em>- The Lord was addressing the disciples in Matthew's record of the Sermon (<em><a href='B:470 5:1,2'>Mat 5:1,2</a></em>). We can imagine Him looking around at each of them.</p><p><em>If his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?-&nbsp;</em>Ask... giv<em>e&nbsp;</em>are the same words as in <em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>. The Lord sensed that His promise of Divine response to prayer for salvation would be so hard for them to accept, so 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 human fathers to not provide for their children, and how much more unnatural and couter-instinctive for God  not to save us? (<em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em>). His is the Kingdom. He designed it for us, therefore He desires to give it to us.&nbsp;<br/><br/>In those days, loaves of bread looked like stones.          , just as there were some fish (similar to eels) caught in the sea of Galilee which looked like snakes (<em><a href='B:470 7:10'>Mat 7:10</a></em>).                     This surely played a part in the Lord's temptation to turn the stones of the wilderness into bread (<em><a href='B:470 4:3'>Mat 4:3</a></em>). The similarity of the Aramaic words for bread and stone would have strengthened the connection. The simple message is that God will not play a cruel trick on us because He is our loving Father. The Lord sensed human scepticism about God’s simple offer of salvation. It is simply there for all who will trust Him in a simple, child-like way. Perhaps the stone is to be connected with how the same word is used for the millstone of condemnation in <em><a href='B:480 9:42'>Mar 9:42</a></em> and <em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em>, and "the stone of stumbling" in <em><a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a></em>. If we seek the bread of the Kingdom (a common Jewish concept at the time, <em><a href='B:490 14:15'>Luk 14:15</a></em>), God will not condemn us. Note how the Lord spoke of salvation and relation with Him as "the children's bread" (<em><a href='B:470 15:26'>Mat 15:26</a></em>), the bread of salvation given (<em>didomi</em>&nbsp;as in <em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>) freely (<em><a href='B:500 6:32'>Joh 6:32</a></em>). The Lord saw to the essence of our common human fear of Divine condemnation, i.e.- that instead of the children's bread we would be given the stone of condemnation. One reason for the crucifixion was in order to try to openly persuade the world of God’s grace- that it is for real. The Lord's teaching here signals one of man's greatest difficulties: to believe in God’s grace. To accept His desire and passion to save us.</p><p>The&nbsp;<em>giving</em>&nbsp;of bread to us by Jesus at the breaking of bread (<em>lambano</em>&nbsp;again, as in 7:8) is surely an acted parable of His utter commitment to indeed give us the bread we seek above all things (<em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>). Earlier in the Sermon, the Lord had used the same words to teach us to do just this: "Give us this day our daily bread". He clearly intends us to see ourselves as the hungry little child, asking his daddy for bread. And surely God will not disappoint. The prayer will be answered.</p>


text:
<p>7:10&nbsp;<em>Or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him a serpent?</em></p><p> <em><a href='B:490 11:11'>Luk 11:11</a></em> labours the point: "If he asks for a fish, will he&nbsp;<em>instead of a fish&nbsp;</em>give him a snake?".  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. We are being shown here that to consistently fear this, 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 idea of thinking that Christianity, the whole offer of the Kingdom is really such a cruel trick that it's in reality the serpent, the symbol of evil incarnate. It's either that, or gloriously true. 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" (<em><a href='B:470 6:9'>Mat 6:9</a></em>). Like all of the Lord's prayer, those words are 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>7:11&nbsp;<em>If you then, being evil</em>- This record of the Sermon was addressed to the disciples (<em><a href='B:470 5:1,2'>Mat 5:1,2</a></em>). Did the Lord consider them to 'be evil'? The only other time we encounter the phrase "being evil" is again on the Lord's lips and again in Matthew: "You offspring of vipers, how can you,&nbsp;<em>being evil</em>, speak good things?" (<em><a href='B:470 12:34'>Mat 12:34</a></em>). Jesus spoke this to the Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 12:24'>Mat 12:24</a></em>). He may have the sense that 'Even the worst Pharisees have a soft spot for their little boys and would never play a cruel trick on them- so do you think God will do that to you?'. The sentence opens with the particle&nbsp;<em>ei</em>, and it would be justifiable to translate this 'Whether' or 'Even if' instead of "if". Even if they were as evil as the very worst sinners, they would still give their child bread rather than a stone. The logic is very powerful. If we believe God is basically good, then seeing that even wicked people would not play a cruel trick on their kiddies, how much more would God not do that to us His beloved children, whom we address as "Our Father"?&nbsp;</p><p><em>Know how to give</em>- Now the Lord moves beyond simply teaching that God will give us daily bread and salvation if we ask. He alludes here to how a father, even a man who is otherwise evil, has an intuitive sense as to what present his child would like. Paul Tournier's insightful book&nbsp;<em>The Meaning of Gifts</em>&nbsp;demonstrates that the desire to give gifts is psychologically part of 'love'. God knows what it is that we ultimately would love so much, yet as the <em><a href='B:660 4:3'>Jas 4:3</a></em> allusion demonstrates, it is not material things in this life which are in view here. God knows us and He knows all our possible futures, our eternal possibilities throughout His Kingdom, and He will surely give us that. He has created for us the most wonderful things to lavish upon us. To think that in any sense God is a 'hard man' is to tragically misunderstand. That persuasion only really comes from a lack of basic faith in Him and His grace.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Good gifts to your children</em>- The emphasis upon "good" continues the laboured addressing of our fear that God just might not be 'good' and we might get a serpent rather than a fish from Him. The point is laboured because it is such a powerful array of step logic- if it's not all a cruel trick, then it is all wonderfully true. The parallel record speaks of "the Holy Spirit" instead of "good gifts" (<em><a href='B:490 11:13'>Luk 11:13</a></em>), and there is a clear connection with <em><a href='B:560 4:8'>Eph 4:8</a></em>: "He gave gifts unto men", referring to the Holy Spirit. All the same Greek words there are used here in <em><a href='B:470 7:11-12'>Mat 7:11-12</a></em>. On one level, there is a prediction of the Comforter/Holy Spirit, as elsewhere in the Sermon (see on <em><a href='B:470 7:8'>Mat 7:8</a></em>), yet the principle appears to be clearly that in general terms, God will not only give us daily bread and future salvation, but so much more besides, also in spiritual terms. While the form of manifestation of Spiritual gifts has changed since the first century, the principle remains- that God will give His Spirit to those who are poor in spirit and who hunger and thirst for righteousness.&nbsp;</p><p><em>How much more shall your Father who is in heaven-&nbsp;</em>Many times the idea of "Your Father who is in heaven" is used in the context of faith in prayer being answered (<em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:19'>Mat 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:25'>Mar 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:5-6'>Jas 1:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:17'>Jas 1:17</a></em>; etc.) It's as if the reality of God actually existing in Heaven in a personal form should be a powerful focus for our prayers.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Give good things to them that ask him-&nbsp;</em>Answered prayer is paralleled with being given the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 11:13'>Luk 11:13</a></em>). The prayer of the Philippians for Paul is likewise linked with "the supply of the Spirit" (<em><a href='B:570 1:19'>Phi 1:19</a></em>). These passages therefore teach that having spiritual fruit is associated with answered prayer (<em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>), as is the possession of the Comforter, which is the context of <em><a href='B:500 14:14'>Joh 14:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:24'>Joh 16:24</a></em>. Many passages imply that God’s hearing of our prayers is proportionate to His perception of our spirituality. He will not respond to the prayer of those whose way of life is contrary to His word: <em><a href='B:230 66:18'>Psa 66:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 1:24-28'>Pro 1:24-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 1:15'>Isa 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 59:2'>Isa 59:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:16'>Jer 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 11:14'>Jer 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 14:10-12'>Jer 14:10-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 3:8'>Lam 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 3:44'>Lam 3:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:7-9'>Mal 1:7-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:25'>Mar 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:31'>Joh 9:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:6-7'>Jas 1:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 4:3'>Jas 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:7'>1Pe 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:12'>1Pe 3:12</a></em>. But He will hear the prayer of the righteous; and 'hearing' is an idiom for 'answering', it doesn't just mean that God takes cognizance of the fact the righteous have prayed: <em><a href='B:120 19:20'>2Ki 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:19-20'>Mat 18:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:14'>Joh 14:14</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>7:12&nbsp;<em>Therefore</em>- The reason why we should do to others as we would like them to do to us flows straight on from :11, but what is the connection of thought? Perhaps the Lord is changing course here and introducing His concluding summary for the Sermon, which is about 'doing' what He has been teaching. The same Greek for 'do' here, is translated 'bring forth' or 'do/does' or 'pleases' in the distinct seven-fold exhortation to do' which we find in <em><a href='B:470 7:17-19'>Mat 7:17-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:26'>Mat 7:26</a></em>. The Greek&nbsp;<em>oun</em>&nbsp;translated "therefore" is of wide meaning, and could just as comfortably introduce a new section, rather than conclude the section about judging which began in <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>. It can have the sense of 'truly' or 'certainly', as if introducing a major truth. It could also be that the context of judgment, so clearly established in the preceding 11 verses, is not out of the Lord's mind in His use of the word&nbsp;<em>oun</em>, "Therefore...". If we condemn others, if we drag them before God’s judgment because we refuse to forgive them, then we must consider: Do I want others to do that to me? For we have all sinned and upset others to the point of some struggle to forgive us. As we judge others, then we shall be judged likewise. If we really hope they have to answer for their sin against us, then perhaps they will have to. The point is: would you like others to take you to the Divine court for your sins?</p><p><em>Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets</em>- This is another way of saying 'Love your neighbour as yourself'. The Greek for 'do to you' recurs in <em><a href='B:470 18:35'>Mat 18:35</a></em> where we read how God shall 'do to every one of you' if you do not forgive your brother. We also find the phrase in <em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em> - 'whatever you do/inasmuch as you did it' to Christ's brethren, you do to Him and shall receive from Him accordingly. It is true that what goes around, comes around- so it's best to treat others as you would like to be treated. That kind of truth is expressed in almost every religious and cultural system of the world. My sense is that the Lord is not merely repeating conventional, folksy wisdom, but rather is elevating it to a far higher and more deeply internal, spiritual level. This is His style throughout the Sermon. The recurrence of the phrase 'whatever you do/inasmuch as you did it' in <em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em> teaches that whatever we do (or do not do) to others, we do to Christ personally. In that dimension of life, the 'come back' of our actions will not simply be in this life, but more importantly, at the last day. Judgment day, either explicitly or implicitly, forms a major theme in the Lord's teaching. If He is indeed teaching that what we do to others is done to Him and therefore will have its response at the day of judgment, rather than merely in this life as folksy wisdom teaches, then indeed we can understand His comment at end of <em><a href='B:470 7:12'>Mat 7:12</a></em>, "For this is the Law and the Prophets". The Law and the Prophets do indeed teach that human behaviour, especially that done to others, shall come to final judgment in the last day, but I would not say that 'what goes around, comes around' is exactly their major and noteworthy theme, true as that bit of folksy wisdom is.</p>


text:
<p>7:13&nbsp;<em>Enter in</em>- The context is quite clear that the Lord means 'enter into the Kingdom' (<em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:24'>Mat 19:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:25'>Luk 18:25</a></em>). The question is, whether the Lord speaks of entering into the Kingdom at the last day, or in some sense, in this life. Luke's record of this statement of the Lord is in <em><a href='B:490 13:24'>Luk 13:24</a></em>: "Strive to enter in at the narrow door, for.....many shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able". This favours a 'last day' interpretation, for we know from the parable of the foolish girls (<em><a href='B:470 25:1-13'>Mat 25:1-13</a></em>) that some will seek to enter at the time of the Lord's return and be unable to. Some other usages of the phrase 'enter in' imply the same (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</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>; <em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:19'>Heb 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:6'>Heb 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:14'>Rev 22:14</a></em>). However, John's equivalent of this phrase speaks of the believer 'entering in' to a relationship and salvation with the Lord right now (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>). Other words of the Lord also speak of 'entering in' to "life" right now (<em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:8-9'>Mat 18:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:17'>Mat 19:17</a></em>). The guests enter in to the Messianic banquet now, before the Master comes, <em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>; the Scribes stopped men entering the Kingdom right now, <em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>; by birth of water and spirit we enter the Kingdom, <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>; the Gentiles enter in every time one is converted (<em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>); a promise is given us of entering the promised rest, but we who believe do right now 'enter in' to that rest (<em><a href='B:650 4:1'>Heb 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>). And yet we are to labour in order to enter into that rest (<em><a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a></em>). The rich man must shed the load of his wealth and enter in- now (<em><a href='B:470 19:23-24'>Mat 19:23-24</a></em>). Judgment day is too late to shed the load of wealth. We can therefore conclude that by following the Lord's teaching now, we enter into His Kingdom. Insofar as His Kingship is exercised over us, we are His Kingdom, those whom He is King over. The outcome of the judgment day is not therefore some terrible unknown to us if we, in our hearts and lives, are clearly under His Kingship in this life. Our passage into the future Kingdom of God on earth will be a seamless continuation of our present experience.&nbsp;</p><p><em>By the narrow gate</em>- The Greek could imply 'made narrow'. The Lord repeats the term in <em><a href='B:470 7:14'>Mat 7:14</a></em>, emphasizing how narrow is the entrance. The contrast is with the wide gate and broad road. The idea of two gates facing a man was surely an allusion to the gates of Jerusalem which had a main gate through which camels could pass, and the small gate through which only pedestrians could enter. This leads me to favour the traditional interpretation of entering into the Kingdom through the eye of a needle (<em><a href='B:470 19:24'>Mat 19:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:25'>Luk 18:25</a></em>)- the rich must unload their camels of all their wealth and squeeze through the small needle gate. The narrowness of the gate is because it is so hard for people to give up their materialism. They desire spirituality, to enter in, but not without their present attachment to wealth. Remember the Lord was primarily and initially addressing the poor. The desire for wealth, and especially mental concern about it, is the main reason why people do not grasp the way to the Kingdom. That needs some sober reflection, because our natural assumption is that warnings against materialism do not apply to&nbsp;<em>me</em>. Whenever we find ourselves making the assumption that Biblical warnings do not apply to us, we need to really ensure that we are thinking straight and that our self-deceiving flesh is not kidding us, by telling us we simply don't have to take the Lord at His word.</p><p><em>For wide is the gate and broad is the way</em>- Surely the Lord at this stage in His ministry had in mind the way that John the Baptist had come to prepare a "way" for Him (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>). By admitting that this way would only be found by a minority of Israel, the Lord was perhaps tacitly recognizing that John's attempt to prepare a way over which the King of glory could come to Jerusalem had not succeeded.&nbsp;</p><p><em>That leads</em>-&nbsp;<em>Apago</em>&nbsp;is used another 14 times in the New Testament. Ten of these specifically refer to being 'lead away to death', the majority referring to the leading away of the Lord Jesus to death on the cross. <em><a href='B:470 7:13,14'>Mat 7:13,14</a></em> contrasts being lead to destruction with being lead to life; but the way to life is through the death of the cross. We either bear our iniquities and their result (<em><a href='B:30 19:8'>Lev 19:8</a></em>), or we bear the cross of the Lord Jesus. It's a burden either way. The Lord played on this fact when He spoke of there being two roads, one which&nbsp;<em>leads</em>&nbsp;to death, and the other to life. The Greek word translated 'lead' is in fact part of an idiom: to be led is an idiom for 'to be put to death' (cp. <em><a href='B:500 18:13'>Joh 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:18'>Joh 21:18</a></em>-'carry'). Indeed, the very word translated “lead" in <em><a href='B:470 7:14'>Mat 7:14</a></em> is rendered "be put to death" (<em><a href='B:510 12:19'>Act 12:19</a></em>). So, we're led out to death either way, as the criminal made his 'last walk' to the cross. We're either led out and put to death for the sake of eternal life, or for eternal death. The logic is glaring. The Hebrew of <em><a href='B:230 139:24'>Psa 139:24</a></em> reveals a telling play on words which makes the same point: "Wicked way" is rendered in the AVmg. as 'way of pain'; the way of wickedness is itself the way of pain.</p><p><em>To destruction</em>- The Greek is used another 19 times in the New Testament, nearly always with reference to condemnation at the last day. We are making the choice now- condemnation, or the path to the cross, to death, and then to eternal life. The essence of the future judgment is before us daily; "we make the answer now".</p><p><em>And many are they that enter in thereby</em>- The same word used about the "many" who were now listening to Him teach (<em><a href='B:470 4:25'>Mat 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:1'>Mat 8:1</a></em>). Surely He was saying that the Kingdom road is not found by many, yet compare this with the promise that Abraham's seed will become very many (<em><a href='B:10 13:16'>Gen 13:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:5'>Gen 15:5</a></em>). Compared to the wonder of salvation, we are indeed "many", but relative to the many who do not respond, we are a minority.</p>


text:
<p>7:14&nbsp;<em>For narrow is the gate and straight the road that leads to life-&nbsp;</em>"The way of the sluggard is blocked with thorns; but the path of the upright is a highway" (<em><a href='B:240 15:19'>Pro 15:19</a></em> NIV). The road of the upright is described as a highway in <em><a href='B:240 16:17'>Pro 16:17</a></em> too; and the way of the wicked is also strewn with difficult obstacles in <em><a href='B:240 22:5'>Pro 22:5</a></em>; "Who are crooked in their ways and wayward in their paths" (<em><a href='B:240 2:15'>Prov 2:15</a></em>). There is a designed contrast between this and the way the Lord described the road to the Kingdom as narrow, and the way to death as a wide, broad highway (<em><a href='B:470 7:13-14'>Mat 7:13-14</a></em>) because the Proverbs seem to say the opposite. The answer may be that Proverbs is presenting God’s viewpoint. In ultimate reality, the way to the Kingdom is wide and clear and easier, better marked, than the road to death, but the Lord turned all this around because He appreciated that from&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;perspective, this wouldn't be the case. We will think that the way to the Kingdom is 'made narrow' (Gk.) i.e.- hard, restricted; while the road to death seems so wide and obviously right. The Lord Jesus based many of His parables on the Proverbs, and His words concerning the wide road to destruction and the narrow road to the Kingdom are surely based on the frequent descriptions of the ways great way to life, and that to death, which Proverbs so often mentions. The road/way of life which we are on is really leading somewhere. "The way of the wicked" is opposed to the way of him "who follows after righteousness" (<em><a href='B:240 15:9'>Pro 15:9</a></em> cp. seeking the Kingdom and God’s righteousness, <em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>).</p><p><em>But few</em>- See on "many" in <em><a href='B:470 7:13'>Mat 7:13</a></em>. We find another contrast between the few and the many when we read that only "few" will be chosen from the many who are called (<em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:14'>Mat 22:14</a></em>). The implication seems to be that out of the "many" who were then listening to the Lord's teaching ("many" in <em><a href='B:470 7:13'>Mat 7:13</a></em> is s.w. as 'great crowds' in <em><a href='B:470 4:25'>Mat 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:1'>Mat 8:1</a></em>), only a minority would enter into life. There seems fair Biblical reason to think that the community of God’s people are a minority in the world, and yet within them, only a minority will finally choose the way of salvation. This helps make sense of why all the faithful lament the weak spiritual state of the church communities surrounding them. Recognizing that this is a general principle, shields us from the disillusion which arises from having started out believing that the majority of our community are genuine believers. We have no option but to assume they will be saved, for we cannot condemn any individual, but on the other hand, we are to recognize that on a statistical level, only a few of those within the community will be saved. The majority of those who were 'baptized' in the Red Sea did not make it to God’s Kingdom, and this fact is used in 1 Corinthians 10 and Hebrews 3, 4 to warn us not to assume that the ratio will be much higher in the Christian community.</p><p><em>Are they that find it</em>- This is clearly to be connected with the Lord's teaching a few verses earlier that whoever seeks will find (<em><a href='B:470 7:7-8'>Mat 7:7-8</a></em>). He is balancing out the statistical difficulty of salvation with the fact that those who want to be there just have to ask- and they will be. The promise that whoever seeks / asks will find / receive is not a blank cheque about material things, but rather is a promise of entry into the Kingdom. All those who truly love the Lord's appearing will enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:620 4:1'>2Ti 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>). It is so simple that it is hard to believe- those who truly seek to be in the Kingdom, will find a place therein. Note how the Lord here speaks of finding the way that leads to life, elsewhere He speaks of finding life (<em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>). This is typical of the now / but not yet teaching of the New Testament. We have the eternal life in the sense that we are living that kind of life which we shall eternally live. We have entered the way to life, but we are still mortal and await the physical change to immortality.</p>


text:
<p>7:15&nbsp;<em>Beware</em>- Clearly the prohibition against judging others in the sense of condemning them (<em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>) doesn't mean that we can't form a valid opinion about someone's genuineness as a teacher.</p><p><em>Of false prophets</em>-&nbsp;<em>Pseudo-prophetes</em>&nbsp;means that these people are not spiritual at all, they are faking it. They are pseudo prophets. To be such a fake, a&nbsp;<em>pseudo</em>, is not the same as being a believer who has failed in behaviour at times or who has some Biblical interpretations which we don't personally agree with.</p><p><em>Who come to you</em>- The Greek phrase likely means 'Appear to you':&nbsp;</p><p><em>In sheep's clothing</em>- Dressed as if they are Jesus?</p><p><em>But inwardly</em>- Given our inability to judge the inner thoughts of others, and the clear prohibition against judging to condemnation in the context (<em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>), perhaps this is the Lord's comment upon them, and is not meant to be an invitation to us to claim to read the inward thoughts of others? However the next verse goes on to say that we can observe their fruits, and it is by their fruits that&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are to discern them while the Lord discerns them by their inward thoughts, which are visible to Him. Thereby His position on these false prophets becomes our position too, but we arrive there by different routes. We are to observe their fruits, whereas He looks upon their hearts. The Lord uses the same word several times to tell the Pharisees that&nbsp;<em>inwardly</em>&nbsp;or 'within' they are full of unspirituality (<em><a href='B:470 23:25'>Mat 23:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:27-28'>Mat 23:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:39'>Luk 11:39</a></em>). This suggests that His warning against "false prophets" is a warning against the Jewish leadership. He uses the language of 'prophets' because this fits in with the Old Testament theme of false and true prophets. Just as the people had to discern between those two groups, so now, in an era when there were no more prophets in the Old Testament sense, God’s people had to beware of imposters like the Pharisees. They were false prophets, false speakers of God’s word, in that they had effectively elevated their interpretations of God’s word [the&nbsp;<em>halakah</em>] to the same level as God’s actual inspired word.</p><p><em>Are ravening wolves</em>- The Greek word is always translated elsewhere as 'extortioner'. The Pharisees are clearly in view here, and yet the Pharisee of <em><a href='B:490 18:11'>Luk 18:11</a></em> thanked God with the same word, that he was not an 'extortioner'. The Pharisee didn’t see his own sin. The Lord saw their hearts and saw that they were extortioners, but they thanked God that they were not. This is an essay in the blindness of humans to their own sins, and in our need to see ourselves as the Lord sees us, with His eyes and from His perspective. This is the essence of self-examination. The motive of the Pharisees/false prophets was clearly financial gain. This is pinpointed by the Lord as the fundamental reason for their false prophecies and for their external appearance of spirituality. It was because they wanted cash out of people. This was and is clearly deeply upsetting to the Lord.</p><p>We've seen that these false prophets were specifically the Pharisees in the Lord's immediate context. When He warns the disciples that He is sending them out as sheep in the midst of wolves (<em><a href='B:470 10:16'>Mat 10:16</a></em>), He is clearly alluding to His teaching here- that the Pharisees appear as sheep, but are as wolves. The implication could be that there would be fake disciples of Jesus, and that the real opposition to the work of the disciples would be the wolves of the Pharisees (see on 'The Jewish Satan' in my book:&nbsp;<em>The Real Devil</em>). This clearly happened after the Lord's death, where the Judaist plot to destroy Paul's preaching of Christianity involved Judaist 'false brethren in Christ' entering in to the flock as wolves (<em><a href='B:550 2:4'>Gal 2:4</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:500 10:12-15'>Joh 10:12-15</a></em>, the Lord speaks of how He as the good shepherd would give His life fighting the wolf so that the sheep might be saved. The implication is that the wolf killed Him. His death was at the hands of the Jewish leadership. Wolves don't usually kill men. This is an element of unreality to highlight the point- that legalism may not appear too bad nor too ultimately dangerous, but in fact it is, and was what led to the death of God’s Son. Paul's warning that wolves would enter the flock (<em><a href='B:510 20:29'>Act 20:29</a></em>) likewise came true in the Judaist false teachers who entered in to the ecclesias and destroyed so much, both spiritually and doctrinally. I have shown elsewhere that the roots of the false thinking which led to later false doctrines such as the Trinity actually began in Judaist ideas which entered Christianity. From our standpoint today, we can take the lesson that the major enemy of the Gospel will be legalism and posturing religious leaders.</p>


text:
<p>7:16&nbsp;<em>By their fruits you shall know them</em>- Perhaps the emphasis was upon the "you". The Lord knows the evil hearts of these people- but we can't see their hearts, and so&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;shall know them by their external fruits:&nbsp;The need for fruit as a sign of repentance had been a theme in John the Baptist's teaching (<em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>), and the Lord in His Sermon is often building on John's words. The Lord's concern is about those who appear to have accepted His message, dressing as sheep, and yet are in fact completely false (<em><a href='B:470 7:15'>Mat 7:15</a></em>). The whole thrust of His Sermon is that acceptance of Him produces a change in human life; there must be fruit. We are also to take a simple lesson from this for ourselves: if we are to be able to tell whether someone is a genuine Christian or not by whether their fruits are visible, we have to ask ourselves whether our own lives are so markedly different from unbelievers. There is to be something about us, fruit hanging on us, which clearly differentiates us from the unbelieving world. The difference has got to be fairly obvious, because the Lord is here teaching that we can easily discern whether someone claiming to be spiritual is indeed so because the fruits of it will be evident. There will not be any debate about whether someone is in the wolf / false prophet category- because they either have the fruits of the Spirit, the signs of the transformed life, or they do not, and the difference will be obvious. Endless energy has been expended trying to judge false prophets according to the content of their Biblical exposition and teaching. The Lord, however, teaches that the litmus test is in their life, rather than in their intellectual position.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?<br/></em>- The idea is 'Of course not'. The Lord's point is that spiritual fruit is obvious, it cannot be hidden, like a city set on a hill (<em><a href='B:470 5:14'>Mat 5:14</a></em>). If there are grapes, the blessed fruit of the new covenant, on a person- then for sure they are not a thorn bush, with all the associations between thorns and cursing (<em><a href='B:10 3:17,18'>Gen 3:17,18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:470 12:33'>Mat 12:33</a></em> the Lord makes an apparently obvious point- a good tree has good fruit, a bad tree has bad fruit. The point is that we can easily, clearly tell whether someone has the fruit of the transformed life or not. There is no argument about it, because the fruit of the transformed life, lived according to this Sermon on the Mount, is public and visible. The seed of the Gospel which is sown by Jesus either brings forth fruit, or it doesn't (<em><a href='B:470 13:8'>Mat 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:26'>Mat 13:26</a></em>). So much angst about labelling individuals as false teachers is rendered unnecessary if we take this approach. And the false teachers with whom the later New Testament letters engage are teaching a false way of life, and Jude, Peter and John especially point out that their way of life indicates that they are false teachers:&nbsp;</p><p>Figs are associated with spiritual fruit (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>), whereas thistles, like thorns, are associated with the curse (<em><a href='B:10 3:18'>Gen 3:18</a></em> "thorns and thistles"; s.w. <em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em> "if it bears thorns and thistles, it is rejected"). The point is, that the difference between the accepted and the condemned is apparent even in this life, because the fruit of the transformed life simply has to be seen publicly in people. This is perhaps the Lord's expansion upon His command not to judge/condemn in <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>. He's saying that we should not, however, walk around life blind and imperceptive, but rather take good notice of the presence or absence of fruit on a person.&nbsp;<br/>The Lord puts it slightly another way in <em><a href='B:490 6:44'>Luk 6:44</a></em> when He says that men don't "gather" good fruit from a corrupt tree. The language of gathering is very much that of judgment to come; and yet the fruit is produced and gathered now, in the words/fruit that comes out of our mouths. This is why right now we can judge a false teacher, by his corrupt words [this is one of the contexts of the Lord's words about corrupt trees and fruit- we see the fruit&nbsp;<em>now</em>]. The corrupt man&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;speak folly (<em><a href='B:290 32:6'>Isa 32:6</a></em>). Corrupt words are not only expletives (crude or obscene language); the false teacher would be too smart to use them. He comes in sheep's clothing. <em><a href='B:490 6:41-44'>Luk 6:41-44</a></em> gives us an example of "corrupt" words; they are words which create a corrupting spiritual influence in a man or in a community. One may&nbsp;<em>say</em>&nbsp;to his brother that he must cast out the splinter from his eye, although he has a plank in his own, and the Lord then immediately goes on to say that a good tree doesn't bring forth corrupt fruit. Therefore, the corrupt fruit, as in the above passages, means 'corrupt words'. This is confirmed by the following verse, <em><a href='B:490 6:45'>Luk 6:45</a></em> where the Lord concludes by saying, "for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks". The corrupt fruit are the corrupt words of <em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em> - saying, 'My brother, I'm very sorry, but I just have to correct you, you are so obviously wrong and stupid to walk round with a splinter in your eye, I can correct your spiritual vision, because I see perfectly. At the moment your spiritual perception ['eye] is just hopeless'. The Lord understood 'the eye' as ones' spiritual vision (<em><a href='B:470 6:22-23'>Mat 6:22-23</a></em>). These kind of words, in essence, are the real leaven; they corrupt/pull apart, over time, communities as well as individual faith. These criticisms work away within a brother or sister, disaffirming them as believers, disaffirming them for who they are, raising doubt and not hope, humiliating them that they haven't made the grade… until they are corrupted. We have a specific example of a man being punished in judgment for his words, and it may well be the basis for the Lord's teaching here: "When the Lord has performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will punish the fruit of the wilful proud heart of the king of Assyria, and the insolence of his arrogant looks. For he has said, By the strength of my hand I have done it…" (<em><a href='B:290 10:12,13'>Isa 10:12,13</a></em>). Then there follows a long quotation of his words. These words were the 'fruit of his heart'- out of the abundance of his heart his mouth had spoken. And these words were almost cited back to him at the time of his condemnation. We know, however, that it is quite possible for human actions and words to&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;reflect the heart. Consider how Sennacherib invaded Judah but in his heart "he doesn't mean so, neither does his heart think so" (<em><a href='B:290 10:7'>Isa 10:7</a></em>). This is why the Lord clearly condemns a person's thought as being as bad as the action, even if the action isn't actually committed. <em><a href='B:230 55:21'>Psa 55:21</a></em> laments how words cannot reflect the true state of a man's heart. So why, then, is there so much emphasis on spoken words as the basis for judgment to come? Surely it is that although thoughts will also be judged, and the hypocrites revealed for who they are, it doesn't follow that a good man sometimes uses 'corrupt speech'. It's impossible. A good man cannot bring forth bad words whereas a bad man can sometimes bring forth words which seem good on the surface, but which are in fact counterfeit. The point is, it can't happen the other way: a good man's words aren't just his surface level sin. I for one flinch at this, because when I have to own up to having said inappropriate words, my flesh wants me to think that in my heart, I didn’t mean them. Yet, ruthlessly, I must press the point: bad words reflect a bad heart. We can't justify them. We must repent of them, and by the influence of knowing God, through and in His Son and His word, we must change the state of mind that leads to them. We should be, on one hand, simply&nbsp;<em>worried</em> that bad words came out of a bad heart because a good man cannot bring forth such corrupt fruit. There is with some especially the problem of temper, saying things well beyond what they really mean in hot blood. Here again, the words of hot blood do reflect something of the real man or woman. The tongue is a fire (<em><a href='B:660 3:5,6'>Jam 3:5,6</a></em>) that can lead to condemnation, whatever and however we justify its' words as a relatively harmless outcome of our personality type. This may be true, but it isn't harmless.</p>


text:
<p>7:17&nbsp;<em>Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit but the corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 7:18'>Mat 7:18</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>7:18&nbsp;<em>A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit-&nbsp;</em>This appears to belabour the point made in the preceding verses, but the Lord so wishes to drive the point home- that fruit on a transformed person is obvious and visible. If we are to use the presence or absence of fruit as a basis for perceiving false teachers, then we will have no problem at all discerning who is of the Lord and who isn't, yet this very issue of deciding on others' status has been fatally divisive and destructive for the Lord's church. Statements of faith are analysed, and the teaching of others is watchfully dissected to see if it fits that given statement, all in order to decide whether someone is 'in' or 'out'. The Lord foresaw that tendency, for it was the tendency of the scribes too. Instead He offers us this other way, elevating spirituality to the highest level- whoever has the fruits "cannot" be a bad tree. The issue of 'fruit' therefore becomes the key methodology through which to make the judgments which we are called to make in life. The attitude is often expressed that 'Well they may be very nice Christians and all that, but they do not understand the Truth about... [issue X]'. The Lord is tackling that mentality head on, by saying that this "cannot" be the case; if the fruit is there, then they are a good tree, whatever misunderstandings they may have (and we all have them).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:19&nbsp;<em>Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire-&nbsp;</em>The Gehenna fire of condemnation of the wicked is "already kindled" by men's attitude now (<em><a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a></em>). The tree that will not bring forth good fruit "<em>is</em>&nbsp;cut down, and thrown 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&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;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/pledge are&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</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&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</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>). The Lord's description of the rejected being cut down and thrown into the fire is surely referring to the words of <em><a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a></em> (cp. B:50 7:5'>Deu 7:5</a></em>); where the idols of the world were to be hewn down and thrown into the fire. The Lord understood that those who worship idols are like unto them (<em><a href='B:230 115:4-8'>Psa 115:4-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 135:15-18'>Psa 135:15-18</a></em>). Because the idols will be destroyed in the last day, all who worship them will have to share their destruction. Yet we can be cut to pieces by God’s word now (<em><a href='B:350 6:5'>Hos 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:37'>Acts 2:37</a></em>) rather than wait for God to do it to us by the condemnation process. We must cut off (s.w. cut down) our flesh&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:470 5:30'>Mat 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:8'>Mat 18:8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>7:20<em>&nbsp;Therefore by their fruits you shall know them-&nbsp;</em>The belaboured repetition of this point (see on <em><a href='B:470 7:17,18'>Mat 7:17,18</a></em>) is surely because we will have a strong temptation to undervalue spiritual fruit and to seek to judge others in terms of their traditions, culture and specific interpretations- rather than by their fruit.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:21&nbsp;<em>Not everyone that says to me: Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 2:13'>Rom 2:13</a></em>. Paul saw the "Lord, Lord" people of this parable as the Jews of the first century who initially responded enthusiastically to the Gospel. The contrast is between saying "Lord, Lord" in this life, and then in the future not entering into the Kingdom ("in that day", <em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em>). The contrast is between merely&nbsp;<em>saying</em>&nbsp;and actually&nbsp;<em>doing</em>. The Lord repeats the idea in His mini parable of the two sons; the one who 'said' he would be obedient, and the other who 'did' the will of his father (<em><a href='B:470 21:28-31'>Mat 21:28-31</a></em>). The acceptance of Christ as Lord means that we are as His servants and slaves; it is for us to 'do' His will and work. This fits with the context of the preceding verses- that if He is really our Lord, we will inevitably&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;His will, and that doing will be actual, practical and visible. It is the false prophets who merely say but don't&nbsp;<em>do</em>, just as they claim to be good trees but don't have good fruit.</p><p><em>But he that pleases my Father who is in heaven</em>- Or, "does the will". Allowing the Sermon to interpret itself, we see an obvious connection with our prayer asking "Your will be done" (<em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em>). If that request was just asking for God to do His will, it would be easy to pray and also somewhat meaningless, but the connection with <em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em> means that we are asking that&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;do God’s will, and doing His will is difficult, slow progress, building on a rock- as the rest of Matthew 7 records. The Lord's prayer in Gethsemane demonstrates the difficulty of praying for the Father's will to be done in our lives when he prayed there with sweat like drops of blood (<em><a href='B:490 22:42-442'>Luk 22:42-44</a></em>). So we are to pray for strength to do God’s will, for spiritual strength to live obediently to the principles of the Sermon. <em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em> encourages us that if we ask for anything "according to&nbsp;[<em>kata</em>] His will, He hears us". Asking&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;His will could just as well be translated 'in order to fulfil'. If we want strength to do His will in practice, He will give it to us, and His will is expressed here in Matthew 5-7 quite clearly.&nbsp;</p><p>Pleasing "the will/wish of My Father in Heaven" is a fairly common phrase with the Lord later in Matthew(<em><a href='B:470 12:50'>Mat 12:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:14'>Mat 18:14</a></em>). John's equivalent seems to be 'to do the will of Him that sent Me', <em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38-40'>Joh 6:38-40</a></em>). The idea seems to be that we on earth can do the will of Him who is in one sense so far away from us, "in Heaven", and thereby collapse that distance between us.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:22&nbsp;<em>Many</em>- The Greek often means 'the majority'. Here perhaps we have the clearest implication that only a minority of those who come to Christ shall ultimately be saved. Hebrews, Romans and 1 Corinthians 10 suggest that if we think that natural Israel were far worse than spiritual Israel in terms of percentage coming to salvation- then we must take heed lest we fall.</p><p><em>Will say to Me in that day</em>- Judgment will be a process, with the rejected initially protesting, seeking to change the Lord's mind- and then slinking away in shame. Nobody will be passive in that day. The only thing important will be acceptance at His hand and a place in the Kingdom. We will come to that position either by loving obedience to His ways in this life, or all too late, in condemnation. The logic is powerful- we must choose that desire for the Kingdom life&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;as our dominant emotion, overarching all our emotions, decision making and formation of our deepest desires.</p><p><em>Lord, Lord</em>- <em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 13:2'>1Co 13:2</a></em>. To say "Lord, Lord" without really&nbsp;<em>knowing</em>&nbsp;Christ is living without love. Thus Paul saw an association between a lack of true love and an external show of appreciation of Christ's Lordship. Not doing what Christ says is a lack of love, in Paul's mind. If we appreciate this, we will see that those who are ignorant of Christ's words cannot show true love. Biblically ignorant Christians need to think through the implications of this. Those who insincerely say "Lord, Lord" now, will say the same then, at the judgment, with the same lack of reality (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>). The repetition of "Lord, Lord" shows that our attitude to Him in this life will be the same which we shall have when we meet in the last day. The sensation of working for the Lord can be so self-deceptive. He draws the difference between doing many wonderful works in His name, saying “Lord, Lord”, and&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;doing the will of the Father (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>). The parallel <em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em> reveals that men will say “Lord, Lord” but not really hear His words. To hear them is to do the will of the Father. Putting all this together, it is perfectly possible to bear His Name, call Him Lord, work hard for Him- and yet never really hear His words, and thereby never really know the will of our Father. From this parallel we can conclude that our attitude to Christ in this life (e.g. "Lord, Lord!") will be our attitude to Him at the judgment seat. If we think He is a hard, unreasonable Lord, that is how He will be. 'With the crooked (in this life), You (God) will show Yourself shrewd' (<em><a href='B:230 18:26-22'>Ps 18:26</a></em). Here we are met head on with a major challenge: Our attitude to Christ in this life will be our attitude to Him at the judgment seat. John's letters reason along the same line: “If (in this life) our heart does not condemn, then have we boldness/confidence-AV (now) toward God... this is the boldness/confidence which we have toward him... abide in him; that, when he shall be manifested/appear-AV, we may have boldness/confidence... before him (at the judgment) at His coming" (<em><a href='B:690 3:21'>1Jn 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>). The confidence we have towards Christ now will be the confidence we will have at judgment day. This fact should pull us up out of the spiritual indifference which characterizes so much of our lives. If we see Christ as an abstract theological necessity, a black box in our brain called 'Christ'; if we don't have a dynamic, two- way relationship with Him now- then this too is how we will regard Him then:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Did we not prophesy in your name</em>- When we consider the Lord's teaching of <em><a href='B:470 7:22-23'>Mat 7:22-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:41-46'>Mat 25:41-46</a></em> together, He's saying that those rejected at the day of judgment will be so on account of their&nbsp;<em>omissions</em>- hence their surprise, and anger because they knew that they had&nbsp;<em>done</em>&nbsp;good works; they thought that what they had&nbsp;<em>committed</em>&nbsp;was morally acceptable to God, and this would usher them into the Kingdom, but their sins of&nbsp;<em>omission</em>&nbsp;cost them the Kingdom. The mention of prophesying must be seen in the context of the Lord's warning in <em><a href='B:470 7:15'>Mat 7:15</a></em about&nbsp;<em>false</em>&nbsp;prophets. To claim to have spoken / prophesied in His Name (cp. 'in sheep's clothing', appearing as Jesus) implies these people had considered themselves followers of Jesus in this life.&nbsp;</p><br/><p><em>And in your name cast out demons and in your name do many mighty works?</em> - The possession of Holy Spirit gifts which enabled healings and miracles to be performed was no guarantee of final acceptance at the last day. Pentecostal theology needs to take note of this. This verse tells us that the power to do miracles is simply not any guarantee of salvation, as they wrongly suppose. We who live in an era when the miraculous gifts have been withdraw, can still take a powerful lesson- no matter how dramatically we may be a channel for God’s activity in the lives of others, this is irrelevant to our final salvation. The essence of the life in Christ, the life of the Kingdom, is internal spiritual mindedness. The contrast is between 'doing' wonderful works and 'doing' the will of the Father. The same Greek word is used in both cases (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em).  The language of 'doing the Father's will' is used about the Lord's life and final death on the cross. To be as Him, to give our deepest life as He did, is not the same as doing external works for others. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:23&nbsp;<em>And then will I tell them-&nbsp;</em>The attitude which we have to the Lord Jesus&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;will be the attitude we have to Him at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em>). The Lord will "profess" to them that He doesn't know them and they must depart from Him. The Greek means, 'to say the same thing as another, i.e. to agree with, assent'. The Lord will be agreeing with them, that they are worthy of condemnation. They will have condemned themselves, and the Lord will simply confirm this to them in His final verdict. If we are ashamed of Him now, we will be ashamed from before Him then (<em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>), and He will be ashamed of us (<em><a href='B:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</a></em>). Every time we are asked to stand up for Him and His words in the eyes of men, we are as it were living out our future judgment.</p><p><em>I never knew you-&nbsp;</em>“Many" will be rejected at the judgment seat because they don't&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;the Lord Jesus Christ; they never had a personal relationship with Jesus, even though they have experienced answered prayer, done miracles, worked for their Lord etc. (<em><a href='B:470 7:22-23'>Mat 7:22-23</a></em>). They will have built a spiritual house, but on sand (<em><a href='B:470 7:26,27'>Mat 7:26,27</a></em>). It isn't difficult to be a good Christian outwardly. But to&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;the Lord Jesus? That's another question. The Greek for "never" means literally 'never at any time'. The course of their lives was such that there had never been a time when He 'knew' them. We rather expect Him to say '<em>You</em>&nbsp;never knew&nbsp;<em>Me</em>', yet He says that&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;never knew&nbsp;<em>them</em>- because the whole idea of 'knowing' Him is mutual. Insofar as we know Him (in a relational sense), He knows us- and vice versa. We really need to ask whether we are praying to Jesus, talking to Him, 'knowing' Him…&nbsp;</p><p><em>Depart from me-&nbsp;</em>This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:620 2:19'>2Ti 2:19</a></em> which basically means: ‘Depart from sin/unrighteousness now, or you'll depart from Christ at the judgment’. This is Paul's classic way of making plays on words; again an indication of how his writings are partly a product of his own meditation upon and familiarity with the Gospels.&nbsp;</p><p><em>You that work iniquity</em>- And yet they have just protested all the good they did for others, healing, teaching etc. On one level, good can be done- but the good is a work of iniquity if it is done with an unspiritual heart, and especially in order to gain personal wealth or advantage (see on "ravening wolves", <em><a href='B:470 7:15'>Mat 7:15</a></em>). In Old Testament times, God used the nations to do His will, but they were still condemned because their hearts were far from Him. Those who "do iniquity" [s.w.] are gathered out of the Kingdom at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>), confirming that these people are within the visible Christian community. And there will be "many" of them (<em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em>), suggesting the Lord doesn't just have in view a handful of charlatans at the leadership level who claim to do miracles and teach in His Name just for money. This problem of thinking that we are justified before Him just because we are His channel of work is clearly foreseen by the Lord as a major and widespread problem. <em><a href='B:470 24:12'>Mat 24:12</a></em> could imply that this will be a specific latter day problem- for within the believing community, "because iniquity [s.w.] shall be multiplied, the love of 'many'-AV [Gk. 'the majority'] shall grow cold".</p>


text:
<p>7:24&nbsp;<em>Everyone therefore that hears these words of mine</em>-&nbsp;<em>Logos</em>&nbsp;suggests more than simply words. The Lord intends us to get to the essential intention of His Spirit. In the Old Testament, God’s word is often styled His 'ordinances' (judgments-AV)  (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 119:43'>Psa 119:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:160'>Psa 119:160</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 147:19'>Psa 147:19</a></em>). In His word we see His judgments- how He judges and will judge, and in the wealth of Bible history we see examples of how these judgments have been articulated with men in practice. Thus the Lord Jesus concluded the sermon on the mount with a parable of judgment, that of the two builders (<em><a href='B:470 7:24-27'>Mat 7:24-27</a></em>). One heard the Lord's words of the sermon and did them, the other heard but didn’t deeply apply them. The message was clear: "Deeply meditate on what I've just been saying. For this is the basis upon which I will judge men in the last day. You can try to discern for yourselves how seriously and fundamentally you apply my words; and in this you will have a preview of how I will judge you".</p><p><em>And does them</em>- An echo of <em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>, he who&nbsp;<em>pleases/does</em>&nbsp;the will of the Father. The parallel is thus made between the will of the Father, and "these sayings of Mine" in the Sermon. In the Lord's own case, the doing of the Father's will meant the death of the cross. This finally was and is the outcome of living in accordance with the Sermon. This is what it leads to. The figure of building a house on a rock conjures up the idea of sweating labour. Do we feel that we are spiritually sweating, in a sense? Is it that hard to understand and therefore do the words of Christ? A number of passages make this connection between labouring&nbsp;and understanding the word. Elders labour in the word (<em><a href='B:610 5:17'>1Ti 5:17</a></em>), as the prophets laboured in writing the word of God (<em><a href='B:500 4:38'>Joh 4:38</a></em>), and the true Bible student is a labourer who will not be ashamed of his work at the end (<em><a href='B:620 2:15'>2Ti 2:15</a></em>). The Lord Jesus spoke of us labouring for the manna of God’s words, even harder than we labour for our daily bread, and more earnestly than the crowds ran around the lake of Galilee in the blazing midday sun in order to benefit from Christ's miracles (<em><a href='B:500 6:27'>Joh 6:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:32-34'>Mar 6:32-34</a></em>). One could be forgiven for thinking that most of us find hearing the words of Christ easy, but there is an element of difficulty, even unpleasantness for us, in truly understanding Him in practical application. &nbsp;How do we hear and do? We are helped to get the answer by considering how Christ elsewhere appealed to people to "Hear&nbsp;<em>and understand</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 15:10'>Mat 15:10</a></em>). Truly understanding is related to action, 'doing'. In the parable, hearing and doing is like the hard work of digging the foundation on a rock. This is how hard it is to truly understand the words of Christ. Remember how the one talent man also dug into the earth (<em><a href='B:470 25:18'>Mat 25:18</a></em>). He did some digging, he did some work, but he failed to truly understand. The very physical action of digging deceived him into thinking he had done enough, as the physical action of building deceived the man who built on sand. Of course we are progressing somewhere spiritually, as we live day by day, but our movement can deceive us. &nbsp;</p><p>James clearly alludes to the appeal to not only hear but do: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding yourselves” (<em><a href='B:660 1:22'>Jas 1:22</a></em>). James spells out the problem- we hear the Lord's words and for a moment assent to them- but don't continue to do them in the long term. "The word" is paralleled by James with "the perfect law of liberty". &nbsp; “But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty, and continues, not being a hearer that forgets, but a doer that works, this man shall be blessed in what he does” (<em><a href='B:660 1:25'>Jas 1:25</a></em>). The term "perfect law of liberty" is hard to interpret, and it seems to be in contrast with how the New Testament elsewhere speaks of the Mosaic law as being a form of bondage, compared to Christ's teaching as the way to freedom. I would suggest that this "perfect law of liberty" refers to the Sermon on the Mount (see on <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>), perhaps specifically to the challenge to be perfect (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>); the Sermon, as we showed in commenting on <em><a href='B:470 5:1'>Mat 5:1</a></em>, was the Lord's equivalent to the Mosaic Law. The Sermon would've been memorized and recited by the vast mass of early Christians who were illiterate. James is urging them to not merely encounter the words and nod approvingly at them, nor even merely recite them, but to continue in actually doing them. This of course is the challenge to us too, assailed as we are in our generation by too many words, to the point that we can easily give a passing 'like' to them, and yet live on uninfluenced. &nbsp;</p><br/><p><em>Shall be like</em>- As in <em><a href='B:470 7:26'>Mat 7:26</a></em>, "shall be like". The future tenses imply that the truth of the parable of the builders will only be apparent at the day of judgment. The purpose of judgment day is largely for our benefit, and therefore the process will be public- we will learn from the rejection and acceptance of others. Paul alludes to the idea by saying that "the day [of judgment] shall declare" each man's building work (<em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). And to whom will it be declared? The Lord already knows them that are his. It will be declared to the individual being judged, and to those who are observing. The Lord uses the same word translated 'like' in speaking of how in this life, the state of the Kingdom in a man's life "<em>is</em>&nbsp;likened", present tense, right now, to various things (<em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:23'>Mat 18:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:2'>Mat 22:2</a></em>). But in <em><a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a></em> we find another future tense at the Lord's return, the Kingdom&nbsp;<em>shall be likened to</em>&nbsp;the wise and foolish girls [cp. the wise and foolish builders]. We can perceive the essence of the Lord's future judgment in this life- for the Bible is full of His "judgments" ahead of time. Therefore the nature and outcome of the final judgment need not be a mystery for us, if we perceive the principles of judgment which the Lord teaches in the Sermon and elsewhere. But all the same, that day will be the final and ultimate declaration of those values.<br/><br/><em>A wise man who built his house upon the rock-</em>&nbsp;This is exactly what the Lord Himself is doing (<em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:61'>Mat 26:61</a></em>). There is a mutuality between the Lord and us. We build upon a rock, and He builds us upon a rock. We ourselves build, and yet we are "built up a spiritual house" by God (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). Note how Peter goes right on to speak of the Jews as foolish/disobedient builders in <em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em>. He surely had the Lord's parable of the two types of builder in mind. Both men&nbsp;<em>built</em>&nbsp;in the sense that both men&nbsp;<em>heard</em>&nbsp;the Lord's sayings. "Everyone that 'hears' these words of mine" (<em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:26'>Mat 7:26</a></em>). We are all making progress on our spiritual journey, for good or bad. There's no way to just take a break from the journey. Because we are hearing the Lord's will, we are building - the question is, where is our foundation. The fundamental core, the dominant desire, of the Lord's people is to be Jesus Himself, for the rock is clearly a symbol of the Lord Jesus ("that rock was Christ", <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7,8'>1Pe 2:7,8</a></em> s.w.). On one hand, the Lord teaches that obedience to His sayings in practice is building upon a rock, and yet the rock is also Jesus himself. He was the word made flesh, the perfect fulfilment and example of obedience to His sayings. To follow the Sermon fully means becoming as Him. And yet the judgment of the last day will not be a simple test of legalistic obedience. It will be a revelation of where our core foundation, our dominant desire, really Is. Many people living in this postmodern, passionless world will have to think long and hard before answering the question: 'What is your dominant desire?'. Short term things such as getting a qualification, a career, a particular level or form of wealth, buying a particular house, marrying a particular person, some specific success for our children... all these things fade from dominance in the course of a person's life. Many people simply don't have a dominant desire. The difference with true believers is that we do- and it is 'Christ', Him as a person, the things of His eternal Kingdom. This perhaps more than anything else is the simple difference between the true believer and all other people. This is why there is a simple test as to whether a person is a genuine Christian or not, and it's 'fruit', as the Lord has just previously explained (<em><a href='B:470 7:15-20'>Mat 7:15-20</a></em>). The difference is clear. The dominant desire of a true Christian is obvious and cannot be hid.&nbsp;</p><p>Comparing with the parallel <em><a href='B:490 6:48'>Luk 6:48</a></em> it seems that both men built on the same kind of ground- it was rock overlaid with sand. The difference was that the wise man dug through the sand to the rock, whereas the fool built only on the sand. To really get down to the rock of Christ is hard and long work. It is achieved through the process of 'doing' what He teaches. This story is true to life, for so many of us in our spiritual biography can relate how we passed through years of being 'Christian' or religious without having any personal relationship with Jesus, not praying nor talking to Him, not sensing Him at all as a living Lord. The story suggests that there will be some, perhaps "many", who build a spiritual edifice of grand appearance which has no personal root in a relationship with Jesus- indeed, some actually preach against this because of their obsession with upholding theologies about the supremacy of God the Father. But getting through the sand, through the dirt and dust of our own humanity, to truly knowing Christ- this is what alone will come through on judgment day.<br/><br/>Paul uses the metaphor of building when talking about the work of converting and building up/edifying others in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:23'>1Co 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:18'>Gal 2:18</a></em>), knowing that the day of judgment shall declare the quality of our work (<em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). Even if that building work does not pass through the fire of judgment, we shall personally be saved (<em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>), but our personal house must stand firm throughout the judgment process. Note there is a continuity between the house before and after the storm of judgment day - it "did not collapse" (<em><a href='B:470 7:24,25'>Mat 7:24,25</a></em>). Who we now essentially are in spiritual terms, is who we shall eternally be; our spirit shall be saved at that day (<em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em>), our essential spiritual person will be preserved. The experience of the day of judgment will not make us somehow flip over to another side and relationship with the Lord, previously unknown to us. Those who say "Lord, Lord" in this life without meaning it, will use the same empty terms in that day (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>).</p><p>To get down to the rock, the man who truly heard Christ had to dig through the earth which the foolish man also dug into. Hearing Christ's words is likened to digging into that earth. Doing and understanding them is likened to then digging into the bedrock below the sand. The foolish man did allow the word to go into him- skin deep. We need to ask ourselves how often we have recently allowed the word to really go right through our skin, forcing us to hack into the bedrock. Are we truly building our house on a rock? The force of <em><a href='B:480 16:16'>Mar 16:16</a></em>, for example, went more than skin deep just before our baptism. We read it, thought about it, and did it. But what about now? Are we old and brave, thick skinned, hardened by the humdrum of repetition, no longer building a house on a rock? My sense is that many of us are. Let's be aware that <em><a href='B:650 6:1-2'>Heb 6:1-2</a></em> defines "the foundation" as "repentance", and an awareness of the reality of the resurrection and coming judgment. In some ways, the longer we are in Christ, the more likely it is that we will not reach down to the bedrock of these things as we ought to. How often these days do we really repent of something? How often does the reality of the judgment seat truly come home to us? The poetry of the Bible's language, especially if we read the same version, makes God’s word glide over us. Exhortations, even the recollection of Golgotha's tragic scene, the final, friendless end... can all slip so easily over our heads. We rest on the laurels of past spiritual victories. Nothing really shakes us up, reaching right down to the bedrock. Surely each of us should be sensing a surge of spiritual urgency when we look at ourselves like this. Yet God will help us; it is He Himself who will "settle" us, or 'make a foundation for' us, as the Greek can mean (<em><a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a></em>):&nbsp;The rock which our response to the word must reach down to is that of the crucified Christ. That rock represents Christ and Him crucified, according to Paul (<em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:11'>1Co 3:11</a></em>). The Lord's parable of building on the rock was surely quarried from His understanding of <em><a href='B:290 28:16-17'>Isa 28:16-17</a></em>: “I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone... a precious cornerstone. The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place". Truly doing God’s word will always lead us back to the spirit of the suffering Christ on Calvary. If it does not, our building, our apparent development within the much-vaunted Biblicism of our faith, is just a "refuge of lies". All our spiritual effort and suffering finds its ultimate summation in Christ's crucifixion. His suffering there is the quintessence of all spiritual struggle:&nbsp; It is quite possible that as we break bread weekly, we are merely digging a little deeper than usual in the earth, yet still not reaching down to the real meaning of building on the example of Christ's death. The wise man's house was "founded upon the rock" (<em><a href='B:470 7:25'>Mat 7:25</a></em>). The same Greek word occurs in <em><a href='B:580 2:7'>Col 2:7</a></em>, describing how we are "rooted and built up in him". The parallel <em><a href='B:560 3:17-19'>Eph 3:17-19</a></em> expands this to mean that if Christ dwells in our hearts, we are "rooted and grounded in love... able to comprehend... and to know the love of Christ", which was supremely shown in His death. <em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em> associates this being "grounded and steadfast" with not being "moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which you heard". If the word really sinks down deep within us, it will reveal to us the love of Christ on the cross, it will result in true love, and all this will be the outworking of the basic doctrines of the Truth which we understood at baptism. Thus the hacking away at the rock is not only hard, grim work against human nature. It reveals the wondrous love of Christ. The implication is that we can only really understand this love, that passes human knowledge, if we are really sweating away to obey Christ's words, to build our house on a rock.</p>


text:
<p>7:25&nbsp;<em>And the rain descended and the floods came-&nbsp;</em>The allusion is clearly to Noah's flood although the Greek for 'flood' here usually refers to a river. Only those within the ark of Christ were saved. To do the will of God, to hear and do the Lord's teaching, to be in the ark of Christ, to be founded upon the rock of Christ as our dominant desire- these are all different ways of saying the same thing. Our core root, our foundation, our dominant desire, our main self-perception and self-understanding, must be of being and living in Christ. This is the fundamental divide between persons, not their statement of faith, or spiritual culture. It comes down to whether they have a heart for the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom. We cannot judge those "secrets of men" in this life, but we can at least be sure never to reject anyone who professes to have such a heart for the Lord. Paul uses the same word for "descended" to describe how Christ shall descend from Heaven at His return (<em><a href='B:590 4:16'>1Th 4:16</a></em>); likewise the word for "came" is used about the 'coming' of Christ (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>). <em><a href='B:470 24:37-39'>Mat 24:37-39</a></em> parallels the coming of Noah's flood with the coming of Christ. The coming of Christ will be judgment. Our meeting with Him will be the coming of the rain, etc. Even the house founded upon the rock took a fair beating. The purpose of judgment day is to reveal to the builder (and other observers) how he built.&nbsp;</p><p>The flood which came was like the day of judgment. This fits in exactly with the way Christ used the figure of the flood to describe His second coming in <em><a href='B:470 24:37-39'>Mat 24:37-39</a></em>. Peter does the same in <em><a href='B:680 3:6,7'>2Pet 3:6,7</a></em>. The beating of the stream upon the houses is a truly a figure for the day of judgment. It certainly implies a process of judgment, in which the unworthy will experience a gradual collapse of their spirituality. For the man with the firm foundation, the flood of the parable would have been a worrying experience. Would the house stand up to it? In many of the parables, we can profitably speculate as to likely details of the story. The wise man would have remembered his hard work on the foundation, not with any sense of pride or self- gratitude, but he would nevertheless have been aware of it. Our real spiritual effort will be so valuable in that day. Only then will we realize the extent of the fact that there can be no short cut to true spiritual development. A man cannot be crowned, unless he strive lawfully (<em><a href='B:620 2:5'>2Tim 2:5</a></em>).&nbsp; The Lord's parable was no doubt partly based on <em><a href='B:290 28:17'>Isa 28:17</a></em>, which speaks of the day of judgment being like hail which "shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters will overflow". The spiritual house of the foolish builder was a lie, effectively. It had an appearance of real development which deceived men becauser externally, men cannot know anything about the different foundations of houses built side by side. We are left to imagine the details of the parable. The foolish man would have run outside and watched his house being beaten down and washed away. He would have thought of trying to do something to stop the destruction, but then given up, realizing it was too late. The foolish girls of <em><a href='B:470 25:8'>Mat 25:8</a></em> saw that "our oil&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;running out" (Gk). The unworthy will have that terrible sense of their opportunity and spirituality ebbing away from them. The impression is given in the parable that the two houses were next door to each other; again confirming our feeling that this parable is about different attitudes to the word within the ecclesia.&nbsp;<br/><br/>"Came" is the same word in the model prayer- we pray for God’s Kingdom to "come" (<em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em>), but again we find it hard to pray that prayer if we understand it. We are praying for the storm of judgment to come and beat upon our house.&nbsp;<br/><br/><em>And the winds blew</em>- The disciples surely recalled the Lord's teaching when they were on the sea of Galilee with winds blowing so strongly that they were going to drown (<em><a href='B:470 8:24'>Mat 8:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:24'>Mat 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:18'>Joh 6:18</a></em> s.w. 'blow'). Those incidents they would have understood as a foretaste of judgment and condemnation- out of which they were saved only by the presence and grace of the Lord Jesus. Perhaps the winds refer here to the Angels who will play a major part in our judgment process, for God makes His Angels winds (<em><a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a></em>).<br/><br/><em>And beat upon that house-&nbsp;</em>The Greek for 'to beat upon' is used seven other times in the NT, always about falling down at the feet of the Lord Jesus. We either do that in our desperation today, or His judgment shall fall upon us in the last day. There is good reason to think that our meeting of the Lord will not be just to receive a yes/no decision. The picture of the storm beating on the house to see if it collapses implies a purpose and process of the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em>). If it were only a yes / no decision, the language of tribunal, judgment and appeal which occurs in passages concerning the judgment seat would appear to be out of place. Both sheep and goats register their surprise at their Lord's comments on various specific actions of theirs which he discusses with them- "When did we see you…?" (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>).</p><p><em>And it did not collapse</em>- The same house stood before and after judgment. See on <em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em>, "his house". The same word is used of how we desperate sinners in this life fall down before Jesus in confession that we have sinned and we dearly wish to do something about that debt (<em><a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a></em>). We either do that now, or we shall fall down in condemnation at the last day, with the same realization (<em><a href='B:470 18:26'>Mat 18:26</a></em>). Every knee shall bow to Him in this manner; either in this life, or in condemnation before Him. This is what flesh must come to, and we must realize that now. We must fall down and be broken upon the rock of Christ now, or that rock will fall upon us and grind us to powder with the rest of the kingdoms of men (<em><a href='B:470 21:44'>Mat 21:44</a></em>). Ananias and Saphira fell to the earth at their condemnation, whereas Saul fell to the earth in repentance (<em><a href='B:510 5:5'>Act 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:10'>Act 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:4'>Act 9:4</a></em> s.w.). At the last day, we hope to fall to the earth but be lifted up and made to stand (<em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em>).&nbsp;<br/><br/><em>For it was founded upon the rock</em>- Surely alluded to by Paul when he teaches that we must be grounded/have a foundation in love (<em><a href='B:560 3:17'>Eph 3:17</a></em>), in the Gospel of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em>). God Himself has the ability to "establish" or ground/foundation us (<em><a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a></em> s.w.). If we so wish to have the things of the Lord Jesus, His love and His Kingdom, as the dominant, master passion of our lives, then God will confirm us in that.</p>


text:
<p>7:26<em>&nbsp;And everyone that hears these words of mine and does not obey them, shall be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand</em>- The Jews who rejected the Lord Jesus are described as builders in <em><a href='B:480 12:10-12'>Mar 12:10-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:48'>Luk 11:48</a></em>, and to unwise builders in <em><a href='B:490 14:28-30'>Luk 14:28-30</a></em>.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:27&nbsp;<em>And the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it collapsed-</em>&nbsp;The Lord spoke of the rejected at the judgment as being like a house against which "the floods came, and the winds blew, and slammed against that house; and it collapsed". Floods (of the ungodly), winds (whirlwinds), slamming, a collapsed house- this is all language taken from Job's experiences (<em><a href='B:220 1:13-19'>Job 1:13-19</a></em>). He went through all this&nbsp;<em>now</em>, in his mortal life, just as each righteous man must come to condemn himself in self-examination&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;so that he won't be condemned later, at judgment. Flesh must be condemned, each man must come to know his own desperation. If he won't do this, the judgment process at the last day will teach it to him.</p><p><em>And great was its collapse</em>- To collapse/fall is a common figure for condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 15:14'>Mat 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:5'>Act 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:11'>Rom 11:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:22'>Rom 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:8'>1Co 10:8</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>). Condemnation will be tragic; i.e., "great", not only for those individuals, but for the Father and Son and all of us who view it. These are the final words of the Sermon. The Lord ends on the note of the possibility of condemnation, despite His many positive, upbeat and encouraging words about the certainty of salvation. The tragedy of the future we might miss is  so absolutely great that the Lord felt He had to say this. This is not mere negative psychology. The eternal reality of the issues before us are such that we can do nothing else but let the Lord's concern and earnestness ring in our ears.</p><p>The parable of the builders is fundamentally about our attitude to the Lord. There is good reason to think it mainly concerns the attitude of the responsible. In Luke, these words of Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 6:47'>Luk 6:47</a></em>) are set against the background of <em><a href='B:490 6:27'>Luk 6:27</a></em>: "I say to you that hear". The rest of the chapter seems to be addressed primarily to the disciples. For example, <em><a href='B:490 6:41-42'>Luk 6:41-42</a></em> speak of them beholding the mote in their brother's eye which is a  warning surely more relevant to believing disciples than to the world generally. The parable of the builders likewise refers to those within the ecclesia, who know Christ as their Lord. "Lord, Lord", they say. Among this class of people there would be "many" (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-23'>Mat 7:21-23</a></em>) who would hear Christ's sayings, but not do them. I'm obviously labouring this point, that the builders in the parable are those within the ecclesia, or at best the responsible. This is because it is rather unpleasant to apply to the ecclesia that "many" of us will be in the category who say "Lord, Lord", and whose house will be destroyed. The Greek for “many" can imply 'the majority'. Even the majority of those who hear Christ's words simply don't do them. Now that's an uncomfortable statistic for us who sit before the bread and wine each week, seeking to hear Christ's words and do them. This parable was spoken in the context of crowds of the ecclesia of Israel coming to Christ, hearing His words, and doing sweet nothing about it. Such an attitude is not building a house on a rock.</p>


text:
<p>7:28&nbsp;<em>And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words that the crowds</em>- Although the Lord started teaching only His disciples, leaving the multitude at the bottom of the mountain (<em><a href='B:470 5:1'>Mat 5:1</a></em>), clearly many of them came up to hear Him over the course of His discourse- for in <em><a href='B:470 8:1'>Mat 8:1</a></em> we learn that the multitudes returned from up the mountain.</p><p><em>Were astonished at his teaching</em>- The sense of reality commented upon in <em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em> left the people with utter astonishment. Never before nor since have the eternal issues of existence been stated so clearly and compellingly.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:29&nbsp;<em>For he taught them as one having authority and not as their scribes-</em>&nbsp;It was exactly because the Lord Jesus had the power to give or take eternity that He had this authority which the people sensed.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:1 See on <em><a href='B:470 7:28'>Mat 7:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when he had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him -&nbsp;</em>The word for "crowds" is used 48 times in Matthew alone. The verbal picture is powerful: the Lord Jesus at the head of a multitude, with them, followed by them, and yet so alone...</p>


text:
<p>8:2&nbsp;<em>And a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying-&nbsp;</em>The Greek word translated 'knelt', literally means to bow or crouch. Perhaps it is being used here in that literal sense, inviting us then to imagine the Lord extending His hand to the kneeling man (<em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em>). The idea could instead be that the man's worship was not in any external display of respect, but in the fact he believed in the Lord's ability and power to respond to his request. In this case, the man worshipped Jesus&nbsp;<em>in saying</em>&nbsp;"If You desire, You can...".</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Lord, if You desire, You can- &nbsp;<em>The Lord replied that this was indeed His desire/will (<em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em>). This coincidence of human will with that of our Lord is what fellowship with Him and answered prayer is all about. The phrase "If You desire/will, You can..." is recorded identically in all three of the synoptics (<em><a href='B:480 1:40'>Mar 1:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:12'>Luk 5:12</a></em>), as if they all wished to draw attention to the man's attitude and make an example of it: accepting that the Lord has all power ("can" =&nbsp;<em>dunamai</em>), but that our will is not always his.</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Make me clean-&nbsp;<em> The leper didn’t ask so much for healing as for cleansing. He wanted the healing&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;he could be accepted into the community of believers in the temple. Our requests for health and healing should likewise be motivated by a desire to use the healed situation in the Lord's service. Faith is instilled by an appreciation of the height of Christ’s exaltation. He now has all power in Heaven and in earth, and this in itself should inspire us with faith in prayer and hope in His coming salvation. On the basis of passages like <em><a href='B:20 4:6,7'>Exo 4:6,7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 12:10-15'>Num 12:10-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 5:7-8'>2Ki 5:7-8</a></em>, “leprosy was regarded as a 'stroke' only to be removed by the Divine hand which had imposed it" (L.G. Sargent,<em>&nbsp;The Gospel Of The Son Of God</em>, p. 28). The leper lived with this understanding, and yet he saw in Jesus nothing less than God manifest. Inspired by the height of the position which he gave Jesus in his heart, he could ask him in faith for a cure: “If you desire,&nbsp;<em>you can</em>&nbsp;[as only God was understood to be able to] make me clean".</p>


text:
<p>8:3&nbsp;<em>And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying</em>- The Lord is described a staggering 28 times in the synoptics as touching people. This was a studied rejection of the false teaching of 'guilt by association' or 'contamination by contact'. More than that, the Lord was at such lengths to identify Himself with suffering people.</p><p><em>I do desire. Be made clean!</em>- In <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em> the Lord told the disciples to likewise "cleanse the lepers". Again the Lord is giving the disciples the work of the priests to do. For it was the job of the priests to pronounce lepers cleansed, but Jesus is asking the disciples to do what He Himself had done here in <em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em>. His work was to be theirs. The later NT references to&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;being cleansed by the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:560 5:26'>Eph 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 2:14'>Tit 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:7'>1Jn 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:9'>1Jn 1:9</a></em>; etc.) perhaps to look back at how the historical Jesus cleansed lepers in Galilee. We are to see ourselves in that isolated and rejected, leprous man.</p><p><em>And immediately his leprosy was cleansed</em>- The Greek literally means 'scales' and the same word is used of scales falling from Saul's eyes in <em><a href='B:510 9:18'>Act 9:18</a></em>. It could've been any skin disease rather than Hansen's disease.</p>


text:
<p>8:4&nbsp;And<em>&nbsp;Jesus said to him: See you tell no one, but go show yourself to the priests and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony to them-&nbsp;</em>The Lord had told the cured leper to tell no other man but go and offer for his cleansing, in order to make a witness to the priests. All three synoptics record this, as if it made a special impression on everyone (<em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:44'>Mar 1:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:14'>Luk 5:14</a></em>). It could be that the Lord is using an idiom when He told the leper to tell nobody but to ‘Go and make a witness&nbsp;<em>first and foremost</em>&nbsp;to the priests as opposed to anybody else’. Such was His zeal for their salvation. And the fact that “a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith” (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>) shows how this apparently hope-against-hope desire of the Lord for the conversion of His enemies somehow came true. We noted on <em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em> that the work of the priests was to cleanse the leper, but this had now been done by the Lord. The man was therefore to show himself to the priests- in order to demonstrate to them that another priest and priesthood was already coming into operation.</p>


text:
<p>8:5'>Mat 8:5&nbsp;<em>And when he was entering into Capernaum, there came to him a centurion, begging him</em>- "There came", is a poor translation. The Greek word is related to that translated 'knelt before' in <em><a href='B:470 8:2'>Mat 8:2</a></em>. The parallel is thus drawn between the socially isolated, poverty stricken leper, and the wealthy, respected Centurion. The point is that they both were experiencing the same utter desperation which led them to cast themselves upon the Lord. Social differences are therefore eliminated within the community gathered around Christ on the basis of our common recognition of our desperation and His unique and sole ability to help and save.</p>


text:
<p>8:6&nbsp;<em>Saying: Lord, my servant</em>- Masters were well known for disregarding the welfare of their slaves, so in the centurion's passionate concern for his slave, we have an insight into the nature of this delightful man.</p><p><em>Lies in the house paralysed</em>- The same words recur in <em><a href='B:470 8:14'>Mat 8:14</a></em>, where Peter's mother also lies at home sick and the Lord heals her. The centurion's servant and Peter's mother are thus being paralleled- just as in <em><a href='B:470 8:5'>Mat 8:5</a></em> the wealthy Centurion and the poor leper are paralleled. The point is being made that many people from very different lives and circumstances had one thing in common: a desperate need for healing and salvation at the hands of the Lord.</p><p><em>Grievously tormented</em>- The same Greek word for 'grievously' is used about the disciples' fearfulness during the storm on the lake (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>). The Lord was seeking to educate the twelve by showing them His ability to cure a person in a 'grievous' situation, and then the next day (or later that same day?) giving them the opportunity to themselves be in a 'grievous' situation from which likewise, just His word was sufficient to save them, but they failed to see the similarity. And s, a bit later, He gave them another opportunity to learn from this situation. The servant was "tormented", and the very same Greek word is used about how the disciples "were having difficulty" or were tormented in trying to row their boat in another storm (<em><a href='B:480 6:48'>Mar 6:48</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:470 14:24'>Mat 14:24</a></em> we read that their ship was "beaten", or tormented [same word again]. Again, they failed to learn the lesson, that a word from the Lord was sufficient to save them out of 'grievous torment', just as it had done for the centurion's servant. In our struggle to attach meaning to event, we are to likewise perceive how the Lord demonstrates His power in another's life, and then brings us into a situation which in essence is similar, so that we might ourselves experience His power to meet&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;human need. Whether we 'get it' or not, He tends to repeat the lessons, as He did with the disciples.</p>


text:
<p>8:7&nbsp;<em>And he said to him: I will come and heal him</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 8:9'>Mat 8:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>: 'Come and he comes.'</em></p>


text:
<p>8:8&nbsp;<em>And the centurion answered and said: Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof</em>- He was aware that Jews were not supposed to ‘come to' or under the roof of a Gentile (<em><a href='B:510 10:28'>Act 10:28</a></em>). He was therefore aware that the purpose of God at that time was for Jews rather than Gentiles. His understanding was quite deep. See on <em><a href='B:470 8:9'>Mat 8:9</a></em>. The Lord, however, was quite willing to go under the roof a Gentile. That is the significance of the Lord's response that He would come to the sick servant (<em><a href='B:470 8:7'>Mat 8:7</a></em>).</p><p><em>But only say the word and my servant shall be healed</em>- The centurion had a deep belief in the power of the Lord's word, and may well be alluding to the unique Hebrew conception of the creation of all things being accomplished through the medium of a word spoken (<em><a href='B:10 1:3'>Gen 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 33:6'>Ps 33:6</a></em>). One of Paul's many allusions to the Gospels is in <em><a href='B:590 1:5'>1Th 1:5</a></em>, where he observes that the Thessalonians had not heard "the word only" but had had it confirmed by signs and miracles. He seems to be reminding them of the centurion, who believed "the word only"&nbsp;<em>before</em>&nbsp;he experienced the healing miracle.</p>


text:
<p>8:9&nbsp;<em>For I also am a man under authority</em>- The centurion had perceived exactly who the Lord Jesus was: a man, who was under (Divine) authority and yet had others beneath&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;authority. He understood the Lord Jesus as his representative, very similar to him, but with far more power. Admittedly he seems to have misunderstood the issue of demons in that he understood the Lord could say 'go' to whatever mighty ones [cp. his soldiers] were making his servant sick. Whatever his beliefs about sickness and its cause, he believed the Lord Jesus was far more powerful than whatever was causing it. The Lord all the same commended the man for his&nbsp;<em>faith</em>&nbsp;even if the precise content of that faith was misinformed, and if his way of life as a Roman centurion was not the best way of being a Jesus follower, not to mention that he was a Gentile. This opens a helpful window onto how the Lord feels about those who strongly believe in Him but have their understanding of some details awry.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Come and he comes</em>- The same word just used by the Lord in response to the centurion's request, "I will come" (<em><a href='B:470 8:7'>Mat 8:7</a></em>). Perhaps the centurion is marvelling at the grace of the fact that he had asked the Son of God to come, and He had come in response...</p><p><em>Having under myself soldiers and I say to one: Go! And he goes. And to another: Come! And he comes. And to my servant: Do this! And he does it-</em>&nbsp;The centurion seems to have believed in demon possession. He understood that his servant was “grievously tormented” by them. He believed that the Lord could cure him, in the same way as he could say to his underlings “go, and he goeth” (<em><a href='B:470 8:6-10'>Mat 8:6-10</a></em>). He implied that Jesus could just say to the demons ‘Go!’, and they would go, as with the ‘demons’ in the madman near Gadara? (<em><a href='B:470 8:28-32'>Mat 8:28-32</a></em>) The Lord didn’t wheel round and read him a lecture about ‘demons don’t exist’ (although they don’t, of course, and it’s important to understand that they don’t). He understood that this man had faith that He, as the Son of God, had power over these ‘demons’, and therefore “he was astonished, and said… Truly… I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith” (<em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em>). He focused on what faith and understanding the man had. With the height of His spirituality, with all the reason He had to be disappointed in people, the Lord marvelled at a man’s faith. This is an essay in how He seized on what genuine faith He found, and worked to develop it, even if there was an element of false understanding in it.</p>


text:
<p>8:10&nbsp;<em>When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him</em>- Jesus admired him [Gk]. Here we see the humility of the Lord Jesus, that despite His own peerless perfection, He could admire the faith of a man who, as a centurion, was yet far from His own level of spirituality. Despite His own unequalled faith, the Lord Jesus marvelled at the extent of other's faith. The Gospels stress how sensitive He was to the faith of others (<em><a href='B:470 9:2'>Mat 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:29'>Mat 9:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:28'>Mat 15:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:34'>Mar 5:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:50'>Luk 7:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:48'>Luk 8:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:19'>Luk 17:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:42'>Luk 18:42</a></em>). Yet measured by His standards, they probably hardly knew what faith was. “I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith", suggests the Lord thought that Israel’s faith was something&nbsp;<em>very</em>&nbsp;high, when actually, their rejection of Him was the cruellest tragedy in their history. The Lord marvelled at the man's faith, and also at the extent of unbelief in others (s.w. <em><a href='B:480 6:6'>Mar 6:6</a></em>). Given the Lord's tiredness, mental and physical exhaustion, demanding program, extreme loneliness etc., the fact He had the emotional energy to marvel is an essay in His extreme sensitivity, and how He let neither His spiritual mission nor His external circumstances stop Him from having such sensitivity regarding the spiritual state of others. In this we see a deep challenge to ourselves.</p><p>There must have been certain similarities of personality type between the Lord and His mother. In <em><a href='B:490 2:33'>Luk 2:33</a></em> Mary “marvelled”, and the same word is used about Jesus being astonished/marvelling in <em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 6:6'>Mar 6:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>Truly I say to you, I have not found anyone in Israel</em>- The Lord was and is actively searching for faith in people. He is the man looking to find a great treasure (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>), seeking to find a pearl of great price (<em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em>), finding a lost sheep or coin (<em><a href='B:470 18:12,13'>Mat 18:12,13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:4-9'>Luk 15:4-9</a></em>), finding weak and rejected workers to work for Him in His field (<em><a href='B:470 20:6,7'>Mat 20:6,7</a></em>), wanting to find spiritual fruit on the fig tree (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>), finding willing guests for His own wedding (<em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>) i.e., for any who believe in Him. As He meets so many disappointments, imagine His joy at finding&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;faith, incomplete and at times misplaced as it Is. Surely in all this work of seeking and finding just a few, He was living out His own command to seek and certainly find (<em><a href='B:490 11:10'>Luk 11:10</a></em>). He seems to allude to this idea when telling the disciples to fish on the right side of their boat, and they would find (<em><a href='B:500 21:6'>Joh 21:6</a></em>). The incident is replete with symbolism and the message surely is that we will find converts for the Lord, if we seek for them as the Lord did. We in our turn are searching to find the Lord (<em><a href='B:510 17:27'>Act 17:27</a></em>) and He is seeking to find us. Hence the flash moment when the searching God and His Son meet searching man in conversion to Christ. Ultimately we are 'found' at the Lord's return (<em><a href='B:570 3:9'>Phi 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:18'>2Ti 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:14'>2Pe 3:14</a></em>), and we are also 'found' by Him at the point of first faith in this life.<br/><br/><em>With such great faith</em>- As demonstrated in the comment on 8:9, this man had profound&nbsp;<em>understanding</em>. Faith must have content, it is belief&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;something, and in this sense, faith and understanding are connected.</p>


text:
<p>8:11&nbsp;<em>And I say to you, that many shall come from the east and the west and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven</em>- The original word for 'sit down' in Gk. means ‘to recline’. The reference is to the Messianic banquet, where Gentile Christians will sit with Abraham and the Jewish fathers because they have become the children of Abraham by faith and baptism into Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em> comments that the Lord will have to&nbsp;<em>make</em>&nbsp;the faithful sit down at that banquet, so strong will be our abiding sense that ‘I am not worthy of this’. We note too the literal, personal nature of our existence in the Kingdom age.</p>


text:
<p>8:12&nbsp;<em>But the sons of the kingdom shall be</em>- The similar passage in <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em> identifies this class as “you, yourselves”, meaning the Jews of the first century in whose streets the Lord had taught (<em><a href='B:490 13:26'>Luk 13:26</a></em>). They were therefore still in some sense God’s Kingdom, even though the political form of that Kingdom had been overthrown in Zedekiah’s time (<em><a href='B:330 21:25-27'>Eze 21:25-27</a></em>). Likewise those who are under the dominion of the King are in a sense His Kingdom right now, even though the Kingdom is not yet restored in its visible, literal, political sense.</p><p><em>Cast out into the outer darkness-</em>&nbsp;The metaphor continues from the idea of reclining at banquet in <em><a href='B:470 8:11'>Mat 8:11</a></em>. Some would be cast out from that happy, well lit room into the darkness outside. The idea of entering a banquet and then being cast out of it is repeated in the parable of the man without a wedding garment, who enters the banquet but is then likewise cast/thrown  'outside into the darkness' (<em><a href='B:470 22:12-13'>Mat 22:12-13</a></em>). That man therefore becomes symbolic of the Jews who trusted in their fleshly descent from Abraham as a guarantee of salvation and eternal fellowship with him. ‘Thrown outside into the darkness’ to experience weeping and gnashing of teeth is paralleled in <em><a href='B:470 13:42'>Mat 13:42</a></em> by “Cast them into the fiery furnace. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”. The 'fiery furnace' and the 'outer darkness' are both therefore figurative. The language speaks of intense aloneness (in the darkness) and searing mental pain. The spectre and possibility of rejection at the last day is brought frequently before us in the Scriptures, especially in the teaching of the Lord Jesus. It is an element and dimension of life that we need to bear in mind. On the one hand, the Lord seems eager to save anyone who believes; such is His grace. On the other hand there is this kind of language about condemnation. I submit that this is an intended, irreconcilable paradox which we are left with, purposefully, and for our good. I doubt that the paradox can be resolved, at least not by any intellectual, expositional process.</p><p><em>There shall be the weeping</em>- Either we will mourn now in repentance (<em><a href='B:490 6:25'>Luk 6:25</a></em> where the Greek for "mourn" is often in a repentance context), or we will mourn at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em> etc.) Having foretold the inevitable coming of judgment day, Yahweh Himself pleads with Israel: "Yet even&nbsp;<em>now</em>... turn to Me... with weeping, and with mourning" (<em><a href='B:360 2:12'>Joe 2:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>And the gnashing of teeth</em>- Weeping and gnashing of teeth is emphasized in Matthew (<em><a href='B:470 13:42'>Mat 13:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:50'>Mat 13:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:51'>Mat 24:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). Luke mentions it only once (<em><a href='B:490 13:28,29'>Luk 13:28,29</a></em>), while Mark and John never do. It was clearly a dimension to the Lord’s teaching which struck Matthew deeply, and he used it often in his teaching of the Gospel, of which ‘the Gospel according to Matthew’ is a transcript. Gnashing of teeth suggests anger, and <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em> says it is triggered by seeing Gentiles in God’s Kingdom and Jewish people from the time of Jesus rejected. So it is partly anger with self, but also the raging anger which comes from jealousy. We need to meditate upon the way in which actual human beings who met Jesus in the flesh are for sure going to reappear at the day of judgment. On their deathbeds or later in life they may have idly reflected ‘Ah yes, there was that Jesus guy I met once, the one they killed, and then a cult started based around Him afterwards’. Such people will reappear at judgment day, and their same basic personality will continue. Just as they were furious at the Lord’s claim that Gentiles would be in God’s Kingdom, so they will be in a blind rage about it still at judgment day. The only other time the Greek for ‘gnashing’ is used in the New Testament is in <em><a href='B:510 7:54'>Act 7:54</a></em>, where again the Jewish conscience was pricked, leading them to grind their teeth at Stephen. How they felt then in the first century is how they will feel at the last day. The gnashing of teeth is clearly connected with the anger which comes from jealousy at God's acceptance of others. One cannot help think of the very many professing believers who have huge anger at the thought of an open communion table, or of someone they consider to be ‘outside’ of their small circle, breaking bread at the Lord’s table. Those same basic structures and constructs of thinking of their same essential personality, will reappear at judgment day. The awesomeness of having been resurrected and actually meeting Jesus in person will not change our basic personalities. Our spirit, in that sense, is preserved. The time for change of attitudes and transformation of character is now.&nbsp; In the OT, gnashing of teeth always means to hate somebody, often the righteous (<em><a href='B:220 16:9'>Job 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 35:16'>Psa 35:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 37:12'>Psa 37:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 112:10'>Psa 112:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:16'>Lam 2:16</a></em>). Could it not be that the rejected hate their Lord and His people, who will be watching the judgment in some form, and therefore go and join the ranks of the embittered armies that come against Him? Or is their extreme hatred against themselves? <em><a href='B:230 112:10'>Psa 112:10</a></em> speaks of the wicked gnashing with their teeth and melting away, suggesting that the slinking away process goes on even in the outer darkness where they wander, but in their aimless wandering they slowly slink yet further away from their Lord, the one who once gladly would have carried them on His shoulders (<em><a href='B:490 15:4,5'>Luk 15:4,5</a></em>), or gathered them under His wings (<em><a href='B:470 23:37'>Mat 23:37</a></em>). It's a terrible picture. Cain, in typifying all the rejected, felt that his condemnation was something greater than he could bear (<em><a href='B:10 4:13,14'>Gen 4:13,14</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>8:13&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to the centurion: Go your way</em>- The Lord, many times, says, 'Go', (literally, ‘depart’) to a person after having healed them or having had a saving encounter with them. He used it to the healed leper in <em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em>, and again in <em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em> (the paralyzed man); <em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em> (Legion); <em><a href='B:480 5:34'>Mar 5:34</a></em> (the woman with an issue of blood); <em><a href='B:480 7:29'>Mar 7:29</a></em> (the Syrian woman); <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em> (the rich young man); <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em> (the blind man); <em><a href='B:490 17:14'>Luk 17:14</a></em> (the lepers); <em><a href='B:500 4:16'>Joh 4:16</a></em>, (the Samaritan woman); <em><a href='B:500 9:7'>Joh 9:7</a></em>, (the blind man at Siloam) and  <em><a href='B:500 11:44'>Joh 11:44</a></em>, (the resurrected Lazarus). This is a significant theme in the Lord’s dealings with people. It suggests a commission, a sending forth of His work. The same word is found in the commission to “Go into the vineyard” to work (<em><a href='B:470 20:4'>Mat 20:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:7'>Mat 20:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:28'>Mat 21:28</a></em>), ‘going’ to bring forth fruit (<em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>) and finally in ‘going’ to the world to tell them of the Lord’s resurrection (<em><a href='B:480 16:7'>Mar 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:19,20'>Mat 28:19,20</a></em>). We are each individually sent out from Him to do His work in our own unique way. The way for the great commission is therefore prepared by these many examples of ‘sending’. That commission of sending out, is therefore a totally personal matter. It is not something to be merely considered by missions committees, or groups of enthusiasts. We are each personally ‘sent’, bidden to depart on our personal way, as a result of our encounter with the Lord.</p><p><em>As you have believed, so it is done for you</em>– The idea could be that the quality, nature and extent of healing was dependent upon the nature of the faith. We ask for forgiveness for our own sins “as” we have forgiven others (<em><a href='B:470 6:12'>Mat 6:12</a></em>). There is here a recognition by the Lord that issues like faith and forgiveness are not simply black or white situations. They are processes, and there is clearly a sliding scale of measurement for things such as faith and forgiveness. The point is that according to where we set the slider on our own faith or forgiveness, so there will be a corresponding response from God. God’s possibility is our possibility, and this is what the Lord was teaching the man who thought that it all depended upon the Lord’s possibility alone (<em><a href='B:480 9:23'>Mar 9:23</a></em>). The extent and nature of the Lord's healing seems to have been limited by the faith of the recipient (<em><a href='B:470 8:13'>Mat 8:13</a></em> " as…so”; <em><a href='B:470 9:29'>Mat 9:29</a></em> " according to”; <em><a href='B:470 12:22'>Mat 12:22</a></em> "so much so”).</p><p><em>And the servant was healed in that hour</em>- The phrase could mean that the servant was cured within the same hour or at that very instant. In this case the suggestion would be that the centurion’s faith was great and therefore the cure happened totally and instantly. The Greek for ‘healed’ is also translated ‘made whole’, so there could be a comment upon the extent (total healing) and immediacy (instant) of the cure as a result of the man’s great level of faith.</p>


text:
<p>8:14&nbsp;<em>And when Jesus had entered Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying</em>- It appears here as if the Lord noticed the problem and took the initiative to assist, rather than being asked to, yet <em><a href='B:480 1:30'>Mar 1:30</a></em> states that “they [told] Him about her” and He responded. Surely the overall picture is that He did notice her need, but He waited to be asked before responding, not because He would not otherwise have responded but because He wanted to pique the intensity of request and entreaty on their part. We sense the same spirit in how He appeared to be asleep on the sinking boat (<em><a href='B:470 8:24,25'>Mat 8:24,25</a></em>), and how He made as if He would go further on the way to Emmaus (<em><a href='B:490 24:28,29'>Luk 24:28,29</a></em>). In the same way, His apparent silence in our own lives is surely to provoke our prayerfulness and faith likewise.</p><p><em>Sick with a fever</em>- The Greek literally means ‘to be on fire’. This is yet another example of phenomenological / experiential language. A high temperature was thought to be a sign that something was on fire within a person. That wrong idea is repeated without correction, just as the language of demons is. The simple point being made, time and again, is that however people then understood disease, the power of the Lord Jesus was so infinitely greater that whatever was supposed to be causing the illness, that effectively, it  didn’t exist.</p>


text:
<p>8:15&nbsp;<em>And he touched her hand and</em>- This is one of the colossal 28 references in the Gospels to the Lord touching needy and neglected people, thereby showing His desire to connect with us in our humanity. We noted under <em><a href='B:470 8:14'>Mat 8:14</a></em> that the belief was that this woman’s high temperature was because of something on fire deep within her. By touching her&nbsp;<em>hand</em>, an extremity, perhaps the Lord was showing that actually that belief was wrong. Similarly, as with the whole issue of belief in demons as a cause of unexplained illness, the Lord dealt with the issue by inference and implication rather than a direct statement that ‘this is wrong’. He reserved such a style for the condemnation of spiritual intolerance and other moral issues.</p><p><em>The fever left her</em>- Also the language of the day, because illness was understood as having to go somewhere when it was healed.</p><p><em>And she arose and ministered to him</em>- Her response to her healing was to serve the Lord and His people. This should be the underlying motive why we ask for healing and good health, that we can serve. Our response to the Lord’s touching of us can never be passive. It should involve some level of active serving. Perhaps the use of&nbsp;<em>diakoneo</em>&nbsp; here translated as 'ministered', looks forward to the office and practice of women being deacons or ministers in the early church, because the church of any age is to be an extension of the men and women who followed the Lord Jesus in Galilee.&nbsp; There was a Rabbinic prohibition of women serving men at table, so this is yet another instance of the Lord and His people being driven by their desire to respond to God’s grace to breaking accepted social norms about gender.</p>


text:
<p>8:16&nbsp;<em>And when evening had come, they brought to him many possessed with demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all that were sick</em>- It appears the healings in <em><a href='B:470 8:2-15'>Mat 8:2-15</a></em> had been done on a Sabbath, because the crowd only carried their sick to the Lord after sunset. We see here the power of religious tradition and fear of religious leaders and infringement of their traditions. There would have been urgently sick people who needed healing as soon as possible. The people believed the Lord could heal them but their fear of infringing Sabbath traditions was even greater. And we see the same in essence today.</p>


text:
<p>8:17&nbsp;<em>So that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: He took our infirmities and bore our diseases</em>- “He took our infirmities and bore our diseases” is how <em><a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a></em> described the cross, but these words are quoted in <em><a href='B:470 8:16-17'>Mat 8:16-17</a></em> about the Lord’s healing of people. The miracles therefore were performed in the spirit of the cross, with Jesus personally identifying with the sick and healing them through that identification.</p>


text:
<p>8:18&nbsp;<em>Now when Jesus saw-</em>&nbsp;The Lord was so human that He still acquired knowledge by the exercise of His senses. Knowledge was not just beamed into Him.</p><p><em>Great crowds</em>- Why did the Lord dislike the crowds? It may be that He simply found it nervously and spiritually too exhausting for Him to be surrounded by so many wrongly motivated people. If so, what does that mean about our decision-making in view of our human limitations? Or it could be that His focus was upon the training of the twelve and He didn’t want to be distracted from that? Or perhaps He foresaw that if the crowds remained too long with Him, then they would begin a public revolt to enthrone Him as a King or at least some figurehead in protest against the Roman occupation. His continual emphasis was that His kingdom was about internal renewal, not external revolt. There may well have been a simple logistical issue: He could not normally address thousands of people and be heard by them all without speech reinforcement. The feeding miracles seem to have involved the use of a natural amphitheatre which enabled this, but thousands of people just tagging along, pressing closer to see or feel a miracle would often result in no chance to actually teach them anything, because they would only hear exaggerated and distorted versions of what was being said and done by Jesus. There was also the very real practical danger of a stampede and people being trampled to death. <em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em> speaks of one such incident.</p><p><em>About him, he gave commandment to depart to the other side</em>- The Greek word &nbsp;<em>peran&nbsp;</em> here translated 'other side', doesn’t have to mean this; it can also simply mean to go further or beyond.</p>


text:
<p>8:19&nbsp;<em>And there came a scribe and said to him</em>- This scribe was not necessarily a religious one, although probably this is the reference. The same word is also translated “clerk”. It was after Jesus had commanded the disciples to sail further on, possible even to the other side of the lake, that this scribe came to Him. By talking to this man, who likely was just asking the Lord trick questions and trying to catch Him out, the Lord delayed their departure with the result that they nearly lost their lives in the storm that came (<em><a href='B:470 8:23,24'>Mat 8:23,24</a></em>). The disciples must have many times during that storm reflected with bitter annoyance how the Lord had gotten them in to this problem, all because He had been wasting time with that Scribe. The Lord had such a hopefulness and a spirit of passionate concern for the salvation of the individual, however arrogant and conceited they seemed to be, that He would risk danger in order to spend time with such a person. I find this an amazing example, surrounded as we are by a majority of people who appear to be like that Scribe.</p><p><em>Teacher, I will follow you</em>- A massive 76 times we read in the Gospels of people following Jesus. Following Him&nbsp;<em>wherever He goes&nbsp;</em>is the characteristic of the faithful (<em><a href='B:730 14:4'>Rev 14:4</a></em>). The following of Jesus around Palestine therefore was presented in the Gospel records (and they are transcripts of the preaching of the Gospel) as the pattern for all who would later follow Him. His teaching in these verses is that following Him is not about being part of a large crowd which broadly identifies with Jesus and hangs around Him, often not hearing and taking seriously His words (see on <em><a href='B:470 8:18'>Mat 8:18</a></em>). Instead, it is about real self-sacrifice, and a following Him to the cross. In this we see a rebuke of the cultural ‘Christianity’ which has historically been so much a part of the Western world. It’s not easy to follow Him, whereas joining the Christian denomination in which they were raised is, for many people, easier to do than not do. Truly following Jesus is not so easy; it leads to the death of the cross.</p><p><em>Wherever you go</em>- He sensed the Lord was trying to distance Himself from the crowds (see on <em><a href='B:470 8:18'>Mat 8:18</a></em>) by going on beyond them, or to the other side of the lake and this man said he was willing to do that so as to be in the inner circle which the Lord visibly had around Him. When surrounded by the crowds, Jesus addressed Himself to the disciples (<em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em>, and also in giving the Sermon on the Mount, <em><a href='B:470 5:1'>Mat 5:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 8:1'>Mat 8:1</a></em>). “Go” here translates the same Greek word as the Lord has just used in <em><a href='B:470 8:18'>Mat 8:18</a></em> - He commanded the inner circle disciples to “depart”, or “go”. This scribe wanted to be in that inner circle and to go with them. The Lord Jesus had a way of gently turning comments and questions back on the person who made them, and of redefining the terms used. The man said that he would follow Him “wherever you go”, i.e., to whatever end point the road may lead to. The Lord replied that He had nowhere to lay His head. In other words, it’s the following of Him that we need to focus on, rather than the difficulty of some possible great future sacrifice that may lie ahead. It’s the road, and not the destination, that are important.</p>


text:
<p>8:20 See on <em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Jesus said to him: The foxes have holes and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head</em>- The only other time the Greek phrase for 'to lay his head' is used is in regard to Jesus at his death, when He ‘bowed His head’ (<em><a href='B:500 19:30'>Joh 19:30</a></em>). His later warnings about what it meant to follow Him were to the effect that it meant carrying our cross with Him to the place of crucifixion. Perhaps there is a hint of that here. It may be that that night, the Lord literally had nowhere to sleep, but it was not the case for Him every night. Nonetheless He seems to be purposefully painting a demanding picture in order to make the point that following Him was not a case of tagging along with the crowd, hearing garbled reports of His words from others and enthusiastically hoping for some personal benefit from being involved with Him. Jesus died because He gave out His Spirit, as an act of the will. He gave His life, it was not taken from Him by murder. The fact the Lord died, not just because events overtook Him and happened to Him, is perhaps reflected in Paul’s speaking in <em><a href='B:520 6:10'>Rom 6:10</a></em> of “the death that he died… the life that he lives”. Jesus died a death; He, Himself chose to die as He did, and yet just as truly, He purposely lived a life. He didn’t just let events happen to Him. He was not mastered in His life by human lusts and selfish desires. He wa, in that sense, the only ultimately free person to have ever lived. When He “bowed his head” to die, the same Greek is used as in <em><a href='B:470 8:20'>Mat 8:20</a></em>: “The Son of man has nowhere to lay/bow his head”. It was as if He only lay His head down, giving out His life, when He knew it was time to rest from a day’s work well done. He lived a surpassingly free life, and freely gave that life up; it was not taken from Him.&nbsp;When the Lord spoke of how "the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head", He was apparently alluding to a common proverb about how humanity generally ["son of man" as generalized humanity] is homeless in the cosmos. In this case, we see how the Lord took every opportunity to attest to the fact that what was true of humanity in general was true of Him. Perhaps this explains His fondness for describing Himself as "Son of man", a term which can mean both humanity in general, and also specifically the Messiah predicted in Daniel.</p>


text:
<p>8:21&nbsp;<em>And another of the disciples said to him</em>- The scribe of <em><a href='B:470 8:19'>Mat 8:19</a></em> could therefore be classed as a ‘disciple’. The term doesn’t necessarily refer to the twelve, although there does seem to be a distinction between the ‘multitudes’ who followed Jesus, many of which heard a few garbled versions of the Lord’s words and work (see on <em><a href='B:470 8:18'>Mat 8:18</a></em>), and ‘disciples’, those who were willing to be learners from Him as from a rabbi.</p><p><em>Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father</em>- This was perhaps said in response to the Lord’s decision to move on beyond the crowds, or “to the other side” (see on <em><a href='B:470 8:18'>Mat 8:18</a></em>). Like the scribe, this man wanted to be in some kind of inner circle. And he had shown some interest. It would seem that on the morning of his father’s funeral, he had come to listen to Jesus and he wanted the Lord to delay His departure until he had completed burying his father that afternoon. It seems that a third individual also wanted to follow the Lord further in response to the command He gave to the inner circle to “depart”, for <em><a href='B:490 9:61'>Luk 9:61</a></em> records another person wanting the Lord to just wait until he had run home to say goodbye to his family and explain his absence.</p>


text:
<p>8:22&nbsp;<em>But Jesus said to him: Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead</em>- All three people (see <em><a href='B:490 9:61'>Luk 9:61</a></em>) wanted to follow Jesus. The Lord’s replies to them all, make the point that unless they were going to pay the price until it hurt, then they were not truly following Him but merely tagging along with the huge crowds. There is a clear link between following Christ and carrying His cross. <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:34'>Mar 8:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em> make it apparent: “If any of you wants to be my follower, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (<em><a href='B:480 8:34'>Mar 8:34</a></em> ). There are also other less evident connections. The man following his father’s coffin was told to break off and come follow Christ instead (<em><a href='B:470 8:22'>Mat 8:22</a></em>) as if following Him involved following Him to the place of death. The faithful women who literally followed Him to the cross are described as&nbsp;<em>also</em>&nbsp;having followed Him in Galilee (<em><a href='B:480 15:41'>Mar 15:41</a></em>), as if their following then and their literal following of Him to Golgotha were all part of the same walk.</p>


text:
<p>8:23&nbsp;<em>And when he had boarded a boat, his disciples followed him</em>- This is quite a compliment, given the definitions the Lord has been giving in <em><a href='B:470 8:22'>Mat 8:22</a></em> about the difficulty of truly following Him. Chapter 8 emphasizes this theme of following Jesus. The Greek literally means to take the same road as (<em><a href='B:470 8:1'>Mat 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:19'>Mat 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:22'>Mat 8:22</a></em>). Verses 21 and 22 emphasize that this was not as easy as merely literally walking around Palestine with Jesus, following Him only externally, but it involved the loss of everything one holds dear in human life. The road or way taken by the Lord ultimately led to the cross. A huge 76 times this word for 'follow' is used in the Gospels. The following of Jesus in all ways is the essence of Christianity, for the faithful are those who follow the Lamb&nbsp;<em>wherever</em>&nbsp;[and that surely is the emphasis] He goes (<em><a href='B:730 14:4'>Rev 14:4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>8:24&nbsp;<em>And without warning, a furious storm</em>- The word for 'furious storm' is also translated "earthquake". The waves from the earthquake "covered" or 'hid' [s.w.] the ship. Given the intensity of the situation it seems unlikely the Lord was really asleep. Here we have a picture of the apparent silence of God. Jesus appeared to be asleep. He remained with eyes closed, lying there as the boat was hidden beneath the waves. He did this surely to pique the intensity of faith and urgency of appeal in the disciples' prayer to Him for salvation. Similarly, the apparent silence of the Lord in our lives is ultimately to try to achieve the same effect.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Arose on the sea</em>- Same Greek word occurs in <em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em> "there was/arose a great calm". Just as easily as God can raise up a crisis, He can raise up the resolution to it. The changes of tense often seen in some translations of the Gospel records suggest an eye witness telling the story. Take the parallel <em><a href='B:480 4:37'>Mar 4:37</a></em>: "And there arises a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the boat, insomuch that the boat was now filling" (RV). The rest of the account in the surrounding verses is in proper past tenses- e.g. "He arose, and rebuked the wind, and said...RV" (<em><a href='B:480 4:39'>Mar 4:39</a></em>). The impression we have is of the author getting carried away with the memory of the event, and telling it as if it's actually happening. This is especially fitting if in fact the Gospels were performed live, rather than coldly memorized as prose.<br/><br/><em>So much so that the boat was covered with the waves; but he slept</em>- The Greek for 'slept' could also mean, 'lying down to rest, but how could He appear to be resting or asleep in such a situation? I suggest He did this to elicit their desire for Him. Likewise He made as if He would walk by them during another storm (<em><a href='B:480 6:48'>Mar 6:48</a></em> ), and acted as if He would go on further on the walk to Emmaus (<em><a href='B:490 24:28'>Luk 24:28</a></em> ). It was all in order to elicit their urgent desire for Him. It is    His apparent silence to us; that lack of immediate response, which can heighten our final sense of His grace and action. We see it in how He delayed going to Lazarus (<em><a href='B:500 11:6'>Joh 11:6</a></em> ). This is the principle of <em><a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a></em>: "Therefore Yahweh will wait, that He may be gracious to you; and therefore He will be exalted, that He may have mercy on you, for Yahweh is a God of justice. Blessed are all those who wait for Him".</p>


text:
<p>8:25&nbsp;<em>And they came to Him</em>- 'Coming to' can be understood in the sense of worship. His apparent silence led them to an intensity of prayerful approach to Him. See on <em><a href='B:470 8:24'>Mat 8:24</a></em>.</p><p><em>And awoke him</em>- Literally, to raise up. 'Slept' in <em><a href='B:470 8:24'>Mat 8:24</a></em> can also mean simply to lay down to rest. It seemed He didn’t want to do anything until they imposed upon Him with all their energy and intensity of focus upon Him and Him alone, as their Saviour. The whole situation was raised up to that end goal.<br/><br/><em>Saying, Save us, Lord!</em>- Peter used the same word when he urged the Lord in another storm "save&nbsp;<em>me</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 14:30'>Mat 14:30</a></em>). We see how the Lord repeated the storm experience in the lives of the disciples, hoping they would learn the lesson of faith and focus upon Him, repeating them so that they might be learned. The two incidents are again connected by the rebuke "You [plural] of little faith" (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>) and then to Peter "You [singular] of little faith" (<em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>).<br/><br/><em>We perish!</em>- The same Greek words for 'save' and 'perish' also occur together in <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>, where the Lord teaches that if we seek to save our lives in this world then we will lose it/perish. He could thereby be making a criticism of the disciples' plea to be saved from perishing. His sense would then have been 'You should have an even greater, focused intensity upon your need to be saved spiritually and not to perish eternally'. Again the two words occur together in <em><a href='B:470 18:11'>Mat 18:11</a></em>, where the Lord says that He came to save those who are perishing/lost. Again, He has in view spiritual, ultimate salvation. The perishing disciples on the lake, in need of saving, are therefore being set up as a picture of the intensity of desire we should have for forgiveness and salvation. The way in which essential intention is understood as prayer is perhaps reflected in the way Matthew records that the disciples prayed during the storm on the lake: "Save us, Lord, we perish!" (<em><a href='B:470 8:25'>Mat 8:25</a></em>). Mark records that their actual words were "Teacher, do you not care that we perish?" (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>). Perhaps this was read by Matthew's inspiration as prayer. An alternative would be that they firstly said the words recorded by Mark, and then those by Matthew, in which case we could perhaps notice the difference between "Teacher!" and "Lord!", as if the higher they perceived the greatness of the Lord Jesus, the more moved they were to prayer.</p><br/><p>Mark records that they actually said:&nbsp;“Do you not care that we perish?” (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>). His whole life and death were because He&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;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.</p>


text:
<p>8:26&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Why are you fearful?</em>- Fear and unbelief are again connected in <em><a href='B:730 21:8'>Rev 21:8</a></em>. The unbelief refers ultimately to disbelief in our salvation, fear of condemnation; see on <em><a href='B:470 8:25'>Mat 8:25</a></em> 'We perish'.</p><p><em>O you of little faith!</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 8:25'>Mat 8:25</a></em> "save us". The question as to&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;they had little faith echoes to us. Why is it that faith is so hard for us? The track record of the Father and Son as rewarding faith is clear and without question. This&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;question drives each individual into personal introspection, reviewing our history, past and present influences upon us, and the nature of our personality.&nbsp;<em>Why</em>&nbsp;do we not believe very strongly... ? The records of the Lord’s words to the disciples in the sinking ship are significantly different within the Gospel records. Luke’s record has Him upbraiding them: “Where is your faith?” (<em><a href='B:490 8:25'>Luk 8:25</a></em>), as if He thought they had none, and in Mark, He sounds surprised tha they don't seem to have any: 'Do you still not have faith?' (<em><a href='B:480 4;40'>Mar 4:40</a></em>). Matthew has Him commenting: “O you of&nbsp;<em>little</em>&nbsp;faith..." (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>). Putting them together, perhaps He said and implied something like: ‘O you of little faith, you who think you have a little faith, in my view you have no&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;faith. Come on, where is your&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;faith, not the little bit which&nbsp;<em>you&nbsp;</em>think you have…?’ The Greek for “little” faith is also translated ‘almost’, as if the Lord is saying that they almost had faith, but in reality, had nothing. The Lord spoke of how just a little piece of real faith, like a grain of mustard seed or a bit of yeast,  could result in so much (<em><a href='B:470 13:31-33'>Mat 13:31-33</a></em>) as if He recognized that there was pseudo-faith, and the real thing:&nbsp;<em>Oligopistos&nbsp;</em>("little faith") is used five times by Matthew (<em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</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>). This word never occurs in Mark and only once in Luke. Perhaps Matthew's Gospel record was written to challenge those whose faith was small, and he encourages them that the disciples likewise started with "little faith".&nbsp;</p><p>It seems to me that all the Lord's servants are taught by increments, progressively being given tests as to the degree to which they have grasped what the Lord has sought to teach them previously. The Lord Jesus used a similar structured approach with the training of the twelve disciples. When the Lord commented “Have you not yet faith?” (<em><a href='B:480 4:40'>Mar 4:40</a></em> RV) it becomes immediately apparent that He was working with the twelve according to some program of spiritual development, and He was frustrated with their lack of response to it and slow progress. He surely has a similar program in place, and makes similar patient efforts, with each one of us. It is apparent to any reader of the Greek text of the Gospels that Jesus almost always left the verb “believe/to have faith” without an object (e.g. <em><a href='B:480 4:40'>Mar 4:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:34'>Mar 5:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:36'>Mar 5:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:23'>Mar 9:23</a></em>). The question naturally arose: ‘Believe/have faith&nbsp;<em>in what or whom</em>?’, and seeing the speaker of the words, the answer was there before their eyes.</p><p><em>Then he arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm</em>- The Greek for "rebuked" can mean just this, but it is also translated 'to solemnly charge'. There are times in the Gospels where the sovereign authority of Jesus as Lord simply shines through. He did His work with a minimum of such displays of authority, yet there are enough of them to make us appreciate how He could so easily have 'come down from the cross'. Such incidents of sovereign authority in His ministry simply pave the way for us to appreciate the degree of self-control and wilful sacrifice and suffering which He achieved on the cross. The peoples of the first century, and their predecessors, believed that demons and the Satan monster were somehow associated with water. That was why, they believed the water mysteriously kept moving, and at times blew up into storms. When we read of God ‘rebuking’ the waters and making them calm or do what He wished (<em><a href='B:230 18:16'>Psa 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 104:6,7'>Psa 104:6,7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:9'>Psa 106:9</a></em>), we’re effectively being told that Yahweh of Israel is so infinitely superior to those supposed demons and sea monsters, that for God’s people, these have no effective existence. The Lord Jesus taught the same lesson when He ‘rebuked’ the sea and wind during the storm on the lake here (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>). The same Greek word is used to described how He ‘rebuked’ demons (<em><a href='B:470 17:18'>Mat 17:18</a></em> etc.). I have no doubt that the Lord Jesus didn’t believe there was a Loch Ness–type monster lurking in Galilee which He had to rebuke in order to save the disciples from the storm. Likewise He spoke of ‘rebuking’ demons as a similar way of teaching others that&nbsp;<em>whatever</em>&nbsp;ideas they had about demons, He was greater and was in a position to ‘rebuke’ them. Likewise He assured His men that they had the power to tread on snakes, scorpions, and all their enemies (<em><a href='B:490 10:17-20'>Luk 10:17-20</a></em>). The image of a victorious god trampling his foes and snakes underfoot was well established in the surrounding cultures, and had entered Judaism. The Lord is teaching those fearful men that OK, if that’s your perception of things, well, in your terms, you have ultimate victory through working ‘in My name’.</p><p>Mark records that the Lord commanded the waves, “Peace, be still” (<em><a href='B:480 4:39'>Mar 4:39</a></em>. His authoritative command was probably primarily addressed to the Angels controlling the natural elements. The reference to Angels 'ministering' to Him after the temptations suggests their inferiority (<em><a href='B:470 4:11'>Mat 4:11</a></em>). Thus He could summon twelve legions of Angels at the time of His greatest passion (<em><a href='B:470 26:53'>Mat 26:53</a></em>). It may be He remembered this incident on the lake and it was a temptation to Him to use this power over Angels at the crucifixion.</p><p>All three of the Synoptics use the same phrase for "a great calm" (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em><em>; <a href='B:480 4:39'>Mar 4:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:24'>Luk 8:24</a></em>). It would have been a profound experience which looks ahead to the calm of God’s Kingdom being brought about by intense latter day prayer during a tribulation so intense that unless it were shortened, the faithful would die (<em><a href='B:470 24:20-22'>Mat 24:20-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>). When the Lord calmed the raging sea into a still calmness, He was consciously replicating what happened when Jonah was cast into the sea (<em><a href='B:390 1:15'>Jona 1:15</a></em>). Jesus said plainly that He understood Jonah’s willing submission to this as a type of His own coming death (<em><a href='B:470 12:40'>Mat 12:40</a></em>). Therefore He saw the stilled sea as a symbol of the peace His sacrifice would achieve. Yet even during His ministry, He brought that calmness about, for in principle, His sacrifice was ongoing throughout His life. His blood is a symbol both of His cross and of the life He lived.</p>


text:
<p>8:27&nbsp;<em>And the men</em>- The word 'men' is not the usual term used in Scripture for the disciples, but it is understandable here, since they were awed by the power and majesty of the Father and Son, and therefore keenly felt their humanity.</p><p><em>Marvelled, saying</em>- 'Marvelled' is a word so often used about the response of people to miracles. The Lord had marvelled/was astonished at another's faith in <em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em>, and now men marvel at His faith. A very positive mutuality is suggested here between the Lord and His followers.<br/><br/><em>What manner of man is this</em>- What&nbsp;<em>sort</em>&nbsp;of man is this (Gk:&nbsp;<em>potapos</em>), they asked themselves. They very much felt their own humanity (hence they are called "the men" at this time), and their awe was because they sensed that Jesus too was a man. Accepting the humanity of the Lord Jesus is relatively easy on one level, as a matter of theology, exposition or logic, but then comes the far harder part: the awe at the fact that One who was like me could actually do so much and be so much. This can lead to our feeling a kind of gap between Him and us. Although we know He shared our same nature, we sense the spiritual distance between Him and us very keenly. In later spiritual maturity, Peter seems to have reflected upon this gap and realized that it was bridgeable, for he uses a similar word in saying that because of God’s grace, "what manner of persons(<em>potapous</em>) ought we to be..." (<em><a href='B:680 3:9-12'>2Pet 3:9-12</a></em>). Just as Jesus was human and yet different from unbelieving men, so that same element of difference can be seen in us. This whole consideration is an essay in His humanity and representation of us as humans.<br/>"What manner of&nbsp;<em>man</em>&nbsp;is this?" may have been said upon perceiving that His actions were in fulfilment of the prophecy that&nbsp;<em>Yahweh&nbsp;</em>would still the waves of the sea (<em><a href='B:230 65:5-7'>Ps 65:5-7</a></em>). In the context of stilling another storm, He comments: "Be of good cheer, it is I" - not 'it's&nbsp;<em>me</em>' (<em><a href='B:470 14:27'>Mat 14:27</a></em>). He was surely suggesting they connect Him with the essence of the Yahweh Name, I am Who I am' (<em><a href='B:20 3:14'>Exo 3:14</a></em>), but this connection was only for those who would truly meditate and connect things together. As our Moslem friends have correctly pointed out many times, Jesus Himself, never in so many words, claimed to be Messiah. When others said this about Him, He replies by describing Himself as the "son of man". Indeed, this was His preferred self-image. He was intensely conscious of His humanity and solidarity with us. It was as if He directed us, who later have believed, to see Him first and foremost as a&nbsp;<em>man of our nature</em>. Of course, He was and is so much more than that, but because we are human, we need to imagine ourselves around a perfect human; Jesus, the real and full humanity as God intended. Here, those who believe that Jesus was God Himself, place themselves at a distinct disadvantage. Our understanding that Jesus did indeed come "in the flesh" ought to be a tremendous inspiration to us to be like Him. The power and compulsion of His life and example are surely diminished by relating to Him as God Himself.</p><p><em>That even the winds and the sea obey him?</em>- The disciples spoke of the wind and sea as if they were conscious entities, able to be obedient to the word of Jesus. The same word is used to describe the marvel of the people that "even the unclean spirits... obey Him" (<em><a href='B:480 1:27'>Mar 1:27</a></em>). Just as wind and sea are not actually living entities, so unclean spirits likewise don't actually exist, but the disciples clearly had this idea in their heads, yet the scale of the Lord's power over such entities in fact showed their effective non-existence in practice.</p>


text:
<p>8:28&nbsp;<em>And when he had arrived on the other side</em>- The Gospel records often paint a broad scene and then zoom in upon the person of Jesus. Mark does this by using a plural verb without an explicit subject to paint a picture of the disciples or crowd generally; and then follows this by a singular verb or pronoun referring specifically to Jesus. Here are some examples: &quot;They came to the other side... and when He got out of the boat&quot; (<a href='B:480 5:1-2'>Mk. 5:1,2</a>); &quot;when they left Bethany, he felt hungry&quot; (<a href='B:480 11:12'>Mk. 11:12</a>); &quot;they went to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples...&quot; (<a href='B:480 14:32'>Mk. 14:32</a>). This grammatical feature is more evident in Greek than in English. If the writer of Mark had been a cameraman, he'd have taken a broad sweep, and then suddenly hit the zoom to focus right up close upon Jesus Himself. This is what is being done with words, and it reflects the Christ-centeredness of the whole narrative and preaching of the Gospel, of which the Gospels are transcripts.</p>
<p><em>In the country of the Gadarenes</em>- The Gadarenes are the&quot;Girgashites&quot; of <em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em>, some of the original inhabitants of Canaan whom Israel had never been cast out of the land, as intended by God. These 2 particular men stopped anyone passing along the way or road. The point may be that those whom Israel should have 'cast out' to secure their inheritance of the Kingdom, were finally cast out by Christ. This lays the basis for the language of 'casting out' of the demons into the lake.</p>
<p><em>There met him two possessed with demons</em>- Mark and Luke focus upon just one of these men, named Legion (<em><a href='B:480 5:1-9'>Mar 5:1-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:26-30'>Luk 8:26-30</a></em>). Similarly, Luke says that only Peter went to the Lord's tomb after the resurrection (<em><a href='B:490 24:12'>Luk 24:12</a></em>), yet several other disciples also went there (&quot;some of them that were with us number&quot - <em><a href='B:490 2424'>Luk 24:24</a></em>). Just as Luke chose to focus upon only Peter going to the tomb, in this event, both Mark and Luke chose to focus upon only one of the two demoniacs. </p>
<p><em>Coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could go that way</em> - See on <a href='B:470 8:34'>8:34</a>. </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>For a detailed study on this incident, see my discussion of it in The Real Devil, http://www.realdevil.info . See too commentary on <em><a href='B:480 5:1-20'>Mar 5:1-20</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 8:26-39'>Luk 8:26-39</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>8:29&nbsp;<em>And they cried out, saying: What have we to do with you, you Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?</em>- 'Tormented' is language of judgment at the last day, (<em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:10'>Rev 20:10</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 8:30'>Mat 8:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>afar off&nbsp;</em>and on <em><a href='B:470 8:31'>Mat 8\;31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>cast us out</em>. Legion believed he was demon possessed and the Lord didn’t correct him regarding this before healing him. Indeed, one assumes the man probably had some faith for the miracle to be performed (<em><a href='B:470 13:58'>Mat 13:58</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 8:29'>Luk 8:29</a></em> says that Legion “was driven by the demon into the desert”, in the same way as the Lord had been driven into the wilderness&nbsp;<em>by the Spirit</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 1:12'>Mar 1:12</a></em>) where he overcame the ‘devil’ in whatever form at that time. The man was surely intended to reflect on these more subtle things and see that whatever he had once believed in was immaterial and irrelevant compared to the Spirit power of the Lord. And yet the Lord ‘went along’ with his request for the demons which he thought were within him, to be cast into ‘the deep’, (the pigs which then went into the sea (<em><a href='B:470 8:31,32'>Mat 8:31,32</a></em>) thoroughly rooted as it was in a misunderstanding of demons and sinners being thrown into the abyss. This was in keeping with the kind of healing styles people were accustomed to at the time: e.g., Josephus records how Eleazar cast demons out of people and placed a cup of water nearby, which was then [supposedly] tipped over by the demons as they left the sick person [<em>Antiquities of the Jews</em>&nbsp;8:46–48]. It seems to me that the Lord ‘went along with’ that kind of need for reassurance, and so He made the pigs stampede over the cliff to symbolize to the healed man how his disease had really left him.</p><p>A comparison of the record here in Matthew, with the Mark 5 and Luke 8 records indicates that the voice of the individual man is paralleled with that of the 'demons'. The man was called Legion, because he believed and spoke as if he were inhabited by hundreds of 'demons'.</p><p>"do not torment&nbsp;<em>me</em>&nbsp;" (<em><a href='B:480 5:7'>Mar 5:7</a></em>) = “Have you come to torment&nbsp;<em>us</em>?” (<em><a href='B:470 8:29'>Mat 8:29</a></em>).&nbsp;<br/>“<em>He</em>&nbsp;[singular] pleaded earnestly with him” (<em><a href='B:480 5:10'>Mar 5:10</a></em>) = "<em>the demons</em>&nbsp;pleaded with him" (<em><a href='B:480 5:12'>Mar 5:12</a></em>)&nbsp;<br/>The man's own words explain his self-perception: "<em>My</em>&nbsp;name [singular] is Legion: for&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are many (<em><a href='B:480 5:9'>Mar 5:9</a></em>)". This is classic schizophrenic behaviour and language. Thus <em><a href='B:490 8:30'>Luk 8:30</a></em> explains that Legion spoke as he did because [he thought that] many demons had entered into him.</p>


text:
<p>8:30&nbsp;<em>Now there was afar off from them a herd of many pigs feeding</em>- The term 'afar off' is also used about those 'far off/away' from Christ, as being the unsaved (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:21'>Act 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:13'>Eph 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:17'>Eph 2:17</a></em>). The 2 'demon possessed' men saw themselves as far from Christ, with nothing in common between them and Him (<em><a href='B:470 8:29'>Mat 8:29</a></em>). Jesus' response was to demonstrate, 'OK, let's get the condemnation over and done with and you yourselves shall be saved'. This is very much the kind of teaching which John's Gospel records as being specifically on the Lord's lips. See on <em><a href='B:470 8:31'>Mat 8:31</a></em>.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:31&nbsp;<em>And the demons begged him, saying: If you cast us out</em>- The Greek word for 'cast us out' is used about 'casting/throwing out' to condemnation/rejection at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>). These men were obsessed with the thought of condemnation at the last day, being 'tormented' at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 8:29'>Mat 8:29</a></em>), being 'far off' from Christ and His salvation (see on <em><a href='B:470 8:30'>Mat 8:30</a></em>), 'going away' into condemnation (s.w. <em><a href='B:470 25:46'>Mat 25:46</a></em>), plunged into the sea of condemnation (see on <em><a href='B:470 8:32'>Mat 8:32</a></em>). They correctly perceived that meeting Jesus in this life was in effect a meeting of Him in judgment, for even then, as now, He is the judge of all. The Lord was assuring them that their fear of condemnation was well and truly 'cast out'. His destruction of the pigs was an acted parable of final condemnation at the last day. John's Gospel does not record this incident, but as so often, he records the essential teaching in spiritual terms. In John's terms, we need have no fear of future condemnation, for we have received it now, and have passed from judgment to life and salvation  (<em><a href='B:500 5:24'>Joh 5:24</a></em>). These 2 'demon possessed' men had a fine understanding of the Lord Jesus. They realized that meeting Him was meeting their judge, and they ask that the pigs bear their condemnation. The Lord agrees, which meant that once they had, as it were, received their condemnation, they had passed from death into life.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Suffer us</em>- AV and some manuscripts use these words, meaning, 'permit us' (instead of 'send us'). They recognized that Jesus, not only Son of God but also their Lord, was in total control of their final destiny.<br/><br/><em>Send us away into the herd of pigs</em>- The same word for 'away' is used about the rejected at the final judgment 'going away' into condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 25:46'>Mat 25:46</a></em>).</p><p>Why did the pigs run over the cliff, and why did the Lord Jesus agree to the man's request for this?</p><p>Because mental illness features intermittent episodes, so it's understandable that the Lord sought to comfort those cured that the change He had brought was permanent. Thus the Lord tells the 'spirit' assumed to be tormenting the mentally afflicted child: "I command you, come out of him,&nbsp;<em>and enter no more</em>&nbsp;into him" (<em><a href='B:480 9:25'>Mar 9:25</a></em>). It's in this same vein that He drove the pigs into the lake as a sign that Legion's cure was permanent. I suggest that it was a kind of visual&nbsp;<em>aide memoire</em>, of the kind often used in the Bible to impress a point upon illiterate people. I suggest that's why in the ritual of the Day of Atonement, the scapegoat ran off into the wilderness bearing Israel's sins. As the bobbing animal was watched by thousands of eyes, thousands of minds would've reflected that their sins were being cast out. The same principle was used in the curing of the schizophrenic Legion; the pigs were made to run into the lake by the Lord Jesus, not because they were actually possessed by demons in reality, but as an&nbsp;<em>aide memoire</em>&nbsp;to the cured Legion that his illness, all his perceived personalities, were now no more. Mental illness is typically intermittent. Legion had met Jesus, for he recognized Him afar off, and knew that He was God’s Son (<em><a href='B:480 5:6'>Mar 5:6</a></em>). Indeed, one assumes the man probably had some faith for the miracle to be performed (<em><a href='B:470 13:58'>Mat 13:58</a></em>). He comes to meet Jesus "from out of the city" (<em><a href='B:490 8:27'>Luk 8:27</a></em>) and yet <em><a href='B:470 8:28'>Mat 8:28</a></em> speaks of him living in the tombs outside the city. He pleads with the Lord not to torment him (<em><a href='B:480 5:7'>Mar 5:7</a></em>) because of memories of how the local folk had tied him up and beaten him to try to exorcise the demons (<em><a href='B:480 5:3,4'>Mar 5:3,4</a></em>). Probably Legion's greatest fear was that he would relapse into madness again; that the cure which he believed Jesus could offer him might not be permanent, and so the Lord agreed to the man's request that the demons he perceived as within him should be permanently cast out. The sight of the herd of pigs running over the cliff to permanent death below, with the awful sound this would make, would have remained an abiding memory for the man. Note how the 'demon possessed' man in <em><a href='B:480 1:23'>Mar 1:23</a></em> sits in the synagogue and then suddenly screams out , showing he was likewise afflicted by intermittent fits.</p><p>Steve Keating pointed out to me that the madness may have been an infection in the brain of the trichina parasite, commonly found infecting the muscles of pigs and transmissible to humans in undercooked pork.&nbsp; The infected man would likely have been&nbsp;forced by poverty to eat this kind of food, and likely associated his "problem"&nbsp;with it because of&nbsp;the prohibition of pork&nbsp;under the Mosaic Law.&nbsp; This approach is confirmed by medical observations such as the following:</p><p>“Neurocysticercosis is the most common parasitic disease in the world which affects the central nervous system… A 25 year old, illiterate married Hindu male… presented with a three month history of gradual change in behaviour in the form of irrelevant talk … On mental status examination, he was well oriented to time, place and person, cooperative, communicative and responded well to questions asked… Delusions of persecution and reference were present… he accepted the illness but attributed the cause to evil spirits… histopathology report of subcutaneous nodule confirmed the diagnosis of cysticercosis cellulosae…. Significant improvement in psychiatric symptoms was also observed following albendazole (an anti-parasitic drug) therapy. Delusions of persecution and delusions of reference were not found on mental status examination. Insight also improved, in that instead of attributing the illness to evil spirits, the patient accepted having a physical illness." (“Neurocysticercosis Presenting as Schizophrenia: A Case Report”, B. Bhatia, S. Mishra, A.S. Srivastava,&nbsp;<em>Indian Journal of Psychiatry</em>&nbsp;1994, Vol. 36(4), pp. 187-189).</p><p>The&nbsp;desire to see the disease return to the&nbsp;herds of swine probably stemmed from a need to know that his affliction had been cured in a permanent sort of way and the Lord went along with this. The idea of transference of disease from one to another was a common Semitic perception, and it’s an idea used by God.Thus God went along with the peoples' idea of disease transference, and the result is recorded in terms of demons [which was how they understood illness] going from one person to another. Likewise the leprosy of Naaman clave to Gehazi (<em><a href='B:120 5:27'>2Ki 5:27</a></em>). God threatened to make the diseases of the inhabitants of Canaan and Egypt to cleave to Israel if they were disobedient (<em><a href='B:50 28:21'>Deu 28:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:60'>Deu 28:60</a></em>). Here too, as with Legion, there is Divine accommodation to the ideas of disease transference which people had at the time.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:32&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Go. And they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the hill into the sea and perished in the waters-&nbsp;</em>Death in the sea was seen as condemnation; the same figure is used of Babylon's final condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p>The Legion incident "proves too much" if we are to insist on reading it on a strictly literal level. Do demons drown? Presumably, no. Yet the story as it stands requires us to believe that demons drown- if we are talking about literal 'demons' here. Clearly, Legion was mentally ill. We therefore have to face the hard question: Was that mental illness caused by demons, or, as I am suggesting, is the language of demon possession merely being used to describe mental illness? If indeed mental illness is caused by demons, the observations of T.S. Huxley are right: "The belief in demons and demoniacal possession is a mere survival of a once universal superstition, its persistence pretty much in the inverse ratio of the general instruction, intelligence, and sound judgment of the population among whom it prevails. Demonology gave rise through the special influence of Christian ecclesiastics, to the most horrible persecutions and judicial murders of thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women, and children... If the story is true, the medieval theory of the invisible world may be and probably is, quite correct, and the witchfinders, from Sprenger to Hopkins and Mather, are much-maligned men… For the question of the existence of demons and of possession by them, though it lies strictly within the province of science, is also of the deepest moral and religious significance. If physical and mental disorders are caused by demons, Gregory of Tours and his contemporaries rightly considered that relics and exorcists were more useful than doctors. The gravest questions arise as to the legal and moral responsibilities of persons inspired by demoniacal impulses, and our whole conception of the universe and of our relations to it becomes totally different from what it would be on the contrary hypothesis” (T. S. Huxley,&nbsp;<em>Science and Christian Tradition</em>&nbsp;(New York: Appleton, 1899) p. 225).</p>


text:
<p>8:33&nbsp;<em>And they that fed them fled, and went away into the city and told everything, including what had happened to them that had been possessed with demons</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 8:34'>Mat 8:34</a></em>&nbsp;"begged".&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:34&nbsp;<em>And all in the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him they begged him-&nbsp;</em>"Begged" is the very same word used about the demons/mentally ill men 'begging' Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 8:31'>Mat 8:31</a></em>. As the mentally ill men begged Jesus to send away the demons, so the city dwellers begged Jesus to also 'go away/depart'. Just as the keepers of the pigs "went away" (<em><a href='B:470 8:33'>Mat 8:33</a></em>), so the same word is used of the demons 'going away' into the pigs (<em><a href='B:470 8:31,32'>Mat 8:31,32</a></em>), and just as the city dwellers 'came out' to meet Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 8:34'>Mat 8:34</a></em>), so the mentally ill men 'came out' of the tombs to meet Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 8:28'>Mat 8:28</a></em>) and the demons 'came out' of them (<em><a href='B:470 8:32'>Mat 8:32</a></em>). Perhaps the idea is that those unbelieving city dwellers were spiritually in the same position as the despised mentally ill men whom they had excluded from their society. The story ends with the mentally ill saved, and the townspeople asking Jesus to depart from them, which will be the exact position of the rejected at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:27'>Luk 13:27</a></em>). It is they who are condemned, by their own wish. The mentally ill men asked for the pigs to bear their condemnation, which they felt worthy of, and thus were saved. The parallel record in Mark 5 records three prayers to Jesus: "they (the unclean spirits) pleaded with him", and "Jesus gave them permission" (<em><a href='B:480 5:12,13'>Mar 5: 12,13</a></em>); the Gadarenes "began to beg him to depart from their borders " (<em><a href='B:480 5:17'>Mar 5:17</a></em>), and He obliged. And yet when the cured, earnestly zealous man "pleaded with him that he might go with him... Jesus did not permit him" (<em><a href='B:480 5:18,19'>Mar 5:18,19</a></em>). In Jesus' overal public ministry, after the fascination, physically and intellectually, had worn off, very few of the crowds continued their interest. The Lord scarcely converted more than 100 people in the course of His ministry. We are familiar, from our own experience of sin and failure, with the pure grace of the Lord Jesus. We see that largeness and generosity of spirit within Him, that manifestation of the God of love, that willingness to concede to our weakness, and therefore we can tend to overlook the fact that the Lord Jesus set uncompromisingly high standards. I would even use the word "demanding" about His attitude.</p><p><em>To depart from their borders-</em>&nbsp;Consider how in <em><a href='B:510 12:11-16'>Acts 12:11-16</a></em>, the believers were assembled praying for Peter's release, and then when he turns up on the doorstep, they tell the servant girl that she's mad/crazy to think Peter was there. Consider also, how the Lord Jesus did such a wonderful miracle with these 'demon possessed' men, and the local people asked Jesus to go away. Sadly, we too have this element within us. We would rather salvation and forgiveness were 'harder' to attain. The popularity of Catholic and Orthodox rituals is proof enough of this. It always touches me to read in the Gospels how the Lord Jesus cured wide eyed spastic children, crippled, wheezing young women, and sent them (and their loved ones) away with a joy and sparkle this world has never known, yet here, the people asked Him to go away, and eventually it was 'the people' who put Him to death. A voice came from Heaven, validating Him as the Son of God, but the people didn’t really believe, and plotted to kill him (<em><a href='B:500 12:37'>Joh 12:37</a></em>). They soon turned around and bayed for His blood, and nailed Him to death. It seems incredible. &nbsp;</p><p>Mark records further: “And as he was entering into the boat, he that had been possessed with demons pleaded with him that he might go with him. But Jesus did not permit him. Instead he said to him: Go to your home, to your family, and tell them how great things the Lord has done for you and how he had mercy on you. And he went his way and began to publish in Decapolis the great things Jesus had done for him, and all men marvelled” (<em><a href='B:480 5:18-20'>Mar 5:18-20</a></em>). This preaching in Decapolis rather than only to his family could be read as disobedience. The Gospels are transcripts of the twelve disciples’ own preaching and obedience to the Lord’s commission for them to go into all the world and tell the news of what they had seen and heard of Him. Yet there is a theme in the Gospels, consciously included by the writers and speakers, of men being disobedient to the preaching commission which the Lord gave them. When some were told to say nothing, they went and told many others (<em><a href='B:480 7:36'>Mar 7:36</a></em>). As Acts makes clear, the disciples themselves were disobedient, initially, to the commission to go tell the Gentiles the good news of their salvation. Legion’s disobedience is especially instructive for us.</p><table><tr><td></p><p><em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em></td><td><em><a href='B:480 5:20'>Mar 5:20</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Go to thy&nbsp;<em>house</em></td><td>He goes to the<em>&nbsp;ten cities&nbsp;</em>[Decapolis]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>unto thy&nbsp;<em>friends</em></td><td>He goes to&nbsp;<em>strangers</em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>tell&nbsp;</em>them [<em><a href='B:490 8:39'>Luk 8:39</a></em> “<em>show</em>&nbsp;them” (declare) - by personal demonstration to individuals]</td><td>He “<em>publishes</em>”</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>how great things</td><td>how great things</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the&nbsp;<em>Lord [i:e. God]</em>&nbsp;hath done for thee</td><td><em>Jesus&nbsp;</em>had done for him</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>and how he had mercy on thee.</td><td>[ignored]</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The record of the commission given him and his obedience to it are clearly intended to be compared. The man went to strange cities, indeed he organized a whole preaching tour of ten cities, rather than going home and telling his immediate friends/family. How true this is of us. It’s so much easier to embark upon a campaign to strangers, to do ‘mission work’, to ‘publish’ the Gospel loudly, rather than&nbsp;<em>tell</em>&nbsp;and<em>&nbsp;show</em>&nbsp;it to our immediate personal contacts. Notice too how he omits to tell others of the Lord’s merciful grace to him personally. Rather, he speaks only of the material, and the literality of the healing. He tells others what Jesus had done for him, rather than take the Lord Jesus’ invitation to perceive the bigger picture in all this, that this was the hand of God. One wonders whether the disciples were commenting upon their own sense of inadequacy in their initial personal witness. The Lord told the cured demoniac to go back to his friends (<em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em>-AV) and family (<em><a href='B:490 8:39'>Luk 8:39</a></em>) and witness to them. Clearly enough, the man didn’t have any friends, for he had a history of violence and lived alone, many having tried unsuccessfully to bind him due to the grievous harm he must have inflicted upon many (<em><a href='B:480 5:3,4'>Mat 5:3,4</a></em>), yet the man went out and preached to the whole area (<em><a href='B:480 5:20'>Mar 5:20</a></em>). Was this just rank disobedience to what His Saviour Lord had just told him? Perhaps, due to unrestrained enthusiasm, but more likely is that the man now considered the whole world around him to be his family and friends, and therefore he witnessed to them. His care for others in desiring to witness to them flowed quite naturally from his experience of conversion at the Lord’s hands.</p><p>Mary’s praise when she miraculously became pregnant with Jesus, included: “He has done to me great things” (<em><a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a></em>) is surely behind her Son’s words in <em><a href='B:490 8:39'>Luk 8:39</a></em>, where He bids Legion return to his family "and declare what great things God has done for you".&nbsp;Her eternal influence on her Son is a huge encouragement to all mothers. Even the language of the risen Lord in Revelation has discernible links with language she used to Him in His infancy.</p>


text:
<p>9:1&nbsp;<em>And he entered into a boat and crossed over</em>- The Gospels record the Lord entering into a boat around 15 times. The visual image of Him entering the boat remained deeply with the Gospel writers. It's an incidental proof of the veracity of their records as eyewitness accounts. There must have been something about His body language as He climbed over the boat's side which lodged deeply within them. Perhaps because it is awkward for a man to climb over a boat's side, especially for one who had not grown up as a fisherman, being with boats from childhood. Perhaps that proof of His utter humanity remained with them all and is artlessly reflected in their later write-up of their time with Him.</p><p><em>And came into his own city</em>- Having a hometown/city is another essay of the Lord's humanity. The same term is used about Joseph going to be taxed in "his own city" (<em><a href='B:490 2:3,4'>Luk 2:3,4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>9:2&nbsp;<em>And behold</em>- AV and some manuscripts. Here is another encouragement for us to play 'Bible television' with the record, inviting us to 'Look' at Him, imagining the Lord in a particular situation which is being described.</p><p><em>They brought to Him</em>- The term is also used of bringing a sacrifice to God, but in this case, it is of the lame man being brought to Jesus. &nbsp;<br/><br/><em>A paralysed man, lying on a bed</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>ballo</em>&nbsp;, translated 'lying', suggests they had thrown him onto the bed/stretcher in their haste to bring him to Jesus. "Bed", according to the Greek means a table or a couch. They had grabbed whatever could serve as a stretcher.<br/><br/><em>And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralysed man-&nbsp;</em>This is emphasized in all the accounts of this incident. Because of the faith of third parties, the sins of this man were forgiven. James speaks of the same possibility (<em><a href='B:660 5:15'>Jas 5:15</a></em> - the same Greek words for "sins" and "forgiven" are used there). Here we have a principle which can totally affect the course and hourly practice of our lives. In some cases, the sins of others can be forgiven because of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;faith. Job understood that when he offered burnt offerings for his sons after their wild parties (<em><a href='B:220 1:4,5'>Job 1:4,5</a></em>). Of course there are invisible limits to this principle, but many of those with whom we have to do in church life are surely within those limits. Quite simply, the salvation of others depends to some extent and in some cases upon our faith and prayers, and our effort to get them to Jesus. This imparts huge and eternal significance to our lives, lived and prayed for others. The same Greek words for "sins" and "forgiven" are used again in the enigmatic <em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em>: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them". I suspect this is John's version of the great commission to preach the Gospel of forgiveness to others; the idea being that if we bring them to Jesus, then thanks to our efforts for them, they will be forgiven. And if we are slack to do this, then God may not always find another way, and their sins remain unforgiven. Prayer really does change things. God is willing to do things in the life of a third party (even forgive them) for the sake of the prayers and efforts of others. That man was healed for the sake of the faith of others. The widow woman’s son was resurrected because God heard Elijah’s faithful prayer (<em><a href='B:110 17:22'>1Ki 17:22</a></em>).</p><p><em>Son, be of good courage</em>- The same term is used later in the chapter when the sick woman is told that because of&nbsp;<em>her</em>&nbsp;faith, she can be of good courage because the Lord will heal her (<em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em>). Note too that the woman "said within herself" (<em><a href='B:470 9:21'>Mat 9:21</a></em>), using the same phrase as used about the scribes talking 'within themselves' (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>). The parallel in these situations is surely to underline the lesson that the faith of&nbsp;<em>others</em>&nbsp;can be as effective as the faith of an individual in leading to healing and forgiveness.<br/><br/><em>Your sins are forgiven</em>- The Lord emphasized this first, and then went on to heal him physically. It's common for the sick and their carers to focus almost exclusively upon their need for physical healing, whereas the most essential human need is for forgiveness. This is why the Lord stressed the forgiveness first, and the healing second. Clearly there was a link in this case between sin and illness. It could be argued that the two things are connected as they both arise from the curse in Eden, but I would suggest that it's likely that in this case, the connection between the man's paralysis and his sin was more direct. We, too often, shrug at those in such situations and consider that 'it's their fault'. It may be, but if a man digs a hole and falls into it, he's still in the hole, and we have all done this. The Gospel was designed for us exactly because we have. There is an inevitable connection between this incident and <em><a href='B:290 33:24'>Isa 33:24</a></em>, where we read of the restored Zion that "the inhabitant won't say, I am sick because the people that dwell therein will be forgiven their iniquity". The Lord is implying here, as elsewhere, that the prophecies of the restored Zion were to be fulfilled in the lives of individuals who had come to Him, and not in the literal glorification and exaltation of Jerusalem over the Roman occupiers.</p>


text:
<p>9:3&nbsp;<em>And behold-&nbsp;</em>AV and some manuscripts. As at the beginning of v.2, we are invited to imagine the faces of those men, and likewise perceive as Jesus did what they were thinking within.</p><p><em>Certain of the scribes said within themselves: This man blasphemes</em>- Consider the huge emphasis of the New Testament upon 'thinking/talking within oneself', especially within the Gospels. The same Greek phrase is used repeatedly and is translated as 'in', 'within' or 'to' oneself, and 'among' or 'between' persons in a group.<br/>- "Think not to say within yourselves" (<em><a href='B:470 3:9'>Mat 3:9</a></em>)<br/>- "The scribes said within themselves" (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>)<br/>- "She said within herself" (<em><a href='B:470 9:21'>Mat 9:21</a></em>)<br/>- The believer who fails to grow spiritually has no root "in himself" (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>)<br/>- "They discussed this among themselves... Why do you discuss among yourselves..." (<em><a href='B:470 16:7-8'>Mat 16:7-8</a></em>)<br/>- "The husbandmen... said among themselves" (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>)<br/>- The disciples "disputed within themselves" (<em><a href='B:480 9:34'>Mar 9:34</a></em>)<br/>- Have salt "in yourselves" (<em><a href='B:480 9:50'>Mar 9:50</a></em>)<br/>- The Pharisee "spoke within himself" (<em><a href='B:490 7:39'>Luk 7:39</a></em>)<br/>- The guests "began to say within themselves" (<em><a href='B:490 7:49'>Luk 7:49</a></em>)<br/>- The rich fool "reasoned within himself, saying..." (<em><a href='B:490 12:17'>Luk 12:17</a></em>)<br/>- "The steward said to himself" (<em><a href='B:490 16:3'>Luk 16:3</a></em>)<br/>- The unjust judge "said to himself" (<em><a href='B:490 18:4'>Luk 18:4</a></em>)<br/>- Peter "doubted in himself"-AV (<em><a href='B:510 10:17'>Act 10:17</a></em>)<br/>- Jews who heard the Gospel "reasoned within themselves" (<em><a href='B:510 28:29'>Act 28:29</a></em> Gk.)<br/>- Israel "through the lusts of their own hearts... dishonoured their bodies among themselves" (<em><a href='B:520 1:24'>Rom 1:24</a></em>)<br/>- "In yourselves... you have a better and enduring substance" -AV (<em><a href='B:650 10:34'>Heb 10:34</a></em>)<br/>- "Partial in yourselves, judges of evil thoughts"-AV (<em><a href='B:660 2:4'>Jas 2:4</a></em>).</p><p>There are many other Bible verses which likewise speak of the internal state of a person and the significance of our self-talk. These are just examples of one Greek phrase. It is logical therefore to expect that the great adversary or 'satan' to be our internal thinking; how we think and speak within ourselves. Properly understood, this is indeed what 'satan' in the Bible sometimes refers to.</p>&nbsp;<p>The Jews got caught up on the issue of whether Christ's forgiveness of others made Him God or not, just as some folk do today. His response was to refocus them on the fact that He wanted&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;(the scribes and Pharisees) to<em>&nbsp;know</em>&nbsp;that He had real power to forgive&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;sins (<em><a href='B:490 5:24'>Luk 5:24</a></em>). I spend a lot of time arguing against the trinity and the 'Jesus = God' mentality, but the main essence is, do we&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;on a personal level that the Lord Jesus really has the power to forgive&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;sins?</p>


text:
<p>9:4&nbsp;<em>And Jesus knowing their thoughts</em>- Matthew says the same about the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 12:25'>Mat 12:25</a></em>. Time and again, the Gospels record how He “perceived” things about people. Admittedly this could have been because He simply had a Holy Spirit gift to enable this, but I prefer to think that His sensitivity and perception, aided by His extraordinary intellectual ability as the Son of God [for intelligence and perception / sensitivity are related]… these things developed within Him over the years so that He could sense the essential needs and feelings of others to an unsurpassed extent. “Jesus, seeing their thoughts…” (<em><a href='B:470 9:4'>Mat 9:4</a></em> RVmg.) shows how He came to perceive the hearts of others from His observation of them. This was the same Jesus who could be ridiculed in scorn to shame/embarrassment (<em><a href='B:470 9:24'>Mat 9:24</a></em>), such was His sensitivity to others. This incident helps us to understand the ability of the mind/spirit of the Lord Jesus to connect with that of human beings. <em><a href='B:480 2:8'>Mar 2:8</a></em> puts it like this: "Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, "Why are you thinking such things in your hearts?" (NET Bible). The spirit/mind of Jesus was at one with the spirit/mind of those men; such was His sensitivity. I don't think it was a gift of Holy Spirit knowledge so much as His sensitivity to the minds of men... and yet <em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em> calls Jesus "The Spirit" as a title, saying that He bears witness with our spirit/mind, in His intercession to the Father. Therefore, this incident in the Gospels gives us, as it were, an insight into how He&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;operates too; He's the same today as yesterday. He's at one with our mind/spirit, and also with the mind/Spirit of the Father, thus is He such a matchless mediator. The way the Lord Jesus 'knew' things because of His extreme sensitivity, rather than necessarily by some flash of Holy Spirit insight, isn't unparalleled among other men. Elisha knew what Gehazi had done when Gehazi went back to ask Naaman for a reward. Elisha commented: "Didn't my heart go with you, when the man turned from his chariot to meet you?" (<em><a href='B:120 5:26'>2Ki 5:26</a></em>). Elisha imagined Naaman dismounting from his chariot, etc. and he could guess that the request had involved "money... garments" etc. That the Lord's knowledge was not necessarily automatic is reflected in the way we read things like "seeing their faith... when Jesus heard it..." (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:17'>Mar 2:17</a></em>). He 'saw' and knew things by the sensitivity of His perception.</p><p><em>Said: Why do you think evil in your hearts?</em>- The Gk. for 'think' here, means 'to ponder', to dwell upon- which is how the word is translated in its two other occurrences in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:470 1:20'>Mat 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:19'>Act 10:19</a></em>). The human heart is a fountain of evil thoughts, but it is sin to dwell upon them as the Jews were doing. We note again how the root cause of the Jewish plot to murder the Son of God is located as attitudes within their hearts which grew into the final sin of the crucifixion.</p><p>What evil did the Lord have in mind? The use of&nbsp;<em>poneros</em>&nbsp;here for 'evil',  rather than any word carrying the idea of sin would suggest the Lord had a particular evil act in mind, and surely, He could foresee the evil of the crucifixion. He perceived that this was its beginning, as a jealous thought brooded upon within their minds. The Lord may have had the same idea in mind when He taught that the Jews would bring forth evil things from their evil hearts (<em><a href='B:470 12:34-35'>Mat 12:34-35</a></em>). The 'evil things' may have been an intensive plural for the greatest evil- the crucifixion. A review of the passages listed in the commentary on <em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em> will reveal that He perceived it was the state of their mind which would lead them to kill Him, therefore there is  a great appropriacy in the language of 'satan' being used about both the Jewish opposition, and the mind of the flesh.</p>


text:
<p>9:5&nbsp;<em>For which is easier to say</em>- The Gk. for 'easier' here, means 'less work'. The Lord meant 'Which is easier&nbsp;<em>for Me</em>'. There were plenty of claims to heal people, but to forgive sins was of a different order altogether, yet the Lord is saying that for Him, they are one and the same and that His healing was performed in this case on the basis of having forgiven the man his sin. Not only could He forgive sin, but in this case He could remove the consequence of it. For the Lord healed the man&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;they would realize that He had power to forgive sins (<em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em>).</p><p><em>Your sins are forgiven, or, Arise and walk?</em>- The same words used by Peter when he tells the lame man to 'arise and walk' (<em><a href='B:510 3:6'>Act 3:6</a></em> -AV). Peter consciously or unconsciously replicated his Lord in doing healing miracles. The very body language and word choice of the Lord were so impressed upon him that they became the pattern for&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;ministry, and the same should be true of us. The sick man of <em><a href='B:500 5:8'>Joh 5:8</a></em> was likewise told to arise, take up his bed and walk, using the same words used here about the paralyzed man. Clearly the Lord Jesus worked with people according to some pattern. We can discern similar hallmarks of His work as we get to know each other within the body of Christ today, perceiving as we exchange stories and testimonies that the Lord in essence works in similar ways between human lives today.</p><p>The disciples observed as Jesus made this lame man&nbsp;<em>arise</em>, take up his bed, and follow Him (<em><a href='B:490 5:25'>Luk 5:25</a></em>), and in <em><a href='B:510 9:34'>Act 9:34</a></em>, we find Peter doing just the same to Aeneas, even taking him by the hand as he had seen Jesus do to Jairus’ daughter. What Peter had seen and learned of the Lord Jesus, he was now called to do. Not for nothing did he tell Aeneas that “Jesus Christ heals you”, thereby recognizing the connection between him and his Lord.</p>


text:
<p>9:6&nbsp;<em>But so you may know</em>- The reason for the healing miracle was to teach that He could forgive sins. This is why I suggest that in this man's case, his paralysis was a direct and publicly known result of his sin. Perhaps he had been alcoholic, or become paralyzed in an accident whilst stealing something. In this case his friends are to be commended for so wanting his healing, because many would have shrugged him off as someone who was suffering justly. The link between his illness and his sin was so clear that to heal him was seen as effectively forgiving him&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;removing the consequence of his sin. David, Moses and others often asked for the consequences of sin to be removed and at times received this. The paralyzed man was healed by the Lord in order to&nbsp;<em>teach others</em>&nbsp;that Jesus had the power to forgive sins. Job was a “perfect” man before his afflictions started (<em><a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a></em>) and he is presented as a ‘perfect’ man at the end (<em><a href='B:220 42:7-10'>Job 42:7-10</a></em>). The purpose of his trials was not only to develop him, but also in order to teach the friends [and we readers] some lessons. The purpose of our trials too may not only be for our benefit, but for that of others. If we suffer anything, it is so that we might help others (<em><a href='B:540 1:4'>2Co 1:4</a></em>). Jesus did not&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;reward the faith of the man’s friends. His motive for the miracle was to seek to also teach those Scribes. Our tendency surely would have been to ignore them and/or become angry, that in the face of grace, they could be so legalistic and petty, so very far from God... and just get on with healing the sick man who believed. Thankfully, the Lord’s picture of human salvation was far wider and more inclusive and more hopeful than that.</p><p><em>That the Son of Man</em>- The humanity of Jesus was the very basis upon which He could and can forgive human sin. This is why <em><a href='B:470 9:8'>Mat 9:8</a></em> records that the crowds praised God for having given such power&nbsp;<em>unto men</em>. He understood Himself as rightful judge of humanity exactly because He was "Son of man" (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>) in that every time we sin, He as a man would have chosen differently. He is therefore able to be our judge. Likewise, exactly because He was a "son of man", Jesus, "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (<em><a href='B:480 2:10'>Mar 2:10</a></em>). If it is indeed true that "'Son of Man' represents the highest conceivable declaration of exaltation in Judaism", then we can understand the play on words the Lord was making, for the term 'son of man' can also, without doubt, just mean 'humanity generally'. Exactly because He was human, and yet perfect, He was so exalted.</p><p><em>Has authority on earth to forgive sins-</em>&nbsp;He had that power during His mortal life, and yet after His resurrection "<em>all</em>&nbsp;power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth" (<em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em>). His power to save and forgive is therefore even greater now. Perhaps the difference is  that He had the power of forgiveness delegated to Him in specific cases during His ministry, but after the resurrection He had power in His own right to forgive, not on the basis of delegated power but by power/authority in His own Name, even though that exalted position was of course given Him by God the Father.</p><p><em>He then said to the paralytic</em>- As if He turned away from the Jews, to the paralyzed man. It could be that the healing was really for the benefit of the hard hearted scribes. The Lord was going to all this trouble to try to persuade them of His authority as God’s Son. We would likely have given up with them, but the way the Lord kept on trying with the orthodox Jews of His day is an essay in perseverance in witnessing, and amazingly, it paid off, in that a number of priests and Pharisees were baptized after His resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>).</p><p><em>Arise, take up your bed-&nbsp;</em>The same word is used for taking up the cross (<em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>), and the Greek for "bed" is also translated 'a table or couch'. He was to pick up a piece of wood and go his way. He was given a simple task of obedience immediately after meeting with Jesus, and we can see that pattern repeated in how the Lord works with people today.</p><p><em>And go to your house-&nbsp;</em>The Lord was sensitive to the situation of those He healed or converted. Just as He commanded the resurrected girl to be given something to eat (<em><a href='B:490 8:55'>Luk 8:55</a></em>), so He realized the pressure that would be on the healed man to be thronged by the crowd, so He told him to go home immediately and thus avoid the limelight.</p>


text:
<p>9:7&nbsp;<em>And he arose and departed to his house</em>- Emphasizing his exact and studied obedience to the Lord's command to Him in <em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>9:8&nbsp;<em>But when the crowds saw it</em>- The Greek word for 'crowds' is used about 150 times in the Gospel records. The crowds were a major feature of the Lord's ministry, and they must have been a great trial to Him. We sense Him seeking to avoid them, to stop them from gathering, and yet being so compassionate towards them despite their often superficial grasp of His works and message. It makes an interesting exercise to consider whether on balance, the Gospel writers take a positive view of the crowds or not. John seems to be more negative about them, whereas Matthew seems to emphasize their wonder, naivety, weak understanding and fickleness. All the Gospels seem to present a clear pyramid structure beginning with Jesus, then an inner circle of 3 disciples, then the twelve, then the crowds, and then the unbelieving, aggressive Jewish leadership. This has certain similarities with Moses on Sinai and in his relationship with Israel, but they cannot be pushed too precisely. The crowd here in <em><a href='B:470 9:8'>Mat 9:8</a></em> is contrasted favourably with the Scribes of <em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>, by use of the opening word: "But..." suggesting that they marvelled at the Lord's authority, whereas some of the Scribes became bitterly jealous.</p><p><em>They were afraid and glorified God, who had given such authority to men</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Son of Man</em>. There may be significance in the plural&nbsp;<em>men</em>&nbsp;rather than&nbsp;<em>a man</em>. They marvelled that one of them could have such power to forgive and remove the consequences of sin. It is all an essay of the Lord's evident humanity.</p>


text:
<p>9:9- see on <em><a href='B:470 4:16'>Mat 4:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>And as Jesus left there he saw a man-&nbsp;</em>This man was  Matthew, the author of this account. Such close up detail makes sense if this is indeed an eyewitness account. It's almost as if Matthew had a video camera on his desk and captures the Lord walking towards him after healing the paralyzed man.</p><p><em>Called Matthew-&nbsp;</em>Matthew’s preaching of the Gospel makes reference to himself as if he had no personal awareness of himself as he recounted his part in the Gospel events. Whilst personal testimony has a role, the Gospel is about Jesus and therefore "we preach not ourselves" but Christ as Lord and Saviour (<em><a href='B:540 4:5'>2Cor 4:5</a></em>). If the focus is upon us rather than Him, then we are failing dismally. The humility of the Gospel writers when they refer to themselves is highly instructive. There is reason to believe that Matthew was himself a converted Scribe, who had perhaps turned away from it, to being a tax collector. The way he has access to various versions of Scripture and quotes them as having been fulfilled in a way reminiscent of the Jewish commentaries (compare <em><a href='B:470 4:12-17'>Mat 4:12-17</a></em> with <em><a href='B:480 1:14-15'>Mar 1:14-15</a></em>) suggests this. Matthew's other name was Levi (<em><a href='B:480 2:14'>Mar 2:14</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 5:27'>Luk 5:27</a></em>), strengthening the possibility that he was once a Levitical scribe, for the scribes were drawn from the priests and Levites. The point is that, in this case, Matthew would be referring to himself when he writes: “Every scribe who has been made a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old” (<em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em>), yet he does so in a beautifully oblique and selfless manner. The Scribes have just been mentioned in the previous incident, which apparently took place within sight of Matthew's desk (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>).</p><p><em>Sitting at the&nbsp;tax office</em>- It's hard to grasp the degree to which tax collectors were despised and distrusted. We may at times think that we need to show our best front personally when preaching the Gospel, to display our credentials, in order to persuade others of our message. Matthew thought otherwise. He was quite open about who he had been when he was called. Human credentials do not ultimately persuade men and women about Christ, i.e.- a degree in theology, knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, academic status, a stable career or an externally spotless family history. Rather, the Gospels show us that it is those from questionable backgrounds who are chosen by the Lord as His most effective messengers. The content of the message ultimately far outweighs the credibility of the messenger. The same is seen today in the preaching of the Gospel.&nbsp;<br/><br/>It was while he was at work that Matthew was called, just as the other disciples were called exactly while they were about their fishing business, and like Matthew, they left all and "followed" the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 4:11'>Luk 4:11</a></em>). This is when the call of Christ comes to us; in the very midst of secular life, rather than resting at home, looking at a screen.<br/><br/><em>And he said to him: Follow me</em>- The Greek for 'Follow' here, means to share the same road with. The road or way of Jesus led to Jerusalem, to the death of the cross, and then to life eternal. The word is used about 80 times in the Gospels. The call was to follow Jesus. The crowds followed and the disciples followed, and often the Lord tries to teach them the difference between merely externally following Him on the same public road, and following Him as He intends, which is to carry a cross and follow Him to Golgotha. We who follow Him in our life situations today are in essence continuing the following of Him which began in those early days in Galilee and we likewise are challenged as to whether our following is mere membership of a denomination, or a personal following of Him.&nbsp;<br/><br/><em>And he arose and followed him</em>- Matthew obeyed exactly as he had just observed the paralyzed man obediently arise and go where the Lord told him (<em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em>- which is another example of Matthew highlighting immediate response to the Lord's call). It's as if Matthew saw himself in that paralyzed man. As the man was laying on the 'bed', so Matthew was sitting 'on' the receipt of custom, the elevated chair and desk (<em>epi</em>, translated "at", is better translated in this context "on"). The Lord spoke with "authority" in the eyes of the people, so that a man arose and followed Him. What gave Him this authority? Surely it was His lifestyle; who He was, the way there was no gap between His words and who He was. The word of the Gospel, the message, was made flesh in Him. There was a perfect congruence between His theory and His practice. The repeated amazement which people expressed at the Lord's teaching may not only refer to the actual content of His material, but more at the way in which He expressed it because of the unique way in which word was made flesh in Him. The way in which the Lord could ask men to follow Him, and they arose and followed is surely testimony to the absolute, direct and unaccountable authority of Jesus. It was surely His very ordinariness which made Him so compelling. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:10&nbsp;<em>And it came to pass, as he sat eating in the house</em>- Matthew's record is purposefully ambiguous. Whose house was this? Jesus' own house, where He was living? Capernaum is called "his own city" at <em><a href='B:470 9:1'>Mat 9:1</a></em>. Or was it the house to which the healed paralytic had returned (<em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em>)? Or was it Matthew's house? The other Gospels say that the house was Matthews, and the presence of other publicans supports that (<em><a href='B:480 2:15'>Mar 2:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:29'>Luk 5:29</a></em>). We note Matthew's humility in his recounting of the Gospel, that he leaves the identity of the house vague. He had no desire to boast that he had once hosted Jesus within his private home. Humility and self-abnegation/denial must really be the lead characteristics of all tellers of the Gospel.</p><p><em>Many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples</em>- Clearly these are the associates of Matthew. They came and sat down with Jesus while He was eating and he accepted them. <em><a href='B:490 5:30'>Luk 5:30</a></em> RVmg. describes how publicans and sinners had Pharisees and Scribes among them as they all sat at the same table gathered around Jesus. There was something in His person and teaching which welded people together.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:11&nbsp;<em>And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to his disciples: Why does your Teacher eat with the tax collectors and sinners?</em>- To break your bread with someone; to eat together, was a religious act in Palestinian Jewish society. The Lord broke His bread with sinners in order to bring them to repentance, not because He considered they had cleared some kind of bar of moral and doctrinal acceptability. His table was open, radically so, and so should ours be.</p>


text:
<p>9:12&nbsp;<em>But when he heard it, he said</em>- Did He overhear? Or simply perceive, as in <em><a href='B:470 9:4'>Mat 9:4</a></em>?</p><p><em>They that are sick need a doctor</em>- Literally, a 'healer'. The same word is used of how "by whose stripes you were healed" (<em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>). All who will finally be saved have been healed by Jesus. Therefore "they that be healthy" must be understood as meaning 'those who&nbsp;<em>think they are</em>&nbsp;healthy'. The Lord's healing work was done by fellowshipping with those who realized their need for healing. He broke His bread with them first. He did not heal them and then invite only the healed to His exclusive table. This breaking of bread with them was a 'calling to repentance' (<em><a href='B:470 9:13'>Mat 9:13</a></em>-AV). The many records of the Lord's physical healing were all intended to be acted parables of His healing of spiritual sickness.<br/><br/><em>Not they that are healthy</em>- The Greek word for 'healthy' hereis usually translated with the sense of 'being able'. The Lord's work was with them who felt&nbsp;<em>unable</em>&nbsp;to be righteous, who felt that circumstance and past history had left them spiritually incapacitated.<br/><br/>Perception of need and spiritual helplessness is the vital prerequisite. The Lord healed "those that had need of healing" (<em><a href='B:490 9:11'>Luk 9:11</a></em>), that is, those who perceived their need. The Lord uses the same word in speaking of how He doesn't go find and save those "which need no repentance" (<em><a href='B:490 15:7'>Luk 15:7</a></em>). Again, an ellipsis must be read in: 'Those who&nbsp;<em>think they</em>&nbsp;need no repentance', as in <em><a href='B:730 3:17'>Rev 3:17</a></em> - the Laodiceans said, "I need  nothing". This, therefore, was a major concern of the Lord: that we can cease to perceive our need for Him. The attitude that 'I have no need…' is picked up by Paul in <em><a href='B:530 12:21'>1Co 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>, where he warns against thinking that we have no need of weaker members of the body of Christ. Our need for Christ personally is to be reflected in practice in our need for association with His body, however weak we feel it to be. God supplies all our need in Christ (<em><a href='B:570 4:19'>Phi 4:19</a></em>), but that supplying of our need is not solely in the death of Christ for us, but in the body of Christ.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:13&nbsp;<em>Go</em>- The Lord was telling them to literally get out of the house, and do some Bible study. Of course, the Pharisees spent much of their time studying Scripture. The Lord's point was that if they really meditated upon the implications of God’s love of grace rather than of  sacrifice, then they would understand that it is therefore actually necessary to eat with sinners to call them to repentance.</p><p><em>And learn</em>- The Pharisees saw themselves as only teachers, not pupils. The Lord had diagnosed this problem, for He told them as a teacher would tell a pupil: “Go and learn what this means...". He sent them away to do some homework. There is a warning for speaking/teaching brethren here, in that the repeated experience of teaching can take away from the eternal sense of student-ship which the true believer should always  feel.</p><br/><p><em>What this means</em>- Literally, 'what is'. The same two Greek words have just been on the Lord's lips to the Scribes- "<em>Which is</em>&nbsp;easier..." (<em><a href='B:470 9:5'>Mat 9:5</a></em>). Capernaum was a small place, and probably the incidents recorded in Matthew 9 featured the same group of opponents.&nbsp;<br/><br/><em>I desire mercy and not sacrifice</em>- This was some kind of proof text for the Lord, for He says exactly the same words again in <em><a href='B:470 12:7'>Mat 12:7</a></em>: "If you had known what this means, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless". The context of <em><a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a></em> (from where the Lord was quoting) was of God appealing to a deeply apostate Israel through the situation of Hosea and Gomer. He appeals for Gomer  to show&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>, covenant love ("mercy"), and not just give the external appearances of a marriage relationship (cp. offering sacrifices). Here in the Capernaum incident, the Lord is saying that He fellowships with sinners because God loves the display of grace rather than technical obedience. If God wishes&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>, covenant love, from us, then how do we show it? By fellowshipping with sinners and thereby calling them to repentance. The love which God wishes us to show to Him is channelled in practice through calling others to repentance. That is the greatest display of love for Him and if that principle is followed, then we will be led through the practice of such grace to never condemn the guiltless (which is how the Lord uses&nbsp; <em><a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a></em> in <em><a href='B:470 12:7'>Mat 12:7</a></em>).&nbsp;<br/><br/><em>I came not to call</em>- It was the disciples, including Matthew, who had only recently been 'called' (<em><a href='B:470 4:21'>Mat 4:21</a></em>). Matthew again is showing that he considered himself a sinner, one of the sick who needed a doctor.&nbsp;<br/><em><br/>The righteous</em>- Those who&nbsp;<em>thought they were</em>&nbsp;righteous.</p><p><em>But sinners to repentance</em>- This phrase is found in the AV and some manuscripts. The fellowship of the Lord Jesus was a call towards repentance, not a reward for it.  John baptized people&nbsp;<em>to</em>&nbsp;repentance (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>). The methods of the Lord should be ours, for having spent His ministry doing this, He transferred it to us in bidding us likewise go worldwide and call others to repentance (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:14&nbsp;<em>Then the disciples of John came to him, saying</em>- Was this also in Capernaum? If so, we note that John's influence had spread as far north as the region of Galilee. In any case, the impression is given of wave after wave of questioning, activity and controversy. It would have all been so mentally draining of the Lord's spirituality and emotions.</p><p><em>Why do we and the Pharisees often fast</em>- The Greek for 'often' can just as well mean 'largely', i.e., they abstained from food for long periods.&nbsp;<br/><br/><em>But your disciples do not fast?</em>- Implying they did not even do so at the Day of Atonement, the one day of the year with a Biblical command for fasting. The Lord's disciples were mostly secular men whom He was trying to turn into spiritual people. This continues to be the thrust of His work with people. The focus of our preaching should likewise be on getting unspiritual, secular people to believe, rather than focusing on trying to persuade those who already believe in Him to change their understandings of some points. I don't say we shouldn't do this, but far more will be achieved to His glory by bringing unbelievers to faith, rather than correcting misbelievers. Another reason why John's disciples thought the Lord's men didn’t fast could have been because the disciples took seriously His command to not appear to others to fast (<em><a href='B:470 6:16-18'>Mat 6:16-18</a></em>). John's disciples proclaiming their fasting meant they were overlooking the Lord's clear teaching&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to do this but in His gracious way, the Lord did not point out the obvious&nbsp;<em>faux pas</em>&nbsp;in their reasoning. He could have said 'John told you to obey Me. I teach not to proclaim your own fasting. Why aren't you obedient to My teaching?'. Instead He reasoned with them on their own ground. Again, we see a pattern for our engagement with others; not to always baldly confront misunderstanding, thus reducing it to a right/wrong, black and white issue, but to lead the person further by accepting for a moment that their faulty assumptions are true (for they are true to the person who holds them) and the Lord recognized that.</p><p>We also see the Lord's gentle grace in teaching His disciples how to fast; that is, to act as if they were not fasting when actually they never fasted at all until that point. He wanted them to continue showing themselves to be secular men, who really believed in Jesus. This had been exactly His approach until age 30, to manifest God’s perfection through the shroud of ordinariness.</p>


text:
<p>9:15&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to them: Can the sons of the bride chamber</em>- John had likened himself to the Lord's best man at a forthcoming wedding. The Lord phrases his reply to John's disciples in terms they would have understood. This is a pattern for us to follow in our response to people. Note too that the Lord's answer implied that His wedding was about to happen. He hoped against hope that Israel would respond, and the Messianic banquet would be soon but in His later parables, He spoke of how even the guests couldn't be bothered to attend it, so it was delayed until human response was suitable. Nonetheless, His hopefulness for human response is again a pattern for us; to have a hopeful attitude in our witness.</p><p><em>Mourn while the bridegroom is with them?</em>- The joy of the bridegroom's friends is a sharing of the groom's joy. John's Gospel records this truth in a different way when speaking of how the Lord's joy is to be our joy (<em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em>); at His return, we will enter into His joy (<em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>). Note again how the Lord phrased His response to John's disciples' question in <em><a href='B:470 9:14'>Mat 9:14</a></em> in terms they would best relate to, for John had said that his joy was complete because he was 'the friend of the bridegroom' (<em><a href='B:500 3:29'>Joh 3:29</a></em>). The Lord here in <em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em> is saying that His disciples are also friends of the bridegroom. In other words, he is seeking to persuade John's disciples that actually Jesus' disciples are the same as they are, (notwithstanding differences in spiritual culture in that they are related to Jesus in the same way, as friends of the groom). The Lord was always very positive about His followers. He explained their lack of fasting was because of their joy about the forthcoming Messianic banquet, when in reality their lack of fasting was because they were secular, non-religious people. The Lord wasn’t naïve, although He was so positive. He told the disciples quite frankly that they were full of “unbelief”, and could not do the miracles which He expected them to because they didn’t pray and fast (<em><a href='B:470 17:19-21'>Mat 17:19-21</a></em>). Yet here, when quizzed by John's disciples as to why His disciples didn’t fast, He said it was because they were so happy to be with Him, the bridegroom. Here surely He was seeing the best in them. Jesus' disciples come across as confused, mixed up men who wanted the Kingdom there and then and were frustrated at the Lord’s inaction in establishing it, but He saw that they recognised Him as the bridegroom, as Messiah, and He exalted in this, and saw their lack of fasting as partly due to the deep-down joy which He knew they had.<br/><br/><em>But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be</em>- The word translated 'days' here is not necessarily plural. It is the s.w. as "each day", "the day" (<em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:15'>Mat 10:15</a></em>), and "that day" (<em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em>)<br/><br/><em>Taken away from them, and then they will fast</em>- The Gk for 'taken' here is :&nbsp;<em>apairo</em>&nbsp; a form of the Greek&nbsp;<em>pairo</em>&nbsp;which has just been used in <em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em> ("<em>take up</em>&nbsp;your bed") and which is now used in the next verse about the new cloth 'takes from' the old garment (<em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em> AV) or 'tears away' NEV. What exactly the connection of thought might be is hard to say. But clearly the 'taking of Jesus from' the disciples was to be at the same time as when the new wine and new cloth were available, which would 'take from' the old cloth in destroying it. This time was surely the death of the Lord Jesus, at which the new wine of His blood confirmed the new covenant and thus ended the old. It was then of course that the disciples mourned (s.w. <em><a href='B:480 16:10'>Mar 16:10</a></em> "they&nbsp;<em>mourned</em>&nbsp;and wept"); and the same Greek word for 'taken from' occurs in <em><a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a></em> where the Jews cry "Away with Him!"- to the cross; in <em><a href='B:500 19:31'>Joh 19:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em> where the body of Jesus is 'taken from' the cross and in <em><a href='B:510 8:33'>Act 8:33</a></em> "His life is&nbsp;<em>taken away from</em>&nbsp;the earth". Significantly, <em><a href='B:580 2:14'>Col 2:14</a></em> uses the word to describe how on the cross, Christ 'did away' with the old covenant. This is the idea of its usage in <em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em>, that the new wine and new garment would 'take from/tear away' the old. This was achieved by the 'taking away' of Jesus at the cross. Through the grace of Jesus, because He is in love with us; He has called us to be His bride. He sees us in an extremely positive light. He counts us as righteous to a degree that is a real struggle to believe, even during His ministry, "while we were still sinners" (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>), and when the only example He had of His bride were those faltering 12. He tells the Jews that&nbsp;His people will fast and mourn for His absence after His departure, with the intensity that the friends of the bridegroom would have if the groom suddenly collapsed and died at the wedding (this seems to be the picture of <em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em>, seeing "taken away" as an idiom for sudden death). This is surely a positive view of the sorrow of the body of Christ for their Lord's absence. Even if we see in this mini-parable only a description of the disciples' sorrow after the&nbsp;Lord's death, He is giving a very positive description of the disciples' joy, saying that they didn’t fast because of their joy of being with Him; as the joy of the friends of the groom at the wedding. Yet the Gospels paint the twelve as a struggling, uncertain group of men, eaten up with the petty arguments of this life, unaccustomed to the self-control of fasting. Peter, for example, had until very recently been a possibly immoral young fisherman (<em><a href='B:490 5:8'>Luk 5:8</a></em>, <em><a href='B:670 4:3'>1Pe 4:3</a></em>).&nbsp;The happiness of the disciples is explained in terms of them being at a wedding. The happiness of the wedding is normally associated with alcohol, and <em><a href='B:470 26:27-29'>Mat 26:27-29</a></em> explains that Christ's new covenant is symbolised by new wine. The difference between John's disciples and Christ's was that Christ's were full of the joy of the new covenant. There is ample reason to think that they were heavily influenced by Judaist thinking even after Christ's ascension, for they did not go and preach to the Gentile world as Christ commanded (<em><a href='B:470 28:19,20'>Mat 28:19,20</a></em>), and even Peter was marvellously slow to realize the Jewish food laws had been ended by Christ, despite the Lord's strong implication of this in <em><a href='B:480 7:19'>Mar 7:19</a></em> (not AV). Yet the grace of Jesus saw His men&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they had grasped the meaning of the new covenant,&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they had the joy of true faith in and understanding of His work, and He spoke of them to the world in these terms. We can take untold comfort from this, for we dare to believe that the Lord does and will confess our name (character) in likewise an exalted manner to the Father and His Angels.</p><p>There seems to be the idea that fasting was somehow part of the Mosaic system that we have now left behind, yet the Sermon on the Mount clearly implies that the Lord saw fasting as part of the path of discipleship (<em><a href='B:470 6:16-18'>Mat 6:16-18</a></em>). There are also many examples of fasting in the Old Testament that are quite unconnected with obedience to the Law. When the bridegroom is away, then we will fast [by implication, for His return- <em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em>]. Try fasting, that's all I can say. Just start by going without some meals. Use the time and the natural desire to eat to increase the poignancy of the special requests you are making. <em><a href='B:290 58:4'>Isa 58:4</a></em> RV says that fasting makes “your voice to be heard on high”. The essence of fasting is to take us out of our comfort zone. We human beings have a great tendency to form habits in order to create or keep us within our comfort zone, yet truly creative thinking and action, not to say true obedience to the call of Christ, all occur outside of the comfort zone. Fasting is only one of many ways to go outside of it. For example, take a different route home from work or describe your faith to yourself in terms and language you wouldn't usually use; pray at different times, or  bring before the Lord the most obvious things you usually wouldn't dream of talking with Him about.</p><p>Time and again, the Lord uses language about the restoration from exile and applies it to Himself. Thus fasting was common amongst Palestinian Jews of His time, and it was involved with mourning the destruction of the temple and Judah's submission to Rome, and yet the Lord, here in <em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em> pronounced that the days of fasting were over, and His people were to be feasting because of His work even though He brought no freedom from Rome, and spoke of the principles of the Messianic Kingdom as being non-resistance to evil rather than military resistance to it. He spoke of Yahweh as 'visiting' His people- but not to save them as they expected, but rather to judge them, with Messiah on His behalf at the head of the Roman armies who would come to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. Thus Jesus deeply disappointed people who didn’t want to change their self-centred, nationalistic outlook or  who didn’t want to see things spiritually rather than naturally, and refused to accept the extent of Israel's sin.</p>


text:
<p>9:16&nbsp;<em>No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth</em>- The stress may be on "a&nbsp;<em>piece</em>". Taking only parts of Christ's teachings was the temptation being given in to by John's disciples (<em><a href='B:470 9:14'>Mat 9:14</a></em> and see note there on&nbsp;<em>But your disciples do not fast </em>). The logical response to a torn, old garment is that it be thrown away and a new one totally accepted and publicly worn. The Greek for "unshrunk" ("new"-AV) is not the same as in "new wine" in <em><a href='B:470 9:17'>Mat 9:17</a></em> or 'new' piece in <em><a href='B:480 2:21'>Mar 2:21</a></em>. Here, in <em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em>  the word is "<em>Agnaphos</em> " which means 'not carded' or 'not worked by a dressmaker'. It is a combination of the negative article&nbsp;<em>a</em>, with&nbsp;<em>knapto</em>, meaning, "to card":&nbsp; It is sometimes translated undressed, uncombed or, as above, unfinished, and refers to wool or cotton cloth that has not been carded or combed so that the fibres are aligned, giving it both strength and a smoother, more finished appearance":&nbsp; This suggests that the New Covenant is an unfinished work, God’s work in us is ongoing and may take apparently unstable turns and changes- e.g. prophecy is often conditional, the intended timing of Christ's return has and may yet still change, dependent upon factors like the freewill repentance of Israel; God may plan one line of possibility for someone or a whole nation, e.g. Nineveh or Israel at the time of Moses, but then change His stated intention in response to human prayer and repentance. This open-ended approach simply cannot be squared with the "old" set-in-stone approach of the Old Covenant. The same message is taught by the next parable in <em><a href='B:470 9:17'>Mat 9:17</a></em> where        -&nbsp;<em>new</em>&nbsp;wineskins are required, because the New Covenant wine is fermenting, so the wineskins need to be soft and flexible enough to change. If they are old and set, they will burst because of the movement and dynamism of the new wine. The wine of the Lord Jesus is therefore not about tradition or a set pattern; but is rather a call to constant change and evolution. Paradoxically, religious people become set in their ways more than any, and seek stability in those traditions; whereas the activity of the Lord Jesus is the very opposite. The only other time a  related word occurs is in <em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em> concerning the clothes of Jesus not having been worked by a launderer (AV "fuller"). The Lord Jesus presents Himself here as raw, fresh and unworked to suit the appearance of men:&nbsp;</p><p>To get a piece out of a new garment, that new garment would be spoiled and the old one likewise would be torn further (<em><a href='B:470 9:67'>Mat 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:21'>Mar 2:21</a></em>). "New"&nbsp;cloth refers to cloth which hasn't yet been washed. On first washing of the patched  garment, the patch would shrink, and thus make a tear in the surrounding fabric. The tragic waste envisioned here is like the new wine running away on the ground from the burst old bottles. Likewise the old wine skins would have had to have the old wine poured out from them to have this new wine put into them. Mixing the old life and the new covenant, a bit of the one here and a bit of the other there, results in this tragic wastage all around. The parables make it seem so obvious that this isn't the way to go, though in reality, we find it hard to be so complete in our devotion to the new covenant.</p><p>The untorn garment is that of Christ- the same Greek words are used about the fact that His garment was not torn at His death (<em><a href='B:500 19:24'>Joh 19:24</a></em>). Division both within ourselves and within the community is caused by partial response to the new covenant; mixing grace with legalism. It is a tearing of Christ's garment, cutting out just a part of it and mixing it with the old way. An old garment that is torn cannot be mended by anything new; it must be thrown out and a new garment accepted. The Mosaic system is described as an old garment: see comments under <em><a href='B:650 1:11'>Heb 1:11</a></em>; where  "shall perish" uses the same Greek word as in <em><a href='B:470 9:17'>Mat 9:17</a></em>, where the bottles "are ruined/perish-AV". The new garment of Christ is untorn. We are each clothed with the white garment of Christ's imputed righteousness (<em><a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>). By dividing from each other we are seeking to tear and thereby destroy/ruin that covering.&nbsp;<br/><br/<em>Onto an old garment</em>- The same phrase is used to describe the Mosaic system in <em><a href='B:650 1:11'>Heb 1:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>For the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made-&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>AV and some MSS replace 'patch' with &nbsp;<em>That which is put in to fill it</em>- This translates one Greek word,&nbsp;<em>pleroma</em>, which is elsewhere simply translated 'to fulfil' and refers to the fulfilment of the Law in Christ and "the fullness of Christ" (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em>).&nbsp;<br/><br/><em>Tears away?Takes from AV:</em>- the Gk. means to separate, divide. The encounter with Christ means that ultimately there can be no strategy or brinkmanship in remaining partly with the old way, be it the Mosaic way or the way of secular modern life, and partly in the Lord's way. There will only be a painful and messy division in the end.<br/><br/><em>A worse 'tear'&nbsp;</em>- Gk:&nbsp;<em>schisma</em>, used elsewhere about divisions between people, especially the Jews, concerning Christ (e.g. <em><a href='B:500 7:43'>Joh 7:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:16'>Joh 9:16</a></em>). We note the contrast the untorn garment of the Lord Jesus which even in His death was not torn. Acceptance of the way of Christ means that there will come schism with the old; and more positively, seamless unity is only possible between those who have totally given their lives and way of thinking to Him and His way.<br/><br/><em>A 'worse' tear</em>- The word for 'worse' in its NT usage has a moral sense, implying that the division is made more evil. In the context, the Lord was addressing John's disciples who had come under the influence of the Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 9:14'>Mat 9:14</a></em>). Jesus is saying that they must fully commit to Him, or else the schism between them and the Jews and them and Himself will only become worse and more destructive. There could be no middle way between Christ and orthodox Judaism. The early church tried it, as the NT letters demonstrate, but in the end, it came to a sad and bitter end of permanent division. This is how all schisms go. Unless there is a wholehearted acceptance of Jesus and His teachings, the final end will be a bitter, destructive tearing-apart/division. The pre-existing, initial schism between persons (cp. that between John's disciples and Christ) will only be made worse unless there is a total surrender to the Lord's ways. In all the unhappy church history which most of us have experienced, that is proved true time and again. Likewise there are those who seek to hide their faith in societies and social situations where it is costly to go Christ's way; but ultimately, they have to choose one way or the other. The division is made worse. By its nature, a city set on a hill cannot be hid.</p>


text:
<p>9:17<em>&nbsp;Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins</em>- A clear reference to Christ's blood of the new covenant (<em><a href='B:480 14:23-25'>Mar 14:23-25</a></em>).</p><p><em>If they do, the skins will burst</em>- The Gk. word translated 'burst' means to shatter or divide. The context is of John's disciples uniting with the Pharisees against the disciples of Jesus. He's saying that if His new wine is not totally accepted, if it is mixed with the old, then lives will be destroyed through further schism. The only basis for avoiding schism is a total acceptance by all parties of the blood of the new covenant.&nbsp;<br/><br/><em>The wine will run out</em>- The Gk. word here translated, 'run out' is the s.w. as 'poured out/shed-AV'  in <em><a href='B:470 26:28'>Mat 26:28</a></em> referring to Christ's blood of the&nbsp;<em>new</em>&nbsp;covenant being "poured out/shed". Failed spiritual life, the life which only partially accepts the new wine of Christ but refuses to change, refusing to be new containers for it, results in the blood of Christ at Calvary being, as it were, poured out/shed, i.e.-wasted in the dust, and Christ crucified afresh by our apostasy (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>). This is the final tragedy of refusing to change upon receiving of the new wine.<br/><br/><em>And the wineskins will be ruined</em>- The point is twice emphasized. The skins will burst and they also will be 'ruined'. The word for 'ruined' is also translated as 'destroy', 'lose' and 'perish', and used of the final destruction in condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>). The lives of the untransformed recipients of the new wine first 'burst' and then finally they are 'ruined' in final condemnation.&nbsp;</p><p><em>No, they pour new wine into new wineskins</em>- Wine skins were made of goat skin. The goats speak of the rejected, the sinners, in the parable of the sheep and goats (<em><a href='B:470 25:31-46'>Mat 25:31-46</a></em>).  The wine skins may therefore speak of our flesh of sin. It's no sin to be a human being and have human flesh, but because of the nature of the new wine, we must become wholly new, or we will be destroyed. The new wine fermented powerfully- similar to the Lord describing His Gospel as yeast which works through flour (<em><a href='B:490 13:21'>Luk 13:21</a></em>). The new covenant will work powerfully in us if we let it, and our skins, the life structure we have, must be prepared to accept that. Each wineskin expanded slightly differently in response to the fermenting of the new wine poured into it; no two wineskins expanded to an identical shape or form. We too will individually and uniquely respond to the new wine.&nbsp;<br/><br/><em>And both are preserved</em>- The loss is not only to the untransformed person. There is also a loss and damage to the new wine, the Lord Jesus. He is not undamaged by the loss of any of His people. Their failure is His re-crucifixion, the pouring out again of His blood, but in vain. All this signals the danger of not being totally transformed after having received the Truth. Interestingly, a form of the Greek&nbsp;<em>suntereo</em>&nbsp;["preserved"] is used in <em><a href='B:500 2:10'>Joh 2:10</a></em>, where it is noted that the Lord Jesus&nbsp;<em>kept</em>&nbsp;[Gk:&nbsp;<em>tereo</em>] the best wine:&nbsp;<em>Tereo</em>&nbsp;is frequently on the lips of the Lord in John's Gospel (and is widely used by John in his letters), in the context of 'keeping' His word. This is done by totally surrendering human life to be a vessel totally devoted to the new wine we have received, rather than steel willed, nail-biting, white-knuckled struggle for obedience to specific laws.<br/><br/>Luke's record adds that the Lord concluded by observing that "No one having drunk old wine immediately then desires new wine, for he says [deep within himself], The old is good [better]" (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). This appears to be a concession to the weakness of John's disciples, and to our weakness. Having taught that unless we are transformed, we shall shatter and be destroyed/condemned, the Lord accepts the basic conservatism of human nature, knowing that we will not make the change immediately. There was indeed a changeover period between the Lord's death around AD33 and the destruction of the temple in AD70. Similarly, in human lives today, the Lord recognizes that the total change of life will not come immediately  because we are essentially conservative. In seeking to make the total transformation, we ourselves must realize that however progressive, liberal, flexible, open to new ideas we think we are when it comes to spiritual change, we are terribly conservative. It is such unbridled conservatism which stops people from changing and accepting the new wine. There is the assumption in many Christian groups and minds that conservative = righteous, and change is likely to be for the worst. Yet the Lord is teaching that it is our natural conservatism which stops the vital, transforming change which is necessary to avoid the shattering of life and personality now, and final destruction at judgment day. Because of this basic conservatism of human nature, even those who consider themselves "liberal" are often only so in comparison to others, in relative terms. We are all in fact basically conservative. We stick with what we know and don't easily go outside our comfort zone of the old and familiar. We all find change hard. He was perhaps, in the context, making some apology for John's disciples, who still couldn't fully allow themselves to be filled with the new covenant wine. New wineskins must stretch. The Gospel of Jesus is all about change and being stretched; and He recognizes that we find this so very difficult. People do not immediately/quickly respond to the new wine of the new covenant because, the Lord piercingly observed, they think the old was better (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). He perceived, with His amazing penetration of the human psyche, that there is a conservatism deep within us all that militates against the immediate response to Him and the new wine of His blood/sacrifice which He so seeks. Yet once we have made this immediate response in a few things, it becomes easier to get into an upward spiral of response to Him. We become truly a new creation in Him, breaking constantly with factor after factor in our past, which has previously defined us as persons. Quite simply, we become new persons, with all the rejection of the ‘old’ ways which this requires.</p><p>The parable of the sower shows how the Lord foresaw that the majority who responded to His word would not hold on. He knew that men would not immediately appreciate the blood of His cross, but would prefer the old wine of the old covenant (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). He saw that our spiritual growth would be an agonizingly slow business; as slow as a tiny mustard seed growing into a tree (<em><a href='B:470 13:31,32'>Mat 13:31,32</a></em>), as slow as a man digging a foundation in rock (<em><a href='B:470 7:24,25'>Mat 7:24,25</a></em>), or a seed growing and bringing forth fruit (<em><a href='B:470 13:8'>Mat 13:8</a></em>;<em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>). Such growth is&nbsp;<em>very</em>&nbsp;slow&nbsp;<em>from a human perspective</em>. &nbsp;The parable of the wine exactly predicted the attitude of people to Christ's work in taking the Old Covenant out of the way. The Lord is surely saying: 'I know you won't immediately want the blood of my new covenant. I understand your nature. By nature you'll prefer what you are familiar with, the Old Covenant. You won't "straightway" desire the new wine, but (by implication) you will, after a while' (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). He foresaw how the implication of the blood of His sacrifice would not be accepted by His people first of all. It would be a process of slowly coming to accept how radical the gift of His blood Is. As we weekly take the cup of His covenant, we come to see more and more the excellency of that blood and its supremacy over all else. Christ recognized the conservatism in human nature which will naturally shy away from the marvellous implications of what He achieved for us. Whenever we talk about the present aspect of the Kingdom of God, our present blessings of redemption in Christ, the sense in which we have already been saved…there is a desire to shy away from it all.&nbsp; In the same way, the early Christian believers desperately clung on to the Mosaic food laws, circumcision and synagogue attendance as far as they could. The command to witness to the Gentiles was likewise not taken seriously for some time. It must have been painful for the Lord to know this and to see it, recognizing in it a lack of appreciation for His life and final sacrifice, showing our desire to reconcile with God without totally committing oneself to His work. He saw the possibility of His blood being wasted if men didn’t change from old to new wineskins. The slowness of the changeover in attitudes amongst the early believers must have been a great pain to Him, as if His blood was being poured out again. The implication is that we shed His blood afresh if we won't change. If we allow the conservatism of our natures to have an iron grip upon us we not only destroy ourselves, but waste the blood of the Son of God. This is the danger of the conservatism that is in our natures. It was this which led men to shed the Lord's blood, and it is this same element within us which He foresaw would lead us to crucify Him afresh. How many times has this conservatism been mistaken as true spirituality! How careful we must be, therefore, not to adopt any attitude which glorifies that conservatism and masks it as the hallmark of a stable believer. The sensitivity of Jesus to the value of the human person was the very opposite of this.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:18&nbsp;<em>While He spoke these things to them</em>-&nbsp; The impression is given that the ruler was begging the Lord for the healing of his daughter, but instead the Lord delayed responding in order to complete the teaching He was giving about the vital need for total transformation if we have received the new wine. He felt His message was that important. We also notice something which we see several times in the Gospel records- the Lord appears to not respond to human need, to even be deaf to it for a while. The reason for that, both then and now, was surely to pique the intensity and urgency of the requests.</p><p><em>A ruler</em>- Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue (<em><a href='B:480 5:22'>Mar 5:22</a></em>). Matthew omits his name, perhaps because his Gospel first circulated in areas local to Jairus where the mention of his name could have led to persecution? The Orthodox Jewish opposition claimed that none of the rulers [i.e. rulers of the synagogues] had believed on Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 7:48'>Joh 7:48</a></em>), and yet <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em> notes that "Among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue". Jairus clearly was one such ruler, and yet he didn’t confess Jesus for fear of consequence and disfellowship. Remember that Jairus had come to Jesus while He had been teaching John's disciples the need to totally accept His new wine and not compromise with Judaism and the Pharisees who were standing with them. While He was teaching that, Jairus had been clamouring for Jesus to come and heal his daughter (see above on&nbsp;<em>While He spoke these things to them</em>). Jairus missed the essential spiritual point because he was distracted by his human need. The Lord's sermon on the mount taught that we are a city set on a hill which cannot be hid, and that if we seek to hide our light under a bucket, then we will lose the light altogether. The omission of Jairus' name in Matthew leads me to fear that perhaps Jairus drifted away from faith, although his great faith at this particular moment in time is recorded positively.<br/><br/><em>Came and knelt before him, saying</em>- Worship does not necessarily require words. Believing in the Lord's absolute power, shown by Jairus's actions, was a form of worshipping Him. The same formula is used in <em><a href='B:470 8:2'>Mat 8:2</a></em> where the leper worshipped Jesus in that he expressed faith in His power to cleanse (also in <em><a href='B:470 15:25'>Mat 15:25</a></em>). The Greek&nbsp;<em>proskuneo</em>&nbsp;is not used (as some Trinitarians wrongly claim) exclusively of worship of God. It is used in the LXX, classical Greek and in the later New Testament for worship of men- e.g. Cornelius worshipped Peter (<em><a href='B:510 10:25'>Act 10:25</a></em>), men will worship faithful Christians (<em><a href='B:730 3:9'>Rev 3:9</a></em>), the beast is worshipped (<em><a href='B:730 13:4'>Rev 13:4</a></em>):&nbsp;<br/><br/><em>My daughter is even now dead</em>- The Greek could carry the idea of 'for now, she is dead' (see the usage in <em><a href='B:470 3:15'>Mat 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:7'>Joh 13:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:12'>Joh 16:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:31'>Joh 16:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em> etc:); in this case, the man believed her death state was only temporary, until the resurrection he believed Jesus would achieve.<br/><br/><em>But come and lay your hand upon her that she shall live</em>- The man "came" to Jesus, and now Jesus 'comes' to the man. The same Greek word is used twice. The impression is given of a mutuality between the Lord and those who come to Him in faith.</p>


text:
<p>9:19<em>&nbsp;And Jesus rose and followed him, as did his disciples-&nbsp;</em>This verse zooms in close on the body language and physical movement of the characters, as if the author was the cameraman on the scene. Truly we have eye witness accounts in places like this. The image of the Lord Jesus following a man is unusual, as readers are accustomed to the disciples following the Lord, not Him following men. The point perhaps is that He is responsive to human need and prayer in a sense controls Him, according to His will of course. The picture is of the man racing ahead, so eager to get home. This sets the scene for the interruption to the journey, and serves to heighten the sense we get of his frustration with the woman who is taking up the Lord's time, when for him, every second counted so crucially.</p>


text:
<p>9:20&nbsp;<em>Behold</em>- AV. If Matthew is like a cameraman at these scenes, the word "behold" is as it were a zoom in message, bringing us to focus upon an individual.</p><p><em>And a woman who had an issue of blood for twelve years</em>- Exactly how old the child was. Clearly the hand of providence had been at work in both these lives according to some defined sense of timing.<br/><br/><em>Came behind Him</em>- The scene is being developed from <em><a href='B:470 9:19'>Mat 9:19</a></em>, where the Lord and the disciples are following the rushing man; and now we 'see' the woman coming behind Jesus, as if she in this sense was also one of the disciples who followed behind Him.<br/><br/><em>And touched the border of his garment</em>- Her example inspired the many others who later sought to do this in <em><a href='B:470 14:36'>Mat 14:36</a></em>. It has been suggested that the hem of the garment referred to the blue band which was to be worn by Jews to remind them of their commitment to obedience to God. In this case she would have been seeking to associate herself with the righteousness of Christ and be healed/saved [the same Greek word is used] thereby. In essence, this is what faith and baptism into Christ is all about. A simpler reading is that she thought if she associated herself even with the Lord's periphery, she would thereby be saved / healed. Given Jewish phobia about blood and the fact that any touching her would have been ritually unclean, she surely disguised her condition, yet she didn’t consider that her uncleanness could make the Lord unclean. Her view of His righteousness was correct- it can be shared with us, but our uncleanness cannot negate His purity. She was driven to this insight by her desperation, just as Job's desperation led him to understand doctrinal truths that were beyond his time and place.</p><p>The Lord allowed this interruption when the man was so earnest that the Lord would haste to his home. The Lord, and the hand of providence, wanted to teach the man that how long a person has been dead is no barrier to resurrection; his faith needed to be developed further. And it fits in with the apparent silence of the Lord, always to develop the intensity of our desire for Him and our focus upon Him. Jesus focused on the essential whilst still being human enough to be involved in the irrelevancies which cloud the lives of all other men. Just glancing through a few random chapters from the Gospels reveals this tremendous sense of focus which He had, and His refusal to be distracted by self-justification. In all of the following examples I suspect we would have become caught up with justifying ourselves and answering the distractions to the point that our initial aim was paralyzed:&nbsp;</p><table><tr><td></p><p>Focus</td><td>Distraction</td><td>Resumed Focus</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The sick woman touches His clothes, and He turns around to see her. He wants to talk to her.</td><td>The disciples tell Him that this is unreasonable, as a huge crowd is pressing on to Him</td><td>"He looked round about [again] to see her that had done this thing" (<em><a href='B:480 5:30-32'>Mar 5:30-32</a></em>). He talks to her.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He says that the dead girl is only sleeping; for He wants to raise her.</td><td>"They laughed Him to scorn"</td><td>"But..." He put them all out of the house and raised her (<em><a href='B:480 5:40-41'>Mar 5:40-41</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He was moved with compassion for the crowds, and wants to feed them and teach them more.</td><td>The disciples tell Him to send the people away as it was getting late</td><td>He tells the disciples to feed them so that they can stay and hear more (<em><a href='B:480 6:35-37'>Mar 6:35-37</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Again He has compassion&nbsp;on the hunger of the crowd</td><td>The disciples mock His plan to feed them</td><td>He feeds them (<em><a href='B:480 8:3-6'>Mar 8:3-6</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He explains how He must die</td><td>Peter rebukes Him</td><td>He repeats His message, telling them that they too must follow the way of the cross (<em><a href='B:480 8:31-34'>Mar 8:31-34</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<p>9:21&nbsp;<em>For she said within herself</em>- Earlier in this chapter the inner thoughts of the Scribes were discerned by the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 9:4'>Mat 9:4</a></em>).Here again we have insight into private thoughts. This emphasis upon thoughts continues that of the Sermon on the Mount and contributes to the general impression Matthew gives of the importance of thought, what Paul later calls 'spirit', for to be spiritually minded is indeed the very quintessence of Christianity.</p><p><em>If I only</em>- 'If I &nbsp;<em>only</em>' is the idea; she thought that physical touch was all that was required. She had the same wrong notion as many Orthodox and Catholic believers have today- that some physical item can give healing. The Lord corrected her by telling her that it was&nbsp;<em>her faith</em>- not the touch of His garment- that had made her whole (<em><a href='B:470 9:21-22'>Mat 9:21-22</a></em>). As so often, He had focused on what was positive in her, rather than the negative. We know that usually the Lord looked for faith in people before healing them. Yet after this incident there are examples of where those who merely sought to touch His garment were healed (<em><a href='B:480 6:56'>Mar 6:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:19'>Luk 6:19</a></em>). They were probably hopeful that they would have a similar experience to the woman. One could argue they were mere opportunists, as were their relatives who got them near enough to Jesus’ clothes, and probably there was a large element of this in them, but the Lord saw through all this to what faith there was, and responded to it. It is perhaps not accidental that Mark records the link between faith and Jesus’ decision to heal in the same chapter (<em><a href='B:480 6:5,6'>Mar 6:5,6</a></em>). When we fear there is interest in our message only for what material benefit there may be for the hearers, we need to remember this. To identify wrong motives doesn’t mean that we turn away; we must look deeper, and hope more strongly.</p><p><em>Touch his garment I shall be healed</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>sozo</em>&nbsp; here translated 'healed', is  usually used for 'saved' (AV - 'made whole'). She had a wider desire for not only healing (for which other Greek words could have been used) but for salvation on a wider level.</p>


text:
<p>9:22&nbsp;<em>But Jesus turning and seeing her, said</em>- Again the emphasis is upon recording the physical movement of the persons involved in the scene, so that we can visually reconstruct it. The Gospel records, Luke especially, often record how the Lord turned and spoke to His followers- as if He was in the habit of walking ahead of them, with them following (<em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:44'>Luk 7:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:25'>Luk 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:28'>Luk 23:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>). Peter thought that following the Lord was not so hard, because he was literally following Jesus around first century Israel, and identifying himself with His cause, but he simply failed to make the connection between following and cross carrying. We too can agree to follow the Lord without realizing that it means laying down our lives. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Daughter</em>- Perhaps the Lord was using the term in the Hebraic sense of 'descendant', seeing her as a daughter of Abraham because of her faith in Him.</p><p><em>Be of good courage</em>- The language has clear parallels with the healing of the paralyzed man recorded earlier in <em><a href='B:470 9:2'>Mat 9:2</a></em>. "Son" there is matched by "daughter" here, and is followed by the same "be of good courage". This phrase is used by the Lord four times in the Gospels (<em><a href='B:470 9:2'>Mat 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:27'>Mat 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em>). As is true for all of us, He had some phrases He liked to use. After His resurrection, He used the same phrase when He appeared to Paul (<em><a href='B:510 23:11'>Act 23:11</a></em>). He is the same today as yesterday (<em><a href='B:650 13:8'>Heb 13:8</a></em>), even down to His word choice and style of speaking. The Jesus whom we shall meet at judgment day is the same Jesus who walked around Galilee; and likewise, our essential personality will be continued eternally throughout the Kingdom. Our spirit will be saved (<em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em>), just as His was.</p><p><em>Your faith has healed you. And the woman was healed at that moment</em>- The emphasis was on the word "faith"; see on <em><a href='B:470 9:21'>Mat 9:21</a></em>. The&nbsp;<em>faith</em>&nbsp;of the sick woman is commended by the Lord even though it was because she nbsp;<em>misunderstood</em>&nbsp;the significance of the&nbsp;<em>hem</em>&nbsp;of the Lord's robe, that she had touched Him. She had perceived the connection with the High Priest's hem (<em><a href='B:20 28:33-35'>Exo 28:33-35</a></em>).  Certainly she perceived that the sun of righteousness of <em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em> had healing in his hems/rays of his garment.</p><p>The Centurion’s servant was healed for the sake of&nbsp;<em>the Centurion's</em>&nbsp;faith <em><a href='B:470 8:13'>Mat 8:13</a></em>; Jairus’ daughter was healed because of&nbsp;<em>her father's</em>&nbsp;faith (<em><a href='B:480 5:22,23'>Mar 5:22,23</a></em>,<em><a href='B:480 5:35,36'>Mar 5:35,36</a></em>). Hence the Lord told Jairus to believe and stop wavering, so that she would be made whole, or “saved” (<em><a href='B:490 8:50'>Luk 8:50</a></em>). This comes straight after the Lord’s commendation of the woman with “an issue of blood”: “Thy faith hath made thee whole [or, saved]” (<em><a href='B:490 8:48'>Luk 8:48</a></em>). It’s as if the two healings are similar in their result- being made whole, or saved- and both required faith. The woman’s own personal faith which led to her healing is paralleled with the faith of the family of the girl who was resurrected.</p><p>Luke adds: “There came one from the house of the ruler of the synagogue saying: Your daughter is dead, do not trouble not the Teacher” (<em><a href='B:490 8:49'>Luk 8:49</a></em>). We naturally ask:&nbsp;<em>who</em>&nbsp;was this “one” who came with this message? In the Gospels, it is often the disciples who term Jesus “the Teacher”. The implication is that it was they who thought that Jesus wouldn’t have the power to raise the dead, perhaps connecting with their own studied lack of faith in His resurrection later. Yet the Lord goes on to calm them: “Fear not.&nbsp;<em>Only&nbsp;</em>believe” (<em><a href='B:490 8:50'>Luk 8:50</a></em>). This shows the power of fear. It is fear which stops faith for fear is the opposite of faith. If we know the love that casts out fear (<em><a href='B:690 4:18'>1Jn 4:18</a></em>), then a whole new style of relationships becomes possible. In so many relationships there is a balance of power which is more realistically a balance of fear- a fear of losing, of being made to look small, a fighting back with self-affirmation against the fear of being subsumed by the other. Be it parents and kids, teachers and students, pastor and flock, so often both sides fear the other. Yet if we are truly affirmed in Christ, no longer seeking victory because we have found victory in Him, His victories become ours… then our whole positioning in relationships becomes so different. For example, our fear of rejection becomes less significant if we believe firmly in our acceptance in the eyes of the Lord, the only one whose judgment has ultimate value. If we can say with Paul that for us the judgment of others has very little value, because we only have one judge… then we will no longer worrying about acting in such a way as to impress others. No longer will it be so important to not express our inner thoughts about people or situations for fear of not using the constant ‘nicespeak’ which results in judgment from others unless it’s used. There will be a congruence between what we feel and think within us, and what we actually show. Thus we will avoid the dysfunction which is so apparent in so many, as they forever struggle to control their outward expressions, hiding their real self, with the real self and the external self struggling against each other in a painful dis-ease.</p>


text:
<p>9:23&nbsp;<em>When Jesus came into... He saw…He said</em>- This is the process of usual human experience, perception and response to perception. It's yet another evidence of the Lord's humanity. The Greek phrase for the idea of "came/went into" (arrived/entered) is used often in the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke). In Matthew 9, Jesus came into His own city (<em><a href='B:470 9:1'>Mat 9:1</a></em>), came into the ruler's house (<em><a href='B:470 9:23'>Mat 9:23</a></em>) and arrived into a house (<em><a href='B:470 9:28'>Mat 9:28</a></em>). Consider the other usages of the phrase in Matthew alone: He came into Israel (<em><a href='B:470 2:21'>Mat 2:21</a></em>), went and dwelt in  Nazareth (<em><a href='B:470 2:23'>Mat 2:23</a></em>), went and dwelt in Capernaum (<em><a href='B:470 4:13'>Mat 4:13</a></em>), entered into Peter's house (<em><a href='B:470 8:14'>Mat 8:14</a></em>), arrived in the land of the Gergesenes (<em><a href='B:470 8:28'>Mat 8:28</a></em>); went into a synagogue (<em><a href='B:470 12:9'>Mat 12:9</a></em>), went into a house (<em><a href='B:470 13:36'>Mat 13:36</a></em>), coming into His own region (<em><a href='B:470 13:54'>Mat 13:54</a></em>), came to the land of Gennesaret (<em><a href='B:470 14:34'>Mat 14:34</a></em>), went into Magdala (<em><a href='B:470 15:39'>Mat 15:39</a></em>), came into Caesarea (<em><a href='B:470 16:13'>Mat 16:13</a></em>, arrived in Capernaum (<em><a href='B:470 17:24'>Mat 17:24</a></em>), came into the region of Judea (<em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em>), came to Bethphage (<em><a href='B:470 21:1'>Mat 21:1</a></em>), entered into the temple (<em><a href='B:470 21:23'>Mat 21:23</a></em>), went to Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:36'>Mat 26:36</a></em>), came to the place called Golgotha (<em><a href='B:470 27:33'>Mat 27:33</a></em>). Mark and Luke record even other cases of His 'coming into' various towns, areas and situations. It is a huge emphasIs. John's Gospel uses the term, but frequently in the more abstract sense of the Lord Jesus 'coming into' the (Jewish) world. The prologue uses the Greek phrase three times alone in describing how John the Baptist 'came' as a witness and how Jesus 'came into' the world and into "His own" (<em><a href='B:500 1:7'>Joh 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:9'>Joh 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:11'>Joh 1:11</a></em>). He was the light and prophet that "came into the world" (<em><a href='B:500 3:19'>Joh 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:14'>Joh 6:14</a></em>). John's references to the Lord Jesus coming "into the world" (<em><a href='B:500 12:46'>Joh 12:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:28'>Joh 16:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:37'>Joh 18:37</a></em>) are therefore not to be read as implying that He literally came down out of Heaven into the world; but rather they are John's more abstract equivalent of the Synoptics' direct and repeated statements that the Lord came into the Jewish world of His day, that is, into human situations. His sending of us out "into" the world is therefore inviting us to go forth and enter into our world and its various situations just as He did. We are to replicate His ministry in our world and situations.</p><p><em>The ruler's house and saw the flute-players and the crowd making a tumult</em>- If flute players had already been called, the implication is that the girl had been dead for some time. This places a question mark over the ruler's claim that his daughter had only just died (<em><a href='B:470 9:18'>Mat 9:18</a></em> Gk). All through these accounts we see the Lord's grace. The man exaggerated, just as the woman (<em><a href='B:480 9:20,21'>Mar 9:20,21</a></em>) thought that merely touching Christ's clothes was all that was needed for a miracle, and yet the Lord graciously worked with all these people and situations to bless them. On the other hand, embalming would've been done quickly, and perhaps the intensity of the tumult and weeping was because she had indeed just died, and the minstrels would have only just arrived. The Lord in this case would have arrived at the very peak of human distress and need. This is why He was 'delayed' on the way, in order for that peak of need to be reached. <em><a href='B:480 5:38-39'>Mar 5:38-39</a></em> emphasizes the extraordinary agitation.</p>


text:
<p>9:24&nbsp;<em>He said: Leave!</em>- He was not purposely attempting to create some calm before doing the miracle, but rather was He telling the hired mourners and flute players that their services were no longer necessary. Often the Lord acts before a miracle as if He is sure the miracle is going to actually happen. In this He exemplifies faith- believing that we have already received what we asked for, and acting appropriately. We think of Paul being so confident in his release from prison that he asks people to prepare a room for him to stay in (<em><a href='B:640 1:22'>Phm 1:22</a></em>). In this case, the Lord saw the dead as if she was actually alive, although sleeping. This is to be our perspective regarding those whom we believe shall be resurrected.</p><p><em>For the little girl is not dead but sleeps. And they Laughed at him in scorn</em>- This scornful laughter is recorded in all three of the Synoptics (<em><a href='B:480 5:40'>Mar 5:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:53'>Luk 8:53</a></em>). It made a deep impression upon them all. The Greek could suggest (although not necessarily) that there was a process of derision here which left the Lord looking somehow scorned ("to scorn"). Perhaps He blushed, or looked at the ground for He was, after all, human. These people were the hired mourners and flute players. There was an element of anger in their derision because clearly money and payment were at issue if they were to be sent away.</p><p>Luke records how Peter, James, John and the parents of the dead girl entered the house where she was&nbsp;<em>alone</em>; and then "they" laughed Jesus to scorn when He proclaimed she was merely asleep (<em><a href='B:490 8:51'>Luk 8:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:53'>Luk 8:53</a></em>). It's psychologically unlikely that the distraught, desperately hopeful parents would've ridiculed Jesus like this at that time. The reference is surely to the three disciples doing this. This is a profound recognition of the disciples' weakness- there, alone with Jesus and the distraught parents, they mocked Jesus' ability to resurrect the girl. And they have the profound humility to tell the world about that in their record of the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p>9:25&nbsp;<em>But when the crowd had been put outside</em>- The Lord was consciously seeking to reduce the element of hysteria at the miracle which He knew He was going to do. He wanted as few as possible to see the dead body actually revive. There was perhaps a similar logic in the way His own resurrection was not done publicly and His risen body was only seen by a relatively few rather than being displayed publicly. This was not His way, nor the Father's way, even during His ministry.</p><p><em>He entered in and took her by the hand, and the little girl arose</em>- The whole scene of putting mourners out of the house, taking her by the hand and raising her up was followed exactly by Peter in raising Tabitha (<em><a href='B:510 9:39-41'>Acts 9:39-41</a></em>). The Lord's style, language and even body language became the pattern for those who had been with Him, and it must be the same for us. The Gospels are written in such a way, that through the power of inspiration we can as it were be there with the disciples likewise watching Jesus and learning of His Spirit.</p><p>Mark adds that the Lord said: "Talitha cumi, which means "Little girl, I say to you, Rise" (<em><a href='B:480 5:41'>Mar 5:41</a></em>). "Rise" here is not from the '<em>anastasis</em>' group of words which are used about the 'rising up' of dead people in resurrection. Instead, it is the word &nbsp;<em>egeiro</em>, which more literally means 'to get up'. 'Honey, it's time to get up now' was what the Lord was saying; not 'I command you to resurrect'. He had restored her life, and He knew that. In fact, He'd done so a while beforehand for He told the mourners: "The little girl is not dead, but sleeps" (<em><a href='B:470 9:24'>Mat 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:39'>Mar 5:39</a></em>). He had already raised her even before going into the room, so when He finally saw her, He took her hand and gently asked her to get up out of bed. His gentleness, His faith, His calmness and His certainty that the Father heard Him are all wondrous. The way the Lord healed people reflects His sensitivity even in that He then commanded food to be brought for this girl who had been dead and was therefore hungry (<em><a href='B:490 8:55'>Luk 8:55</a></em>).</p><p>The Lord Jesus, in His ministry, had forbidden the extroverts from publicly preaching about Him, as they naturally wanted to (e.g. <em><a href='B:480 8:26'>Mar 8:26</a></em>). To keep silent was an act of the will for them, something against the grain. It is hard to find any other explanation for why He told Jairus not to tell anyone that He had raised his daughter (<em><a href='B:490 8:56'>Luk 8:56</a></em>) for it would have been obvious, surely. All there knew she had died (<em><a href='B:490 8:53'>Luk 8:53</a></em>). By contrast, those who would naturally have preferred to stay quiet were told to go and preach (e.g. <em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em>). Perhaps Paul was in this category. The parallel between the Lord’s words and works is brought out in <em><a href='B:490 9:43-44'>Luk 9:43-44</a></em>: “They were marvelling at all things which Jesus&nbsp;<em>did</em>…He said…let these&nbsp;<em>words</em>&nbsp;sink into your ears”. There are no distinct ‘words’ of Jesus in this context; He wanted them to see that His works were His words. There was perfect congruence between what He said and what He did. Perhaps this was why He told the parents of the girl whom He resurrected “to tell no man what was done” (<em><a href='B:490 8:56'>Luk 8:56</a></em>), even though it was so obvious; He wanted His self-evident works to speak for themselves, without the need for human words. For His works were essentially His message.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:26&nbsp;<em>And the fame thereof went into all that land</em>- In Greek, 'the fame' means 'the rumour'. This is why the Lord seems to have disliked doing public stunts and miracles in front of many eyes; He didn’t want this kind of publicity. Rumours, inevitably exaggerated and distorted, started to spread about Him. He wanted to teach God’s word, and the miracles were incidental to that. So easily, they created a false message about Him because of the rumours which resulted from them. It was inevitable that such rumours would spread, and yet it is hard to find anywhere in the Gospels where the Lord specifically seeks to correct them. Instead He focused upon being Himself and teaching the message He had come to deliver, and living the life He had to live. This focus needs to be remembered by us in our ministries, for the more earnestly we work for Him the more rumours will be generated and come back to our ears. But the Lord appears to have largely ignored them, and to have allowed His own personal example to be the ultimate answer to all rumours.</p><p>The Greek&nbsp;<em>ge</em>&nbsp;is used for "land" and the language could hint at a global distribution of the Lord's fame, as if Matthew saw in this a foretaste of the future spreading of the Gospel about Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>9:27&nbsp;<em>And as Jesus passed on from there</em>- It was such a long day for the Lord, wave after wave of need assailing Him. Perhaps He had many such days and this is just one typical day recorded. That He maintained mental perfection despite exposing Himself to such pressure and exhaustion is a window into His love and desire to save humanity. He could easily have reasoned it was better to take it easy locked in a monastery-type existence, but that would have led to sins of omission, and love is simply not like that. The same word for 'passed on' is used again in <em><a href='B:470 20:30'>Mat 20:30</a></em>, where again two blind men latch onto Him as He was 'passing by'. The picture is of circumstances repeating in the Lord's life, just as they do within ours. Doubtless the later two blind men were inspired by the story of these two blind men. The note that the Lord 'passed by' is again an indication of eye witness accounts, with the Gospel writer as a kind of inspired cameraman focusing closely upon the Lord's movements and presenting us with a gripping picture of Him and His movements, so that we may really feel we too are 'there'.</p><p><em>Two blind men followed him, crying out, and saying: Have mercy on us, son of David!</em>- 'Son of David' is a phrase emphasized in Matthew more than the other Gospels. Significantly, he records the phrase in his very first verse (<em><a href='B:470 1:1'>Mat 1:1</a></em>), and on the lips of common people (<em><a href='B:470 12:23'>Mat 12:23</a></em>), a Gentile woman (<em><a href='B:470 15:22'>Mat 15:22</a></em>), children (<em><a href='B:470 21:15'>Mat 21:15</a></em>) and twice on the lips of two blind men (here and in <em><a href='B:470 20:30'>Mat 20:30</a></em>). Perhaps the implication is that the Jewish spiritual leadership didn’t perceive Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of David; it was the common people, Gentiles, women and children i.e. - the marginalized, who did so.</p><p>There is a definite connection between the appeal for mercy and faith that Jesus is "Son of David", both here and elsewhere (<em><a href='B:470 15:22'>Mat 15:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:30-31'>Mat 20:30-31</a></em>). This surely was because of their understanding that God’s mercy would not depart from David’s son (<em><a href='B:100 7:14,15'>2Sa 7:14,15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 22:51'>2Sa 22:51</a></em>), the mercy to David was therefore "sure" (<em><a href='B:290 55:3'>Isa 55:3</a></em>); thus these people understood that if&nbsp;<em>Jesus&nbsp;</em>as the "Son of David" enjoyed the mercy/favour of God, therefore He could share that mercy with them. They believed what the Lord made explicit in John 17, that the relationship He enjoyed with His Father could really be shared with all who believed in Him. No wonder that the Lord healed these thoughtful, marginalized people; they really had meditated deeply upon Him. We should also note that in Hebrew thought, being a 'son of' someone meant sharing their characteristics. King David must be the most merciful of all the Old Testament characters; his grace to Saul and the family of Saul, to Absalom and all who rose up against him, are amazing.</p>


text:
<p>9:28&nbsp;<em>And when he had arrived into the house</em>- The men had been 'crying out' (Gk. 'shrieking') to Him, as He was walking to the house (<em><a href='B:470 9:27'>Mat 9:27</a></em>), but He waited until He was in the house before healing them. This is similar to how, on the way to cure Jairus' daughter, the Lord appeared not to be so urgently responsive (<em><a href='B:480 5:22-36'>Mar 5:22-36</a></em>); He stopped to cure, call out and encourage the woman with blood issues. Likewise He remained 'asleep' on the boat as the waves almost submerged it (<em><a href='B:480 4:36-39'>Mar 4:36-39</a></em>). This is not because He doesn't care, is too busy, or has slow responses to human situations. Rather by this method does He seek to heighten&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;sense of desperation, faith and need for Him.</p><p><em>The blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them: Do you believe</em>- It might have seemed obvious that they believed the Lord was able to heal them, but by having to face the question, the issues are focused. The Lord also perceived a difference between people who simply have desperate need and urgently beg anyone for help- and those who believe in His ability to resolve the issue. The cry of need is not the same as the cry of faith. The cry of need simply is an animal cry of desperation for help, any help, from anyone. Whereas the cry of faith is focused specifically upon the Father and Son and their unique ability and power. The Lord clearly wanted to ensure these men made that distinction, and He works in our lives likewise. The question "Do you believe…?" sounds rather like a question asked before baptizing someone. It's possible that Matthew was aware of that, and was again seeking to develop a continuity between the people Jesus encountered during His ministry, and we whom He encounters today.</p><p><em>That I am able to do this?</em>- The Lord wanted to know if they accepted His&nbsp;<em>ability</em>&nbsp;to do the cure. He was probing the degree to which they would accept that He could therefore choose not to cure them. He therefore spoke in terms of His&nbsp;<em>ability</em>&nbsp;to cure.</p><p><em>They say to him: Yes Lord</em>- 'Yes', here, is a poor translation:&nbsp;<em>Nai&nbsp;</em>means far more than "yes". It is a solemn affirmation, better rendered 'Truly'. Along with the confession of the Lordship of Jesus, this heightens the impression that this is some form of early confession of faith, as if these men were being set up as representative of all those who later would likewise profess faith and come from darkness to light. Being blind, these men had never seen Jesus and yet they believed in Him. Perhaps there is emphasis in Matthew upon the faith of blind men because these people were in a similar situation to the recipients of his Gospel, that is, believing from having heard about, but never having actually seen Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>9:29&nbsp;<em>Then he touched their eyes, saying</em>- The eyes of these blind men may well have been secreting ritually unclean body fluid. Actually touching their eyes unnecessarily, when the Lord had all manner of other options open to Him, reflects His desire to connect with human weakness and need as directly and intimately as possible. Again, Matthew the cameraman is, as it were, zooming in close up on the movements of even the Lord's fingers. Around 30 times the Lord is described as touching people to heal them, with the principle "touch not the unclean thing" clearly in view  (<em><a href='B:30 5:2'>Lev 5:2</a></em>). By doing so, making this conscious allusion to one of the greatest tenets of Judaism and Jewish social interaction, He was redefining 'touching'. He perceived that the ritual requirements not to touch the unclean were not because there was anything unclean in itself on a metaphysical level, but rather to teach against involvement in wickedness  (<em><a href='B:540 6:14-18'>2Cor 6:14-18</a></em>), and to save the unclean, we must touch them, be involved with them, enter into their lives and engage with them. The Lord insistently and repeatedly demonstrated this by touching the unclean. Many conservative Christian believers make the same mistake as the Jews- they consider that the Lord's table must be closed to the unclean. But there is no guilt by association. We are not to "fellowship the unfruitful works of darkness"  (<em><a href='B:560 5:11'>Eph 5:11</a></em>)in the sense of participating in them ourselves, but we are to reach out to and 'touch' the individuals caught up in those things. The Lord's redefinition of 'touch' needs to be taken seriously by many conservative communities today. And we note how just a few verses earlier,only an hour or 2 beforehand on that same day, the unclean woman had 'touched' Jesus  (<em><a href='B:470 9:20'>Mat 9:20</a></em>) and now He, in turn, touches others. In ritual terms, He was unclean and was spreading His uncleanness to another,but He was actually spreading His holiness by doing so. Jesus was purposefully subverting the understanding of guilt by association and uncleanness through physical touch.</p><p><em>According to your faith be it done unto you</em>- This might imply that the extent of their restored vision was dependent upon the degree of their faith. In some cases, the Father and Son operate in a sovereign way, as with the blind man of John 9 who was cured without knowing who Jesus was. In others, their action and the extent of healing is directly in proportion to human faith.</p>


text:
<p>9:30&nbsp;<em>And their eyes were opened</em>- The Lord's work is to be repeated by us, for we are commissioned as Paul was to open the eyes of those in spiritual darkness (<em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>). We therefore are not to simply view Him and His work in Palestine as history or as interesting background... He there, in all His ways, in life and death, is our real pattern to be copied in our own contexts of life.</p><p><em>And Jesus strictly ordered them, saying: See that no one knows it!-&nbsp;</em>The Greek for "see" means just that, indeed it can mean to stare or to look intently at something. Clearly it's a play on ideas- 'Now that you can see, use your seeing to ensure that nobody knows about this'. But surely it would be obvious? How can a healed blind man be hidden? How can it not be known what has happened to him? And this was exactly the point. In line with the Lord's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, our witness is essentially in who we are. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. There is no possibility that a lamp burning in the darkness can be unnoticed  (<em><a href='B:470 5:14-16'>Mat 5:14-16</a></em>), and by this command to tell nobody, the Lord was encouraging them to witness in exactly the way He had outlined in the Sermon. Clearly the man wanted to shout out his good news, but by quietly walking around, seeing life as it really is and, being his normal self, this would be an even more powerful witness.</p>


text:
<p>9:31&nbsp;<em>But they went and spread abroad his fame in all that land</em>- Disobedience to the Lord's commands about witness is a sad feature of the New Testament record, not least in the initial refusal by the disciples to obey the great commission and take the Gospel to the entire Gentile world  (<em><a href='B:470 28:19,20'>Mat 28:19,20</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>9:32&nbsp;<em>As they were leaving</em>- The Greek word here translated 'leaving' is the s.w. translated "departed" in the previous verse  (<em><a href='B:470 9:31'>Mat 9:31</a></em>). No time had elapsed between the healing of the blind men and what is now about to be described. This was a very busy day for the Lord. Here again, Matthew's record focuses upon physical movement of the players in the scene. It was as the cured blind men were going out of the house, intent on disobedience to the Lord's request not to publicize their cure, with the Lord surely guessing that would be the case, that people brought a dumb man to him for healing. Wave after wave of pressure and human need broke against the Lord. We can only admire His stamina and core principle of love which enabled Him to endure and not turn others away because of His own exhaustion.</p><p><em>A dumb man who was possessed with a demon was brought to him</em>- The Gk. means the dumb man was lead to Him. Again, Matthew focuses close up on the person of the Lord and the physical movements involving Him. The statement is not that he was dumb&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;demon possessed. Clearly the idea was that his dumbness was thought to be due to His possession by a demon. The causes of dumbness have now been analysed and explained. It is not caused by demons, and is today usually capable of some degree of cure or improvement. Therapy doesn't partially drive demons away. Clearly, the language of demon possession was used to describe illness and human conditions which could not be otherwise explained in the first century.</p>


text:
<p>9:33&nbsp;<em>And when the demon was cast out, the dumb man spoke and the crowds marvelled, saying: Such a thing has never been seen in Israel!</em>- This incident was recorded from the perspective of the onlookers. They were unable to perceive that a dumb person could be healed without seeing something exiting from them. I have heard doctors in less developed parts of the world using language such as 'This will get it out of you' when persuading uneducated folks to take medicines. This verse proves too much for those who claim demons actually exist- for it suggests that dumbness is cured by a demon being located and cast out from within the person. Yet dumb people are cured by medical methods that make no reference to demons. The dumb spoke, while in the same chapter, on the same day, the lame had been made to walk  (<em><a href='B:470 9:2-7'>Mat 9:2-7</a></em>) and the blind been given sight  (<em><a href='B:470 9:27-31'>Mat 9:27-31</a></em>) and the deaf had been given hearing (if <em><a href='B:480 7:32-37'>Mar 7:32-37</a></em> occurred at the same time). In this  this very long day in the Lord's ministry, the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 35:5-6'>Isa 35:5-6</a></em> had been initially fulfilled. Perhaps the people came seeking such healing because they were convinced that Messiah had come and His Kingdom must be beginning. Despite their misunderstanding the nature of the Kingdom, the Lord seems to have responded positively to their faith, just as He does with misbelievers today.</p><p>There were people claiming to cast out demons in Israel at the Lord's time, but as the historian Josephus records, they operated by first asking the sick person for the name of the demon within them and then cursing that demon until it supposedly departed. The need to name demons was therefore very important for the exorcists. The problem with dumb people was that they couldn't speak, most were illiterate and couldn't write, so it was thought to be very hard to cure the dumb because they could never name the demon possessing them to an exorcist. The Lord's healing of dumb demons (as the people understood it) therefore placed Him in a category of His own far above the exorcists.</p>


text:
<p>9:34&nbsp;<em>But the Pharisees said: By the prince of the demons he casts out demons-</em>&nbsp;We sense that the Pharisees were desperate to minimize the Lord's miracles, but they were driven to admit they were miracles because the demons did actually leave (as they saw it), and all they could say was that the Lord must therefore have been in league with the prince of the demons. This of course was a foolish and desperate argument, because as the Lord later pointed out, their sons also claimed to drive out demons, so that would imply that they were also in league with the prince of the demons. This shows that the miracles of Jesus were beyond doubt, as those by Peter were later  (<em><a href='B:510 5:12-16'>Acts 5:12-16</a></em>). Genuine miracles worked by the Holy Spirit cannot be denied even by the most cynical- contrasting sharply with many Pentecostal claims of healing and supposed exercise of the Spirit gifts of healing.</p>


text:
<p>9:35&nbsp;<em>And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues and</em>- As in <em><a href='B:470 4:23'>Mat 4:23</a></em>, the emphasis seems to be upon the Lord trying to get to as many isolated people as possible. The Greek suggests this idea, and is used again in <em><a href='B:470 23:15'>Mat 23:15</a></em> "You&nbsp;<em>compass</em>&nbsp;sea and land to make one proselyte". The Lord's emphasis upon the villages rather than the big cities such as Sepphoris was in line with His mission to specifically get to the marginalized and those whom no itinerant preacher ever would bother trying to get to. The "villages" would have been no more than a few houses, requiring hours of walking over hilly tracks to reach. Our own missionary work can take an example from this, in that for all of us, there should be the spirit of wanting to spread the message to the very corners of society.</p><p><em>Preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom</em>- Literally, heralding the Gospel of the Kingdom. Not 'Preaching / heralding the Kingdom', but heralding the preaching of that Kingdom. The difference is significant. The Lord saw Himself as doing the groundwork for another evangelizing of the Kingdom- namely that which would be done by us. Significantly we read that Paul simply preached [s.w.] the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:510 28:31'>Act 28:31</a></em>). Matthew, like the other evangelists, often hints at the great commission to spread the Gospel with which the Gospels all end (even John, if you look for it!)</p><p><em>And healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness</em>- It is as if the Lord purposefully tried to engage with every kind of human need and weakness. This means that His unity with humanity, His ability to be a total representative and utterly sympathetic High Priest "in every point" (<em><a href='B:650 2:14-18'>Heb 2:14-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:15-16'>Heb 4:15-16</a></em>), was not something which was achieved automatically. He consciously worked on it, and His life of engagement with humanity resulted in Him developing into the unique mediator and representative which He Is. The language here is repeated in  <em><a href='B:470 10:1'>Mat 10:1</a></em> concerning the work of the disciples. The Lord's preaching ministry isn't mere history, it is to be replicated in essence in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;ministry.</p><p><em>Among the people</em>- This phrase is added in the AV and some MSS. Literally meaning, "in" the people. There is the hint at internal sickness and healing.</p>


text:
<p>9:36&nbsp;<em>But when he saw the crowds, he was moved with</em>- This is part of the general summary of His preaching work which we have in  <em><a href='B:470 9:35'>Mat 9:35</a></em>. Most men would have inwardly groaned whenever they saw the crowds surging towards them, but not the Lord. Every time He saw a crowd of humanity, He was moved with compassion. We too are faced by human need, crowds of it, if only we will have the sensitivity to perceive it. Instead of groaning and raising eyebrows, we ought to be moved with compassion at their need and at how humanity is rudderless, if we have the spirit of Christ.</p><p><em>Compassion for them</em>- This phrase is used several times used in the Gospels about the Lord's response to people. In His self-revelation in the parables, the Lord uses the same word about Himself and the Father. In this sense, He is the Samaritan who "had compassion" on the wounded man (<em><a href='B:490 10:33'>Luk 10:33</a></em>) and as the Father of the prodigal son had compassion on him (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:480 6:34'>Mar 6:34</a></em> the implication is added at this point that He&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>, as a result of that compassion, started to “teach them many things”. Then He tells His disciples, "The harvest indeed is plentiful, but the labourers are few, therefore ask the Lord of the harvest…” (<em><a href='B:470 9:36-38'>Mat 9:36-38</a></em>). It was their spiritual as well as their material and human need of the crowds which evoked His compassion. I have to say that this spirit of urgent compassion is not as strong among us as it should be. There seem few, if any, tears shed for the tragedy of humanity. The world’s desperation seems written off as ‘I'm not interested’ rather than felt as a tragedy that should evoke our emotional and practical response. When Jesus saw the leper who wanted to be “clean”- not just ‘cured’ or eased of his discomfort- He made an emotional response. He 'stretched out His hand and touched him' before making him clean because He was “moved with compassion” (<em><a href='B:480 1:40-41'>Mar 1:40-41</a></em>).  Also, <em><a href='B:470 14:14'>Mat 14:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:32'>Mat 15:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:34'>Mat 20:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 7:13'>Luk 7:13</a></em> all record other times when the sheer humanity of the situation evoked the Lord’s compassion and mercy: e.g. the sick and disabled who came to him for healing, the hungry crowds and the woman in the funeral procession of her only son.</p><p><em>Because they were distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a shepherd</em>- 'Distressed and scattered' could also be translated as "harassed and helpless". The hypocrisy of the Pharisees (who should have shepherded the people) didn’t simply irritate the Lord. He went further to proactively feel sorry for the crowds who were without a shepherd- and He did something about it. Their lack of shepherds is the background for the Lord's command to pray therefore for&nbsp;<em>workers</em>&nbsp;to be sent out into the harvest (<em><a href='B:470 9:37-38'>Mat 9:37-38</a></em>). We might think that the crowds being without a shepherd would lead the Lord to urge that good shepherds be sent to them, but instead, He chooses another metaphor, that of seasonal labourers required to go and reap a harvest. Perhaps this was because He didn’t consider the disciples nor indeed anyone in Palestine at the time to really be capable for shepherding. He was the only shepherd; the singular good shepherd  (<em><a href='B:500 10:11-17'>Joh 10:11-17</a></em>). Perhaps the point of the change of metaphor was that the Lord's flock does not need mere shepherds in positions of leadership, so much as&nbsp;<em>workers</em>&nbsp;first and foremost. The Lord is clearly alluding to the concern of Moses that after he died, the people would not be "as sheep which have no shepherd" (<em><a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a></em>). The hint is that Israel were in effect without Moses- whereas the Jewish religious leadership considered that they were being fiercely faithful to Moses. Perhaps there is also the hint that the Lord realized He would not always be with these crowds (He had just taught that the bridegroom would be taken away from them in <em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em>), and His prayer is that the Father will send out workers to replace Him. Our ministry in this world is effectively that of Jesus reincarnated/represented in us as His body. See on <em><a href='B:470 10:1'>Mat 10:1</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>9:37&nbsp;<em>Then said he to his disciples: The harvest-</em>&nbsp;The harvest and reaping occur ultimately at the Lord's second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:39'>Mat 13:39</a></em>). The prayer here could not only be for more Gospel preaching workers, but for the Angels who will be the reapers in <em><a href='B:470 13:39'>Mat 13:39</a></em> to be sent forth at the 'end of the world', i.e.- a prayer for the second coming, motivated by the hopeless situation with the religious shepherds of God’s people. We can surely interpret the Lord as, once again, teaching the 'now but not yet' aspect of His Kingdom. Insofar as we go out and reap the harvest, we are doing what the Angels will do at the second coming. The Lord saw the crowds who wanted only loaves and fishes as a great harvest. He saw the potential... Note how the phrase “the harvest is&nbsp;<em>plentiful</em>” uses the word usually translated “great” and "many" in describing the multitudes that flocked to the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 4:25'>Mat 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:1'>Mat 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:16'>Mat 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:18'>Mat 8:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:15'>Mat 12:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:2'>Mat 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:14'>Mat 14:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:30'>Mat 15:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:2'>Mat 19:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:29'>Mat 20:29</a></em>). Those crowds were seen by Him as a harvest.</p><p><em>Indeed is plentiful-&nbsp;</em>His preachers were like harvesters working in the very last hour to bring in the harvest. In fact, the harvest was spoiling because it was not being fully gathered. The fault for that lies with the weak efforts of the preacher-workers ("few" both in number and weakness, as the Greek means). This means that the ultimate degree of success of the Father's work with men to some degree depends upon us. There are people who would be gathered if there were more, stronger, better workers (not so "few"). To some extent the Father has delegated His work into our hands. He will not necessarily raise up another way of harvesting those people into His Kingdom if we fail Him. In this lies the power of the fact that&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are the labourers who do the reaping in our Gospel work now; and yet it is the Angels who do this reaping at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:39'>Mat 13:39</a></em>). This means there is a direct correlation between whom&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;reap for the Lord now and who shall finally be gathered into His Kingdom by the Angels at the second coming. Our responsibility for others' eternity and the extent of God’s glory on this earth is huge. The Lord Himself here prayed that more labourers would be sent forth into the harvest  (<em><a href='B:470 20:1'>Mat 20:1</a></em>), but the real answer only came in the sending forth of labourers by the Father after the Lord's resurrection  (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>). We are all commanded by the great commission at the end of Matthew to go forth and do this work.</p><p><em>But the labourers</em>- The parable of the labourers in the vineyard (<em><a href='B:470 20:1-8'>Mat 20:1-8</a></em>) suggests that all who are called to the Gospel are called to be labourers in the harvest. The call is not to learn a few theological truths and preserve them, nor to slump into a culture of meeting attendance or churchianity. It is to labour in harvesting the great potential which there is in this world.</p><p><em>Are few-&nbsp;</em>The Greek means to be low in both number and strength. The parable of the labourers in the vineyard (<em><a href='B:470 20:1-8'>Mat 20:1-8</a></em>) suggests that many of those who are called for this work only work a few hours because they are standing idle a long time before being called. They are the weak, the lazy, the handicapped, the old, those with a bad work record, whom nobody wanted to hire. Most of the Lord's workers are like that. We shouldn't be surprised to find the Lord's workforce full of those who seem most unsuited to the work of harvesting others. The disciples were called labourers when Jesus sent them forth in His work with the comment that they were 'labourers' who were worthy of their food (<em><a href='B:470 10:10'>Mat 10:10</a></em>). The Lord only had these 12 men, perhaps, because that was all there was in Israel able to do the job. That could be why He asked them to pray that there would be more sent forth by the Father. This shows the blessing which will go behind the efforts to spread the Gospel to all the world in the last days. There is a fervent,&nbsp;<em>urgent</em>&nbsp;desire of the Lord for this, and so His blessing will surely be with all who catch the same spirit of urgency. According to the parable of <em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em>, the quality of converts is sacrificed (by the Lord, not us) for the sake of numbers- which connects with the idea that the coming of Christ is to some degree dependent upon the full number of the Gentiles being converted (<em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>). Likewise, in the parable of the drag net, it  was brought to land once it was full of fish (<em><a href='B:470 13:48'>Mat 13:48</a></em>). The Lord speaks of how “few" the labourers are (the Greek implies physically weak, cp. the unwanted labourers in the market place (<em><a href='B:470 20:6,7'>Mat 20:6,7</a></em>) and therefore more (numerically) are needed. Any lamentation about the weakness of the latter day ecclesia must be seen in this context; the Lord is desperate for the places at the supper to be filled, although woe to those who come in without a wedding garment (<em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:38<em>&nbsp;Therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest</em>- The Lord is praying that the time of the great commission, the sending forth of God’s people worldwide to reap the harvest, would be hastened, but it had to wait until after the Lord's resurrection because the disciples were not yet mature enough for it. The Lord&nbsp;<em>prayed</em>&nbsp;and urged others to pray, that the great commission would be given as soon as possible. With what eagerness, therefore, does He watch our fulfilment of it, and with what sadness therefore does He observe our negligence and even denial of it.</p>


text:
<p>10:1&nbsp;<em>And he called to him his twelve disciples</em>- Implying they were not always with Him. There seems an intended contrast between calling them to Him, and then sending them out (<em><a href='B:470 10:5'>Mat 10:5</a></em>). In one sense they were with Him when they were away from Him. It is simply so, that when we witness, the words we speak are in effect the words of Jesus. Our words are his. This is how close we are to Him. And this is why our deportment and manner of life, which is the essential witness, must be in Him. For He is articulated to the world through us. And it explains the paradox of the parallel record in <em><a href='B:480 3:14'>Mar 3:14</a></em>, whereby Jesus chose men that they should “be with Him and that He might send them out to preach”. As they went out to witness, they were with Him, just as He is with us in our witness, to the end of the world, both geographically and in time (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>). And this solves another paradox, in <em><a href='B:480 4:10'>Mar 4:10</a></em>: “When He was alone, they that were about Him with the twelve asked Him…”. Was He alone, or not? Mark speaks as if when the Lord was away from the crowd and with His true followers, He was “alone”- for He counted them as one body with Him. This was why the Lord told Mary, when she so desperately wanted to be personally with Him, to go and preach to His brethren (<em><a href='B:500 20:17'>Joh 20:17</a></em>), just as He had told some of those whom He had healed- for going and preaching Him was in effect being with Him (<em><a href='B:480 5:18,19'>Mar 5:18,19</a></em>).</p><p><em>And gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out-&nbsp;</em>This is in the context of the Lord's concern that the crowds were sheep with no shepherd (<em><a href='B:470 9:36'>Mat 9:36</a></em>), which I suggested was an allusion to Moses' words of <em><a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a></em>. Moses asks for God to raise up another to do his work, and God gives him Joshua- and is told "You shall put of your honour on him/invest him with some of your authority"-AV (<em><a href='B:40 27:20'>Num 27:20</a></em>). So the Lord is here treating the disciples as if they are His replacement, going out to do His work, just as the later body of Christ are to do. We have in this preaching tour they are sent on some sort of foretaste of the great commission (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>).</p><p><em>And to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness</em>&nbsp;Every kind of sickness and disease was to be engaged with by them because they were to be the re-incarnation of Jesus' personal ministry, His body to the world. See on <em><a href='B:470 9:35'>Mat 9:35</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>10:2<em>&nbsp;Now the names of the twelve apostles are these. The first Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother-&nbsp;</em>This is not the record of the choosing of the twelve, but rather of their commissioning and being sent out (<em><a href='B:470 9:5'>Mat 9:5</a></em>). The list is broken up into pairs, perhaps because they were sent out as six pairs.</p><p><em>James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother</em>- Mark adds that James and John were to be the “sons of thunder" (<em><a href='B:480 3:17'>Mar 3:17</a></em>), which is another Rabbinic phrase, used of the young trainee Rabbis who stood at the left and right of the Master of the Synagogue during the Sabbath services (which explains the later appeal for confirmation as to whether they would&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>stand at the Master’s right and left in His Kingdom-<em><a href='B:470 20:20-23'>Mat 20:20-23</a></em>). These uneducated men were to take the place of the learned Scribes whom they had always respected and lived in fear of... truly they were being pushed against the grain. See on <em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:3&nbsp;<em>Philip and Bartholomew&nbsp;</em>Bartholomew appears to be the same person as Nathanael, also mentioned with Philip in <em><a href='B:500 1:46-51'>Joh 1:46-51</a></em><em>.</em></p><p><em>Thomas and Matthew the tax collector, James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus-&nbsp;</em>The Gospel records were transcripts by the evangelists of their personal preaching of the Gospel. Matthew, the writer, adds here in the list of the disciples that he was “the tax collector” (<em><a href='B:470 10:3'>Mat 10:3</a></em>), and throughout this record, there are little hints of his own unworthiness in this, his own presentation of the Gospel to others.</p>


text:
<p>10:4&nbsp;<em>Simon the Canaanite</em>- 'Canaanite' does not mean 'from Canaan' but that this man is a&nbsp;<em>kananites</em>, a zealot. We see the wide range of men the Lord called into His band; Matthew the tax collector would've been seen as a traitor of the Jewish people, whereas the zealots were at the other end of the political spectrum. The way these 12 men didn’t break up as a group after living together under extreme psychological conditions is a testament to the unifying power of the person of Jesus. The composition of the Lord's body is the same today, including "all [types of] men". Sadly denominationalism and churchianity has led to churches often being clusters of believers having the same socio-economic, racial and personality type positions, rather than being conglomerations of literally all types of people, in accent and formation.</p><p><em>And Judas Iscariot who betrayed him-&nbsp;</em>"Iscariot" perhaps means 'man of Kerioth:' Kerioth was a small village in Judea (<em><a href='B:60 15:25'>Jos 15:25</a></em>). Judas would therefore have been the only Judean. It could also be that 'Iscariot' is from&nbsp;<em>sicarius</em>, 'dagger-man' or 'assassin'. This would suggest that Judas belonged to what was reckoned to be the most far right of the various resistance groups, the Sicarii (the terrorists, cp. <em><a href='B:510 21:38'>Act 21:38</a></em>). Again we see the wide range of people the Lord was calling together in order to weld them into one body in Him.</p>


text:
<p>10:5&nbsp;<em>These twelve Jesus sent out and ordered them, saying</em>- The word 'apostle' means 'he that is sent', so literally, the Lord here apostled the 12. Whoever is sent forth is apostled, and the great commission sends forth all believers.</p><p><em>Do not go unto the Gentiles and do not enter into any city of the Samaritans</em>- Given Judaism's strong opposition to Jesus and His teaching, did the Lord foresee they would be tempted to go to the Gentiles? He surely wanted them to replicate His ministry as exactly as possible- and He was sent at that stage to Israel and not to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:470 15:24'>Mat 15:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>10:6&nbsp;<em>Instead</em>- The construction 'Not this but rather that' could mean 'Focus more on that than this', i.e.- focus upon the Jews. It was not necessarily a total prohibition on preaching to Gentiles. For similar constructions see <em><a href='B:500 17:9'>Joh 17:9</a></em> and <em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em>.</p><p><em>Go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel</em>- It's hard to tell whether the Lord meant that all Israel were lost sheep, or whether He meant that the apostles were to go to the lost sheep within Israel, that is, to the spiritually marginalized whom He too had targeted. For the sense of the commission is that they were to replicate His ministry, as if they were Him to the world around them. He was personally sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (<em><a href='B:470 15:24'>Mat 15:24</a></em>) and He asks them to do just the same. His mission was theirs, and by extension, it is also ours. Just as He was sent out by the Father, so He sends us out; we’re all in that sense ‘apostles’, or 'sent out ones'. The Lord's parables about&nbsp;<em>His</em> searching for the lost sheep until He found it (<em><a href='B:490 15:3-7'>Luk 15:3-7</a></em>) were to be understood by the apostles as now applying to&nbsp;<em>them</em>. And we understand from His words here that He considered that particular lost sheep to be Israel. The search until it was found would then be an appropriate parable for the Lord's never ending search for Israel with a love which He can never give up over the centuries. The allusion is also to Ezekiel 34, which speaks of "the house of Israel" being lost sheep because of their bad shepherds (<em><a href='B:330 34:1-6'>Ezek 34:1-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 34:30,31'>Ezek 34:30,31</a></em>). The Lord doesn't specifically state that the disciples are now the new shepherds of Israel (see note on <em><a href='B:470 9:37-38'>Mat 9:37-38</a></em>). He simply sends them to the lost sheep. It seems they were not ready for full pastoral responsibility, but they were to begin their shepherding. We note that the Lord specifically commissions Peter to "feed My sheep / lambs", and these are here defined as the lost sheep of Israel. Hence Peter's ministry was specifically to the Jews (<em><a href='B:550 2:7,8'>Gal 2:7,8</a></em>). These were the sheep who were now lost because of the Jewish religious leadership. The Lord was sending out the apostles to try to provide what the standard religious leadership didn’t, even though they weren't mature enough to be designated as 'shepherds' at that stage. Isn't that is how many of us feel or felt when we first perceived that we too were being sent out just as they were? Notice that the Lord sent the disciples to the lost sheep as fellow sheep (<em><a href='B:470 10:16'>Mat 10:16</a></em>), not as shepherds. It is the commonality we have with our audience which is the bridge across which we can engage with them and persuade them. To stress what we have in common on a human level is what sets up the possibility for those 'flash' moments when we really get something of the Gospel across to others.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:7&nbsp;<em>And as you go, preach</em>- The idea could be that they were to 'preach' whilst travelling, not just to arrive at certain destinations where they would then deliver prepared speeches about the Gospel. Instead, the good news of the Kingdom should come out of them from who they were, "as" they were going. The same word is in the great commission to us, to 'go and make disciples/teach-AV' (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>). It was a foretaste of the greater worldwide campaign which was to be the way of life for all in Christ:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Saying: The kingdom of heaven-&nbsp;</em>In the person of Jesus, the essence of the Kingdom came near to men (<em><a href='B:470 10:7'>Mat 10:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:4,5'>Mat 11:4,5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:28'>Mat 12:28</a></em>)- and this was why one of His titles is “the Kingdom”. The Kingdom of God is about joy, peace and righteousness more than the physicalities of eating and drinking. In this sense the Kingdom was “among” first century Israel (<em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>). The Kingdom of God is not merely a carrot held out to us for good behaviour. It is a reality right now, in so far as God truly becomes our king.</p><p><em>Is at hand</em>- <em><a href='B:470 10:7'>Mat 10:7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 6:12'>Mar 6:12</a></em> parallel preaching the soon coming of the Kingdom with preaching repentance. The Greek for 'is at hand', could mean 'Is soon coming', 'Is being brought near' or 'Has come near (already)'. All these meanings were likely intended by the Lord, hence the choice of this wide meaning phrase. The Kingdom was potentially scheduled for establishment 'soon', but Israel's refusal of the Gospel and rejection of the Lord Jesus meant that it was delayed. In <em><a href='B:470 21:34'>Mat 21:34</a></em>  the same phrase is used to describe how the time of harvest 'drew near'- but the husbandmen refused to give the fruits, and so another program of operation was put into practice. <em><a href='B:520 13:12'>Rom 13:12</a></em>, <em><a href='B:660 5:8'>Jas 5:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:650 10:25'>Heb 10:25</a></em> likewise speak of the day of the second coming drawing nearer by the day. Regardless of whatever delays there may be to the Divine program, we are to live as if "The Lord is at hand" (s.w., <em><a href='B:570 4:5'>Phi 4:5</a></em>), and is about to come soon. In another sense, by response to the Gospel, the time for the establishment of the Kingdom was being hastened, being 'brought near' even though the Kingdom had come near to Israel in that Jesus as King of the Kingdom was the embodiment of Kingdom principles, and He was among men at that time. Those who witnessed His Kingdom-like healing miracles had the Kingdom brought near to them (<em><a href='B:490 10:9'>Luk 10:9</a></em>). The teaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom was therefore a bringing near of the Kingdom to men. The Lord Jesus, the essence and embodiment of the Kingdom, was there among men, and the apostles were heralding ['preaching'] His presence.</p>


text:
<p>10:8<em>&nbsp;Heal the sick-&nbsp;</em>The sayings of Jesus have been translated back into Aramaic, the language of His day, by C.F. Burney. He was struck by the degree to which they had a rhythmic shape, like many of the prophetic sayings of the Old Testament. Thus a passage like <em><a href='B:490 7:22'>Luk 7:22</a></em> has six two-beat lines followed at the end by a three beat line; the commission to the disciples here in <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em> rhymes, both in Aramaic and in Greek. The Lord’s prayer is expressed in two-beat lines (<em><a href='B:470 6:9-13'>Mat 6:9-13</a></em>). The crunch point of the Lord’s forgiveness parable in <em><a href='B:490 15:7'>Luk 15:7</a></em>, that there is joy in Heaven over one sinner that repents, uses the device of alliteration, i.e. similarly sounding words.&nbsp;</p><p>The noun for "heal" is found once, in <em><a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a></em>, where in the context of describing the Lord Jesus, Moses is called "a servant". The acts of healing were done in a servant-like way. This contrasts sharply with the pride associated with many Pentecostal healers. Whatever good we do for others, dramatic or not so dramatic, is to be done as an incarnation of the supreme Servant of all, the Lord Jesus, for it is His ministry which we are performing, not ultimately our own.</p><p><em>Raise the dead</em>- The Greek definitely means 'to awake'. We wonder how many dead people were raised by the apostles, even though the power of resurrection appears to have been granted them here. It's tempting, given the spiritual dimension to the three words chosen here for their work (heal, cleanse, raise), to wonder whether their ministry was intended to be of spiritual service and healing, with physical miracles in second place, although not out of the picture.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Cleanse the lepers, cast out demons</em>- The word also has the sense of moral cleansing. Again the Lord is giving the disciples the work of the priests to do. For it was their job to pronounce lepers cleansed. But He is asking them to do what He Himself had done in <em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em>. His work was to be theirs.</p><p><em>Freely you received, freely give</em>- The Gk. here for 'freely' means 'without a cause'. The allusion is not to anything monetary, but to the free gift of God’s grace to us. The only other occurrence of the Greek phrase 'give freely' is in <em><a href='B:730 21:6'>Rev 21:6</a></em>, where we read of the free gift of the water of eternal life to whoever really wants it. There is a connection between us 'freely giving' the Gospel now (<em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>), and being 'freely given' salvation at the last day (<em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:6'>Rev 21:6</a></em>). The freeness of God’s gift to us should be reflected in a free spirited giving out of the Gospel to others. Paul’s decision not to take money from Corinth (<em><a href='B:530 9:18'>1Co 9:18</a></em>) was due to his deep, deep meditation on the principle contained in <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>, even though there were other passages in the Gospels which he knew implied that it was Christ's will that the missionary should be paid (<em><a href='B:530 9:14'>1Co 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:10'>Mat 10:10</a></em>). This issue of payment shows how Paul based his life decisions on his understanding of the principles of the Gospels. He did far more than learn those Gospels parrot-fashion. They were in his heart, and influenced the direction of his life.</p>


text:
<p>10:9&nbsp;<em>Acquire no gold, nor silver</em>- The idea of the Greek is to 'not get', and the hint could be against taking money for their work with people. But the meaning extends into verse 10, and the sense is clearly that they were not to worry about how materially they were going to do their preaching tour. They were to trust that what was basically necessary would be provided, just as it was for Israel on their wilderness journey. To just go out and preach with nothing behind them was a huge challenge to their faith in the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, which taught to take no anxious thought for food or clothing (<em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em>). Their obedience and success is likewise a great challenge to our own faith, for so often lack of finance and material things is what leaves many good intentions to preach stillborn. But it is the Lord's will that should spread the Gospel, and as a wise old brother of wide missionary experience told me in my youth "I have never seen a preaching initiative fail for lack of funds".&nbsp;</p><p><em>Nor brass for your purses</em>- Even small coins were not to be considered necessary for the missionary work to finally succeed.</p>


text:
<p>10:10&nbsp;<em>No wallet for your journey, neither two coats</em>- 'Two coats' may be a reference to a double garment. This verse's similarity with Israel's wilderness journey described in Exodus and Numbers is clear: no food pouch for the road, no extra clothes or shoes, because as the Father provided those things for Israel (<em><a href='B:50 29:5,6'>Deu 29:5,6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 9:20,21'>Neh 9:20,21</a></em>), in the same way, He would provide for those who preach His Kingdom.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Nor shoes, nor staff; for the labourer is worthy of his food</em>- The Lord has used the word about how the labourers are "few", meaning both weak and also few in number (<em><a href='B:470 9:37-38'>Mat 9:37-38</a></em>), and He will go on to speak of how the labourers He uses to reap the harvest are those who have been standing around unused by others because they are maybe old, weak, lazy or have a poor work record (<em><a href='B:470 20:1-2'>Mat 20:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:6,7'>Mat 20:6,7</a></em>). Clearly the Lord recognized that His labourers would be weak, but He still expects them to be recognized as "worthy" of support as they attempt to do His work.</p><p>The Greek word used here for "food" can mean 'rations', as if they were to be as soldiers on duty. They were to believe that their needs would be met. The mechanism for meeting that need was presumably from the things provided by those who would receive them, although the Lord was clear that they wouldn't always get a positive reception (<em><a href='B:470 10:14'>Mat 10:14</a></em>). Their faith in the provision of their needs by their audience was therefore tantamount to having faith that some at least would respond positively to their message. Note that by the time Paul wrote <em><a href='B:610 5:18'>1Ti 5:18</a></em>, this phrase was considered as "Scripture", which is another hint at an early date for the writing down of the Gospel accounts. The context of that verse by Paul is of the financial support of teachers of the Gospel. It seems the Lord expected that those who gave their lives to spreading and teaching His word should be supported in doing so. Note that the context here in Matthew 10 is of itinerant preachers being supported; Paul doesn't quote the Lord's words strictly in context, because he applies them to teachers based in one particular church. But this is how we are to interpret Scripture- taking the principles and applying them to our situation locally, even if that situation may differ in some ways from the original situation and context in which the principle was first established or stated.</p><p>There is a strong theme in the NT that none of the Lord's people are ultimately "worthy", but rather unworthy. There will be faults with all preachers. But by reason of their devotion to the Lord's word and work we are to consider them "worthy" of support, even if aspects of their wider unworthiness are apparent. Support is not only to be given to those who appear faultless, for none are. The word 'worthy' is used later in Matthew 10 where those who respond to the message are called "worthy" (<em><a href='B:470 10:13'>Mat 10:13</a></em>). There is to be a mutuality between the teacher and the convert where they both consider each other 'worthy' in that the righteousness and worthiness of the Lord is imputed to them both. Later in the chapter, the Lord teaches that the 'worthy' are those who take up their cross and follow Him, regardless of loss of family and social standing. Their journeys in the preaching of the Gospel were therefore seen by the Lord as a taking up of the cross and following Him (<em><a href='B:470 10:37-38'>Mat 10:37-38</a></em>). There is nothing therefore glamorous to missionary work, and that point needs to be well understood especially by young people who jet off to exotic places in the name of Gospel extension work.&nbsp;</p><p>According to Mark’s record of the Lord’s words here in <em><a href='B:480 6:7-9'>Mar 6:7-9</a></em>, He is picking out the picture of Israel as they were on Passover night as an illustration of how His disciples should be on their preaching mission (Compare <em><a href='B:20 12:11'>Exo 12:11</a></em>). His next words for them appear to be stating the obvious, unless they allude to Israel remaining at whatever place they reached until the fire and cloud moved them on (<em><a href='B:40 9:21,22'>Num 9:21,22</a></em>). "Whenever you enter into a house as a guest, remain there until you leave town" (<em><a href='B:480 6:10'>Mar 6:10</a></em>).&nbsp;It must be remembered that God intended Israel to be a missionary nation, teaching the surrounding world of His ways by their example of obedience to His law.&nbsp;As Israel left Egypt with the gold and jewels of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:35-37'>Exo 12:35-37</a></em>), so, Jesus implied, the disciples were to carry the precious things of the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p>10:11&nbsp;<em>And into whatever city or village you shall enter, search out who in it is worthy</em>- The contrast is between the worthy and those who don't accept the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 10:13,14'>Mat 10:13,14</a></em>), where the worthy are those who have responded to the Gospel already. The Lord's fame had gone throughout Israel (<em><a href='B:470 4:24'>Mat 4:24</a></em>) so the apostles weren't going into totally virgin territory. They were following up on the rumours people had already heard about Jesus. "Worthy" seems a strange term to use for the believers, but maybe already the Lord was teaching the idea of imputed righteousness. Those who had believed in Him were "worthy", and He expected them to likewise consider the preachers of the Gospel to be "worthy" of their support. Belief in Him, therefore, was not without practical demands; it was natural and expected of the Lord that those who believed in Him should provide materially for His preachers. The first mention of this word for "worthy" in the NT is in <em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em>, where John the Baptist asks his followers to bring forth fruit worthy of repentance. Perhaps 'the worthy' had become a technical term for those who had responded to John's teaching about Jesus, or at least openly confessed faith in Jesus. The mission of the apostles here may have been to follow up on them. This would mean that the information in <em><a href='B:490 7:4'>Luk 7:4</a></em> that a man was "worthy" of a healing may have implied that he was one of those who had responded to John the Baptist.</p><p><em>And stay with them until you go</em>- To build relationships, to enhance the possibility of a house church developing there later, and to avoid the temptation to shop around for the best accommodation or the wealthiest sympathizers. Luke adds: “Do not go from house to house”. The Lord at least twice stressed to His disciples that they were not to go preaching from house to house, but rather focus upon one house in a village and make that the centre of their work (<em><a href='B:490 9:4'>Luk 9:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:7'>Luk 10:7</a></em>). Clearly His intention was that they built up house groups rather than scattered converts. Perhaps this was alluded to by Paul when he criticized sisters who went spreading gossip “from house to house” (<em><a href='B:610 5:13'>1Ti 5:13</a></em>). He surely had house churches in mind.</p>


text:
<p>10:12&nbsp;<em>And as you enter into the household, greet it</em>- The Lord empowered the traditional&nbsp;<em>Shalom</em>&nbsp;greeting with real meaning when uttered by the apostles on entering a house. The household were offered real peace with God- all they had to do was say yes to it. If they did not, then the opportunity was withdrawn (:13).</p>


text:
<p>10:13&nbsp;<em>If the household be worthy</em>- Worthy of Christ (same word in <em><a href='B:470 10:37,38'>Mat 10:37,38</a></em>). None are worthy (<em><a href='B:730 5:4'>Rev 5:4</a></em>) except Christ (<em><a href='B:730 5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em>), yet if we are in Him, we are counted worthy. The Greek word is used about those who responded to John the Baptist producing fruit 'worthy of repentance' (<em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:8'>Luk 3:8</a></em>). It could be that the Lord is using the word in a technical sense, referring to those who had responded to John's preaching.&nbsp;</p><p>The apostles would have gone to the household because they had heard that it was worthy, or already believing in Jesus (see on (<em><a href='B:470 10:11'>Mat 10:11</a></em>). But the Lord was well aware that there would be those who had a name as believers in Him who actually were not. Even though the household was "worthy" in the sense of having professed faith in Him, they needed to confirm that by accepting the&nbsp;<em>shalom</em>&nbsp;offered in Christ's Name. Note that the household was judged as worthy or unworthy. Here we see the beginnings of the house church movement which was so characteristic of early Christianity. We note too the household baptisms mentioned in the NT (<em><a href='B:510 10:24'>Acts 10:24</a></em>); <em><a href='B:510 10:44-48'>Acts 10:44-48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:14,15'>Acts 16:14,15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:30-34'>Acts 16:30-34</a></em>). One purpose, therefore, of the apostles visiting these households was to find out who had a name as a Christian believer, and to ascertain whether they were indeed believers. The test was whether the household who claimed to be Christian would receive them, the representatives of Jesus, who were as His body to the world. If the household publicly professed faith in Jesus, having heard something about Him or maybe learnt from John the Baptist, but refused to accept Christ's brethren and the word of Christ as they taught it, then they were classified as not actually believing at all. This has uncanny parallels with our own day, where many claim publicly to be "worthy", to be believers in Jesus personally, but refuse and reject His brethren and are not seriously interested in His words. Herein lies the danger of 'out of church Christianity'. Whatever that means, if it means in reality that we profess a personal allegiance to Jesus but have no time for His people, then it is wrong and a path to rejection by Him. Vague connection with the idea of Jesus and advertising it publicly is not enough of itself. If we reject His brethren, then we have rejected Him. This is a sobering challenge to those whose closed table policies lead them to reject many of His brethren and representatives. There has to be a connection with the use of the same word “worthy” in <em><a href='B:470 10:10'>Mat 10:10</a></em>- the labourer in the Gospel’s work is “worthy” of being supported. The connection could simply be that the worthiness of the household is proven by whether they consider Christ’s servants likewise ‘worthy’, and whether they treat them accordingly.</p><p><em>Let your peace come upon it, but if it be unworthy, let your peace return to you</em>- See on 10:12. If the household didn’t accept Christ's brethren, then the peace of salvation which He had invested the apostles' greeting with, would be withdrawn. His&nbsp;<em>shalom</em>, His peace and fellowship with those who name His Name, is dependent upon whether or not they accept His brethren.</p>


text:
<p>10:14&nbsp;<em>And whoever</em>- Meaning whichever households in a community or 'city', according to later in this verse and :15.</p><p><em>Shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as you go out of that household, or that city</em>- To receive an apostle personally was to receive his words. Just as the Lord was the word of God made flesh (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>), so there should be a continuity, identity and congruity between the words we preach and us as persons. This means that the receiving of the preachers as persons was connected with receiving their words.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Shake off the dust of your feet-&nbsp;</em>The disciples were to shake off the dust of their feet against unbelieving Israel (<em><a href='B:470 10:14'>Mat 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:11'>Mar 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:51'>Act 13:51</a></em>), in allusion to the Rabbinic teaching that the dust of Gentile lands caused defilement. Israel who rejected the Gospel were thus to be treated as Gentiles. Time and again the prophets describe the judgments to fall upon Israel in the same terms as they speak of the condemnations of the surrounding nations (e.g. <em><a href='B:300 50:2,3'>Jer 50:2,3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 50:13'>Jer 50:13</a></em>). The message was clear: rejected Israel would be treated as Gentiles. Thus Joel describes the locust invasion of Israel in the language of locusts covering the face of Egypt (<em><a href='B:360 2:2'>Joe 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:20'>Joe 2:20</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 10:14-15'>Exo 10:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 10:19'>Exo 10:19</a></em>). Israel’s hardness of heart is explicitly likened to that of Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:90 6:6'>1Sa 6:6</a></em>); as the Egyptians were drowned, so would Israel be (<em><a href='B:370 9:5-8'>Amo 9:5-8</a></em>). As Pharaoh’s heart was plagued (<em><a href='B:20 9:14'>Exo 9:14</a></em>), so was Israel’s (<em><a href='B:110 8:38'>1Ki 8:38</a></em>); as Egypt was a reed, so were Israel (<em><a href='B:110 14:15'>1Ki 14:15</a></em>). As Pharaoh-hophra was given into the hand of his enemies, so would Israel be (<em><a href='B:300 44:30'>Jer 44:30</a></em>). Even if we are separated from this world externally, we can still act in a worldly way, and share the world's condemnation by being finally "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>10:15&nbsp;<em>Truly I say to you, it shall be more tolerable</em>- There will be degrees of punishment for the rejected at the last day.</p><p><em>For the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city</em>- The people from Sodom will appear at the day of judgment. Seeing that knowledge brings responsibility, it follows that somehow the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had had God’s word preached to them, just as the towns of first century Israel had. But by whom? There is no direct record of Abraham or Lot witnessing to them, but it could be that Lot’s righteous living was counted as a witness to them which demanded they too accepted Lot’s righteous lifestyle. Seeing that Melchizedek lived in the area, one wonders whether he may have witnessed to them. In any case, because we read only a few incidents from the lives of Bible characters, perhaps Abraham and / or Lot made a major witness to those cities and to the area around them (“<em>the land</em>&nbsp;of Sodom…”).</p>


text:
<p>10:16- see on <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>I am sending you out</em>- When He uses the metaphor of sending out His sheep in <em><a href='B:500 10:4'>Joh 10:4</a></em>, the Lord makes the point that He leads them forth, going ahead of them. And yet with the sending out of the apostles, He didn’t literally go with them nor go a day’s journey ahead of them. He went before them in the same way as He goes before us, His sheep of this age- in personal example. As He had gone around Israel preaching, so they were to replicate His ministry. And He is a most unusual shepherd in that He sends them forth knowing that they are walking right into the wolves. “I am sending you out / I send you forth-AV” is actually a quotation from the LXX of <em><a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a></em>, where Moses is sent forth to take Israel out of Egypt. Thus the Lord bids His men see themselves as Moses, taking Israel out of Egypt, which becomes a symbol for orthodox Judaism. This subversion of popular Jewish understandings continues throughout this section.</p><p><em>As sheep-&nbsp;</em>Bridge building involves us becoming 'as' our target audience- as Paul was a Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:530 9:20-22'>1Cor 9:20-22</a></em>. Thus the Lord tells the disciples to go forth and preach as sheep in order to appeal to the lost sheep of Israel (<em><a href='B:470 10:6'>Mat 10:6</a></em>). They were to be as sheep to win other sheep.</p><p><em>In the midst of wolves-&nbsp;</em>The language suggests they would be totally outnumbered. They were making a brave witness in the teeth of aggressive opposition. Jewish teaching was that Israel was the sheep which was surrounded by 70 wolves, seen as the Gentile nations (<em>Pesiqta Rabbati&nbsp;</em>9:2<em>; Tanhuma Toldos</em>&nbsp;5). The Lord is subverting this idea to say that the apostate, legalistic, Torah-observant Pharisees were in fact Gentiles in the Lord’s eyes, and the true Israel was comprised of the secular, spiritually immature followers of Jesus.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Therefore be wise as serpents-</em>&nbsp;The Lord may not be using the snake here as a symbol of sin or sinful people; he may simply be alluding to the way that when a snake moves into a new area, it is cautious, uses camouflage to blend in, spies out opportunities, doesn’t act hastily and doesn’t immediately go for what looks like the easiest target. These kinds of characteristics were absolutely necessary for the apostles to emulate in their work. The Lord was not a fan of mass rallies and high profile publicity, rather He preferred to work as quietly as possible and as deeply as possible with individuals, and He wanted His preachers to do the same. Yet again, just as using the phrase, “in the midst of wolves”, the Lord is alluding to an understanding then common within Judaism; in this case, to&nbsp;<em>Shiyr hashirim Rabba</em>, fol. 16: “The holy blessed God said to the Israelites, Ye shall be toward me as upright as the doves; but, toward the Gentiles, as cunning as serpents”. The Lord is saying that the Jewish religious leadership, with all their hatred of Gentiles, were to be treated as Gentiles, for this is who they were like. The true Israel are the Lord’s bungling, hesitant, misunderstanding yet humble followers and preachers.</p><p><em>And harmless as doves</em>- Doves and snakes are not aggressive and move away from conflict, whereas wolves are aggressive. Perhaps that is the Lord’s point- be wise, prudent, but not aggressive, and retreat from confrontation.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:17&nbsp;<em>But beware of men</em>- As in 10:16, this is an appeal to not be like sheep in their naivety. The apostles were going to suffer, ultimately. Therefore, they should beware of trusting men too quickly, because the aggression towards them was going to be far greater than they imagined. The apostles likely didn’t think that the Jewish religious leadership were as bad as the Lord knew them to be, and they were initially too concerned not to upset them (<em><a href='B:470 15:12'>Mat 15:12</a></em>). The “men” of whom they were to “beware” were surely the scribes, Sadducees and Pharisees, because elsewhere the Lord teaches the disciples to “beware” of them (<em><a href='B:470 7:15'>Mat 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:6'>Mat 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:11-12'>Mat 16:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:46'>Luk 20:46</a></em>) and He goes on in this verse to speak of “<em>their</em>&nbsp;synagogues”, showing that the “men” being referred to are in fact the Jewish religious leadership.</p><p><em>For they will deliver you up to councils-&nbsp;</em>Their council was called the Sanhedrin. The words used in this verse: ‘deliver up’, 'Sanhedrin' and 'scourging' are all used when describing the sufferings of the Lord Jesus. He is teaching here that the preaching of His Gospel is an incarnation of Himself, and will result in our suffering the essence of His own sufferings and death. To go out on the road of missionary witness is to walk the path of the cross. It’s not anything glamorous, if done properly as He intended.</p><p><em>And in their synagogues they will scourge you</em>- Scourging was usually only practiced for blasphemy or breaching public order. Maybe we are to read this in the context of the Lord asking His preachers to be as snakes and doves, to not be provocative and not seek to create public showdowns with the Jewish leadership. Perhaps the Lord foresaw that some of His men would fail in this, and suffer accordingly. Or perhaps He foresaw how belief in Him as God’s Son would be classified as the ultimate blasphemy. And yet synagogues could only scourge those who were members. The Lord foresaw that His preachers would remain within the synagogue system rather than leave it totally. The fact Paul was scourged in synagogues (<em><a href='B:540 11:24'>2Co 11:24</a></em>) shows that in being a Jew to the Jews, he opted to remain within the synagogue system. This fact shows that the Lord Jesus didn’t intend His people to formally break with the synagogue system, even though it was apostate in doctrine and practice. This indicates that there was absolutely no sense within Him of ‘guilt by association’ nor a demand for His people to leave apostate systems. Instead, they were to remain there until they were cast out of the synagogues (<em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>) (See references to the Jewish laws in W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison,&nbsp;<em>Matthew</em>&nbsp;(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988) Vol. 2 p. 183).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:18&nbsp;<em>Yes and before governors and kings you shall be brought for my sake, for a testimony</em>- The Lord wanted to give even kings and rulers the chance of repentance. The legal language suggests that a court case was going on. Perhaps 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><p><em>To them</em>- Or, "against them". The “men” of <em><a href='B:470 10:17'>Mat 10:17</a></em> were the Jews; for there is a contrast made now, between “them” and “the Gentiles”. In <em><a href='B:470 10:14'>Mat 10:14</a></em> the Lord had taught his disciples whom he sent to preach only in Israel (<em><a href='B:470 10:5,6'>Mat 10:5,6</a></em>) to shake off the dust of their feet as a “testimony against” the unbelieving Jews who lived there.  (this is added in the parallel records in <em><a href='B:480 6:11'>Mar 6:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 9:5'>Luk 9:5</a></em>).&nbsp;</p><p><em>And to the Gentiles</em>- Yet the commission told the apostles to&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;go to the Gentiles. The Lord speaks in this wider sense because He wanted them to realize that what He was asking them to do on their brief preaching tour was to be understood by them, even then, as programmatic and prophetic of their (and our) later witness to the entire world, as would be required by the great commission (<em><a href='B:470 28:19,20'>Mat 28:19,20</a></em>). The implication is that the “men” of <em><a href='B:470 10:17'>Mat 10:17</a></em> are the ones who will lead to the disciples being persecuted by Gentiles. This indeed is how it worked out, due to a program of Jewish orchestrated opposition to the Gospel’s spreading. The idea of a testimony to or against the Gentiles is to be found in <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>, where we find the same two Greek words used in speaking of the preaching of the Gospel as a&nbsp;<em>testimony</em>&nbsp;to “the nations” (s.w. “Gentiles”) in the very last days. The spreading of the Gospel to the whole world will likely be facilitated by high profile, well publicized legal cases against the Gospel’s preachers; something perhaps we have yet to see in the last days.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:19&nbsp;<em>But when they deliver you up</em>- The Jews (the “men” of :17, the “them” of :18) would be delivering Christian preachers to Gentile powers, after the pattern of what they did to Jesus.</p><p><em>Do not be anxious how or what you shall speak, for it shall be given to you at that time what to speak</em>- A major theme of the Sermon on the Mount is not to be anxious / worried; the same word occurs in <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>. Here the Lord is surely saying that the general principles He had taught there would have specific fulfilment in time of persecution. Likewise “for My sake” in 10:18 alludes to <em><a href='B:470 5:11'>Mat 5:11</a></em> ('because of me').&nbsp;</p><p>"Given you" is language here applied to the Lord's generally secular followers, yet describes how Moses and prophets such as Jeremiah were told that God would help them speak for Him (<em><a href='B:20 4:10-12'>Exo 4:10-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 1:6-10'>Jer 1:6-10</a></em>). The Lord was continually encouraging his disciples to see that ministries which they had never considered possible of realistic replication were in fact to be their pattern. Time and again, the Lord is saying that His experience under persecution will be ours. For it was&nbsp;<em>given&nbsp;</em>Him what to&nbsp;<em>speak&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:500 3:34'>Joh 3:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:49'>Joh 12:49</a></em> same words) and He wants us to know that if we preach Him and seek to replicate His ministry in our own, then God likewise will strengthen us as He did His own Son. We note that it was likewise&nbsp;<em>given</em>&nbsp;to the apostles what to&nbsp;<em>speak</em>&nbsp;in <em><a href='B:510 2:4'>Act 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:29'>Act 4:29</a></em> even when they misunderstood the great commission <em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>. They had twisted it to mean that they must preach to all Jews rather than to all the Gentiles, but by grace, God still kept this aspect of the promise to support obedience to the commission given, even if it was misunderstood.</p>


text:
<p>10:20&nbsp;For<em>&nbsp;it is not you that speaks, but the Spirit of your Father that speaks in you</em>- Mark replaces 'the Spirit of your Father' with “the Holy Spirit” (<em><a href='B:480 13:11'>Mar 13:11</a></em>). The reference here in Matthew's account, to God as Father, paves the way for the next verse's teaching, that our human family will likely forsake us if we are faithful to our true Father (<em><a href='B:470 10:21'>Mat 10:21</a></em>).</p><p> Even though “we do not know how to pray as we ought, the Spirit himself makes intercession for us” (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>), the Spirit of the Father and Son speaks in us when we pray (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>), if our will / spirit is the same as theirs. To put this in more technical, but I think very telling terms: “The subject-object scheme of ‘talking to somebody’ is transcended; He who speaks through us is he who is spoken to” (Paul Tillich,&nbsp;<em>Systematic Theology</em>&nbsp;Vol. 3 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963, p. 192). It’s perhaps the thought behind <em><a href='B:470 10:20'>Mat 10:20</a></em>: “It is not you that speaks, but the Spirit of your Father that speaks in you”. This is why Paul can thank God that he finds himself praying constantly for Timothy (<em><a href='B:620 1:3'>2Ti 1:3</a></em>), because he recognizes that not only can we influence God by our prayers, but He also influences us in what we pray for.</p><p>We read "in you", not ‘through you’ as we might expect. It may be that the Lord is hinting that if we have the Spirit of God within us, if we are thinking in a spiritual way generally in life, then in times of crisis, that Spirit which is in us will guide us to say the right things when under pressure. This approach would explain the present tense here, when the context is speaking of the future (<em><a href='B:470 10:19'>Mat 10:19</a></em>). He doesn’t say ‘It will not be you who will speak, but the Spirit which will speak in you’. The present tense is used here in <em><a href='B:470 10:20'>Mat 10:20</a></em> to suggest that if we are&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;spiritually minded, with our spirit being God’s Spirit, then in that future time of crisis we will know how to speak, the words will come out right, because we have lived now in a spiritually minded way. The idea of the Spirit of God speaking in a person, so that their words are not theirs but God’s, was language which Jews would’ve associated with the Old Testament prophets. Again we see the Lord inviting His secular, immature followers to see themselves as the prophets, those whom they had been taught were in a class of their own, and to whom they as mere secular men could in no way pretend to emulate. But the Lord’s followers were to be a new Moses, new prophets, a new priesthood, a new Israel.</p>


text:
<p>10:21&nbsp;<em>And brother shall deliver up brother to death and the father his child, and children shall rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death-&nbsp;</em>"Deliver up" and "to cause to put to death' are phrases used about the Lord's own death (<em><a href='B:520 4:25'>Rom 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:59'>Mat 26:59</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:1'>Mat 27:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:18'>1Pe 3:18</a></em>). Our sufferings in the final tribulation, and for preaching the Gospel generally, grant us a fellowship with our Lord’s sufferings. Given the close knit nature of Middle Eastern families, the language of family breakup used here would’ve been far harder for the initial hearers to accept than it is for many of us. The family was seen as sacrosanct, somehow your family would always be there for you. But the Lord is teaching that the dislike of Him and His message would be such that it would unleash a social and psychological force of hatred such as had not been known previously. Judaism taught that it was only Gentile families which were like this- only Gentiles betrayed their brother, their parents and their children. But the Lord is teaching that through Israel’s rejection of Him and His people, Israel were acting like Gentiles and thus becoming as them in God’s sight.</p>


text:
<p>10:22&nbsp;<em>And you shall be hated of all men</em>- This again was Judaism’s understanding of Israel’s experience in the Gentile world (the word is used of Gentile ‘hate’ for Israel in <em><a href='B:490 1:71'>Luk 1:71</a></em>), but the Lord is teaching that His followers were the true Israel, and the Jewish orthodoxy who hated them were in fact the unsaved Gentile world.</p><p><em>For My Name’s sake</em>- It is the Jews who would do this (<em><a href='B:500 15:21,22'>Joh 15:21,22</a></em>) and yet by doing so, they would simply be doing what “all nations” would do to the Lord’s people ‘for His Name’s sake’ (<em><a href='B:470 24:9'>Mat 24:9</a></em>).&nbsp;</p><p><em>But he that endures to the end, the same shall be saved-&nbsp;</em>It is only by having endurance, Gk:&nbsp;<em>hupomone</em>&nbsp;that we can be saved (<em><a href='B:470 24:13'>Mat 24:13</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 21:19'>Luk 21:19</a></em>). And yet <em><a href='B:470 10:22'>Mat 10:22</a></em> would suggest that it will be difficult to have&nbsp;<em>hupomone</em>&nbsp;in our last days; many will fall away. Our present world is ever changing such that stability in work, residence, relationships etc. seems impossible.&nbsp;<em>People give up so easily.&nbsp;</em>The generation brought up on television, chocolate bars and deregulated Capitalism seeks only immediate resolution and satisfaction. Their short-termism fuels their endless quest for the new and novel. Yet&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;must endure to the end in our work for the Lord and our relationship with Him, believing the same One Faith and living the same spiritual life which those doctrines demand. Those among us who have&nbsp;<em>hupomone&nbsp;</em>to the end of the last generation, right up to the day when the Lord comes, the same will be saved (<em><a href='B:470 24:13'>Mat 24:13</a></em>). The Lord Jesus had&nbsp;<em>hupomone</em>, and it lead Him to the cross and beyond. We must share His spirit of&nbsp;<em>hupomone</em>&nbsp;if we would ultimately share in His salvation (<em><a href='B:600 3:5'>2Th 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 1:9'>Rev 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:10'>Rev 3:10</a></em>).</p><p>The “end” in view may well be the Lord’s second coming, when “the Son of Man comes” (<em><a href='B:470 10:23'>Mat 10:23</a></em>), in the context of the latter day preaching of the Gospel during the tribulation, for this passage in Matthew 10 is repeated in the Olivet prophecy in this same context (<em><a href='B:470 24:9-14'>Mat 24:9-14</a></em>, though not all readers of these words will have lived at that time. James so often comments upon Matthew’s Gospel, and <em><a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a></em> is the only other place in the NT where the words for ‘enduring’ and ‘end-AV’ occur: “We count them blessed that endure [an allusion to the ‘blessedness’ of the Beatitudes as recorded in <em><a href='B:470 5:1-12'>Mat 5:1-12</a></em>]. You have heard of the patience [endurance] of Job, and have seen the&nbsp;<em>end-</em>&nbsp;-AV&nbsp;of the Lord”. The “end” may therefore refer to the end of the period of trial, in some aspect, which the Lord brings into the life of a believer so that the character building result intended, is accomplished.</p>


text:
<p>10:23&nbsp;<em>But when they persecute you-</em>&nbsp;Persecution was and is a matter of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’. The parable of the sower likewise assumes that persecution because of the word will definitely come (<em><a href='B:470 13:20,21'>Mat 13:20,21</a></em>). “Persecute” is yet another word which occurs frequently in the Sermon on the Mount (<em><a href='B:470 5:10-12'>Mat 5:10-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:44'>Mat 5:44</a></em>) as an event bound to happen to those who follow the Lord. So often, believers stumble because their experience of persecution catches them off guard. But we are to expect it, and a life lived under Sermon on the Mount principles will prepare us for the moments of crisis when persecution comes to us in direct and ugly forms. &nbsp;</p><p><em>In this city</em>- Which city? The fulfilment of this prediction was surely in the persecution of the Christians which began in Jerusalem, however Jesus was not in Jerusalem but in Capernaum when he said this (<em><a href='B:470 4:13'>Mat 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:1'>Mat 9:1</a></em>). The wording for “this city” could also be translated “that city”, which every Jew would have understood as Jerusalem.</p><p><em>Flee into the next</em>- Fleeing persecution was a characteristic of the persecuted prophets and righteous. Hebrews 11 is full of allusion to the language in which Judaism's heroes were spoken about in the first century, and <em><a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a></em> speaks of how the Old Testament heroes of faith&nbsp;<em>fled/escaped</em>&nbsp;the edge of the sword (s.w.) often living in hiding (<em><a href='B:650 11:38'>Heb 11:38</a></em>). Again and again, the Lord is seeking to inspire His secular followers that they are not to glance at those men as icons of a faith far beyond they themselves, but to realize their significance, and to become like them in the history of the new Israel that was now being created.</p><p><em>For truly I say to you, you shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes</em>- The construction of this phrase could mean that&nbsp;<em>when&nbsp;</em>they had gone over the cities of Israel, then the Son of Man would come. "Gone over" translates&nbsp;<em>teleo</em>, the noun of which the Lord has just used in the preceding verse (<em><a href='B:470 10:22'>Mat 10:22</a></em>) in saying that despite persecution for preaching, they must endure to "the end". All this was His intention for the disciples in the first century, but this whole section of Matthew 10 is later repeated in the Olivet Prophecy, which clearly has reference to the last days (<em><a href='B:470 24:9-14'>Mat 24:9-14</a></em>). When the witness to Israel is ended, then the Lord will return. The whole picture of preaching within Israel whilst enduring fierce persecution is exactly the picture we get from a futuristic understanding of parts of the book of Revelation. I have outlined such an interpretation in my book &nbsp;<em>The Last Days</em>.</p><p>The idea could be that they would still have cities to flee to right up to the point when the Son of Man comes. The preachers of the Gospel will somehow be preserved in the final tribulation, although <em><a href='B:730 12:11'>Rev 12:11</a></em> and other passages hint that some at least of them will die.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:24&nbsp;A<em>&nbsp;disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord</em>- The Lord is partly speaking to the possible desire in some of the disciples to be martyrs for His cause. Peter's attitude in Gethsemane was clearly of that nature (<em><a href='B:470 26:35'>Mat 26:35</a></em>), and some of the disciples came from radicalized, fanatical backgrounds. Martyrdom was a common concept in the first century, and the Lord's warning to flee persecution (<em><a href='B:470 10:23'>Mat 10:23</a></em>), to bring about a quiet revolution rather than a political one, was aimed at warning against any desire for a quick, glamorous death for the sake of the Kingdom. He could be saying that the game plan was that&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;was to die in 'that city' of Jerusalem, but&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to seek to preserve their lives so that they could make a longer and more effective witness to Him. They were not 'above' Him- He was the one who had to die as the perfect sacrifice, not them. They were to be 'as' Him in terms of personality, and be satisfied with that it was "enough" for them to bear His reproach (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>). The Lord elsewhere taught Peter that the time for martyrdom would indeed come for Peter, but not right then (<em><a href='B:500 21:18,19'>Joh 21:18,19</a></em>). So there is the possibility that the Lord is implying, 'You are not yet at this stage&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;("above") Me, so for the moment, focus on being "as" Me (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>), as disciples learning to copy their teacher'. This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that Paul later writes that we are indeed to be&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Christ, in the sense of being ambassadors of Him, for His sake, in our witness. Thus we are to preach "<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Christ... 'on behalf of Christ' / in Christ's stead-AV " (<em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>), suffering in the work of preaching&nbsp;<em>huper&nbsp;</em>Christ (<em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:29'>Phi 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:24'>Col 1:24</a></em>), giving our lives&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Christ (<em><a href='B:510 15:26'>Act 15:26</a></em>), in response to Christ's death&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;us (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em> and often). So when the Lord taught in <em><a href='B:470 10:24'>Mat 10:24</a></em> that the disciples were not to give their lives&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Him their Lord and Master, He might have meant 'at this time'. The time would come, but for then, they were to focus on learning of Him.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:25&nbsp;<em>It is enough-&nbsp;</em>As explained on :24, the Lord may be teaching that the apostles were not to eagerly choose a martyr's death. That was for Him, not them. It was enough for them that they shared in His sufferings by being slandered as He was.</p><p><em>For the disciple that he be as his Master</em>- See on :24.</p><p><em>If they have called the Master of the house-</em>&nbsp; The Master of thehouse was the head of household. This term is often used by the Lord in His parables. And yet He implies that this role is to be functionally aspired to by us. Those instructed in the things of the Kingdom are like a 'master of the house' (<em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em>), and as the household's master would watch for the thief coming, so&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>are to fulfil His function and watch (<em><a href='B:470 24:43-44'>Mat 24:43-44</a></em>).&nbsp;</p><p><em>Beelzebub</em>- 'Beelzebub' has various possible meanings, but one of them is 'Lord of the house'. By using this term, the Lord's critics were implying He did in fact have a household over whom He was Master and Lord. The Lord is saying that He is the head of the family, the household, and the disciples are His&nbsp;<em>oikiakos</em>, His relatives, His family ("them of His household"). This idea of disciples being part of a new family based around their teacher, with them all thereby becoming brothers and sisters, was unheard of in the various schools of the RabbIs. A Rabbi had disciples, but the imagery of family was not used. The family unit was exalted as supreme in importance, and could not be emulated in other contexts. The Lord is teaching that the bonds between Him and His followers were so strong that they were indeed a new family, of more importance and significance than the natural family, which no longer claimed first loyalty in the lives, feelings and self-perceptions of His followers. Even today, this is a radical challenge. So many turn back from full discipleship because of placing loyalty to family above loyalty to Christ. The reasoning is that what we do for family is done for Christ, and family must come first. But time and again the Lord's teaching is that our spiritual family are to come&nbsp;<em>before</em>&nbsp;our natural family. So many divisions and dysfunctions within the Lord's body are caused by those who name His Name insisting on putting their family unity before the unity of&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;family. We can't fellowship&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;because if we do, then uncle Tommy won't fellowship&nbsp;<em>us</em>... and so the selfish destruction of the Lord's body continues by those who love themselves more than their Lord.&nbsp;</p><p><em>How much more them of his household!-&nbsp;</em>At first blush, this may seem strange. Usually the charismatic, visible leader attracts more slander than his individual supporters. But we see here the Lord's sensitivity to every individual experience of slander for His sake; He presumably means 'The&nbsp;sum total of all the suffering of My preachers down the centuries until I return will be far more than what I personally shall suffer from the Jews'. We see here His loveliness, His grace, His generosity of spirit, His sensitivity to all we suffer for Him.</p>


text:
<p>10:26&nbsp;<em>Therefore fear them not-</em>&nbsp;Because of the detailed judgment which is to come, at which every name calling, every suffering, shall be openly revealed for what it is and judged, why fear men and their religious elites, or even death itself (social or literal) at the hands of their persecution?&nbsp;</p><p><em>For there is nothing</em>- The Greek could be translated 'Nobody'. This would fit with the sense of the next verse, which is that we as persons should not hide ourselves but come out in the open now, just as we shall be openly revealed at judgment day.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Covered</em>- The Lord uses the same word to warn against 'covering' our light in the sense of not openly preaching and showing who we are (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>).&nbsp;</p><p><em>That shall not be revealed</em>- Judgment has a sense of 'now, but not yet'. Thoughts are revealed now, both to God and to ourselves (if we are perceptive enough to know ourselves), and this is especially stimulated and enabled by reflection upon the cross (<em><a href='B:490 2:35'>Luk 2:35</a></em> s.w.). And yet the public revealing of our thoughts and who we essentially are will be done publicly at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em> s.w.). In this sense, 'we make the answer now'. More on this huge theme in&nbsp;<em>Judgment to Come</em>.&nbsp;</p><p><em>And nothing hid that shall not be known</em>- The Father right now "sees in secret" (<em><a href='B:470 6:4'>Mat 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:18'>Mat 6:18</a></em> s.w.), so the concept of being able to even be 'hidden' from Him is foolish. We are to live as if we are at judgment day, therefore our light of the Gospel should not be placed in a 'secret place'-AV (cellar) (<em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em> s.w.). The idea of&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;preaching or of concealing our faith, is foolish because we shall come out in the open about it at the last day anyway. The "secrets of men" (s.w. 'hidden') shall be judged openly (<em><a href='B:520 2:16'>Rom 2:16</a></em>), the "hidden things of darkness" will be made manifest (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>), not to God, who sees them right now anyway, but to ourselves and to others. We are therefore to 'come out' with the Gospel now, whatever the cost, and take comfort that "the hidden man [s.w.] of the heart" is noticed by God and it is this which shall be judged (<em><a href='B:670 3:4'>1Pe 3:4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>10:27&nbsp;<em>What I tell you</em>- It could be argued that the content of the Gospel which is to be preached is therefore to be the words Jesus spoke to the disciples. That is certainly how they understood it, for the four Gospel records are transcripts of the early preaching of the Gospel by the disciples, and they are just that; what the Lord told the disciples.</p><p><em>In the darkness</em>- In the same way as the day of judgment will be a bringing to light what was done and said in darkness (<em><a href='B:470 10:26'>Mat 10:26</a></em>), we should live now in that transparent spirit, openly speaking the Gospel, not hiding it, bearing in mind that one day and for eternity, it will be openly revealed who we are and what we believe. The Lord later stated that he had never spoken "in secret" [s.w. "hid" in :26] (<em><a href='B:500 18:20'>Joh 18:20</a></em>). He was for a moment adopting the perspective of the disciples, just as He does with the language of demons;&nbsp;in that <em>to them</em>, what He was telling them was said in darkness and was hidden. But it was not to remain hidden within their hearts and brain cells; they were to speak it forth&nbsp;<em>now</em>, in that they were to live in the spirit of judgment day every day. There are many allusions to Job in the New Testament; far more than may be apparent on the surface. <em><a href='B:470 10:27'>Mat 10:27</a></em> is one of them: "What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light, and what you hear in the ear, proclaim upon the housetops". The idea of God telling us things in the ear which we must then openly declare is surely looking back to Job's words in <em><a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a></em>. "Darkness" is also a theme in Job; the word occurs at least 30 times in the book. The final appearance of Yahweh in the darkness of the whirlwind (<em><a href='B:220 38:1'>Job 38:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 40:6'>Job 40:6</a></em>) was His reproof of Job's repeated suggestion that the darkness of sin somehow separated God from involvement with man. What Job was told out of darkness, he had to speak forth in the light. It seems that Job's spiritual growth is being picked up by the Lord and presented as our pattern. He does the same thing in <em><a href='B:490 18:30'>Luk 18:30</a></em>, another of the allusions to Job in the New Testament, when He speaks of how each of us must give up house, wife, brethren and children for the Kingdom’s sake, and then afterwards receive “manifold more in this time, and in the world to come…”. This is exactly the position of Job (<em><a href='B:220 42:10'>Job 42:10</a></em>), and yet the Lord applies it to each of us.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Speak in the light</em>- This verse is repeated in <em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em> but from a different perspective: "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". We are to preach upon the housetops what the Lord has whispered / told us in the ear. But what&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;have whispered / spoken in the ears of others, shall likewise be broadcast from the housetops. Nothing will be secret in the day of judgment, and so we are not be secretive about our faith now. We are to live as if we are in the Lord's judgment day presence, because in essence, we are. Judgment is going on right now. John's take on light and darkness is that Jewish society was the darkness in which the light of Christ was shining (<em><a href='B:500 1:5'>Joh 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:46'>Joh 12:46</a></em>). The Lord may therefore be implying that they were still partially in darkness, and into that darkness He had come and was showing them the light.</p><p><em>And what you hear in the ear-&nbsp;</em>The personal relationship which we have had with Christ will be very evident at the judgment. What we say to Christ in His ear as we pray in the bedroom in the darkness, will be openly spoken by Christ at the judgment (<em><a href='B:490 12:2-3'>Luk 12:2-3</a></em>). God dwells in darkness (<em><a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:12'>1Ki 8:12</a></em>). Speaking in the bedroom in secret with the knowledge we will be openly rewarded is the language of prayer (<em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>). Our private relationship with the Lord now, praying to Him in our bedroom, meditating about Him there and everywhere, will then be spoken out loud. But there is a related statement from the Lord: What we hear from Him in the ear, we must speak openly (<em><a href='B:470 10:27'>Mat 10:27</a></em>, after the pattern of Isaiah in <em><a href='B:290 22:14'>Isa 22:14</a></em>). Putting these passages together, we get the picture of us speaking to God through Christ, talking in His ear, as one might whisper something very personal into a friend's ear, in the darkness of our bedroom. And then the Lord whispers back in our ear, i.e.-His revelation to us (through the word) is very personal and not perceived by others, but we must openly, publicly act upon it. And this private relationship we have with the Lord in our prayer life will then be revealed openly at the judgment. God told Samuel "in his ear" about Saul's future, and although the message must have been hard to relay to Saul, Samuel did so, on the housetop (<em><a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 9:25'>1Sa 9:25</a></em>). The similarities with the Lord's words are too close to be accidental. Surely He saw each of us as passing through the essential experience of Samuel. As we witness our relationship with Christ to an unspiritual world now, so He will&nbsp;speak openly of us to God (<em><a href='B:470 10:32'>Mat 10:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>), Angels (<em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>) and to the world (<em><a href='B:490 12:2-3'>Luk 12:2-3</a></em>). He will openly confess our name, which is our character and personality. What we have said to Him privately will be revealed in the light, i.e. in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:580 1:12'>Col 1:12</a></em>). &nbsp;Preaching on the housetops is built on the language of <em><a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 9:25'>1Sa 9:25</a></em>, where God speaks in Samuel’s ear, and then he speaks that word to Saul on the housetop. The Lord is saying that in essence, we are all in Samuel’s position: we hear the word of this world’s salvation, the word about “the Kingdom” as it was for Saul, and that very fact is in itself the imperative to overcome our natural reservations and share it with those for whom it is intended, even if, as with Saul, we consider them unlikely and unspiritual hearers.</p><p>The outcome of the judgment seat will be a reflection of our&nbsp;attitude to witnessing to others: "What you (the twelve disciples) hear in the ear, proclaim upon the housetops…therefore &nbsp;<em>everyone&nbsp;</em>who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven" (<em><a href='B:470 10:27'>Mat 10:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:32'>Mat 10:32</a></em>). The Lord seems to go beyond briefing His men before they set off on their preaching mission; He goes on to say that in a sense,&nbsp;<em>everyone</em>&nbsp;who follows their example will be confessed before the Father. Notice what He&nbsp;<em>isn't&nbsp;</em>saying: He isn't saying that if you're keen about preaching, this is the be-all-and-end-all of spiritual life, and this alone will guarantee your acceptance with God. He says that what we hear (i.e. believe) in the ear, our own very personal understanding and belief of the Gospel, must be spread abroad openly to others. Our salvation is through faith in God’s absolute grace; but if it is&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;faith, we will preach it on the housetops because we simply can't keep the knowledge of&nbsp;<em>such</em>&nbsp;grace, such great salvation, to ourselves.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Proclaim upon the housetops</em>- According to the Talmud (<em>Shabbat&nbsp;</em>35b), it was the priests who were to proclaim the commencement of the Sabbath by blasts on the shophar from the housetops. Again, the Lord takes language appropriate to the professional religionists and applies it to His largely secular followers. All the time He was seeking to encourage them that&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to do this work. And the proclamation of the Kingdom is thus turned into a form of proclaiming a Sabbath of rest. Hebrews 4 uses the language of the Sabbath concerning the Kingdom of God (<em><a href='B:650 4:9-11'>Heb 4:9-11</a></em>). The idea of teaching upon the housetops what we hear in the ear is language which surely also alludes to how Isaiah and the prophets heard God’s word in their ear and then taught it to others (<em><a href='B:290 5:9'>Isa 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:4'>Isa 50:4</a></em>). The idea was that the Lord’s followers were not to see the prophets as pale faced, iconic figures, but to realize they were no less than them in their service of God and His Son.</p>


text:
<p>10:28&nbsp;<em>And do not be afraid-</em>&nbsp;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 <em><a href='B:470 10:26'>Mat 10:26</a></em> when all shall be revealed at the day of judgment. Belief in the doctrine of final judgment therefore, has huge impact upone life in practice; in this case, giving us strength to not 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 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. Luke’s record adds: “I say to you&nbsp;<em>My friends</em>, do not be afraid of them…” (<em><a href='B:490 12:4'>Luk 12:4</a></em>). 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>Of those that kill the body but are not able to kill the soul-&nbsp;</em>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 forever 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 only 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><p><em>But rather fear Him who is able to destroy</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>&nbsp;under <em>lose it</em>.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Both soul and body-</em>&nbsp;The inference can be drawn that the rejected will have both soul and body destroyed at the last day. This means there must be a resurrection of the body, and then the destruction of that body in the condemnation process, as well as of their "soul":&nbsp;<em>Psuche</em>&nbsp;has a wide range of meaning- sometimes it can mean simply the body; at other times, the essential personality. This too will be destroyed, for the memory of the rejected will be forgotten in that they will cease to exist in all dimensions. There should be a healthy "fear" of rejection. There are more details, more frequently, about the condemnation experience than the joy of acceptance in that day. This is not negative psychology; the Lord in His wisdom knew that this was necessary for us, to keep ever before us the sense of the future we may miss. This should be our fear, far more than death or social rejection by those to whom we witness.</p><p><em>In Gehenna</em>- 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. Despite this, 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 to reason 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 as 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 hugely important, even if, in the eyes of the Jewish world and humanity generally, they are insignificant.</p>


text:
<p>10:29&nbsp;<em>Are not two sparrows-&nbsp;</em>“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 sparrows, while 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 turned that idea upside down. 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’ (<em><a href='B:470 12:34'>Mat 12:34</a></em>). The tax collector, not the Pharisee, finds God’s acceptance, according to Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 18:9-14'>Luk 18:9-14</a></em>). The Lord is making a telling point, for Rabbis held that repentance for tax collectors was almost impossible, because it was impossible for the tax collectors 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><p><em>Sold for a very small coin-&nbsp;</em>This very small coin was an&nbsp;<em>assarion</em>&nbsp;/ farthing, the tenth part of a drachma / denarius, which was a day's pay for a labourer. The Matthew record has the Lord saying that two sparrows are sold for one farthing; <em><a href='B:490 12:6'>Luk 12:6</a></em> records that He said that five sparrows were sold for two farthings. So what did the Lord really say? I suggest something like this: 'As you know, two sparrows are sold for one farthing, they cost half a farthing each; but often, as you know,&nbsp;<em>five&nbsp;</em>sparrows are sold for&nbsp;<em>two</em>&nbsp;farthings, they'll throw one extra in for free, they're worth so little'.</p><p><em>And not one of them shall fall on the ground-&nbsp;</em>One sparrow "shall not fall&nbsp;on&nbsp;the&nbsp;ground&nbsp;without (the knowledge of) your Father". God is aware of the death of each bird- He does not allow animals to die due to their natural decay (the clockwork mechanism) without Him being actively involved in and conscious of their death. Again, Jesus shows how God’s knowledge&nbsp;and participation in the things of the natural creation must imply an even greater awareness of us. "The very hairs of your head are all numbered… you are of more value than many sparrows" (<em><a href='B:470 10:30-31'>Mat 10:30-31</a></em>). God hasn’t wound up this world and left it ticking by clockwork, dispassionately looking on as Israel and all His people make such a mess of things. He sends the rain, consciously; not a sparrow falls from the air [i.e., as the result of a man’s sling stone; for birds die in their nests usually, not in mid-flight] without Him being aware, and, by implication, grieving for it. He even knows how much sparrows are sold for. &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>Without your Father</em>- The Lord was “the word made flesh” (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). All that He taught, He in some way experienced and obeyed. In the time of His persecution and death, He also fell 'on the ground' as he described a sparrow falling 'on the ground'. Jesus did this literally (same words- <em><a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a></em>) as well as figuratively (same words <em><a href='B:500 12:24'>Joh 12:24</a></em>); and called out to the “Father”. Clearly He had in mind His own earlier teaching, and how hard and demanding it was for Him to live it out.&nbsp;</p>


