# commentaries

text:
<p>10:48&nbsp;<em>And many rebuked him-&nbsp;</em>This is yet another example of where the Lord is presented as eager to accept, when men including disciples are more eager to reject. The same word has just been used in 19:13 for how the disciples rebuked the little ones from coming to the Lord- and were in turn rebuked. The impression is that in the disciples' exclusivity, they weren't being as they supposed more spiritual than the world around them, but rather were they being simply as that world. Soon afterwards, the Pharisees told the Lord to "rebuke" His disciples, and He replied that it was impossible for them to "hold their peace" (<em><a href='B:490 19:39-40'>Luk 19:39-40</a></em>). These are all words and phrases taken from this incident. Now it is the disciples who refuse to be quiet, and it is the Pharisees who want them to be quiet. Again the point is made that the desire to silence and exclude others is from the world, and not of Christ. The Lord's acceptance of people is consistently painted by the Gospels as being far more inclusive and extensive than that of men. The human tendency to reject and erect barriers is simply not there in Christ.</p><p><em>Saying that he should hold his peace. But he cried out more zealously: You, Son of David, have mercy on me</em>-</p><p> This could be seen as the result of the Lord's piquing their sense of urgency for Christ by not responding immediately. This is also a factor in some of His delayed responses to our own&nbsp;needs.</p>


text:
<p>10:49&nbsp;<em>And Jesus stood still and said: Call him. And they called to the blind man, saying to him: Be of good courage Rise, he calls for you</em>-</p><p> The Lord could have walked up to the man as He did to others when curing them. But on this occasion He wished to teach that His calling of men to Him for healing often uses a human mechanism. The "call" comes through people. Through us. Their obedience to the command to go call the man is emphasized. The Lord "calls" just as the people "called" the man. The Lord's calling and our calling of men are thereby paralleled. The experience of being called by the Lord is not to be seen as an onerous call to responsibility before Him; rather is it the source of "courage". His calling is because He wants to do something good for us, rather than saddle us with the weight of responsibility to judgment.</p>


text:
<p>10:50&nbsp;<em>And he, casting away his garment, sprang up and came to Jesus</em>-</p><p> His garment was likely all he owned. And he is therefore presented as being willing to forsake all in response to the call of Jesus, just as the disciples immediately forsake all and followed Him. 'Coming to Jesus' is the phrase just used of how the little children came to Him (10:14); and again, there was a desire to forbid them. This native tendency we have to forbid others to come to the Lord must be watched carefully; and never allowed to be given formal expression in church policies which exclude some from ever coming to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>10:51&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said: What will you have me do for you? And the blind man said to him: Rabbi- that I may receive my sight</em>-</p><p> The Lord had a way of focusing men upon their need. Thus He would have passed by the desperate disciples as they struggled in the storm, He would have gone further on the road to Emmaus, and He asked the blind men the obvious question: “What will ye that I shall do unto you?” (<em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>). He only partially cured another blind man, to focus that man’s mind on the faith that was needed for the second and final stage of the cure (<em><a href='B:480 8:23-25'>Mar 8:23-25</a></em>). He elicited from the father of the epileptic child the miserable childhood story of the boy- not that the Lord needed to know it, but to concentrate the man on his need for the Lord’s intervention (<em><a href='B:480 9:21'>Mar 9:21</a></em>). He wanted them to focus on their need: in this case, for sight. He let Peter start to sink, and only then, when Peter’s whole heart and soul were focused on the Lord, did He stretch forth His hand. The Lord deliberately delayed going to see Lazarus until he was dead and buried; to elicit within His followers the acuteness of their need. And was He&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>sleeping in the boat with the storm all around Him? Was He not waiting there for them to finally quit their human efforts and come running to Him with faith in no other (<em><a href='B:480 4:38-39'>Mar 4:38-39</a></em>)? Only when men were thus focused on their desperate need for the Lord would He answer them. The Lord further focused men’s need when he asked the lame man: “Wilt thou be made whole?” (<em><a href='B:500 5:6'>Joh 5:6</a></em>). Of course the man wanted healing. But the Lord first of all focused his desire for it.</p><p>The one thing&nbsp;he wanted was to see. The healed blind man is a type of us. True understanding (seeing) should be the one thing we want. "Wisdom is the&nbsp;<em>principal&nbsp;</em>thing; therefore get wisdom" <em><a href='B:240 4:7'>Pro 4:7</a></em>). This was obviously a rhetorical question, and it succeeded in the intention of making the men verbalize their dominant desire. Likewise the Lord works with us to make us focus and understand what is our dominant desire- and then seeks to reposition that focus. In this section He has done that by placing all human desires and requests in the shadow of His death for us. For how could we want anything 'extra' after He has done that for us, with all it enabled.</p>


text:
<p>10:52&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to him: Go your way. Your faith has made you whole. And immediately he received his sight and followed him in the way</em>-</p><p> He "Followed Him&nbsp;<em>in the way</em>". But He told the man "Go&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;way". The man's way was now the Lord's way, the way of the cross. There's surely a play on words here, for&nbsp;<em>akoloutheo</em>&nbsp;translated "followed" means literally 'to be in the same way with'. The Lord told the man to go&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;way, but the man followed Jesus in&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;way, the way which has been defined in <em><a href='B:470 20:17-18'>Mat 20:17-18</a></em> as the way to the cross. Our way is His way, not in that He dominates and subsumes our individuality beneath His own, but in that we each follow Him in our own particular and unique way. That is not to say that we each have our way in life and that journey must of itself be the right one. It's axiomatic that every man has his own path in life. As believers in Christ, our path must be&nbsp;<em>following Him</em>, and not just wandering around in life; but each one in Christ follows their Lord in their own unique path.</p>


text:
<p>11:1- see on <em><a href='B:480 7:32-35'>Mar 7:32-35</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when they drew near to Jerusalem-&nbsp;</em>This might suggest that the gospel author was not with them at the time. I suggest he was, but in the analogy of the cameraman, he has as it were shifted his camera to Jerusalem and records the group approaching.</p><p><em>To Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives-&nbsp;</em>'The house of figs'. There is likely a connection to the incident later in this section when the Lord curses the fig tree. Perhaps we are to assume that He hoped for figs in Bethphage too, and was likewise disappointed. Bethphage has even been given the meaning 'House of unripe figs', which would confirm this impression (See Marcus Jastrow,&nbsp;<em>Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature</em>&nbsp;(Jerusalem: Horeb, 1903, reprint) p. 1132).</p><p><em>He sent two of his disciples</em>-</p><p> The question arises as to why He didn't simply take the two animals Himself. The practical answer would be that if He had gone further into Jerusalem to get them, then he would as it were have entered Jerusalem but not in the way He intended to, which was to consciously fulfil the prophecy about the humble King entering Jerusalem on a donkey. But that explanation throws the question one stage further back. Why was it specifically a donkey from that village and person which was required? Could He not have found one in Bethphage? The effort required to send two disciples ahead of Him to get the animals and then bring them back to Bethphage seems considerable, when donkeys were common enough. The answer is not clear, but it could be that there was an anonymous person who specifically wanted to give those animals to the Lord in order to fulfil that prophecy. The Lord knew this and had obviously discussed it with the owner previously, because the owner would recognize Him as "the Lord" (:3), and would provide them once he perceived the Lord wanted them. In this little incident we see therefore the extent the Lord will go to, now as well as then, in order to take up the initiative of those who love Him. If we take that initiative in service, the Lord will surely use it, and make every effort to do so.</p>


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


text:
<p>11:3&nbsp;<em>And if anyone says to you: Why are you doing this? You are to say: The Lord has need of him; and immediately he will send him back here</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; God in a sense is in need of man, just as Jesus was, or allowed Himself to be:&nbsp;"Send" here translates&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>, and naturally we think of the apostles, those sent forth with the Gospel. And as so often taught by implication, the Lord is in need of man, the harvest needs workers and without them, in His wisdom, it will not be harvested. We are surely being invited to see these animals as representative of those upon whom the Lord will ride in order to enter Jerusalem in glory. But He rode upon the bucking, difficult colt which had not yet been broken in. This hampered His triumphal entry. And there was the donkey itself with nobody sitting upon it. Just as the Lord consciously tried to fulfil <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> by obtaining these animals, so the hint surely is that His final triumphal entry will be on the basis of us His people carrying Him in.</p>


text:
<p>11:4&nbsp;<em>And they went away and found a colt tied at a door outside in the street, and they untied it</em>-</p><p> Gk. "a place where two ways met<em>":&nbsp;</em>This translates the word&nbsp;<em>amphedon&nbsp;</em>which in the LXX (e.g. <em><a href='B:300 17:27'>Jer 17:27</a></em>) is used for a palace. Herod had a palace on the Mount of Olives and maybe this is what is being referenced. It could be that the donkey and foal were provided by Herod's servants, because Joanna was a disciple of Jesus who provided for Jesus from her "substance"- and she was the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (<em><a href='B:490 8:3'>Luk 8:3</a></em>). In this case, the Lord was further parodying a King's triumphant entry by riding upon Herod's donkey.</p>


text:
<p>11:5&nbsp;<em>And those that stood there said to them: What are you doing, untying the colt?</em>-</p><p> This may have been part of a pre-arranged plan by the Lord. If indeed as suggested on :4 this was Herod's palace and colt, we can understand why the Lord wished to shield the participants in the plan. Perhaps He was seeking to irritate Herod by appearing to have stolen his colt, and appearing to usurp Herod's authority by entering Jerusalem upon it. For He gave His life, of His own device, so that He died at the time and place He did, and by crucifixion. His life was not taken from Him (<em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>), nor was He overtaken by events; He was the master of the scene.</p>


text:
<p>11:6&nbsp;<em>And they said to them just as Jesus had said, and they let them go</em>-</p><p> See on :5. For them to respond so immediately is unusual and unrealistic until we perceive that this was all part of a prearranged plan.</p>


text:
<p>11:7&nbsp;<em>And they brought the colt to Jesus, and put on it their garments; and he sat upon it</em>-</p><p> Using their garments as saddles. The fact both animals were saddled (according to Matthew) was to make the point that one rider was missing. For according to the other Gospels, the Lord sat upon the colt. The mother donkey was saddled, but without a rider. This added to the strangeness of the spectacle. The missing rider was perhaps a reference to how Israel had not as a whole responded in bringing Messiah to Zion. Maybe it referred to the Gentiles who had yet to be converted. Or perhaps to the fact that Israel had rejected John the Baptist and he had been killed- and therefore there was no Elijah prophet bringing Messiah into Zion. Elijah was the great horseman of the Divine chariot (<em><a href='B:120 2:12'>2Ki 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 13:14'>2Ki 13:14</a></em>; he is called the “horsemen” plural, but this is an intensive plural for ‘the one great horseman’). Elijah was the chariot horseman, the one who was to ride on the horse which pulled the chariot in which there was Messiah this was a Rabbinic understanding of the Elijah prophet. But he was strangely absent in this acted parable. The saddle was there for him, provided by the few disciples who had responded to John / Elijah; but he wasn’t there. This absence of the Elijah prophet was surely indicative of the fact that John had not been the Elijah prophet for most of Israel- they hadn’t responded properly to his message. Therefore the true triumphant entry of Messiah was yet future. This is why the phrase “bringing salvation” is excluded from the quotation of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>. It was not so much a ‘triumphant entry’, but a&nbsp;<em>parody</em>&nbsp;of a triumphant entry.</p>


text:
<p>11:8&nbsp;<em>And many spread their garments upon the road, and others spread branches which they had cut from the fields</em>-</p><p>Paul speaks of how Israel were cut off branches because of their rejection of Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 11:17'>Rom 11:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:19'>Rom 11:19</a></em>). The crowds who accepted Him in the wrong way very soon rejected Him; so in a sense, they cut themselves off. And they did this because they misunderstood Him, expecting Him to give immediate deliverance.</p><p><em><a href='B:500 12:13'>Joh 12:13</a></em> says they were palm branches. But palms and the shout of "Hosanna" are associated with the feast of Tabernacles. And this was Passover, not Tabernacles. All the way through this brilliant visual stunt by the Lord, there was the message that He was not as they had imagined, He had come to die as the Passover Lamb, not to immediately give them the Tabernacles celebration which they wanted to see there and then.</p><p>The behaviour in this verse was exactly that associated with the triumphant entry of a victorious king. The much laboured account of the Lord’s obtaining a donkey and her foal and thus riding into the city was really a studied parody of that whole conception of Messianic victory. For Him, the victory would be to hang lifeless upon a cross. True greatness was in humility. And instead of beaming with pride, <em><a href='B:490 19:41'>Luk 19:41</a></em> adds the detail that He wept over the city, knowing how they had rejected Him. According to Harry Whittaker,&nbsp;<em>Studies in the Gospels, "</em>The rabbis had a saying: "If Israel be worthy, Messiah comes with the clouds of heaven (<em><a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a></em>); if unworthy, riding upon an ass" (<em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>)". So the entire triumphant entry was indeed a parody which sooner or later the Jews came to grasp. Hence their anger- for the whole incident declared them unworthy.</p><p>Whilst what the Lord arranged was indeed a parody of a triumphant entry, designed to highlight the importance of humility and sacrifice, He was surely conscious that He was acting out, however dimly, the prophesied future and ultimate triumphal entry of Messiah into Jerusalem and the temple, coming from the Mount of Olives (<em><a href='B:450 14:4'>Zec 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:11'>Isa 62:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:9&nbsp;<em>And they that went ahead and they that followed, cried, Hosanna Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord</em>-</p><p>Hosanna means ‘Save now’. This obsession with ‘Salvation now’ was their equivalent of today’s prosperity Gospel, which is a similarly false understanding of the Lord:&nbsp;</p><p>Matthew records here that the people cried ‘Hosanna’ at Christ’s entry into Jerusalem. Seeing that first century Israel spoke Aramaic, this is doubtless what did actually come out of their lips. But Luke says that the same group of people shouted “Glory” (<em><a href='B:490 19:38'>Luk 19:38</a></em>). Luke’s Gospel seems to be designed for the Greek speaking world, and so he uses the Greek equivalent of ‘Hosanna’, even though they did not actually say that word. The way the New Testament quotes the Old with slight changes without pointing this out is another example of how God’s word mixes interpretation with direct transmission of facts (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 32:1-2'>Psa 32:1-2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 4:6-7'>Rom 4:6-7</a></em>). God has inspired His word in order to interpret certain facts to us. This is further proof that we are not intended to insist on a strictly literal meaning to everything we read (for example, that the sun literally rises). This fact is not irrelevant to the issue of demons. The accounts of demons being cast out are framed in such a way as to show the supremacy of God’s power over the vain traditions of the first century world.</p><p>"He that comes" was a clearly Messianic title. They accepted Jesus as Messiah, but their understanding of Messiah was so wrong. They assumed He would bring ‘salvation now’, and immediate freedom from the Romans and economic hardship.</p>


text:
<p>11:10&nbsp;<em>Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David Hosanna in the highest</em>-</p><p> They liked to believe that the Messianic Kingdom was now coming. But the Lord's parables and teaching about the Kingdom had repeatedly emphasized that the full establishment of that Kingdom was some way off, and the message of the Kingdom was to be lived in our attitudes whilst this secular life continues. Hosanna<em>&nbsp;"</em>in the highest" suggests that because the people wanted ‘Save&nbsp;<em>now</em>’ and immediate deliverance from Rome, they assumed that God shared their view. Thus they assumed that their cry of ‘Salvation now’ was being uttered in Heaven too. This assumption that God is of course in tune with our wishes is very dangerous- the dashing of this expectation was what unleashed the fury and gross misjudgement in these people which lead to their very soon screaming for the death of God’s Son.</p>


text:
<p>11:11&nbsp;<em>And he entered into Jerusalem and went into the temple, and when he had looked at everything, it being now evening, he went out to Bethany with the twelve</em>-</p><p> This again was a conscious parody of Judaism’s Messianic hopes. Their idea was that Messiah would enter Jerusalem in triumph against their Gentile enemies, and enter the temple. This was based upon their reading of <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em>: “The Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to His temple”. But the context of Malachi 3 required a positive response by Israel to the herald of Messiah, i:e. John the Baptist. And this had not been forthcoming. And the next verse goes on to suggest that this coming of Messiah will not be of much blessing to Israel- “But who may abide the day of His coming i:e:, “to His temple”? And who shall stand when He appears?” (<em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em>).</p><p>Mark’s record appears to state that the Lord first entered the temple, looked around and walked out (<em><a href='B:480 11:11'>Mar 11:11</a></em>) and the next day returned to cleanse the temple of traders. It could be that He cleansed the temple twice. Or it could be that this silent looking around and walking away, returning to Bethany, ‘the house of the poor’, was another intentional creation of an anti-climax. The Jews expected Him to do something dramatic- and He simply looked around in sadness and left for ‘the house of the poor’- to return and cast out the traders and thus make the performance of sacrifice impossible there.</p><p>His ‘going out of the city’ is allusive to the language of Ezekiel, in that the glory begins within the city but progressively lifts up and goes out of it. Going to Bethany continues the radical subversion of Jewish Messianic expectations. They had expected a glorious entry into Jerusalem by Messiah, and His entering the temple in order to fulfil the hopes of Ezekiel’s temple visions- that Messiah in glory would enter the temple. Instead, the Lord enters Jerusalem on a rider-less donkey, Himself sitting awkwardly on a wayward foal, enters the temple and castigates the Jews, throwing them out of it. And now He leaves the city and goes to Bethany, “the house of the poor”. Rather like a pretender to the Presidency mounting a not very serious coup attempt, and going to spend the night in a low cost housing area, perhaps in an apartment in a run down tenement block known as ‘the house of the poor’. Or perhaps a night shelter would be the most dynamic equivalent. That is not to say that the home in Bethany was actually poor, my comment is on the meaning of ‘Bethany’ as ‘house of the poor’. The use of&nbsp;<em>eis</em>, "into", rather than a word carrying the sense of&nbsp;<em>unto</em>, serves to heighten the sense of anti-climax. He ended this parody of a triumphal entry by entering into 'the house of the poor':&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord being the psychologist&nbsp;<em>extraordinaire</em>&nbsp;that He was, it could almost seem that He was engineering a situation which would turn public opinion against Him and lead to His betrayal to the Romans. And yet on the other hand, He had made all these points multiple times in His teaching, beginning in the Sermon on the Mount. He had explained as clearly as could be that His Kingdom was not at that time a political one, rather was it about service of others and internal transformation. He had so often elevated humility above anything else. But all His teaching had been skim listened to; people had taken what they wanted from Him, and decided that He was who they wanted and needed Him to be, rather than who He said He was. And so through this parody of a triumphal entry, He was visually and very publicly explaining what He really stood for. And thereby very powerfully exposing their hopes as mere selfishness, their ideals as misplaced, their understandings as faulty. I wouldn’t say that&nbsp;He did this with the express intention of bringing about His death, but rather motivated by the hope that His one last appeal might still trigger response amongst the true “daughter of Zion”. His predictions of His death, however, indicate that He knew what would happen. A psychologist weighing up the situation as it stood at the triumphant entry, even if he didn’t know how the story would end, would likely be able to predict accurately what would’ve happened. The Jews would become deeply angry with Jesus, their hopes in Him would have turned to hatred and anger, they would desire to kill Him, and being unable to legally do so, would hand Him over to the Romans to execute. Indeed, Judas had already trodden this road one step ahead of the masses.</p>


text:
<p>11:12&nbsp;<em>And the next day, when they left Bethany, he felt hungry</em>-</p><p> Hungry in the morning, having spent the night at Mary and Martha's home? Had Martha failed in providing food for some reason? More likely the Lord had been fasting for Israel's repentance. And His hunger spoke of His desire to see even the beginnings of spiritual fruit on the fig tree of Israel. His fast was for fruit on Israel; if He had found it, He would have eaten it and thus broken His fast:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:13&nbsp;<em>And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves- for it was not the season for figs</em>-</p><p> God is in search of man, and so is His Son. We surely all at times get depressed, feeling we are nothing and nobody, just used rather than needed. But just as we have our need to be needed, so does God, seeing we are made in His image and likeness. We see it all worked out visually when the Lord Jesus was starving hungry (Gk:), and saw a fig tree far away. He walked towards it, fixing His mind upon the tree. It wasn't the time for figs, but the tree had leaves, and He was so hungry, He'd have been prepared to eat the most immature, unripe figs (<em><a href='B:480 11:12-13'>Mar 11:12-13</a></em>). This is an acted parable, of His search for man, for fruit upon us. The same imagery of a fig tree bearing fruit is used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:490 13:6'>Luk 13:6</a></em> to speak of His hope of spiritual fruit from Israel. But when the Lord finally arrived at the leafy fig tree, He found no fruit at all, and so He cursed it, and it withered. The same word is used about the withering of those rejected at the last day by the Lord Jesus- they will be withered, and then gathered up and burnt (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). So as the Lord Jesus strode the long way towards the fig tree, focused upon it with all the focus and hope of a hungry man, so eager and hopeful to find fruit... so He is striding towards us with the same hope in us, of finding at least something, however immature, however unripe. But at least something. The shortening of the days for the sake of a remnant is predicted in <em><a href='B:290 65:8-9'>Isa 65:8-9</a></em>: “As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants’ sakes, that I may not destroy them all. And I will bring forth a seed Jesus out of Jacob… and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there”. The “elect” are paralleled with “my servants”. Because of them, the minority of faithful fruit, the whole tree is not destroyed. This is exactly the image of the fig tree parable; because of the beginnings of spiritual fruit on the tree of Israel, the whole nation will not be cut off and they will be saved by the coming of the Kingdom.</p><p>The fig tree was symbolic of Israel (<em><a href='B:300 24:1-8'>Jer 24:1-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:16'>Hos 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 28:4'>Isa 28:4</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:290 34:2'>Isa 34:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:4'>Isa 34:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:8'>Isa 34:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 6:13'>Rev 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:6-9'>Luk 13:6-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:6'>Luk 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:6'>Luk 19:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 7:1'>Mic 7:1</a></em> RV). Israel were seen by the Lord as the tree by the roadside, whose fruit should have been for all that passed by (<em><a href='B:50 23:24'>Deu 23:24</a></em>). But because there was not even the glimmer of this kind of giving of fruit, they were condemned by the Lord. His disappointment was great because of His earlier parable about Himself and the fig tree, in which He had put these words in His own mouth: "Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it and dung it: and if it bear fruit, well; but if not, after that thou shalt cut it down". He looked over and around the tree, desperate to see at least some signs of fruit. He realized that the tree of Israel had to be cut down. "Leaves only" recalls the inadequate covering for sin with which human history began in Eden.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:14&nbsp;<em>Jesus addressed it: Henceforth, no one will eat fruit from you again. And his disciples heard it</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:480 11:14'>Mar 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:21-22'>Mar 11:21-22</a></em> imply that Peter was amazed that something the Lord had predicted about the fig tree had actually come true.</p><p>Sometimes God speaks as if He has rejected Israel, and other times as if they will eternally be His people. Such is the extent of His passionate feelings for them. And the Son of God entered into this- He said that no man would eat fruit of the tree of Israel for ever (<em><a href='B:480 11:14'>Mar 11:14</a></em>), when in fact Israel one day will fill the face of the earth with fruit (<em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em>). We too, in the spirit of the prophets, are to enter into these feelings of God. God’s threats to punish His people and His desire to forgive them don’t somehow cancel each other out as in an equation. They exist within the mind of God in a terrible tension. He cries out through Hosea of how His many ‘repentings’ are “kindled together” as He struggles within Himself to give up His people as He has threatened (<em><a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a></em>). The fig tree would never bear fruit (<em><a href='B:480 11:14'>Mar 11:14</a></em>). But Israel will blossom and bud and fill the earth with fruit (<em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em>); hence the fig tree bearing fruit when it has been condemned never to bear fruit is such a dramatic sign (<em><a href='B:490 21:29-30'>Luk 21:29-30</a></em>:). The Lord spoke His words about Israel's future budding with full knowledge that He (and several OT passages) had condemned her to eternal barrenness. He knew, however, the paradox of grace.</p><p>If the fruit on the fig tree represents spiritual fruit, does this suggest that now the possibility of repentance was taken away from them? It was as if judgment day had really arrived for them even in this life; for there will be no possibility of repentance then. Or it could be that the Lord was annulling the prophecies about&nbsp;<em>Israel</em>&nbsp;filling the face of the earth with fruit. His emphasis then would have been on "May no fruit grow&nbsp;<em>on you</em>". The tree of Israel was to be cut down, and the fruit was to come from the fig tree "and all the trees" of the Gentile nations. This is the connection with the Lord's later sign of the fig tree and all the trees (<em><a href='B:490 21:29'>Luk 21:29</a></em>); when spiritual fruit is seen on all of them, when the Gospel has gone into all the world, to all the trees / nations, then shall the end come (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Matthew says there would be no fruit from the fig tree "For ever", for the&nbsp;<em>aion</em>, the age. He could mean throughout the new age which was to start, for Israel are prophesied as finally blossoming and filling the face of the earth with fruit (<em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em>). Or it could be that that prophecy about Israel was conditional, and the Lord is accepting that their rejection of Him meant that it and other such prophecies were now disallowed from fulfilment in themselves by what they were going to do to Him.</p>


text:
<p>11:15&nbsp;<em>And they came to Jerusalem, and he entered into the temple and began to throw out those that sold and those that bought in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money exchangers and the seats of those that sold the doves</em>-</p><p>This again was a conscious parody of Judaism’s Messianic hopes. Their idea was that Messiah would enter Jerusalem in triumph against their Gentile enemies, and enter the temple. This was based upon their reading of <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em>: “The Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to His temple”. But the context of Malachi 3 required a positive response by Israel to the herald of Messiah, i:e. John the Baptist. And this had not been forthcoming. And the next verse goes on to suggest that this coming of Messiah will not be of much blessing to Israel- “But who may abide the day of His coming i:e:, “to His temple”? And who shall stand when He appears?” (<em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em>).</p><p>Mark’s record appears to state that the Lord first entered the temple, looked around and walked out (<em><a href='B:480 11:11'>Mar 11:11</a></em>) and the next day returned to cleanse the temple of traders. It could be that He cleansed the temple twice. Or it could be that this silent looking around and walking away, returning to Bethany, ‘the house of the poor’, was another intentional creation of an anti-climax. The Jews expected Him to do something dramatic- and He simply looked around in sadness and left for ‘the house of the poor’- to return and cast out the traders and thus make the performance of sacrifice impossible there.</p><p>Throwing out or Mt. 'casting out' is a verb elsewhere used by the Lord about condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em> and soon after this incident, in <em><a href='B:470 21:39'>Mat 21:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). Instead of bringing salvation to Israel's temple, He entered it and condemned the orthodox, casting them out of God's house and forbidding them to enter it to carry things through it (Mk:, Lk:). Instead of them, the Lord in their place welcomed children and the handicapped into God's house. Sacred space was a major concept in Judaism; the Lord's expulsion of the Orthodox from it and replacing them with those considered unworthy of entry was a highly significant thing to do.</p><p>Those who sold and bought in the temple refers to <em><a href='B:450 9:8'>Zec 9:8</a></em>: "And I will encamp for the sake of thine house as a garrison that none pass through or return; and no exactor shall pass through them any more: for now I have seen with mine eyes<em>":&nbsp;</em>This would allude to the Lord's looking around the temple and walking out of it; He banned carrying things through the temple (<em><a href='B:480 11:16'>Mar 11:16</a></em>), and all exaction of money. The Lord had not long earlier described Sodom as the place where the wrong kind of buying and selling went on, and He had likened His generation to Sodom (<em><a href='B:490 17:28'>Luk 17:28</a></em>). This, again, was hardly what the crowds expected to hear- a likening of their most sacred place to Sodom, and a prophecy of its destruction at the hands of the Gentiles. The ban on carrying things through the temple referred to the practice of taking a short cut through the court of the Gentiles rather than having to walk all around the temple complex. The Lord was thereby proclaiming the court of the Gentiles as holy as the rest of the temple building. Note that the Lord also expelled those who were&nbsp;<em>buying</em>&nbsp;the animals for sacrifice- ordinary Jews wanting to offer sacrifice. This surely hinted at an ending of the Mosaic law in view of the Lord's upcoming sacrifice. This was all so much what the Jewish masses did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;want to hear.</p><p><em></p><p></em>The overthrowing of the tables was not done in simple anger. The Lord's motive was still their reformation. He had entered the temple in allusion to their expectation that Messiah would triumphantly enter Jerusalem and proceed into the temple. They had based that idea upon Malachi 3. But that prophecy continued: "Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple . . .<em>&nbsp;and he shall purify the sons of Levi</em>" (<em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 3:3'>Mal 3:3</a></em>). This 'cleansing' of the temple was His attempt to purify the sons of Levi. His hopefulness was simply amazing. And it is a strong pattern for we who give up so easily with people:&nbsp;</p><p>The traders were the sons of Annas, the High Priest. This deepened the anti-climax- the Lord entered Jerusalem and the temple- and cast out the sons of the High Priest. Instead of entering the temple in glory, fulfilling the hope of Ezekiel’s vision of the temple where Messiah enters the temple from the East, instead the Lord entered the temple- and in a huge anti-climax, castigates the Jewish religious leadership, throwing them out of the temple, and being acclaimed only by those excluded from Judaism: children, the lame and blind:&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:16&nbsp;<em>And he would not permit anyone to carry any merchandise through the temple</em>-</p><p> Instead of bringing salvation to Israel's temple, He entered it and condemned the orthodox, casting them out of God's house and forbidding them to enter it to carry things through it (Mk:, Lk:). Instead of them, the Lord in their place welcomed children and the handicapped into God's house. Sacred space was a major concept in Judaism; the Lord's expulsion of the Orthodox from it and replacing them with those considered unworthy of entry was a highly significant thing to do. For all their claims that God's temple was holy, they were treating it like a public street by allowing porters to carry their goods through it rather than around it. It could be that the Jews permitted the carrying of goods through the court of the Gentiles, but not elsewhere. It's as if the Lord is saying that that court was to be treated as being as holy as the rest of the structure.</p>


text:
<p>11:17&nbsp;<em>And he taught and said to them-&nbsp;</em>The Lord several times quoted an OT passage which if quoted further would have made a telling point. Thus He quoted <em><a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a></em>: “My house shall be called an house of prayer”, leaving His hearers to continue: “…for&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;people”. He recited <em><a href='B:230 8:2'>Psa 8:2</a></em>: “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise”, leaving them to complete: “…that thou mightest still through their witness the enemy and the avenger”. For the Bible minded, these things ought to have taught them. There is reason to think, in the subsequent response of a Jewish minority after Pentecost, that at least some did make these connections. They made use of the spiritual potential they had been given.</p><p><em>Is it not written-&nbsp;</em>The Lord quotes from <em><a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a></em>, but the surrounding context of the quotation is relevant to the Jewish leadership who were present and deeply critical of the Lord's actions. <em><a href='B:290 56:10-11'>Isa 56:10-11</a></em> condemns Israel's elders as "blind watchmen... dumb dogs... greedy dogs which can never have enough, shepherds that cannot understand, every one looking for gain". "Dogs" was understood as a reference to the Gentiles- and the Lord is saying that they are effectively Gentiles. Significantly, <em><a href='B:290 56:6'>Isa 56:6</a></em> has spoken of "the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, and to love the name of the Lord... taking hold of His covenant". This is often how God works- for those who are sensitive to His word, the quotations given speak far more deeply. The potential for greater understanding is thereby given to those familiar with His word. This is one reason why I encourage perseverance in reading the Bible even if at the point of reading we feel we are not understanding much and simply building up a familiarity with the text. That familiarity can be a basis for later revelation to us.</p><p><em>My house shall be called-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Luke uses the present tense, "<em>is</em>&nbsp;called". The Lord surely said both, His point being that prophecies of the future Kingdom are to be lived out by us in essence today:&nbsp;</p><p><em>A house of prayer for all nations? But you have made it a den of thieves</em>-</p><p> The Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 14:21'>Zec 14:21</a></em> that there will no longer be a trafficker in the Lord's house was fulfilled by the Lord's casting out the traders from the temple. Many of the Kingdom prophecies of healing were it seems consciously fulfilled in the Lord’s healings: <em><a href='B:290 35:6'>Isa 35:6</a></em> LXX the stammerer healed = <em><a href='B:480 7:32-35'>Mar 7:32-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:3'>Isa 35:3</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 2:3-12'>Mar 2:3-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:1-6'>Mar 3:1-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:8'>Isa 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 11:1'>Mar 11:1</a></em> Bartimaeus following on the Jerusalem road. This doesn’t mean that these passages will not have a glorious future fulfilment. But in the person of Jesus and in the record of His life we see the “Kingdom come nigh”, as He Himself said it did. We can so focus on the future fulfilment that we can forget that He was the Kingdom in the midst of men; the essence of our eternal future, of the coming political Kingdom of God, was and is to seen in Him. Satan fell from Heaven during His ministry (<em><a href='B:490 10:18'>Luk 10:18</a></em>), as it will at the second coming (Revelation 12).</p><p>This invites us to see the thieves who robbed the man in the Samaritan parable as the Jewish leadership, whose priests and Levites refused to help people after the damage they themselves had caused (<em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>). The thieves "stripped him of His clothing" just as they later did to the Lord Jesus. The Lord uses the same figure of thieves for the Jewish leadership in <em><a href='B:500 10:1'>Joh 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:8'>Joh 10:8</a></em>. The Lord quotes here from <em><a href='B:300 7:11'>Jer 7:11</a></em>, which speaks of the temple being profaned by adultery and Baal worship, resulting in the Babylonian invasion. He is saying that Israel's hypocritical piety in His day was none less than Baal worship, and therefore the Gentiles would come and destroy that place.</p><p>Some of the Bible’s ‘prophecies’ are command more than prediction. The Lord Jesus criticized the Jews for trading in the temple because “Is it not written, My house&nbsp;<em>shall be</em>&nbsp;called of all nations the house of prayer” (<em><a href='B:480 11:17'>Mar 11:17</a></em>). We can easily read this as meaning that one day, a ‘house of prayer for all nations’ was to be built in Jerusalem. But in that case, why should not the Jews trade in the temple there and then, well before this was to happen, say, 2000 years later? The Lord surely means that the prophecy that the temple “shall be called…” a house of&nbsp;<em>prayer</em>&nbsp;was a command more than a prediction. It “shall be” a place for&nbsp;<em>prayer</em>&nbsp;and not&nbsp;<em>trading</em>. The ‘fulfilment’ of this statement was dependent upon them praying there and encouraging all nations to pray there; yet they could limit the fulfilment of the ‘prophecy’ by stopping Gentiles praying there, and by discouraging prayer there because of their trading policies. Thus the Lord saw the prophecy as more of a command than mere prediction. ‘Prophecy’ really means the speaking forth of God’s word, rather than the foretelling of the future. The closer one looks, the more conditional prophecies and Divine statements there are. “My house shall be called a house of prayer” had the extent of its possible fulfilment limited by the Jews turning the temple into a trading centre (<em><a href='B:480 11:17'>Mar 11:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:18&nbsp;<em>And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought a way to destroy him. For they feared him, for all the crowd were astonished at his teaching</em>-</p><p> Despite all this, they would very soon be screaming for His blood. Their increased passion to destroy the Lord was, I suggest, exactly the response He had intended to elicit by parodying a triumphal entry.</p>


text:
<p>11:19&nbsp;<em>And every evening he left the city</em>-</p><p> His ‘going out of the city’ is allusive to the language of Ezekiel, in that the glory begins within the city but progressively lifts up and goes out of it. He repeatedly did so to try to get the perceptive minority to realize what was really happening.</p>


text:
<p>11:20&nbsp;<em>And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from the roots</em>-</p><p> This meant the ground was cursed- the land of Israel. And the roots may refer to the ending of the Mosaic law. "Ephraim 'fruitful' is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit... My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations" (<em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:16-17'>Hos 9:16-17</a></em>).</p><p>This incident of the withered fig tree is an example of where Jesus didn’t want us to perceive Him as too different from us. The disciples are amazed at the faith of Jesus in God’s power. He had commanded the fig tree to be withered- but this had required Him to pray to God to make this happen. As the disciples looked at Him, wide eyed with amazement at His faith, very much into the “Wow” experience, the Lord immediately urged&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to “have faith in God…&nbsp;<em>whosoever</em>&nbsp;and this was surely His emphasis shall ask a mountain to move in faith, it will happen... therefore I say unto&nbsp;<em>you</em>, Whatsoever things&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;desire just as Jesus had desired the withering of the fig tree, when&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;pray as Jesus had done about the fig tree, believe that&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;receive them, and&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;shall have them”. I suggest His emphasis was upon the word&nbsp;<em>you</em>. He so desired them to see His pattern of faith in prayer as a realistic image for them to copy. How sad He must be at the way He has been turned into an other-worldly figure, some wonderful, kindly God who saves us from the weakness and lack of faith which we are so full of. Yes, He&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;our Saviour, and the “Wow” factor leads us to have a burning and undying sense of gratitude to Him. But He isn’t&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;that; He is an inspiration. It is in this sense that the spirit of Christ can and does so radically transform human life in practice. Of course, we have sinned, and we continue to do so. For whatever reason, we are not Jesus. But our painful awareness of this and it ought to be painful, not merely a theoretical acceptance that we are sinners... shouldn’t lead us to think that His example isn’t a realistic pattern for us.</p>


text:
<p>11:21&nbsp;<em>And Peter, remembering, said to him: Rabbi, look at the fig tree which you cursed. It is withered away</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:480 8:29'>Mar 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em>. After the denials, Peter again "remembered the word of the Lord". And it seems that Mark is Peter's gospel. This has the ring of truth to it, in that Peter is portrayed, for all his impetuosity, as one who meditated upon the Lord's words. Perhaps the Lord had in mind His parable of the seed which sprung up and "withered" (<em><a href='B:490 8:6'>Luk 8:6</a></em> s:w:); Israel's initial response to John's preaching had withered. They were the withered branches which were now cast out of the tree (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> s:w:). Peter is presenting himself as being somewhat foolish and unspiritual, in being surprised that the Lord's word had come true. He implies that he ought not to have been surprised at all.</p>


text:
<p>11:22&nbsp;<em>And Jesus answering said to them: Have faith in God</em>-</p><p> We are asked to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>); to have the faith of God (<em><a href='B:480 11:22'>Mar 11:22</a></em> AVmg:). By faith in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, we can attain these heights; but not in our own strength. In our every spiritual struggle and victory against the flesh throughout the day, we are playing out the finest and highest heroism that any playwright could conceive:&nbsp; the absolute underdog, the outsider without a chance, winning, at the end, the ultimate victory against impossible odds. Dear Peter exemplified how we so often behave, when he gasped at how deep was Jesus’ faith, as he saw the fig tree withered in exact accord with the Lord’s earlier words. But the Lord turns on Him immediately: “<em>You</em>&nbsp;have faith in God…&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;must believe, and whatever&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;ask in faith will happen, if you like me, see it as if it has happened at the point of asking for it”.</p>


text:
<p>11:23<em>&nbsp;Truly I say to you, Whoever shall say to this mountain: Be removed and thrown into the sea, and shall not doubt in his heart but shall believe that what he said will happen- he shall have it&nbsp;</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:730 8:8'>Rev 8:8</a></em>. It was the Lord's radical usage of language which led to the huge, seething anger which He provoked, culminating in the demand for His death. He seems to have purposefully reinterpreted and reapplied symbols and ideas which spoke of Jewish national pride, and applied them to something quite different. His triumphal entry into Jerusalem on an ass, not a war horse, and in order to die... led to so much anger exactly because He had subverted such a familiar and longed for hope and symbol. We have to remember the huge value of symbols in the first century, living as we do in an age when the written word has become paramount. For the illiterate, symbols and acted parables were of far greater importance than the written word. We may think of 'Jesus' in terms of His teachings recorded at a specific chapter and verse of our Bibles. To the illiterate first century Jew, they thought of Him in terms of what He&nbsp;<em>did</em>-</p><p> His cleansing of the temple, His image of the temple mount being plucked up and cast into the sea. The Lord's teaching about the temple was especially subversive- for the temple played a "decisive role... in resistance toward Rome". It was "the focal point of the hope of national liberation, and hence was regarded as a guarantee of security against the pagans". But what does Jesus teach about the temple? It will be destroyed, His body shall be greater than the temple, it was to be a place of blessing for pagan Gentiles, because of Israel's wickedness the abomination would be set there, every place was hallowed ground, He was the true priest, etc. According to the&nbsp;<em>Mishnah Berakoth</em>&nbsp;9:5, the faithful were to wash the dust from their feet before entering it- and Jesus washed His disciples feet in likely allusion to this before they say down in a private room and broke bread with Him (<em><a href='B:500 13:1-20'>Joh 13:1-20</a></em>). As the Lithuanian Jewish Rabbi Jacob Neusner commented about Jesus' institution of the 'breaking of bread': "The holy place has shifted, now being formed by the circle made up of the master and his disciples". The Lord Jesus used the term "the blood of the covenant" at the last Supper, with reference to how <em><a href='B:450 9:9-11'>Zec 9:9-11</a></em> prophesied that the restoration of Israel's fortunes would be because of this "blood of my covenant". Yet the restoration / redemption which the Lord had in mind was not politically from Rome, but from sin and death through His blood. The temple had no great role in the Lord's teaching. By driving out traders from the temple, the Lord was effectively suggesting that the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 14:21'>Zec 14:21</a></em>, of how in the restoration there would be no Gentile traders there, was coming true in Him. And the elders of the Jews are thus paralleled by Him with the Gentiles. He speaks of how "this mountain"- and He must've been referring to Zion, the temple mount- was to be plucked up and cast into the sea of Gentiles (<em><a href='B:480 11:23'>Mar 11:23</a></em>). And He was alluding to <em><a href='B:450 4:6-7'>Zec 4:6-7</a></em>, which spoke of how the mountain of Babylon would be cast into the sea at the restoration- with the 'splash' expressed in the words "Grace, grace". This was to associate the Jewish temple system with Babylon- just as Revelation 17 likewise does. The Lord opened up a new universe of symbols; in an almost kaleidoscopic way, He twisted all the well loved symbols around. And when you mess with symbols, people get angry. Having lived in the Baltic States many years, I observed how inflammatory is the issue of messing with war memorials. Russians and Balts can slag each other off verbally all they wish, and people shrug. But mess with symbols, remove or rededicate a war memorial- and the crowds are on the streets. And this was, partially, what led to the fury with Jesus which led to His lynching. He who proclaimed non-violent revolution, the radical transformation of the inner mind into God's temple, Israel's true Messiah, was seen as the ultimate threat to all that it meant to be Jewish- all because His language and actions subverted the beloved symbols of the social club. When we experience this... we are sharing something of His sufferings.</p><p>There is a clear semantic connection between the cursing of the fig tree and the moving of the mountain into the sea. The mountain in view was the temple mount. The Lord is comforting them that not only would the tree of Israel be withered, but the whole mount Zion, the most sacred space in Judaism, would be cast to the Gentiles the "sea". This kind of thing was what His parody of a triumphal entry had been all about, and His casting out of the religious Jews from the temple and replacing them with kids and cripples, those formerly excluded from the sacred space. The faith to move the temple mount to the Gentiles was the very faith which Peter was later required to have in preaching to the Gentiles represented by Cornelius:&nbsp; The Lord recognized that this paradigm shift was a matter of faith, and He urged the disciples to realize their psychological problem and accept it needed special help from God to get over. This incident obviously had huge relevance for the first century communities of believers who were baptized as a result of Mark's Gospel; for acceptance of the end of the Jewish system and the acceptance of the Gentiles was the live issue for the early churches. <em><a href='B:480 11:25'>Mar 11:25</a></em> adds: "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses". The motivation in accepting others into fellowship, in accepting the casting of the sacred space of Mount Zion to the Gentiles, was to be from realizing their own urgent need for forgiveness and their moral frailty. Those faced with similar struggles about accepting others, or allowing previously rejected categories into Christian fellowship, need to take this advice.</p><p>To be removed and cast into the sea was a word picture of condemnation. And yet&nbsp;<em>airo</em>, to remove or take away, surely reflects the Hebraism of 'taking away' with reference to taking away sin (s:w. <em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:5'>1Jn 3:5</a></em> "takes away the sin of the Jewish world"). This was a phrase with two possible meanings. The disciples could achieve this in that their preaching would give mount Zion both the possibility of sin being taken away if they responded and of condemnation, being cast into the sea like Gentile Babylon if they rejected their message. The same words and ideas are found in <em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em>, where Babylon is 'taken up' s:w. "removed" and cast into the sea. However, the Lord soon uses the same word in telling the Jews that the Kingdom was to be "taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of the Kingdom" (:43). This reference to fruit connects with the Lord's teaching about the fig tree which was cursed for not bearing fruit. The rejected servant was likewise to be 'taken away' in condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>), just as the flood "took them all away" (<em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>), the talent was 'taken away' from the rejected (<em><a href='B:470 25:28-29'>Mat 25:28-29</a></em>). Significantly, the Lord had used this same word for 'remove' or 'take away' in the first cleansing of the temple, when He commanded the traders to "Take these things away" (<em><a href='B:500 2:16'>Joh 2:16</a></em>); and likewise it is used about the 'taking away' of the branches of the tree of Israel (<em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em>). The Lord is telling the disciples that they too will be able to make such a removing of the unclean from the system of Judaism, and likewise cause the withering of Israel's tree. In fact it was the Romans who "took away our place and nation" (<em><a href='B:500 11:48'>Joh 11:48</a></em> s:w:) but this was on account of Israel's rejection of the disciples' preaching. In that sense, therefore, it was they who had caused the temple Mount to be taken away and cast into the sea of Gentiles. This too is the power of our preaching. We are not merely discharging a responsibility to evangelize so that we feel better, let alone doing a PR exercise for our local church or denomination. Our presentation of the message to others has eternal consequence for them- to their salvation or condemnation. Significantly, the same word is used for how on the cross, the Lord 'took away' the Mosaic Law (<em><a href='B:580 2:14'>Col 2:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>"</em>Cast into the sea" were the very words used by the Lord in describing the fate of the Jews who made the little ones stumble (<em><a href='B:480 9:42'>Mar 9:42</a></em>). The little ones had been brought into the temple to replace the Jewish religious leaders. Those leaders had previously refused to accept those little ones. Their judgment was to be cast into the sea as Babylon (<em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em> same words). But this would only happen once the disciples had preached to them after the resurrection- they were given chance after chance, despite the Lord's cursing of the fig tree with immediate effect.</p><p>The Lord's utter confidence in the power of prayer is reflected in the way He speaks to lepers, to waves of the sea, to blind eyes and deaf ears, commanding them to do things. Yet clearly this was a result of His own prayer to the Father. Yet He was so confident that what He had requested would really come true. And in <em><a href='B:480 11:23'>Mar 11:23</a></em> He challenges us to tell mountains to be removed. He doesn’t tell us to ask God to move a mountain; rather does He teach us to talk directly to the mountain. It’s been observed that Biblical Hebrew has no word for ‘yes’; instead, in order to show agreement, the preceding words of the speaker are repeated. Examples are in <em><a href='B:190 5:7'>Est 5:7</a></em> Heb. and <em><a href='B:10 18:15'>Gen 18:15</a></em>. Seeing that Biblical Hebrew reflects to us something of the mind of God, it seems to me that we’re being taught by this to believe that what we ask for from God, we will receive; our request is the nature of the answer. Hence the need for care in formulating&nbsp;<em>what</em>&nbsp;we ask for, believing that God’s ‘yes’ will be effectively a repeating back of our words to us.</p><p>Consider how the Lord taught ambition in prayer- He put before His men the real possibility of moving a mountain into the sea, if that was what was required (<em><a href='B:480 11:23'>Mar 11:23</a></em>). This example wasn't off the top of His head; He was consciously alluding to <em><a href='B:220 9:5'>Job 9:5</a></em>, where Job says that God alone, but not man, can do something like moving a mountain into the sea. And the Lord is saying: 'Yes, God alone can do it; but such is the potential power of prayer, that He will hearken to your requests to do such things- and do them'. The whole process of Nazariteship was to encourage the normal Israelite to have the ambition to rise up to the spirit of the High Priest himself; the restrictions governing Nazariteship were a purposeful echo of those regarding the High Priest. The way God describes Himself as depriving Israel of "wine or strong drink" (<em><a href='B:50 29:6'>Deu 29:6</a></em>) throughout the wilderness journey is Nazarite language: as if in all their weakness and profligacy, God still sought to inspire them to rise up to the heights.</p><p>The Christian must "believe that what he says comes to pass" - present tense. He is to visualize the immediate fulfilment of what he asks for in the court of Heaven. Compare the RV and AV of <em><a href='B:230 92:11'>Psa 92:11</a></em> in this connection: "Mine eye also shall see RV 'hath seen' my desire… and mine ears shall hear RV 'have heard' my desire". The confusion in the tenses is surely intentional- David really felt he had already received that which he prayed for. He shows this again by the way in which he uses tense moods perhaps purposefully ambiguously in <em><a href='B:230 56:13'>Psa 56:13</a></em>. The AV has: “Wilt not thou deliver my feet from falling…?”, whereas the RV renders it: “Hast thou not delivered my feet from falling?”. Another example is in <em><a href='B:230 18:44'>Psa 18:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 18:47'>Psa 18:47</a></em>: “The strangers&nbsp;<em>shall&nbsp;</em>submit themselves… God right now, by faith in prayer subdueth the peoples”. David perhaps perceived that the requests of prayer must also be some sort of statement that the prayer was answered already.</p><p>The Lord taught that we should believe that "what we say in prayer shall come to pass" (<em><a href='B:480 11:23'>Mar 11:23</a></em> RV). This is very much the language of God's word- what&nbsp;<em>He&nbsp;</em>says, comes to pass for sure. And so we're being invited to see&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;words in prayer as effectively like God's words; for if we pray according to His word, surely we will be heard. See on <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>11:24<em>&nbsp;Therefore I say to you: All things, whatever you pray and ask for, believe that you will receive them- and you shall have them-&nbsp;</em>This evidently has some context and limitations, because there is no reason to think that we literally receive whatever we ask. Even the Lord didn't. The context is the ability to change, the ability to accept paradigm shifts, to have the courage to preach; the mindset which can cope with a previous worldview coming to an end. This is exactly why people are so unwilling to change cherished beliefs and practices- because their conservatism is more powerful in their own minds than God's word. We need to accept we have this problem, and rejoice that whatever we ask for in this psychological and at times practical battle will indeed be granted to us.</p><p>The experience of answered prayer inspires us to pray yet more. "What things soever ye desire, believe that ye did receive them, and ye shall have them" (<em><a href='B:480 11:24'>Mar 11:24</a></em> Gk:) can be read as meaning that we should remember how we received things in the past, and therefore we should have faith that the things we now desire really will be likewise granted. It is for this reason that the prayers recorded in the Psalms constantly look back to previous experiences of answered prayer as a motivation for faith and Hope: <em><a href='B:230 3:4-5'>Psa 3:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 44:1-4'>Psa 44:1-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 61:5'>Psa 61:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 63:7'>Psa 63:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 66:18-20'>Psa 66:18-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 77:4-16'>Psa 77:4-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 86:13'>Psa 86:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 94:5'>Psa 94:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 94:7-19'>Psa 94:7-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 116:1'>Psa 116:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 120:1-2'>Psa 120:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 126:1'>Psa 126:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 126:4'>Psa 126:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 140:6-7'>Psa 140:6-7</a></em>. Jeremiah likewise (<em><a href='B:310 3:55-56'>Lam 3:55-56</a></em>). And even the fact other believers had received answers to prayer inspired David's faith in prayer (<em><a href='B:230 74:11-15'>Psa 74:11-15</a></em>; Psalms 106).</p><p>The close link between thought and prayer is developed in the Lord’s teaching in <em><a href='B:480 11:23-24'>Mar 11:23-24</a></em>: “Truly I say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he says comes to pass; he shall have it. Therefore I say unto you, All things you pray and ask for, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them”. Our self-talk is to be fantasy about the fulfilment of our prayers. Yet how often do we hit ‘send’ on our requests to God, like scribbling off a postcard, and hardly think again about them?</p><p>Even in His mortal life, the Lord was eager to as it were close the gap between Himself and His followers, so that they didn't feel He was an unattainable, distant icon to admire, but rather a true friend, leader, King and example to realistically follow. Thus when He cursed the fig tree, having prayed about it and firmly believing that what He had asked would surely come about, Peter marvelled: "Master, behold, the fig tree you cursed is withered". The Lord replies by urging Peter to "Have faith in God. For truly I tell you,&nbsp;<em>whosoever</em>&nbsp;(and this is the stress, surely) shall say unto this mountain (far bigger than a fig tree) , Be removed be cast into the sea (a far greater miracle than withering a fig tree overnight), and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he says will come to pass (referring to how the words of Jesus to the fig tree were effectively His prayer to God about it); he shall&nbsp;<em>whatever</em>&nbsp;he says. Therefore I say unto&nbsp;<em>you</em>, Whatever&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;desire (just as I desired the withering of the fig tree), when&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;pray, believe that you receive them, and&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;shall have them (just as I did regarding the fig tree)" (<em><a href='B:480 11:21-24'>Mar 11:21-24</a></em>). Peter's amazement at the power of the Lord's prayers was therefore turned back on him- '<em>You too</em>&nbsp;can do what I just did, and actually greater things are possible for you than what I just did'. That was the message here- and He repeated it in the upper room, in encouraging them that "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do" (<em><a href='B:500 14:12'>Joh 14:12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:25<em>&nbsp;And whenever you stand praying, forgive those you have something against; so that your Father who is in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses-&nbsp;</em>The Lord assumed that whenever we pray, we will include a request for forgiveness. Not only is this one of the few requests in His model prayer, but <em><a href='B:480 11:25'>Mar 11:25</a></em> reflects the same assumption: "<em>Whensoever&nbsp;</em>ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any one; that your Father… may forgive you" (RV):&nbsp;<em>Whenever</em>&nbsp;we pray we should be seeking forgiveness. And the Lord also implies that whenever we pray, we will almost always have something against someone else. For He knew well that human society is inevitably filled with misunderstandings and bad feelings against each other.</p>


text:
<p>11:26<em>&nbsp;But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses-&nbsp;</em>The conditions on which God's love and forgiveness operate was likewise stressed by Christ: "When ye stand praying, forgive... that&nbsp;your Father... may&nbsp;forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses" (<em><a href='B:480 11:25-26'>Mar 11:25-26</a></em>). God's eagerness to forgive us is therefore reflected in His eagerness&nbsp;to see us forgive others. His desire to make all grace abound towards us is something beautiful, something wondrous.</p>


text:
<p>11:27&nbsp;<em>And they arrived in Jerusalem. And as he was walking into the temple, there came to him the chief priests and the scribes and the elders</em>-</p><p> Matthew notes he "entered" the temple. "Entered" is&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>, and is matched by the priests and elders 'coming' to Him,&nbsp;<em>proserchomai</em>. The impression is created of direct confrontation, head on:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:28&nbsp;<em>They said to him: By what authority do you do these things? Who gave you authority to do these things?</em>-</p><p> Presumably they thought they had Him caught out, because&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&nbsp;was supposedly solely with Rome. He could hardly say the Romans had given Him such authority. And yet if He said anything other than 'Rome', then He could be reported to the Roman authorities. However, their reference may have been to what we noted at 21:14- the Lord had held back the temple guard from arresting Him and stopping His forceful overthrowing of the temple traders. This question was quite to be expected of a man who had recently used violence to overthrow tables and force men off the premises. Who had given Him such authority?&nbsp;To this day this question is heard. People, especially religious people, find it so hard to accept that somebody can have a personal relationship with God which enables and empowers them to operate as sovereign free agents amongst mere men. This cry is especially heard from those who themselves think they have authority and seek to hold on to their petty power at all costs. It is the typical cry when someone obeys their Lord's command to baptize people, takes the initiative to extend fellowship to another etc:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:29&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to them: I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things</em>-</p><p> It is not necessarily wrong to avoid answering a question- although few of us could do so in the spiritually and logically flawless way the Lord did here, let alone at a moment's notice. The sense of the Greek is not "If you tell me, I will tell you". The sense rather is: 'If you answer this question, then in that answer you will have My telling you the answer to your question'. They finally answered that 'We cannot know' (AV again is unhelpful by offering here "We cannot tell"- the Greek words for AV "tell" are all different in this section).</p>


text:
<p>11:30<em>&nbsp;The baptism of John-&nbsp;</em>Perhaps John's message was so centred around the appeal for baptism that "the baptism of John" is being put for 'the teaching and ministry of John'. Or maybe the Lord has in view His own baptism by John. In this case, His reasoning would be that His authority came from the fact that He had been baptized by John. Seeing John's work was from God and had Divine authority, this meant therefore that the Lord was empowered by that baptism to operate with God's authority. If that is indeed what the Lord intended, then we have another window onto the perplexing question of why the Lord was baptized by John:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Was it from Heaven, or from men? Answer me-&nbsp;</em>Gamaliel uses the same logic in <em><a href='B:510 5:38-39'>Act 5:38-39</a></em> in urging the Jews to boil all the personal feelings and doubts down to a simple issue: Are these men and their work of God or man? This approach is helpful to us too, assailed as we are by unclarity about others. Is a man in Christ or not? Does God work through him or not? Is he of God or men? There is no middle ground here. This is what I submit concerning myself to those who doubt me, and it is the approach I seek to take with others with whom I have to engage in spiritual life. And Gamaliel rightly concluded that if something is of man and not of God, then we have little to worry about. Finally it will come to nothing. We should be concerned rather with the eternal consequence of refusing those who are clearly of God. If of God, we must accept them:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The 'naturalness' of Jesus becomes all the more powerful when we grasp Biblically that Jesus is our representative; exactly because He was really, genuinely human, He is such a natural and powerful imperative to us in our behaviour. Take, for example, His perception of His own baptism. Surely why He went through with it was to show His solidarity with us, who would later be baptized. He lined up along the banks along with big time sinners, nobodies, dear old grannies, weirdos, starry-eyed youngsters, village people stuck in the monotony of a hand-to-mouth existence, all of them standing there probably half-naked... and took His turn to be baptized. When asked later to account for His authority, Jesus asked whether His questioners accepted John's baptism as from Heaven or from men (<em><a href='B:480 11:30'>Mar 11:30</a></em>). This wasn't merely a diversionary question; it was dead relevant. His authority was partly because He had been baptized by John. This was how much John's baptism inspired Him. It meant so much to Him, to have been thus identified with us. And it was that very identification with humanity, as the "son of Man", that gave Him His authority.</p>


text:
<p>11:31&nbsp;<em>And they reasoned among themselves, saying: If we shall say: From Heaven- he will say: Why then did you not believe him?</em>-</p><p> This could imply they withdrew for discussion amongst themselves. But such a withdrawal would've been a sign of weakness. More likely we have here an insight into their own internal reasonings. In this case, the statement in :33 that "They answered... and said, We cannot tell" was uttered by each of them in turn as the Lord asked them individually.</p>


text:
<p>11:32&nbsp;<em>But if we say: From men- they were in fear of the people. For all truly held John to be a prophet</em>-</p><p> Although we would all agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it is quite possible that we fail to&nbsp;<em>feel</em>&nbsp;this as we might when we read it. The people "verily held John to be a prophet" (<em><a href='B:480 11:32'>Mar 11:32</a></em> RV) but they rejoiced only for a short time in the light of his words. They rejected his most essential message- whilst still believing he was an inspired prophet. Or, thinking they believed he was.</p>


text:
<p>11:33&nbsp;<em>And they answered Jesus, saying: We do not know. And Jesus said to them: Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things</em>-</p><p> See on :31. They knew in their hearts the answer to both their question and the Lord's question. Their sin in having Him crucified was therefore the greater; for they recognized His Divine authority, and perceived that "This is the heir...". Likewise the Lord rarely stated that He was the Christ or God's Son; He left that to be worked out by inference from His words and works. And this is why God's revelation to us in His word the Bible is as it Is. There is no set of 20 bullet points to be grasped, no statement of faith preserved. We are to work things out by inference, for thereby our personal conviction of them will be the more powerful and personal.</p>


text:
<p>12:1&nbsp;<em>And he began to speak to them in parables-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord’s hopefulness at their response is remarkable; He makes a continued appeal to those who in other teaching He has stated have gone too far and are even now condemned. His hopefulness for human response is outstanding and a huge encouragement for us.</p><p>There are strong similarities between the Lord's parable and the song of the vineyard of <em><a href='B:290 5:1-7'>Isa 5:1-7</a></em>, especially in the LXX:</p><p>"<em>Let me sing for my well beloved a song of my beloved about His vineyard</em>&nbsp;The genre is significant; what begins as a joyful, idyllic harvest song turns into bitter disappointment and declaration of judgment<em>. My beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill&nbsp;</em>The environment was ideal<em>. He dug it up&nbsp;</em>to dig was the work of the lowest servant, but God did this<em>, gathered out its stones&nbsp;</em>the effects of the curse were ameliorated<em>, planted it with the choicest vine&nbsp;</em>"the men of Judah"<em>, built a tower in its midst, and also cut out a wine press therein. He looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes. Now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, please judge between Me and My vineyard. What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?&nbsp;</em>Absolutely all has been done to enable our fruitfulness. The Father wants fruit above all- in the Matthew 21 parable, the owner seeks the actual fruit, rather than cash payment. This element of unreality serves to show His passionate interest in fruit&nbsp;<em>Why, when I looked for it to yield grapes, did it yield wild grapes? Now I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard. I will take away its hedge, and it will be eaten up. I will break down its wall of it, and it will be trampled down&nbsp;</em>The downtreading of the temple at the hands of the Gentiles<em>:&nbsp; I will lay it a wasteland. It won’t be pruned nor hoed, but it will grow briers and thorns&nbsp;</em>The language of the curse in Eden. The land was as the Garden of Eden, but Israel sinned "as Adam"<em>. I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain on it&nbsp;</em>the language of Elijah, prototype of John the Baptist<em>. For the vineyard of Yahweh of Armies is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant: and He looked for justice, but, behold, oppression; for righteousness&nbsp;</em>the fruit required was justice and righteousness- instead, as Isaiah 5 goes on to explain, there was materialistic selfishness<em>, but, behold, a cry of distress</em>".</p><p><em>A man planted a vineyard-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The language of planting a vineyard and eating the fruit of it is used in <em><a href='B:530 3:6'>1Co 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:7'>1Co 9:7</a></em> about&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;work of preaching. Paul was unafraid to interpret the parable on multiple levels. We are to be fruitful; but in our work of sharing the Gospel with others we are also the planters who come seeking fruit on our converts. The suggestion could be that the owner personally did the planting and preparing. I say this because Isaiah 5, upon which the parable is based, includes this feature- of the owner doing so much personally. All has been done so that we can produce spiritual fruit; but so often we excuse our lack of fruitfulness by blaming environment factors. The situation in our country, our town, workplace, marriage, family, health etc. And we can put huge effort into trying to change environment because we consider that we can be more fruitful for God in a different environment. But whilst passivity and fatalism are just as wrong, it must be accepted that our environment in the bigger picture has been uniquely and thoughtfully prepared by God so that we might be fruitful. For it is clear from the parable that our fruitfulness is God’s most passionate desire and intention for us. He would hardly place us in any other environment, therefore, than one ideally prepared by Him in order to enable and enhance our fruitfulness.</p><p><em>And set a hedge about it-&nbsp;</em>The same word is used for the Law of Moses as the "wall of partition" (<em><a href='B:560 2:14'>Eph 2:14</a></em>). Although the vineyard was to be given to others, it was itself destroyed and dismantled by the owner; which involved the taking away of the Law of Moses. The vineyard functioned differently, on the basis of fruit being produced in the vine of Christ (John 15).</p><p><em>And dug a pit for the winepress-&nbsp;</em>This was the place where the grapes were trodden to produce wine. It features in all record of this parable. What does it represent? Perhaps the temple, designed to be the means of producing the wine of covenant relationship with God. The targums on Isaiah 5, the song of the vineyard upon which the parable is based, interpret it as a reference to the destruction of the temple. But the Lord only elsewhere uses the term when three times using it as a symbol of God's final judgment of condemnation (<em><a href='B:730 14:19-20'>Rev 14:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:15'>Rev 19:15</a></em>). This is typical of the structure of God's plans with men. What is designed for our blessing can also be for our condemnation, just as a cup of wine is used as a symbol of both blessing and condemnation. Time and again we are left with nothing but two choices before us- of acceptance or condemnation. Israel were the vine of God's planting which produced bad fruit (<em><a href='B:300 2:21'>Jer 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:32-33'>Deu 32:32-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 10:1'>Hos 10:1</a></em>). The lack of good grapes on the vine was because of Israel's unspirituality (<em><a href='B:300 8:13'>Jer 8:13</a></em>) and allowing the wonderful vineyard to become overgrown (<em><a href='B:300 5:17'>Jer 5:17</a></em>). The reason why the workers beat and killed the servants was surely because actually they had no fruit to give them, even though the environment was perfect for good wine. The land of Israel was an environment and climate ideally suited to producing good vines (<em><a href='B:50 8:7'>Deu 8:7</a></em>). There was supposed to be joy at the gathering of the vine harvest- and that connection is frequently made in the Old Testament. Indeed, the pictures of joy and wine at harvest are the pictures of the Messianic Kingdom. It could have come- but Israel didn't produce the good grapes. Likewise, believe it or not, God has created an ideal environment for each of us to produce spiritual fruit. The song of the Vineyard in <em><a href='B:290 5:1-7'>Isa 5:1-7</a></em> is clearly the basis of the Lord's parable here, and this is the thrust of that story- that all had been done by God for the viticulture to flourish, but it didn't because of Israel's refusal to respond and to work. Isaiah 5 goes on to condemn Israel for drunkenness (<em><a href='B:290 5:11-13'>Isa 5:11-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:22'>Isa 5:22</a></em>), as if they had used the vine for their own selfishness, rather like the Jews had made the "feasts of Yahweh" the "feast of the Jews", His house had become "your house", and just as we can use the structure of God's working with men, the body of Christ, the mystical temple, as a social club for our own pleasure. God therefore withheld rain so that in any case, fruit was now impossible for Israel (<em><a href='B:290 5:6'>Isa 5:6</a></em>); and that is exactly the Lord's message in Matthew 21. The Isaiah 5 passage is in turn developed in <em><a href='B:290 27:2-6'>Isa 27:2-6</a></em>, where we find that Yahweh Himself guarded the vineyard, watered and weeded it, such was His almost obsessive interest in this project (<em><a href='B:290 27:3'>Isa 27:3</a></em>). The fruit hoped for was righteousness and justice (<em><a href='B:290 5:7'>Isa 5:7</a></em>); human injustice usually arises from passivity, going along with a group situation which hurts individuals and denies them justice. And this was the lack of fruit which led to condemnation. <em><a href='B:290 5:5'>Isa 5:5</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 80:13'>Psa 80:13</a></em> say that the judgment of the vineyard is in terms of having its walls broken down and it being destroyed; the Lord's parable doesn't deny that, but doesn't specifically mention it- rather does He focus upon fruit being produced by different workers. John 15 uses the imagery of the vine to suggest that fruit now comes from being branches within the vine of Christ- which grows with no reference to any vineyard, freestanding in the world.</p><p><em>And built a tower-</em></p><p>&nbsp;It may be that the emphasis upon the tower and winepress is simply to show the degree of effort God went to so that the vineyard could produce fruit. The details of the allegory fall away compared to the supreme point- that God did all possible to provide an environment which would produce fruit. And He likewise provides us with an optimal environment for spirituality, much as we are tempted to think He has it wrong on some points.</p><p><em>And rented it to husbandmen. Then he went into another country</em>-</p><p> Not necessarily the ascension of the Lord Jesus. It could be a reference to God’s entry of covenant with Israel, at which "God came down on mount Sinai" (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:19'>Exo 20:19</a></em>) and then "ascended up on high" (<em><a href='B:230 68:18'>Psa 68:18</a></em>):&nbsp; The Greek specifically means to go into a foreign, i:e. Gentile, country. It is used of the prodigal son going into a far country (<em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>). Let us remember that the Son in the parable represents the Lord Jesus, the owner is clearly God. This going away is not therefore representative of the Lord's ascension to Heaven, although it appears to be used that way in <em><a href='B:470 25:14-15'>Mat 25:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em> "the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey", s:w:. This may just be the furniture of the parable, alluding to the common experience of absentee landlords. These were often characterized by being uncaring for their land; but this owner was particular careful for his project to the point of obsession. He wanted the fruit, not money. It therefore may be part of the impression given, that the owner appears to be absent and disinterested- but in reality He is passionately interested. And this is exactly the position with God, who is perceived as somehow distant and passionless about His project on earth. There may also be the hint that even before He considered giving His precious vineyard to the Gentiles, which appears at the end of the parable, He had in fact initially envisaged this, and had in some form gone to the Gentiles right from the start of His project with Israel.</p><p>Initially, the parable would've got the hearers on the side of the labourers; because it was a frequent complaint that absentee landlords abused their tenants, who worked hard just to send cash off to the landlord in another country. But the parable twists around, so that after initially identifying with this group, the people came to see that it was they who stood condemned.</p>


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


text:
<p>12:3<em>&nbsp;And they took him and beat him, and sent him away empty handed</em>-</p><p> Paul several times uses the word to express his fear that his preaching and pastoral labour had been "in vain" s:w. "empty", e.g. <em><a href='B:530 15:14'>1Co 15:14</a></em>. His aim, as our aim, was spiritual fruit in people, to see the fruits of the Spirit revealed in a convert. Where this is lacking we come away empty handed as it were, just like the Old Testament prophets. The parable suggests that the more Israel were asked for spiritual fruit, the more angry and abusive they progressively became towards the servants who required that fruit from them. And so often, those who call others on their real spirituality are hated and finally destroyed by them.</p>


text:
<p>12:4&nbsp;<em>And again he sent to them another servant- and him they wounded in the head and handled shamefully</em>-</p><p> When the world reviled him, Paul saw himself as the beaten prophets Jesus had spoken about (<em><a href='B:540 11:24-25'>2Co 11:24-25</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 21:35'>Mat 21:35</a></em>):&nbsp; <em><a href='B:480 12:4'>Mar 12:4</a></em> adds that the last servant was “wounded in the head”, surely a reference to the beheading of John the Baptist and shameful treatment of his severed head. "Handled shamefully" is s:w. <em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em> LXX "despised". The Old Testament prophets suffered aspects of what the Lord suffered at their hands.</p>


text:
<p>12:5&nbsp;<em>And he sent another- and him they killed; and many others, beating some and killing some</em>-</p><p> Matthew adds stoning to these insults. There are few accounts of Old Testament prophets being killed or stoned. But beating, stoning and killing are Mosaic punishments for apostasy, and so the idea may be that Israel excused their lack of spiritual fruitfulness by judging as apostate the prophets who demanded this of them. This is typical- the unspiritual transfer their own anger with themselves and awareness of their own coming judgment onto others, whom they condemn as worthy of judgment and punishment.</p>


text:
<p>12:6<em>&nbsp;He had one other, a beloved son. He sent him last to them, saying: They will reverence my son</em>-</p><p>It is noteworthy that the parable of <em><a href='B:480 12:6'>Mar 12:6</a></em> has Jesus describing Himself as both a servant- the last servant- and the only beloved son of the vineyard owner.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em> adds "It may be that...". The Greek&nbsp;<em>isos</em>&nbsp;is tantalizingly hard to understand. It could mean 'Perhaps'; or equally it could mean 'They will, surely'. <em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em> adds “My beloved Son”. Thus the joyful harvest song of <em><a href='B:290 5:1'>Isa 5:1</a></em>, the "song of my beloved”, becomes the tragedy of "My beloved son":&nbsp;The invitation "O inhabitants of Jerusalem… judge, I pray you, between me and my vineyard" (<em><a href='B:290 5:3'>Isa 5:3</a></em>) is matched by the rhetorical question: "What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them?" (<em><a href='B:490 20:15'>Luk 20:15</a></em>). This too was addressed by the Lord to Jerusalem’s inhabitants. We wonder of course how the Father could truly feel like this if He is omniscient. My suggestion is that He limits His omniscience in order to enter fully into our human experience; which means that His expressions of shock and disappointment are legitimate reflections of how He actually feels.</p><p>“Surely they will reverence my Son” is the thought imputed to Almighty God in the parable, as He sends His only Son to seek for spiritual response in Israel. The parable frames God as almost naive in believing that although Israel had killed the prophets, they would reverence the Word made flesh, and the speaking of God to them in Him. Yet of course God knew what would happen; but in order to express the extraordinary, unenterable extent of His hopefulness, He is framed in this way. Just as the Father thought that His people “surely” would reverence His Son, so He was ‘certain’ that if His people went to Babylon in captivity, “surely then shalt you be ashamed… for all your wickedness” (<em><a href='B:300 22:22'>Jer 22:22</a></em>). But the reality was that they grew to like the soft life of Babylon and refused to obey the command to return to God’s land. Such was and is the hopefulness of God. The Father had the same attitude to Israel in Old Testament times: “I thought that after she had done all this, she would return to me, but she did not” (<em><a href='B:300 3:7'>Jer 3:7</a></em> NIV). The Lord Jesus reflected the Father’s positive spirit in the way He framed the parable of the prodigal son to feature the Heavenly Father as running out to meet the returning son, falling on his neck and kissing him… in&nbsp;<em>exactly</em>&nbsp;the language of <em><a href='B:10 33:4'>Gen 33:4</a></em> about Esau doing this to Jacob. The connection can’t be denied; but what was the Lord’s point? Surely He was willing to see something positive in the otherwise fleshly Esau at that time, He as it were took a snapshot of Esau at that moment… and applied it to God Himself, in His extravagant grace towards an unworthy Jacob. This was how positive minded the Lord was in His reading of even the darkest characters.</p>


text:
<p>12:7&nbsp;<em>But those husbandmen said among themselves-&nbsp;</em>That is, they conspired. This is quoting the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:18'>Gen 37:18</a></em>. And the allusion is also to&nbsp;<em>"When they shall see him,&nbsp;</em>there is no beauty that they should desire him" (<em><a href='B:290 53:2'>Isa 53:2</a></em>)</p><p><em>This is the heir-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The leaders of first century Israel initially recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 37:20'>Gen 37:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>). They saw (i:e. understood, recognized) him, but then they were made blind by Christ (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>). It was because they "saw" Jesus as the Messiah that the sin of rejecting him was counted to them (<em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>). This explains why the Roman / Italian nation was not held guilty for crucifying Christ, although they did it, whereas the Jewish nation was. And yet there is ample Biblical evidence to suggest that these same people who "saw" / recognized Jesus as the Christ were also ignorant of his Messiahship. "Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am... Ye neither know me, nor my Father... when ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he" (<em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>) were all addressed to the same group of Jews. Did they know / recognize Jesus as Messiah, or not? As they jeered at him on the cross, and asked Pilate to change the nameplate from "Jesus, King of the Jews", did they see him as their Messiah? It seems to me that they didn't. In ignorance the Jewish leaders and people crucified their Messiah (<em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em> RV). And yet they knew him for who he was, they saw him coming as the heir. I would suggest the resolution to all this is that they did recognize him first of all, but because they didn't want to accept him, their eyes were blinded, so that they honestly thought that he was an impostor, and therefore in ignorance they crucified him. And yet, it must be noted, what they did in this ignorance, they were seriously accountable for before God.</p><p><em>Come, let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours</em>-</p><p> Their assumption therefore was that the landlord must have died, for otherwise, killing the son would not have given them the inheritance. They acted, as we can, as if God is dead; although they would never have admitted that. The apparent non-action of God can likewise lead to the wrong impression that He is effectively dead. Seizing a vineyard for personal possession reminds us of Ahab’s actions in <em><a href='B:110 21:15-16'>1Ki 21:15-16</a></em> - making Naboth a type of Christ, and associating the Jewish religious leadership with wicked Ahab. However, Ahab did repent- and one wonders whether the Lord built in this allusion in reflection of His amazing hopefulness for Israel’s repentance. The allusion to Ahab may have been born in the Lord's Bible-saturated mind by the way that <em><a href='B:290 5:6'>Isa 5:6</a></em> spoke of rain being withheld from the vineyard, as happened in Ahab and Elijah's time. The confirmation of Israel in their evil way was brought to its climax in the crucifixion of Christ. The leaders of first century Israel initially recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 37:20'>Gen 37:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>). They saw (i:e. understood, recognized) him, but then they were made blind by Christ (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>). It was because they "saw" Jesus as the Messiah that the sin of rejecting him was counted to them (<em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>). This explains why the Roman / Italian nation was not held guilty for crucifying Christ, although they did it, whereas the Jewish nation was. And yet there is ample Biblical evidence to suggest that these same people who "saw" / recognized Jesus as the Christ were also ignorant of his Messiahship. "Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am... Ye neither know me, nor my Father... when ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he" (<em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>) were all addressed to the same group of Jews. Did they know / recognize Jesus as Messiah, or not? As they jeered at him on the cross, and asked Pilate to change the nameplate from "Jesus, King of the Jews", did they see him as their Messiah? It seems to me that they didn't. In ignorance the Jewish leaders and people crucified their Messiah (<em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em> RV). And yet they knew him for who he was, they saw him coming as the heir. I would suggest the resolution to all this is that they did recognize him first of all, but because they didn't want to accept him, their eyes were blinded, so that they honestly thought that he was an impostor, and therefore in ignorance they crucified him. And yet, it must be noted, what they did in this ignorance, they were seriously accountable for before God.</p>


text:
<p>12:8&nbsp;<em>And they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard</em>-</p><p> Surely a reference to the Lord being crucified outside Jerusalem. In this case, the vineyard specifically speaks of Jerusalem and the temple. <em><a href='B:480 12:8'>Mar 12:8</a></em> appears in English to suggest a different order to Matthew: Took, killed, cast out of the vineyard. But the Greek text doesn’t have to be read strictly chronologically. Strictly, they “took Him, killed and cast out of the vineyard”. The killed-and-cast-out need not be chronological. Or it could be that the Lord is teaching that effectively, they had killed Him before casting Him out and crucifying; the essence of the cross was ongoing in His life. That is clear enough in a number of Gospel passages.</p><p><em>"</em>Cast Him out<em>"</em>&nbsp;has obvious connection to the way in which the Lord was crucified outside the city limits of Jerusalem. But 'cast him out' is parallel with the stone being "rejected" by the builders (:10). The 'casting out' therefore speaks of religious rejection from the community. The same word is used of how the Lord was cast out of Nazareth (<em><a href='B:490 4:29'>Luk 4:29</a></em>), and how believers would be cast out from Judaism (<em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>) and the synagogue (<em><a href='B:500 9:34'>Joh 9:34</a></em>); and even from the legalistic church (<em><a href='B:710 1:10'>3Jn 1:10</a></em> "casts them out of the church"). Any who experience being cast out of the visible body of God's people are thereby fellowshipping the Lord's crucifixion sufferings. Yet sadly the experience destroys many- when it can be taken as a share in His sufferings, knowing that if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him. It is the same word used for the casting out of the rejected from the Kingdom to final condemnation (<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>); those who cast out of the vineyard, the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 21:43'>Mat 21:43</a></em>) will themselves be cast out of the Kingdom at the last day.</p>


text:
<p>12:9- see on <em><a href='B:480 8:34-37'>Mar 8:34-37</a></em>.</p><p><em>What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do?-&nbsp;</em>The Lord’s parable of the vineyard is shot through with allusions to the vineyard parable of Isaiah 5. When the Lord asks “What will the lord of the vineyard do?”, those who picked up the Isaiah 5 allusions would have found the answer in <em><a href='B:290 5:4-5'>Isa 5:4-5</a></em>: “What… to do… what I will do”.</p><p><em>He will come-&nbsp;</em>The Lord Jesus said this with the cry still echoing in His ears concerning Himself: "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:470 21:9'>Mat 21:9</a></em>). He clearly has Himself in view, 'coming' in behalf of His Father. His parody of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem was really an entering of Jerusalem in judgment upon them. His entry into Jerusalem and the temple was in essence the Lord of the vineyard coming. He certainly uses the language of the Lord coming with reference to Himself (<em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:42'>Mat 24:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:46'>Mat 24:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:48'>Mat 24:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:19'>Mat 25:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others</em>-</p><p> The Lord spoke of how the owner Himself would “come and destroy the husbandmen”. This is a shocking change in tempo- the owner has appeared impotent, distant and naive, to the point that the husbandmen considered He was effectively dead:&nbsp; They reasoned that if they killed the Son, then the vineyard would be theirs. But this is exactly the nature of Divine judgment. The God who appears effectively dead, at least impotent, distant and naïve, will suddenly reveal Himself in direct judgment. We believe that now by faith, but it shall surely happen.</p>


text:
<p>12:10&nbsp;<em>Have you not read in the scripture-&nbsp;</em>They spent their whole lives reading Scripture, and Psalms 118 was a well known Passover Hallel. But we can read and yet never really read as God intends.</p><p><em>The stone which the builders rejected-&nbsp;</em>The Lord would be "rejected of the elders, chief priests and scribes" (<em><a href='B:480 8:31'>Mar 8:31</a></em> s:w:); indeed, "rejected by this generation" (<em><a href='B:490 17:25'>Luk 17:25</a></em>). In the metaphor, the builders were supposed to use the stone, to manipulate it and use it as important material; and build a temple upon it. But they rejected the cornerstone, and so they didn't build a temple. That is what the metaphor implies. The Jews considered that the building of a temple was the work of Messiah; but they refused to build it, because they rejected Jesus as Christ. And so the Messianic Kingdom didn't come; there was no Messianic temple built by them, because they rejected the cornerstone.</p><p><em>The same was made the head of the corner?</em>-</p><p> If the builders rejected this stone, the implication is that another set of builders used it in another building, which became the temple of God. This is precisely the situation with the vineyard being taken away from the Jewish tenants and another group of workers being taken on. The quotation is seamlessly in context with the parable.</p>


text:
<p>12:11&nbsp;<em>This was from the Lord and it is marvellous in our eyes?</em>-</p><p> In whose eyes would the elevation and acceptance of the stone a similar Hebrew and Aramaic word to "son" be marvellous or miraculous / praiseworthy? The quotation is from <em><a href='B:230 118:23'>Psa 118:23</a></em>. This Psalm is a dialogue between the speaker, who is in suffering and rejection and yet has hope of resurrection and glorious acceptance, and another group of people who sing or speak their response. This is why there are statements in the first person e.g. "The Lord is&nbsp;<em>my</em>&nbsp;strength…&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;will praise you", and then responses of the group: "It is marvellous in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;eyes…&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;will rejoice and be glad…&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;have blessed you... the Lord has showed&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;light". Who is this group? The Psalm opens with instruction to "The house of Aaron... Israel... them that fear the Lord" to respond to the Messiah figure in praise (<em><a href='B:230 118:2-4'>Psa 118:2-4</a></em>). The priesthood are often paralleled with all Israel, because it was God's intention that eventually all Israel should be a priestly nation. The significance of the quotation is that it was to be the intended response of the "house of Aaron", Israel's religious leaders, to the acceptance of the rejected stone / son of God. But it was the Lord's disciples who would make this response. They, therefore were the new "house of Aaron"- yet another hint that the Lord was creating a new Israel with another priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>12:12&nbsp;<em>And they sought to arrest him; but they feared the crowd. For they perceived that he had spoken that parable against them; and they left him and went away</em>-</p><p> The connection with Isaiah 5 was so clear, and that song of the vineyard was a well known passage understood as the justification for the destruction of the first temple. Their "seeking" to arrest Him is the very language of Herod seeking to destroy God's son (<em><a href='B:470 2:13'>Mat 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:20'>Mat 2:20</a></em>). They were no better than the despised Herod:&nbsp;The Greek for "Lay hands on / arrest" is likewise used for what Herod did to John the Baptist (<em><a href='B:470 14:3'>Mat 14:3</a></em>). The Lord uses the same word soon afterwards to describe how His servants will likewise suffer (<em><a href='B:470 22:6'>Mat 22:6</a></em> "The remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully and killed them"). The Lord intends us to see all our sufferings as part of his. Matthew repeatedly uses the word to describe how the Jews laid hands on the Lord to arrest and kill Him (<em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:48'>Mat 26:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>):&nbsp;We see the fickleness of the crowd. They were soon crying for the Lord's blood:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:13&nbsp;<em>And they sent to him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might catch him out in his teaching</em>-</p><p> The same word used of how&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to be entangled or caught up in condemnation (<em><a href='B:490 21:35'>Luk 21:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:9'>Rom 11:9</a></em>). As they treated the Lord, so they were treated. Our attitude to Him is in a way our attitude to ourselves and our eternal destiny. The Pharisees and Herodians were sworn enemies. Herod was anathema to the Pharisees, who saw him as a false Jew and some kind of antiChrist figure. But a theme of the Lord's judgment and death was that His enemies were united together by a common hatred of Him.</p>


text:
<p>12:14&nbsp;<em>And when they arrived, they said to him: Teacher, we know you are truthful and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God-</em></p><p>&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:500 10:13'>Joh 10:13</a></em>. <em><a href='B:490 20:21'>Luk 20:21</a></em> adds that they also said at this point: "You say and teach&nbsp;<em>rightly</em>", Gk:&nbsp;<em>orthos</em>, from whence 'orthodox'. They were thereby trying to lead Him to make a right wing, conservative answer, namely, that tribute should be given to God and not Caesar. And then the Herodians could legally swoop upon Him and have Him arrested for disloyalty to the empire:&nbsp;John the Baptist had attempted to prepare the way or path over which God's glory in Messiah could come to Zion. The only other occurrence of "the way of God" is when we read that Apollos, who knew only John's teaching, had to have "the way of God", i:e. John's message about the way, explained more fully to him (<em><a href='B:510 18:26'>Act 18:26</a></em>). It may be that John had been so unworldly that he had not paid tribute to Caesar, or at least, he had been interpreted that way; and so now the Pharisees were commenting that if the Lord truly upheld John's teaching, then what was his answer about paying the tribute money? Because it was perceived, at very least, that John had advocated not paying it.</p><p>Not caring about others' opinion was an appeal to Jewish orthodoxy, whereby the righteous Jew was supposed to be obedient to God regardless of what others thought. They were trying to lead the Lord into a position whereby He said 'No' to the question about giving the tribute money. And the Herodians were ready to pounce on Him if He did. We can reconstruct how the Pharisees and Herodians worked together in this; the Pharisees were trying to lead the Lord by a path of theology and logic to a position whereby He denied the need to pay tribute- and then Herod's supporters could pounce on Him. The verisimilitude and internal agreement of the record is again strong encouragement to accept this as the inspired word of God, recording he actual words spoken rather than giving a mere summary or imagination of them from a distance of time and space.</p><p><em>Is it lawful-</em></p><p>&nbsp;This was purposefully vague, because they didn't clarify whether they meant the law of Moses or that of Rome. This was part of the trap. If the Lord said it was lawful according to Roman law, then they could accuse Him of breaking the law of Moses. If He said it was lawful according to the Law of Moses, and therefore that law must surely be obeyed, then He was breaking the law of Rome. But the Lord majestically rises above the trap, by (as usual) taking the whole issue to a far higher level.</p><p><em>To give tribute to Caesar, or not?</em>-</p><p> The word translated "tribute" was used by the Jews for the poll tax of <em><a href='B:20 30:12-16'>Exo 30:12-16</a></em>; the argument was that this should be paid to the temple and not to Gentiles. By pushing the Lord for a yes / no answer, they thought they would force Him into an untenable position. Judas of Galilee had agitated about not paying the tribute money to the Romans (<em><a href='B:510 5:37'>Act 5:37</a></em>) and had been executed for this in around AD6, in recent memory. The Lord as always appealed to higher principle- if it has Caesar's image, then give it to him; but what has God's image, your own body, then give it to God. The giving of our entire person to God made paying an annual tax to the temple seem cheap and irrelevant.</p>


text:
<p>12:15&nbsp;<em>Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them: Why do you test me?-&nbsp;</em>Matthew has "their wickedness". The wickedness could be their hypocrisy, which the Lord goes on to comment upon. But their "wickedness" could refer to their personal sins, and because in that moment the Lord perceived those sins, He thereby perceived their hypocrisy and therefore challenged them about their hypocrisy. He may have been given that perception of their sins by some flash of Divine insight, or it could be that His supreme sensitivity to people led Him to imagine correctly the kind of stuff going on in their secret lives:&nbsp;In what were they hypocritical in this matter? Perhaps they quietly paid the tribute money? Or perhaps it was because in order to answer the question, the Lord made them bring the coin through the temple courts, thus breaking their own laws<em>:&nbsp;</em>They should've been more concerned about the huge gap between their professions and their practice, rather than focusing upon finding error in another. And so it is to this day- fault finding in others over religious matters typically hides serious hypocrisy, the concern with personal sin is transferred into concern about others' sin. Our sense we ought to be self-examining is converted into an examination of others.</p><p><em>Bring me a denarius, that I may look at it</em>-</p><p> The Pharisees claimed that pagan coinage should not be brought into the temple courts. This is why the coin had to be brought to the Lord. By so doing, the Lord was purposefully provoking the Pharisees; likely the Herodians brought it, not the Pharisees. In any case, we see yet another powerful evidence that the historical records of the Gospels are true to the very smallest detail.</p><p>The tribute money had the inscription&nbsp;<em>Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus Pontifex Maximus</em>-</p><p> “Tiberius Caesar, august son of the divine Augustus, High Priest”. Pedants would’ve quickly assumed that such blasphemous language and appropriation of titles appropriate to the Lord Jesus would mean that such coinage should not be used, nor should such tribute be paid to any man on this basis. But the Lord saw a bigger picture. He was quite OK with such token behaviours, but the far bigger issue was giving to God our own bodies and lives which bear His image.</p><p>The coin bore an image which strict Jews considered blasphemous, denoting Tiberius as son of God, the divine Augustus. The Lord doesn’t react to this as they expected – He makes no comment upon the blasphemy. He lets it go, but insists upon a higher principle. ‘If this is what Caesar demands, well give it to him; but give what has the image of God, i:e. yourself, to God’. He didn’t say ‘Don’t touch the coins, they bear false doctrine, to pay the tax could make it appear you are going along with a blasphemous claim’. Yet some would say that we must avoid touching anything that might appear to be false or lead to a false implication our endless arguments over Bible versions and words of hymns are all proof of this. The Lord wasn’t like that. He lived life as it is and as it was, and re-focused the attention of men upon that which is essential, and away from the minutiae. Staring each of us in the face is our own body, fashioned in God’s image – and thereby the most powerful imperative, to give it over to God. Yet instead God’s people preferred to ignore this and argue over the possible implication of giving a coin to Caesar because there was a false message on it. Morally and dialectically the Lord had defeated His questioners; and yet still they would not see the bigger and altogether more vital picture which He presented them with.</p>


text:
<p>12:16&nbsp;<em>And they brought it. And he said to them: Whose is this image and inscription? And they said to him: Caesar's-&nbsp;</em>He was setting them up for His point that whatever bears God's image and superscription is to be given to Him; and that refers to our body and whole lives. We have His signature on us; perhaps the Lord had in mind by this the idea that Israel were God's covenant people, His servants bearing His marks.</p>


text:
<p>12:17&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to them: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled greatly at him</em>-</p><p> The Jews were looking for immediate deliverance from Caesar. The Lord's parody of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem was designed to show that He was not bringing that kind of a Kingdom, that sort of salvation. By saying that tribute must indeed be rendered to Caesar, He was further dashing their Messianic hopes concerning Him, and further demonstrating that He was not the Messiah they were looking for. Thus He was consciously bringing about a situation whereby His popularity was turned into hatred, because of the whole psychology of dashed expectations making love turn to hate. The accusation that "We found this fellow... forbidding to give tribute to Caesar" (<em><a href='B:490 23:2'>Luk 23:2</a></em>) was so utterly untrue.</p><p>What bears God's image, which is our whole body and mind (<em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>), is to be given to God. We have God's superscription written upon us, moreso if we are in Christ (<em><a href='B:730 3:12'>Rev 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:3'>Rev 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:1'>Rev 14:1</a></em>). "It is he that hath made us, and therefore we are his" (Psalms 100 RV). We must be His in practice&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;He is our creator. So it is not that we merely believe in creation rather than evolution; more than this, such belief in creation must elicit a life given over to that creator.</p><p>The things which are God's are to be 'rendered' to Him. The Greek word means to pay back, to return; even giving our very bodies only giving back what He has given us:&nbsp; The same word had been used recently by the Lord in teaching that we have a huge debt to God which must be 'rendered' or paid back to Him (<em><a href='B:470 18:25-26'>Mat 18:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:28'>Mat 18:28</a></em>). We can read the Lord's words here as meaning that concerns about pedantic issues relating to coinage are irrelevant compared to the paramount issue- that we owe God everything. This would explain why the Lord says this after having accused them of being hypocrites, having perceived the sin they were involved with. Because we are created in God's image, the structure of our very bodies is an imperative to give ourselves totally to His cause (<em><a href='B:470 22:19-21'>Mat 22:19-21</a></em>). Whatever bears God's image- i:e. our very bodies- must be given to Him. "It is he that hath made us, and therefore we are his" (<em><a href='B:230 100:3'>Psa 100:3</a></em> RV). We must be His in practice&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;He is our creator. So it is not that we merely believe in creation rather than evolution; more than this, such belief in creation must elicit a life given over to that creator.</p>


text:
<p>12:18&nbsp;<em>And there came to him Sadducees (these say that there is no resurrection)-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The obvious response to a question from such people about the resurrection would be ‘But you don’t believe in a resurrection’. <em><a href='B:490 20:27'>Luk 20:27</a></em> says that they&nbsp;<em>antilego,</em>&nbsp;spoke against publicly, the resurrection. Mark’s record adds that they also said that “In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise…” (<em><a href='B:480 12:23'>Mar 12:23</a></em>). But the Lord was not so primitive as to point out their obvious untruth. He took their position as they stated it, and worked to demonstrate that even given that position, they were woefully ignorant of Divine truth. Long term, His approach stood a chance of working. If He had simply denounced them as liars and self-contradictory, there was no chance He would’ve ever contributed towards their possible repentance and change of heart. This approach needs to be take to heart by us. For there are large numbers of believers who seem to think that their service to God involves cruising internet forums or endlessly arguing with their neighbours in order to prove them wrong and self-contradictory about doctrinal matters. This may give a slight ego rush for a moment, but it is not in fact any real victory. For the victory we seek is not to tie another up in mental knots, but to lead them to repentance, to the Lord Jesus, and to His Kingdom. We also need to note that recently the Lord had resurrected Lazarus, with the result that He appeared to have won over many who had previously supported the Jewish leadership. They were now trying to prove that resurrection doesn’t happen. The Lord could’ve called many witnesses to the resurrection of Lazarus, but instead He takes their argument and works from it.</p><p>It has been observed that the Sadducees were generally hedonistic- and this surely was a result of their denial of the future resurrection and judgment. Their belief was that only the Torah was inspired, and it was Israel’s duty to live according to it in this life. They were a parade example of the effect of doctrine in practice.</p><p><em>And they asked him</em>-</p><p> Over 100 times we read in the Gospels of various people coming to Jesus- His enemies, the crowds, His disciples, people in need. Each came with their various motivations, agendas and pre-understandings of Him. His invitation to ‘come to Him’ was to come&nbsp;<em>in faith</em>. The repeated repetition of the phrase ‘came to Him’ is perhaps to invite us to see ourselves likewise as amongst those who ‘come to Him’ as we read or hear the Gospel record, ensuring that we are truly coming to Him and not merely on a surface level as so many did.</p>


text:
<p>12:19&nbsp;<em>Teacher, Moses wrote to us-&nbsp;</em>The Lord picks this up in His answer in <em><a href='B:470 22:31'>Mat 22:31</a></em>: “Have you not read that which was&nbsp;<em>spoken</em>&nbsp;unto you by&nbsp;<em>God</em>”. He is telling them that God and not Moses was the ultimate speaker to them; and that the word was not merely&nbsp;<em>written</em>&nbsp;but is a living word, actively&nbsp;<em>speaking</em>&nbsp;unto them. For all their much vaunted belief in Divine inspiration of the Scriptures, these men had failed to perceive that God was speaking to them personally through the human authors. And that criticism needs to be remembered today by those equally wedded to a declared belief in Divine inspiration of the Bible. It is to be to us a word&nbsp;<em>spoken</em>&nbsp;and not a dead letter written on paper.</p><p><em>If a man's brother dies and leaves a wife behind him and leaves no children, then his brother should take his wife and raise up seed to his brother</em>-</p><p> The Lord could have replied that if they read the entire passage in <em><a href='B:50 25:5-7'>Deu 25:5-7</a></em>, they would see that God actually made a concession in this matter; and the whole principle only applied to “brethren dwelling together”. A man did not&nbsp;<em>have to</em>&nbsp;marry his brother’s wife. In any case, as most adult men were married, it would have usually been a case of polygamy. But again, the Lord didn’t point out that expositional error, but goes on to develop a far greater and higher principle concerning the nature of His Kingdom, in which such casuistry about marriage will be simply irrelevant. And again, He sets an example to those who have spent their religious lives arguing about divorce and remarriage and fellowship issues. Their arguments could be demonstrated to be expositionally faulty. But the higher principle is that such issues shall be irrelevant in God’s Kingdom; and we are to live the essence of the Kingdom life now as far as we can, in spirit at least. The Sadducees made a big deal of the fact that the word translated “raise up seed” is that used generally in the Septuagint for resurrection. Their idea was that resurrection is not of the body but through family life. To die childless was therefore tragic indeed. The same error is made by many today who effectively believe that family life is the ultimate form of spirituality. It is not, and God seeks to build a personal relationship with each of us, He is the personal God of Abraham, Isaac etc:, and we shall experience a personal bodily resurrection at which we shall appear before God stripped of our family, and relate to Him as a single individual.</p>


text:
<p>12:20&nbsp;<em>There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died leaving no seed</em>-</p><p> This must have been a most unfortunate family. The Old Testament speaks of the failure to build up a house / family and the death of men in youth as being a curse from God for disobedience (<em><a href='B:220 18:19'>Job 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 107:38-39'>Psa 107:38-39</a></em>). Again, the Lord could have made capital of this- but He didn’t. There was no element of personal attack, but rather an appeal to higher principle.</p>


text:
<p>12:21&nbsp;<em>And the second took her, and died leaving no seed behind him, and the third likewise</em>-</p><p> As noted on :20, this was clearly not a true story.</p>


text:
<p>12:22&nbsp;<em>And the seven left no seed. Last of all the woman also died</em>-</p><p> She would have been judged to be a most unfortunate woman, likely under God’s judgment (see on :20). But the Lord doesn’t question the very unlikely story nor the contradictions within it- instead He works from what was presented to Him.</p>


text:
<p>12:23&nbsp;<em>In the resurrection, whose wife shall she be? For the seven had her as wife</em>-</p><p> The Lord could’ve pointed out that they were well known for denying / speaking against the resurrection. But He doesn’t make that obvious point, instead focusing on the higher principles rather than point scoring.</p>


text:
<p>12:24&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to them: Is not the reason you err that you do not know the scriptures, nor the power of God?</em>-</p><p> Time and again the Lord assaults their pride in knowing the text of Scripture. “Have you&nbsp;<em>never</em>&nbsp;read” is commonly on His lips. We can read, and yet never really read; know, but never know. Familiarity with Bible phrases is simply not the same as understanding them correctly. The scriptures and God's power are paralleled, with every relevance for the Sadducees who denied the Old Testament’s inspiration apart from the Torah. Likewise in their audience the Lord pointed out that David in the Psalms spoke “in Spirit” (<em><a href='B:470 22:43'>Mat 22:43</a></em>)- the Psalms were inspired as much as the Torah.</p>


text:
<p>12:25&nbsp;<em>For when they shall rise from the dead-&nbsp;</em>Why does the Lord speak of the Kingdom of God as “the resurrection” (Mt:)? Perhaps it is to pave the way for His teaching that “all live unto Him”, in the sense that here He is likewise raising the idea that time will have a different dimension then. The joy and freshness of resurrection will last eternally. The Kingdom will be as it were an eternal moment of resurrection, an eternal now, with no fading thrill but an “everlasting joy upon our heads” that will not fade and morph with familiarity and the passage of time.</p><p><em>They neither marry, nor are given in marriage-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Note the present tenses. They are more striking in <em><a href='B:490 20:36'>Luk 20:36</a></em>: “Neither&nbsp;<em>can they die</em>… they&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;equal unto the Angels: and&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;the children of God, being the children of the resurrection”. Greek tenses, unlike Hebrew tenses, are precise. We would expect ‘They shall not die… shall be equal… shall be…’. But the present tenses are striking. The Lord is building up to His point that the question about marriage is inappropriate because God is outside of our kind of time; He sees the believers in Him as even now immortal, a point made more strongly in John’s Gospel. This is not the same as having an immortal soul, nor does it imply conscious survival of death. Rather is it a reflection of how God from His perspective outside of time sees His children. <em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em> makes the same point, that we are born again of water and spirit even in this life, and thereby are living the life eternal. But that is from God’s standpoint outside of time as we experience it. <em><a href='B:490 20:37'>Luk 20:37</a></em> says that Moses “calls” present tense God “the God of Abraham…”. Not only does this imply a living word which speaks to us today, but again the point is made throughout the passage that God is outside of time. This choice of tenses in this passage is purposeful, for elsewhere we read of how Moses said or commanded things in the past tense (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em> “things which Moses commanded”, “Moses wrote”, <em><a href='B:490 20:28'>Luk 20:28</a></em>; “Moses gave you…”, <em><a href='B:500 6:32'>Joh 6:32</a></em>).</p><p><em>But are as the angels in heaven</em>-</p><p>The Sadducees denied their existence (<em><a href='B:510 23:8'>Act 23:8</a></em>). The Lord’s teaching that Angels do not marry was surely additionally an attack on the Jewish myths becoming popular at the time concerning the supposed marriage of Heavenly Angels with the daughters of men in Genesis 6. These myths are deconstructed in Jude and 2 Peter, but the Lord here is also correcting them. We marvel at how apparently ‘off the cuff’ He could speak in such a multi-faceted and profound way, addressing various issues simultaneously. Although His intellectual and spiritual ability was doubtless capable of such instant responses, I prefer to imagine the Lord reflecting deeply upon God’s word and preparing His ideas throughout the years of spiritual mindedness that preceded His ministry.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 20:36'>Luk 20:36</a></em> adds that we shall be as “the children of God”, thereby answering the Sadducees idea that it is a human duty to have children and thereby continue the race, for therein do we have our ‘resurrection’. Again the Lord is lifting the whole question to a far higher level. Luke adds that the Lord first said that “the children of this world marry…”. The Sadducees were assuming that the Kingdom of God would be a kind of continuation of this present life, just with eternity of nature. Whilst there are similarities and aspects of continuity between who we are and who we shall eternally be, we are mistaken in imagining the future Kingdom of God as some kind of ideal earthly situation, a tropical paradise holiday, which shall last eternally. This is the same mistake as thinking that we shall eternally be doing what “the children of&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;world” currently do. Instead of criticizing and exposing the faults in the argument presented, the Lord makes the point that the Kingdom of God will not be about marriage nor about casuistic arguments about the definition of marriage- the very arguments which have occupied the minds of far too many of His children. Paul uses the same logic in reasoning that arguments about food are irrelevant because the Kingdom of God will not be about such behaviour, but about love, peace and joy (<em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>). Paul, like the Lord here, could have exposed the fallacies of exposition being engaged with, but instead reasons on a higher level- that seeing we shall not be arguing about such things eternally, let us not do it now.</p>


text:
<p>12:26&nbsp;<em>But concerning the dead, that they are raised, have you not read in the book of Moses-&nbsp;</em>Of course they had, but the Lord is yet again making the point that we can read Scripture many times but not really read it as intended.</p><p><em>In the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him-&nbsp;</em>Comparing with Matthew's record, surely the Lord said something like ‘He spoke unto Moses, unto you, saying…’. What was spoken to Moses was spoken to them personally, just as the living word speaks to every generation. The Lord was equating each secular Jew with none less than Moses himself. This was unthinkable blasphemy in Judaistic thought, to see oneself as receiving God’s words, having God reveal Himself directly to us, just as He did to Moses. God of course had wanted to reveal Himself like this to Israel, but they asked not to hear His voice directly, wanting Moses as a mediator. But the Lord says that now, through the medium of God’s word, the voice of God comes directly to us too. In the new Israel and the new Judaism of the new covenant, in this sense we are each as Moses.</p><p><em>Saying: I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob?</em>-</p><p> If the Lord was looking merely for a reference to God being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He had many places He could have quoted from. I suggest He chose <em><a href='B:20 3:6'>Exo 3:6</a></em> partly to show that the supremely intimate, personal revelation of God to Moses was just the same now to all individuals within Israel. It was a living word spoken to them personally. But also because the Lord wants to make the point that God is outside of time- and that passage goes on to climax in the revelation of that same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the “I am that I am” (<em><a href='B:20 3:14'>Exo 3:14</a></em>). The God outside of time, witnessed by the way the tetragrammaton somehow straddles past, present and future tenses, therefore sees the dead as alive “unto Him”. The question put to the Lord was very much rooted in the assumption that time as we now know it is going to continue in the Kingdom of God, and the Lord is making the point that this is an immature way of looking at it; and therefore the question was irrelevant. The Exodus 3 passage also contains repeated assurance that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will receive what God has promised- which requires bodily resurrection for them. We need to ever remember that the Lord was not merely demonstrating intellectual prowess in all this reasoning and allusion. He considered them as the sheep who erred / were astray, and through all His teaching here He was merely seeking to steer them to Him and ultimate salvation.</p>


text:
<p>12:27&nbsp;<em>He is not the God of the dead but of the living-&nbsp;</em>This Greek construction could mean ‘Not only the God of the dead, but also of the living’. But the context is the Lord demonstrating that the understanding of the Sadducees was very much a dead religion and their God was effectively dead. They denied the resurrection and considered that we have reward only in this life. In this case, God was the God of Abraham only in the past. The Greek phrase could literally mean ‘Not the God the dead, but the living God’, alluding to the well known phrase “the living God”. If God only acted for Abraham etc. in the past, then the God Abraham knew effectively died when Abraham died. But the living God seeks to impart life to the faithful.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 20:38'>Luk 20:38</a></em> adds: “For all live unto Him”. The Lord is critiquing their division between this life and the life to come- by saying that the faithful live on now in God’s memory as they will eternally; He speaks of things which are not as though they are (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>), and in this sense whether we live or die we are the Lord’s (<em><a href='B:520 14:8'>Rom 14:8</a></em>). Although the soul is mortal, the spirit returns to God and will be eternally “saved” at the last day. And the spirit refers to who a man essentially is, his thinking and character. This is preserved by God in His memory, and in that sense the faithful dead “live” before Him now. John’s Gospel puts this in so many words by saying that we can live the eternal life right now. Whilst bodily resurrection is so significant from our point of view, the God who is outside of our kind of time sees the dead as effectively living as He extends forwards into eternity from the present- in a way we cannot now do. I made the point above that recently the Lord had resurrected Lazarus, with the result that He appeared to have won over many who had previously supported the Jewish leadership. They were now trying to prove that resurrection doesn’t happen. The Lord at that time had emphasized that the resurrection of Lazarus was a visual reminder of the new life which those who believed in Him could experience right now: “Whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die” (<em><a href='B:500 11:26'>Joh 11:26</a></em>). Luke’s comment that “all live unto Him” is saying roughly the same thing. If our spirit is focused upon living and thinking the Kingdom life now, then this spirit is preserved by God upon death. And it is this which God sees after our death, and the sense in which we live unto Him.</p><p><em>You do err greatly</em>-</p><p> The same word used by the Lord in describing how He as the good shepherd was searching for the sheep of Israel who had “gone astray” (<em><a href='B:470 18:12-13'>Mat 18:12-13</a></em>). Exactly because He was searching for them with a view to saving them, He did not indulge in point scoring or exposing the numerous errors in their claims. The fact the Lord even tried with these types is a huge inspiration to us all to never give up with any group of people.</p>


text:
<p>12:28&nbsp;<em>And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing; and knowing that he had answered them well, he asked him: What commandment is the first of all?</em>-</p><p> It is often claimed that this means ‘Which type of commandment?’. But the Lord’s answer suggests that He saw it as meaning ‘Which specific commandment’:&nbsp; <em><a href='B:480 12:28'>Mar 12:28</a></em> records them asking which is the greatest commandment “of all”, which requires that they wanted Him to name one specific one. Again, the Lord lifted the question to a higher level, quoting two commandments and speaking of them as one single commandment; and demonstrating that the unity of God is a command rather than a mere piece of fundamental but dead theology (see on <em><a href='B:470 22:37'>Mat 22:37</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>12:29&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered: The first is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus taught that the command that God was one and therefore we must love God&nbsp;<em>included&nbsp;</em>the second command: to love our neighbour as ourselves. The first and second commands were in fact one command; they were inseparably part of the first commandment (<em><a href='B:480 12:29-31'>Mar 12:29-31</a></em>). This is why the 'two' commandments, to love God and neighbour, are spoken of in the singular in <em><a href='B:490 10:28'>Luk 10:28</a></em>: "<em>this</em>&nbsp;do…". See on <em><a href='B:470 22:40'>Mat 22:40</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord was asked which was the first (i:e. the most important) commandment; we would expect Him to just recite one of them, and to say 'Well, there you are, that's my answer; that's the first one, either numerically, or in terms of importance'. But in reply to this request to name just one of the ten commandments, He actually quotes two of them. There is no greater command (singular) than these&nbsp;<em>two</em>. So the Lord saw those two commands as one, the greatest, most important principle of our life before God. Yet He begins by speaking of the unity of God as expressed in His memorial Name, Yahweh your elohim, and says that&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;is what will lead to us loving God with all we have, and also to our loving our neighbour as ourselves. The Lord is saying that if we really appreciate this idea of the unity of God, that Yahweh is our God, then we will&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;love God, and also our neighbour. So what does it mean, to love our neighbour as ourselves? In the context of the Decalogue, the neighbour of the Israelite would have been his fellow Israelite, not the Gentile who lived next door to him. The command to love our neighbour as ourselves is elsewhere given an equivalent under the new Covenant: to love our brother or sister in the ecclesia as ourselves. <em><a href='B:550 5:14'>Gal 5:14</a></em> and <em><a href='B:660 2:8'>Jas 2:8</a></em> quote this command in the context of ecclesial life.</p><p>The Lord said that the first, the most important, of the commandments was that God is one Yahweh. He didn't see this as an abstract doctrine. He saw the doctrine of the unity of God as a command, it demands behaviour in response to it. He saw the unity of God as part and parcel of the command to love our neighbour as ourselves. Why? Surely He saw that the facts that God's Name is one, and all His people are in some way&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;His Name, mean that we must love others in that Name as much as we love ourselves and as much as we love God. Now apply this to the phenomena of Christian disillusion with the church. We are&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;God, and God is one. So we are all one with each other. Loving our neighbour in Christ as ourselves is placed parallel with loving God with all our heart, strength etc. This means that the main drive of our service to God should be devoted to loving our brother, our neighbour. All those who are baptized into the Name must be loved as we love ourselves. This in itself sinks the possibility of a 'desert island' existence. We just can't live alone. We can't quit on the brotherhood if we want to love God. And this tough, far reaching conclusion comes from knowing that God is one, and all in Him are therefore one. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:30&nbsp;<em>And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:590 1:2'>1Th 1:2</a></em>. That God is one is a command, an imperative to action. It underlies the whole law and prophets (<em><a href='B:470 22:40'>Mat 22:40</a></em>)- it's that fundamental. If there were two Gods, Yahweh would only demand half our energies. Nothing can be given to anything else; for there is nothing else to give to. There's only one God. There can be no idolatry in our lives, because there is only one God (<em><a href='B:120 19:18-19'>2Ki 19:18-19</a></em>). Because "there is none else, you shall keep&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;his statutes" (<em><a href='B:50 4:39-40'>Deu 4:39-40</a></em>). The Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:50 6:4'>Deu 6:4</a></em> suggests: "The Lord is our God, the Lord is one", thereby linking Yahweh's unity with His being our God, the sole Lord and unrivalled Master of His people. It also links the first principle of the unity of God with that of the covenant to Abraham; for “I will be their God" was one of the features of the covenant. The one God has only one people; not all religious systems can lead to the one Hope of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>12:31&nbsp;<em>The second is this: You shall love your neighbour as yourself-&nbsp;</em>This is indeed a challenge; not only to love ourselves, but to relate to our neighbour as to ourselves. It suggests a unique unity between us and our neighbour within the Israel of God. That humanly impossible unity is only achievable by loving the one God. To love God and our brother is all part of the same thing. It is indivisible; the two commandments are in fact one commandment in practice. To claim to love God but not love or even be involved with our brother means, therefore, that we don’t actually love God. John makes this explicit in <em><a href='B:690 4:1'>1Jn 4:1</a></em>, and much of the Lord’s teaching does likewise. Yet our tendency is to isolate them, claiming to love God whilst ignoring our brother, and maintaining a strong sense of separation from him.</p><p><em>There is no other commandment greater than these</em>-</p><p> Again, the Lord makes the point. They wanted&nbsp;<em>one</em>&nbsp;commandment isolated as the greatest, and He gave them two, with the further comment that “all the law”, all the others, hung equally upon those two. The spiritual way of life is not a case of isolating one or two commandments and keeping them, but rather living a spirit of life and thinking. Loving God and our neighbour are seamlessly united, although so many try to do one without the other. On the one extreme is the person who sits at home in splendid isolation with their love for God, on the other is the person who thinks that love for neighbour- some neighbours, anyway- is quite enough, and needs no underpinning in a love for God, which involves keeping His commandments.</p>


text:
<p>12:32&nbsp;<em>And the scribe said to him: Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, that He is one and there is no other but He-&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;In the same way as we cannot choose to live in isolation from the Father and Son, so we cannot separate ourselves from others who bear the same Name. The Scribe well understood all this: "There is one God... and to love him... and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:480 12:32-33'>Mar 12:32-33</a></em>). Those whole offerings represented the whole body of Israel (<em><a href='B:30 4:7-15'>Lev 4:7-15</a></em>). The Scribe understood that those offerings taught that all Israel were unified together on account of their bearing the same Name of Yahweh. We must love others who bear that Name "as ourselves", so intense is the unity between us. In some ways, we should lose the sense of our own self interest; we should somehow be able to have the same spiritual interest in others (for this is true love) as we do for ourselves. So this sense of true selflessness which we would dearly desire is connected with an appreciation of the doctrine of the intense unity of God and of His Name, and of the glorious principle of God manifestation. By sharing the one Name, we are one together. See on <em><a href='B:500 5:23'>Joh 5:23</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>12:33&nbsp;<em>And to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is much more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices</em>-</p><p> The Scribe said that the most important commandment to love God “with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly (Gk. ‘in an intellect-having way’), He said unto him, Thou art not far from the Kingdom”. Notice how ‘understanding’ with the intellect is put higher in the list than loving one’s neighbour. The fundamental thing is to correctly understand, and this will naturally lead to a life of practical love. Our surrounding ‘Christian’ world has inverted this order; love of neighbour has been placed above correct understanding of God. Because the Scribe answered in an intellect-having way, the Saviour said that He was near to the Kingdom. To reach the Kingdom therefore involves correct understanding. The words of <em><a href='B:480 12:33'>Mar 12:33</a></em> allude to a number of OT passages which likewise show the superiority of knowledge and practical service over sacrifices (<em><a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sa 15:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 6:6-8'>Mic 6:6-8</a></em>). Putting them together we find the following parallels:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>To obey God’s word</td><td>is better than sacrifice</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To listen to God’s word&nbsp;</td><td>is better than sacrifice</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To show mercy</td><td>is better than sacrifice</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To know God&nbsp;</td><td>is better than sacrifice</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To be humble and just</td><td>is better than sacrifice</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To understand God&nbsp;</td><td>is better than sacrifice</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Understanding God, hearing His word, knowing God (all acts of the intellect) are therefore paralleled with practical things like loving out neighbour, showing mercy, justice etc. These practical things are an outcome of our correct knowledge of God:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:34&nbsp;<em>And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him: You are not far from the kingdom of God. And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions</em>-</p><p> A correct&nbsp;<em>understanding</em>&nbsp;of the Law and the sacrifices meant that a man was near the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:480 12:34'>Mar 12:34</a></em>). The principles of the Lord's Kingdom, His rulership over men, were taught throughout the Old Testament. These very words about asking no more questions are used of how the disciples after the resurrection dared not ask who Jesus was (<em><a href='B:500 21:12'>Joh 21:12</a></em>), which is the very context here. The connection is clearly to show that they too through their being too influenced by Jewish thinking found themselves in the same category as the unbelieving Jews- the difference being that they repented of it. Matthew was appealing to Jews to accept Jesus and repent of their wilful misunderstanding, and he and John are holding themselves up as a role model, just as we should in our appeals for repentance. The Greek for “questions” isn’t in the original; they dared not ask Him again. The implication from the context could be that they dared not ask Him ‘Who are You?’, for the answer was clear in their consciences. They knew, on one level, that He was Messiah, that He was the heir to the vineyard, whom they knowingly sought to murder.</p>


text:
<p>12:35&nbsp;<em>And Jesus asked, as he taught in the temple: Why do the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?</em>-</p><p> They were surely aware that Jesus was a son of David, on both the sides of Mary and Joseph. For they would’ve done their homework as to His apparent family of origin. <em><a href='B:490 20:41'>Luk 20:41</a></em> records that the Lord addressed a question to the wider audience: “How say they that Christ is David’s son?”. But Matthew says He asked the Pharisees. Having let the Pharisees give the answer, He then asks others how this can be the case. Again, the Lord’s dialogues with the Pharisees was not simply to try to convert them, but in order that the audience would learn. <em><a href='B:480 12:37'>Mar 12:37</a></em> concludes the section by observing that “the common people heard Him gladly”, so again we see how the records seamlessly complement each other.</p>


text:
<p>12:36&nbsp;<em>David himself said in the Holy Spirit: The Lord said-&nbsp;</em>Clearly Yahweh. If the Divine Name was to be used in the New Testament, surely this would be the place for it. The fact it is not, when some Hebrew words are used (e.g. ‘Sabaoth’), shows clearly enough that the literal usage of the tetragrammaton is not something God sees as important or even required.</p><p><em>To my Lord-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Biblically and historically, David’s immediate ‘Lord’ was Saul. Psalms 110 was originally a revelation to David of the potential possible for Saul, who was an anointed ‘Messiah’ figure. But Saul failed, and so the fulfilment of the prophecy was rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>Sit on My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s enemies stood around Him as He applied this Psalm to Himself:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:37&nbsp;<em>David himself calls him Lord; and how is he therefore his son? And the common people heard him gladly</em>-</p><p> Judaism’s concept of Messiah has always been vague and not commonly agreed, but there was and is the idea that the likes of Abraham, Moses and David are greater than Messiah. The Lord is pointing out that David considered Messiah to be his “Lord”, just as Messiah was greater than Abraham (<em><a href='B:500 8:58'>Joh 8:58</a></em>). The “how” doesn’t imply that David’s Lord is not his son, but rather is a rhetorical question. How is the Messianic son of David, David’s “Lord”, to be his son or descendant? The Lord reinforced the question by asking “<em>From whence</em>&nbsp;is He his son?” (AV). The answer had to be: ‘Through a woman in David’s direct line giving birth to Him’. And the questioners were fully aware that Jesus was in the direct line of Mary</p>


text:
<p>12:38&nbsp;<em>And in his teaching he said: Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes and to have salutations in the marketplaces</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s reason for going to the market was to invite men to work in the vineyard and receive the penny of salvation (<em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>); and His people sitting in the markets sought to persuade others of the need to respond to the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 11:16'>Mat 11:16</a></em>). The Pharisees went to the markets to simply flaunt their external spirituality. Again, note how their behaviour was the very inversion of true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>12:39&nbsp;<em>And the chief seats in the synagogues and chief places at feasts</em>-</p><p> They wanted to be publicly seen as spiritually superior. The whole structure of church life, whereby some must have public roles, is such that people can fall so easily into a love of publicity. The Lord realizes this, and often removes His beloved from such temptations. This explains the otherwise inexplicable way in which the Lord allows some of His most talented and capable servants to be removed from the public eye to serve Him in human obscurity:&nbsp;Note that the Lord here is repeating almost word for word what He has previously said about the Pharisees in Luke 11. To repeat so much text twice in the Gospel records, and for the Lord to give identical word-for-word teaching on two occasions, shows how important these warnings are for all readers. This consideration alone suggests that we each have the same tendency as the Pharisees; they are but epitomes of our own deepest tendencies and desires.</p>


text:
<p>12:40&nbsp;<em>They that devour widows' houses-&nbsp;</em>The language used here about the behaviour of the Scribes and Pharisees is elsewhere used about the righteous behaviour of the Lord and His followers; the Jewish leaders were living a religious life, but it was but a parody of true spirituality. The same words for “devour” and “house” are used of how the Lord Jesus was ‘eaten up’ or ‘devoured’ with zeal for His Father’s “house”. But by contrast the Scribes thought only of how they could devour the houses of widows, scheming how to get the house of a vulnerable single old woman left to them, and how they could devour that wealth upon themselves. We note that Mark and Luke conclude this section with the account of the widow who gave her entire wealth to the temple coffers (<em><a href='B:480 12:42'>Mar 12:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:1'>Luk 21:1</a></em>). This was surely to add assurance that although her donation was misused, it was carefully noted by God to her eternal credit.</p><p><em>And for a pretence make long prayers-&nbsp;</em>They were hypocrites. The word was used about an actor’s cloak, and thus connects with the theatrical term ‘hypocrites’, play-actors. The Lord uses the same word in <em><a href='B:500 15:22'>Joh 15:22</a></em>: “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no&nbsp;<em>cloak</em>&nbsp;for their sin”. When did He come and speak unto the Jews about their hypocrisy? Surely here in Mark 12. Although they did have a cloak for their sin before men, the Lord is saying in John 15 that they have no such cloak before Him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>These shall receive greater condemnation</em>-</p><p> There will be degrees of punishment, although it will be self-inflicted.</p>


text:
<p>12:41&nbsp;<em>And he sat down over against the treasury, and watched how the crowd threw money into the treasury; and many that were rich threw in a lot</em>-</p><p> The many small coins they threw in make a loud clanging noise in the collection trumpets. They were literally trumpeting their good deeds before men in God's house. The widow threw in the same kind of coins which they threw in in abundance. What she threw in was scarcely audible to men; but the Lord noticed. The only other references to the Lord sitting are to Him sitting in judgment. And that judgment was ongoing even then; it does and will finally take into account the things not audible to men.</p>


text:
<p>12:42&nbsp;<em>And there came a poor widow, and she threw in two small copper coins, which make a penny</em>-</p><p> The Lord taught that one must forsake all that he has in order to truly be His disciple (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). But at the end of His ministry, He as it were chose to exemplify this aspect of discipleship by drawing attention to a woman who gave to God “all the living that she had” (<em><a href='B:490 21:3'>Luk 21:3</a></em>). Putting the passages together, the Lord is saying that she is to be the model for us all in this aspect of devotion. She could have kept one of the coins; but she threw both of them in.</p>


text:
<p>12:43&nbsp;<em>And he gathered his disciples, and said to them: Truly I say to you, this poor widow threw in more than all they that are throwing money into the treasury</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:540 8:11-12'>2Co 8:11-12</a></em>. They were needed to be gathered together to hear this teaching; they had not noticed it, or not been impressed by what the woman did. So clearly, God accounts not as man does. We are judged according to our possibilities and not according to volume of achievement. She threw in "more", literally she 'exceeded', that the others had thrown in. The same word is used of how our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>). She is again presented as the model disciple. The word has just been used&nbsp;in :33 of how love of God and neighbour is "more" than all sacrifices. She achieved that love not by volume of achievement but in her attitude.</p>


text:
<p>12:44<em>&nbsp;For they threw in money they didn't need, but she though needy threw in all that she had- all her livelihood</em>-</p><p>The Lord condemned the Pharisees for devouring widow’s houses (<em><a href='B:480 12:40'>Mar 12:40</a></em>), but then goes on to show how the widow who threw in all her wealth to the treasuries of the corrupt Pharisees had actually gained great approval in God’s eyes by doing so (<em><a href='B:480 12:44'>Mar 12:44</a></em>). Out of evil, good came. The Lord didn’t just lament the cruel selfishness of the Jewish leadership. He pointed out how God worked through even this to enable a poor woman to please Him immensely. There is a wondrous ecology in all this; nothing is lost. Nothing, in the final end, can be done against the Truth, only for the Truth.</p><p>The Lord pointed out to the disciples how the extreme generosity of the widow, giving the two pennies of her business capital, her "living", to the Lord, was worth far more than the ostentatious giving of the wealthy Jewish leadership (<em><a href='B:480 12:44'>Mar 12:44</a></em>); but the next incident recorded by Mark is the disciples marvelling at the ostentatious buildings of the temple, and the Lord explaining that all this needed to be thrown down (<em><a href='B:480 13:1-2'>Mar 13:1-2</a></em>). Their slowness to perceive is such a theme of the gospel records.</p>


text:
<p>13:1&nbsp;<em>And as he left the temple-</em></p><p>&nbsp;This was a visual depiction of the Lord's previous statement that the house of the temple was now left desolate (<em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>). The Lord surely had in mind how the glory of God, which was Him (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:27'>Col 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a></em>), progressively left the temple in Ezekiel's time, until the Babylonians came and destroyed the temple (<em><a href='B:330 10:18'>Eze 10:18</a></em>), and how the loss of the ark (another symbol of the Lord Jesus) was the glory departing from Israel (<em><a href='B:90 4:21-22'>1Sa 4:21-22</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>One of his disciples said to him: Teacher, look what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings</em>-</p><p> These words are taken over in the later New Testament to describe the building up often translated 'edifying' of a new temple, comprised of the believers in Christ. The temple buildings were thrown down&nbsp;<em>in order that</em>&nbsp;a new and spiritual building comprised of believers could be built up through the Lord's work in the hearts of His people. The group of believers are "All the building which grows into a holy temple in the Lord" (<em><a href='B:560 2:21'>Eph 2:21</a></em>). Paul, writing before AD70, may have had this contrast indirectly in mind when he wrote that when the earthly house is destroyed, we should remember that we have a "house not made with hands" built by God (<em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>). The same struggle and angst at the loss of physical structures of our religion can be seen today; some find it hard to believe that relationship with God is ultimately personal, and that relationship continues even when surrounding, much loved traditional structures are removed.</p>


text:
<p>13:2&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to him: Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another. All will be thrown down</em>-</p><p> This again expands upon His previous use of this word in <em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>: "Your house is&nbsp;<em>left</em>&nbsp;unto you desolate". He is asking the disciples to see with the eye of faith- that effectively, the great stones of the temple were already thrown down, the temple was already "desolate" (Gk. 'a deserted place').</p><p>The judgment of the leprous house was to be thrown down, stone by stone (<em><a href='B:30 14:41'>Lev 14:41</a></em>). At the time of the final assault on Jerusalem in AD69, Titus commanded that the temple was to be spared. But the Lord's words came true, just as all prophetic words will, despite every human effort to deny their power. Josephus claims that the gold of the temple melted and therefore each stone was prized apart to remove the gold.</p><p>There was a strong belief in Judaism that the temple would last eternally. Hence the disciples’ question about “the end of the age” was because for them, any talk about the end of the temple meant the end of the world. They are not therefore asking about different chronological events when they ask when this shall be, and what sign would indicate the end of the age. This prophecy of the destruction of the temple implied an ending of the Mosaic law. Hence the same word translated "thrown down" is ascribed to Stephen when he was accused of preaching that the Lord Jesus would "<em>destroy</em>&nbsp;this place and therefore change the customs which Moses delivered us" (<em><a href='B:510 6:14'>Act 6:14</a></em>). Paul uses the same word about his 'destruction' of the things of legalistic dependence on the law for salvation, by preaching salvation by grace in Jesus (<em><a href='B:550 2:18'>Gal 2:18</a></em>). It is also the word used in <em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>, a passage which seems to have some reference to the impending destruction of the temple and its replacement with the spiritual house of God's building: "Our earthly house of this tabernacle be&nbsp;<em>destroyed</em>&nbsp;s:w. "thrown down", we have a building of God, a house not made with hands...". All this would suggest that there was a changeover period envisaged between the Lord's death and the final ending of the jurisdiction of the Mosaic law. Seeing the end Lord ended the Law on the cross, this again is to be seen as a concession to the conservatism of the Jews.</p>


text:
<p>13:3&nbsp;<em>And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately</em>-</p><p> The private enquiry was because the Lord had just stated something dangerously illegal. Martin Hengel concludes that the early Gospel records were so radical that they would’ve been part of an “underground literature”. He suggests that the Roman law forbidding oral or written prophecies about the fall of the Roman empire- on pain of death- was enough to make the Olivet prophecy alone a highly illegal document.</p>


text:
<p>13:4&nbsp;<em>Tell us, when will these things occur, and what shall be the sign when these things are about to happen?</em>-</p><p> They clearly expected one particular sign, and&nbsp;<em>semeion</em>&nbsp;is typically used of a miraculous wonder. Instead, the Lord gave them a series of signs which they were to discern. The fulfilment of these signs in our times is no less than a miracle- that such detailed predictions could start to come true before our eyes. Such fulfilment of prophecy is therefore itself a miracle. The disciples repeat the Pharisees' question about when the end will come- in almost the same words. They were clearly influenced by them (<em><a href='B:490 17:20'>Luk 17:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 13:4'>Mar 13:4</a></em>). The disciples (in their childish way) showed the Lord the greatness of the temple, and he commented that soon it would be destroyed. They asked the obvious question: When? Usually, the Lord didn't reply directly to questions; he gave answers which branched out into something altogether more comprehensive than the original question (Consider <em><a href='B:470 13:10-11'>Mat 13:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:2-3'>Mat 15:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:4-5'>Mar 10:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:20'>Luk 17:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:4-5'>Joh 3:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:9-10'>Joh 4:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:28-29'>Joh 6:28-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:53-54'>Joh 8:53-54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:8-9'>Joh 11:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:22-23'>Joh 14:22-23</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Nearly every example of the Lord Jesus answering a question includes this feature.</em>&nbsp;To the disciples, the destruction of the temple meant the end of the age- it was a calamity. They assumed that if the temple was destroyed, it must be replaced immediately by their Jesus coming again with his Messianic Kingdom. Their minds were still not suitably distanced from their Judaist background. They asked&nbsp;<em>one</em>&nbsp;question: "When shall these things (the destruction of the temple) be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?" (<em><a href='B:480 13:4'>Mar 13:4</a></em>). <em><a href='B:470 24:4'>Mat 24:4</a></em> can make it seem that they asked two questions: "When shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of they coming, and of the end of the world?". But the parallel record in <em><a href='B:480 13:4'>Mar 13:4</a></em> makes it clear that actually these were parts of the same question concerning the temple's destruction. To the disciples, the coming of Christ, the end of the world and the temple's destruction were all the same event. The Lord answered their question by speaking of how there would be the destruction of the temple, but his real coming and the main ending of this world would be at a future date. His answer was therefore fundamentally relevant to his second coming, although built into it was some reference to the destruction of the temple in AD70. As He so often does, the Lord turned round the terms of the question. They thought his "coming" would be at the temple's destruction, and so they asked for signs of His "coming". But Christ shows that this wasn't a correct view: His real "coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>) would not be then, but after all the various signs he described were fulfilled. He was surely saying: 'OK the temple will be destroyed, and many of the signs I'm giving will have some application to that period; but the destruction of the temple isn't the sign of my coming. Note the signs I give you, and watch for their fulfilment: and&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;you'll know when to expect my coming':&nbsp;</p><p>13:5 The persecution of God's people was spoken of by the Lord as being one of the clearest signs. And he also emphasized that apostasy within the ecclesia would be the other major sign. When they asked him for the signs, <em><a href='B:480 13:5'>Mar 13:5</a></em> says that Jesus&nbsp;<em>began</em>&nbsp;by warning them of deception from false teachers. The way the NT writers allude to this passage indicates that they saw this deception as not coming from the crazy bogus-Messiahs of the world, but from false teachers&nbsp;<em>within the ecclesia</em>, sometimes supported by apparent possession of the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:560 5:6'>Eph 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:3'>2Th 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:10'>Tit 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:700 1:7'>2Jn 1:7</a></em>). A state of total ecclesial apostasy was the sign which Jesus&nbsp;<em>began</em>&nbsp;with, according to <em><a href='B:480 13:5'>Mar 13:5</a></em>.</p><p>13:9 When the Lord said that His people would preach before rulers ‘for a witness / testimony against them’ (<em><a href='B:480 13:9'>Mar 13:9</a></em>), we are left wondering when and how exactly this will be. It’s hard to come to any other conclusion than that this refers to how our words of preaching will be quoted back to the hearers at the judgment. It’s an incidental proof that it is hearing the word of the Gospel that makes a person responsible to the last judgment. But in our context, my point is that our words of preaching in this life will be quoted back to those who heard them, at the day of judgment. The simple point is, our words aren’t forgotten. They will be quoted back, in some form, at the day of judgment. And yet it appears we can speak and think how we like in this life. Indeed we can; but all these things will ultimately surface again in the last day.</p>


text:
<p>13:5&nbsp;<em>And Jesus began to say to them-&nbsp;</em>The persecution of God's people was spoken of by the Lord as being one of the clearest signs. And he also emphasized that apostasy within the ecclesia would be the other major sign. When they asked him for the signs, <em><a href='B:480 13:5'>Mar 13:5</a></em> says that Jesus&nbsp;<em>began</em>&nbsp;by warning them of deception from false teachers. The way the NT writers allude to this passage indicates that they saw this deception as not coming from the crazy bogus-Messiahs of the world, but from false teachers&nbsp;<em>within the ecclesia</em>, sometimes supported by apparent possession of the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:560 5:6'>Eph 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:3'>2Th 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:10'>Tit 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:700 1:7'>2Jn 1:7</a></em>). A state of total ecclesial apostasy was the sign which Jesus&nbsp;<em>began</em>&nbsp;with, according to <em><a href='B:480 13:5'>Mar 13:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>Take heed that no one lead you astray</em>-</p><p> “Be not deceived" is extensively quoted later in the NT concerning the need not be deceived by false teachers&nbsp;<em>within the ecclesia</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:530 6:9'>1Co 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:17'>Gal 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>, as <em><a href='B:470 24:4'>Mat 24:4</a></em> = <em><a href='B:690 3:7'>1Jn 3:7</a></em>). The deceivers the Lord spoke of were not just bogus Messiahs out in the world, but apparently Spirit-gifted brethren who will arise within the ecclesia.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>13:8&nbsp;<em>For nation shall rise against nation-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Any first century fulfilment is unlikely because the&nbsp;<em>Pax Romana</em>&nbsp;meant that the Roman empire was firmly in power and such a situation did not therefore occur.<em>&nbsp;Ethnos</em>&nbsp;is the word commonly translated "Gentiles". The picture of nations and kingdoms rising up against each other was simply not fulfilled in the run up to AD70- the Roman empire with their&nbsp;<em>Pax Romana</em>&nbsp;did not permit such a situation. And the system of world empires which disintegrated in the 20th Century likewise didn't permit much of this in recent times, especially in the area around Israel, or in the land promised to Abraham, which is the focus of all Bible prophecy. Only in our times has this become a reality, especially in the Arab world and amongst the nations located in the territory promised to Abraham. The language of 'rising up' in revolt is now common amongst them. The picture, however, is of the Gospel going into all those "nations" at this time (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>), all those nations persecuting the believers (<em><a href='B:470 24:9'>Mat 24:9</a></em>), and the nations AV "Gentiles" taking Jerusalem and treading it down (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>); despite their internal struggles, these same "all nations" will be confederated under a latter Babylon (<em><a href='B:730 17:15'>Rev 17:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:23'>Rev 18:23</a></em>). The overall picture is of Gospel preaching going on at a time when the nations are rising up against each other, and at the same time persecuting the believers. This scenario is developing- but is as yet unfulfilled on a global scale. But it is daily fulfilling in the nations surrounding Israel, who are persecuting Christians, rising up against each other, and to whom the Gospel is being powerfully preached. Never before has my own mission organization received such major expression of serious interest from the Muslim nations surrounding Israel, thanks largely to the growth of the internet and the growing disillusion with the existing social and religious situation. People from all nations will be gathered before the Lord for judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>) and people from every nation will be saved (<em><a href='B:730 5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>)- confirming that the Gospel will indeed spread to all nations before the Lord's return; it must at least be "proclaimed" to them all, thereby making people amongst them responsible to judgment; the "fullness of the Gentiles" must "come in" to Christ before the end comes and Israel repent (<em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>). The Lord sent the disciples out to "all nations" (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> s:w:); the implication is that they failed to take the Gospel to them all, and therefore the intended scenario didn't fulfil as initially intended in the first century. <em><a href='B:490 21:25'>Luk 21:25</a></em> speaks of how there will be "upon the earth land- that promised to Abraham distress of nations", suggesting that the situation amongst the Gentile nations living within the land promised to Abraham is the particular focus of the prophecy. The same language is used of how there were devout Jews in "every nation under Heaven" (<em><a href='B:510 2:5'>Act 2:5</a></em>)- and the list of nations in Acts 2 corresponds with the Middle Eastern Moslem world of today. We note that the promise that Abraham should be father of "many nations" was fulfilled in a literal sense in that Abraham is the ancestor of the Arab nations living in the land promised to him (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). And it is those nations particularly who have stated their desire to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jews, as required in <em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>.</p><p><em>And kingdom against kingdom-&nbsp;</em>It seems likely from Revelation that ‘Babylon’ of the last days will rise to political and military dominance in the territory promised to Abraham, the earth/ land of which the Bible speaks so much:&nbsp;The 10 nations / horns / leaders which exist in the land promised to Abraham- the “kings of the earth / land”- will give their power to Babylon, by force and by political manoeuvre, and this system will then invade Israel. The horns hating the whore implies there will be inter-Arab friction apparent in the beast system throughout its existence. "Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 24:7'>Mat 24:7</a></em>) will be a sign of the last days. In the AD70 context, this referred to friction between the Semitic peoples living around Israel; and the Lord's words are clearly an allusion to <em><a href='B:140 15:6'>2Ch 15:6</a></em>, which specifically uses the phrase about inter-Arab friction. The fragile alliance between them will then be broken by the Lord’s return, the horns will hate the whore and destroy her. They give their power to the beast for but “one hour”. Daniel seems to associate a covenant which is then broken with the latter day Antichrist. <em><a href='B:290 30:27-31'>Isa 30:27-31</a></em> speaks of the latter day Assyrian as placing “a bridle in the jaw of the people causing them to err”, referring to some kind of covenant / agreement which forces others to follow their direction. The Lord’s especial fury will be against the individual latter day Nebuchadnezzar who leads the invasion. The future leader of Babylon, the whore riding the beast, will see themselves as Nebuchadnezzar. Isaiah and Micah describe the latter day invader of the land as “the Assyrian” (<em><a href='B:290 10:5'>Isa 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:25'>Isa 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 30:31'>Isa 30:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 5:1-6'>Mic 5:1-6</a></em>). This itself suggests we are to see the individual who heads up the invasion, the rosh / chief prince of <em><a href='B:330 38:2'>Eze 38:2</a></em>, as an ethnic Assyrian / Iraqi. <em><a href='B:340 8:24-25'>Dan 8:24-25</a></em> invites us to see the same- the “king of fierce countenance” stands up out of the area of northern Iraq / northern Iran:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>There shall be earthquakes-&nbsp;</em>Just as there was at the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:470 27:54'>Mat 27:54</a></em>), yet another reason for thinking that the tribulation of the last days will enable Israel to identify with the sufferings of their crucified Messiah. Again, earthquakes feature in the seals of <em><a href='B:730 6:12'>Rev 6:12</a></em>; and in the judgments upon Israel's enemies in <em><a href='B:730 11:13'>Rev 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:19'>Rev 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:18'>Rev 16:18</a></em>. Again, it seems that Israel will initially experience the judgments upon their enemies, just as they did in the lead up to their Passover deliverance in Egypt which also prefigures their final salvation. The fig tree nation- Israel- is to be shaken of a mighty wind (<em><a href='B:730 6:13'>Rev 6:13</a></em>), and the word "shaken" is a form of that translated "earthquake". The forcing of fruit from the fig tree will be brought about by the experience of the earthquake:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>In various places-&nbsp;</em>The word "various" is added by the translators to try to make sense of the otherwise obvious statement that earthquakes will occur in "places". There is no suggestion in the Greek text that earthquakes will occur in various places worldwide where they have not been known to occur. But maybe we have here an intensive plural- the one great place. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 24:15'>Mat 24:15</a></em> about "the holy<em>&nbsp;place</em>". There are rumours that an earthquake hit the temple area around AD70. But seeing that the temple mount is the bone of contention between Israel and her neighbours, an earthquake splitting the mount would be appropriate. And of course this would link directly with the prediction of Zechariah 14, that when Christ returns there will be an earthquake which splits it. And yet this is used by the Lord as a sign of His coming, rather than a statement about what will happen at His return. It could be that this is an example of how the meaning of time will be somehow collapsed around the second coming; a sign of His return is in effect His return. Or it could be that the events described in the Olivet prophecy will all happen in a very short period of time, a matter of days rather than years or decades as is assumed by those who seek to connect the predictions with current world events. <em><a href='B:480 13:8'>Mar 13:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em> speak of the earthquakes in&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;places, but this doesn't necessarily mean 'various' places, but could equally mean 'around'- earthquakes around the holy place would then be signs and portents of the earthquake under the Holy Place which will happen when Christ returns. In <em><a href='B:510 6:13-14'>Act 6:13-14</a></em> Stephen's enemies appear to have twisted his quotations of the Lord's Olivet prophecy to mean that Christ would destroy the "holy place" s:w. "places" here in Matthew 24.</p><p><em>There shall be famines-</em></p><p>&nbsp;There was an acute famine in Israel during Elijah's ministry of three and a half years, as part of God's appeal for Israel to repent and respond to Elijah's message (<em><a href='B:490 4:25'>Luk 4:25</a></em>). And so it will be in the final three and a half year tribulation. Likewise it was famine which led the prodigal to repent and return to the Father (<em><a href='B:490 15:14'>Luk 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:17'>Luk 15:17</a></em>), a clear prototype of Israel's repentance. And perhaps the greatest prototype of their repentance is in the coming of Joseph's brothers to bow before Him; and this too was provoked by famine throughout the region around Israel (<em><a href='B:510 7:11'>Act 7:11</a></em>). There will be a purpose in all the sufferings which precede the Lord's return- and that purpose is to bring about Israel's repentance, which is the key condition required for His second coming. There were indeed major famines in the lead up to AD70 (<em><a href='B:510 11:28'>Act 11:28</a></em> "a great famine throughout all the world"); again, the signs which depended upon Divine intervention were fulfilled in the first century, but those which depended upon Israel and the believers did not, because they chose not to. And thus the second coming was delayed. “In the reign of the Emperor Claudius (AD41-54) there were four seasons of great scarcity. In the fourth year of his reign, the famine in Judea was so severe that the price of food became enormous and great numbers perished. Earthquakes occurred in each of the reigns of Caligula and Claudius” (R. C. Sproul,&nbsp;<em>The Last Days According to Jesus</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids, MI, 2000: Baker Books), p. 36). Paul encourages his first century readers that famine and other elements of the Olivet predictions would not separate believers from the love of God- as if he expected those signs to be fulfilled in their lifetimes (<em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>). The seals of Revelation 6 are full of reference to the Olivet predictions, as if they could all have been fulfilled in the first century (<em><a href='B:730 6:8'>Rev 6:8</a></em> speaks specifically of "famine"). Famine can come quicker than ever in our modern world, where most countries depend upon imported food; and this is especially the case in the area around Israel, where the climate doesn't enable the support of the relatively large population living in the area without food being imported. This explains how Babylon's famine comes in one day (<em><a href='B:730 18:8'>Rev 18:8</a></em>). This could never have been possible in the ancient world, where famine required a period of time to develop. Just as Israel initially experienced the early plagues upon Egypt, so it may be that the judgments poured out upon the Arab? world at the very end do initially affect Israel too, and lead them to repentance:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>These things are the beginning of the birth pains</em>-</p><p> The term is used of the Lord's suffering, which came to term in His resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 2:24'>Act 2:24</a></em>)- another hint that the tribulation is intended to bring those who endure it to an identity with the Lord's sufferings, and thus to share in His resurrection. There is therefore a positive intention in the sufferings. They are not merely an angry Deity releasing pent up anger upon the world. The term is also used in <em><a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a></em>, in a section full of allusion to the Olivet prophecy: "When they shall say peace and safety, then sudden destruction comes upon them, as&nbsp;<em>travail</em>&nbsp;s:w. "sorrows" upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape". This suggests that the various trials and tribulations just listed by the Lord are going to come suddenly- they don't describe decades of such things leading up to His return. Rather do they therefore describe a sudden situation which comes at a time of "peace and safety". They may therefore describe the events of days rather than years. The Lord within the Olivet prophecy had spoken of the possibility of "escape" by fleeing, but "they shall&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;escape"- because they will be disobedient to His teaching. The intention of the birth pangs is to forge an identity between the sufferers and the crucified Christ, coming to birth in a resurrection like his. But for these people, the birth pangs are tragic, resulting in death rather than resurrection to life.</p><p>The Lord is surely alluding to the Rabbinic idea of "the birth-pangs of the Messiah" which they used in description of the traumatic situation in Israel before Messiah’s appearance. The Jewish public had initially expected Jesus to be Messiah, and felt that their time was indeed the birth-pangs of Messiah. But the Lord is saying that that time is yet to come. Seeing He did not come in AD70, we are again left to understand this as a reference to a situation&nbsp;<em>in Israel</em>&nbsp;which brings about the open manifestation of Messiah.</p>


text:
<p>13:9&nbsp;<em>But be warned. For they shall deliver you up to councils, and in synagogues they shall beat you, and before governors and kings shall you stand for my sake, to bear witness before them</em>-</p><p> The Lord predicted that His people would be cast out of the synagogues, as if He was happy that Christianity remained a sect of Judaism until such time as Judaism wouldn’t tolerate it. His prediction that His people would be beaten in synagogues (<em><a href='B:480 13:9'>Mar 13:9</a></em>) implies they would still be members, for the synagogues only had power to discipline their own members, not the general public. The Lord had no fear of ‘guilt by association’ with wrong religious views such as there were within Judaism. They were to be "delivered up" just as the Lord was 'betrayed' s:w. 10:4; 20:18,19; 26:2,15,16,21,23,24,25,45,46,48; 27:3,4; 17:22 "the Son of Man shall be betrayed" to the Jews and 'delivered up' to the Gentiles s:w. 27:18,26,2 "delivered Him to Pontius Pilate" for suffering, death- and thereby to resurrection. Again, there is an attempt to make those enduring these things identify with Him in His time of suffering. They too would be delivered up to both Jews and Gentiles- to synagogues Jews; 10:17; <em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em> and to prisons, rulers and kings Gentiles; <em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:9'>Mar 13:9</a></em>. Clearly the Lord had in mind a first century fulfilment of His words, but as we have seen, not all the signs fulfilled in the first century and the Lord's&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;did not literally happen when the temple was destroyed. We therefore have to look to a re-scheduled fulfilment of these words in the persecution of the disciples in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>13:10&nbsp;<em>And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations</em>-</p><p> This could be read as a commandment, not a mere prediction. In this case, the idea is that&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;the Gospel is preached to all the world, then “the end comes”. The marvel is that this amazing preaching will be undertaken by a minority within the believing community, since, according to the preceding verses, the majority will have fallen away. And even amongst those who remain faithful, some will be in prison, others killed. It could be argued that this Gospel preaching occurs specifically during the tribulation period. If we were to take the Gospel to the whole world now, then perhaps this would not be necessary. But in the first century, it was persecution which was necessary to get the disciples to obey their Lord’s command to spread the Gospel outwards from Jerusalem to the world. And it was persecution which made the fleeing Jewish Christians rub shoulders with Gentiles, and thus share the Gospel with them:&nbsp;</p><p>"All the nations" is "in the whole world" in Matthew. The first century fulfilment of these words mentioned in <em><a href='B:520 10:18'>Rom 10:18</a></em> and <em><a href='B:580 1:6'>Col 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:26'>Col 1:26</a></em> was because there was the potential that the Lord could have come in AD70. But the Greek word literally means ‘the inhabited’, and more naturally refers to the whole planet. He envisaged the possibility that the disciples would not have gone preaching over the cities of Israel before the end came (<em><a href='B:470 10:23'>Mat 10:23</a></em>). But He did come in AD70, and so the Lord's words here about a genuine worldwide witness must come true before He returns. Note the Gospel is to be preached “in”,&nbsp;<em>en</em>, all the world, and not ‘to’ the whole world. This may envisage there being believers in all the world who preach where they are. This would nowhere near have been fulfilled in the first century. Also, <em><a href='B:580 1:6'>Col 1:6</a></em> speaks of the Gospel having gone to the&nbsp;<em>kosmos</em>, whereas <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em> requires the Gospel to be preached in the&nbsp;<em>oikoumene</em>:&nbsp;<em>Kosmos</em>&nbsp;is frequently used in the NT with reference to the&nbsp;<em>Jewish</em>&nbsp;world:&nbsp;<em>Oikoumene</em>&nbsp;has a more global and universal context and sense. <em><a href='B:480 13:10'>Mar 13:10</a></em> says that the Gospel must be published “among all nations” (Gk:&nbsp;<em>ethnos</em>), and this hardly occurred by AD70. Some parts of the Olivet prophecy had a limited application in the first century (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 10:18'>Mat 10:18</a></em>), but this doesn't mean that this is the&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;fulfilment of it. It is a feature of prophecy that it often has a short term fulfilment in order to validate the prophet in the eyes of his own generation. It would be strange indeed if the Olivet prophecy had&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;a short term fulfilment.</p><p>The great commission bids us go into all the world with Gospel; note the evident connection with <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>: "This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come":&nbsp; This definitely suggests that the great commission will be mightily obeyed in the last days. There are many other Biblical implications that there will be an unprecedented spread of the Gospel to the whole planet in the last days. Thus <em><a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a></em> speaks of a time in the very last days when “many shall run to and fro (an idiom often used concerning response to God's word: <em><a href='B:230 119:32'>Psa 119:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:60'>Psa 119:60</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 147:15'>Psa 147:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 8:11-12'>Amo 8:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 2:2'>Hab 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a></em> Gk:), and knowledge shall be increased the context is of Daniel wanting to understand about the second coming of Jesus... many shall be purified, and made white, and tried (in the tribulation); but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand" . This increase of knowledge of the Gospel is to be spread world-wide by many running to and fro in the last days. The great commission will be fulfilled then as never before. <em><a href='B:340 11:32-33'>Dan 11:32-33</a></em> speaks of how in the time of the end "The people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits... instruct many”. &nbsp;Before every 'coming' of the Lord there has been a period of persecution and zealous preaching: Noah preached righteousness before the flood, as Lot probably tried to before the Lord's coming down in judgment on Sodom (would God have wrought such wholesale destruction without giving the people a chance to repent? Cp. Nineveh and Jonah). The schools of the prophets preached from the street corners and temple steps to warn of the coming of the day of the Lord at the hand of the Babylonians and Assyrians. And of course the dramatic coming of the Lord in judgment upon Israel in AD70, was heralded by Paul and his committed band of zealots staging the greatest preaching campaigns this world has seen. The crucial question, of course, is whether the Gospel has truly gone into all the world. One perspective to bear in mind is that in the preaching of Paul, ecclesias which he founded are taken as representing a whole area- e.g. Philippi is called "Macedonia" (<em><a href='B:570 4:15'>Phi 4:15</a></em>); Thessalonica is "Macedonia and Achaia" (<em><a href='B:590 1:7'>1Th 1:7</a></em>); Corinth is Achaia (<em><a href='B:530 16:15'>1Co 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a></em>); Ephesus for Asia (<em><a href='B:520 16:5'>Rom 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:8'>2Co 1:8</a></em>). In this sense Paul felt that he had fully preached the Gospel in a circle, moving from Jerusalem through Asia to Rome, and projecting onwards to Spain. Perhaps the Gospel goes into all the world in the sense that believers, however small in number, are to be found world-wide. And that seems to be where we're now up to in the 21st century.</p><p>Paul seems to have seen in Christ's prophecy that the Gospel would be fully known world-wide in the last as being a specific, personal command to him (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>):&nbsp;He saw prophecy as command more than solely prediction; and this is why prophecy has a degree of variation in how and when it is fulfilled. The words of <em><a href='B:480 16:15-16'>Mar 16:15-16</a></em> are clear: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Commands to repent, all men, the Lord’s resurrection... these ideas all recur in <em><a href='B:510 17:30'>Act 17:30</a></em>, proving they are not solely relevant to those who first heard them; God now commands all men to repent, through our words. These words clearly don't apply to the first century only, for they are intended to be linked with <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>, which uses the same language about the preaching work of the very last days (even though the context may imply that as a community we will only be obedient to this command once egged on by major persecution). What all this means is that the great commission will be fulfilled in the last days. The connection with the great commission means that the Lord sent out the disciples in order to fulfil this aspect of the Olivet prophecy; but their failure to do the job fully meant that the prophecy had to be delayed and rescheduled in fulfilment.</p>


text:
<p>13:11&nbsp;<em>Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial-&nbsp;</em>The very language of the Lord's final sufferings, which will be fellowshipped / experienced in the latter day tribulation (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 22:54'>Luk 22:54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:1'>Luk 23:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:32'>Luk 23:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:28'>Joh 18:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:4'>Joh 19:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:13'>Joh 19:13</a></em>).</p><p><em>Do not worry beforehand about what to say-&nbsp;</em>A major theme of the Sermon on the Mount is not to be anxious; 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:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Say whatever shall be given you in that hour-&nbsp;</em>"Given you" is language appropriate to Moses and prophets like Jeremiah; it is here applied to the Lord's generally secular followers (<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>). He was continually encouraging them to see that ministries which they had never considered possible of realistic emulation 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>. They misunderstood the great commission- they 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><p><em>For it is not you that will speak but the Holy Spirit</em>-</p><p> Even although “we do not know how to pray for as we ought, the Spirit himself intercedes 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 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 this idea of not us by the Spirit speaking.</p><p><em><a href='B:470 10:20'>Mat 10:20</a></em> says that the Spirit will speak "in you", not, as we might expect, ‘through you’. 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. 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. But the Lord’s followers were to be a new Moses, new prophets, a new priesthood, a new Israel.</p><p>Luke adds here: "For I will give you the words and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to contradict" (<em><a href='B:490 21:15'>Luk 21:15</a></em>). This is alluding to <em><a href='B:20 4:12'>Exo 4:12</a></em>, where God tells Moses at the time of the Egyptian persecution of God's people, "I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say". This persecution lead to intensified prayer to God, resulting in&nbsp;the deliverance of the suffering saints at Passover time, after a period of especial distress and 'time of trouble' for the surrounding world due to the plagues. After this deliverance, God's people went into the wilderness and were declared God's Kingdom. We have earlier shown how all these events form a remarkable latter day prophecy. This verse also suggests that the gifts of the Spirit may be given to some in the Elijah ministry in order to enable them to make a more powerful witness (as in <em><a href='B:730 11:6'>Rev 11:6</a></em>). The fact they are given personally by Christ would indicate that in some way, Christ is already back at this stage. Time and again we will see how the prophecies of events in the last days are ambiguous as to whether Christ is already back at the time of their fulfilment, or whether they herald his return. Seeing that we will never know the exact time of Christ's return, this is understandable. Similarly Joel 2 prophesies the pouring out of the gifts "before the great and terrible day of the Lord" (:31). Malachi surely refers to this passage when prophesying the Elijah ministry "before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:460 4:5'>Mal 4:5</a></em>). This suggests that the three and a half year Elijah ministry of the last days (<em><a href='B:660 5:17'>Jas 5:17</a></em>) will be accompanied by Spirit gifts, and will coincide with the time of persecution. Note that the gifts were given "before the day of the Lord" in AD70 too. It is possible that because of this possession of the gifts by 'Elijah', false teachers within the ecclesia at the end will also claim to possess them (<em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>), so convincingly that all but the elect within the ecclesia will be duped into following them. Yet it must be stressed that it is a feature of the gifts that they are unmistakable and obvious to identify (cp. <em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>); it will be evident enough if and when they are poured out in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>13:12&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</em>-</p><p> Again, the final sufferings of the Lord Jesus will be experienced within natural and spiritual Israel. <em><a href='B:400 7:2-9'>Mic 7:2-9</a></em> is a clear prophecy of Christ's sufferings. But embedded in it are words which are quoted in <em><a href='B:490 21:16'>Luk 21:16</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 10:36'>Mat 10:36</a></em> concerning the latter day tribulation of the believers: "The son dishonours the father... a man's enemies are the men of his own house”. In similar manner, some of the prophecies of Israel's latter day sufferings speak in the same context of those of Christ. <em><a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a></em> is an example: "…he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel (Christ) with a rod upon the cheek". The whole of Amos 5 can be scanned for connections with both the future tribulation of Israel, and also the sufferings of Christ.</p><p>"Deliver up" is a term used about the Lord’s delivering to death, just as ‘to cause to be put to death’ is used of His death (<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><p>This prophecy did not have major fulfilment in AD70, at least not betrayal "unto death". The scale of the rift within families, unto death, was not seen then within the Christian community. We are left to envisage a situation where family members are pressurized to hand over their other family members to death for the sake of their loyalty to Christ. This sounds like Islamist domination of areas, with this demand made; and that is developed further in Revelation.</p>


text:
<p>13:13&nbsp;<em>And you shall be hated by all for my name's sake; but he that endures to the end, the same shall be saved</em>-</p><p> Matthew: "hated by all nations":&nbsp; But the Gospel will then be preached to “all nations” (<em><a href='B:480 13:10'>Mar 13:10</a></em>). It seems that the persecution will result in preaching, perhaps through highly publicized legal cases. If the Gospel is taken to all nations, then this will not need to happen. "For my Name’s sake" is a&nbsp;phrase which rarely occurs outside of the Olivet prophecy; one other time is in the upper room discourse, which is John’s parallel with the Olivet prophecy as recorded in the synoptic Gospels. Here we read again that the believers will be “hated… for My Name’s sake” (<em><a href='B:500 15:18'>Joh 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:21'>Joh 15:21</a></em>). But in John 15 the Lord seems to be angling His words not just to the twelve, but to all in Him; for His reasoning is that the world’s attitude to Him will be their attitude to us, and all in Him will suffer as He did. Again we can conclude that John, the latest of the Gospels, was re-adjusting the emphasis of the Olivet prophecy, knowing that it had been rescheduled and would not fully come true in an early coming of Christ in the first century. Those who endure the tribulation to the end will be saved in that they will be part of that unique generation which shall never die, but shall be "saved" by being changed to immortality at the Lord's return.</p><p>The Olivet prophecy as recorded in Mark 13 has many allusions to the sufferings of our Lord, thereby suggesting that our sufferings during the coming tribulation will make us fellowship the cross as never before. The whole idea of darkness, earthquake, open graves, rocks shaking etc, which we read of in the Olivet and other last day prophecies is evidently the language of the crucifixion. The description of suffering before "the end" comes (<em><a href='B:480 13:7'>Mar 13:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:13'>Mar 13:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>) invites connection with Christ's death also being described as " the end”, coming as it did after a period of suffering (<em><a href='B:470 26:58'>Mat 26:58</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:37'>Luk 22:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em>). This connection is strengthened by the way in which each record of the Olivet prophecy leads straight on into the sufferings of the Lord Jesus. There is to be a “little while” between the death of those persecuted in the last days, and the coming of the Lord; using the very same word which John uses for the “little while” of the three days of the Lord’s death (<em><a href='B:730 6:11'>Rev 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:16-19'>Joh 16:16-19</a></em>). Revelation 12 speaks of how the dead bodies of the tribulation victims will rest for three and a half days, just as the Lord’s body did. They will fully fellowship His death and therefore His resurrection. Similarly, the idea of all God's word being fulfilled by the Lord's death (<em><a href='B:490 24:44'>Luk 24:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:18'>Act 3:18</a></em>) follows on from the prophecy that all will be fulfilled at the time of suffering which heralds the second coming (<em><a href='B:490 21:22'>Luk 21:22</a></em>). <em><a href='B:470 24:13'>Mat 24:13</a></em> commends those who endure to the end- of the great tribulation. The same word occurs in <em><a href='B:650 12:2-3'>Heb 12:2-3</a></em> about Christ enduring the cross- we fellowship the cross during the last day tribulation. The word in <em><a href='B:470 24:29'>Mat 24:29</a></em> for “the tribulation” is used in <em><a href='B:580 1:24'>Col 1:24</a></em> about the afflictions of Christ. And as the Lord’s critics could not find a way to answer Him, so in our tribulation, all our adversaries will not be able to gainsay us (<em><a href='B:490 21:15'>Luk 21:15</a></em>). The Lord in <em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:4'>Joh 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em> used the term “the hour” to refer both to the ‘hour’ of His own sufferings, and the ‘hour’ of tribulation for His people. He clearly saw what He was about to endure as being repeated in the latter day tribulation of those for whom He was about to die.</p><p>The other tribulation prophecies, notably in Revelation, are also shot through with allusions to Christ's passion.</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>"They shall deliver you up to the councils...</td><td>As Christ to the Sanhedrin</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>beaten...</td><td>Christ buffeted</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>rulers and kings for a testimony...</td><td>Chief priests, Herod, Pilate</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>brother shall betray the brother...</td><td>Judas; Peter's denial?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>turn back to take up his garment...</td><td>John Mark's linen garment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>false Christs...</td><td>Barabbas 'son of the father'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the sun shall be darkened...</td><td>As at the crucifixion</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>watch and pray...</td><td>"Watch with me"; Gethsemane</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at even...</td><td>Last Supper</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at midnight...</td><td>Gethsemane</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at the cock crowing...</td><td>Peter's denials</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>in the morning...</td><td>Trial and crucifixion</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>find you sleeping"</td><td>Disciples in Gethsemane</td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<p>13:14&nbsp;<em>But when you see the abomination-&nbsp;</em>The word is mainly used elsewhere about the abominations of the Babylon system (<em><a href='B:730 17:4-5'>Rev 17:4-5</a></em>). I would suggest that once the rescheduling of Christ's return was decided by God, the Gospel of John was issued, with its more spiritual interpretation of the Olivet prophecy in terms of the Comforter, and the teaching that the principles of the tribulation are to be lived out throughout the lives of believers. And John was likewise inspired with the prophecy of Revelation, which is clearly based upon the Olivet prophecy and provides further details as to how the prophecy is to be fulfilled in the last days, with the events of AD70 being a partial fulfilment in order to give the prophecy credibility with the generation that first received it. This would be according to the Mosaic principle that a prophet could be judged as true if his words came true- requiring a primary fulfilment of all long term prophecies.</p><p><em>Of desolation-&nbsp;</em>The placing of the abomination is what will bring about the desolation. On Revelation 17, 18 I suggest that the whore Babylon will enthrone herself in Jerusalem, through the building of some Islamic and blasphemous religious building or capital there. And this will lead to her desolation. Luke records the Lord as saying that&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;Jerusalem was surrounded by armies,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;His people should know that the "desolation" of it was near. The desolation is therefore of Jerusalem rather than specifically the temple (<em><a href='B:490 21:20'>Luk 21:20</a></em>). The abominating desolation could therefore refer to the invading armies. Seeing&nbsp;<em>them&nbsp;</em>was the signal to flee. "Abomination" in the Old Testament typically refers to idolatry or paganism. One interpretation is that the desolator would place some pagan religious symbol in the temple. But this is the sign to flee, and this was only done by the Romans after the city had fallen. That, therefore, doesn’t really fit the requirements of the prophecy. The AD70 interpretation notes the pagan standards of the Roman legions, but even they were not placed in the temple. This was defended until the end, until the Romans forced entry, pulled it down and burnt it. As with many details of this prophecy, a future fulfilment is required. And yet we need to note that such desolation was only a visual reflection of the abomination the Jews had committed in the temple: "Because of the evil of your doings, and because of the&nbsp;<em>abominations&nbsp;</em>which ye have committed; therefore is your land a&nbsp;<em>desolation&nbsp;</em>and an astonishment, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at this day" (<em><a href='B:300 44:22'>Jer 44:22</a></em>). The abomination which caused desolation may not simply refer to some pagan symbols in the temple area. Josephus records that the Jewish zealots came into the Most Holy place, "placed an imposter in office as high priest, and ordained unqualified misfits to the priesthood" (<em>The Jewish Wars</em>&nbsp;4:3:6–9; 4:5:4). The pagan Idumeans were invited into the Most Holy by the zealots in order to murder the chief priest Annas.</p><p>The word "desolation" is used again about the desolation of the Babylon system (<em><a href='B:730 17:16'>Rev 17:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:19'>Rev 18:19</a></em>). Yet Babylon will be judged according to what it did to God's people- the judgment for 'desolating' will be 'desolation'. Yet the Olivet prophecy clearly intended the Roman armies to be the means of the desolation, but I suggest that Revelation extends the prophecy by giving more detail, and describing the system of desolation as 'Babylon'. And that system clearly has similarities with Rome- it could have been fulfilled in Rome, but because the fulfilment of the prophecy was rescheduled, we can look for another equivalent of the enigmatic 'Babylon' of the last days. The "desolation" referred to is clearly to be understood as the fulfilment of <em><a href='B:340 9:26-27'>Dan 9:26-27</a></em> LXX, which says that the abomination that desolates will come "after the cutting off of Messiah the Prince". Whilst how long "after" is not defined, we are surely intended to understand that the desolating abomination comes soon after the death of Messiah:&nbsp; "The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and&nbsp;<em>the end&nbsp;</em>thereof ("then shall&nbsp;<em>the end</em>&nbsp;come", <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>) shall be with a flood, ("as the days of Noah..."), and unto&nbsp;<em>the end&nbsp;</em>shall be war;&nbsp;<em>desolations&nbsp;</em>are determined . . . and upon the temple of&nbsp;<em>abominations&nbsp;</em>shall come one that makes&nbsp;<em>desolate&nbsp;</em>(cp. "your house is left unto you desolate", <em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>),&nbsp; even unto the consummation, and that determined shall be poured out upon the desolated" (LXX). And yet note that that prophecy itself had had various potential fulfilments which didn’t come true. So it is fair to think that it could have had a fulfilment in AD70, but this was again deferred- for the same reason as ever, Israel’s lack of repentance.</p><p><em>Standing where it should not-&nbsp;</em>In Jerusalem, on the temple mount; "in the holy place" (Mt:). On Revelation 17, 18 I suggest that the whore Babylon will enthrone herself in Jerusalem, through the building of some Islamic and blasphemous religious building or capital there. And this will lead to her desolation. The contrast is with the Lamb who will descend to the temple mount and "stand" there s:w. <em><a href='B:730 14:1'>Rev 14:1</a></em>. This will be the final showdown between the real Christ and the fake one, as likewise foreseen in the prophecy of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2, where again the place of showdown is the temple. For this to be a sign to the believers to flee to the mountains, any application to the triumphant Roman legions placing their standards in the temple at the&nbsp;<em>end</em>&nbsp;of the Jewish war is precluded. And historically, it is doubtful whether that happened, as the temple was burnt with fire and the legions were told&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to do this.</p><p><em>(Let him that reads understand)</em>-</p><p> The vast majority of first century believers were likely illiterate. So this may be an appeal to teachers to correctly understand and teach. The Lord speaks in a latter day context about “let him that reads understand” Daniel’s prophecies- referring to the special gift of understanding them which Daniel himself was told would come in the very end time. But note the parallels in the Lord’s teaching here: “Let him… understand… let him… not go down… let him… not return… let them… flee”. The understanding He refers to is not merely academic. It is the understanding that will lead to concrete action.</p><p>The Lord's Olivet prophecy as recorded by Mark has so many allusions to the Maccabean revolt under Mattathias ("the abomination", flight to the hills, "let the reader understand" and many other phrases are all quotations from 1 Maccabees 1-3). But in this context the Lord warns of false Messiahs- as if He considered the Maccabean heroes to be just that. And interestingly it is Mark more than any other Gospel writer who stresses the Messiahship of Jesus throughout the crucifixion record. A crucified Messiah was to the Jews a contradiction in terms. The idea of Jewish revolutionaries marching triumphantly to Jerusalem to liberate it was common in Jewish thought at the time- but Luke emphasizes that Christ's last journey to Jerusalem and triumphant entry to it was in fact in order to die the death of the cross there. The battle had been redefined by the Lord Jesus- not against Rome, but against internal sin and Jewish religious hypocrisy. Victory was by self-crucifixion, not military might. This was just too much for Jewish nationalism, just as legalists today end up baying for the blood of those who preach grace and not works:&nbsp; See on <em><a href='B:650 5:6'>Heb 5:6</a></em>.</p><p>There are a number of hints that there will be a progressive growth in Biblical understanding amongst the latter day faithful. In the spirit of <em><a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a></em>, Habakkuk was told that the full understanding of his vision concerning the latter day judgment of Babylon was "yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie", and&nbsp;<em>at that time</em>&nbsp;the one who reads and understands it will "run" - using the same idiom as in <em><a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a></em> concerning the latter day believers 'running' in response to their understanding of God's word (<em><a href='B:420 2:2-3'>Hab 2:2-3</a></em>). The Olivet prophecy repeatedly talks about 'seeing' or (Gk:) understanding things and then acting upon this knowledge. The English translation somewhat masks this. Thus <em><a href='B:470 24:15'>Mat 24:15</a></em> "Whoso&nbsp;<em>reads</em>" uses a Greek word which really means to recognize, distinguish- and he who recognizes, understands, let him " understand" or, better,&nbsp;<em>meditate</em>. Or again, "When you shall see (Greek, to know, perceive) the abomination that makes desolate..." (<em><a href='B:470 24:15'>Mat 24:15</a></em>). This might suggest that the "abomination" isn't necessarily something physical. The idea seems to be 'When you understand that the abomination that makes desolate is in place, then…', rather than 'When you see (physically) on the telly or in the newspaper an abomination in Jerusalem, then... do something about it':&nbsp; "When you shall see (Gk. perceive, understand) all these things, (then you will) know that it is near" (<em><a href='B:470 24:33'>Mat 24:33</a></em>). "Behold (same Greek: perceive, comprehend) the fig tree..." (<em><a href='B:490 21:29'>Luk 21:29</a></em>). The emphasis is undoubtedly on the need for understanding of the signs, not just observing them.</p><p>“Let him that reads understand” is inviting us to be like Daniel in <em><a href='B:340 9:22-25'>Dan 9:22-25</a></em>, who also wanted to understand the meaning of the “abomination” prophecy. But he was told that the meaning of that vision about the abomination that desolates would only be revealed in the very last days, i:e. at the time of its fulfilment (<em><a href='B:340 8:17'>Dan 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 8:26'>Dan 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:9'>Dan 12:9</a></em>). The implication of all this is that there will be believing Jews living in the Jerusalem area at the time of the setting up of the abomination; and they will have special understanding of this prophecy which will lead them to flee. The importance of this for our present study is that this indicates that there will be believers in Israel just before the Lord returns. They will have “understanding” and will be motivated by this to respond. “<em>Let him</em>… understand” is paralleled with “<em>let him</em>&nbsp;that is on the housetop flee immediately…&nbsp;<em>let him&nbsp;</em>that is in the field not return”. Understanding leads to action- both then and now.</p><p><em>Then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains</em>-</p><p> This is the equivalent of the plea in Revelation to flee out of Babylon, the latter day Islamic complex to be built in Jerusalem on the temple mount.</p><p>The same word was used by the Lord in introducing the Olivet prophecy in <em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>: "How can you&nbsp;<em>escape</em>&nbsp;the condemnation of Gehenna?". The way of escape was through obedience to His word. Clearly the Lord intended His words to be fulfilled in that immediate generation; but fleeing to the mountains did not bring ultimate salvation because the Lord did not return as intended. His coming has been rescheduled, and perhaps utter salvation for the Jewish remnant in the land will likewise depend upon 'fleeing'. The Old Covenant had specified that Israel would flee before their enemies if they broke the covenant; the command to 'flee' may therefore be an invitation to accept guilt for their sin, and thereby be saved through the very act of recognizing the justice of their judgment. For this is the essence of the salvation of every man in Christ. It could be that <em><a href='B:730 12:6'>Rev 12:6</a></em> provides more details, in speaking of the faithful fleeing into the wilderness and thereby being saved. This was the way to flee the coming condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>). The Lord's words required some faith to accept, because if Jerusalem were surrounded by armies, how could the faithful flee? Josephus explains that the Roman legions did in fact withdraw for a time, allowing civilians to flee (B:J:2:19:6,7).</p><p><em>"</em>To the mountains" is better, 'toward'. Clearly this was capable of fulfilment in the Jewish war, in a fairly literal sense. But what is the latter day equivalent? "The mountains" could be an intensive plural for the one great, special, obvious mountain. The same word is found earlier in the chapter- the Lord is saying these words sitting on "the mount" of Olives (<em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>). And it is to that mount that He will return, according to <em><a href='B:510 1:12'>Act 1:12</a></em> and Zechariah 14. It could be, therefore, in a literal or figurative sense, an appeal to move towards the mount of Olives to meet Him at His return. Perhaps in a literal, geographical sense, that area will be the only area left by the invading armies, and they will surround the faithful Jewish remnant on that mount- and then the Lord shall come. But such speculation is unhelpful, because the principle of prophecy is that when it happens, then we shall understand. I do not believe we are intended to work out a sequence of events ahead of time. Indeed, given the conditional nature of Bible prophecy, that is impossible to do anyway:&nbsp;</p><p>As the faithful remnant were miraculously allowed to leave Sodom for the mountains, immediately unleashing the Divine judgments by doing so, the faithful Christian remnant were allowed to leave Jerusalem just before the final Roman onslaught of AD70, doubtless spurred on by their Lord's command: "Let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it (Jerusalem) depart out" (<em><a href='B:490 21:21'>Luk 21:21</a></em>). The reference to fleeing to the mountains would have suggested a conscious allusion back to&nbsp;the command to Lot to flee out of Sodom "to the mountain" (<em><a href='B:10 19:17'>Gen 19:17</a></em>):&nbsp;"Then let them which be in Judaea flee to the mountains" may mean that there will be Jewish believers in Jerusalem in the last days, seeing the whole prophecy has yet to be totally fulfilled (the AD70 application of these words was at best limited). <em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em> says that in the final tribulation of Israel, those Jews who are "written in the book", i:e. who are acceptable saints (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:27'>Rev 21:27</a></em>) will be delivered. So there will be a minority in latter day natural Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal, as in Elijah's time- which is typical of the situation at the latter day Elijah ministry. This is certainly encouragement enough to make witness to and within Israel a priority.</p>


text:
<p>13:15&nbsp;<em>And let him that is on the housetop-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The idea is that flight could be taken by jumping from housetop to housetop, without going back into the house. Escaping that way would best be done in any case without carrying anything. This is clearly language relevant specifically to first century Palestine, and is a parade example of how the prophecy was ideally intended for fulfilment then. The latter day fulfilment of these words will therefore only be in essence, rather than in detail. That is a principle we must bear in mind when considering many other Bible prophecies; the essence but not necessarily the detail will be fulfilled in the rescheduled and delayed version of their fulfilment. The implication of the language here and in :18 is that the sign to flee will be momentary; the signs are not, therefore, to be perceived over decades or even years, leading slowly towards the Lord’s coming. Rather these signs, especially of the abomination, will appear suddenly, to the extent that the believer must flee immediately, quite literally without a moment to lose.</p><p>But this reflection leads us to wonder whether the fleeing away in a split second, be it from the field or housetop, is more likely a reference to the need to respond immediately to the call to leave secular life and go to meet the Lord. The example of a person in the field (<em><a href='B:470 24:18'>Mat 24:18</a></em>) needing to leave immediately naturally connects with the words of <em><a href='B:470 24:40'>Mat 24:40</a></em> about the snatching away of the believers at the Lord’s return: “Two shall be in the field, the one shall be taken, and the other left”. This would dovetail well with the implication elsewhere that the immediacy of our response to the knowledge that ‘He’s back’ will effectively be our judgment. Those who themselves want to go to Him will be snatched away and meet Him, whilst those who delay will be rejected, as the foolish virgins who went first to buy oil.</p><p><em>Not go down, nor enter in to take anything out his house</em>-</p><p> The allusion is clearly to Lot fleeing Sodom, also “to the mountains”. This is a type of the response of the believers to the call to judgment at the Lord’s return. If we don’t separate from the world, we will share their judgment. The immediacy of response is so stressed, and will be ultimately indicative of where our heart Is. Any desire to gather any material possessions will reveal that our heart is not wholly and solely with the Lord. But the Greek could equally mean ‘to take anyone person out of his house / family’. This again is a high demand- the demand of the Sermon on the Mount, to put family in second place behind personal loyalty to the Lord Jesus. All who love the Lord in spirit and in truth will respond to the sign or call to leave with immediacy. They will know that in any case, they are powerless to drag their unbelieving family members with them.</p>


text:
<p>13:16&nbsp;<em>And let him that is in the field not return back to take his cloak</em>-</p><p> The immediacy of response is clear. Even grabbing an outer garment, equivalent of a jacket, would lead to unworthiness and destruction. The call to leave must be responded to immediately, with the faith that what clothing we have on is utterly irrelevant. This only really makes sense if the call or sign to escape is the call to judgment- and this verse connects with the words of <em><a href='B:470 24:40'>Mat 24:40</a></em> about the snatching away of the believers at the Lord’s return: “Two shall be in the field, the one shall be taken, and the other left”.</p>


text:
<p>13:17&nbsp;<em>But alas for women who are pregnant, and for those who are nursing infants in those days</em>-</p><p> This may well match Paul's warning against marrying&nbsp;in the last days in 1 Corinthians 7. He understood the Olivet prophecy as having the real prophecy of fulfilment in his generation. As He hung on the cross, our Lord quoted this part of His Olivet prophecy to the women who stood by (<em><a href='B:490 23:29'>Luk 23:29</a></em> “blessed are those who never gave suck” = <em><a href='B:470 24:19'>Mat 24:19</a></em> “Woe to them… who give suck”, s:w:), concerning the sufferings of the believers in the 'last days'. Here we see His matchless selflessness; going out of His own sufferings, to think, with anguish, how they would be experienced by His followers in the tribulation. "Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves... for if they do these things (to) a green tree (the spiritually healthy Lord Jesus), what shall be done (to) the dry", the spiritually barren tree of Israel. This is a superb essay in the Lord's selflessness and minimizing of his own sufferings: he felt that what he was going through was less than what the spiritually weak would have to go through in the AD70 tribulation (and that of the last days). In the other 11 occurrences of “woe” in Matthew, the objects of the “woe” are clearly the unfaithful and the condemned; this category of those “with child” are therefore not amongst those who obediently ‘flee’. <em><a href='B:490 21:23'>Luk 21:23</a></em> states that they would be amongst those who would suffer the “wrath upon this people”. In <em><a href='B:490 23:29'>Luk 23:29</a></em> the Lord clearly envisaged the women of His generation, the ones who lined the road to Golgotha, as experiencing the trauma He predicted in the Olivet prophecy. And yet it is clear enough that the final fulfilment is yet to come- because His coming was rescheduled.</p>


text:
<p>13:18&nbsp;<em>And pray that it is not in the winter</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s request for prayer indicates that the exact timing of events in the tribulation will be changeable in accordance with the fervency of our latter day prayers. Changeable time periods has been a feature of God’s prophetic dealings with Israel; and <em><a href='B:470 22:22'>Mat 22:22</a></em> is explicit that the intended number of days will be shortened. An AD70 application for this is hard to find; it may be that the exact timing of the Roman offer of amnesty was dependent on the intensity of prayer by the besieged Jerusalem ecclesia. That ecclesia, rent as they were by&nbsp;schism, false doctrine and materialism (if we accept the evidence that Hebrews was addressed to them) was a type of the faithful remnant of the last days. They were finally sorted out by the events of AD67 - 70, cp. the latter day tribulation.</p>


text:
<p>13:19&nbsp;<em>For those days shall cause distress, such as there has never been similar, from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never shall be again</em>-</p><p> The LXX uses this same word for "distress" or "tribulation2 in several passages pregnant with latter day significance:&nbsp;</p><p>“The day of my Jacob’s&nbsp;<em>distress</em>” at the hands of Esau (<em><a href='B:10 35:3'>Gen 35:3</a></em>)</p><p>“The&nbsp;<em>anguish</em>&nbsp;of his Joseph’s soul” at the hands of his half brethren and the Ishmaelites (<em><a href='B:10 42:21'>Gen 42:21</a></em>)</p><p>“I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and&nbsp;<em>troubles&nbsp;</em>shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?” (<em><a href='B:50 31:17'>Deu 31:17</a></em>)- a passage in the Song of Moses regarding Israel’s latter day tribulations:&nbsp;</p><p>“Thus says Hezekiah, This day is a day of&nbsp;<em>trouble</em>, and of rebuke, and blasphemy” (<em><a href='B:120 19:3'>2Ki 19:3</a></em>)- Sennacherib’s Assyrian invasion at this time was a clear prototype for the latter day invasion described in Ezekiel 38 and elsewhere:&nbsp;</p><p>“The time of Jacob’s&nbsp;<em>trouble</em>” from which he will be delivered (<em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>)</p><p>“There shall be a time of&nbsp;<em>trouble</em>, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time your people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book” (<em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em>). This time of trouble is specifically for Israel in the last days.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 13:19'>Mar 13:19</a></em> speaks of how "in those days" those in Judaea should flee to the mountains; "for&nbsp;<em>in those days</em>&nbsp;shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of creation... neither shall be (referring to <em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em> concerning our last days)... except that the Lord had shortened&nbsp;<em>those days</em>…&nbsp;<em>in those days</em>, after that tribulation…&nbsp;<em>then</em>shall they see the son of man coming". Surely “in those days" shouts for a continuous application to the same "days" - the days of the second coming. At best, "those days" can have a primary reference to the events of AD70, but the&nbsp;<em>main</em>&nbsp;fulfilment of the whole prophecy must be in the last days. This point seems impossible to answer by those who disallow any reference to the second coming.</p>


text:
<p>13:20&nbsp;<em>And except the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved-&nbsp;</em>"Saved" here ("there should no flesh be saved") implies 'delivered'; it will appear that none of us will survive the tribulation, "but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened" and we will be saved by the second coming. Thus <em><a href='B:680 3:12'>2Pe 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:15'>2Pe 3:15</a></em> reminds us that by our prayers and spiritual development, the days before the second coming will be shortened. If they were not, even the elect would lose their faith (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>)- showing how those of us who are alive at Christ's coming will&nbsp;<em>barely</em>&nbsp;survive the spiritual traumas of the last days. The virgins were sleeping when they should have been watching; and Peter says that the righteous in the last generation (see context) will&nbsp;<em>scarcely</em>&nbsp;be saved (<em><a href='B:670 4:18'>1Pe 4:18</a></em>). So it would appear that the days of the final tribulation will be shortened, although in another sense the coming of the Lord is delayed in order to allow our greater spiritual development (<em><a href='B:470 25:5'>Mat 25:5</a></em>). This ‘delay’ is why the harvest will be “over-ripe” for reaping (<em><a href='B:730 14:15'>Rev 14:15</a></em> RV)- or is this a reference to the lack of zeal of preachers to Israel in the last days, not harvesting the ready fruit? The Lord likens the final tribulation to the travail of a woman to bring forth her child. But we read in <em><a href='B:290 66:7-8'>Isa 66:7-8</a></em> in this same context of Israel’s latter day suffering: “Before she travailed, she brought forth: before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing?... for as soon as Zion travailed she brought forth her children”. This seems to imply that the expected period of Zion’s travail will be cut short, and she will give spiritual birth far quicker than expected. Perhaps the Lord was alluding to this passage when He spoke of how “the days” of Zion’s labour? shall be shortened.</p><p><em>But for the elect's sake, which He chose, He shortened the days</em>-</p><p> Both the Lord Jesus and Israel are called "the elect" (<em><a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 45:4'>Isa 45:4</a></em>); both are fulfilments of the servant songs in Isaiah. The days will be shortened for the elect's sake; for the sake of&nbsp;<em>Christ's</em>&nbsp;intercession, as well as ours. It’s tempting to understand “the elect” in the Olivet prophecy as referring specifically to the group of faithful believers or perhaps specifically Jewish ones who are alive and remain until the Lord’s coming. They are the ones who resist the temptation to be deceived in the very last days (<em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>) and who are snatched away at the Lord’s coming “from the four winds”, suggesting they are located worldwide (<em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>). We note that Christ on the cross was called by the same word&nbsp;<em>eklektos</em>-</p><p> “the elect / chosen of God” (<em><a href='B:490 23:35'>Luk 23:35</a></em>). This group will indeed have identified with His crucifixion sufferings. Perhaps this is the group of believers who are also specifically called “the elect” who fight on Mount Zion alongside Jesus against the armies of Israel’s enemies (<em><a href='B:730 17:14'>Rev 17:14</a></em>). In the immediate context, the elect or chosen ones were perhaps intended by the Lord to refer to the listening disciples. <em><a href='B:480 13:20'>Mar 13:20</a></em> labours the point: “For the elect’s sake&nbsp;<em>eklektos</em>, whom He has chosen / elected&nbsp;<em>eklegomai</em>”. The word is specifically used about the Lord’s choosing of the twelve (<em><a href='B:490 6:13'>Luk 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:70'>Joh 6:70</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:19'>Joh 15:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:2'>Act 1:2</a></em>). He imagined them being scattered to “the four winds” in their obedience to the great commission, but thanks to them, the days would be shortened and they themselves would be gathered to Him at His return. That was the Lord’s hope and ideal intention. It didn’t happen in the first century, and thus has some element of reapplication in a different context in our last days:&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>The vision will in one sense “not delay / tarry” (<em><a href='B:420 2:3'>Hab 2:3</a></em> RV). And yet the same verse speaks of how it does “tarry”. Perhaps in a human sense it delays, but not from God’s perspective. “It hasteth toward the end” (<em><a href='B:420 2:3'>Hab 2:3</a></em> RV) could imply that things are speeded up in their fulfilment in the very end time; for the elect’s sake the days until the second coming are shortened. And yet things are also delayed- the bridegroom tarries / delays, to the point that many realize that the Lord has delayed His coming, and begin to act inappropriately. One reconciliation of these paradoxes could be that some prophecies are speeded up in their fulfilment because of the elect would otherwise lose their faith; and yet other prophecies seem to be delayed in fulfilment because of the unspirituality of others:&nbsp; The possibility of changing the fulfilment of prophetic time periods is to be found in <em><a href='B:420 3:2'>Hab 3:2</a></em>: "In the midst of the years revive..."- i:e. please, God, do it immediately rather than waiting until the end of days.</p><p>The Lord’s description of the shortening of the days uses some rather odd past tenses: “Except the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved: but for the elect’s sake… he shortened the days” (<em><a href='B:480 13:20'>Mar 13:20</a></em> RV). One wonders if we have here an allusion back to the days of Noah, where again there was the possibility that no flesh would have been saved. The 150 days of flooding is perhaps the basis of <em><a href='B:730 9:10'>Rev 9:10</a></em>, where Israel is to have 150 days of tribulation at the hands of her Arab enemies in the last days. The connection between the passages would therefore seem to be teaching that the final 150 days tribulation will be shortened due to the repentance of the remnant.</p><p>For the elects' sake, the days to the second coming&nbsp;<em>will be</em>&nbsp;shortened (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>); but the Lord also said, perhaps in the same sentence, that the days&nbsp;<em>have already</em>&nbsp;been shortened (<em><a href='B:480 13:20'>Mar 13:20</a></em>). This shows that God conceives of time in a radically different way to how we do. The shortening of time in a sense hasn't take place, but in another sense it has. There can therefore be no trite explanation of how God can hasten the second coming in accordance with our prayers, and yet also have a set time to favour Zion. See on <em><a href='B:520 9:28-29'>Rom 9:28-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 9:10'>Rev 9:10</a></em>. This was typified in the Joseph story. "Then Joseph could not refrain himself..." (<em><a href='B:10 45:1'>Gen 45:1</a></em>) implies he planned to drag out the process of spiritually refining his brothers, but his love for them caused him to cut it short. "For the elect’s sake the days shall be shortened" by Christ (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>). The same Hebrew word in <em><a href='B:10 45:1'>Gen 45:1</a></em> is used in <em><a href='B:290 42:14'>Isa 42:14</a></em> about how God can no longer refrain Himself in the last days. The RV has: “had been shortened”, suggesting that maybe the Lord had already been in dialogue with the Father and secured a decrease in the Father’s original time period envisaged.</p>


text:
<p>13:21&nbsp;<em>And then if anyone shall say to you-&nbsp;</em>This again, spoken to the disciples, suggests that they were the ones who would see these things associated with the return of Christ. But they did not. And in any case, all twelve of them were being addressed, and one of them would turn away from Christ. So there was in any case a conditionality attached to the Lord’s words:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Look, here is the Christ or Look There he is- do not believe them</em>-</p><p> “Lo” AV suggests the actual pointing out of a person. “Here… or there” AV is poor translation, because the same original word is behind both “here” and “there”. The impression is given of people pointing out actual individuals and claiming that ‘This is Christ’. The faithful are to flee once the sign is obvious that Christ is about to be revealed, and in those days and they may literally be days or hours the world will know that Christ’s return is imminent, and therefore all manner of charlatans will start claiming ‘It’s me’. The relatively few claims to be Jesus Christ which are made today are hardly credible, no temptation at all for the faithful, and nearly always the person making the claim is mentally ill. But the Olivet prophecy suggests that these claims by false Christs will be so credible that even the faithful will be sorely tempted to believe them. The risk of deception would be so great that the Lord repeatedly warned against it. If there is some worldwide sign that Christ is about to return, perhaps literally in the sky, as “the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven”, then in those days, such claimants will have far more credibility. It could be that one claimant is particularly persuasive, leading to the final show down on Mount Zion between the true Christ and the anti-Christ, the fake duplicate of Christ.</p>


text:
<p>13:22&nbsp;<em>For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray (if possible) the elect</em>-</p><p> The Lord is virtually quoting the words of Moses in <em><a href='B:50 13:1'>Deu 13:1</a></em>: “When Heb:; AV “if” there arise among you a false prophet… and gives you a sign or wonder”. Even if signs are given, they are not to be believed; apparent miracles are no proof that a man is of God. The Lord is here asserting Himself as the new Moses. The appearance of miraculous “signs” was important in Judaism in order to identify Messiah- hence they asked the Lord to produce such signs (<em><a href='B:470 12:38'>Mat 12:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:1'>Mat 16:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:18'>Joh 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:48'>Joh 4:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:30'>Joh 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:22'>1Co 1:22</a></em> “the Jews require a sign”). The Lord had refused to respond, even though He had done many miracles. He said that “no sign” would be given to that generation apart from that of Jonah- i:e:, His resurrection. It was “a wicked and adulterous generation that seeks after a sign” (<em><a href='B:470 16:4'>Mat 16:4</a></em>). The disciples likewise assumed that there was to be such a “sign” predicting the Lord’s coming (<em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>). On one level it could be argued that the Lord’s answer is actually a refusal to give them such a miraculous “sign” from Him; rather did He give them descriptions of what would happen in the world. He had said the same, in essence, to the Jews when they demanded such a miraculous “sign” of Him; He said they would be given no such sign, but rather they were to discern the “signs s:w. of the times” (<em><a href='B:470 16:3-4'>Mat 16:3-4</a></em>). And this effectively is how He answers the disciples when at the beginning of the Olivet prophecy they likewise ask for a “sign”. He responds by giving them a list of “signs of the times”. However, it would seem from <em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em> that there will in fact be the “sign” of Messiah visible in the sky- but only in the very last few? days before the forcible establishment of His Kingdom. This will be in opposition to the “signs’ shown by the false prophets. More detail is given in <em><a href='B:730 13:13-14'>Rev 13:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:14'>Rev 16:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:20'>Rev 19:20</a></em> where we read of the beast system and false prophet doing signs by which they deceived the people in the earth / land. This is an expansion upon the Lord’s warning against being deceived by such signs. And the same scenario is found in <em><a href='B:600 2:9'>2Th 2:9</a></em>, where we find the man of sin sitting in the latter day temple doing “signs and lying wonders” (same words as here in <em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>), to be destroyed in the final conflict with the real Christ.</p><p>There is ample evidence that in the lead up to the Babylonian invasion which typifies that of the last days, Jeremiah had to work amid considerable opposition from false prophets who mocked his prophecies of impending Arab victory and the need to repent; they will have their counterparts among the ranks of modern Judaism in the last days (<em><a href='B:310 2:14'>Lam 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 20:6'>Jer 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 28:1-9'>Jer 28:1-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 29:24-26'>Jer 29:24-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 13:2-5'>Zec 13:2-5</a></em>). Perhaps it is such false prophets within Israel which our Lord spoke of in <em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>:&nbsp;But there’s no need to speculate too much- when these things come to pass, it will be crystal clear to those aware of the prophecy that we’ve now reached that stage. In the A:D:70 possibility of fulfilment, these people operated under the umbrella of fundamentalist Judaism, as they will in the last days:&nbsp;Their false bearing of the Lord's name (<em><a href='B:470 24:5'>Mat 24:5</a></em>) alludes back to the pseudo-prophets of Jeremiah's time doing the same (<em><a href='B:300 14:14'>Jer 14:14</a></em>):&nbsp;Zedekiah's trauma of being torn between wanting to accept the words of the false prophets whilst inwardly knowing the truth of Jeremiah's words, will perhaps be repeated in the leadership of latter-day Israel, to whom the Elijah ministry will teach the true word of God. The apparent mimicry of Jeremiah's style by the false prophets will perhaps be seen in the last days too.</p><p>The possibility of deception may be precluded by the fact that the elect, by reason of being the elect, will not be deceived. But there may also be the suggestion that it is impossible to deceive the elect because they are preserved from such deception. The Father and Son are willing and able to “keep you from falling” by sealing or preserving the faithful from such deception. The element of God’s work over and above human freewill effort is itself indicated by the very term “the elect”; those chosen, by God and not of themselves.</p><p>A major theme of the prophecy is the danger of being deceived (<em><a href='B:470 24:4-5'>Mat 24:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:11'>Mat 24:11</a></em>). The need for this urgent warning requires that the claimants have far more credibility than such persons have today.</p>


text:
<p>13:23&nbsp;<em>But be warned, I have told you all things beforehand</em>-</p><p> In place of the Olivet prophecy, John's gospel has the message about the Comforter. Through the gift of the Spirit, the Lord is present in our hearts with such reality that it is as if He were with us. All calls to go out and see Him here or there will therefore intuitively be found false by us. And the connection with the Comforter passages continues in this verse, with a clear link to <em><a href='B:500 14:29'>Joh 14:29</a></em>: "And now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe". The Lord was referring to the predictions of His sufferings and death; but here, the context is of the latter day tribulation. Those tribulations are to enable those who pass through them to fellowship with the sufferings and death of the Lord, that they might share in His immortality.</p><p>The intention of prophecy is that when it is fulfilled, then all is clear to the believers and they are thereby guided and strengthened. This will be particularly true in those last few days when the sign of the Son of Man is in the sky (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>), everyone somehow knows Christ is about to come- and inevitably false claimants will arise, perhaps one particular one will claim to be Christ and will go to battle against the real Christ. Hence the repetition of the Lord’s warning about not being deceived by this person or related claims.</p>


text:
<p>13:24&nbsp;<em>But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened-&nbsp;</em>After the tribulation, as it was when Jesus died (<em><a href='B:490 23:45'>Luk 23:45</a></em> s:w:). Israel’s tribulation will make them understand what He went through. The context has been the Lord’s insistence that His coming will be obviously visible, like lightening in the sky, and the reference to “the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven” / the sky (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>) would suggest that a literal sign in the sky is what the Lord has in mind. The allusion to the crucifixion would also require a literal element of fulfilment. The additional information given in <em><a href='B:730 8:12'>Rev 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 9:2'>Rev 9:2</a></em> suggests that this darkening of sun and stars happens progressively, although that may be over a period of only a few literal days. There are reports of such signs being seen over Jerusalem in the lead up to AD70, the appearance of comets etc. However it seems to me that Josephus had access to the Olivet prophecy and some of the wording of his historical claims is so similar to the Lord’s words that I personally doubt the degree of real fulfilment that was going on; rather do I suspect he was consciously alluding to the Lord’s words and wishing to see them fulfilled in the history he was recording. That is not the same thing as AD70 actually fulfilling in detail the Olivet prophecy.</p><p><em>And the moon shall not give her light</em>-</p><p> Joseph's dream clearly identifies these symbols as representing Israel. The passages which make this same identification are many: <em><a href='B:10 37:9-10'>Gen 37:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:5'>Gen 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 8:8-10'>Amo 8:8-10</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:400 3:6'>Mic 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:260 6:10'>Son 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 24:23'>Isa 24:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 33:20-26'>Jer 33:20-26</a></em>; JoeI 2:10,30-32; 3:15; <em><a href='B:510 2:20'>Act 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 6:12'>Rev 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 8:12'>Rev 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 12:1'>Rev 12:1</a></em>. <em><a href='B:300 31:35-36'>Jer 31:35-36</a></em> is likely the Old Testament passage the Lord specifically had in mind: "Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, who divides the sea when the waves thereof roar; the Lord of hosts is his name. If those ordinances depart from before me, says the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever". Only here do we find "sun, moon, and stars" combined with "sea and waves roaring" as in the Olivet prophecy in Luke 21. In Luke He spoke of "On the earth distress of&nbsp;<em>nations&nbsp;</em>(Gentile nations causing distress in the earth / land of Israel) with perplexity… men's hearts failing them for fear and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (or land, of Israel)”. The Greek word translated "perplexity" is used in the LXX concerning the final tribulation of Israel (<em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:22'>Deu 28:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:30'>Isa 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 8:20'>Isa 8:20</a></em> LXX):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:25&nbsp;<em>And the stars shall fall from heaven and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken</em>-</p><p> The Greek phrase is used only elsewhere in <em><a href='B:730 6:13'>Rev 6:13</a></em>. This vision is clearly an expansion upon the Olivet prophecy. There, the stars fall “as a fig tree casts her unripe figs”. This too is the language of the Olivet prophecy (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>). The lack of spiritual maturity in Israel is related to the stars of Israel- see on&nbsp;<em>Sun... moon... stars</em>&nbsp;falling. The appearance of comets would certainly give the impression of falling stars, and I suggest that the main fulfilment will be in terms of things visibly seen in the sky, as hard proof to all the world that the Lord Jesus is returning.</p><p>The events of judgment day will be a ‘shaking’ of the world, including the faithful (<em><a href='B:490 6:48'>Luk 6:48</a></em> the house built on the rock could not be “shaken”, s:w:). <em><a href='B:650 12:26-27'>Heb 12:26-27</a></em> surely allude here, saying that just as the earth shook when the old covenant was instituted, so the “heavens” would also be shaken. The suggestion of the context is that this day of shaking both heaven and earth was almost upon the readership- who were Hebrews, Jewish Christians.</p>


text:
<p>13:26&nbsp;<em>And then shall they see the Son of Man-&nbsp;</em>In Matthew, when “all the tribes of the earth / land mourn in repentance… then shall they see the Son of man coming”. Some in Israel must repent before Christ returns. The Lord refers to this in speaking to the Jews who crucified Him: "You shall see s:w. the Son of Man... coming in the clouds of Heaven" (<em><a href='B:470 26:64'>Mat 26:64</a></em>). They would see that all too late, as part of the process of their condemnation- to realize it was all true, and it is too late to do anything about it. The Lord had earlier used the same idea, in saying that that group would only "see" Him again when they said "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:490 13:35'>Luk 13:35</a></em>). They would see that and say that all too late. The Lord's words clearly suggest they of that generation would see His return in glory. But His coming was delayed, and they did not. But they will at the last day, for they will be resurrected to face judgment and condemnation. The chronological issues need not worry us too much- i:e. when will they be resurrected, at precisely what point on the timeline of these events. The meaning of time will surely be collapsed around the Lord's return. This will be the final fulfilment of the prophecy that they shall look upon Him whom they pierced and mourn (<em><a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a></em>; "look" is s:w. "see" in <em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>). The invitation of course is to look upon the crucified Christ now and mourn in repentance; for we shall have to do this one way or the other, either now in repentance, or too late in condemnation.</p><p><em>Coming in the clouds-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:340 7:14'>Dan 7:14</a></em>. The language of clouds and then Angels (<em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>) is reminiscent of the Lord’s ascension, at which the Angels promised His return “in like manner”; and the same language is used of His return in <em><a href='B:510 1:7'>Act 1:7</a></em>. This precludes any invisible ‘coming’ in AD70. Rather than thinking that the Lord somehow ‘came’ in AD70 in some metaphorical manner, I would suggest that the literal language is such that we can only conclude that His literal return has been delayed. Otherwise we end up forcing the obviously literal into the metaphorical.</p><p>The moment of the second coming is likened to a flash of lightning and the beginning of rain at the time of Noah's flood:&nbsp;&nbsp; This makes any application of&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;to the prolonged series of events in A:D. 69/70 at least tenuous when compared to the obvious application to the moment of the second coming:&nbsp;&nbsp; There are many links between Matthew 24, 25 and 1 Thessalonians 4, 5 which have been tabulated by several expositors. According to these connections, the Lord's 'parousia' mentioned in Matthew 24 is interpreted by Paul as referring to the literal second coming (<em><a href='B:470 24:30-31'>Mat 24:30-31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:590 4:15-16'>1Th 4:15-16</a></em>). In view of all this, it is desirable to interpret the 'coming' of the Lord in Matthew 24 as referring to the literal presence of Christ at His return, although this is not to rule out any primary reference to the events of A:D. 70:&nbsp;Indeed I would argue that since&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;means a literal presence, it’s not the case that the prophecy received a primary fulfilment in AD70; rather is it that the literal return of Christ was intended then, but was rescheduled. At best, the&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;element of the predictions had no partial fulfilment in AD70. The flow of the prophecy is indicated by the repetition of words like "then" : "<em>Then</em>&nbsp;shall they deliver you up…&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall many be offended…&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall the end come…&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;let them which be in Judea…&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall be great tribulation…&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;if any man shall say unto you, Here is Christ…&nbsp;<em>immediately after the tribulation of those days</em>&nbsp;("in<em>&nbsp;those days</em>, after that tribulation", <em><a href='B:480 13:24'>Mar 13:24</a></em>)…&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall appear the sign of the Son of man…&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the son of man coming" (Matthew 24). There is no suggestion here of any break in application, from AD70 to the last days. If the reference to Christ coming in glory with the Angels is accepted as referring to the last days, but the earlier verses of the prophecy to AD70 alone, we have to find the point where Christ breaks from AD70 to the last days. And I would suggest such a point cannot be found.</p><p><em>"</em>In the clouds" clearly alludes to His ascension in clouds, and the promise that He would return "in like manner" (<em><a href='B:510 1:11'>Act 1:11</a></em>), presumably meaning in clouds to the same Mount of Olives. Again we are invited to understand these as literal clouds, just as the signs in the heavenly bodies are likewise to be understood. At His coming, the figurative will pass away and planet earth and those who dwell upon it will be faced with the ultimate reality- the personal, literal coming of God's Son to earth.</p><p><em>With great power and glory</em>-</p><p> The very words used by the Lord in the model prayer of <em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em> concerning the power and glory of the Kingdom of God. The coming of the Lord to establish the Kingdom is clearly yet future and did not occur in AD70. This is the time when “the Son of Man shall come in the glory s:w. of His Father with His angels, and then shall He repay every man according to his deeds” (16:27; 25:31). Likewise, this is “the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory s:w:, and you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (<em><a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a></em>). Such a judgment and coming with Angels never occurred in AD70. John’s equivalent of this is to emphasize that in essence, the believers behold Christ’s glory now, insofar as they perceive the wonder and moral pinnacle of His achievement for us on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em>). <em><a href='B:580 3:4'>Col 3:4</a></em> teaches that “When Christ who is our life i:e. our basis of resurrection shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory”. His coming in glory will be ours, in that we will have been snatched away to meet with Him and will come with Him to Zion. And yet the next verse speaks as if now, at this point, the Angels are sent to gather the elect. But these chronological discrepancies are no real issue for the believer if we accept that the meaning of time must be changed around the time of Christ’s coming, as must the meaning of space if Einstein’s theory of relativity is correct. This would explain all practical concerns about space and time issues relating to the day of judgment. Another window on the apparent chronological discrepancies is the consideration that there are various possible potential scenarios, which will work out according to the speed and nature of the spiritual response of both natural and spiritual Israel.</p>


text:
<p>13:27&nbsp;<em>And then shall he send the angels-&nbsp;</em>The preachers of His Gospel are His messengers / ‘angels’ reaping in the harvest and proclaiming God’s victory. And yet these are the very things which the Angels are described as doing in the last day (<em><a href='B:480 13:27'>Mar 13:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:6-14'>Rev 14:6-14</a></em>). Yet we are doing it right now. In the preaching of the Gospel, we are sharing with the Angels in their work. We’re in tandem with them. The nature of our response to the Gospel when we hear it in this life is essentially our response to the call to judgment at the last day. The very same Greek words translated “Send… Angels” are to be found in the description of John the Baptist being sent to gather men to the Lord Jesus: “I send My messenger before Your face” (<em><a href='B:470 11:10'>Mat 11:10</a></em>). The idea is clearly that those who had responded to John’s message of repentance and faith in Christ’s forgiveness have in essence already been gathered for the Kingdom. And yet Israel generally had stoned those sent s:w. unto them (<em><a href='B:470 23:37'>Mat 23:37</a></em> - the Lord said this introducing the Olivet prophecy).</p><p>The preachers of His Gospel are His messengers / ‘angels’ reaping in the harvest and proclaiming God’s victory. And yet these are the very things which the Angels are described as doing in the last day (<em><a href='B:480 13:27'>Mar 13:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:6-14'>Rev 14:6-14</a></em>). Yet we are doing it right now. In the preaching of the Gospel, we are sharing with the Angels in their work. We’re in tandem with them.</p><p><em>And shall gather together his elect-&nbsp;</em>Alluded to in <em><a href='B:600 2:1'>2Th 2:1</a></em> "our gathering together unto Him". However, a case can be made that the believers are already with Christ when He comes in the clouds. Therefore the “elect” could possibly refer specifically to natural Israel rather than the believers. If the reference is to the believers, this creates a chronological issue- although see on <em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Power and great glory</em>. The Angels will be sent out to gather together the elect, but Angels will also be ‘sent forth’ to “gather out of His Kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity” (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>). It seems that this ‘gathering out’ will be achieved by the more positive ‘gathering together’ of the faithful. The point of gathering is the point of division between good and bad; our response to the certain news that ‘He’s back’ will decide the outcome of our judgment. Those wise virgins who go forth to meet Christ immediately are therefore those who will be "caught up together" with the faithful believers who will have been resurrected. Just as eagles mount up into the air and come down where the carcass is, so we will come to judgment. This will be when the Angels "gather together&nbsp;<em>his elect</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>). They then "meet the Lord in the air" literally, perhaps connecting with <em><a href='B:730 11:12'>Rev 11:12</a></em>:&nbsp; "They (the faithful, persecuted saints of the last days) heard a great voice from heaven (cp. "the voice" of <em><a href='B:590 4:16'>1Th 4:16</a></em>) saying unto them, Come up (cp. "caught up...") hither:&nbsp;&nbsp; And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud (cp. "caught up... in clouds"); and their enemies beheld them":&nbsp;&nbsp; It may well be that <em><a href='B:730 11:12'>Rev 11:12</a></em> is speaking of the faithful Jewish remnant of the last days, who will be snatched away along with us.</p><p><em>From the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven</em>-</p><p> Is this a reference to the believers being “caught away in clouds, into the air, for the purpose of meeting the Lord" (<em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em>)? It seems also an allusion to the lightning of :27. The Lord’s coming and His gathering of the elect is all in the same moment; and yet there are apparently various things which must occur all at the same time. The apparent contradictions in chronology need not worry us- see on <em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Power and great glory</em>.</p>


text:
<p>13:28&nbsp;<em>Now from the fig tree learn its lesson-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:490 13:6-9'>Luk 13:6-9</a></em> records another parable of the fig tree, upon which that in the Olivet prophecy is based. Jesus, the dresser of God's vineyard of Israel, came seeking spiritual fruit on the fig tree, for the three years of his ministry. Because of the lack of it, the tree was cut down. Christ said "Now (i:e. towards the end of the tribulation period?) learn a parable of the fig tree" (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>). It is tempting to read this as effectively meaning 'Now learn&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;parable of the fig tree', seeing that the parable of the Olivet prophecy is so similar to the previous fig tree parable:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>When its branch becomes tender-&nbsp;</em>The obvious connection in Jewish minds would be with Messiah as the pre-eminent branch of Israel (<em><a href='B:290 11:1'>Isa 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 23:5'>Jer 23:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 33:15'>Jer 33:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 17:22'>Eze 17:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 3:8'>Zec 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a></em>). Luke 21 adds the detail that we are to look also at “all the trees”. A tender branch, all the trees, the Kingdom of God- these are all themes to be found in <em><a href='B:330 17:22-24'>Eze 17:22-24</a></em>: “Thus says the Lord Yahweh: I will also take of the lofty top of the cedar the dynasty of the house of David, and will set it. I will crop off from the topmost of its young twigs a tender one, and I will plant it on a high and lofty mountain. In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it the return of Christ to Mount Zion?; and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar. Under it shall dwell all birds of every wing; in the shade of its branches shall they dwell this is the picture of Christ’s Kingdom- <em><a href='B:480 4:32'>Mar 4:32</a></em>. All the trees cp. “the fig tree and all the trees” of the field shall know that I, Yahweh, have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish. I, Yahweh, have spoken and have done it”. This last verse was clearly in the Lord’s mind as He was led out to Golgotha (<em><a href='B:490 23:31'>Luk 23:31</a></em>). This clearly Messianic language is associated by the Lord with the beginnings of spiritual fruit on the fig tree of Israel. The fig tree has to identify with Him as Messiah, become itself the tender branch, before fruit can be seen upon it.</p><p>I mentioned earlier in this exposition the strong parallels between the Olivet prophecy and the upper room discourse. The equivalent of the fig tree parable is in <em><a href='B:500 15:1-6'>Joh 15:1-6</a></em>: “I am the true vine and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that carries no fruit, he prunes away; and every branch that carries fruit, he cleanses it, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, so neither can you, except you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He that abides in me and I in him, the same carries much fruit. For severed from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is thrown out as a branch and withers, and these are gathered and thrown into the fire, and they are burned”. <em><a href='B:520 11:19'>Rom 11:19</a></em> in turn alludes here by associating the cut off, rejected branches with natural Israel. The branches are the tree, which is Christ. That same identification of the branch and Christ is made here in <em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>. Putting together these teachings, the implication would be that for the branches of Israel to again be fruitful, they must be grafted back in, seeing they have been cut off. And that is the very teaching of Romans 11. “When his branch is yet…” is an attempt to translate a difficult original text. The idea may be ‘If, so long as… the branch is tender, it can yield fruit’. The broken off branches must be grafted back in and only ‘so long as’ that is the case, they can bear fruit. In the first century context, the Lord may be urging Israel to bring forth spiritual fruit- whilst the branch is still tender, whilst it was still connected to the tree, and had not been broken off and burnt as Romans 11 envisaged happening. And yet Israel would not. Hence the Lord’s appeal to His listeners to&nbsp;<em>learn</em>&nbsp;this parable. And hence the manner in which He placed this teaching as the conclusion to the Olivet prophecy, because Israel’s repentance is the key precondition in His return. John 15 is saying the same thing by warning that once severed from Christ, then there would be no chance of bearing fruit.</p><p><em>And puts forth its leaves, you know that the summer is near</em>-</p><p> The fig tree was to "shoot forth" (<em><a href='B:490 21:30'>Luk 21:30</a></em>) or 'germinate' (Young), witnessed by its putting forth of leaves (<em><a href='B:480 13:28'>Mar 13:28</a></em>) and tender branches (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>). When the fig tree puts forth leaves there are often immature, unripe figs amongst them. Thus Jesus inspected the fig tree outside Jerusalem to see if it had any fruit, and cursed it because it did not. It had “leaves only” (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>), but now the Lord seems to be saying that the presence of leaves will be a sign of His return. The obvious point of connection with 21:19 would suggest that He becomes more and more acceptant of&nbsp;<em>any&nbsp;</em>sign of spirituality and response in Israel; rather like the parable of the great supper features an increasing desperation on the part of the King to accept anyone who is willing to say “yes” to the invitation. "The time of&nbsp;<em>figs</em>&nbsp;was not yet", i:e. it was not reasonable to find fully developed fruit on it. The fig tree referred to the nation of Israel; Jesus expected to find at least the beginnings of some spiritual fruit, but due to the chronic dearth of response to his message, Jesus cursed the nation and dried it up (<em><a href='B:480 11:13-14'>Mar 11:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:20'>Mar 11:20</a></em>). This would lead us to interpret the putting forth of leaves on the fig tree as the signs of an initial repentance and indication that real spiritual fruit is developing. It may well be that the whole of the Olivet prophecy has reference to a final three and a half year tribulation of the believers just prior to the second coming, and that during this time there will be a period of zealous witnessing to both Jews and Gentiles. This fits into place with the fig tree parable; this preaching starts to produce some degree of response from Israel, and then "all (is) fulfilled" in the full manifestation of Christ's Kingdom. The parable says that as surely as Summer follows Spring, so those who see the blossoming of the fig tree in the parable, will see the Kingdom. Maybe this is to be taken literally; there may be a literal gap of a few weeks/months (as between Spring and Summer) between the first signs of Jewish repentance, and all being fulfilled. It may well be that the "all" which will be fulfilled in <em><a href='B:490 21:32'>Luk 21:32</a></em> is to be equated with "the times of the Gentiles" being fulfilled (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>). The Greek&nbsp;<em>kairos&nbsp;</em>translated “times” is also translated “opportunity”; the Gentiles’ opportunity to hear the Gospel is fast running out. There will be a call to Israel to repent in the last days, and a remnant will respond. This Elijah ministry and maybe our present witness to Jewry prepares the way for this? must occur “before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord”. We could interpret the putting forth of leaves on the fig tree as the signs of an initial repentance and indication that real spiritual fruit is developing.</p><p>One way to look at this is that summer stood for harvest, obviously so in this context of fruit on a fig tree. But harvest was clearly a metaphor for judgment upon Israel, which is the context and burden of the Olivet prophecy. The Lord has lamented that the fig tree of Israel has nothing but leaves- and because of that, He had uttered judgment upon her (<em><a href='B:470 21:19-20'>Mat 21:19-20</a></em>). So the Lord could be simply repeating this is parabolic terms. The judgment / harvest / Summer was to come upon the fig tree whilst she had only leaves and not fruit on her tender branch. And yet the language of ‘shooting forth’ Gk. germinating in <em><a href='B:490 21:30'>Luk 21:30</a></em> suggests that more than mere leaves are in view. Summer will only come once there is fruit to harvest. That seems the point:&nbsp;</p><p>The shooting forth of the fig tree is given as the special sign that the Lord will return (<em><a href='B:490 21:30'>Luk 21:30</a></em>). This must be understood in the context of the Lord coming to the fig tree in Mark 11; He sought for at least the beginnings of fruit shooting forth, but found only leaves. And therefore He cursed the fig tree. He evidently saw the shooting forth of the fig tree as a figure of Israel's acceptance of Him, however immaturely. Likewise the parable of <em><a href='B:490 13:6-9'>Luk 13:6-9</a></em> makes the same connection between fruit on the fig tree and repentance within Israel. "Learn a (the) parable of the fig tree" (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>) may suggest that we are to understand the fig tree parable in the light of these other fig tree parables. And there are several OT links between fruit on the fig and spiritual fruit in Israel (<em><a href='B:400 7:1'>Mic 7:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 7:15-16'>Mat 7:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 3:17-18'>Hab 3:17-18</a></em>). When the branch of Israel “is now become tender”, i:e. immediately this happens, we are to know that the eternal Summer of God’s Kingdom is nigh (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em> RV). The tenderness of the branch is surely to be connected with the hard heart of Israel becoming tender through their acceptance of Jesus and the new covenant. When we see just the beginnings of Israel’s repentance, through a remnant responding, we are to know that “He is near, even at the doors” (<em><a href='B:470 24:33'>Mat 24:33</a></em> RV). All this evidence steers us away from the idea that the fig tree became tender through the re-establishment of the nation of Israel- and towards an understanding that this is all about Israel’s repentance.</p>


text:
<p>13:29&nbsp;<em>So you also, when you see these things happening, you will know that he is near- at the doors</em>-</p><p> Luke 21 “you know in your own selves”. Seeing the repentance of Israel will lead to the faithful perceiving that the end is near. This perhaps alludes to the same idea as in <em><a href='B:680 1:19'>2Pe 1:19</a></em>, that the day star shall arise in the hearts of the believers just before the Lord comes.</p><p>The structure of the argument suggests that “these things” specifically refers to the shooting forth of the fig tree:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p><em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em></td><td><em><a href='B:470 24:33'>Mat 24:33</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>When Gk:&nbsp;<em>hotan</em></td><td>When Gk:&nbsp;<em>hotan</em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>His branch is yet tender and puts forth leaves</td><td>You see all these things</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>You know Gk:&nbsp;<em>ginosko</em></td><td>You know Gk:&nbsp;<em>ginosko</em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>That summer is near Gk:&nbsp;<em>eggus</em></td><td>That it is near Gk:&nbsp;<em>eggus</em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:32'>Luk 21:32</a></em> “That the Kingdom of God is near Gk:&nbsp;<em>eggus</em>”.</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The “Summer” meant ‘harvest’, and that was a metaphor for judgment. Verse 33 parallels this by saying that “it” is near. The “it” may well refer to the destruction of the temple, which is the context of the whole discussion; although <em><a href='B:490 21:32'>Luk 21:32</a></em> supplies “the Kingdom of God”. The Lord is bringing the discourse to a close by returning to the question which provoked it: "When shall these things be?”. And He appears to be saying in the first century context that so long as only leaves remained on the fig tree of Israel, then the Summer of harvest judgment upon her was going to come. And yet the Lord here is using language with two or more meanings, as Scripture often does. In the latter day context, He seems to be saying that once spiritual fruit is beginning on the Israel fig tree, then this is the ultimate sign that the ultimate end is near.</p><p>The idea of Christ at the door is repeated by the Lord Himself in <em><a href='B:730 3:19-20'>Rev 3:19-20</a></em> - where it means that Jesus is asking others to repent and turn to Him. Opening the door means the Lord has granted forgiveness- His being at the door implies surely that He is asking for repentance:&nbsp;<em>Epi&nbsp;</em>the doors can carry the sense of ‘about’ or ‘upon’, perhaps an allusion to the Angels of Passover night, which is such a strong type of the second coming. That would explain the plural “doors”. I suggested that Summer / harvest may refer to judgment; being ‘upon the doors’ may likewise suggest the Angel of Death in judgment. This would certainly fit the first century interpretation offered above- that while only leaves are on the fig tree branch, whilst it is still ‘tender’ and attached to the tree before it has been broken off in judgment, then Summer / harvest / judgment is coming for sure, in that very generation. But words have multiple meanings, and this fact is not ignored by God in the way the Bible is written, nor by His Son in the way He spoke. The allusion can equally be to the Passover Angel who as it were restrained the Angel of Death by hovering over the blood-sprinkled doors of the faithful. This would continue the ‘other’ usage of language by the Lord in the fig tree parable, which means that once there is some beginnings of spiritual fruit on the fig tree of Israel, then the repentance of that remnant will mean that the coming of the Lord is literally imminent and He stands&nbsp;<em>epi</em>&nbsp;the doors as the fulfilment of the Passover Angel.</p>


text:
<p>13:30&nbsp;<em>Truly I say to you: This generation shall not pass away-&nbsp;</em>This is similar to the Lord’s teaching that some of His generation would not die until they had seen the coming of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:480 9:1'>Mar 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:27'>Luk 9:27</a></em>). His saying may not be linked directly to the fig tree parable, as if to say ‘The generation that sees the fig tree fruit will not pass away until…’. Rather He may be concluding His message by again making clear that the entire prophecy was going to come true in that generation. Seeing that lifespans were not much over 40 years at that time, even AD70 would not have seen many of that generation alive. He says elsewhere that the actual people He was speaking with would see these things come true and see Him coming in glory. But this potential possibility was disallowed from happening in that generation by the refusal of Israel to repent and the weakness of spirituality and effort to spread the Gospel in those who did apparently believe into Christ. The transfiguration was hardly the main fulfilment of the Lord’s words, even though the record of it directly follow the Lord’s predictions. Like the events of AD70, it was at best a shadow fulfilment of the final coming of the Kingdom in visible power and glory. The use of “<em>this</em>&nbsp;generation” rather than “<em>that</em>&nbsp;generation” surely suggests the Lord hoped for and indeed intended a fulfilment of His words literally in that very generation. But that generation passed- because fruit on the fig tree was not found. Israel did not repent, and there was little spiritual fruit on those Jews who did accept Christ. All 38 NT occurrences of&nbsp;<em>genea</em>, “generation”, clearly refer to the contemporary generation or group of listeners. Any attempt to interpret&nbsp;<em>genea</em>&nbsp;as referring to the race or nation of Israel becomes impossible because the text would require that the race or nation of Israel pass away at the Lord’s second coming, but Israel are clearly envisaged as existing as a separate entity in the Millennial Kingdom.</p><p><em>Until-&nbsp;</em>If the Lord had meant simply 'until' we would read simply&nbsp;<em>heos</em>. But here we have two Greek words-&nbsp;<em>heos an</em>, which together denote a sense of conditionality and uncertainty. This is understandable if we understand that the Lord is talking of how His coming&nbsp;<em>could be</em>&nbsp;in that generation- but that depended upon some conditions which were beyond Him to fulfil and which depended upon men.</p><p><em>All these things happen</em>-</p><p> AV "Be fulfilled". There is surely a word play between&nbsp;<em>ginomai</em>&nbsp;"fulfilled" and&nbsp;<em>genea</em>&nbsp;"generation". That generation would not pass until all has 'become'. This is not the usual word used for the fulfilment of prophecies. When Matthew writes of the fulfilment of prophecies (and he does this often), the word&nbsp;<em>pleroo</em>&nbsp;is used. But here a much vaguer and more general word is used. Mark's record brings this out- the disciples ask when "all these things" would be "fulfilled" (<em>sunteleo</em>), and the Lord concludes the fig tree parable by saying "all these things" would be&nbsp;<em>ginomai</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 13:4'>Mar 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:30'>Mar 13:30</a></em>). That would appear purposeful; the Lord held out the definite possibility for His return in the first century and the fulfilment of all things He had spoken of. But He was surely aware that this could be rescheduled, and so He used a word pregnant with the possibility that "that generation" would see the 'coming into being' of the scenario He was presenting. That generation&nbsp;<em>ginomai</em>&nbsp;could have been the fulfilment&nbsp;<em>genea</em>&nbsp;of all things, or they could have been at least the coming into being of that fulfilment; even if they failed to respond, they would not be without significance in bringing into being the ultimate fulfilment.</p>


text:
<p>13:31&nbsp;<em>Heaven and earth may pass away</em>-</p><p> This could simply be saying to the effect 'Even if heaven and earth could pass, which they cannot, there is even less possibility that My words shall not be fulfilled'. <em><a href='B:470 5:18'>Mat 5:18</a></em> seems to use the term in that sense- "Even until&nbsp;<em>heos</em>, i:e. 'even if' heaven and earth pass...". In this case, we are not to even bother trying to understand 'heaven and earth' as 'a system of things', although this is certainly how the term is used, especially in the context of the Jewish system. And yet later New Testament allusion to this passage seems to suggest we are justified in seeing some reference to the Jewish, Mosaic system of the first century. <em><a href='B:650 12:26'>Heb 12:26</a></em> speaks as if heaven and earth are to be so shaken by the blood of Christ and the new covenant that they will pass away just as Sinai shook at the inauguration of the old covenant. <em><a href='B:680 3:7-13'>2Pe 3:7-13</a></em> is perhaps the clearest statement- the 'heaven and earth' which "are now" in the first century were to pass away and be replaced by a new heaven and earth in which righteousness dwells. Clearly 'heaven and earth' are not literal, because righteousness already dwells in literal Heaven, and the earth shall not be literally destroyed; this passing of 'heaven and earth' is patterned after the destruction of sinful&nbsp;<em>society&nbsp;</em>in Noah's time (<em><a href='B:680 3:5'>2Pe 3:5</a></em>). We note that the Olivet prophecy concludes with a warning that society would become like it was in the days of Noah. Clearly this major changeover did happen in the first century in that the Jewish and Mosaic system did finally pass away in AD70 with the destruction of the temple. And yet Peter's words also seem to demand application to the second coming of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Clearly the heaven and earth of the Kingdom could have come in the first century, but 'all' that happened was that the Jewish and Mosaic systems were ended; this was in itself created a requirement for a&nbsp;<em>new&nbsp;</em>'heaven and earth' in which dwells righteousness, but that system has evidently not yet physically come on earth. In this sense, what happened in AD70 was a guarantee and a creation of the requirement for the new Kingdom to come- see on :30&nbsp;<em>Be fulfilled</em>.</p><p>The Greek word&nbsp;<em>Ge</em>&nbsp;"earth" is used often for the ‘land’ of Israel in the NT. We must remember that although the NT is written in Greek, it strongly reflects Hebrew usage of words. Again, the word commonly refers to the land of Israel. Consider some examples:&nbsp;-</p><p> “But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King” (<em><a href='B:470 5:34-35'>Mat 5:34-35</a></em>). This is alluding to the Jewish habit of swearing by their own land:&nbsp;-</p><p> “The kings of the earth take custom or tribute" (<em><a href='B:470 17:25'>Mat 17:25</a></em>). The rulers of the earth were those ruling over Israel:&nbsp;-</p><p> “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth" (<em><a href='B:470 23:35'>Mat 23:35</a></em>). The blood shed on the earth means that which was shed in the land:&nbsp;-</p><p> Heaven and earth passing away (<em><a href='B:470 24:35'>Mat 24:35</a></em>) follows on from the Lord speaking of how all tribes of the earth / land would mourn in repentance (:30). He was speaking in the common OT idiom that used ‘heaven and earth’ for Israel. The nation would pass away in AD70, but His words would not.</p><p><em>But my words shall not pass away</em>-</p><p> The Lord uses&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>here rather than any other term for ‘words’, perhaps because He perceived that it was the essence of what He was saying that would be fulfilled, rather than necessarily the very letter.</p><p>There seems a parallel with :30. "My words shall not pass away" is parallel with "This generation shall not pass away"; "Heaven and earth shall pass away" is parallel with "All these things being fulfilled". 'Heaven and earth' passing is therefore in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth in fulfilment of all that was prophesied by the Lord. But there is then a parallel between "My words" and "this generation". The intention may be to show that that generation were to be identified with the Lord's words, and thereby with Himself. For whenever He elsewhere uses the term "My words", it is always in parallel to 'I Myself' (<em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:27'>Joh 15:27</a></em>). He was His words; He was the quintessential logos. And that generation were to be identified with them. If they did so, if the tender branch of the fig tree became one with the Messianic branch of the Old Testament prophecies, then all would be fulfilled in that generation.</p>


text:
<p>13:32&nbsp;<em>But of that day or that hour- Hemera&nbsp;</em>can refer to a period rather than a specific calendar day; it occurs often in the Olivet prophecy: “Those days” (<em><a href='B:470 24:19'>Mat 24:19</a></em>), “those days should be shortened” (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>), “the tribulation of those days” (<em><a href='B:470 24:29'>Mat 24:29</a></em>), “the days of Noah” (<em><a href='B:470 24:37'>Mat 24:37</a></em>), “the days that were before the flood” (<em><a href='B:470 24:38'>Mat 24:38</a></em>). So the Lord isn’t necessarily saying that there is a calendar day and hour within that day when He will return. He may even be implying that God has given us conditions to fulfil, and not a calendar date. There is no calendar date discernible from our side, because it is conditional. The Lord repeats this teaching in <em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em> when He says that we must watch exactly because “you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man comes”. When the disciples later asked to know this date, the Lord replied that “the times or seasons” have been “set within the Father’s own authority” (<em><a href='B:510 1:7'>Act 1:7</a></em> RV). This sounds like God has set up required preconditions, and the actual moment of the Lord’s return is somehow within frames of reference which His own authority alone has determined. But the Lord goes straight on to remind them of their calling to take the Gospel worldwide (<em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>); for that was one of the major preconditions. Instead of trying to discern a specific date ahead of time, they were instead to refocus upon the spreading of the Gospel. If all the mental effort put into trying to discern the calendar date had been put into simply spreading the Gospel, then perhaps the Lord would be here by now. However, there is also the possibility that in the very last days, the last generation&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;in fact know the day and hour.</p><p><em>Knows no one except the Father, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son-&nbsp;</em>There’s a major theme of knowing / seeing / perceiving in the Olivet prophecy:&nbsp;<em>Eido</em>, translated “knows”, carries the essential idea of ‘seeing’ or perceiving. We are to “see” / know / perceive the abomination of desolation, and when we “see” / know / perceive “all these things, know that it is near”. And yet, despite that, we can not know, at least at this stage, the day nor the hour of the Lord’s coming. The reason is made crystal clear in <em><a href='B:470 24:42'>Mat 24:42</a></em>: “Watch&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;because you do not know s:w. what hour your Lord comes”. <em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em> repeats this: “Watch&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;because you do not know s:w. neither the day nor the hour in which your Lord comes”. The ‘watching’, therefore, is the watching of ourselves and for the welfare of others;&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;the activity of seeking to match world events with Bible prophecies. So our watching is exactly because we do not know the day and hour. God in His wisdom made it like this- so that we should watch all the time. If we knew when the Lord were coming, then we would not watch for Him until that time. Such is human nature. If a man knows what day and hour the thief is coming, he will watch for him at that time (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>). But if he doesn’t know, then he must watch all the time. So, looking at it from that point of view, it is absolutely necessary that we do&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;know the day and hour. And yet it seems so many have seriously misunderstood this. They think that they&nbsp;<em>can</em>&nbsp;work out the day and hour, and their ‘watching’ is not so much a personal readiness for the Lord’s coming at any moment as an extended scouring of the media in an attempt to slot various international happenings into Bible prophecies. Indeed it is observable that personal watchfulness often apparently comes to be excused because of ‘watching’ the “signs of the times”.</p>


text:
<p>13:33&nbsp;<em>Be warned, watch and pray. For you do not know when the time is</em>-</p><p> This could be taken as a criticism, rather than stating a truism. It is true that we do not know the time of the Lord's return and therefore we should watch constantly. But we should consider the possibility that the last generation, as they pass through the tribulation, will in fact see prophecy fulfilling so accurately that they can foresee the Lord's coming. It is commonly thought that even the Lord Jesus doesn't know the time of his return, only the Father does. During his mortality, the Lord said exactly this (<em><a href='B:480 13:32'>Mar 13:32</a></em>)- at the time he was speaking to the disciples, he himself didn't know. But after his resurrection and glorification, the Lord made two statements to the disciples which he surely intended to be connected: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth... it is not for you (the inquisitive eleven standing on Olivet) to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (<em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:7-8'>Act 1:7-8</a></em>). But&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the Father's power has been given to His glorified Son, and this therefore includes knowledge of the "times and seasons" of the second coming. In the exalted Lord "are hid all the riches of wisdom and knowledge" (<em><a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a></em>); it is thereby inconceivable that the Father would still keep back some knowledge from the Son. The point of all this is that when the Lord Jesus said that "of that day and that hour knoweth (present tense) no man, no, not the angels... neither the Son" he was not laying down a general principle for all time. He was speaking of the situation at that time: 'You can't know now, indeed at the moment even I don't know; but these are the signs which will tell the believers when I'll come'. By implication he was saying 'You can't understand them, although I'm giving them to you, but in the future some will understand them, because these signs will accurately pinpoint my return'. This was exactly the spirit of what the Angel told Daniel when he too wished to know when Messiah would come in glory; he was basically told 'It's not for you to understand, but in the last days understanding of these things will be increased among God's people; they will know the time, but you can't'. There are so many connections between the Olivet prophecy and Daniel that perhaps it is legitimate to think that the Lord was alluding to the Angel's refusal to tell Daniel the time of Messiah's coming. That the Lord was primarily referring to the twelve when he spoke of them not knowing "when the time is" (<em><a href='B:480 13:33'>Mar 13:33</a></em>) is confirmed if we appreciate that the Lord Jesus sometimes uses "the time" as a reference to the appointed time for his own death (<em><a href='B:470 26:18'>Mat 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:6'>Joh 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:8'>Joh 7:8</a></em>). The disciples were fascinated with the time of his return, and the Lord was giving them the signs. But knowing his death was only days away, inevitably he had in mind "the time" of his passion. And he knew that as they didn't know the time of his return, so they didn't understand the time of his death. Having pointed out that they knew not "the time", in words surely reminiscent of his criticism of Jewry generally for not knowing "the time" of his coming and death (<em><a href='B:470 16:3'>Mat 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:44'>Luk 19:44</a></em>), the Lord went on to tell the story of the man (himself) who left his household (the disciples) and told them to watch, with warnings as to what would happen if they didn't. Every one of those warnings, and some other language in the Olivet prophecy, came true of the disciples in the next few days, in the context of "the time" being the time of Christ's death:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>They shall deliver you up to&nbsp;&nbsp; the councils</td><td>As Christ to the Sanhedrin</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>beaten</td><td>Christ buffeted</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>rulers and kings for a testimony&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>Chief priests, Herod, Pilate</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>…brother shall betray the brother&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>Judas; Peter's denial?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>…turn back to take up his garment&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>John Mark's linen garment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>…false Christs…&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>An echo of 'Barabbas'?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the sun shall be darkened…&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>As at the crucifixion</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Watch and pray…&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>"Watch with me"; Gethsemane</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at even…&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>Last Supper</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at midnight...</td><td>Gethsemane</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at the cock crowing</td><td>Peter's denials</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>in the morning</td><td>trials and crucifixion</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>find you sleeping</td><td>disciples in Gethsemane</td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<p>13:34&nbsp;<em>Like a man going on a journey; on leaving his house, he puts his servants in charge, each according to his assigned tasks. He also commands the gatekeeper to stay awake</em>-</p><p> Each has his or her calling, and therefore we should each have a sense of authority because we realize this. We have a job to do, a mission to accomplish, and we have authority from the Lord Himself. For the Son of man gives to&nbsp;<em>each</em>&nbsp;of His servants both "authority" and his or her specific work to do (<em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>.</p><p>His enthusiasm for us comes out in Christ's description of Himself as 'taking a far journey' away from us to Heaven. The Greek strictly means 'to leave one's own native people to go abroad'; with the implication that the Lord feels closer towards us than to the Angels. He is somehow away from home whilst absent from us. This is exactly the line of argument of Hebrews 1, 2 : Christ didn't come to save Angels, He came to save us, therefore He had exactly our nature and feelings, not theirs.</p><p>The "porter" was commanded to watch; and he represents us all (:37). Watching over God's household is an idea taken from <em><a href='B:330 3:17'>Eze 3:17</a></em>; as the prophets in the Old Testament parables of judgment were the watchmen of the house of Israel, so each of us are. When the Lord had earlier told this parable, Peter (like us) asked the obvious question: "Do you speak this parable to us (the twelve in the first century), or even to all?" (<em><a href='B:490 12:41'>Luk 12:41</a></em>). The Lord's basic reply was "To all", although He didn't say so explicitly. Instead He said that if the Lord of the servant was away and came back unexpectedly, late at night, what a joy it would be to him if he found the lights on and the servant working diligently in caring for the others;&nbsp;<em>any</em>&nbsp;servant doing that is going to give his Lord joy; 'So, Peter, don't think about whether others are called to do the job, this is the ideal servant, you're all servants, so you get on and try to be like this ideal servant'. The porter's job was to keep out wolves; the Greek for "porter" literally means 'the watcher' (s:w. <em><a href='B:500 10:1'>Joh 10:1</a></em>, another example of how the parables fit together). An apathy in looking out for false teachers means we aren't doing the porter's job well, we are sleeping rather than looking after the household. <em><a href='B:470 24:43-45'>Mat 24:43-45</a></em> define watching for Christ's return as tending to the needs of our brethren; this is what will lead our hearts towards preparedness for the second coming, rather than the hobby of trying to match current events with Bible prophecy. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:35&nbsp;<em>Therefore stay awake. For you do not know when the lord of the house comes, whether in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning</em>-</p><p> The motivation for watching, being away at the Lord's coming, is because we have a duty to the rest of the household. Pursuit of personal salvation is not of itself a very strong motivator. And we must be ever alert because we do not know when He shall return; for Bible prophecy is to be understood after the event, or whilst the event occurs, and is not intended to provide a timeline of future events.</p><p>The Lord says that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the watchers of the door of the house of the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:480 13:34-35'>Mar 13:34-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:39-40'>Luk 12:39-40</a></em>), as the prophets were the watchmen over the city of Zion, God's Old Testament ecclesia. We&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;therefore have a responsibility to guide and warn the ecclesia, not just to scrape out of condemnation for ourselves, but from a genuine, earnest desire to help others to the Kingdom road.</p><p>We must speak the word as others are able to hear it, expressing the truths of Christ in language and terms which will reach them. There are some differences within the Gospels in the records of the parables. It could be that the different writers, under inspiration, were rendering the Lord’s Aramaic words into Greek in different styles of translation. Also, we must bear in mind the different audiences. Mark speaks of the four watches of the night which would have been familiar to Romans (<em><a href='B:480 13:35'>Mar 13:35</a></em> cp. 6:48), whereas <em><a href='B:490 12:38'>Luk 12:38</a></em> speaks of the Jewish division of the night into three watches (cp. <em><a href='B:70 7:19'>Jdg 7:19</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 6:47'>Luk 6:47</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>13:36&nbsp;<em>In case he comes suddenly finding you asleep-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The suddenness of the Lord's coming will only be felt by those who are asleep and as it were disturbed from their sleep. For those who are alert, His coming will not have this 'sudden' and 'unexpected' aspect to it. The connection is clearly with the parable of the virgins; and yet despite this exhortation to stay awake, they are slumbered. The "wise" were only saved by their awareness that they were likely to run out of oil, their spirituality was not so solid, and they recognized that.</p>


text:
<p>13:37&nbsp;<em>What I say to you I say to all: Stay awake</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 24:43-45'>Mat 24:43-45</a></em> define watching for Christ's return as tending to the needs of our brethren; this is what will lead our hearts towards preparedness for the second coming, this is the result of our awareness of the imminence of the Lord's return.</p><p>“Watching" is not only a guarding of one's own spirituality; the idea of guarding a house and the people and goods inside it suggests that our watching is of our brethren and sisters too. Elders "watch for your souls" (<em><a href='B:650 13:17'>Heb 13:17</a></em>) in this sense. Christ's parable about the gate-keeper might at first suggest that the duty of watching is only with the elders; it is for&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to watch and feed the flock, in the same way as it was the duty of the house manager to guard the house and feed the other servants (<em><a href='B:470 24:43-51'>Mat 24:43-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:33-37'>Mar 13:33-37</a></em>). But that parable is intended for&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;of us; "Watch&nbsp;<em>ye</em>&nbsp;therefore (as intensely as that manager)... and what I say unto you, I say unto&nbsp;<em>all</em>, Watch" (<em><a href='B:480 13:37'>Mar 13:37</a></em>). In other words, we are all elders, the command to watch for each other extends to each of us. And yet how really concerned are most of us about each other’s salvation?</p>


text:
<p>14:1&nbsp;<em>Now it was two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread; and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might arrest him using trickery and kill him</em>-</p><p> This could imply that they tried to arrest Him before the feast, but decided to delay their plans until after the feast (:2). But the Lord was master of the situation. His life was not taken from Him but He gave it, and psychologically arranged the situation so that He would die as the Passover lambs were slain. He therefore arranged the situation in Bethany to provoke Judas to go and offer to betray Him to the Jews, knowing they would immediately jump at this opportunity.</p><p>The same word for "arrest" is used four times in Mt. about the ‘taking hold’ of the Lord Jesus in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:48'>Mat 26:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>). This ‘laying on of hands’ against the Lord is likewise strongly noted by Mark (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 14:44'>Mar 14:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:46'>Mar 14:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:51'>Mar 14:51</a></em>). The sight of it was burnt into their memories. There are likewise parts and aspects of the Lord’s sufferings, and words associated with them, which are likewise burnt in the consciousness of all those who truly love Him.</p><p>"Trickery" is as AV "<em>By subtilty"</em>-</p><p> an allusion to the Lord’s Jewish opposition as the seed of the serpent at whose hands the seed of the woman was wounded (<em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>). But the word literally refers to a bait, implying some plan to deceive Him into a position in which they could arrest Him. But what were these plans? The Lord fell for no bait. Perhaps the idea was that Judas would come and kiss Him, and lead Him into some isolated ambush or compromising situation. When the Lord made it clear to Judas that He knew what Judas was up to, the plan fell apart and the soldiers simply grabbed the Lord. And they ended killing Him “on the feast day”, which was exactly what they had planned to avoid (:2).</p><p>The plan made ahead of time to kill Him was clearly typified by the brothers’ plans to kill Joseph.</p>


text:
<p>14:2&nbsp;<em>For they said: Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar from the people</em>-</p><p> Yet they did arrest the Lord during the feast; another indication that He manipulated the situation so that He gave His life as the Passover lamb. So they did crucify the Lord during the feast, at the same time as the Passover lambs were being killed. Their plan went wrong- see on :1. Try as they might to not kill Him then, the Lord wanted to die as the Passover lamb, and this happened despite the Jews&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;wanting that. The Lord had control over the time of His death, because He gave His life rather than having it taken from Him.</p><p>Their fear of an "uproar" indicates the popularity the Lord enjoyed even at that stage, and the fact He was crucified with the general goodwill of the masses is therefore an essay in the fickleness of human nature. And yet the careful plans of the leaders didn't work out- there was "a tumult" about it, the same Greek word translated "uproar" (<em><a href='B:470 27:24'>Mat 27:24</a></em>), and likewise they did end up killing Jesus "on the feast day" when it was not their intention to.</p>


text:
<p>14:3&nbsp;<em>For Herod had arrested John and bound him-</em></p><p>&nbsp;'Laid hands on'. The Greek means just that, but it is possibly mistranslated in <em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em>: "Whosoever sins you retain 'lay hands on', they are retained". The idea is that we can in some cases obtain forgiveness for others' sins; but we must beware lest we lay hands on their sin and commit it ourselves. This is exactly the teaching of Jude- to reclaim others who are in sin, whilst being careful not to become contaminated by their sins rubbing off on us. Herod and his servants (<em><a href='B:470 14:2'>Mat 14:2</a></em>) had laid hold on John, bound him, and cast him into prison. These are all terms used elsewhere about how the Lord Jesus will do exactly the same in condemning people at the last day. His servants (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>) shall lay hold of them (<em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>), bind them (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>) and cast them into prison (condemnation- <em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em>). And these terms are also used about what happened to the Lord Jesus in His death: laid hold on by servants at a king's command (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:48'>Mat 26:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>) bound (<em><a href='B:500 18:12'>Joh 18:12</a></em>), to prison (<em><a href='B:490 22:33'>Luk 22:33</a></em>). Herod is therefore being set up here as an anti-Christ, a fake Christ. And the Lord's death is again described in similar terms to that of John, whose ministry He continued. The way disciples came seeking the body is another point of connection. As events unfolded with the Lord's arrest and binding, He would've surely perceived the connection with John. And would've likewise seen how He was as it were going through the process of condemnation, being treated as a sinner, although He was not one. This means that He has even more so the right to condemn men, because in essence He knows the condemnation process. And it gives Him the ability to identify with those who in this life are currently under condemnation for their sins, and seek to lead them out of that position.</p><p>14:3&nbsp;<em>And while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table-&nbsp;</em>The anointing recorded in Mark 14 is clearly the same as that in Matthew 26. But the anointing in Luke 7 appears to have occurred in the house of a Pharisee called Simon somewhere in Galilee. The anointing recorded in John 12 is very similar, but occurred six days before the Passover and one day&nbsp;<em>before</em>&nbsp;the triumphal entry (<em><a href='B:500 12:12'>Joh 12:12</a></em>), whereas the anointing recorded in Matthew and Mark occurred&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;that. There are other differences, too. In <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em> Mary uses "a pound of spikenard" whereas the anointing in Matthew seems to emphasize the use of spikenard as a liquid, in an alabaster flask that had to be broken to release the liquid. The spikenard was worth&nbsp;<em>more</em>&nbsp;than 300 pence (<em><a href='B:480 14:5'>Mar 14:5</a></em>), whereas that of <em><a href='B:500 12:5'>Joh 12:5</a></em> was worth 300 pence; it was used to anoint the Lord's&nbsp;<em>feet</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>), whereas that of <em><a href='B:470 26:7'>Mat 26:7</a></em> was used to anoint His&nbsp;<em>head</em>. In <em><a href='B:500 12:4'>Joh 12:4</a></em> it is Judas who complains at the apparent waste of the money, whereas in <em><a href='B:470 26:8'>Mat 26:8</a></em> it is the disciples. <em><a href='B:470 26:11-12'>Mat 26:11-12</a></em> record the Lord's word about "You will always have the poor with you" and goes on to record His explanation that the woman had done this for His burial; whereas in <em><a href='B:500 12:7-8'>Joh 12:7-8</a></em> these two sayings are the other way around. The wiping of His feet with her hair is stressed in <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>, but Matthew and Mark are silent about this. John 12 clearly identifies the woman as Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus; whereas Matthew and Mark are careful to preserve her as a nameless "woman" who "came unto Him" (<em><a href='B:470 26:7'>Mat 26:7</a></em>). I therefore have no doubt that John 12 and Matthew 26 / Mark 14 speak of two separate anointings, both in Bethany, separated from each other by four days. The anointing in Luke 7 is clearly framed as a similar incident, also in the house of a man called Simon:&nbsp;</p><p>The question, of course, is why these three anointings are described in such similar language. Higher critics immediately speak of textual dislocation and mistakes made by the writers in their chronology of events. These kinds of approaches arise from a focus upon the text before our eyes, rather than having a wider perspective on Scripture earned by years of careful Bible reading of the entire Bible text. Those who read the entire Scriptures over a period of time cannot fail to be impressed by the repetition of situations and events. The way Joseph is called out of prison to interpret a King's dream and is then exalted to rulership in a pagan land is clearly the basis for the language used about Daniel's experience in Babylon. This is not to say that text got dislocated, that Daniel was Joseph or vice versa. Rather do we perceive a single Divine mind behind the production of the Bible as we have it; and God's intention was clearly to show that circumstances repeat within and between the lives of His people. And the language He uses in recording history seeks to bring out those repetitions. This is why the lament of Jeremiah in depression is so similar to that of Job in his depression. And of course we are free to assume that Biblical characters were aware of and took inspiration from those who had gone before them. I suggest that this is what we have going on in the records of these three anointings of the Lord by despised and misunderstood women. They were inspired by each other- for the Lord comments that what the women did was to be told worldwide. This was a command, and it was surely obeyed. Mary of Bethany was inspired by the woman of Luke 7, and the anonymous woman of Matthew 26 was inspired by Mary's anointing of four days previously. Mary had given spikenard worth 300 pence; this woman used even more expensive ointment. And in this is our lesson- to be inspired by the devotion of others to their Lord. Heaven's record of our response is as it were recorded in similar language, in recognition of the inspiration provided by earlier acts of faithfulness by those we know or who have gone before us.</p><p><em>There came a woman with an alabaster vial of ointment of pure nard- very expensive. She broke the vial and poured it over his head</em>-</p><p> Mary’s lavish anointing of the Lord may well have been what inspired Nicodemus to so lavishly prepare the Lord’s body for burial. The vast quantities of spices he used was more than that used in the burials of some of the Caesars. He too must have bankrupted himself to anoint the Lord’s body. That two people did this within a week of each other is too close a similarity to be co-incidental. Surely Mary inspired him. &nbsp;</p><p>The Greek&nbsp;<em>bar-utimos</em>&nbsp;uses a term,&nbsp;<em>utimos</em>, elsewhere used about the precious, costly blood of Christ. Matthew uses it about the "price" of the Lord's blood (<em><a href='B:470 27:6'>Mat 27:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:9'>Mat 27:9</a></em>), as does Paul (<em><a href='B:530 6:20'>1Co 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:23'>1Co 7:23</a></em>) and Peter (<em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em>). The point is simple. The Lord's blood shed for us was and is the most valuable thing in existence, in the entire cosmos; and we should feel that when we take the cup which symbolizes it. And our response is to give our most valuable things, materially and otherwise, for Him.</p><p>The woman anointed the Lord’s head in order to reflect her belief that He really was the Christ, the anointed one. She gave her life savings for this belief. It can be apparently painless to believe that Jesus is Christ, and yet the implications of accepting this simple fact can transform a life. What she did was surely rooted in her understanding of <em><a href='B:260 1:12'>Son 1:12</a></em>, where Solomon’s lover has spikenard (s:w. LXX <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>) which sends forth its smell “While the king sitteth at his table”. Clearly enough she saw Jesus right there and then as the King- even though His Kingdom was not of that world. Her love for Him, her reflection upon the Old Testament, and her perception of Him as her future Lord and King to the extent that she even then treated Him as such, so certain was her faith in His future victory and worthiness… this all motivated her to give the quintessence of her life’s work for Him. And it should for us too.</p><p>Mary's devotion to the Lord, based on the understanding she had, is truly inspirational. The original word translated "nard" is a foreign non Greek word, and appears to have originated far away from Palestine. The suggestion has been made that this bottle of nard belonged to some foreign royalty. The price of "more than three hundred pence" must be understood in terms of a penny-a-day employment rate for labourers (<em><a href='B:470 20:2'>Mat 20:2</a></em>). This bottle would typically only be used at the burial of a king. Yet Mary dearly loved her brother Lazarus, and had only recently buried him. But she hadn't used the nard for&nbsp;<em>him</em>; hence perhaps the information is added that his body would be stinking after four days- implying such expensive nard had not been used in embalming&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;body (<em><a href='B:500 11:39'>Joh 11:39</a></em> - the fact it's Martha who observes this may suggest she resented Mary for not using her nard for Lazarus, just as she resented how Mary didn't help her in the kitchen but instead sat at the Lord's feet). And the Lord Jesus perceived all this; for He commented to the disciples that Mary had "kept the nard for&nbsp;<em>my</em>&nbsp;burial" (<em><a href='B:500 12:7'>Joh 12:7</a></em>). The Lord's reference to her 'keeping' the nard can be powerfully understood in the context of Mary not using it for her brother's burial, but rather deciding to keep it for His burial. This not only shows the clarity of Mary's understanding of the Lord's upcoming death. It also reflects how she would give her most treasured possession in an apparently senseless act of devotion to Him. She anointed Him because she understood Him to be Christ, the anointed one. But this is what we expect of a woman who won the accolade from the Lord that she sought after the "one thing" that really matters- which is Him and His word (<em><a href='B:490 10:42'>Luk 10:42</a></em>). Our eyes have been opened to that same "one thing", and we too claim to have accepted Jesus of Nazareth as Christ; and so to place devotion to Christ above family, above retention of personal wealth and value... is the intended issue of all this for us too.</p>


text:
<p>14:4&nbsp;<em>But there were some that had indignation among themselves, saying-&nbsp;</em>The indignation was among or "within" themselves, and so the words they are here recorded as saying were likely within themselves. We wonder how many other times when we read of people 'saying' something, the 'saying' was within their own minds. For self-talk is understood by the Lord as our actual words. Whether or not we hold our tongues back is not the ultimate issue. The words have been said within us. See on 26:10&nbsp;<em>When Jesus understood</em>. If the reconstruction of events I offered in commentary on :8, we can better understand their frustration. They would have seen an identical 'waste' of wealth in the anointing of four days previously in the same village, perhaps in the same home; and they had seen it in Galilee at the incident recorded in Luke 7. And they were doing their math and calculating the total cost 'wasted'.</p><p><em>For what purpose-&nbsp;</em>The Greek&nbsp;<em>eis tis</em>&nbsp;could equally mean 'For whom?', the implication being that the poor could have been benefitted far more than the Lord Jesus. Hence the Lord replies that the purpose of the anointing was to embalm Him ahead of time for burial. Just as the woman was inspired by the generous anointing of Mary four days previously and the Galilean prostitute of Luke 7, so the huge amount of spices purchased by Nicodemus in <em><a href='B:500 19:39'>Joh 19:39</a></em> was likely motivated in turn by her example. Critics claim that the amount of spices ("one hundred pound weight") bought was more than used in the burial of the Caesars. The woman here used a pound of spikenard, worth more than the 300 pence at which Mary's anointing liquid was valued. And in turn, Nicodemus was motivated yet more- 100 times more. She gave one pound, he gave 100 pounds' weight. This is the reason for the deja vu of our lives, of how experiences repeat between human lives- it's so that we may be inspired to greater&nbsp;service than even those who went before.</p><p><em>Has this waste of the ointment been made?</em>-</p><p> "Waste" is the same Greek word used nearly 20 times in the NT for destruction and condemnation; it is the same word used in describing Judas as "the son of&nbsp;<em>perdition</em>". The tragedy of condemnation is the waste of what could have been. This is the sadness with which God sees condemnation. We note that four days before, it had been Judas who complained about the 'waste'. His attitude had spread to the disciples. But the paradox was that he was thereby the son of waste, he was condemning himself by complaining about the waste of devotion towards the Lord Jesus. The idea could even be that they were so angry that they thought that the woman was condemning herself by what she had done, because she could have given the money to the poor. This is seen so often in religious experience- those who stand on the sidelines become so bitter at how others actively express their devotions to their Lord that they go so far as to condemn them. We think of how Michal despised David for dancing before the Lord, and was punished with barrenness; and of the Lord’s observation: “Is your eye evil, because I am good / generous?” (<em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>). The world's wealthiest individuals are often very generous to charitable causes- and yet they do so to a chorus of criticism from those who have given little or nothing to such causes.</p>


text:
<p>14:5<em>&nbsp;For this ointment might have been sold for above three hundred denarii and given to the poor. And they scolded her</em>-</p><p> The very words used by the Lord to the rich ruler, telling him to sell what he had and give to the poor (<em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>). Their idea in saying this may have been to accuse the woman of disobedience to the Lord’s teachings. We see here how deep are the feelings aroused by spiritual jealousy. This woman had made a stellar commitment to her Lord; and quite unspoken, her devotion challenged the other disciples. And so by all means they had to condemn her, and were happy to misquote the Lord’s words to achieve that. This is one simple reason why those most active and sacrificial in church life are often the most viciously attacked by their fellow disciples.</p>


text:
<p>14:6&nbsp;<em>But Jesus said: Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work</em>-</p><p> The Greek has the idea of beauty. The same Greek phrase rendered “a good work” is found in <em><a href='B:610 5:10'>1Ti 5:10</a></em> as something required of a mature spiritual woman, and for which she must be “reported”- clearly alluding to how this woman’s “good work” was to be told / reported worldwide. She thus became a model for other sisters to follow, in the same way as she herself had copied the examples of Mary four days previously, and the sinful woman of Luke 7. This is the intended power and purpose of good works- they serve as inspiration for others to likewise glorify the Lord. The Greek expression ‘to work a good work’ is used elsewhere regarding the Lord’s working of miracles (<em><a href='B:500 6:28'>Joh 6:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:33'>Joh 10:33</a></em>). Her response was no less significant than the working of a miracle.</p><p><em>Upon me</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>eis eme</em>&nbsp;could as well mean ‘in Me’, as if the woman’s work gave the Lord huge encouragement within Himself.</p>


text:
<p>14:7&nbsp;<em>For you have the poor always with you, and whenever you want you can do them good-&nbsp;</em>Christ's love for us, His Father's spiritual house, was typified by His being likened to&nbsp;the poor slave under the Law who perpetually dedicated himself to serve his master's house. An extension of this idea is revealed by a connection between the Lord saying "Ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always" (<em><a href='B:470 26:11'>Mat 26:11</a></em>) and <em><a href='B:50 15:11'>Deu 15:11</a></em> "For the poor shall never cease out of the land”. Thus Jesus is associating himself with the "poor man... of thy brethren" of <em><a href='B:50 15:7'>Deu 15:7</a></em>. Note how Jesus calls himself a "poor man", especially on the cross: <em><a href='B:230 34:6'>Psa 34:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 35:10'>Psa 35:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 37:14'>Psa 37:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 40:17'>Psa 40:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:29'>Psa 69:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:33'>Psa 69:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 70:5'>Psa 70:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 86:1'>Psa 86:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 109:22'>Psa 109:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 113:7'>Psa 113:7</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em> - an impressive list. Christ exercised the rights of the poor to glean in the cornfield on the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:490 6:1'>Luk 6:1</a></em>); <em><a href='B:50 15:7'>Deu 15:7</a></em> warned the Israelites not to be hard hearted and refuse help to such a poor brother. Christ is alluding to this passage by saying that the disciples should not be hard hearted by stopping Mary give her rich ointment to Him, the poor. The following <em><a href='B:50 15:12-17'>Deu 15:12-17</a></em> is also concerning Jesus. Thus Jesus was spiritually poor and hungry, and was so grateful for Mary's encouragement.</p><p>Note that the Law also taught that if Israel were obedient, then there would be no poverty. And yet the same Law tacitly recognized the reality of human weakness in noting that “the poor shall never cease out of the land” (<em><a href='B:50 15:11'>Deu 15:11</a></em>). God’s law therefore also reflects His grace and understanding of human failure to be fully obedient.</p><p><em>But me you do not have always</em>-</p><p> We would likely have been tempted to expose the root of the immediate problem- Judas was a thief, and wanted the cash because he would keep some of it and only distribute part to the poor. But the Lord as ever, was wiser than to confront issues in such a primitive way. He brushes past the complaint that this woman had ignored His principle of selling what we have and giving to the poor, and doesn’t expose the core reason for Judas’ trouble stirring about the issue. Rather He focuses upon what the woman&nbsp;<em>had&nbsp;</em>achieved, and bids the disciples look closer at His death and how they should be responding to it:&nbsp;<em>"</em>Always<em>"&nbsp;</em>is literally, ‘at all times’. There would always be opportunity, times of opportunity, to do good to the poor.</p><p>We find an example of Paul holding up Mary Magdalene as our example in <em><a href='B:540 8:12'>2Co 8:12</a></em>, where he speaks of how the Lord although He was rich became poor for our sakes, and we ought to be inspired by this to generosity towards our poorer brethren. The connection with Mary Magdalene goes back to <em><a href='B:480 14:7'>Mar 14:7</a></em>, where Jesus said that Mary&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;in fact given her wealth to the poor, by anointing Him, the poor one, the one who made Himself poor for our sakes.</p>


text:
<p>14:8&nbsp;<em>She has done what she could. She has anointed my body beforehand for the burying</em>-</p><p> This could be read as the Lord saying that what she did inspired Him to go forward in the path to death which He was treading. The Greek means specifically embalming. It was as if the woman perceived that the Lord was effectively the slain lamb of God even whilst He was alive. It is used only once more in the New Testament, describing the embalming of the Lord's body (<em><a href='B:500 19:40'>Joh 19:40</a></em>).</p><p>Whether the woman of <em><a href='B:480 14:8'>Mar 14:8</a></em> really understood that she was anointing His body for burial is open to question. But the Lord's positivism graciously imputed this motive to her. See on <em><a href='B:480 16:3'>Mar 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:11-12'>2Co 8:11-12</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>14:9- see on <em><a href='B:510 10:4'>Act 10:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>And truly I say to you: Wherever in the whole world the gospel shall be preached, what this woman has done shall be spoken of as a memorial to her</em>-</p><p> Her generosity was set up as a cameo of the response to the Lord which all who believe the Gospel should make. The Gospel is not just a set of doctrines to be painlessly apprehended. It is a call to action after the pattern of this woman. The good news was to be of the Lord’s death and burial, and yet integral to that message was to be the pattern of response which was seen in her- to give our all, our most treasured and hoarded things, for His sake.</p><p>There is evident connection with the Lord's prophecy of how the Gospel would be preached in all the world (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em>). He seems to have seen the 'Gospel' that would be preached as a re-telling of His life and incidents in it, such as the woman's anointing of Him. It is significant that her anointing is mentioned in all four Gospel records. In <em><a href='B:480 14:9'>Mar 14:9</a></em> we read that wherever the gospel was to be preached, what she had done would be narrated in memory of her. So ‘preaching the Gospel’ is defined there as a narration of the events and sayings of the Lord Jesus in His ministry. The Gospel records are transcripts of the Gospel preached by e.g. Matthew. The Gospel is therefore in the Gospels. The rest is interpretation and theology, necessary and helpful, but there is no avoiding the fact that the Gospel itself is in the records of the Gospel which we have in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.</p><p>The Lord foresaw that transcripts of His work and words would indeed be made, and He envisaged how the supreme devotion of this anonymous woman would be part of that message. The language is very similar to that of <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>: "This Gospel... shall be preached&nbsp;<em>kerusso&nbsp;</em>again in all the world... and then shall the end come". Matthew may have had in view how his version of the Gospel needed to be spread into all the world.</p><p>This could mean that when the Gospel message is proclaimed in all the world at Messiah’s return, then what Mary had done would be told before God that He may mercifully remember her for good at the judgment. This may sound a forced interpretation to Western ears and eyes, but we must remember that the idea of ‘for a memorial’ denoted being spoken of for good before someone, in this case, the judge of all. What follows from this is that there will be a direct link between our deeds today, and the judgment process of tomorrow or later today. What we have done will be told before God, and He will remember us for good. On one hand, works are irrelevant. We are saved by grace. On the other hand, there will be a certain ‘going through’ of our deeds before Him. Quite simply, there is a direct link between our behaviour and our future judgment. Nothing will in that sense be forgotten. &nbsp;</p><p>The early preachers would have gone around telling the good news about Jesus Christ, and in so doing would have recited time and again His teaching and life story. Mark records how the Lord commanded the Gospel to be preached world-wide (<em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em>); but he surely intends this to be linked with his record of how the generosity of the sinful woman would be told "wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world" (<em><a href='B:480 14:9'>Mar 14:9</a></em>). 'The Gospel' was therefore not just the basic doctrines of the Gospel; it was the whole record of the life and works of Christ. This is why each of the Gospels is somehow personalized to the writer. And the comment that wherever the Gospel was preached, her example would be preached (<em><a href='B:480 14:9'>Mar 14:9</a></em>) is tantamount to saying that her action was to be the pattern for all who would afterward believe the Gospel. Note in passing that the Gospel was not intended by the Lord to be a mere set of doctrinal propositions; it was to be a message which included practical patterns of response to it, of which Mary’s was to be always mentioned.</p><p>The language of 'memorial' is typically used in contemporary literature about memorials to the gallant deeds of&nbsp;<em>men</em>. But the Lord was challenging such thinking by saying that the Gospel would include a memorial of an anonymous&nbsp;<em>woman</em>. And her humanly senseless pouring out of her wealth in a ten minute act of devotion to Him was none less than the bravest or noblest act of any man.</p>


text:
<p>14:10&nbsp;<em>And Judas Iscariot, he that was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, that he might betray him to them</em>-</p><p> In all the Gospel records, the decision of Judas to betray the Lord follows on from the anointing incidents. I suggested on :1 that the Lord set up the whole scene, knowing that the apparent waste of so much money would deeply irk Judas and trigger the betrayal. People who are obsessed with money as he was often find such things unbearable to be part of. Judas is repeatedly called "Simon's son" at this time. And the anointing took place in Simon's house. It could well be that Judas was a member of the family, possibly even a brother of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. To see the family wealth 'wasted' in this way was unbearable for him. The reasons for his betrayal were surely multi-factorial, but attitudes to money played a large part. "What will you give me, and I will betray Him…?" clearly suggests a financial motive; and the records seem to give the impression that the apparent waste of money, especially if it was money he thought might be coming to him in the inheritance, was the final straw for him. After that, he went to the Jews and opened discussions about betraying the Lord. The way he threw the thirty pieces of silver down on the ground reflects his final realization of how foolish he had been. And yet the lesson is so often never learnt; men and women effectively betray their Lord for money; accumulation of wealth, development of career, take precedence over devotion to Him, and finally lead to betrayal.</p>


text:
<p>14:11&nbsp;<em>And they, when they heard it, were glad; and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him</em>-</p><p> Matthew says they gave him 30 pieces of silver immediately, but this would have been a down payment for a future promise of money.</p>


text:
<p>14:12&nbsp;<em>And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover, his disciples said to him: Where will you have us prepare for you the Passover to eat?</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 22:8'>Luk 22:8</a></em> adds the detail that actually this was said in response to Peter and John being told to go and prepare the Passover. <em><a href='B:480 14:15'>Mar 14:15</a></em> brings out the paradox that the Lord directed them to an upper room that was already "prepared" (s:w:), and there they prepared the Passover. The Lord had taught that the festal meal was already prepared for His people (<em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em> s:w:). The Lord was surely using the language of Passover preparation in saying that He was going to the cross to prepare a place for us (<em><a href='B:500 14:1-3'>Joh 14:1-3</a></em>)- and He said that at the very time Passover was being prepared. His request that&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;prepare Passover was therefore asking for a mutuality in response from them.</p><p>We feel we must&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;something before we can expect anything from God. And yet in condescension to this, the Father sometimes almost goes along with us in this. Reflect how the disciples, with all the petty pride of the practical man wishing to do something practical for the leader he adores, earnestly asked the Lord where to prepare for Him the Passover. He told them to find a certain man, and ask him where the Master would eat Passover&nbsp;<em>with His disciples</em>. He would show them an upper room furnished and already prepared. '<em>There'</em>, the Lord added with His gentle irony, 'prepare for&nbsp;<em>us</em>, not just me but you as well, to eat. Even though I've already arranged it all, and I'm inviting&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;to eat with&nbsp;<em>me</em>, well, I understand you must feel you do your little human bit, so there&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;prepare; although I've already prepared it all'. 'What love through all his actions ran'. This was grace and understanding and accommodation of men&nbsp;<em>par excellence</em>.</p>


text:
<p>14:13&nbsp;<em>And he sent two of his disciples and said to them: Go into the city and there you shall meet a man bearing a pitcher of water. Follow him</em>-</p><p> This water was carried upstairs into the upper room, and became, as it were, the wine of the new covenant. Carrying water was woman's work, and the Lord surely arranged this special sign in order to show how at His table, there was gender equality. He was so far ahead of His time. The vague "such a man" is perhaps to conceal the identity of the householder, given that the Gospels were distributed at a time of persecution. Or perhaps it was in order to avoid the identifying of the house and turning it into some kind of shrine, or special honour being given to the householder.</p>


text:
<p>14:14&nbsp;<em>And wherever he enters, say to the master of the house: The teacher asks, where is the guest room in which I can eat the Passover with my disciples?</em>-</p><p> The "guest room" is the same concept as in <em><a href='B:500 14:2'>Joh 14:2</a></em>, where there in that very guest room which they had "prepared", the Lord says that He is now going to the cross to prepare&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;a room, an eternal place in the Father's house. He wished them to perceive a mutuality between them and Himself; what they had done, He was now going to do on a far greater scale. And to this day, we sense this mutuality between us and our Lord.</p>


text:
<p>14:15&nbsp;<em>And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare it for us</em>-</p><p> The room was "ready" and yet there they were to "prepare"; "prepare" translates the same Greek word as "ready". All was prepared; the Lord was the Passover lamb and had prepared Himself for an untimely death, just as they were to keep Passover in advance of the 14th Nissan. They were to show willingness to do their part, but they could not fully do it. It has been done for them already. And we get this impression in all our attempts at labour for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>14:16&nbsp;<em>And the disciples went into the city and found as he had said to them. And they made ready the Passover</em>-</p><p> As noted on :15, it was already "made ready", so they just did the cosmetic arrangements. We likewise can add nothing really to the Lord's sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p>14:17&nbsp;<em>And when it was evening he came with the twelve</em>-</p><p> There is no actual mention of the slaying of the paschal lamb, which should have been done that evening. It had already been strangely provided for them.</p>


text:
<p>14:18&nbsp;<em>And as they sat and were eating, Jesus said: Truly I say to you, one of you shall betray me- even he that eats with me</em>-</p><p> The Lord had repeatedly predicted that He would be 'betrayed' or 'handed over'. But He had not defined who would do it, indeed the form in which He had spoken of being 'handed over' was vague and didn't necessarily require that one individual would do it. We must remember that&nbsp;<em>paradidomi</em>&nbsp;means literally 'to hand over' and doesn't carry the sense of personal betrayal which the English word 'betray' is loaded with. They were there shocked when He stated that "one of&nbsp;<em>you</em>" would do this.</p>


text:
<p>14:19&nbsp;<em>They began-&nbsp;</em>The idea is that they all burst out with the same question at the same time. And yet <em><a href='B:480 14:19'>Mar 14:19</a></em> records that they asked this "One by one". The scene is imaginable- after initially all bursting out with the same question, they try to ask Him the same question personally in order to get an answer. Which is why Judas asks the question somewhat later. Again it is commendable that their very first reaction was to wonder whether they personally could be the betrayer- rather than 'Lord, is it&nbsp;<em>him</em>?'. But after realizing that it was not them personally, naturally they began to look at one another, wondering whom He was speaking of (<em><a href='B:500 13:22'>Joh 13:22</a></em>). Although "doubting of whom He spoke" (<em><a href='B:500 13:22'>Joh 13:22</a></em>) really means they were at a loss to know. Clearly they had absolutely no suspicion that it was Judas. And when Judas is told "What you are doing, do quickly" and Judas exits (<em><a href='B:500 13:27-29'>Joh 13:27-29</a></em>), they still assume that he must have been sent out to minister to the poor suggesting there were beggars around the feast, again hinting that the last supper was not held behind closed doors. This again speaks to us who replicate the last supper week by week. Some will indeed betray their Lord, but we have absolutely no idea who they are:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>To be sorrowful-&nbsp;</em>It is commendable that their dominant emotion was of sorrow rather than anger. We perhaps would have expected anger more than sorrow. But their sorrow is a reflection of the degree of their love for the Lord, and their sorrow for the person who would face the awful consequences of doing so.</p><p><em>And to say to him one by one: Is it I?</em>-</p><p> Some texts read: "And another said, Is it I?”. It is easy to assume that this “another” was Judas. But it has been suggested that in spoken Aramaic, “and another said..." would be a device for saying ‘And I, I said…’. If Mark’s Gospel is a verbatim account of Peter’s preaching of the Gospel, this would be so appropriate. Peter would be saying: ‘All the disciples couldn’t imagine it was them who would betray Jesus; and I, yes I also asked if it was me who would betray Him. I was so sure I wouldn’t’. The record in Mark 14 then goes on to describe how Peter&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;effectively betray / deny the Lord.</p><p>The negative implies the answer 'No, you are not the one'. It was more than a question- it was a declaration of innocence. This is the basis for self-examination at the Lord's table; we should be able to do it and conclude that we are not the Lord’s betrayer. Some who sit at that table will betray Him, and we are to realize the very real possibility of our own ultimate failure, the eternity of the future we may miss. Perhaps "every one of them" excludes Judas, because he apparently asked the question later, and replaces 'Lord' with "Master"Gk. 'rabbi' when he asks: "Master 'rabbi', is it I?" (<em><a href='B:470 26:25'>Mat 26:25</a></em>). His usage of 'rabbi' to address the Lord may reflect how influenced he was by Judaism, and how he failed to appreciate the utter Lordship of Jesus. Judas maybe persuaded himself that this Jesus was just another itinerant rabbi, who Judaism would be better off without. Note that "Is it I?" is&nbsp;<em>eimi ego</em>, literally 'Am I?'. This is one of many examples of where&nbsp;<em>ego eimi</em>&nbsp;means simply 'I am', and contrary to Trinitarian claims the words do not mean that the speaker of them is claiming to be God.</p>


text:
<p>14:20<em>&nbsp;And he said to them: It is one of the twelve. He that dipped in the dish at the same time with me</em>-</p><p>The past tense is important, for if the Lord was predicting a future event, then all the disciples would be looking carefully at the dish. "Dipped",&nbsp;<em>em-bapto</em>, carries the suggestion that there was liquid or water within the dish. Lamb is greasy, and there would have been dishes of water on the table in which the diners dipped their hands. The Lord had done that at the same time as Judas, and must have pressed His fingers against those of Judas. But none of the others had noticed. <em><a href='B:500 13:26'>Joh 13:26</a></em> says that "It is he to whom I gave the morsel of bread after I dipped it"- perhaps meaning that the Lord had put a crumb of bread into Judas' fingers whilst their hands touched in the bowl. Any other reading of the incident faces the obvious difficulty that if indeed the Lord publicly pointed Judas out as the betrayer, there would have been no confusion as to why he went out into the darkness. And we would expect to read of an outcry amongst the 11 against Judas; but the record instead stresses that they totally didn't suspect Judas until he was out of the room. <em><a href='B:480 14:20'>Mar 14:20</a></em> adds that the Lord said that the man was "One of the twelve" who had dipped his hand with the Lord in the dish. This suggests there were others apart from the twelve eating at the table and dipping their hands in the dish. It was not therefore a closed communion. There would have been no need for such a "large" room (<em><a href='B:490 22:12'>Luk 22:12</a></em>) if only the twelve were present.</p><p>He lamented that His betrayer was one who had dipped in the dish with Him at the last supper. There was no way that this was meant to be an indication to the disciples that Judas was the betrayer- for they all ate the supper and dipped in the same dish. Hence His point was surely to foreground the awful fact that&nbsp;<em>it was a brother who had broken bread with Him</em>&nbsp;who would now betray Him. <em><a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a></em> laments that it was one who "ate of my bread" who betrayed Him. This is why the challenge "Lord, is it I?" echoes down to every communion service.</p>


text:
<p>14:21&nbsp;<em>For the Son of Man goes-&nbsp;</em>The Lord's 'going' was His going to the cross. The Lord used the same word in <em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em> in describing Himself as the man who 'goes'&nbsp;<em>with joy&nbsp;</em>and sells all that He has in order to buy / redeem s:w. the field (representing the world) in order to gain for Himself the treasure (the redeemed). His 'going' to the cross was therefore done with some form of "joy". Even when the only visible representative of the treasure were that band of mixed up men and a few doubtful women. He uses the word again in telling Peter to 'go' behind Him and carry His cross (<em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>). Yet the Lord looked beyond the cross; He saw Himself as 'going' to the Father (<em><a href='B:500 7:33'>Joh 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:14'>Joh 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:21-22'>Joh 8:21-22</a></em> s:w:), in the same way as we do not only 'go' to our death, but ultimately even death itself is part of an onward journey ultimately towards God and His Kingdom. The Lord's attitude to His death was that He&nbsp;<em>knew</em>&nbsp;that He was now 'going to the Father' (<em><a href='B:500 13:3'>Joh 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:28'>Joh 14:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:5'>Joh 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:10'>Joh 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:16-17'>Joh 16:16-17</a></em> s:w:). This unique perspective upon death and suffering is only logical for those who have a clear conception of future resurrection and personal fellowship with the Father in His future Kingdom.</p><p><em>Even as it is written of him-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em> is specific: "But the scripture must be fulfilled: He that eats my bread lifted up his heel against me". The reference to the heel naturally suggests the Gospel promise of <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>. But it seems the wrong way around- it is the seed of the woman who lifts up a bruised heel with which to crush the seed of the serpent. There is no lack of evidence that on the cross, the Lord identified totally with sinners, to the point that He felt forsaken just as sinners are forsaken. Or perhaps Judas justified his actions by deciding that Jesus was a false Messiah, the seed of the serpent, and the righteous thing to do was to crush the serpent with his heel:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>But woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed-&nbsp;</em>The Lord typically pronounced 'Woe' upon the Jewish world and their religious leaders. He classes Judas along with them, because his actions had been inspired by them. The devil, in this context referring to the Jewish opposition to Jesus, had put the idea of betrayal into the heart of Judas (<em><a href='B:500 13:2'>Joh 13:2</a></em>). "Woe" translates&nbsp;<em>ouai</em>, an intensified form of&nbsp;<em>ou</em>, "no". Perhaps in His word choice the Lord was still desperately saying to Judas 'No No Don't do it'. He knew that He had to be betrayed, but His appeals for Judas to repent were therefore rooted in an understanding that the Bible prophecies would come true in some other way than through Judas. For otherwise, Judas would have had no real possibility of repentance, and no real choice but than to do what he did.</p><p><em>It would be better for that man if he had not been born</em>-</p><p> "Better" shows how the Lord is sympathetically looking at things from the perspective of Judas. For in John 14 He reasons that His departure is good for all concerned. The Lord foresaw Judas' agony at the last day. But the Greek can bear a retranslation: 'It would be virtuous for that man if he did not conceive / gender'. In that case, there would be yet another appeal for Judas to stop dead in his heart the conception of sin. The Lord elsewhere uses words with two or more meanings in order to deliver a specific message to an individual, within a statement of general truth which appeared intended for others. The messages He sent back to the imprisoned John the Baptist are a clear example. The Lord's last ditch attempts to save Judas, rather than allow himself to be so hurt by him that He just ignored him, are a powerful encouragement to us in dealing with those who harm us and wilfully do evil:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:22&nbsp;<em>And as they were eating-&nbsp;</em>Eating the Passover lamb. The bread and wine were accessories, side dishes, and the Lord takes these things and makes them so significant. He doesn't, e.g., take some lamb and divide it between the guests with the message that "This represents My body". Even though the lamb was the more obvious symbol of Himself than the bread was. He wanted the last supper to be repeated by poor and ordinary people, who had bread but not lamb each week; He used common, readily available bread because that spoke more of His humanity, His ordinariness. He used what was to hand, just as we can for the breaking of bread.</p><p>Note that Judas was still present at this point. <em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em> makes the point concerning him that "He that eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me". If Judas broke bread with the Lord, this surely indicates that there is nothing intrinsically sinful in breaking bread with sinners. The quotation from Psalms 41 is interesting in the LXX: "the man of my peace, on whom I set my hope". There was special potential in Judas, and the Lord on one hand had hopes for him. It has been argued that the giving of the "sop" to him was the sign of special love and fellowship. <em><a href='B:500 13:20'>Joh 13:20</a></em> goes on to say: "He that receiveth whomsoever I shall send, receiveth me". The 'receiving' in this context is receiving at the Lord's table. To reject others from His table is to reject the Lord.</p><p><em>He took bread-&nbsp;</em>Taking bread, blessing and breaking it and giving to the disciples was exactly what the Lord did at the feeding of the 5000 and 4000 (<em><a href='B:470 14:19'>Mat 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:36'>Mat 15:36</a></em>), and we are thereby justified in seeing what He did then as having a religious dimension, practicing thereby an extremely open table. To 'take bread' can mean although not always to actually eat bread. Consider: "The disciples had forgotten to take bread,<em>&nbsp;neither</em>&nbsp;did they have with them more than one loaf" (<em><a href='B:480 8:14'>Mar 8:14</a></em>)- the force of "neither..." is that they had not eaten bread, rather than that they had forgotten to bring any with them. Philip complained that there would not be enough bread for each of the crowd to 'take' even a little, i:e. to eat just a little (<em><a href='B:500 6:7'>Joh 6:7</a></em>). So it could be that the Lord took and ate bread, blessed it, and then asked the disciples to eat it. This sequence of events would then make the eating of bread a more conscious doing of what Jesus had done. He took the bread, and then He asks them to take the bread ("Take, eat"). He is inviting them to mimic Him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And when he had blessed it-&nbsp;</em>It was usual to bless a meal, especially the Passover lamb, but here the Lord offers a special prayer for the accessory to the meal, the side dish of bread. He wanted to highlight the significance of the most ordinary thing on the table and show that it represented Him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>He broke it and gave it to them, and said: Take, eat</em>-</p><p> The use of&nbsp;<em>didomi</em>&nbsp;"gave" is set in the context of all the talk about how the Lord would be&nbsp;<em>para-didomi</em>, betrayed / handed / given over to the Jews. The idea is that what happened was ultimately the Lord's choice. He gave Himself, to God and to His people, rather than being given over to death against His will. <em><a href='B:490 22:29'>Luk 22:29</a></em> says that the Lord then used the word&nbsp;<em>didomi</em>&nbsp;again: "This is My body, which is given for you". The giving of the bread to them was symbolic of how He would give His body to crucifixion, and how the 'giving over' of Jesus by Judas was not something outside of the Lord's control. It was not a misfortune which changed plans, rather was it precisely in line with the Lord's own giving of His body.</p><p><em>This is my body-&nbsp;</em>He said "This is My body which is given for you" (<em><a href='B:490 22:29'>Luk 22:29</a></em>), and also "This is My body which is broken for you" (<em><a href='B:530 11:24'>1Co 11:24</a></em>). He surely said both, repeating the words as the disciples ate the bread. He chose bread and not lamb to represent His body because He wished to emphasize His ordinariness and thereby His presence in the human, daily things of life. To give ones’ body is a very intimate statement, almost to the point of being sexual. This is the sober intensity and extent to which the Lord gave Himself for us.</p><p>When Jesus said “this is My body” we are to understand that ‘this&nbsp;<em>represents</em>, this is a symbol of my body’. Jesus was clearly referring to what was usually said at the Passover: “This is the bread&nbsp;of affliction which our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt”. It wasn’t of course literally the same bread. “This is” clearly means ‘this represents’ in <em><a href='B:450 5:3'>Zec 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 5:8'>Zec 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:19-23'>Mat 13:19-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:25'>1Co 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:27'>1Co 12:27</a></em>. In some Bible versions, when we read the word ‘means’, it is simply a translation of the verb ‘to be’ (<em><a href='B:470 9:13'>Mat 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:7'>Mat 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:26'>Luk 15:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:12'>Act 2:12</a></em>). ‘This is’ should be read as ‘this means / this represents’. The deftness of the way He broke that bread apart and held the cup comes out here in <em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>. He knew what that breaking of bread was going to mean.</p>


text:
<p>14:23<em>&nbsp;And he took a cup-&nbsp;</em>This was by no means easy for Him, because in Gethsemane He struggled so deeply in order to take it. Surely Mark was aware of this and wishes us to remember it every time we break bread. He&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;take the cup- the cup we go on to read about, that was so difficult for Him to accept. Luke's record records the taking of the cup twice. This could be a reference to multiple cups of wine drunk at the Passover; or it could be that Luke simply records the incident twice. Or perhaps the Lord was simply drinking from the common table wine, and more than once drew out the symbology.</p><p><em>And when he had given thanks-&nbsp;</em>Here&nbsp;<em>eucharisteo</em>&nbsp;is used, but&nbsp;<em>eulogeo&nbsp;for</em>&nbsp;the 'blessing' of the bread. The difference may be in that the Lord took the bread, an accessory to the meal, and turned that which was so ordinary into something of spiritual symbolism; and His blessing of the bread was necessary for this. But&nbsp;<em>eucharisteo</em>&nbsp;includes the idea of grace,&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, and suggests more thankfulness for grace- a thought appropriate to the meaning of the Lord's blood shed for us by grace. And naturally we wonder whether the wine that was taken was one of the Passover cups, or simply some of the table wine, an accessory to the meal just as the bread was. Whilst there was a taking of four cups of wine at the Passover, this may not be the only explanation for Luke recording the taking of two of them. It could simply be that as they were eating the Passover lamb, they ate bread and drunk weak wine as part of the accompaniments which went with every Palestinian meal. And the Lord twice passed comment on the wine, that it represented His blood. This would be similar to the manner in which He chose the bread, the&nbsp;<em>artos</em>, the ordinary word for bread rather than one referring specifically to unleavened bread, as the symbol for His body- rather than the meat of the Passover lamb. He could have made use of the blood of the Passover lamb as a symbol in some way- e.g. He could have asked a servant to bring the blood of the lamb and asked the disciples to all dip their fingers in it. But instead He uses wine as a symbol of His blood. My hunch is that the wine was the ordinary table wine accompanying the meal, just as the bread was, and was not the ritually significant Passover cup. In any case, the tradition of drinking cups of wine at Passover was non-Biblical, and somehow out of keeping with the original spirit of Passover, which was to remember the haste with which the first Passover was eaten. <em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em> speaks of "the cup of blessing which&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>bless", with the emphasis on the "we". We are to do what the Lord did that night- not be mere audience figures, but actually do what He did:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>He gave it to them and they all drank from it</em>-</p><p> The Lord held the memorial meeting as a keeping of a Passover, and yet He changed some elements of it. Joachim Jeremias cites evidence that “By the time of Jesus, individual cups were used at the Passover meal", and yet <em><a href='B:480 14:23'>Mar 14:23</a></em> implies that He used only one cup, which was passed around amongst those at the last supper: “He took the cup RV “a cup"… he gave it to them: and they all drank of&nbsp;<em>it</em>&nbsp;singular". They didn’t take up their own cups and drink- the Lord gave them His cup, just as He passes on to all in Him a participation in His “cup" of suffering and final joy. Reflect how deftly and determinedly the Lord must have “received the cup" (<em><a href='B:490 22:17'>Luk 22:17</a></em> RV), knowing what it represented; imagine His body language. Paul’s references to “<em>the&nbsp;</em>cup" imply the same. This change was surely to indicate the unity that His death, His blood, His life, was to inspire amongst those who share in it. This, in passing, is behind my undoubted preference for not using individual cups at the memorial meeting. It would seem to be a returning to the Jewish legalistic tradition, however unintentionally. I have elsewhere commented upon the clear link between the death of Jesus and our unity. The memorial meeting is the supreme celebration of that unity between us. To deny a brother or sister participation in it is something serious indeed. Tragically, and it is a tragedy, we have tended to use the memorial meeting as a weapon for exclusion rather than as a celebration of our unity. Yet this was the intention, without doubt. Comparing <em><a href='B:490 22:20'>Luk 22:20</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 14:24'>Mar 14:24</a></em> we find the Lord saying that the cup of wine was “for you poured out, poured out for many"- as if He wanted them to be aware at the memorial meeting that it was not only they who had been redeemed in Him. Likewise the Passover was essentially a remembering of the deliverance of a community, through which the individual worshipper found his or her personal salvation. This is why it is just not good enough to insist on breaking bread alone, or with no thought to the fact that all of us were redeemed together, as one man, as one nation, in Him. Remember that the Hebrew word for covenant,&nbsp;<em>berith</em>, is "derived from a verb meaning 'to eat'". That covenant was made with a community, the Israel of God; by eating the covenant meal we recall that collective covenant, that salvation of a community of which we are part- and it is appropriate therefore that it becomes a symbol of our unity within that community. The Old Testament idea of covenant is associated with words like&nbsp;<em>hesed</em>&nbsp;(kindness, love, devotion, grace),&nbsp;<em>emeth</em>&nbsp;(truth, integrity),&nbsp;<em>emunah</em>&nbsp;(faithfulness, allegiance). These are the characteristics associated with being in covenant relationship; and we are to show them to all others who are in covenant relationship, not just some of them.</p>


text:
<p>14:24&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: This is my blood-&nbsp;</em>Given Jewish obsession with blood and ritual uncleanness arising from contact with it, such language was surely purposefully challenging and radical, just as He had spoken of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in <em><a href='B:500 6:53'>Joh 6:53</a></em>. This made many turn away when He said it, but the Lord realized that His followers had to make a total break with Judaism. The drift of some Christian believes back towards the mentality of Judaism is totally missing the Lord's point- He was speaking in such challenging terms to make His followers realize that there was no middle path of compromise between Him and Judaism. Although He never commanded them to leave the synagogue system, and assumed they would remain in it until they were thrown out of it, all the same the Lord stated His principles in such a way that it would've been effectively impossible for His followers to remain within that system:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Of the new covenant, which is poured out for many</em>-</p><p> The promises to Abraham were effectively the new covenant, even though they were given before the old covenant the law of Moses was given. The Lord's death confirmed those promises made to the Jewish fathers (<em><a href='B:520 15:8'>Rom 15:8</a></em>). But God's word is true as it stands and in that sense needs no confirmation, no guarantee of truthfulness. But in an effort to persuade us of the simple truth and reality of the promises of eternity in the Kingdom which were made to Abraham, God confirmed it through the death of His Son. This was foreseen in the horror of great darkness which Abraham experienced in Genesis 15. Abraham did nothing to confirm his side of the covenant; it was God who passed between the pieces of the slain animal, during a time of Divine darkness as there was on the cross, in order to demonstrate to Abraham and to us all how serious He was about keeping His promise. Through the death of Christ, God commended His love to us (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>), He confirmed the covenant; not that He needed to do so, nor that His love needs any more commendation to us. But He did, in order to seek to persuade us of the truth of the promises which comprise the Gospel (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>). In this sense "the promise was made sure s:w. 'confirmed' to all the seed" (<em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>); the extra element of making sure or confirming the promise was in the death of God's Son. Our hope is therefore "sure<em>&nbsp;and</em>&nbsp;confirmed AV "steadfast" (<em><a href='B:650 6:19'>Heb 6:19</a></em>). <em><a href='B:650 9:17'>Heb 9:17</a></em> puts it another way in saying that a will or legacy is only confirmed AV "of force" by the death of the one who promised the inheritance, and the death of Christ was God's way of confirming the truth of what He had promised. This same word meaning 'confirmed' is used by Peter in writing of how we have "the word of prophecy made sure / confirmed" (<em><a href='B:680 1:19'>2Pe 1:19</a></em>). The prophesied word is the word of the Gospel, the promise of the Kingdom which began in Genesis, and this has been confirmed to us, made even more sure, by the Lord's death. Peter isn't referring to prophecy in the sense of future events being predicted in the arena of world geopolitics; the prophesied word is the word of our salvation, of the Gospel- which is how Peter elsewhere uses the idea of "the word". God can save who He wishes, as, how and when He wishes. He was not somehow duty bound, left with no option, forced by an unpleasant logical bind to suffer the death of His Son. He gave His Son, according to His own plan from the beginning. But He did it that way in order to persuade us of His love and simple desire to give us the Kingdom He has promised from the beginning of His revelation to men. The Lord's blood is "of the new covenant" not in that it&nbsp;<em>is itself&nbsp;</em>the new covenant, but rather in that it is the blood associated with the confirmation of that covenant as true. And so it is understandable that the Lord should wish us to understand His blood as the blood of the new covenant, the supreme sign that it is for real, and desire us to regularly take that cup which reminds us of these things. <em><a href='B:650 6:17-18'>Heb 6:17-18</a></em> carries the same idea- that in order to demonstrate the utter certainty of the things promised to Abraham's seed, God confirmed it by an oath so that we might a strong consolation and persuasion of the certainty of the promise. The death of God's Son was not therefore unavoidable for Him; He could save us as He wishes. But He chose this most painful way in the ultimate attempt to persuade men of the reality of His Son. With this understanding we can better appreciate the tales of the old missionaries who went to pagan and illiterate tribes and reported a strange response to their message once they explained the idea of the Son of God dying on a cross to show us God's love. It must be persuasive to us too, week by week as we reflect on the blood of the covenant.</p><p>"Covenant" literally means that which is to be disposed of or distributed, and was used about the distribution of property upon decease. The Lord's parables about the Master who distributes all His wealth and possessions to His servants were surely looking forward to His death, at which He gave us all He had- and that was and is visually symbolized in the breaking of bread, the division even of His body and life blood amongst us, for us to trade with.</p><p>Moses bound the people into covenant relationship with the words: “Behold the blood of the covenant" (<em><a href='B:20 24:8'>Exo 24:8</a></em>). These very words were used by the Lord in introducing the emblems of the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:480 14:24'>Mar 14:24</a></em>). This is how important it Is. We are showing that we are the covenant, special Israel of God amidst a Gentile world. Indeed, “the blood of the covenant" in later Judaism came to refer to the blood of circumcision (cp. <em><a href='B:10 17:10'>Gen 17:10</a></em>) and it could be that the Lord was seeking to draw a comparison between circumcision and the breaking of bread. For this is how His words would have sounded in the ears of His initial hearers. This is how vital and defining it is to partake of it.</p>


text:
<p>14:25<em>&nbsp;Truly I say to you: I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine-&nbsp;</em>An allusion to how the priest on duty was not to drink wine during his service. The Lord foresaw His work from then on, beginning with the cross, as an active doing of priestly work for us. This would imply that the essence of His work on the cross is the essence of His work for us today; there is a continuity between Him there and His work for us now, with elements of the same pain and passionate focus upon us and the achievement of our salvation. He is not waiting passively in Heaven for the time to return; He is actively busy for us. There is also the implication in His words that His future 'drinking' will be literal- He was holding literal wine in His hand, and He said He would not again drink it until the Kingdom. This suggests that at very least, He invites us to understand His future Messianic banquet as being in some ways a literal feast.</p><p><em>Until the day when I drink it anew-&nbsp;</em>This is not 'new' in the sense of freshly made (a different word is used for that), but new in terms of quality, not time. It speaks of a new quality, a freshness, rather than something 'new' in chronological terms. The new wine represented the blood of the new covenant which was shed on the cross. It could be argued that the drinking of this new wine became possible not simply at the last day, but in this life too, in the experience of the church after the Lord's shedding of that blood on the cross.</p><p><em>In the kingdom of God</em>-</p><p> The reference is primarily to the literal Kingdom to be established on earth at His return (<em><a href='B:490 22:29-30'>Luk 22:29-30</a></em> goes on to speak of the disciples eating and drinking in the Kingdom as they sit with Christ on His throne judging Israel), but there is a sense in which His word is fulfilled in the breaking of bread service, where He drinks wine with us as the invisible guest. For His parables of the Kingdom all speak of the experience of God's reign / Kingship as a present experience in the lives of His people. <em><a href='B:490 22:16'>Luk 22:16</a></em> adds with reference to the bread: "Until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God". The fulfilment of Passover deliverance is finally in the last day, and yet the fulfilment of Passover is also to be seen in the breaking of bread service. Note in passing that the Lord's predilection for the term 'Kingdom of God' or 'Father's Kingdom' was perhaps to counterbalance the Jewish emphasis upon the Kingdom as being that of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;father&nbsp;<em>David</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 11:10'>Mar 11:10</a></em>). The Kingdom was God's, "<em>Yours</em>&nbsp;is the Kingdom", rather than simply and solely the re-establishment of Israel's Kingdom:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord Jesus clearly saw a link between the breaking of bread and His return. He not only told His people to perform it “until he come", but He said both before and after the last supper putting together the Gospel records that He would not keep this feast until He returned. Our breakings of bread are therefore a foretaste of the final sitting down with Him in His Kingdom- for He had elsewhere used the idea of feasting with Him as a symbol of our fellowship with Him at His return. The Rabbis had repeatedly taught that Messiah would come at Passover; the first century Rabbi Joshua said that “In that night they were redeemed and in that night they will be redeemed by Messiah". Much evidence could be given of this. For this reason Josephus records how the Jewish revolts against Rome repeatedly occurred around Passover time. Yet all the Jewish feasts have some reference to the breaking of bread. The Hebrew writer picks up the image of the High Priest appearing to pronounce the blessing on the people as a type of the Lord’s second coming from Heaven bearing our blessing. And yet they also all prefigure judgment in some way. Thus the Mishnah taught: “At four times in the year is the world judged". Because the breaking of bread involves a serious concentration upon the cross, and the cross was in a sense the judgment of this world, it is apparent that the breaking of bread is in some ways a preview of the judgment seat.</p><p>The Lord's promise that He would not break bread again until He did it with us in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:480 14:25'>Mar 14:25</a></em>) seems to require a literal fulfilment. In a non-literal sense He breaks bread with His people even now. Therefore His statement that He would not do it again until the Kingdom seems to refer to His literal taking of bread and wine. Likewise His promise that He would literally gird Himself and come forth and serve us at a future banquet has to be linked in with this (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>). If all the faithful are to be gathered together to a meal, and literally eat bread and drink wine with the Lord, this suggests all sorts of logistical and practical 'problems'. It is easier to understand that space and time will have different meanings at the judgment and after.</p>


text:
<p>14:26- see on <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when they had sung a hymn</em>-</p><p> Probably the Passover hallel of Psalms 115-118. It's worth reading those Psalms imagining them on the lips of the Lord at the last supper; they are pregnant with relevance for His forthcoming death, especially the reference to "I will take the cup of salvation". <em><a href='B:650 2:12'>Heb 2:12</a></em> surely has the scene in mind, quoting "In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto You" as being proof of the Lord's absolute humanity. The fact He sung praise to&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;surely reveals a human and not Divine Christ. But doing so amongst His brethren, "the church", as one of them, is an essay in His unity with us, both in nature and experience.</p><p><em>They went out to the Mount of Olives</em>-</p><p> The Passover ritual required that nobody should go out of the house until morning (<em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em>). This is clearly teaching that the Passover deliverance had already begun, even before the Lord's blood had been shed, and would connect with the usage of present tenses concerning the Passover and shedding of the Lord's blood (see on :2,28). This sets the scene for the Lord's comment in :32 that He would go before them, and they should follow Him. He was as Moses and as the Angel which went before Israel on Passover night. The allusion to <em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em> shows that the old legislation had passed away, and in any case the type of Passover being kept by the Lord was not strictly the Mosaic one- for it's likely He was celebrating it a day earlier than stipulated. But the point perhaps was that the true Israel of God were now 'going out' from Egypt; so certain was the Lord that He would achieve deliverance that He could speak of that deliverance as already being achieved. He didn't, therefore, see His work on the cross as something which He might or might not successfully achieve- as we should, He went ahead in the certainty of ultimate success and victory.</p>


text:
<p>14:27&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to them: All of you shall fall away. For it is written: I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:480 4:17'>Mar 4:17</a></em>. They would spiritually stumble and fall because <em><a href='B:450 13:7'>Zec 13:7</a></em> predicted this would happen. But the Lord goes on to urge them to watch and pray so that they do not succumb to temptation. He saw Biblical prophecy as being open ended in fulfilment- the prophecy of spiritual failure didn't have to come true. They could resist, sin and failure is never inevitable. He spoke to them in the upper room specifically so that they would&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>be offended (<em><a href='B:500 16:1'>Joh 16:1</a></em> s:w:); the prophecy didn't have to come true in the disciples, and the Lord did His utmost to provide the potential for it not coming true for them:&nbsp;</p><p>His death was to be as that of Moses, which left the Israel of God as sheep without a shepherd (<em><a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a></em>). And yet the Lord's death would gather together the scattered s:w. people of God (<em><a href='B:500 11:52'>Joh 11:52</a></em>), His death was as a shepherd giving His life for the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:11'>Joh 10:11</a></em>). His death and resurrection was to be the means of reviving the lost faith of the disciples- when they meditated upon it. The people of Israel at the Lord's time had had no true shepherds and were therefore as scattered sheep (<em><a href='B:470 9:36'>Mat 9:36</a></em>):&nbsp; The Lord's death would therefore temporarily leave the disciples just like the rest of Israel- they would return to the mentality of Judaism, the 'satan' of the Jewish system and its thinking would tempt them and they would give in. The wolf of Judaism would scatter the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>). The disciples were therefore as sheep who scattered because of the thinking of the Jewish world around them, who saw death on a cross as the final defeat for a man; and yet were to be gathered by that very death. Peter was one of those disciples, even though he insisted that&nbsp;<em>he&nbsp;</em>would not be scattered even if others were. He surely had this in mind in appealing to other believers who were falling under the influence of Judaism: "You were as sheep going astray, but are now returned s:w. 'converted'- just as he was 'converted' to strengthen his brethren unto the Shepherd... of your souls" (<em><a href='B:670 2:25'>1Pe 2:25</a></em>). Peter was therefore appealing to others to follow his own pattern- of revival and conversion after spiritual failure. This is the basis for all powerful pastoral appeal.</p>


text:
<p>14:28<em>&nbsp;However, after I am raised up-&nbsp;</em>There is no equivalent of "after" in the Greek text. This is an insertion by translators in order to try to give sense to the three brief Greek words which simply say "And I rise again". The idea is that 'By My rising again, I will go before you…'. The Lord's plan was that His resurrection would re-ignite faith in His disciples, and He would go before them as a shepherd leads His sheep, into Galilee.</p><p><em>I will go ahead of you into Galilee</em>-</p><p> This is the language of the shepherd going before the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:4'>Joh 10:4</a></em>), in obedience to His voice. The Lord is saying that although they will stumble and lose faith, His resurrection will provide them with a credible word from Him which they would obey by following Him into Galilee. This is why the resurrected Lord's first instruction to the women was to "Go tell My brothers that they go into Galilee; there shall they see Me" (28:10). But it actually didn't work out like that. His meeting with them in Galilee was in fact the third time He revealed Himself to them (<em><a href='B:500 21:14'>Joh 21:14</a></em>). He appeared to them twice before that. And the picture we have of the disciples fishing in Galilee in John 21 is of them still relatively faithless, depressed and having returned to their fishing; they are hardly pictured as eagerly awaiting the Lord's promised appearance in Galilee. So it seems to me that the Lord changed His intended program with them. Their faith was so weak that He appeared to them in Jerusalem twice, whereas He had originally planned for the women to tell them His word- to go before Him into Galilee, and there He would reveal Himself to them. But in His love for them, His own desire to see them, His awareness of their weakness in faith... He appeared to them twice&nbsp;<em>before</em>&nbsp;Galilee. And even then, we sense from the fishing incident of John 21 that they were still floundering in their faith, and may well have returned to Galilee in order to return to their fishing business, rather than in obedience to His word. Why did He so wish to meet them in Galilee, rather than in Jerusalem? Their journey to Galilee would've been a test of obedience for them, for sure. But surely the Lord reflected by this choice the paramount importance He placed upon the conversion of families. He wanted to appear to them there, surely, because that was where most of them were from, and where their families were. He wanted them too to be persuaded once and for all time of the reality of His resurrection:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>This promise sounds very much like a conscious allusion to the Angel going ahead of Israel; as if Christ felt that He (through the Comforter Angel?) had taken over the role of the Angel that represented Him previously?</p>


