# commentaries

text:
<p><em>And he said to the vinedresser-</em></p><p> Again the unreality is emphasized; a vinedresser is asked to pay special attention to a solitary fig tree. See on <a href='B:490 13:6'>:6</a>.</p><p>Behold, these three years I came seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?- The allusion is to the Mosaic principle that such fruit was only clean after three years. After the three years of His ministry, during the Lord's final six months, God suggested to Him that the nation of Israel be cut down (this is but one example of the private intercourses between Father and Son). The Lord knew when He must die soon; He had already steadfastly set His face to go to die at Jerusalem (<a href='B:490 9:51'>Lk. 9:51</a>). It seems to me that He knew He would be killed by the Jews in a few months time. But He asks the Father to spare Israel for at least another year- as if to show that He knew they wouldn't accept Him even after His death, but He's saying to God: 'Give them a chance even after they kill me'. Those who think further along the lines suggested by the parable will see that in reality, Israel were not cut down by God for another 37 years. The implication is that this was due to Christ's pleading with God during those  years for patience to be shown to the nation who rejected and  crucified Him. The element of unreality in the story reflects the grace of Jesus- for it was unthinkable for a servant to argue back with his master, asking not to do what he had been ordered to do. </p>


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


text:
<p>In the parable of <em><a href='B:490 13:8-9'>Luk 13:8-9</a></em>, the Lord portrays Himself as even reasoning with God, who had decreed the Jewish tree be cut down in the third year of His ministry. He as it were persuades God to allow His efforts to continue for another six months, in desperate hope against hope that there would be some fruit of repentance. We, to a man and to a woman, would have given up on Israel, and would have somehow been gratified that the Father wanted to treat them like this. I would have turned to the Gentiles a long time before the Lord and Paul did.</p><p><em>Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you shall cut it down</em>-</p><p> Here we have another insight into the open-ended nature of God's purpose. His intention was to bring an end to the fig tree, either Israel or the Jewish leadership represented by the fig tree; but His Son argued for more time, and He agreed. The amazing extent and power of the Lord Jesus is further brought out in the story of the worker in the vineyard who can almost direct His boss- the Father- not to cut down the barren fig tree of Israel until it has more chance to bear spiritual fruit- “if not,<em> you</em> shall cut it down”. Speaking to crowds of day labourers and farm workers, this would have struck them as strange- that this worker had such power over his boss. See on <em><a href='B:490 11:21'>Luk 11:21</a></em>.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And a woman was there who had had a disabling spirit for eighteen years; she was bent over and could in no way straighten herself</em>-</p><p> Bullinger has some interesting comments upon the woman with an unclean “spirit of infirmity” (<em><a href='B:490 13:11'>Luk 13:11</a></em>) that resulted in her being unable to lift herself up straight. “The negative is <em>me</em>, not <em>ou</em>; and is therefore subjective. She <em>felt as if </em>she could not do so… it appears, therefore, to have been a <em>nervous disorder</em>; and had to do with her <em>pneuma</em>” or mind. And yet she is described as having been ‘bound by Satan’. The ‘Satan’ or adversary to her standing upright was her own mindset. And it was this spirit or mindset “of infirmity” from which the Lord released her. Here we clearly see the connection between ‘spirits’ and mental disorder or dysfunction; for ‘spirit’ in Scripture so often refers to the psychological mindset of a person. </p><p>The description of the woman has several links with the time of the Judges; there were two periods of 18 year domination (<em><a href='B:70 3:14'>Jdg 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 10:18'>Jdg 10:18</a></em>), and they were likewise stooping in affliction and unable to stand up in their own strength because of the power of their oppressors. She was a "daughter of Abraham" (:16), representative of Israel. All the judges / saviours of Israel pointed forward to the Lord as Israel's 'Jesus', Yah's salvation.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>He replied: To what is the kingdom of God like? And unto what shall I liken it?</em>-</p><p> Perhaps we are to sense here the struggle to compress the wonder of God's Kingdom into any parable or simile. The small seed of the Gospel of the Kingdom can produce a mighty tree in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 13:18-19'>Luk 13:18-19</a></em>). It is easy to under-estimate the power of that seed- the Lord's parable seems to be making that point. I would seriously suggest that <em>all</em> of us ought to regularly study the basic doctrines of our One Faith for ourselves, personally. The writer told the Hebrews that he would have to lay<em> again</em> the foundation teachings of the Gospel, in order to renew them <em>again</em> unto repentance (<em><a href='B:650 6:1-4'>Heb 6:1-4</a></em>).</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And again he said: Unto what shall I liken the kingdom of God?</em>-</p><p> As noted on :18, perhaps we are to sense here the struggle to compress the wonder of God's Kingdom into any parable or simile. </p>


text:
<p><em>It is like the yeast which a woman took- </em>The good news of God's Kingdom, in both present and future aspects, is like yeast which works away <em>from the inside</em> of a man and <em>inevitably, by its very nature</em> makes a fundamental change. Because whoever really believes the doctrines of the One Faith and lives the life which they naturally bring forth, really will be saved. Therefore we will have a sense of true unity with our brethren who believe as we do, whatever human barriers there may be between us. Therefore "the Faith" is linked with unity between believers (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:27'>Phi 1:27</a></em>). </p><p>This continues the theme of the preceding parable; which was about a&nbsp;<em>man</em>, and now He tells a similar story balanced out with a&nbsp;<em>woman</em>&nbsp;as the central figure. Again the point is that from tiny beginnings, great influence comes. And as a note in how to perform Biblical exegesis, we&nbsp;should learn here that because yeast is used negatively in some Bible passages, it doesn't&nbsp;<em>always</em>&nbsp;have to require that meaning. The Gospel which we preach is likened to yeast- in itself a startling comparison- because it is through our humanity that we will influence others, by being our real, human selves. Yet the woman mixing yeast is preparing a huge amount of bread, according to the specifications in <em><a href='B:470 13:33'>Mat 13:33</a></em>. This is perhaps to show us that whilst our influence may be quiet and unseen, the quietest witness can have a huge influence. W:D. Davies quotes Pliny and the Mishnah, giving examples of the use of yeast as a&nbsp;<em>positive</em>&nbsp;symbol (W:D:Davies,&nbsp;<em>Matthew</em> p. 422).</p><p><em>And hid- </em>The teaching of Jesus works quietly from within- that could be the sense. Just as the tiny seed of the Gospel produces huge results finally, so the yeast of the Gospel has disproportionate influence. But we must give full weight to the Lord's other teachings about hiddenness. We are to become a city set on a hill which&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;be hid (<em><a href='B:470 5:14'>Mat 5:14</a></em>; our good works "cannot be hid", <em><a href='B:610 5:25'>1Ti 5:25</a></em>); it is the rejected who hide the talent of the Gospel so that nobody sees it (<em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>). Ultimately, the yeast hidden within us at the time of sowing the seed, at the time the yeast is first inserted into the dough, will become public. In the wider context of this section, the Lord is explaining to the disciples the tragedy of how the seed or yeast first sown by John the Baptist has not achieved its intended result- because people were still hiding it, as Joseph and Nicodemus did (<em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em> s:w:- Joseph was a 'secret' or 'hidden' disciple). And we find the same word just two verses later in <em><a href='B:470 13:35'>Mat 13:35</a></em> - the Lord was now speaking forth publicly things which had been 'hidden' (AV "kept secret") in the Old Testament period. The treasure was "hid" in the field of the world, but the Lord Jesus gave all that He had so that He could redeem / buy the world, the field, and bring the hidden treasure to light (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>). Perhaps we could say that the yeast was only hidden to those who did not have eyes to see; for that has been the context of the Lord's teaching here (see on <em><a href='B:490 13:10'>Luk 13:10</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>In three measures of flour, until it was all raised</em>-</p><p> Until the flour was completely influenced. The hint could be that when the Gospel, the yeast, has done its complete work and the flour is finally completely leavened into a loaf- then the Lord will come. His work then will be complete. The calendar date of the Lord's return is therefore 'open' to some extent, just as the harvest is reaped only when the fruit (of the Spirit) has been brought forth.</p><p>It's tempting to see some connection with Paul's warning that false teachers must be removed from the church, because a little yeast leavens the whole lump (<em><a href='B:530 5:6'>1Co 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:9'>Gal 5:9</a></em>). It could be that he is simply using the figure of yeast in a different sense. But his frequent allusions to the Gospels make us wonder whether he is consciously alluding to the Lord's teaching here. It could be that he is saying 'Get rid of the&nbsp;<em>old</em>&nbsp;yeast, the yeast of false teaching and associated unspirituality- and instead, be influenced by the&nbsp;<em>true</em>&nbsp;yeast, of Christ's teachings rather than the yeast of&nbsp;<em>false</em>&nbsp;teaching'.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he went on his way through cities and villages, teaching and journeying on to Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> This was His final appeal to them. For at this point He was in the last six months of His ministry (:7). </p>


text:
<p><em>And one said to him: Lord, are they few that are saved? And he said to them</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 13:1'>Luk 13:1</a></em>. This question about the ultimate justice of God in saving only some has reverberated throughout the centuries. The Lord gives no direct answer, but instead urges us to strive to enter in to salvation ourselves (:24); as if these kind of philosophical questions are likely to derail us from ourselves entering salvation. The existence of such unanswered questions is purposeful in how God has set up our entire spiritual and mental existence. They are to humble us, and to lead us deeper in clinging on to faith and love of God by our faith rather than by our intellectual understanding. Clarity of understanding such questions would not lead to faith- or else the Lord would have given the answers. But He did not. The next verse goes on to note that there will be many who wish to enter the Kingdom, but all too late- for in this life they didn't want to. This provides helpful perspective to the question of why few shall be saved. One angle on it is that actually the majority don't want to be saved, and would not want to be saved even if they were given the opportunity or knowledge. And instead of accusing God of injustice, we should ensure we are not amongst them.</p>


text:
<p><em>Strive to enter in-</em></p><p> The idea of <em>striving</em> to enter the Kingdom, the need for such agonizing effort, meant an awful lot to Paul (<em><a href='B:530 9:25'>1Co 9:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:29'>Col 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 6:12'>1Ti 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:7'>2Ti 4:7</a></em>). It's fashionable these days to focus upon the certainty of our redemption in Christ and to ignore the warnings about apostasy. In Paul we see a brother who brought these two strands together; because his mind was so Christ and Gospels-centred. He personalized those Gospels, he must have kept thinking to himself&nbsp;’Now this applies to <em>me</em>... it really does…'. What a brother. What an active mind, a mind which he knew had Christ living in it. The Lord answers the question “Are there few that be saved?” by insisting that we personally strive to enter by the narrow door (<em><a href='B:490 13:23-24'>Luk 13:23-24</a></em>).</p><p>Those who "are first" in their own eyes, those who think for sure they will be in the Kingdom, will seek to enter the Kingdom at the day of judgment, but be unable. Those who strive to enter the Kingdom <em>now</em> are “last" in their own spiritual assessment; and the first will be made last in the sense that they won't be in the Kingdom:&nbsp; Thus when those who will enter the Kingdom are described as thinking of themselves as "last", this must mean that they think of themselves now as being unworthy of the Kingdom, but as "striving" to be there now, in their minds (<em><a href='B:490 13:23-24'>Luk 13:23-24</a></em>). The likes of Samson died with a confession of unworthiness on their lips- in his case, that he deserved to die the death of a Philistine (<em><a href='B:70 16:30'>Jdg 16:30</a></em>)- but he will actually be in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a></em>). </p><p><em>By the narrow door. For I say to you, many shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able</em>-</p><p> "Door" here means specifically an entry to a house, not a gate. Entry to the Kingdom is entry to a household, a family, a home. Salvation is not to be enjoyed only by us on an individual level; rather is it about membership of the saved community. And we begin that experience now. The picture of many people striving unsuccessfully to enter in through a door recalls the picture of the Sodomites seeking to find the door of Lot's house and being smitten down in condemnation (<em><a href='B:10 19:11'>Gen 19:11</a></em>). Those men represent those who outside a shut door shall be condemned at the Lord's return. So it's not at all that some want to find the way in this life, but can't. Those who wish to find it can find it. The picture here is rather of condemnation at the last day. </p><p><em>“Many</em>" of those who call Christ their Lord and who regularly break bread in his presence, where two or three others are gathered believing they are in his name, will find they are rejected, <em>and they just won't be able to understand why on earth they were rejected</em> (<em><a href='B:490 13:24-27'>Luk 13:24-27</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a></em>). Anyone who thinks the majority of believers must surely make it through to salvation needs to think again. Please God, we will- but "many" (the Greek can mean, but not always, 'the majority') will be in for this inexplicable (to them) rejection, when they were sure they'd lived a good Christian life. Those with spiritual problems are prone to reason that when judgment day comes, they will be able to just shrug their shoulders and walk away from their Lord to eventual death. However, there is every reason to think that the rejected will come to their spiritual senses then, and plead to be allowed to enter the Kingdom. Many will seek to enter into the Kingdom at the judgment but will not be able; and so we should strive now to enter into it. The implication is that if we strive to enter in now, we will enter in then. Everyone will so earnestly seek to enter the Kingdom in the last day, and the urgency of that coming day should be ours today. Ezekiel's prophecies so often make the point that experiencing God's judgments leads men to <em>know</em> Him; thus at the day of judgment, the rejected will knock at the door of the Kingdom, knowing that they know Christ- to be told that although they may now know him, he doesn't know them. Thus the pain of rejection will be acutely mental rather than physical. Ezekiel is told to judge Israel, i:e. "cause them to know the abominations of their fathers" (<em><a href='B:330 20:4'>Eze 20:4</a></em>). This is what condemnation will result in- a recognition of sin for what it is. "According to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they [the ways and doings] judge thee" (<em><a href='B:330 24:14'>Eze 24:14</a></em>). It will be self-condemnation, but they will then <em>realize</em> this in terrible detail.</p><p>The Greek for "many" often means 'the majority'. Here perhaps we have the clearest implication that only a minority of those who come to Christ shall ultimately be saved. Hebrews, Romans and 1 Corinthians 10 suggest that if we think that natural Israel were far worse than spiritual Israel in terms of percentage coming to salvation- then we must take heed lest we fall.</p>


text:
<p><em>When the master of the house- </em>The “master of the house” is representative of Jesus; and yet we are to be the “master of the house” in spiritually feeding our brethren (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a></em> RV). It is through us that He ministers to His household. </p><p><em>Is risen and has shut the door, and you begin to stand without and to knock at the door, saying- </em>This continues the allusion to the men of Sodom outside the locked door; see on :24. We are Christ to our brethren. Knocking is sometimes used as a figure for prayer (<em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:7'>Luk 11:7</a></em>). The basis for these foolish virgins is surely in <em><a href='B:240 1:28-29'>Pro 1:28-29</a></em>: "Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer... they shall not find me: for that hated knowledge". The foolish virgins realize the need for prayer all too late; they knocked on the door with great zeal, asking for it to be opened; seeking but not finding. They were so convinced they knew the day and hour that prayer for the Lord’s return, and prayer to Him generally, somehow was overlooked or felt to be unnecessary.</p><p><em>Lord-</em></p><p> The Lord had warned that saying “Lord, Lord” would not guarantee “entry” into the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>). And here He is speaking about exactly such “entry”- the same word is used here. The category in view are those who considered themselves believers, who thought that externally correct forms of address would impress the Lord Jesus. The “Lord, Lord” contingent indeed had “done many wonderful works” (<em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em>), but they had never known and loved&nbsp;<em>Him</em>. Whilst organized church life is a necessary part of our present experience and the Lord’s intention, the danger is that it can exalt such “works” and public appearances to the point that personal relationship with the Lord is totally eclipsed.</p><p><em><a href='B:520 2:13'>Rom 2:13</a></em> alludes here. Paul saw the "Lord, Lord" people of the parable as the Jews of the first century who initially responded enthusiastically to the Gospel. The contrast is between saying "Lord, Lord" in this life, and then in the future not entering into the Kingdom. The contrast is between merely&nbsp;<em>saying</em>&nbsp;and actually&nbsp;<em>doing</em>. The Lord repeats the idea in His mini parable of the two sons; the one who 'said' he would be obedient, and the other who 'did' the will of his father (<em><a href='B:470 21:30-31'>Mat 21:30-31</a></em>). The acceptance of Christ as Lord means that we are as His servants and slaves; it is for us to 'do' His will and work. This fits with the context of the preceding verses- that if He is really our Lord, we will inevitably&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;His will, and that doing will be actual, practical and visible. It is the false prophets who merely say but don't&nbsp;<em>do</em>, just as they claim to be good trees but don't have good fruit.</p><p><em><a href='B:530 13:2'>1Co 13:2</a></em> also alludes here. To say "Lord, Lord" without really&nbsp;<em>knowing</em>&nbsp;Christ is living without love. Thus Paul saw an association between a lack of true love and an external show of appreciation of Christ's Lordship. Not doing what Christ says is a lack of love, in Paul's mind. If we appreciate this, we will see that those who are ignorant of Christ's words cannot show true love. Biblically ignorant Christians need to think through the implications of this. Those who insincerely say "Lord, Lord" now, will say the same then, at the judgment, with the same lack of reality (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>). The repetition of "Lord, Lord" shows that our attitude to Him in this life will be that we have when we meet in the last day. The sensation of working for the Lord can be so self-deceptive. He draws the difference between doing many wonderful works in His name, saying “Lord, Lord”; and&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;doing the will of the Father (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>). The parallel <em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em> has that men will say “Lord, Lord” but not really hear His words. To hear them is to do the will of the Father. Putting all this together, it is perfectly possible to bear His Name, call Him Lord, work hard for Him- and yet never really hear His words, and thereby never really know the will of our Father. From this parallel we can conclude that our attitude to Christ in this life (e.g. "Lord, Lord!") will be our attitude to Him at the judgment seat. If we think He is a hard, unreasonable Lord: that is how He will be. To the froward (in this life), He will show Himself froward. Straight away we are met head on with a major challenge: Our attitude to Christ in this life will be our attitude to Him at the judgment seat. John's letters reason down the same line: “If (in this life) our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence (now) toward God... this is the confidence that we have in him... abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence... before him (at the judgment) at His coming" (<em><a href='B:690 3:21'>1Jn 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>). The confidence we have towards Christ now will be the confidence we have at judgment day. This fact should pull us up out of the spiritual indifference which characterizes so much of our lives. If we see Christ as an abstract theological necessity, a black box in our brain called 'Christ'; if we don't have a dynamic, two- way relationship with Him now- then this too is how we will regard Him then:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Open to us!- he shall answer and say to you: I do not know who you are</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; There is clear linkage with the parable of the foolish virgins in Matthew 25, who likewise end up outside the door, and their knocking is to no avail. "Lord, Lord, open to us" is met with the response "I know you not"; and this connects with an earlier picture of the rejected at judgment day:&nbsp;"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not... in thy name done many wonderful works?&nbsp;And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you" (<em><a href='B:470 7:22-23'>Mat 7:22-23</a></em>):&nbsp;Thus there is the implication that when the foolish virgins delay their going to meet Christ, they amass a list of "many wonderful works" which they hope will impress their Lord:&nbsp;This would explain the indignation of the rejected at Christ's rebuke of their lack of suitable works (<em><a href='B:470 25:41-45'>Mat 25:41-45</a></em>). These people would probably not have appeared reprobates in this life; works are so impressive to ones' fellow believers. Jesus did not tell this parable about five hookers and five virgins;&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;of them were 'virgins' in the parable, having an appearance of purity from being in Christ. By contrast, "the wise", whose love for Christ makes them respond immediately to the call, are unconscious of their works of faith (<em><a href='B:470 25:35-40'>Mat 25:35-40</a></em>):&nbsp; "Lord, open to us" is therefore to be read as a confident demand by the unworthy for entry into the Kingdom, based upon trust in their "wonderful works":&nbsp;"I know you not" is paralleled with a lack of oil:&nbsp;The Lord knows His people through their attitude to the oil; whether they have enough or not, or whether they think they do or think they do not, is all so irrelevant. The essence is in wanting the Lord’s return:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Then shall you begin to say: We did eat and drink in your presence, and you did teach in our streets</em>-</p><p> Their experience of Him teaching in their streets could suggest that it was first century Israel who are in view here; for the Lord has just been recorded as teaching in their streets (:22). This is confirmed by verse 28, where the particular rejected ones will find they have been replaced by the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he shall say: I tell you, I do not know from where you are- </em>From what nation or ethnicity. They were complete strangers, speaking another language. The intended paradox is in that those who were so confident they knew the day and hour actually did not know it (<em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em>), and did not know Christ. They thought knowing the day and hour was the same as knowing Christ; or at least, they put the two together in their minds as one and the same. But they are not. And that is the point of this parable, which is sandwiched in between warnings that we do not and cannot know the day and hour- but we are invited to know Christ personally.</p><p><em>Depart from me</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 25:36'>Mat 25:36</a></em>. The rejected will be told: "Depart from me"; and yet in their lives, they will have already departed themselves. In time of temptation some <em>fall away </em>(s:w. "depart from"; <em><a href='B:490 8:13'>Luk 8:13</a></em>). Some <em>depart </em>(s:w:) from the faith (<em><a href='B:610 4:1'>1Ti 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:12'>Heb 3:12</a></em>). Demas departed (<em><a href='B:620 4:10'>2Ti 4:10</a></em>), as the rejected will depart (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>). The same word is used about how the seed sown among thorns <em>goes forth</em>, it departs (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>) to condemnation. The foolish virgins go, or depart, to buy oil- using the same word with which they are told by their Lord to depart from Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:9'>Mat 25:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>). They departed, and so He tells them to depart. Now they willingly absent themselves from the Lord, but then they will not want to depart from Him. God will gather up the nations to thresh them, but they gather themselves to Him (<em><a href='B:400 4:11-12'>Mic 4:11-12</a></em>). </p><p>This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:620 2:19'>2Ti 2:19</a></em>: ‘Depart from sin now, or you'll depart from Christ at the judgment’. This is Paul's classic way of making plays on words; again an indication of how his writings are partly a product of his own meditation upon and familiarity with the Gospels:&nbsp;</p><p><em>All you workers of iniquity</em>-</p><p> And yet they have just protested their association with the Lord, and in Matthew 7, all the good they did for others, healing, teaching etc. On one level, good can be done- but the good is a work of iniquity if it is done with an unspiritual heart, and especially in order to gain personal wealth or advantage. In Old Testament times, God used the nations to do His will, but they were still condemned for their hearts being far from Him. Those who "do iniquity" [s:w:] are gathered out of the Kingdom at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>)- confirming that these people are within the visible Christian community. And there will be "many" of them- suggesting the Lord doesn't just have in view a handful of charlatans at the leadership level who claim to do miracles and teach in His Name just for money. This problem of thinking that we are justified before Him just because we are His channel of work is clearly foreseen by the Lord as a major and widespread problem. <em><a href='B:470 24:12'>Mat 24:12</a></em> could imply that this will be a specific latter day problem- for within the believing community, "because iniquity [s:w:] shall abound, the love of many [Gk. 'the majority'] shall become cold".</p>


text:
<p><em>There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth-</em></p><p> Either we will mourn now in repentance (<em><a href='B:490 6:25'>Luk 6:25</a></em>; the Greek for "mourn" is often in a repentance context), or we will mourn at the judgment. Having foretold the inevitable coming of judgment day, Yahweh Himself pleads with Israel: "Therefore also&nbsp;<em>now</em>... turn ye even to me... with weeping, and with mourning" (<em><a href='B:360 2:12'>Joe 2:12</a></em>). Gnashing of teeth suggests anger, triggered by seeing Gentiles in God’s Kingdom and Jewish people from the time of Jesus rejected. So it is partly anger with self, but also the raging anger which comes fromjealousy. We need to meditate upon the way in which actual human beings who met Jesus in the flesh are for sure going to reappear at the day of judgment. On their deathbeds or later in life they may’ve idly reflected ‘Ah yes, there was that Jesus guy I met once, the one they killed, and then a cult started based around Him afterwards’. Such people will reappear at judgment day, and their same basic personality will continue. As they were furious at the Lord’s claim that Gentiles would be in God’s Kingdom, so they will be in a blind rage about it still at judgment day. The only other time the Greek for ‘gnashing’ is used in the New Testament is in <em><a href='B:510 7:54'>Act 7:54</a></em>, where again the Jewish conscience was pricked, leading them to gnash upon Stephen. How they were then in the first century is how they will be at the last day. The gnashing of teeth is clearly connected with the anger which comes from jealousy at others’ acceptance. One cannot help think of the very many professing believers who have huge anger at the thought of an open table, or of someone they consider to be ‘outside’ of their small circle breaking bread at the Lord’s table. Those same basic structures and constructs of thinking, that same essential personality, will reappear at judgment day. The awesomeness of having been resurrected and actually meeting Jesus in person will not change our basic personalities. Our spirit, in that sense, is preserved. The time for change of attitudes and transformation of character is now:&nbsp; In the OT, gnashing of teeth always means to hate somebody, often the righteous (<em><a href='B:220 16:9'>Job 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 35:16'>Psa 35:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 37:12'>Psa 37:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 112:10'>Psa 112:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:16'>Lam 2:16</a></em>). Could it not be that the rejected hate their Lord and His people, who will be watching the judgment in some form, and therefore go and join the ranks of the embittered armies that come against Him? Or is their extreme hatred against themselves? <em><a href='B:230 112:10'>Psa 112:10</a></em> speaks of the wicked gnashing with their teeth and melting away, suggesting that the slinking away process goes on even in the outer darkness; they wander, but in their aimless wandering they slowly slink yet further away from their Lord- the one who once fain would have carried them on His shoulders, gathered them under His wings. It's a terrible picture. Cain, in typifying all the rejected, felt that his condemnation was something greater than he could bear (<em><a href='B:10 4:13'>Gen 4:13</a></em>).</p><p><em>When you shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast out</em>-</p><p> The rejected will see themselves thrust out of the Kingdom; as if somehow they see themselves from outside of themselves. What spirituality they thought they had they will see as it were taken away from them (<em><a href='B:490 8:18'>Luk 8:18</a></em> AV mg:). This will be the result of the judgment process. They will be convinced by the judgment process of all the ungodly deeds which they had not previously been convicted of, e.g. their hard words against their brethren (<em><a href='B:720 1:15'>Jud 1:15</a></em>). <em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em> may also be a reference to the educative effect of judgment: "When we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world". The world's condemnation will be at the second coming; the judgment and chastening to which Paul refers must therefore be that of the last day. However, in the context he is making the point that our self-examination at the memorial meeting and our response to the chastening hand of God in our present life is in fact a foretaste of that final judgment experience. </p><p>Note that the Pharisees will be thrust out of the Kingdom at judgment, implying that in a sense they were part of it before its establishment. This is the huge tragedy of rejection.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they shall come from the east and the west, and from the north and the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God</em>-</p><p> The mention of the four compass points alludes to the promises to Abraham in Genesis 28; Genesis 14. The true seed of Abraham were going to take the places of those the Lord is addressing here. And I suggest that this category are those symbolized by the fruitless fig tree of the parable which prefaced this teaching; and the fig tree within the vineyard of Israel perhaps referred specifically to the Jewish religious leadership. They are hereby declared not to be the true seed of Abraham. This paves the way for Paul's declaration that whoever is baptized into the Lord Jesus, Jew or Gentile, is the true seed of Abraham (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). </p><p>"Sit down" is Gk. ‘to recline’. The reference is to the Messianic banquet, where Gentile Christians will sit with Abraham and the Jewish fathers (:28)- because they have become the children of Abraham by faith and baptism into Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em> comments that the Lord will have to&nbsp;<em>make</em>&nbsp;the faithful sit down at that banquet- so strong will be our abiding sense that ‘I am not worthy of this’:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last</em>-</p><p> In this amazing comment at the conclusion of the section, we learn that in fact some who are first in this life&nbsp;<em>and choose to remain first</em>&nbsp;shall still be saved, although they will be “last” in the Kingdom. The same word for “last” is used in the parable which speaks of believers having to take the “last” or ‘lowest’ place around the Lord’s table (<em><a href='B:490 14:9-10'>Luk 14:9-10</a></em>). There are and will be gradations between the Lord’s people, both now and eternally. Those who are “first” in this brief life, retaining their wealth when they should not, shall be saved by grace but will be the least in the Kingdom. Whereas those who are the least in this life, or make themselves the least, will become the first in God’s Kingdom. Alternatively, we can read "last" here as referring to condemnation, which is what the Lord implies is the destiny of the religious leaders of first century Israel whom He is addressing. </p>


text:
<p><em>In that very hour certain Pharisees came warning him: Get out and leave here. For Herod wants to kill you</em>-</p><p> The Lord's response that Herod was a fox (:32) suggests that He saw this as part of a plot. Herod was trying to force Him towards Jerusalem, where there was a better chance the Lord could be arrested and killed rather than in Herod's jurisdiction (<em><a href='B:490 23:6-7'>Luk 23:6-7</a></em>). The Pharisees were part of this plot, and they therefore brought this message to the Lord. But the Lord died exactly when and in what manner He chose; He was not overtaken by events. He was going to Jerusalem to give His life, it would not be taken away from Him. </p><p>We note that when Herod finally met the Lord, he found no fault in Him and no reason for the death penalty for Him (<em><a href='B:490 23:15'>Luk 23:15</a></em>). And yet Herod wanted to kill the Lord at this stage. There was something in the personal presence of the Lord Jesus which touched even the hardest conscience; Pilate and Herod are parade examples.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Go and say to that fox- </em>Herod was openly hateful towards the Lord Jesus amongst others. "Fox" seems a strange adjective to use for him, as it implies craft, deceit and hypocrisy. Perhaps the Lord is therefore referring to the way Herod was deceitful and fox-like within his own mind, denying the clear prods of conscience which he had felt from his first encounter with John the Baptist's message. Or as suggested on :31, the Lord was not going to be scared out of Herod's jurisdiction and therefore run off to Jerusalem to die there as a result of the plot laid by Herod. </p><p><em>Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow; and on the third day I shall reach my goal</em>-</p><p> The Lord is saying that He is not going to go away immediately. He had work to do, and on the third day He would leave Herod's jurisdiction, once he had perfected His work / reached His goal- which may be a reference to the resurrection of Lazarus. The language of course is appropriate also to His resurrection on the third day. He saw this situation as pointing forward to how His death would also be calmly met by Him, He would not have His life taken away by the likes of Herod but rather He would give it; and then in the resurrection of the third day, He would "reach my goal". </p>


text:
<p><em>Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following. For it cannot be possible that a prophet can die anywhere except Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> The Lord did not take seriously Herod's threat to kill Him; because Herod only had jurisdiction in Galilee, and the Lord knew that He must die in Jerusalem. But "Jerusalem" may refer more specifically to the Jewish religious leadership, the condemned fig tree with which this section began. The Lord would then be saying that Herod's plan to scare Him into leaving Galilee and going into the jurisdiction of Jerusalem, so that He would be killed, was actually exactly the Lord's plan. There is no Old Testament prophetic requirement that Messiah or any prophet die in Jerusalem or at the hands of the Jerusalem leadership. But the Lord, as a prophet, had created that requirement, knowing it to be the Father's will. And He was going up to "Jerusalem" exactly to do that; He was doing so of His own freewill and not because He had been driven there from fear of Herod. A Herod had after all sought to kill Him in babyhood, and it had come to nothing.</p>


text:
<p><em>O Jerusalem!- </em>It was “this generation” which killed the prophets (:35), so why does the Lord specifically talk here about the children of Jerusalem? “Daughter of Zion” was an Old Testament term used for the faithful remnant in Jerusalem. But the way the Lord talks of gathering Jerusalem’s residents under His wings is surely because He had a clear vision before Him of how the city would be burnt. For a hen typically gathers her brood under her wings to protect them from a barnyard fire; or perhaps with the intention of being burnt first to preserve the life of her brood as long as possible. And these were the Lord’s feelings to the “Jerusalem” which rejected Him and sought His life; He wanted to save them, to buy them some more time at least (as reflected in the parable of the worker who doesn’t want to cut the tree down immediately). But they didn’t want to know. It was and is all so tragic.</p><p><em>Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones them that are sent to her! How often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her own brood under her wings, and you were not willing!</em>-</p><p> I suggested on :33 that "Jerusalem" refers not so much to the physical city as to the Jerusalem based religious leadership of Israel. He so wished to have gathered their "children", their converts and those they influenced; but He had had very limited success. The allusion is to the parable of the husbandmen, who killed and stoned the servants / prophets sent to them (<em><a href='B:470 21:35'>Mat 21:35</a></em>):&nbsp;Stoning was the punishment for apostasy (<em><a href='B:50 13:10'>Deu 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:59'>Act 7:59</a></em>). It was their wilful religious misunderstandings which led them to such violence in practice:&nbsp;</p><p>“The Lord builds up Jerusalem: he gathers together the outcasts of Israel” (<em><a href='B:230 147:2'>Psa 147:2</a></em>) is alluded to by the Lord here, where He reflects how He would fain have gathered together the children of Jerusalem, “but you were not willing”. The words of the Psalm speak as if this is what the Lord God is going to do. But Jesus understood it as being impossible of fulfilment if the outcast children would not allow themselves to be gathered. Likewise the statement that the Lord will build up Jerusalem was made in a restoration context; but again, it was dependent upon the Jews’ obedience for its fulfilment. God was and is potentially ready to work with us. &nbsp;</p><p>The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ is perhaps most clearly seen in His attitude to Israel. So many of the parables refer in some way to the love of God and Christ for Israel; and their love for rebellious, indifferent Israel is the supreme example of pure grace. He felt towards them as a hen for her chicks. Here again is an element of unreality; a hen whose very own chicks won't be gathered under her wings. This seems to go right against nature; the pain of the rejected parent was there in the experience of the Lord. He wasn't just passively enduring the polemics of the Pharisees; they were His chicks, He really wanted them under His wings (cp. Israel dwelling under the wings of the cherubim). We must ever remember this when we read the records of Him arguing with them and exposing their hypocrisy. He wasn't just throwing back their questions, playing the game and winning, just surviving from day to day with them. He was trying to gather them, and their rejection of His words really hurt Him. Their reproach broke His heart; He didn't just brazenly endure it as we might the ravings of a drunken man (<em><a href='B:230 69:20'>Psa 69:20</a></em>). &nbsp; </p><p>He lamented over a Zion that sought only to hurt and murder Him. Yet not so many verses later in our Bibles we hear the Lord using the same word in saying that at His coming, the elect would be "<em>gathered together</em>" unto Him (<em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>). He so often had earnestly desired the coming of His Kingdom there and then; to gather His people unto Him. But they would not. It must have been unbearable to be such a sensitive person in such a hard and insensitive, dehumanizing world. “How often…” suggests that there were specific times in His ministry when it would have been potentially possible to gather together Zion’s children in one and begin the Kingdom. But they refused. </p><p>We see the Lord’s humility here in comparing Himself to a female, humble, farmyard animal- and not a proud lion. Many of thedescriptions of the Lord in the parables are taken from Old Testament passages describing the feelings of&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;towards Israel, showing the truth of this in the first century context when Israel were still God's people. Thus the Lord's description of Himself as a hen wishing to gather the chicks of Jerusalem is based on <em><a href='B:290 31:5'>Isa 31:5</a></em>: "As mother-birds flying, so will the Lord defend Jerusalem" (Heb:):&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 13:8'>Luk 13:8</a></em> could suggest that Christ's attitude to Israel was even more patient than that of God Himself; yet because their feelings to Israel are identical, the implication is perhaps that the Son enables and thereby persuades the Father to be even more patient with us than He would naturally be! The gracious desire of the Lord to save even those who crucified Him is the essence of God’s saving care in the Old Testament.</p>


text:
<p><em>Look, your house- </em>The temple had always been called "The house of Yahweh". But now it is was theirs, as the "feasts of the Lord" become the "feast of the Jews". The Lord's table became&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;table (<em><a href='B:230 69:25'>Psa 69:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:22'>Psa 69:22</a></em>). They had hijacked God's institutions, just as men today have hijacked the Lord's table and imposed their own guest list and rejection policy upon it. Likewise the Lord called the law of God through Moses as now being “<em>their</em>&nbsp;law" (<em><a href='B:500 15:25'>Joh 15:25</a></em>). The breaking of bread ritual practiced by the Corinthians was eating their&nbsp;<em>own&nbsp;</em>supper and therefore their gatherings were “<em>not</em>&nbsp;to eat the&nbsp;<em>Lord's</em>&nbsp;supper" (<em><a href='B:530 11:20'>1Co 11:20</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Is left to you desolate- </em>The Greek word is used many times and always in the sense of a wilderness. This is the fulfilment of <em><a href='B:350 2:3'>Hos 2:3</a></em>, where God through Hosea had threatened to make His beloved "a wilderness". This is the link with the Olivet Prophecy in chapter 23, which develops this theme of the desolation of the temple and a desolating abomination which was to be placed there. Clearly, therefore, the primary intention of the Olivet prophecy was to the Jewish generation and temple in which immediate context the Lord was speaking. The fact the prophecy clearly has latter day applications and did not completely fulfil in AD70 shows that there was a change of plan, as has often happened in the Divine program, with prophecies being delayed and reapplied in their fulfilment.</p><p><em>And I say to you, you shall not see me- </em>The same words are used in <em><a href='B:470 13:14'>Mat 13:14</a></em>, "You shall not perceive / see" Christ. Previously, they had 'seen' Christ as Messiah, realizing that this was the heir, and desiring therefore to kill Him. But now the Lord was giving them over to the blindness of their hatred. They would not knowingly crucify God's Son. But He was saying that He now was going to stop them 'seeing' / perceiving Him for who He was, so that they would crucify Him. And they would only again perceive Him as God's Son all too late, when at the day of judgment they uttered the words of Messianic welcome "Blessed is He that comes...". And yet even in this terrible judgment there was interwoven a possibility of hope. They would only perceive Him again as God's Son&nbsp;<em>when</em>, or,&nbsp;<em>until the time that</em>, they recognized Him as Messiah in the Messianic words "Blessed is He that comes...". Once they made that repentance, they would again perceive / see Him. However, it could be argued that that is axiomatic. The thrust of the Lord's words is surely that in the day of judgment, all too late, they would perceive Him again as He is in truth. But all too late.</p><p><em>Until you shall say- </em>When they are appointed their portion with the hypocrites and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth,&nbsp;<em>then&nbsp;</em>shall the Kingdom be likened unto the five wise and five foolish virgins:&nbsp;<em>Then</em>&nbsp;the rejected will understand the principles of that parable, crystal clearly. Members of the ecclesia of Israel will say "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord"- but be rejected. Likewise the Egyptians, fleeing in the mud from Yahweh as they vainly hoped against hope that the returning waters wouldn't somehow reach them... they came to know Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:18'>Exo 14:18</a></em>). It could well be that this knowing of Yahweh involves a desperate recounting of their sins, seeing that one of the purposes of condemnation is to make men aware of their sinfulness and the depth of God's grace.</p><p><em>Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord</em>-</p><p> When Jerusalem sees Jesus again, they will be saying: “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”. This would suggest they are waiting for Him. And these words being taken from the Passover hallel, it could be that the Lord returns to them at Passover time, when they traditionally expect Him. Indeed, Jerusalem will not see the Lord&nbsp;<em>until</em>&nbsp;they say “Blessed is he…”- as if the time of His return depends upon their ‘seeing’ / perceiving Him beforehand.</p><p>At the day of judgment, nobody will be passive and indifferent. Everyone will want to be accepted. All of us who come there will see there is only one way we want. Self-examination will be the order of the day. The virgins will knock on the door and plead for it to be opened. The first century Jews will say "Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord". They will want to be on Messiah's side then. None of us will be vacillating between total commitment and the lazy drifting of our human nature. And our judgment seat is going on now, today. “This splitting of the decision between only two alternatives may seem an over-simplification: we fondly think of ourselves as faced with a continuous range of possibility over which to decide, but in the ultimate that range may be broken down into a number of discrete two-way choices, each one a decision between good and evil” (Ralph Lovelock). </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a Sabbath to eat bread, that they were watching him</em>-</p><p> The Pharisees liked to feast on the Sabbath, with the work done by Gentile servants or by non-observant Jews who were beneath their respect. This was clearly a set up situation. Allthe labour which went into preparing the meal had been done somehow within their legal parameters, but to heal would be outside them. They assumed that Jesus was soft hearted enough to want to heal the person immediately, hence the temptation for Him to 'work' on the Sabbath. This gives a window into the essential person the Lord was, and still is- compassionate, and wishing to immediately engage with our human needs.</p>


text:
<p><em>And before him was a certain man that had the dropsy</em>-</p><p> This is another example, along with the language of 'demons', of how illness is described from its appearance to the first century beholders- even if their understanding and perception was wrong. For 'dropsy' was the language describing the man's appearance with drooping, saggy limbs and with the soft tissues sagging down because of excess body water gathered in them. The appearance, as they understood it, became the name for the disease. And they considered mental illness to be the work of demons, and so that language is used- without proving that demons actually exist.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answering spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?</em>-</p><p> The Lord realized the sick man was a plant, placed carefully "before him" (:2) (and see on :4), and so He took the initiative. The Greek for "heal" means literally to wait upon, to serve. At the meal, there would have been servants waiting upon them- on the Sabbath. The Lord was doing the same, by healing. But that was held to be 'work'; thus the Lord exposed their double standards.</p>


text:
<p><em>But they held their peace. And he took him and healed him, and let him go</em>-</p><p> Letting him go implies the man had been planted there, perhaps against his will; see on :3. 'Taking him' before healing him suggests again the Lord used physical touch. He could heal from a distance, but His preferred style was to emphasize His personal connection with those He healed. We sense His desire, to this day, to personally connect with people.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately draw him up on a Sabbath day?</em>-</p><p> God Himself has an urgency for human salvation; the Lord drew a parallel between the man who rushed out to save his animal on the Sabbath, and His waiving of the Sabbath in order to save others. Indeed, the way He did His miracles on the Sabbath rather than waiting shows His sense of urgency; not a day could be wasted for the sake of human scruples. “Which of you shall have a son fallen into a well, and will not straightway draw him up?" (<em><a href='B:490 14:5'>Luk 14:5</a></em> RV). Wells weren’t that wide. Only a small child would fall down one. We can imagine the tragic situation in the home. "Benny’s fallen down the well!". And everyone would go running. They wouldn’t wait until the Saturday evening. Nor would they worry the slightest about infringing the letter of the law. And so, the Lord explained, that little boy was like the sick men and women, sick both physically and spiritually, whom He saw around Him. There was an <em>urgency</em> which He felt about them. And so there should be with us too. We can realize that this world is evil and vain; and yet we can still fail to perceive the tragedy of it all, and the urgency of our task to save at least some. The Father of the prodigal told the servants: "Bring forth <em>quickly</em> the best robe" (<em><a href='B:490 15:22'>Luk 15:22</a></em> RV). The indebted man was told to sit down <em>quickly</em> and have his debt reduced (<em><a href='B:490 16:6'>Luk 16:6</a></em>). There is an urgency in the mediation of mercy towards others.</p><p>The Lord's enthusiasm for the salvation of first century Israel (and us too) comes out in <em><a href='B:490 14:5'>Luk 14:5</a></em> RSV, where He likens the <em>urgency</em> of His mission to that of a man whose son has fallen down a well. He simply <em>must</em> get there, regardless of the Sabbath rules. And this, says the Lord, is His all-out urgency to save men. We have all fallen down the pit from whence we must be rescued (<em><a href='B:450 9:11'>Zec 9:11</a></em>). As we distribute leaflets, place our adverts, talk to our contacts, strive in our own character development towards salvation; this is the verve of the Lord Jesus to save us. It is only the hardness of the human heart that can stand in the way of the mighty enthusiasm of the Son of God for our redemption. Hence the sense of hurt, sadness and frustration to the Master when men refuse His efforts, as typified in the story of the wonderful banquet that was inexplicably spurned by the intended guests (<em><a href='B:490 14:16'>Luk 14:16</a></em>). In passing, note the connection of pulling a man out of a pit with Joseph and Jeremiah, types of the Lord's resurrection (cp. <em><a href='B:230 40:2'>Psa 40:2</a></em>). When a man is pulled out of the pit at baptism, he is sharing the experience of the resurrected Lord. And the Lord is naturally so urgent that men should share that experience which He suffered so much for. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they could not answer these things</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:520 8:31'>Rom 8:31</a></em> may allude here; what shall <em>we </em>say to these things? Psychologically, being intellectually silenced is a shameful experience- unless one surrenders completely to the new argument. The response of the Jews for the most part was to get angry and to hate the Lord yet more. But the Lord wasn't out to just win an argument; He wanted to convert them. And He knew that by silencing them, He was leading them to a point where they would either convert totally, or hate Him unto death. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he noted how they chose out the chief seats, he told a parable to those that were invited, saying to them</em>-</p><p> The Lord was a guest, but He took the stage. Having silenced His hosts, He goes further, attacking the mindset of His fellow guests as well as His hosts. This was not because He was an aggressive, victory-oriented person. He wanted their repentance, and in this case, He saw this might be achieved by going on the offensive, forcing them to a point where they must capitulate to Him, or go away in bitterness, self-condemned, having themselves made the answer. And this is His style to this day.</p>


text:
<p><em>When you are invited by anyone to a marriage feast, do not sit in the chief seat; lest a more honourable man than you be invited by him</em>-</p><p> Elsewhere, the Lord had presented the invitation to His Kingdom as an invitation to the Messianic banquet. It ought to be obvious that we take the lowest seat in the light of such a gracious invitation. We sit there awed by the grace of being there in the ecclesia; all judgmentalism, superiority and criticism of others is so deeply inappropriate. We are to assume that the others are "more honourable". This is not a call to naivety, but rather to such a deep impression of our own experience of grace that we see others as better than ourselves. The Lord may mean us to assume that our response to His grace in calling us should instil in us an appropriate humility in secular life; as we take the lowest seat in the community of believers, so we take the lowest place in social life. The experience of grace is such that we are affected by it in every department of our secular and social lives. The chiefest in the Kingdom is the Lord Jesus; He is the "honourable" one, the same word translated "precious" about Him in <em><a href='B:670 2:4'>1Pe 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:6'>1Pe 2:6</a></em>. The implication is that if we don't take the lowest seat, then we are taking the place which is the Lord's place. Any other choice apart from the deepest humility is an awful, Christ-surpassing pride, a taking of His place.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he that invited you shall come and say to you: Give this man your place. Then you shall be shamed into taking the lowest place</em>-</p><p> The Lord teaches that if we're invited to a feast, we should take the lowest place, genuinely assuming the others present are more honourable than us; and we take our place at that table awaiting the coming of the host. Our attitudes to the seating and behaviour on entry to the feast will affect our eternal destiny- for when the Lord comes, He will make the arrogant man suffer "shame", which is a commonly used descriptor of the rejected at judgment day. The Lord goes on in that same discourse to explain what our attitude should be- He tells the parable of the great supper, to which those who were invited didn't pitch, and there was a desperate, last minute compelling of smelly street people to come in and eat the grand meal. </p><p>The shamed person who took the highest place is not thrown out of the feast; instead, he takes the lowest place. This could suggest that the judgment process is for our education. Those who were conceited and superior shall be eternally educated then. There may be a similar teaching in the way that the labourers who worked longest and hardest 'learn' when the payment is given at the end of the day; but they retain their penny, their salvation. See on <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>. There is therefore the possible implication that some who will be accepted by the Lord who even at the judgment have wrong attitudes towards their brethren. Before the Lord of the harvest, those who thought they had worked hardest complained that those they thought had done less, were still getting a penny. They were rebuked, but they still had their penny (cp. salvation; <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>). The subsequent comment that the first shall be last might imply that they will be in the Kingdom, but in the least place. Likewise the brother who takes the highest place in the ecclesia will be made with shame to take the lower place- yet still within the family of God. </p><p>The public nature of the judgment experience is hinted at throughout the Lord's parables. The other guests at the Lord's table will see the man who took the highest place in the ecclesia taking now the lowest place- he has "shame" before their eyes, and likewise the believer who took the lowest place in this life will have praise for that humility from the other guests, as the Lord exalts him or her higher (<em><a href='B:490 14:9-10'>Luk 14:9-10</a></em>). In this context the Lord proceeded to warn His followers not to be like the man who sets out to build a tower, but can't complete it- and therefore he has shame from those who behold it (<em><a href='B:490 14:29'>Luk 14:29</a></em>). This is just another way of saying the same thing. There will be believers who grandly showed themselves to their brethren to be building something which actually they couldn't complete; and they will have shame before their brethren when the day of judgment reveals who they really are. All this, of course, has massive practical implications. If all will be ultimately revealed before our brethren in the last day, why try to act before them as someone we're not?</p><p>Yet on the other hand, the idea of the Lord Jesus returning and one of His guests having “shame" must surely refer, in line with other Biblical passages, to the shame of condemnation. ‘And so therefore’, the Lord continues, ‘take that lowest place at the feast right now’. When the Lord spoke of how we must come down from our good seats at the feast and take the lowest seat, He's actually referring to condemned King Zedekiah, who likewise had to come down from his throne and take a lowly seat (<em><a href='B:300 13:18'>Jer 13:18</a></em>). If the “lowest room" is seen as the place of the shame filled condemned… then surely He’s saying that we should consider ourselves as “condemned" now as we sit at the feast. And what feast does the Lord have in mind? Is He perhaps referring on some level to the breaking of bread, which is the Lord’s supper / feast where we now each take our place? Should we not, therefore, be sitting there feeling [although this is only part of the story] condemned, and the lowest of all? Is that not <em>one</em> [and only one, be it noted] of the emotions elicited in us by the cross? The “feast" of the breaking of bread is clearly meant to be understood by us as a foretaste of the Messianic “feast" of the future Kingdom. And if we genuinely feel we should have the least place there, we will reflect that in our taking the lowest place at the memorial meeting. In our hearts, we will sit there knowing we ought to be condemned.</p><p>The man lying helpless on the Jerusalem - Jericho road was surely modelled on Zedekiah being overtaken there by his enemies (<em><a href='B:300 39:5'>Jer 39:5</a></em>). When the Lord spoke of how we must come down from our good seats at the feast and take the lowest seat, He's actually again referring to Zedekiah, who likewise had to come down from his throne and take a lowly seat (<em><a href='B:300 13:18'>Jer 13:18</a></em>). That weak, vacillating man basically loved God's word, he wanted to be obedient, but just couldn't bring himself to do it. And so he was, quite justly, condemned. It's as if the Lord saw in that wretched, pathetic man a type of all those He came to save. And even in this wretched position, the Lord will pick us up and carry us home. This gives a fine, fine insight into His sensitivity to us. Indeed, several times the Spirit in the NT uses OT pictures of unworthy believers as the basis of a description of the faithful. See on <em><a href='B:490 10:33-34'>Luk 10:33-34</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when you are invited, go and sit down in the lowest place; that when he that has invited you comes, he may say to you: Friend, go up higher. Then shall you have glory in the presence of all that sit to eat with you</em>-</p><p> The Lord clearly taught the continuity between the breaking of bread and the future marriage supper by observing that He would not again drink the cup until He drinks it anew with us at the marriage supper (<em><a href='B:470 26:29'>Mat 26:29</a></em>). The parables of how the Gospel invites people as it were to a meal are suggesting that we should see the Kingdom as a meal, a supper, of which our memorial service is but a foretaste. We are commanded to enter the supper and take the lowest seat, strongly aware that others are present more honourable than ourselves. Those with this spirit are simply never going to dream of telling another guest 'Leave! Don't partake of the meal!'. But this is the spirit of those who are exclusive and who use the Lord's table as a weapon in their hands to wage their petty church wars. The very early church didn't behave like this, but instead sought to incarnate and continue the pattern of the meals of the Lord Jesus during His ministry. And this is one major reason why their unity drew such attention, and they grew. To exclude someone from the Lord’s table is to judge them as excluded from the Kingdom banquet. And those who make such judgment will themselves be rejected from it.</p><p>We are come to "God the judge of all"- even now (<em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em>). He is right now enthronedas judge of our lives (<em><a href='B:470 5:34'>Mat 5:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 93:2'>Psa 93:2</a></em>). We are <em>now </em>in God's presence, and can't escape from it (<em><a href='B:230 139:2'>Psa 139:2</a></em>); and the presence of God is judgment language (<em><a href='B:510 3:19'>Act 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 1:9'>2Th 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:1'>2Th 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>). "God is the judge: he puts down one, and sets up another" in His mind (<em><a href='B:230 75:7'>Psa 75:7</a></em>)- although the final putting down and setting up will be at the judgment seat (the basis for the parable of the man being asked to go up higher). This same parable is also rooted in <em><a href='B:240 25:7'>Pro 25:7</a></em>: "Put not forth yourself in <em>the presence </em>of the king, for better it is that it be said unto you, Come up hither: than that you should be put lower in <em>the presence</em> of the prince". We are in the King's presence both in this life- when we chose where to sit- just as much as when He returns and re-arranges the seating. The day of the Lord is coming, but it is even now (<em><a href='B:400 7:4'>Mic 7:4</a></em> Heb:). Before His presence, we shall feel "the lowest" of all. And that is how we are to feel in this life. This outlaws any sense of superiority towards our fellow guests, our brethren, in this life.</p><p>The parable about taking the lowest seat sounds obvious to us. If a poor nobody is invited to the King’s feast, he would naturally take the lowest place, with feelings of wonderment, awe, embarrassment, joy, quiet honour, excitement that he’d been invited, that he was somewhere too good for him, by grace. The element of unreality in the story is that the man arrogantly takes a high place, and has to be demoted at the coming of the King. There’s something unreal about this. But there’s the rub. This is exactly how we are behaving when we jockey for status and ‘power’ in the ecclesia [in whatever form], when we fail to consider each man better than ourselves to be. This is how absurd we’re being. The way the Lord applies this to His church implies that we should consider each of the other invited guests as “great men” of nobility. This is the level of respect which He intends there to be amongst us for our fellow brethren. The parables of judgment truly touch the very core of our spiritual being. </p>


text:
<p><em>For everyone that exalts himself shall be humbled, and he that humbles himself shall be exalted</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>. So how, then, can we ‘humble ourselves’? As noted on :9 and :10, we are to live now as if we are in the Lord's judgment presence, and all we seek is the lowest place in His Kingdom. When Israel was a child... she was humble, as we should be after our spiritual rebirth at baptism. It is evidently not something natural; for it is a fruit of the spirit we must develop. It isn’t a natural timidity or nervousness or shyness. By realising our own sinfulness, we will realise our condemnation, and thereby be ‘brought down’. For we are condemned for our behaviour, but saved out of that condemnation. The exact, vast debt is reckoned up- before we are forgiven (Matthew 18). We have been invited through the Gospel to sit down in the Kingdom. Humbling ourselves is therefore sitting down in the <em>lowest</em> place- not just a low place. Strictly, the Greek means ‘the farthest’ away from the Lord Jesus, who sits at the head of the table. Like Paul we must somehow get that deep and genuine apprehension that we are “chief of sinners”- and sit in the <em>lowest, farthest</em> place. This would mean that we ‘each esteemed our brother better than ourselves to be’, not in any naïve, meaningless way; not seeing strengths where they simply don’t exist; but seeing him [or her] that way simply in comparison to our own lowness. Seeing others as higher than ourselves is a sure remedy for every case of ecclesial friction and division. So often pride develops from a worry about what others will think of us, a desire to be seen as acceptable and not unusual. It leads to a hyper-sensitivity regarding what others may be implying about us. The humbled mind will not see things in these terms. <em>If only we would each, personally, learn this lesson, or at least grasp the truth and beauty and power of it</em>. The publican was so worried about his own position before God that he paid no attention, so we sense, to the hypocritical brother next to him: “The publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner… this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for … he that humbles himself shall be exalted” (<em><a href='B:490 18:13-14'>Luk 18:13-14</a></em>). That sin-conscious man is an essay in self-humbling. This is why David sometimes parallels “the meek” and the repentant sinner (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 25:8-9'>Psa 25:8-9</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he also said to him that had invited him: When you make a dinner or a supper, call not your friends, nor your brothers and sisters, nor your kinsmen, nor rich neighbours, unless they also invite you and repay you</em>-</p><p> The Lord gave His parable about how <em>He</em> has invited us, through the call of the Gospel, to a great supper. Quite simply, the very experience and wonder of having been invited to the Kingdom should lead us to likewise invite others. But further. If we have truly understood the implications of the Lord’s gracious calling, if we have truly perceived our desperation, we will take <em>the</em> lowest place, considering ourselves the <em>lowest</em> and least worthy. And we will therefore go out and invite others of the same class to which we perceive ourselves to belong- the poor, the maimed and blind.</p><p>Our attitude to others will be reflective of our perception of God's grace in calling us- as we were invited by such grace, so we will invite others to <em>our</em> table who likewise cannot recompense us. If we are the blind and maimed invited to the Lord's table, we will invite the blind and maimed to our table. The extent of God's grace to us really needs to sink in. When was the last time <em>you</em> did an act of pure grace to others like this…? </p><p>The Lord Jesus described those who responded to the Kingdom Gospel as entering into a marriage supper (<em><a href='B:480 2:18-19'>Mar 2:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:12-24'>Luk 14:12-24</a></em>), which was a well-known figure for the future Messianic Kingdom (<em><a href='B:290 25:6-9'>Isa 25:6-9</a></em>). By eating / fellowshipping with Him in faith, His followers were in prospect enjoying the Kingdom life. To exclude people from His table is to seek to exclude people from His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when you make a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind</em>-</p><p> There is a connection between <em><a href='B:490 14:13'>Luk 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:21'>Luk 14:21</a></em>. This is exactly what the parable of :21 teaches that God does: “Bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind”. The basis of God’s calling of us must be the basis upon which we relate to others. We cannot recompense Him, yet He shows us His gracious invitation. So we too must share ourselves with those who cannot give us anything. In this sense, we like our Father, serve for nothing in the sense of no personal, concrete gain. We must <em>be</em> gracious by nature, and just <em>be</em> as He <em>is.</em></p><p>The lame, blind etc. were not allowed to serve God under the law (<em><a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a></em>), nor be offered as sacrifices (<em><a href='B:50 15:21'>Deu 15:21</a></em>), nor come within the holy city (<em><a href='B:100 5:6-8'>2Sa 5:6-8</a></em>). The Lord purposefully healed multitudes of lame and blind (<em><a href='B:470 15:30'>Mat 15:30</a></em>), and allowed them to come to Him in the temple (<em><a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a></em>). His acted out message was clearly that those who were despised as unfit for God’s service were now being welcomed by Him into that service. The lame and blind were despised because they couldn’t work. They had to rely on the grace of others. Here again is a crucial teaching: those called are those who can’t do the works, but depend upon grace. We need to appreciate too that in Palestine, to refuse an invitation to a feast was a major insult to the person who gave it. That the majority of people refused it would’ve been so hurtful to the host. And in this we see a picture of the pain of God, that the majority refuse His invitation. Therefore He is so happy when anyone <em>does</em> respond, even if they’re down and out. And we should hold in our heart the tragedy of God, the pain of God, that so many have refused Him; and therefore never judge anyone as unsuitable who may respond to the invitation. We’re making the invitations for <em>His</em> sake, not our own. And on this basis we ‘bring in’ those desperate types to the Lord’s feast (:21). The same word is used about Barnabas ‘bringing’ the unlikely convert Paul to the apostles (<em><a href='B:510 9:27'>Act 9:27</a></em>), and later ‘bringing’ or introducing him to the Antioch ecclesia (<em><a href='B:510 11:26'>Act 11:26</a></em>), the “other sheep” being ‘brought’ into the fold (<em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em>), the blind man whom people thought was no good for Jesus being ‘brought’ unto Him (<em><a href='B:490 18:40'>Luk 18:40</a></em>), the Samaritan ‘bringing’ the good-as-dead wounded man to the inn / the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:490 10:34'>Luk 10:34</a></em>), all reflecting how the goodness of God leads / brings [s:w:] desperate sinners to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). In our ‘bringing in’ of desperate people to the Lord’s feast, we are vehicles for that grace of God which ‘brings in’ men and women to Him. Notice in passing that we invite people to the Kingdom feast without seeking a recompense from them- i:e. we should not expect anything from them, be it personal loyalty, money, respect etc. And if we don’t get it from them, only then will we be rewarded / recompensed for our preaching at the last day. So it should&nbsp;be no surprise to us if as with Paul our converts turn against us and in no form ‘recompense’ us for calling them. Actually we should take comfort from this, as it is an encouragement that we will have our recompense at the last day.</p>


text:
<p><em>And you shall be blessed; because they do not have anything to repay you with. For you shall be recompensed in the resurrection of the just</em>-</p><p> The 'blessing' is defined as recompense at the resurrection, and not necessarily in this life. This inevitably is to be connected with how the Lord went on to say that <em>we</em> are the poor, blind, lame etc. who have been invited to the feast (:21). The point being, that if we perceive our own desperation and inappropriacy to be called to the Kingdom feast, then we will likewise invite others who are perceived<em>by us</em> as the lowest of the low, and otherwise unsuitable for a king’s banquet table. So we are to reflect God’s calling of us, the desperate, the down and outs, in our calling of others. A person who feels they are somehow a nice guy and worthy of invitation will be the one who tends to consider others as unworthy of invitation to the Kingdom. He or she who perceives their own desperation will eagerly invite even those they consider to be in the very pits of human society. </p><p>The recompense will be in the form of the nature of our eternity. How we shall eternally be is a reflection of what we have done for others, especially in terms of how far we have accepted them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when one of his dinner guests heard these things, he said to him: Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!</em>-</p><p> We mustn't just like <em>the idea</em> of being in the Kingdom. We must seek it above all. The Lord told a parable about people invited to the Kingdom who all came up with different excuses as to why they couldn't come. This was in response to somebody remarking: "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!" - 'how great it would be to be in the Kingdom!'. And the Lord is replying 'Many of those given the real opportunity to be there actually don't want it that much at all. Don't just like the idea of being in my Kingdom, but make it the driving passion in your daily life, for which you'll sacrifice all'.</p><p>The Lord continues to turn the questions / comments back on themselves. A man comments how blessed will be the person to eat bread in the Kingdom of God; and Jesus responds by telling the parable about how in fact the majority of those who receive invitations to eat break in the Kingdom actually turn it down because of worldly distractions. Again the message is clear. 'Take your focus off the blessedness of <em>others</em> in the future Messianic Kingdom; but concern yourself with the very real possibility that you <em>yes you yourself</em> may actually turn down the invitation to be there because you're too caught up with the things of this world'. See on <em><a href='B:490 14:25'>Luk 14:25</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>But he said to him: A certain man made a great supper and he invited many</em>-</p><p> "When you are invited by anyone to a marriage feast" (:13) is clearly meant to connect with "A certain man made a great supper, and he invited (s:w:) many". Evidently the idea of eating with the Lord at His table connects with the breaking of bread. Our attitude at that memorial supper is in essence our attitude at the greater supper of the last day. We sit there with our Lord and with our brethren. We will sit there at the last day with the deep feeling, like the handicapped beggars had in the parable: "I should not be here. Who am <em>I</em>, me, me with all my weakness, doing <em>here</em>?". If we sit likewise at the breaking of bread with that spirit, we will not even consider grabbing the best seat for ourselves; nor would it cross our mind to say to someone else sitting there "Hey you, what are <em>you</em> doing here? If <em>you're</em> here, I'm gone! Don't you dare take that bread and wine, you're not in fellowship!". Yet this is precisely the attitude of those who exclude their brethren from participation at the Lord's table; for the breaking of bread is a foretaste of the feast to come, and the Lord is teaching that our attitude to our brethren at it is in fact going to be reflected in how He deals with us at the latter day marriage supper. It seems so many of our exclusivist brethren are voting themselves out of their place at the Kingdom; although I believe God's grace is such that He has a place even for them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were invited: Come. For everything is now ready</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 24:48'>Mat 24:48</a></em>. In the parable of the great supper, which is similar but not necessarily the same as that of the marriage feast, the servants going forth "at supper time" fits more naturally into the context of a preaching appeal just prior to the second coming than to the first century. The "supper", i:e. the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 14:15'>Luk 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:2'>Mat 22:2</a></em>), is prepared, and at "supper time" - 'Kingdom time' - the appeal is made:&nbsp;"All things are now ready" (<em><a href='B:490 14:17'>Luk 14:17</a></em>) explains the unmistakable sense of urgency in the commissions given to the servants to preach:&nbsp;&nbsp; This again indicates reference to an eleventh hour preaching campaign just prior to the second coming:&nbsp;&nbsp; The 'decorum of the symbol' suggests that the animals being killed for the meal would necessitate a brief period of invitation immediately prior to the feast, rather than them being on the table for 2,000 years. See on <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they all began to make similar excuses. The first said to him: I have bought a field and I need to go out and see it; I pray you excuse me</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>.</p><p>There was a harder side to Christ. He was a demanding Lord. He told His disciples to forsake what they had and follow Him. They did. And apparently with no prefatory praise or introduction, He called them "you of little faith... fools... slow of heart to believe". Of course, He may have prefaced these criticisms with something softer (cp. His letters to the churches); but the Spirit has preferred not to record it. Often His parables warn that those who think He will understand their weakness, those who are too familiar with His softer side. </p><p>The parable of the great supper records men explaining to Christ why they can't <em>immediately</em> respond to Him, although they want to when it's more convenient: "I have bought a piece of ground, <em>and must needs</em> go and see it... I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them... I have married a wife, therefore <em>I</em> cannot come" (<em><a href='B:490 14:18-20'>Luk 14:18-20</a></em>). The implication is that they assumed that the servant calling them to the wedding (i:e. Christ) would understand that their excuses were quite reasonable; the man who pleaded marriage as his excuse would have been alluding to the Law's provision to have time off from the Lord's duties on account of marriage (<em><a href='B:50 24:5'>Deu 24:5</a></em>). All these reasons were assumed to be quite reasonable, and the men sound as if they were confident that <em>of course</em> Christ would understand. The parable of the King's son records excuses which are more evidently unreasonable; some said they were going to work on their farm, when actually the banquet was going to be held in the evening (<em><a href='B:470 22:5'>Mat 22:5</a></em>). There is a&nbsp;connection with the parable of Luke 14, where the excuses seem more reasonable. But the similarity shows that as far as the Lord is concerned, <em>any</em> excuse, evidently irrelevant or apparently reasonable, is just not acceptable to Him:&nbsp;But the point of the parables is that as far as Christ is concerned, these were all just empty excuses, even the excuse that appeared to be based on a past concession to weakness. He's saying that the invitation to His Kingdom, to His very own wedding, must take priority over all the everyday things of human experience which we assume are so justified, and which we assume He will quite understand if we put in front of Him and His call. <em>Every reader</em> ought to feel uncomfortable on considering this. It's this category of Christian who will be so surprised when they are rejected: "Lord, Lord, open to us... When did we see you hungry…?" (<em><a href='B:470 25:11'>Mat 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>). They thought they knew Him, but He has never known them (<em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em>). This idea of surprise at rejection is to be connected with that of brethren thinking (mistakenly) that of course the Lord understands their putting His call into second place. He is a Lord they hardly know in this life, despite what they think, and He will be the same at judgment day. There's a point to be made from the way they are so confident they know Christ, but He says He has never known them. They didn't live up to the demanding Lord they served. The idea of a two-way relationship with Him was evidently foreign to them. They thought their theoretical knowledge and outward works meant that Christ knew them. The worrying thing is, how many of us feel we have a two-way relationship with the Lord?&nbsp; </p><p>That <em>all</em> the girls should fall asleep whilst awaiting the bridegroom (<em><a href='B:470 25:5'>Mat 25:5</a></em>) is unusual- they must have been a pretty lazy, switched off bunch. And yet immediately we are led by the Lord to pass judgment upon ourselves- which is quite a feature of the parables, e.g. <em><a href='B:470 21:31'>Mat 21:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:43'>Luk 7:43</a></em> [as it is elsewhere- consider <em><a href='B:100 12:5'>2Sa 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 14:8'>2Sa 14:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 20:40'>1Ki 20:40</a></em>). Note how there is surely an element of unreality in the Lord’s description of <em>all</em> those invited to the dinner refusing the invitation (<em><a href='B:490 14:18'>Luk 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:24'>Luk 14:24</a></em>). Would really <em>nobody</em> respond to such a gracious invitation? This was the obvious question that He begged in the minds of His hearers. The intention being that each hearer would reflect: “Is it I…?”… maybe at least <em>I</em> could respond to the call of the Gospel… The parable of the wedding feast has an inappropriacy in that for 'merely' rejecting the invitation to the feast and beating the messengers, the King dispatches an army to attack them- whilst the meal is as it were hot on the table ready to be eaten (<em><a href='B:470 22:3-7'>Mat 22:3-7</a></em>). The point is that every rejection of the invitation, every mockery of the preacher, elicits an amazing anger in God.</p><p>Christ's low expectations of us are clearly demonstrated when He told the parables of the wedding feasts. When you put them together, you get this picture: God made the wedding between Christ and us. The invited guests didn't bother coming, for very trivial, mundane reasons that they put in front of the honour of being invited to His wedding. Only tramps and beggars come to it, motivated selfishly by the thought of a free meal (cp. a penny for the day). But we, the bride, aren't ready (although Christ graciously doesn't mention that in the parable), and so He delays to come to the wedding. Back home, His most trusted household servants realize that He's delaying His return, and start to get drunk and beat each other. The excited young bridesmaids lose their enthusiasm and go to sleep. Eventually, the wedding happens, but some of the guests don't bother to turn up in a wedding garment, just in their filthy rags. The impression is clearly this: <em>the whole thing's a mess!</em> Yet this is the marriage of the Son of God to His dearly purchased bride, for whom He died, and lived a life of total self-control. Yet He <em>knew</em> the whole thing would be such a mess. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:25'>Mat 13:25</a></em>.</p><p>"They all with one consent (s:w. 'agreement') began to make excuse" (s:w. 'reject') sounds like a conscious, national rejection of the message. The Jews will be judged by the word at the second coming (<em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>); but they were 'accused' (judgment seat language) by their rejection of God's word in the Old Testament during their lifetime (<em><a href='B:500 5:45'>Joh 5:45</a></em>). The Jews in the parable "began to make excuse (saying)... I pray thee have me excused" (<em><a href='B:490 14:18'>Luk 14:18</a></em>). The Greek word for "excuse" here is also translated "reject"- by excusing themselves from the requirements of God's word in this life, they were effectively rejecting themselves, as they will be at judgment. So as we read the word, we show our judgment. It could be that the reluctance of some to get down to reading the word is not simply because they lack time, but more subtly because they realize they are faced with God's judgments in it. </p><p>Israel had consented to be “bidden” to the feast; and according to Oriental practice, to accept an initial invitation to a feast was to commit oneself to respond to the final notice of it. But “they would not come”, and yet despite this insult, their divine host had sent forth yet more servants to beg them to come. The Lord puts behind Him the insult of our rejections, and graciously pleads with us- even God pleading with men. The whole history of Israel is eloquent proof of this grace of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And another said: I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to test them. I pray you, have me excused</em>-</p><p> The invitation had been given ahead of time, and they had agreed to attend. Feasts were held in the evening, and oxen weren't tested in the evening; and they were tested <em>before</em> being bought and not afterwards. The excuses are presented as pathetic and not sincere. </p>


text:
<p><em>And another said: I have married a wife, and therefore, I cannot come</em>-</p><p> Marriage gave freedom from conscription to the army, but not to turning down a call to attend a wedding feast which they had already agreed to attend. As noted on :19, all excuses for not responding to the Lord's call are here presented as pathetic and quite obviously fabricated.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the servant came and told his master these things. Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant: Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city and bring in here the poor and maimed and blind and lame</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; The tragedy of the fact that the Jews by and large rejected the invitation of God meant that the servants are asked to “Go out quickly into the streets and lanes… and bring in [any who will respond]”. The ‘quickness’ of the preachers is matched by the ‘quickness’ of the response of those who heard them in the first century. Now what this means is that if we as preachers have an urgency about our approach and our presentation of the message, then people will respond quickly. If we present the urgent good news as a set of academic propositions to be studied at length in the comfort of an untroubled conscience, then those who respond [if they do at all] will do so with the same laid back, cool, calculating attitude. Peter preached on Pentecost with a fire and passion which came from realizing the urgency of human need and Christ’s salvation. And this is why, it seems to me, the people responded so quickly. They were baptized in a matter of hours after hearing the Gospel preached from his lips.</p><p>We in these last days are "the poor and the maimed and the halt and the blind" who lay in the city streets (<em><a href='B:490 14:21'>Luk 14:21</a></em>). Yet we are invited and led (the blind) or dragged / carried (the lame) into the great supper. For those who deeply meditated, the lame at the great man's table would have taken them back to lame Mephibosheth at David's table. His response to the invitation was to <em>bow</em>; think of a lame man bowing. How awkward it must have been, and how awkward he must have felt. "I'm a dead dog, from a family who cruelly hated you; why, why me?" was his response. And this ought to be ours. The awkward bow of that lame man, however embarrassing it was to watch for David in his glory, is a superb type of our attempts to respond to the inexplicable grace we have received from the Lord. He knows our weakness. Even though He taught plainly that 'the majority' (Gk; AV "many") of those He called would not be chosen, His parables often use percentages which imply that two thirds (parable of the pounds) or half (parable of the virgins) <em>will</em> respond. This shows the love that hopes, in the face of the finest knowledge and foreknowledge of human nature which any man has ever had:&nbsp;</p><p>The usual excuse for not reading Scripture daily, or remembering the Lord Jesus in the breaking of bread as He asked, or meeting with brethren and sisters etc. normally goes along these lines: 'I've nothing against these things. But after all, we're only human beings, Christ understands that, He knows we have to get on with the things of this life'. To which so many passages in the Gospels reply: 'Yes, the Lord does know exactly what everyday human life is all about; and He expects you, in these daily things, to make decisions which <em>consciously</em> sacrifice what you could get for yourselves in life'. And to which Paul replies: "The love of Christ constrains us". The servant goes out and invites people to the supper. They each make excuses which on a human level seem perfectly reasonable. One man was on his way to inspect some land he had just bought; another man was on his way (Gk:) to prove his new oxen; if they were no good, he had the right to get his money back. It seems, humanly, a bit unreasonable to go up to a person right in the middle of doing something important in daily life, and say&nbsp;’Now stop that, come to a supper'. The third man assumed the Lord would understand why <em>he</em> couldn't respond: "I have married a wife, and therefore (of course, as you'll appreciate) I cannot come". After all, even the Law said that a man was free from military obligations after his marriage. But "the master" was "angry" with those men. What Moses' law conceded to men, the Lord Jesus wasn't necessarily ready to concede (and His attitude to divorce was similar).</p><p>In the invitation to the Kingdom, "the poor, and the maimed, and the halt and the blind" are invited; with the implication that Christ will be "recompensed at the resurrection of the just". We don't recompense Him now by our works; we are lost sheep causing Him needless work and worry, wasting His goods and needing to get ourselves out of the problem (<em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em>), needing His frank forgiveness for our huge debts (<em><a href='B:470 18:24'>Mat 18:24</a></em>). As Job recognized, if we are righteous, we give nothing to God (<em><a href='B:220 35:7'>Job 35:7</a></em>). Our <em>un</em>righteousness commends God's righteousness (<em><a href='B:520 3:5'>Rom 3:5</a></em>). All things come <em>out of</em> God: "Who hath first given to him?... for of him, and through him, and to him, are all things" (<em><a href='B:520 11:35-36'>Rom 11:35-36</a></em>); it's give, give, give with God. We are the poor beggars sitting down at the great supper, unable to recompense. Of course, it depends&nbsp;where we put the emphasis. The parable which relates how Christ desires fruit from us is followed by that of the marriage supper, where it seems we are just asked to accept an invitation with humility (<em><a href='B:470 21:34'>Mat 21:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:3'>Mat 22:3</a></em>). The point surely is that we are invited, for no reason, to the Kingdom, and we must accept with the humility that will accompany a recognition of such grace (<em><a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a></em>). But our experience of this grace will inevitably bring forth some spiritual fruit:&nbsp;Again, it seems we are intended to follow the story through, and visualize the inappropriate, uncultured conduct of these beggars at the table, causing so much unspoken embarrassment and pain to the generous rich man. The link with <em><a href='B:290 55:1-3'>Isa 55:1-3</a></em> would suggest that we can interpret the call to the supper as the call of the Gospel, and the hungry people sitting down to a fine meal as our ecclesial experience now (although this isn't to say that we can't read it as concerning the future Kingdom too). The preceding <em><a href='B:490 14:8-11'>Luk 14:8-11</a></em> describe us as sitting down at the feast in this life, until the host walks in and starts re-arranging the seating order (cp. the coming of Christ in judgment on His household). We are left to imagine the grabbing for food, the greedy, selfish eyeing up of the plates, the grasping, the lack of social skills, the lack of good conversation between each other, the occasional cursing under the breath, perhaps even throwing of food, the eager desire for wine, the lack of restraint. All in the company of the Master (God) and His servants (Christ and the Angels). And this, it seems to me, was the Lord's imagination of His immature ecclesia, feasting on the good things He has prepared for us. Can we not begin to enter just a little into the pain and acute embarrassment and sadness we cause to our gracious Host by the self-centredness of our natures, manifest as it is in spiritual terms so often? It's quite possible to become so spiritually selfish, so bent on our own salvation, that the whole spirit of the supper is lost. After all, the idea of a large supper is to inculcate a social spirit rather than just to provide individual feeding to each of the guests. How many times has it been reasoned in these last days: 'Sorry, I have to work out my own salvation, I just can't spare time and can't risk association with my weaker brethren…'. And the Lord Jesus, in His perfect way, saw this coming as in sunny Galilee He formulated His parables of grace. &nbsp; </p><p>Time and again His parables sought to justify His association with outcasts (<em><a href='B:490 14:15-24'>Luk 14:15-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:1-32'>Luk 15:1-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:23-25'>Mat 18:23-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:1-15'>Mat 20:1-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:28-32'>Mat 21:28-32</a></em>). When the nobleman came to ask Jesus to cure his son, Jesus agreed; and the man went home. But it was only on the way home that he really believed. He came to faith spontaneously, and not because Jesus insisted on it. Or remember the woman who had had five men in her life, and presumably a number of children to go with each of them. Her face and body would have reflected the story of her life. She was living with someone not her husband. Jesus didn't tell her to break up with the guy. He knew full well that if a woman left her man, she had nowhere to go. Here was a woman who had been 'married' five times. Who would want her? There were children involved. Probably even her family had rejected her. Jesus accepted the real life situation, and human failure to rise up to higher standards. One wonders whether the very lack of specific demand from Jesus maybe motivated her to somehow normalize her life. The gentle way Jesus treated these cases shows not so much approval, but an understanding of the frailty of human nature. And this is what enabled Jesus to be so unwaveringly committed to His own perfect standards, and yet be so natural and at ease with the lowest of the low.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the servant said: Master, what you did command is done, and still there is room</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 14:12'>Luk 14:12</a></em>. The servant seems surprised that after the crippled and blind beggars have been drafted in to the opulence of the feast, "still there is room". Quite simply, there are more places in the feast of the Kingdom than there are people willing to fill them! How encouraging is that thought! The same Greek word for "place" recurs in <em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em>, where the Lord Jesus taught that He was going to die on the cross in order to prepare a place for us in His Father's palatial mansion. The effort made in preparing the feast therefore speaks of Christ's life, death and resurrection for us. And it's <em>so</em> tragic that most people don't want to know. So in a sense, "all you gotta do is say yes". Just accept the invitation; take the messengers for real. Although perhaps we are left to read in the detail to the story, that many a desperate beggar just couldn't grasp that the messenger was for real, and preferred to stay put. Maybe only the <em>truly</em> desperate thought 'Maybe there's some truth in it... I've nothing to lose". The many places in God's Kingdom... are only for those who desperately want them. Those who make meaningless excuses about how busy they are, those who can't believe that really God could be true to His word and really give us beggars a place in His wonderful Kingdom... will by their own decision not be there. </p><p>Let's not under-estimate the struggle which there is to believe the simple fact that there are more places in the Kingdom than people willing to fill them; that really God is begging us to come in to the place prepared for us through the death of His Son. When we read of the Master telling the servant to "<em>compel</em>" the beggars to come in to the feast, it's the same Greek word as we find used in one of the excuses given for not going in to the feast: "I <em>must needs go</em> and see" (the field the man had supposedly bought that evening without ever seeing it) (<em><a href='B:490 14:18'>Luk 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em>). Just as our loving God, with all the power of His most earnest desire, can seek to <em>compel</em> us to accept His offer, so the power of our own flesh <em>compels</em> us the other way. The petty human issues had become so large in the minds of the people concerned that they ended up telling obvious untruths or giving very poor excuses to get out of attending; life had gotten on top of them and that was it. The story seems so bizarre; the refusal of such a wonderful invitation would've been the element of unreality which struck the first hearers. The point is that petty human issues, coupled with our lack of appreciation that we are down and out beggars, really will lead people to lose out on eternity. The other such element of unreality would've been the persistence of the host to fill the places with anyone, literally <em>anyone</em>, willing to come on in. It's not so much a question of 'Will we be there?' but rather 'Do we really want to be there?'. Because if we do, we shall be. </p><p>The servant reports to the master that the invited guests wouldn’t come to the supper [cp. God’s Kingdom]. The master tells the slave to go out into the streets and invite the poor. And then we’re hit with an incredible unreality, especially to first century ears: The servant has already done what the Lord had commanded him. No slave would take it upon himself to draw up the invitation list, or take the initiative to invite poor beggars into his master’s supper. But <em>this</em> servant <em>did</em>! He not only had the unusual relationship with his master that allowed this huge exercise of his own initiative- but he somehow knew his master <em>so</em> well that he guessed in advance what the master would say, and he went and did it without being asked. In all this we have a wonderful insight into the relationship possible between us and our Lord, especially in the area of preaching / inviting people to His supper. The initiative is in our hands, and as we come to know Him better, we come to know His mind, and to sense how He would react. We have His aims and desires as ours, and we are in harmony with Him without having to be told things in so many words. And of course for a master to serve his servants was unheard of (<em><a href='B:490 12:35-38'>Luk 12:35-38</a></em>). But this of course was the wonder of what the Lord did for us, "as one who serves" (<em><a href='B:490 22:27'>Luk 22:27</a></em>), defining for us our attitude to each other at the memorial table and in all aspects of our lives and relationships. See on <em><a href='B:490 13:7'>Luk 13:7</a></em>.</p><p>We can also understand the servant as the Lord Jesus, reporting to the master [= God] that the invited guests wouldn’t come to the supper [cp. God’s Kingdom]. This servant not only had the unusual relationship with His master that allowed this huge exercise of his own initiative- but He somehow knew His master so well that He guessed in advance what the master would say, and he went and did it without being asked. In all this we have a wonderful insight into the relationship between the Father and Son, especially in the area of inviting people to His supper [cp. salvation]. The point of all this is to demonstrate how the Lord Jesus has His influence upon the Father, and can at times change His stated purpose [e.g. with regard to the rejection of Israel- just as Moses did]. And this is the same Father and Son with whom we have to do, and whose matchless relationship is the basis and reason of our salvation. </p>


text:
<p><em>Andthe master said to the servant: Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come, that my house may be filled</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:530 9:13'>1Co 9:13</a></em>. This shows the blessing which will go behind the efforts to spread the Gospel to all the world in the last days. There is a fervent, <em>urgent</em> desire of the Lord for this, and so His blessing will surely be with all who catch the same spirit of urgency. According to the parable, the quality of converts is sacrificed (by the Lord, not us) for the sake of numbers- which connects with the idea that the coming of Christ is to some degree dependent upon the full number of the Gentiles being converted (<em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>). Likewise the drag net was brought to land once it was full of fish (<em><a href='B:470 13:48'>Mat 13:48</a></em>). The Lord speaks of how “few" (the Greek implies physically weak, cp. the unwanted labourers in the market place) the labourers are (<em><a href='B:470 9:37'>Mat 9:37</a></em>), and therefore more (numerically) are needed. Any lamentation about the weakness of the latter-day ecclesia must be seen in this context; the Lord is desperate for the places at the supper to be filled, although woe to those who come in without a wedding garment (<em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>). &nbsp; </p><p>The parable of the great supper chronicles the preaching of the Gospel over time. There were three stages of appeal: "To them that were bidden" (the Jews in Israel), to those in the streets and lanes of the city (the Jewish Diaspora), and finally, in a spirit of urgency, the preachers are commanded: "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" (<em><a href='B:490 14:16-23'>Luk 14:16-23</a></em>; the same spirit of urgency in witness is to be found in the Lord’s command to His preachers to cut the courtesy of prolonged greetings). Once the required number are in God's spiritual house, the feast will begin- and that feast represents eating bread in the Kingdom, at the second coming. </p><p>The language of 'going out' should be connected to the command to '<em>go </em>and teach all nations'. The parable concerns the master of the house (God) commanding His servant (Christ); yet the connection with the preaching commission indicates that the commission given to Christ He fulfils through us, as demonstrated earlier in this study. The ever-increasing sense of urgency in the appeal to 'come in' ought to be reflected in our preaching in these last days.</p><p>Noah's ark is a well-known type of the salvation which humanity can find in Christ; and yet close analysis of the Genesis record reveals that there were some animals whom Noah had to bring into the ark and take them with him (<em><a href='B:10 6:19'>Gen 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:2'>Gen 7:2</a></em>); and others who came to Noah and entered into the ark of their own volition (<em><a href='B:10 6:20'>Gen 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:9'>Gen 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:15-16'>Gen 7:15-16</a></em>). The same Hebrew is found in <em><a href='B:10 8:9'>Gen 8:9</a></em>, about how the dove came to Noah of its own volition, and Noah welcomed her and took her into the ark. Putting all this together, we are to compel men to come in; and yet we are also to be there to welcome in the seekers who seek of their own volition. It's easier to do the latter; to put up a website, waiting there for some eager seeker to come and find. But we are also to compel people in, and to also bear in mind that there are some who will be attracted to the Gospel from selfish reasons, as the man who buys the field thinking that he can exploit it for his own benefit. These too we are to take on board and not turn away. Whilst people, with all their wonderful uniqueness, should never be pigeon-holed nor over-categorized... all the same, we need to consider the type of person we're dealing with as we plan out our approach. For if we seek them, we will consider who they are, and how appropriately we can engage them.</p><p>"Compel" is the same word used in :18, where the man excuses his lack of response to the Gospel by saying that he "must" or is compelled to go and check out his new land. We are to help people see that the 'necessity' of secular things is to be replaced by the ultimate 'necessity' of responding to the call of the Kingdom.</p><p>The eagerness of the Lord to accept us, to find in us spiritual fruit, is perhaps reflected in the way that He begins inviting people of 'His' level to the feast of the Kingdom, but ends up lowering the bar as time goes on, to try by all means to get at least somebody in there. This theme of lowering the bar is perhaps continued in this same passage by the way the Lord says that His disciples must forsake / 'bid goodbye to' all that they had (<em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). This is the same word found earlier in <em><a href='B:490 9:61'>Luk 9:61</a></em>, where some time before, a potential disciple who first wished to go and "bid goodbye to" his family was judged as not suitably committed to the urgency of the task. But now, the Lord says that this is acceptable in His definition of discipleship. This Lord is our Lord.</p><p>“How shall they hear without a preacher?”&nbsp; It’s impossible to hear without a preacher. Of course, God could beam the message into men some other way. But normally He chooses to work through human preachers. The preachers in the parable of the great supper are bidden "Compel them to come in, that my house may be filled". The house of God's Kingdom is filled with people as a result of enthusiastic preaching.</p>


text:
<p><em>For I say to you, that none of those men that were invited shall taste my supper</em>-</p><p> There may be the implication that the three people said "I cannot come" with the implication 'I can't come <em>right now</em>, but later'; and the Greek could bear such an interpretation. The master's comment at the end suggests that he knew these people would later turn up at the supper, but he would refuse them entry. There are often connections within the Lord's parables; in this case, the men who were so busy with daily life that they turned up at the wedding later would connect with the story of the other wedding guests who didn't have enough oil, and who <em>later</em> turned up at the wedding feast- again, only to be barred entry. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now there went with him great crowds; and he turned and said to them</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>. The people eagerly following Jesus, and then He turns and tells them that actually God is coming after them with 20,000 men and they have only 10,000, and they on a personal level <em>urgently</em> therefore need to make peace with Him- because every minute now counts. Time and again, the Lord is urging people to look at themselves and their own position, not follow Him because they're part of a crowd who does, not hesitate from personal commitment because of never-never questions about cosmic ethics and Divine justice which are well beyond us... He forces the spotlight back on us, me myself and I, time and again. And His audience squirmed, just as they do today. </p>


text:
<p><em>If anyone comes to me, and hates not his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple</em>-</p><p> The Lord himself spoke of how He expected this of us; and He put it in language which He surely <em>knew</em> would arrest attention. He's a demanding Lord- and reflection on His life and death for us shows that He has every right to be so. Notice how the Lord Jesus uses the figure of polysyndeton- i:e. repeating the word "and" when there's no grammatical need to, in order to build up the impression of how many different people we must be prepared to break with. His message is plain: the Lord Jesus must come in front of every human relationship, or else we are not His disciples. And it isn't just human relationships that must be sacrificed; it's "houses... lands" (careers, cars, we might say) as well (<em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em>). It has to be seriously asked whether our community, especially the younger generation, are prepared to be the Lord's disciples; whether they have given up these kind of things for His sake. He must be the <em>Lord</em> of our lives, the master passion and controller. Christ's love <em>constrains </em>us.<em> These</em> sorts of demanding words are so common in the Gospels that they almost slip our notice. There can be no serious doubt what He's saying: He has no room for passengers or part-timers. As far as He is concerned, it can't be a hobby.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple</em>-</p><p> The Lord taught that unless a man was willing to carry his cross and forsake all that he had, he couldn’t be His disciple. And He called them His disciples, even though they clearly didn’t perceive the real nature of the cross, nor did they actually leave all that they had but retained some things. The disciples were told to sell what they had (<em><a href='B:490 12:22'>Luk 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:32-33'>Luk 12:32-33</a></em>); but it seems they kept their fishing business. After having asked them this, the Lord again had to speak to them about forsaking all that they had (:33). Their claim to have left literally all (<em><a href='B:490 18:28'>Luk 18:28</a></em>) appears somewhat exaggerated. Indeed, the parable of the unjust steward being specifically directed at the disciples (<em><a href='B:490 15:1'>Luk 15:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:9'>Luk 16:9</a></em>), it could appear that they had a special problem with lower-middle-class petty materialism (<em><a href='B:490 16:9'>Luk 16:9</a></em>). Likewise Luke 6 is spoken specially to the disciples, and it has much to say about materialism:&nbsp;The Lord was and is very generous to our weak efforts to rise up to His high standards.</p><p>Reflect on a Gospel parallel to see the huge importance of being a disciple of Jesus. In <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em> the Lord says that whoever doesn’t take up his cross and follow after Him, “is not worthy of me”. In <em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em> we have the same words, but concluded with “… the same cannot be my disciple”. To be a disciple of the Lord is to be worthy of Him. To seek to walk as He walked, to follow behind Him, is to be worthy of Him. The important thing is to follow, for all our stumblings, but at least to be in the way behind Him.</p><p>Of course we cannot literally take up the Lord's cross. Taking up the cross must therefore refer to an attitude of mind; it is paralleled with forsaking all that we have (<em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>), which is surely a command to be obeyed in our attitudes.</p>


text:
<p><em>For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he have enough to complete it?</em>-</p><p> Virtually nobody in the audience had ever planned to build a tower (Gk. 'castle'). So the Lord means 'If you were mega wealthy and had money to build a tower, wouldn't you even then be careful to understand the total cost in advance, lest even your wealth is all taken away by it?'. They were asked to imagine they were wealthy. The Lord was seeking to elevate their minds upwards to consider the great potential which they had. But all the same, they must count the cost; and realize that to build a castle / tower was beyond them. This is the implication of :31 and :33. Capitulation is required. Or it could be that the Lord is asking them as poor people to seriously calculate how much it would cost to build a tower / castle, and realize it was beyond them. Recognizing our spiritual bankruptcy, our inability to pay, and throwing ourselves upon the Lord- this is the same as forsaking all we have (:33).</p>


text:
<p><em>Unless, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish it, all that watch begin to mock him, saying</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>. The only true foundation laid is the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 3:11'>1Co 3:11</a></em>). The potential builder must resign all plans for self-salvation, all efforts to lay his own foundation; and accept that of the Lord Jesus. Luke likes to use the Greek word for "finish" in relation to how all things were finished in the work of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:31'>Luk 18:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:37'>Luk 22:37</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>This man began to build, and was not able to finish</em>-</p><p> Earlier, the Lord had spoken of the shame of rejection at judgment day (:9). It would be witnessed publicly; the shame of the unworthy will be before the eyes of all their brethren (<em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). If the tower / castle had to be built, then the man would have to urgently and desperately find a mega wealthy person who couldenable him to do the job. And that person was the Father offering the wealth of grace in His Son. </p>


text:
<p><em>Or what king, as he goes to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel, whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him that comes against him with twenty thousand?</em>-</p><p> All the parables contain elements of unreality in order to make a point. This one speaks of a King coming in judgment upon another King who only has half the army which he has. The more powerful King is of course God. But we are likened to a “king” also, on His level in that sense, who has only half His strength. This is altogether such an under estimate of the Father’s physical and moral superiority to us!&nbsp;The smaller army can of course defeat the bigger army- but only with God's help, as various Old Testament examples make clear. The king must resign all attempts to win the battle in his own strength. "By good advice make war (Heb. 'a battle')" (<em><a href='B:240 20:18'>Pro 20:18</a></em>); and the advice is to not even attempt it. The weaker king has it seems already embarked on journeying to the encounter; he has to display great humility in avoiding it by recognizing that he really hasn't got the strength to succeed. </p>


text:
<p><em>Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an ambassador and asks conditions of peace</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:520 14:19'>Rom 14:19</a></em>. Does the man with 10,000 men faced with the oncoming army of God with 20,000 men just recklessly go ahead, or does he seek reconciliation? There was surely an intended connection within the Lord's teaching concerning how the loving Father saw the prodigal son "afar off" in his sin and separation; and how the King [God] coming against man with 20,000 men in battle needs to be reconciled with whilst He is still "afar off" (<em><a href='B:490 14:32'>Luk 14:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). God is both coming towards us in judgment; and yet also sees us 'from afar' in untold grace and desire to save. It is this wondrous paradox which makes the ultimate meeting of God and man so intense and wonderful. The 'harder side of God', the King coming in overpowering judgment against sinful man, is what gives power and poignancy to His final meeting with man as the Father meets the prodigal. See on <em><a href='B:490 10:34'>Luk 10:34</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>So therefore whoever of you does not renounce all that he has, cannot be my disciple</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 12:22'>Luk 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:3'>Luk 21:3</a></em>. The weak king who sends ambassadors asking for conditions of peace is understood by the Lord as the man who forsakes all he has in order for peace with God. This is the importance of forsaking wealth&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>), as the merchant did (<em><a href='B:470 13:44-46'>Mat 13:44-46</a></em>), as the blind man left his garment (<em><a href='B:480 10:50'>Mar 10:50</a></em>), as the widow threw in her two mites, rejecting the temptation to be 'prudent' and keep one for herself to use as capital for the future&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 21:2'>Luk 21:2</a></em>), as Matthew "left all, rose up and followed" (<em><a href='B:490 5:28'>Luk 5:28</a></em>), and as the disciples in that beauteous childlike innocence could say " Lo, we have left all…?" (<em><a href='B:480 10:28'>Mar 10:28</a></em>). What this surely means is that in our <em>attitudes</em> we must be as if we possessed nothing, as if we have in our heart of hearts resigned everything, even the very concept of personal 'possession'. See on <em><a href='B:540 6:10'>2Co 6:10</a></em>.</p><p>When the Lord speaks of leaving all and following after Him, He surely had in mind the well-known story of Mattathias, who began the Maccabean revolt by saying: “Let every one who is zealous for the Law and supports the covenant <em>follow after me</em>… and they <em>left their possessions behind</em> in the town” (<em>1Ma_2:27</em>). And again the Lord seems to have had this in mind when He says that when He comes, His true people are to flee Jerusalem and not worry that their ‘stuff is in the house’ (<em><a href='B:490 17:31'>Luk 17:31</a></em>). For an itinerant teacher like Jesus of Nazareth to offer his ideas and his interpretation of the Old Testament, and then have men following Him, was not out of place in first century Palestine. But the Lord twists the whole figure of ‘follow me’. Unlike the other teachers, his teaching didn’t lead to taking arms and fighting Rome. His men are to follow Him in wilfully taking up and carrying a cross, imitating His supreme human bravery in both His life and above all in His death, a bravery which He showed in facing sin in the eye and conquering every temptation, whatever the cost, whatever the human implication. &nbsp;</p><p>The Lord followed right on from the supper parable with the demand to hate one's own life, pick up their cross and follow Him, without which we cannot be His disciple. He also told the parable of God coming with a huge army to meet us who are far weaker- and our need to make peace with Him and forsake all that we have in order to follow Christ (<em><a href='B:490 14:25-33'>Luk 14:25-33</a></em>). These radical demands of Jesus are in fact a development of His parable about the supper. For amongst some Middle Eastern peoples to this day, refusing the invitation to enter the banquet for such a meal- especially after having signalled your earlier acceptance of the invitation- was "equivalent to a declaration of war". And so the parable of <em>us</em> as the man going out to war against a far superior army suddenly falls into place in this context. "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that doesn't renounce all that he has, he cannot be my disciple" (<em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). The renouncing or forsaking of all we have refers to the man with 10,000 soldiers renouncing what human strength he had in the face of realizing he was advancing against a force of 20,000. The picking up of the cross, the 'hating' of our own lives, the renouncing all we have... obviously refers to doing something very hard for us. But the context is the parable of the supper, where the 'hard' thing to understand is why people refused the invitation, why they just couldn't believe it was real and for them; or why they just let petty human issues become so large in their minds that they just ouldn't be bothered with it. Simply believing that we will be there, that in all sober reality we have been invited to a place in the Kingdom, that God is compelling / persuading / pressurizing us to be there... this is the hard thing. This is the hating of our lives, picking up our cross, forsaking our human strength and surrendering to God.</p><p>“Whoever of you does not <em>renounce</em> all that he has cannot be my disciple”. Renouncing is something we do in our hearts and deepest feelings and attitudes. Have we truly <em>renounced </em>it all? Even if there are still bank balances and pension plans and property deeds and cars and treasured possessions… made out in our name. Have we in our hearts <em>renounced</em> them? That they aren’t <em>really</em> mine. I have no personal long term security from them, because they’re <em>not mine</em>. I’m just holding in stewardship what God gave me. And the Lord Himself drives the point home- if we have any <em>other</em> attitude to these wretched things, these <em>almost</em>-</p><p>nooses around our necks, then we are <em>not</em> His disciples. It’s one of the scariest thoughts for Christianity. The fearless, gripped-by-Jesus approach to life which we see in the early church is the very opposite of the passivity of our post-modern world. We are called to a passionate, emotional life; a life where we each have someone to save, someone to die for, to live for, to sacrifice our self for. And this approach to life will naturally take care of how we use ‘our’ money. It is the passion-less life which results in a mean, careful approach to the spending of ‘our’ resources for others. See on <em><a href='B:510 4:32'>Act 4:32</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord appears to make discipleship dependent upon giving up our possessions and forsaking all we have. But it’s quite apparent that His disciples didn’t literally do that. Zacchaeus only gave away half of his possessions (<em><a href='B:490 19:8'>Luk 19:8</a></em>); and other disciples of Jesus clearly retained their homes and some possessions. The Lord must therefore mean that He expects us to <em>in our minds</em> resign all personal ownership of absolutely everything which we have- even if those things remain, to human appearance, ‘ours’. This is really a challenging thing, in this world of savings and acquisition.</p>


text:
<p><em>Salt therefore is good, but if the salt has lost its taste, with what shall it be seasoned?</em>-</p><p> The Greek for "lost its taste" is literally 'to become foolish', and is so translated in <em><a href='B:520 1:22'>Rom 1:22</a></em>. Salt is good unless it is not salty, when it is then useless; this means that salt has a very specific usage, and beyond that it cannot be used for anything. It can only be cast away as are the condemned (:35). The idea is that unless we achieve our Divinely intended role as the salt of the earth, then we are useless and will be condemned; we have no other possible usage in this world apart from that intended by God. The "therefore" connects with :33 about being a disciple, which involves leaving all as the disciples did and following the Lord (:33,27). The disciples followed the Lord in the sense of supporting and performing His missionary work. They were the "salt of the earth / land". Without them, "it", the land, would not be salted, as so much depended upon them; or the idea may be that if the disciples lost their saltiness, they could not be re-salted. If they turned away from their ministry, this would be a serious sin and they could not then be re-appointed to it (<em><a href='B:650 6:5-6'>Heb 6:5-6</a></em>). If we are no influence upon the earth around us, then we have failed in our calling to be the salt of the earth, and will be condemned. We cannot be secret believers.</p><p>"Good" has the idea is of being able, to have possibility. If we will not use our potential for good, then we will be rejected, because we have no possibilities for use. It's only when we wilfully lose our potential for good that we really are of no use. If salt loses savour, what then can be used for seasoning ["wherewith shall it be salted"]? The idea is surely that if salt cannot be used for making salty- then it can be used for nothing, it has no practical use. This is a major statement about the ultimate vanity of all secular achievement and careers, compared to being the salt of the earth. </p>


text:
<p><em>It is useful neither for the soil nor for the manure heap, it is thrown away. He that has ears to hear, let him hear</em>-</p><p> The fact there is no middle road is the most powerful imperative to total devotion. The Lord foresaw that it would be possible for His men to be as salt which had lost it’s savour; to appear as His, but for this to have no practical effect at all; and such salt is to be “cast out” in the end. We <em>must</em> have influence upon others, or we aren’t salt. Salt could be used for nothing apart from savouring things. We must fulfil our ministry, for otherwise we are of no practical use and will be "thrown away" in condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:30'>Mat 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:48'>Mat 13:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> etc:).</p>


text:
<p><em>Now all the tax collectors and sinners were drawing near to him to hear him teach</em>-</p><p> Unlike many preachers of high spiritual standards, the Lord was attractive to sinners. They flocked to hear Him, He ate with them and appeared to actually quite like their company. 'Drawing near' is a Hebraism for coming to a holy place for worship. The Lord in His very person was the holy place, and not the Jerusalem temple cult. The double mention of "him" indicating the spiritual charisma which the Lord holds over those desperately seeking righteousness</p>


text:
<p><em>And both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying: This man receives sinners and eats with them</em>-</p><p> The Lord was criticized for “receiving sinners” and eating with them. Instead of the usual and expected Greek word <em>dechomai</em>, we find here the Greek <em>prosdechomai</em>-</p><p> He welcomed them <em>into fellowship</em>, symbolizing this by eating with them. This was an act which had religious overtones in first century Palestine. Notice that <em>prosdechomai</em>&nbsp;is used by Paul to describe welcoming a brother / sister in spiritual fellowship (<em><a href='B:520 16:2'>Rom 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:29'>Phi 2:29</a></em>). The Lord fellowshipped people in the belief that this would lead them to repentance, following His Father’s pattern of using grace in order to lead people to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). He didn’t wait for people to get everything right and repented of and <em>only then</em> fellowship them, as a sign that they were up to His standards. &nbsp; </p><p>The theme of eating continues after Luke 14 - for Luke 15 contains parables told by the Lord in answer to the criticism that He ate with sinners (<em><a href='B:490 15:2'>Luk 15:2</a></em>). He explained that He had come to seek and save the lost, and that was why He ate with them (<em><a href='B:490 15:4'>Luk 15:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a></em>, where He justifies eating with Zacchaeus for the same reason). Note how in the case of Zacchaeus, the man only stated his repentance after he had 'received' Jesus into his house and eaten with Him. This exemplifies how the Lord turned upside down the table practice of the Jews- He didn't eat with people <em>once they had</em> repented, but <em>so that</em> His gracious fellowship of them might <em>lead them to</em> repentance. The parables of Luke 15 speak about eating in order to express joy that a person had repented and been saved- the eating was to celebrate finding the lost sheep, coin and son. But the Lord was saying that this justified His eating with not yet repentant sinners. Thinking this through, we find an insight into the hopefulness of Jesus for human repentance- He fellowshipped with them and treated them <em>as if</em> He were celebrating their repentance; for He saw eating with them in this life as a foretaste of His eating with them in His future Kingdom. He invited them to a foretaste of the future banquet. His fellowship policy was therefore to encourage repentance; and seeing He wished all to be saved, He didn't exclude any from His table.</p><p>The Lord was criticized for “receiving sinners” and eating with them (<em><a href='B:490 15:2'>Luk 15:2</a></em>). Instead of the usual and expected Greek word <em>dechomai</em>, we find here the Greek <em>prosdechoma</em>i – He welcomed them into fellowship, symbolizing this by eating with them. This was an act which had religious overtones in 1st century Palestine. Notice that <em>prosdechomai</em> is used by Paul to describe welcoming a brother / sister in spiritual fellowship (<em><a href='B:520 16:2'>Rom 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:29'>Phi 2:29</a></em>). The Lord fellowshipped people in the belief that this would lead them to repentance, following His Father’s pattern of using grace in order to lead people to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). He didn’t wait for people to get everything right and repented of and only then fellowship them, as a sign that they were up to His standards.</p><p>The parables of the lost coin and lost sheep invite the hearer to identify with the heart of the God who seeks His lost. But the final climax of this triad of parables is that of the lost sons. Here the audience has to place themselves in one of two camps- the self-righteous son who ends up not eating with the Father, or the prodigal who sins so awfully and then eats with the Father in the hushed humility which experience of His grace along can bring. The Jews were worried about whom they might eat / fellowship with, just as many in the body of Christ are today. But the Lord turned it all around- <em>you</em> are a serious sinner, you need to make that long walk home to the Father in your day by day repentance, and eat with Him by His grace. He is seeking <em>you</em> to eat with Him; the question of whom <em>you</em> eat with is utterly secondary to that.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke to them this parable, saying</em>-</p><p> This rubric is not used to introduce the parables of the lost coin and lost son which follow. It could be that the Lord intended us to consider the three parables as one. </p>


text:
<p><em>What man of you- </em>Although the parables have the appearance of simple stories, their essential meaning is only granted to the reflective and spiritually minded reader. Close analysis of the parables reveal that they often contain something in them that is arrestingly unreal; and in this is very often the crux of the message. Surface level reading and listening give the impression that they are simple, homely stories, obvious in their meaning. But they are not; otherwise all men would have understood them, and the Lord would not have spoken them <em>so that</em> Israel would hear but not perceive. The true meaning depends upon perceiving that there is an element of startling unreality within the story line, that flags attention to the real message. The parables therefore challenge our stereotypes and force us to re-examine cherished suppositions. Perhaps the most obvious signpost to this feature of elements of unreality in the parables is in that of the lost sheep: “What man of you…” would leave ninety and nine sheep in the wilderness and go searching for the one lost one? Answer: none of you would do that. And perhaps likewise, “What woman…” having lost just one piece of silver would be so obsessive about finding it, and so ecstatic with joy upon finding it (<em><a href='B:490 15:4'>Luk 15:4</a></em>; Luk 158)? Perhaps the answer is also meant to be: “Not one of you”. Yet this is the Father’s passion for saving the lost, and rejoicing over them</p><p><em>Having a hundred sheep and having lost one of them, does not leave the other ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after that which is lost, until he finds it?</em>-</p><p> The Lord's parable of the good shepherd (<em><a href='B:490 15:1-7'>Luk 15:1-7</a></em>) brings together Psalms 23 and also the restoration passages of <em><a href='B:300 23:1-8'>Jer 23:1-8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:330 34:1-31'>Eze 34:1-31</a></em>, which speak of the flock of Israel going astray due to bad shepherds, being saved by the good shepherd, being delivered / gathered, and then returning to the land. The sheep is found, and accepts being found- there is no actual mention of repentance. Thus the 'return' of Judah to their land was intended as a work of God- He would make them return, He would give them repentance [note how <em><a href='B:510 11:18'>Act 11:18</a></em> speaks of God granting men repentance]. This is all such wonderful grace. The even more incredible thing, though, is that Judah refused to accept this grace; they didn't 'return' to the land because they saw no need to 'return' to God. They willingly forgot that they were only in Babylon because of their sins; to 'return' to the land was a 'return' to God, which He had enabled. But they were like the lost sheep refusing to sit on the shepherd's shoulders, preferring to sit in a hole and die... and this is the warning to us. For truly, absolutely all things have been prepared for us to enter the Kingdom. It's only those who don't want to be there who won't be.</p><p>The good shepherd searches for the sheep until He finds it. John 10 is full of reference to Ezekiel 34, which describes God’s people as perishing on the mountains, eaten by wolves. But the Lord Jesus set Himself to do that which was impossible- to search <em>until He found</em>, even though He knew that some were already lost. Our attitude to those lost from the ecclesia and to those yet out in the world must be similar. The Lord knew there would not be repentance by Israel. But He went to the fig tree seeking fruit, even though it wasn’t the time for fruit (<em><a href='B:480 11:13'>Mar 11:13</a></em>). He saw the crowds who wanted only loaves and fishes as a great harvest (<em><a href='B:470 9:37'>Mat 9:37</a></em>).</p><p>More than anything, preaching has taught me the immense value of the human person as an individual. The Lord’s parable of the strange shepherd who leaves the 99 and gives his all for the one- the foolish one, the lost one, the antisocial one- is programmatic for me. The need is the call. If one person needs fellowship, forgiveness, love, the teaching of the Gospel, baptism, encouragement, re-fellowship, support, money, whatever… the value of them as an individual must be paramount. No matter what it costs us, how far we have to travel [in whatever sense], how much ‘trouble’ we get into, how foolish we look, how out on a limb we put ourselves. The value and meaning of the individual person was paramount in the Lord’s teaching and example, and it must be in our worldviews too.</p><p>David leaving the sheep and going to fight Goliath recalls the parable of the Lord as the good shepherd leaving the flock and going to save the lost sheep. The shepherd goes alone at night up into the hills (cp. Isaac going to be sacrificed in the hills), and carries the lamb on his shoulder- as the Lord carried the cross of our sins on his shoulder to redeem the lost sheep of mankind (<em><a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a></em>). This lost sheep parable is also picked up in <em><a href='B:670 2:25'>1Pe 2:25</a></em>: "For you were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the shepherd and bishop of your souls" (i:e. Christ the shepherd). But this in turn is quoting <em><a href='B:290 53:5-6'>Isa 53:5-6</a></em>: "All we like sheep have gone astray... but he was wounded (on the cross) for our transgressions", which is thus the parallel to the saving of the lost sheep. This interpretation of the lost sheep parable- i:e. that the shepherd going to save the sheep represents the Lord going to die on the cross- was first prompted by David leaving the sheep with the keeper to go and fight Goliath, representing Christ's saving us from sin on the cross. The leaving of the sheep with the keeper perhaps looks forward to the Lord's entrusting the disciples to the Father's care in those agonizing days while death parted him from them, as David's encounter with Goliath did. David's subsequent leaving of them altogether to go and live in the King's court clearly looks forward to our Lord's ascension to Heaven after His victory over the real Goliath:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing</em>-</p><p> At the time of Jesus, it was taught (<em>Mishnah Qidd</em> 4:14) that “A man should not teach his son to be a herdsman…for their craft is the craft of robbers”. Shepherds weren’t seen as kindly old men. They were seen as crafty and thieves. But the Lord chose that figure to represent Himself and the Father- even though the Old Testament likens God to the shepherd of Israel. The startling, unsettling figure [for the first century Jewish mind] was to demonstrate how it is the Lord’s humanity that makes Him our saviour. Likewise, the likening of the Gospel to yeast would have been shocking; or to a mustard bush, which is a member of the cabbage family [rather, e.g., than to a fruitful vine or upright palm tree]. It is signalled to us that there is to be a strangeness to this new Kingdom about which Jesus spoke, a humanity and yet unusualness about it. It was hard for the Lord to explain to us the level of love for us which He would reach in the cross. So He told a story of a shepherd who so madly loves his sheep, whose life is so taken up by his job, that he would die to save one of them, and comes back triumphantly rejoicing when he has found the lost sheep. The average shepherd would have surely accepted that some sheep are lost, it's the luck of the game. But this shepherd who dropped all and ran off after one lost sheep was no usual shepherd. And the element of unreality in the story brings out the Lord's grace towards us. Note in passing how the man : sheep relationship portrays that between us and the Lord. As the sheep understood pathetically little about the shepherd's sacrifice to save it, so we too fail to appreciate the height of the fact that Christ died for us, as the shepherd for the sheep. We can be sure that the frightened sheep didn’t bob along on the shepherd’s shoulders, grinning all the way home. With his underside covered in faeces and mud, it would have struggled with the Saviour shepherd, fanatic almost in his passion to save the sheep. As he stumbled along the rocky paths, shoulders bowed down, hands against his chest clutching the animal’s paws, the shepherd would be the living imitation of the posture of the Lord as He carried the cross of our sins to Calvary. All this is a pattern of the almost fanatic effort we should expend to win back the lost. </p><p>The man who owned 100 sheep was rich. Shepherds were the lowest of the low. If you owned 100 sheep, you employed a shepherd to look after them and take responsibility for chasing the lost. But there’s something unreal- the owner of the sheep is the one who is the shepherd. This actually is the point of the Ezekiel 34 passage upon which the Lord built the parable- having fired the unworthy shepherds of Israel, “Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, <em>I myself, even I</em>, will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered abroad, so will I seek out my sheep; and I will deliver them … I will bring them … I will feed them … I myself will be the shepherd of mysheep” (<em><a href='B:330 34:11-15'>Eze 34:11-15</a></em>). The remarkable thing is that the owner of the sheep decides to become the personal shepherd, feeding, seeking, delivering, bringing the sheep <em>himself personally</em>. A Palestinian wealthy enough to own a whole flock of sheep simply wouldn’t do this. He <em>always</em> hired someone else to do this- because being a shepherd was so despised. Behold the humility of God. But see too His personal passion for us. Hence the Lord’s question: Which one of <em>you</em> would act like this? The Father and His Son take such passionate personal responsibility for us, that God was willing in Christ to shame and humiliate Himself in order to get us back into the fold. &nbsp;</p><p>Personal Responsibility </p><p>There’s also something odd about the way the Lord speaks of the shepherd: “<em>He</em> has lost one of them”. Translations of the Bible into Semitic languages, especially Arabic, tend to read: “If one of them is lost” (passive). In the language and concepts of the Middle East, a speaker never blames himself. As in Spanish, they would not say “I lost my book”- rather, “the book went from me”. Likewise “I missed the train” is expressed as “the train left me”. And I would even speculate that preaching Christ in Arabic and even Hispanic cultures comes up against the problem of people strongly disliking taking ultimate responsibility, or to own up to the personal guilt of sin; the shifting of blame away from oneself is reflected even in their languages. And so when the Lord puts words in the shepherd’s mouth whereby he takes direct responsibility for the loss of the sheep, this would’ve sounded strange even grammatically. Apparently to this day, it’s hard to translate that actual phrase into Arabic. Likewise with the idea of the woman saying that she had found the coin which she had lost. The Lord is labouring how God, and God in Christ, feel an extraordinary personal responsibility for the lost. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>&nbsp;</em></p><p><em>And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbours, saying to them: Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!</em>-</p><p> The shepherd-owner calls his “friends” together. This surely refers to the clubs the Pharisees formed in villages, called the <em>Khaburim</em> [‘friends’]. They ought to have rejoiced to be eating with sinners, as the Lord was- but they wouldn’t. The whole context of the three parables is the Lord justifying why he ate at home with sinners, thereby showing that He considered them as somehow ‘in fellowship’ with Him. The Pharisees wouldn’t do this unless those people repented and learnt Torah in great depth. But the Lord is surely saying that He sees those men who ate with Him as the sheep which has already been brought home. He reflected the gracious outlook with which He saw people; and His hopefulness that by treating a person as if they had ‘come home’, then they would indeed do so. Probing this line further, the Lord Jesus speaks of the found sheep as being symbolic of the repentant. But the sheep did nothing- it was simply acceptant of having been found. To accept being found is, therefore, seen by the Lord as what He calls ‘repentance’. Now surely that’s grace- salvation without works. &nbsp;</p><p>The element of unreality is seen in the way the shepherd takes the sheep <em>home</em> and not back to the fold, inviting neighbours around to rejoice that his sheep had been found. The quite unusual joy and humanly inappropriate love of the shepherd for that sheep is of course there to signpost to us the "love beyond all reason" of the true shepherd for us. The way the lost sheep is brought home rather than returned to the fold was also perhaps some sort of allusion to the teaching of <em><a href='B:50 22:1'>Deu 22:1</a></em> that the lost sheep of your brother's must be returned to <em>him</em>. This would mean that our pastoral care should not simply be for our 'own' sheep, those for whom we have responsibility; but for the lost sheep of other 'pastors' who've not done their job. See on <em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>.</p><p>There is an element of unreality in the story of the lost sheep. And that unreality reflects the sensitivity of Jesus. The shepherd doesn’t return the sheep to the fold, but takes it home and calls his friends around to see the dumb animal and rejoice (<em><a href='B:490 15:4-6'>Luk 15:4-6</a></em>). The Lord knew we would frown a bit at this. He foresaw how hard it would be for us to rejoice in the return of a difficult sheep to fellowship. </p><p>This parable was told by the Lord to justify His eating with sinners. He justifies it by saying that He is holding a party over the finding of one lost person; and those sinners are His friends and neighbours. Truly He is the sinner's friend.</p><p>To carry a sheep on your shoulders, fighting and struggling with you, as you climb down a mountainside in the dark… isn’t something which is usually done <em>rejoicing</em>. But this is the unusual, humanly inexplicable, <em>joy</em> which there is in the Father and Son when day by day they 'find’ us and bring us back. And where would a shepherd usually take such a lost animal? Back to the flock, whom he’s left in the wilderness. But then comes another unreal element. The shepherd takes the sheep <em>home to his very own house</em>. This sheep had such extraordinary value to this wealthy man. He came back dirty and exhausted- he humiliated himself and made himself a fool in the eyes of the world, all because of this humanly senseless love and joy which he had over this lost sheep. And we have to fill in the details, answering the unasked but implied questions- what about the 99 left out in the wilderness? The story ends with them out of the house- paving the way for how the elder son is left standing outside of the house. Note how <em><a href='B:490 15:3'>Luk 15:3</a></em> speaks of the three parables as one, in the singular, “parable".</p><p>In respect of God's relationship with the Angels, it is interesting to note that there seems to be a theme in Scripture of all of the Angels being involved in each action one of them performs, due to the perfect unity that exists between them and God (see on <em><a href='B:490 11:7-8'>Luk 11:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 22:19-23'>1Ki 22:19-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:41'>Exo 12:41</a></em>). Thus when one of the Angels acts in our lives, all the others are conscious of it too. Consider how Luke 15 describes the joy in Heaven when one sinner repents; the man who found the lost sheep "calls together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me... when she (the woman) has found it (the lost coin) she calls her friends and neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me... likewise I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the Angels of God over one sinner that repents". The man and the woman must therefore represent God manifested through our guardian Angel. The Angel physically leaves the presence of God in Heaven and then goes off to arrange circumstances to encourage the sinner to return. He then calls all the others together to rejoice "when He comes home" (into Heaven, into the multitude around the throne of God from which Angels go and return in obeying God's Word). The whole Heavenly household then rejoice together. Thus we read in <em><a href='B:650 1:14'>Heb 1:14</a></em> that <em>all </em>the Angels are "ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of&nbsp;salvation". <em>All </em>the Angels are involved together in this work. All things in Heaven (the Angels) and on earth (the things they arrange on earth) are for our sakes!</p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you, that even so there shall be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents, than over ninety nine righteous persons, who need no repentance</em>-</p><p> There can be no doubt that the Lord Jesus spoke the words of God, and therefore His sayings can be interpreted at the deepest possible level; and yet at the same time, they were so easy to understand by simple, sincere hearts. The sayings of Jesus have been translated back into Aramaic, the language of His day, by C:F. Burney. He was struck by the degree to which they had a rhythmic shape, like many of the prophetic sayings of the Old Testament. Thus a passage like <em><a href='B:490 7:22'>Luk 7:22</a></em> has six two-beat lines followed at the end by a three-beat line; the commission to the disciples in <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em> rhymes, both in Aramaic and in Greek. The Lord’s prayer is expressed in two-beat lines. The crunch point of the Lord’s forgiveness parable in <em><a href='B:490 15:7'>Luk 15:7</a></em>, that there is joy in Heaven over one sinner that repents, uses the device of alliteration, i:e. similarly sounding words. He uses three words which feature the guttural ‘h’: joy = <em>hedwa</em>; one = <em>hada</em>; sinner = <em>hateya</em>. In passing, I find this kind of thing evidence that we do have in the Gospel records the actual words of Jesus, and not a rough summary of them interpreted by many others, as modern theologians wrongly suppose. Our view of inspiration enables us to return as it were to the actual, living voice of Jesus in confidence. If the record of His words is sure and true, then we can go on to guess in what tone of voice He would have spoken, and seek to define in our own minds ever more features of the Son of Man. This thought alone I find so immensely inspiring- for we hear the real Christ speaking to us down the centuries. The Lord’s teaching style thus reflected His recognition that He was speaking to the illiterate, and that many of those who followed Him would need to commit His words to memory; and so He spoke His words in a form which was memorable by them, as well as profitably dissectible by computer-aided intellectuals of our age. In this alone is a marvellous insight into both His genius and also His sensitivity to His audiences, from which we can take a lesson. But&nbsp;on a practical level, it is apparent that He had carefully prepared His sayings in advance, perhaps during His years up to age 30. I don’t see His sayings as off the cuff bursts of wisdom, neither words merely flashed into His mouth by the Father. They were God’s words, but carefully prepared by Him. He sets a matchless example to any would-be teacher in His church. Jesus spoke to the hearts of the people. He didn’t use words like ‘sin’ very often. He uses <em>hamartia</em> [‘sin’] in the Synoptics only 8 times, compared to 64 times in Paul’s writings. Jesus wasn’t talking theology, He didn’t speak in abstract terms. Rather did He speak of evil fruit, lost sheep, lost coins, no good sons… because He was framing His message for the illiterate, who thought in images rather than abstractions.</p>


text:
<p><em>Or what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she loses one piece, does not light a lamp and sweeps the house and seeks diligently until she finds it?</em>-</p><p> Luke 15 contains two parables concerning repentance, where the restored sinner is in fact not repentant: the lost sheep and the lost coin. The Lord searches for them <em>until</em> He finds them; neither of them actually repent and seek to come back. Indeed, the coin is inanimate, it can't repent. It was actually the woman's fault that it got lost in the first place. Now all these are surely examples of hyperbole- a gross exaggeration to make a point. It isn't the Lord's fault that we stray. But He speaks <em>as if it is</em> in this parable, in order to make the point that He <em>so</em> strenuously seeks our return to Him. Likewise Yahweh likens Himself to a worthless husband who forsook His sweet wife of Israel in her youth (<em><a href='B:290 54:6'>Isa 54:6</a></em>).</p><p>God's need for man- as it were- is brought out in this parable. We are compared to a candle that is lit (cp. our baptism) <em>so that</em> it may give light to others (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em>); the woman (the Lord Jesus) lights a candle (He uses believers) to find his lost coin (through our efforts) (<em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>; this must be seen in the context of the other two references in Luke to lighting a candle). If we don't give light (God's word, <em><a href='B:230 119:105'>Psa 119:105</a></em>) to others, we are a candle under a bucket, and therefore we will lose our faith, the flame will go out. So it's hard not to conclude that if we don't naturally give the light to others, we don't believe. The very nature of a lit candle is that it gives light; <em>all</em> candles do this, not just some. The Lord wants to use us as His candle, and He will arrange situations in life to enable this.</p><p>It's been suggested that the lost coin was one of the woman's dowry coins, and thus the story speaks of how every lost person is a personal and deeply felt loss to God. However, this view has been criticized in that a drachma, which had the same value as a silver denarius, was the wage paid to a worker for one day's field work (<em><a href='B:470 20:1-16'>Mat 20:1-16</a></em>). It was far less than the dowry coins. It could be that instead we have herea reference to a desperately poor housewife- who certainly had no dowry money left. The poor were so poor in Palestine at the time of Christ that they were selling their land, and many had become landless labourers. They worked for money, with which they bought food. The husband went far and wide searching for work; the Lord's parable pictures labourers waiting around for work. It's been calculated that on the basis of one denarius / day as wage, even if the worker worked 300 days / year, and had four children and a wife plus himself to support, this income would only enable them to buy enough bread to provide 1400 calories / family member / day. This isn't enough to sustain a person's ability to do manual work. Therefore mothers and children faced malnutrition, and the women tried to grow crops on waste land and did anything for money in order to buy bread. The smiling, full cheeked, charming Mediterranean woman with dowry coins around her forehead (beloved of those Sunday School books about Bible background) just wasn't the scene that the Lord had grown up in. The woman who'd lost her coin was searching desperately for it, because that was what she'd buy the kids food with. No coin, no food, whiny, hungry, sick kids. She needed, desperately needed, that coin; so that she could feed the hungry kids whom she loved and be the <em>de facto </em>domestic head which she was. And this is all a picture of God's <em>need</em> for the lost, His <em>need</em> for us, because He knows the feeding which that lost one can uniquely provide to His beloved family. And one wonders of course whether the Lord's parable wasn't drawn from real life incidents in His own childhood with Mary.</p><p>The lighting of the candle is a symbol of our conversion (<em><a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:32'>Heb 10:32</a></em>). Our lamps were lit by the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:32'>Heb 10:32</a></em>) for the purpose of giving light to the house. The Lord lights a lamp in order to search for his lost coin, that weak brother or sister that means as much to him on a deep, indescribably personal level as a woman's dowry money in the Middle East (cp. a wedding ring; <em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>). But the lamp he lights is us. This is yet another example of his parables being intended to fit together. We must burn as a candle now, in shedding forth the light, or we will be burnt at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> use the same words). </p>


text:
<p><em>And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbours, saying: Rejoice with me, for I have found the piece which I had lost</em>-</p><p> We note the Lord carefully balances the gender issue in these parables; the male shepherd is matched by the woman in the lost coin story. Such was His sensitivity to the value of all persons. As noted on :6, her joyful party reflects how all the Angels are aware of one lost soul being found. And the Lord is justifying His eating with sinners on the basis that they were His friends and neighbours. He was and is the sinner's friend. We recall how when the tax collector Matthew was converted, the Lord had a party to celebrate it along with other tax collectors (<em><a href='B:470 9:9-10'>Mat 9:9-10</a></em>). When Cornelius called together His friends and neighbours to hear the Gospel, he was effectively presenting himself as the lost coin which had been found (<em><a href='B:510 10:24'>Act 10:24</a></em> s:w:).</p><p>If we imagine the woman who lost the coin, we sense something of her remorse and desperation as she searches the cracks in the floor for it. It could’ve been part of her dowry- all that she owned for herself, all that was her very own. Not even her body was hers- it was her husband’s, to do what he wished with. But the dowry coins were hers- her very own. If the allusion were to one of these coins, it would speak of how much we mean to the Lord… that I, one of 6 billion, actually mean everything to Him, for whom I am His very own. But the allusion may also be to coins which the peasant women would keep bound up in a rag, close to their body. With this money, the woman would’ve had to feed the family for the next week or so. But… she’d let the rag come loose, and a coin had slipped out. In either case, we are to imagine the woman searching for it with a sense of remorse, taking responsibility that she was accountable for the loss. And this, we are invited to understand, is how the Lord feels for those who are lost. Notice how the woman searches <em>in the house</em>-</p><p> presumably, she’d not been out of the house since she last had the coin. By filling out this little detail, we perhaps have a picture of how the Lord took responsibility, or felt responsible, for the loss of those ‘within the house’ of Israel. </p>


text:
<p><em>Even so, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repents</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus purposefully inverted the common assumption that the duty of a righteous man was to condemn the sinners. When He said that there is much joy in Heaven over one sinner that repents, the Lord was purposefully inverting the common contemporary Jewish saying that there was much joy in Heaven whenever one sinner is destroyed in judgment. His desire is to seek to save rather than to destroy. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: A certain man had two sons</em>-</p><p> The man is not that wealthy; for he has only two sons and no other children are mentioned. This heightens the generosity of the father to the younger son, and the tragedy of the waste. The two sons may represent Israel and Judah. </p><p>As with most of the parables, the prodigal has a primary reference to the nation of Israel. The many Old Testament allusions bring this home without doubt. In practice, this means that the intensity of repentance which Israel will eventually manifest should be seen in our contrition at sin. In this lies a real challenge. The following allusions demonstrate that our Lord clearly intended us to make a connection between the prodigal and apostate Israel- and therefore with ourselves:</p><p>- The father falling on the prodigal's neck and kissing him sends the mind back to Joseph weeping on Benjamin's neck (another younger brother), typical of Christ's receiving home of a repentant Israel in the last days. As Joseph commanded his servants "Bring these men home, and slay, and make ready" (<em><a href='B:10 43:16'>Gen 43:16</a></em>), so the father did likewise (:23). Both repentances were celebrated with a meal of fellowship (cp. the breaking of bread). Both the prodigal and the sons humbled themselves to the position of servants. Like the prodigal, Israel were often brought back to their spiritual senses by famine (<em><a href='B:80 1:1'>Rth 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:37'>1Ki 8:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:25'>Luk 4:25</a></em> etc:). His realization that "I perish with hunger" (:17) matches the description of Jacob in Canaan as"A Syrian ready to perish" (<em><a href='B:50 26:5'>Deu 26:5</a></em>), dwelling in a land that was 'perishing through the famine' (<em><a href='B:10 41:36'>Gen 41:36</a></em>). This affliction came upon natural Israel because of their 'murder' of Joseph / Jesus. The prodigal's profligacy is therefore to be seen as the crucifying of Christ afresh by the believer. </p><p>- The prodigal Israel went "into a far country" (<em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>) - a phrase normally used in the Old Testament concerning the Gentile lands of Israel's dispersion (<em><a href='B:50 29:22'>Deu 29:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:41'>1Ki 8:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:46'>1Ki 8:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 20:14'>2Ki 20:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 6:32'>2Ch 6:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 6:36'>2Ch 6:36</a></em>). In passing, the "far country" of <em><a href='B:490 19:12'>Luk 19:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:9'>Luk 20:9</a></em> should also refer to the lands of the Gentiles; <em>this</em> is where Christ has gone (as well as Heaven), and will return to Israel when they desire him to. As with so many of the parables, this one is packed with allusions to the Proverbs. The "far country" recalls <em><a href='B:240 25:25'>Pro 25:25</a></em>: "As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country". Like many Proverbs, this is alluding to the Law- concerning how Israel would return from the "far country" of their dispersion upon their repentance. The sense of refreshment and exhilaration which this gives God should surely motivate us to repent, and also to encourage others to do so. Yet we need to ask whether we feel this same exaltation of spirit as God does "over one sinner that repents". It requires selflessness, and a real desire to see glory given to our Father.</p><p>- Our association of the prodigal with Israel in dispersion is strengthened by the mention that the prodigal "wasted" the Father's riches, the Greek meaning 'to scatter abroad'- suggesting that as Israel had wastefully scattered God's riches in the Gospel, so they too were scattered. Note how the prodigal is pictured as ending up with the pigs- well known symbol of the Gentiles. As the Son's return to the Father was matched by His going out to meet the son, when Israel "return unto the Lord... then the Lord your God will... return and gather you from all the nations" (<em><a href='B:50 30:2-3'>Deu 30:2-3</a></em>).</p><p>- The book of Hosea frequently presents prodigal Israel as the one who went astray from God, her loving Father and husband, committing adultery with the surrounding countries, with the result that God cast her off, leaving her to suffer in those very lands whose idols she had worshipped. Her sense of shame and knowledge of God's constant love then brought her to her senses (Hosea 2; <em><a href='B:350 5:11-15'>Hos 5:11-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 6:1'>Hos 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 7:8-10'>Hos 7:8-10</a></em>). There can be little doubt that our Lord had his eye on this symbology when framing the prodigal parable. <em><a href='B:350 2:7-8'>Hos 2:7-8</a></em> is the clearest example: "She shall follow after her lovers... he shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now. For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold (cp. the father giving the son his substance), which they prepared for Baal". These blessings of corn, wine and oil are referring to the blessings for obedience promised in Deuteronomy 28. The point is being made that these blessings were not immediately and totally removed once Israel started to go astray. This demonstrates how material 'blessings' are not necessarily an indication that we have favour with God. Consuming the Father's substance "with harlots" (:30) is therefore parallel to giving it to idols. The spiritual riches of being in covenant with God, as well as our every material blessing from Him, were frittered away by Israel. God's "hand" worked upon Israel to make them realize the seriousness of their ways (<em><a href='B:350 2:10'>Hos 2:10</a></em>). This fact starts to plumb the depth of God's love- that even with those who have broken His covenant, God's hand is still working to lead them to repentance.</p><p>- <em><a href='B:300 31:18-20'>Jer 31:18-20</a></em> describes how Ephraim moans: "You have chastised me... turn me, and I shall be turned... after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed... I was ashamed... because I did bear the reproach of my youth. Is Ephraim my dear son?... since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still... I will surely have mercy upon him, says the Lord". We must not think from this that God just chose to turn Israel (the prodigal) back to him at a certain moment. It was because God "spake against him", through which the prodigal was "instructed", that he turned back. </p><p>- There is reason to see the family portrayed in the parable as being a priestly family- thus representing prodigal Israel, "a Kingdom of priests". The son did not ask for his share of the inheritance, but&nbsp;of "the portion of goods"- remember that Levites did not own any land. There is surely an echo of the curse on Eli's priestly family in the prodigal parable: "Every one that is left in your house shall come and crouch... for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray you, into one of the priests offices, that I may eat a piece of bread" (<em><a href='B:90 2:36'>1Sa 2:36</a></em>). The Father had "hired servants", which takes us back to the reference in <em><a href='B:30 22:10'>Lev 22:10</a></em> to the priests having "hired servants" in their household, who would have performed the mundane work for them (cp. the Gibeonites). The prodigal was therefore asking to be admitted back into God's service, resigning all the spiritual superiorities he could have enjoyed through being of the priestly line. Similarly latter day Israel will be willing to be accepted by God as Gentiles, having resigned their trust in their natural lineage. Our attitude on repentance ought to be similar- just wanting to quietly, humbly participate in God's family for the joy of being close to Him. Further indication that the hired servants represent the Gentiles is found in the fact that they had "bread enough" (Gk. 'an abundance of loaves'), connecting with the Gentiles of <em><a href='B:470 14:20'>Mat 14:20</a></em> being "filled" (same word in <em><a href='B:490 15:16'>Luk 15:16</a></em>) with the abundance of loaves created by Christ.</p><p>- The parable of the lost son complements that of the lost sheep earlier in the same chapter. "My people have been lost sheep", "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (<em><a href='B:300 50:6'>Jer 50:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:6'>Mat 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:24'>Mat 15:24</a></em>). A comparison of the parable with <em><a href='B:350 7:9-10'>Hos 7:9-10</a></em> indicates that most of Israel remain as the prodigal in the pig country: "Strangers have devoured his strength (cp. "devoured your substance"), and he knows it not... they do not return to the Lord their God, nor seek him for all this". The illogicality of Israel remaining in their pathetic spiritual position is so apparent to us from this; yet we of the new Israel can also be crazy enough to go on living out of real fellowship with God.</p><p>The reason for presenting such a catalogue of evidence is to show that prodigal Israel's latter day repentance will be of a similar intensity of repentance to ours in this life. They will mourn and weep with a rare intensity of self-hate and self-knowledge- even as a father for his only son. Do we shed tears on repentance? Do we realize, as they will, how our sins brought about the crucifixion? Do we appreciate that our spiritualindifference and lack of perception means that we, like Israel, "did esteem him stricken", seeing no beauty in him (<em><a href='B:290 53:2-5'>Isa 53:2-5</a></em>) as we march through our lives, unthinking as to the power and beauty of the cross?</p><p>The younger son is presented as lacking wisdom and being disobedient to the law, as Judah in dispersion. "Whoso loves wisdom rejoices his father: but he that keeps company with harlots spends his substance" (<em><a href='B:240 29:3'>Pro 29:3</a></em>) was clearly in the Lord's mind when constructing this parable. He evidently saw this proverb as applying to the same person in time of sin and repentance. Repenting and loving wisdom are therefore paralleled, showing again that repentance is not just a twinge of conscience, but involves coming to really know God. The prodigal wished to return home so that he could share in the loaves which the servants had "to spare", or (better), "had in abundance". This same word occurs in <em><a href='B:500 6:12'>Joh 6:12</a></em> concerning the bread which "remained", i:e. was in abundance, after the feeding of the five thousand. In that acted parable, the bread represented the abundance of spiritual food which is in the spirit-words of Christ. It was this which the truly repentant sinner earnestly seeks, rather than a mere salving of conscience. "Whoso keeps the law is a wise son: but he that is a companion of riotous men shames his father" (<em><a href='B:240 28:7'>Pro 28:7</a></em>) shows that such genuine repentance and knowing of God's wisdom is effectively reckoned as keeping the letter of the Law. "A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causes shame, and shall have part of the inheritance" (<em><a href='B:240 17:2'>Pro 17:2</a></em>) seems to also connect with our parable; implying that the wise son who was willing to be a servant was ultimately greater than the son who appeared to be technically obedient to the letter of the law. Likewise, the son desiring to be fed with the husks of the pig food may connect with Lazarus desiring to be fed with the crumbs from the rich man's table (<em><a href='B:490 16:21'>Luk 16:21</a></em>). Yet Lazarus is representative of the repentant sinner who is ultimately justified. The degree to which God will so totally impute righteousness to us is indeed hard to come to terms with. But it is faith in this which will be our ultimate salvation. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>And the younger of them said to his father: Father, give me the inheritance of property that is coming to me. And he divided his property between them</em>-</p><p> The somewhat sad picture of the loving Father dividing between his sons “his living", for them to go off and make what they will of, to either squander in the world or selfishly and self-righteously hoard to themselves, is a picture of the vast and genuine delegation to us by the Father. The Father has given us huge freewill and an amazing amount of self-determination. Divine delegation is one of His great characteristics as a Father. It would have been highly unusual for any father to agree to liquidate part of the family estate ahead of time, just so as to give in to the will of a wayward son who totally rejected him. And yet the father did this; he liquidated part of the family inheritance to give it to a son who wanted to openly quit the family. This is how much the Father is willing to give us the essential desires of our own hearts, how much He is willing to allow us to go our own way, so that we may serve Him of our own freewill.</p><p>For those Palestinian peasants, politeness and respect to your father was paramount. Even if you didn’t obey your father, you had to be polite to him. Rudeness to your father or public disobedience to him was the worst thing you could do, and you shamed yourself. The Lord turned that understanding on its head in His parable of the two sons in <em><a href='B:470 21:28-32'>Mat 21:28-32</a></em>. He taught that the <em>better</em> son was the one who rudely refused to do what his father asked, but later relented and did it. The Lord saw this son as better than the one who politely agreed, and yet never fulfilled his promise. Perhaps that parable needs reflection upon today, where ‘nicespeak’ has become paramount- so long as you say something nicely, what you actually are saying and what you <em>do</em> isn’t so important. <em>How</em> we speak <em>is</em> of course important; but it can be exalted to the point where words rather than real action become paramount. But that aside, the point is that both the sons were <em>extremely</em> rude to their Father. And he was the most loving, self-sacrificial dad that two kids ever could’ve had. We feel hurt for the lovely old boy. One element of unreality is that he only had two sons- a small family for those days. How tragic that both his sons went so wrong and rebelled against him. And we sense something of his hurt, our heart starts to bleed for him, and we think of <em>our</em> Heavenly Father’s hurt. And then the penny drops- those two boys are us. &nbsp;</p><p>The younger son was more than rude in demanding his actual share of the inheritance immediately. He was effectively wishing that his father was dead. He had the neck to treat his lovely father as if he were already dead. There arose in Europe after the second world war the ‘Death of God’ philosophy and theology. We may distance ourselves from it in disgust, finding even the words grating and inappropriate, but let’s remember that the younger son ends up the son who is found in the end abiding in the Father’s house and joyful fellowship. This is how <em>we</em> have treated our wonderful Father. We know from the examples of Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 25:5-8'>Gen 25:5-8</a></em>) and Jacob (Genesis 48-49) that the actual division of the inheritance was made <em>by the father</em> as his death approached. For the son to take the initiative was disgusting. Although the sons could have some legal right to what their father gave them before his death, they were strictly denied the right of actually having it in possession [i:e. the right of disposition]. This awful son was therefore each of us. And the father responds with an unreal grace. He agrees. He did what he surely knew was not really for the spiritual good of the son. And according to <em><a href='B:50 21:7'>Deu 21:7</a></em>, the younger son’s share was one third. But the father gives him <em>half</em>. The younger son turns it all into cash within a few days [the Greek for “gathered all” definitely means ‘to turn into cash’]. This would’ve meant selling the fields and property quickly- and the father would’ve had to give agreement for this and have been involved in the contracts. Buying and selling takes a long time in peasant culture- selling quickly would’ve meant selling very cheaply. It would’ve been the laughing stock of the whole area. The way the son sells the inheritance would've been a more awful and unreal thing in the ears of the Lord's first hearers than it is to us. Naboth would rather have died than sell his inheritance- even to the King (1Ki 213). The lifetime’s hard work of the father and family was wasted. And the father went along with it all. This was more than unusual; it would’ve been outrageous in the ears of the Lord’s hearers. But this is the outrageous nature of God’s grace. He must be so torn by our prayers- as a loving Father, wanting to give us what we ask for materially, whilst knowing it’s not for our good… and sometimes doing so. The father made himself look a fool because of his enormous love for this obnoxious son who wished him dead, this young man who clearly thought solely in terms of ‘Gimme the money and I’m outta here for good’. And he thought this with no thought to the huge damage he was bringing upon the rest of the family. For they would’ve lost so much through losing half the property. We sense the pain of the father, of the family, and the selfishness of the son. And time and again we are breathless at the love and grace of the father. &nbsp;</p><p>Significantly, the son asked for his share of the property- not his inheritance. To receive inheritance carried with it responsibility, of building the house of your father, upholding the family name etc. But this son didn’t want that. And the father could quite rightly have said ‘No, you get the inheritance when you take the responsibilities that come with it’. But no, this son wants to quit with his lovely father and the whole family name. In that culture, to cut your ties with your home family, your inheritance, your land… was almost unheard of. It was almost impossible to do. But that’s what this angry young man wanted. The incredible thing is, the father allowed him to do this! That element of unreality signposts the extent to which God allows us freewill, genuine freedom of determination- and how much it costs Him emotionally and as a person to do so. This is the frightening thing about freewill- how much it hurts and costs God to give it to us. This insight alone should lead to a far more careful and responsible use of our freewill. William Temple said somewhere, something to the effect that God gives us freedom even to reject His love. It’s no good reflecting on the younger son and thinking ‘But I’m not that kinda guy’. The whole point of the parable is that yes, we are. That’s us. We’re either like that son, or the self-righteous son who is left standing outside of the father’s fellowship. Clearly enough, the God whom Jesus was revealing was <em>not</em> based upon some village patriarch. Freud rightly observed that many people’s image of God is based upon their experience of human father figures. For the true believer however, the Lord Jesus is revealing a Father-figure radically different to anything they’ve ever met:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Not many days later, the younger son gathered into money all he had, and took a journey into a far country; and there he squandered his inheritance in reckless living</em>-</p><p> The same Greek word occurs in <em><a href='B:670 4:4'>1Pe 4:4</a></em> concerning Gentiles (and also the latter-day apostasy within the ecclesia?) living in "excess of riot". The corrective to the elder brothers' attitude is provided by the following parable of the unjust steward which comes straight afterwards in Luke 16. The steward was accused of 'wasting' his master's goods (<em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em>), using the same Greek word translated "substance" in <em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>, concerning how the son wasted his father's substance. The steward forgave others, and therefore ultimately found a way of escape from his dilemma. The implication is that it was on account of the prodigal being willing to do this, not daring to point the finger at others in the Father's household because of his awareness of his own sins, that he was eventually saved. We can also infer that the elder brother walked out of the Father's fellowship because of his refusal to do this. Again we see how God works through our sins. Because of the prodigal's experience of sin and forgiveness, he was better able to show that vital love and tolerance towards others, without which we cannot receive God's ultimate acceptance. In a sense, it was much <em>more</em> difficult for the elder brother.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that country, and he began to be in want</em>-</p><p> The prodigal "spent all", just as the diseased woman had "spent all" her living (<em><a href='B:480 5:26'>Mar 5:26</a></em>), and now came to take hold of Christ's mantle of righteousness. This we do at baptism. Other similarities between the prodigal and that widow are to be found in <em>Studies In The Gospels</em> by H:A. Whittaker. It's bankruptcy, or bankruptcy. Paul spoke of spending and being spent in the Lord's service (<em><a href='B:540 12:15'>2Co 12:15</a></em>), alluding to how the prodigal spent himself in dissipation. That sense of losing all must come- either in sin's service, or in that of the Lord. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed pigs</em>-</p><p> The son was attached to a "citizen of that country", perhaps a personification of the Biblical devil to which we are joined before conversion. He was made free from him the moment he started his journey back. He "was dead, and is alive again" is also baptism language (cp. <em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>). "He arose" from the pigs (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>) certainly implies new life and resurrection. </p><p>We don’t like to think of ourselves as that thankless young man; but even more do we revolt at the idea that we were and are at times out there feeding pigs. Anyone who’s travelled in the Middle East will know the annoyance of a beggar attaching themselves to you and just refusing to leave you. But watch how the locals deal with those types. They don’t shout at them, or chase them. They will ask them to do something which is beneath even their dignity as a beggar to do. And they walk away shamefaced. I knew a brother who was a schoolteacher. The boss wanted to fire him because of his Christianity. The boss didn’t say ‘You’re fired! Clear off!’. He simply transferred him to a remote village in the middle of nowhere. And so the brother did the only reasonable thing- he resigned. The young man ‘joining’ or ‘gluing’ himself to the rich Gentile citizen was like the beggar who glues himself to you, and you don’t know how to shake him off. The pig owner told him to go and feed his pigs- thinking that this would surely be beneath this once-wealthy Jew who was hassling him. But so desperate was the young man, that he had to swallow every drop of pride, national and personal- and go do it. And he felt like a pig- he was willing to eat what they ate. <em>This</em> is the picture of our desperation at every sin- but we need to feel it, if we are to experience the path back to the Father. In an age when sin is often more about the words you type on your keyboard than actual physical debauchery, this parable hits home hard. Of course it was pride which was in the way for the son, and it is swallowing pride which is the essence of repentance. And again, it was fear of shame that delayed the young man’s return- fear of having to go through the <em>kezazah</em> ceremony of being officially disowned, fear of how the mob of young kids which roam every village street would whistle and shout and sing insults at him. And we need to pause and reflect whether we contribute to this significant barrier which surely hinders so many from returning to the Father’s house. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he would gladly have filled his belly with the husks that the pigs ate, but no one gave him anything</em>-</p><p> The son was joined to a Gentile, and totally ritually unclean by working with the pigs. All hope of justification by the law was long gone.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when he came to his senses he said-</em></p><p>The sense that the prodigal had of having come to a complete end, realizing the ultimate wretchedness of sin, should be ours when we repent. The prodigal's repentance is ours. The prodigal among the pigs, rising up to return, should be a cameo of our repentances throughout each day. The allusion to the Septuagint of <em><a href='B:240 29:21'>Pro 29:21</a></em> shows how that despite having reached such an "end", there is still a way back: "He that lives wantonly from a child shall be a servant, and in the <em>end</em> shall grieve over himself". Yet we know that after that "end", the prodigal returned. The son 'coming to his senses' implies that his life of sin was madness, lived in a haze of semi-consciousness of his real spiritual self. This spiritual anaesthesia is <em>always</em> present when we sin. Yet it does not mean that God sees and feels our sins as we do; He has a constancy of spiritual awareness. An appreciation of this may help us in our struggle to sense the true seriousness of sin. </p><p><em>How many of my father's hired servants have bread enough to spare, but I perish here with hunger!</em>-</p><p> The prodigal's perishing with hunger and desperately needing bread suggests a connection with <em><a href='B:500 6:35'>Joh 6:35</a></em>: "I am the bread of life: he that comes to me (cp. the prodigal's return) shall never hunger... him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out" (cp. the receiving back of the prodigal). This coming to Christ is both ongoing and also specifically at baptism.</p><p>God hoped through the hope of Hosea that 'Gomer' would say "I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now" (<em><a href='B:350 2:17'>Hos 2:17</a></em>). But Gomer / Israel would not; and so the Lord picked up the idea and puts it in the mouth of the returning prodigal son in <em><a href='B:490 15:17'>Luk 15:17</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>I will rise and go to my father, and will say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight</em>-</p><p> His plan was to use the phrase “I have sinned against heaven and against you”- but this is almost quoting verbatim from Pharaoh’s words of insincere repentance in <em><a href='B:20 10:16'>Exo 10:16</a></em>! He still failed to grasp that he was his father’s <em>son</em>-</p><p> he didn’t ‘get it’, that <em>this </em>would be the basis of his salvation, rather than a master-servant relationship with his father based on hard work. It was the father’s amazing grace which swept him off his feet just along the street from his father’s home; it was the father’s unconditional acceptance of him which made him realize what sonship and repentance was really all about. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>I am no more worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired servants</em>-</p><p> The young man hadn’t quite learnt the need for total grace when he decided to return home. He decided to return and ask to be made “as one of your skilled craftsmen” (Gk:- he uses <em>misthios </em>rather than <em>doulos</em>, the usual word for ‘slave’). Presumably he figured that he could work and pay off what he had wasted. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he rose and went to his father. But while he was yet far away, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran and embraced and kissed him</em>-</p><p> The Father's speed and zeal is captured by the repeated use of the conjunction "and": "His father saw him, <em>and</em> had compassion, <em>and</em> ran, <em>and</em> fell on his neck, <em>and</em> kissed him". The son's careful preparation of his request for mercy was needful for him, but not for the Father. This is a precise allusion to the spirit of <em><a href='B:290 65:24'>Isa 65:24</a></em>: "Before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear". This is primarily concerning God's relationship with men in the Kingdom. Yet our daily experience of forgiveness now should give us a foretaste of the glorious sense of restoration with God which will be ours in the Kingdom.</p><p>There was a Jewish custom called <em>Kezazah</em>, ‘the cutting off’. If a Jew lost the family fortune amongst Gentiles, he would be greeted at home by the whole family, who would break a pot and scream ‘XYZ is cut off from his people’ Kenneth E. Bailey, <em>The Cross And The Prodigal</em> (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005) p. 52). The family and community would have no more fellowship with the person (Kenneth E. Bailey, <em>Jacob And The Prodigal</em> (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003) p. 102). Moulton and Milligan describe the record of a public notice by which parents declare their dissociation from their son who had wasted their wealth (J:H. Moulton & G. Milligan, <em>The Vocabulary Of The Greek New Testament Illustrated From the Papyri And Other Non-Literary Sources</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952) p. 89). This is what the Lord’s Jewish audience would’ve expected to come next in the story, when the son returns. But no! There is the very opposite. Law and traditional expectation and even human perception of justice is thrown away, as the father races along the street towards his son and accepts him. For an elderly man to run publicly was yet again an unreal element in the story- mature men always walk, at a slow and dignified pace. Not gather up their robes and run, let alone publicly. Actually the Greek word translated “run” in <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em> is that used about sprinting (<em><a href='B:530 9:24'>1Co 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:26'>1Co 9:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:2'>Gal 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:7'>Gal 5:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:1'>Heb 12:1</a></em>). Here again we see the self-humiliation of the father before men, as he expressed a radical acceptance. Even we from our distance expect there to be a ‘telling off’, a facing of the issues. But there isn’t. The grace of God which meets the returning sinner leads him to repentance. It of itself, by its sheer magnitude, elicits the state of contrition which is indeed vital; but this is inspired&nbsp;by the huge initiative of the Father and Son. &nbsp;</p><p>The father’s radical acceptance is the very basis of our salvation. It is challenging, supremely so. Perhaps we handle ‘classic’ repentance easier- someone does wrong, goes off for a long time, is out of sight and out of mind, comes back, asks for our forgiveness with tears and humility. It’s actually psychologically hard to say ‘No’. <em>That</em> kind of forgiveness is relatively easy. But what is so much harder is to show forgiveness and the nature of the father’s love and grace time and again in daily life; to keep looking and hoping for the one who has offended us, ruined us, destroyed us, used and abused us… to be coming home. Actually I know virtually none amongst us who rise up to the father’s love and grace in this. It remains a stark, sobering challenge to us all. &nbsp;</p><p>It needs to be understood that the father had to act as the village expected him to. They expected him to enact the <em>kezazah</em>, to hand the son over to them in some form for judgment, to make an example of this awful man. No village member is an island, all have to act within the expectations of the group. But the father breaks through all that. He again humiliates himself before the villagers by doing what he did. He likely angers them- for anger so often comes as a result of being confronted by the grace shown by others. We see it so often in the life of our spiritual community. Indeed, the Lord got at this in another parable, where He speaks of how some were angry at the extreme grace shown by the generous vineyard owner (<em><a href='B:470 20:1-16'>Mat 20:1-16</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>The Father offered forgiveness without repentance to the prodigal son before there was any direct evidence of repentance- just a sign of general regret or desire to be in the Father’s house. Indeed, it would see that the very fact the son <em>wanted </em>to return to the Father’s house was quite enough to warrant his acceptance there- and the killing of the fatted calf. </p><p>The Lord's zeal for our redemption and His enthusiasm to see us as righteous is brought out in the parable of the prodigal. The Father (manifest in the Lord) runs out to meet the son. That story was masterfully tied back in to <em><a href='B:290 64:5-8'>Isa 64:5-8</a></em>: "You meet him that rejoices and works righteousness, those that remember you in your ways... we have sinned... we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags... but now, O Lord, You are our father". The patient, hopeful father saw in the son a boy rejoicing and working righteousness; but this was hardly how <em>he</em> felt! And so it will be with Israel in the last days. And so it is with each of us now, in our times of repentance. That surpassing grace is ours; we are seen as working righteousness when all we have is a bitter self-loathing and desire to somehow get back to God. But the crucial point is: <em>how often</em> do we have such a true repentance? We repeatedly sin, that we admit. But how frequently is there this kind of repentance which calls forth such grace, to see us as so righteous when we are so unrighteous, the grace of Jesus so great, so free…?&nbsp;</p><p>The parables so often allude to contemporary Jewish conceptions of grace, and show how God's grace is so far beyond them. The Father is watching for the return of the prodigal, even while the son was "far off" (Gk. <em>makron</em>); and this is the same word used about the "far (Gk. <em>makros</em>) country" where the son was (<em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). The Divine eyesight sees the person who is far off in sin, and longs for their return. This was quite contrary to all Jewish and human notions of showing grace to those who return - <em>after</em> they return. There was a contemporary Jewish story about a son who wished to return to his father; and the father sends a message to him saying "Return as far as you can and I will come the rest of the way to you". The Lord's parable showed how the care of the Father for His children is so far more than that. And He is there watching billions of cases, simultaneously... such is the passionate heart of God for the individual.</p><p>We must grow in our realization of the <em>enthusiasm</em> of God for our salvation. Consider how the Father ran unto the pathetic son and fell on (Gk. violently seized) his neck and kissed him (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>; the same Greek as in <em><a href='B:510 20:37'>Act 20:37</a></em>). The Father restlessly watching for the prodigal's return matches the woman searching for the lost coin “till she find it” or the unusual shepherd who searches for his lost sheep “until He finds it” (<em><a href='B:490 15:4'>Luk 15:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). This involves God in huge activity- setting up providential encounters, nudging consciences through circumstance. The huge amount of ‘work’ is one thing; but the mental energy of concern and thoughtfulness is phenomenal beyond our comprehension. God rises up early seeking His people- rather like us somehow being able to wake up early in the morning without an alarm clock, because our internal clock is restlessly wanting to be up and on our mission for the day. In all this we are to manifest God- for we too are to seek and save the lost.</p><p>The elder brother in the prodigal story shows an unbelievably self-righteous attitude. Yet, this truly is the position of the legalists of Christ's day and this. The love of the Father [God] for the son [repentant Israel] is quite something. Would a father really rush out and kiss him, i:e. forgive him (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:100 14:33'>2Sa 14:33</a></em>) without first requiring an explanation and specific repentance? For this unusual Father, the mere fact the son wanted to return was enough. And when the vineyard workers refused to work and beat and killed the Owner’s servants that were sent, the response we expect is that the Owner sends in some armed men and re-establishes control. But He doesn’t. Why ever keep sending servants after some are killed? But this is the loving, almost desperate persistence of the Father for our response. This is what the parables of Israel teach. In the end, He does something humanly crazy. He sends a single Man walking towards them- His only Son. Or think of the parable of the older son. The loving Father divides all that He has between the two sons- and the son who remained at home therefore ended up with <em>all</em> that the Father had, seeing the younger son had blown the other half of it (<em><a href='B:490 15:31'>Luk 15:31</a></em>). This was the extent of God’s love for Pharisaic, hypocritical Israel. He gave them His all- the blood of His only Son. Elderly oriental gentlemen never run in public. But the Father will do so when the younger son returns. Such will be His joy, and such is His joy over every sinner who repents! </p>


text:
<p><em>And the son said to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight. I am no more worthy to be called your son</em>-</p><p> The son admitted that he had sinned "in your sight", exactly as David confessed after his sin with Bathsheba (<em><a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a></em>). In the same way as David openly recognized that he deserved to die, so the prodigal wanted to be made a hireling. Yet in reality, God did not take David's life, the prodigal was not allowed to even get around to saying he wanted to be made a slave (:21 cp. 19), shoes being immediately placed on his feet (:22) to distinguish him from the barefoot slaves:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>But the father said to his servants: Bring quickly the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and shoes on his feet</em>-</p><p> The prodigal was not allowed to even get around to saying he wanted to be made a slave (:21 cp. 19), shoes being immediately placed on his feet (:22) to distinguish him from the barefoot slaves. The honour bestowed upon the son by the father is totally unreal. Without the slightest sign that the son is now responsible, is truly repentant, has the right motives… the father gives him the best robe, which is what was done for the person whom a leader wished to honour above all (<em><a href='B:190 6:1-9'>Est 6:1-9</a></em>). And the father gives the son his signet ring (cp. <em><a href='B:10 41:41-42'>Gen 41:41-42</a></em>). All this, before the prodigal has in any way proved himself. All he’s done is come home, still not wanting to be a son, just a craftsman; and he was only driven home by his desperation. Such is the huge significance attached by the Lord to our turning up home. And in our dealing with returning sinners, which is every one of us day by day, we should reflect the same attitude. </p><p>The record of the prodigal's treatment at the homecoming suggests that we are to see in this the sharing of Christ's personal reward with repentant sinners. Removing his rags and clothing him with the best robe recalls <em><a href='B:450 3:4'>Zec 3:4</a></em>, concerning the very same thing happening to Christ at his glorification. Being given a robe, ring and shoes takes us back to Joseph/Jesus being similarly arrayed in the day of his glory (<em><a href='B:10 41:42'>Gen 41:42</a></em>). This parable is rich in reference to the Joseph story, with Joseph's brothers typifying Israel and all sinners. But now there is a powerful twist in the imagery. The sinners (cp. the brothers) now share the reward of the saint (cp. Joseph). This is the very basis of the Gospel of justification in Christ, through having his righteousness imputed to us, so that we can share in his rewards. This will fully be realized at the marriage supper of the lamb, although it also occurs in a sense each time we repent, and live out the parable of the prodigal's repentance again. See on <em><a href='B:730 6:11'>Rev 6:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And bring the fatted calf, kill it and let us eat and make merry</em>-</p><p> The joyful homecoming and celebration feast after the prodigal's repentance then equates with the Messianic banquet. The fatted calf which was killed therefore connects with the "fatlings" which were killed for the marriage supper of the Kingdom in <em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em>. And those Jews who refused the invitation to join in that feast easily equate with the elder brother. "Let us eat and make merry" is alluded to by the Lord in his later description of the marriage supper: "Let us be glad and rejoice... for the marriage of the lamb is come" (<em><a href='B:730 19:7'>Rev 19:7</a></em>). "Enter into the joy of your lord" (<em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>) is the equivalent in the parable of the virgins. There is good reason to think that our Lord consciously designed his parables to allude to each other, and thus build up a more complete picture of his teaching.</p><p>The context of the parable is set in :2. It was in response to the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus that he received sinners and ate with them. Jesus is replying by showing that the meal he ate with them was in the spirit of the joyful feasting occasioned by the finding of the lost coin, and the return of the prodigal. The prodigal's repentance is thus likened to those who were responding to Christ's gospel.</p><p>Compare "Slay and make ready" (<em><a href='B:10 43:16'>Gen 43:16</a></em>). Joseph's welcome of his brothers is the basis of the prodigal son parable (<em><a href='B:10 45:14-15'>Gen 45:14-15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>); in this case another line of interpretation opens up, with the father representing Christ, and the prodigal is the repentant Jews, wanting to be servants and nothing else.</p><p>"The fatted calf" of Christ is 'killed' by God on our repentance in the sense that He is aware once again of the death of Christ whenever we are granted forgiveness. The spirit of Christ groans for us when we sin, as he did on the cross and in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>). Thus God looks on the travail of Christ's soul when He bears our sins away from us (<em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>). To crucify Christ afresh as it were puts Christ through the process of death on behalf of sin once again, but because the believer does not 'resurrect' to newness of life in forsaking the sin, neither does God 'visualize' the Lord's triumph over the sufferings of sin in the resurrection. Such a person has left Christ suffering, travailing in soul, groaning with tears, without any triumph or resurrection.</p>


text:
<p><em>For this my son who was dead, is alive again! He was lost and is found! And they began to be merry</em>-</p><p> The prodigal son was a favourite of Paul's. At least four times (<em><a href='B:490 15:24'>Luk 15:24</a></em> = <em><a href='B:560 2:1'>Eph 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:5'>Eph 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:14'>Eph 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>) he makes the point that he saw the repentant son as a type of every one of us: not just those who publicly disgrace themselves and go out of church life for a time:&nbsp;</p><p>As God took His repentant wife back to her former status, speaking of her once again as a virgin, so the Father emphasizes: "This <em>my son</em> was dead...". The prodigal was dead, but then became alive (:32), in the same way as baptism marks both a one-off coming alive with Christ, and also the start of a newness of life in which we are constantly dying to sin and coming alive to God's righteousness (<em><a href='B:520 6:13'>Rom 6:13</a></em>). Our repentance and subsequent acceptability with God at our baptisms should therefore be on a similar level to our confessions of sinfulness to God after specific sins in our daily lives, and also related to our doing this at the day of judgment. </p><p>Yet in the daily round of sin and failure, it is sometimes difficult to sense the degree to which God is actively seeking our return, and willing to slay the fatted calf. The earlier parables of the lost sheep and coin show God actively working to find us; whilst that of the prodigal implies that He is not doing anything physical. Yet the clear connections with the preceding parables show that the woman zealously turning the house upside down must therefore be a figure of the mental energy expended by the Almighty in seeking out our repentance. In our semi-aware spiritual days and hours, before we 'come to ourselves', the Father's active mind is urgently seeking us. Surely this should motivate us in our stronger moments to be aware of the need <em>not</em> to sleep into the sleepy madness of spiritual indifference and sin. This indifference is effectively spending our substance with whores and riotous living. <em><a href='B:240 29:3'>Pro 29:3</a></em> is one of the root passages for the prodigal parable: "Whoever loves <em>wisdom</em> rejoices his father: but he that keeps company with harlots spends his <em>substance</em>". There is a parallel here between wisdom and the Father's substance; continuing a popular Biblical theme that God's spiritual riches are to be found in His words of wisdom. An indifference to the spiritual riches which we have been given in the word of Christ is therefore being likened to the prodigal squandering the Father's substance with whores. </p><p>It is hard to appreciate that this parable really is intended to be read as having some reference to our daily turning back from our sins- such is the emotional intensity of the story. Yet such is the seriousness of sin that we must see in it an ideal standard to aim for in this regard. The parable alludes to a passage in Job which helps us better appreciate this. The prodigal's confession "I have sinned... in your sight", and his returning from spiritual death to life (<em><a href='B:490 15:21'>Luk 15:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:32'>Luk 15:32</a></em>) connect well with <em><a href='B:220 33:24-30'>Job 33:24-30</a></em>: "His flesh (of the forgiven sinner) shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth (cp. the prodigal): he shall pray unto God, and He will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy... if any say (like the prodigal), I have sinned... and it profited me not; He will deliver his soul from the pit, and his life shall see the light. Lo, all these things worketh God <em>oftentimes</em> with man". The prodigal's experience will often be worked out in our lives, the fatted calf slain time and again, and as such we will come to know and appreciate the Father's love even more. </p><p>The joyous feast around the fatted calf can therefore speak of the full fellowship with God which we enjoy each time we come to repentance. The return of Israel in Hosea 2 was one of the source passages for the parable. The feast at their return is there described as a betrothal feast. This is obviously a one-off act. Yet such is the constant newness of life which we can experience through continued repentance, that the feasts of joy which we experience can all have the intensity of a betrothal feast. In like manner our relation with Christ in the Kingdom is likened to a consummation which lasts eternally. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now his elder son was in the field- </em>The elder brother coming in from the field must be related to the parable about the servant coming home from the field in <em><a href='B:490 17:7-10'>Luk 17:7-10</a></em>. The servant should then have prepared the meal, on the master's command, and then admitted that despite having been perfectly obedient, he was still unprofitable. The prodigal parable points the great contrast. <em>God</em>, while having every right to order the servant/ elder brother to prepare the meal, is the one who has actually prepared it. <em>God</em> asks the elder son to come and eat immediately after returning from the field, rather than ordering him to prepare the meal, as He could so justly have done. Yet despite God's boundless love, the elder son refused to act and think in the spirit of the Father's love.</p><p><em>And as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing</em>-</p><p> A calf, dancing and music recall the scene on Moses' return from the mount (<em><a href='B:20 32:17-19'>Exo 32:17-19</a></em>); the elder brother's response as he returned from the field and beheld this sight may well have been rooted in his attempt to place himself in Moses' place. He zealously protested at what he liked to see as rank apostasy when it was actually the display of the real spirit of Christ, in receiving back a lost soul. For all this, the lesson is never learned. Schism after schism have been experienced over this very issue of having repentant brethren take their place at the memorial feast. The bad grace and bitterness of the elder brother as he stormed away from the happy feast is seen all too often amongst us. &nbsp;</p><p>The parable of the prodigal contains multiple allusions to the record of Jacob and Esau, their estrangement, and the anger of the older brother [Esau] against the younger brother (K:E. Bailey, <em>Jacob And The Prodigal</em> (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003) lists 51 points of contact between the Jacob / Esau record and the prodigal parable). There is a younger and an elder son, who both break their relationships with their father, and have an argument over the inheritance issue. Jacob like the prodigal son insults his father in order to get his inheritance. As Jacob joined himself to Laban in the far country, leaving his older brother Esau living at home, so the prodigal glued himself to a Gentile and worked for him by minding his flocks, whilst his older brother remained at home with the father. The fear of the prodigal as he returned homematches that of Jacob as he finally prepares to meet the angry Esau. Jacob's unexpected meeting with the Angel and clinging to him physically is matched by the prodigal being embraced and hugged by his father. Notice how <em><a href='B:10 33:10'>Gen 33:10</a></em> records how Jacob felt he saw the face of Esau as the face of an Angel. By being given the ring, the prodigal "has in effect now supplanted his older brother" (A:J. Hultgren, <em>The Parables Of Jesus</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) p. 79); just as Jacob did. As Esau was "in the field" (<em><a href='B:10 27:5'>Gen 27:5</a></em>), so was the older brother. </p><p>What was the Lord Jesus getting at by framing His story in terms of Jacob and Esau? The Jews saw Jacob as an unblemished hero, and Esau / Edom as the epitome of wickedness and all that was anti-Jewish and anti-God. The Book of Jubilees has much to say about all this, as does the Genesis Rabbah (See e.g. Jacob Neusner,<em> Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary To The Book Of Genesis</em> (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) Vol. 3 p. 176). The Lord is radically and bravely re-interpreting all this. Jacob is the younger son, who went seriously wrong during his time with Laban. We have shown elsewhere how weak Jacob was at that time. Jacob was saved by grace, the grace shown in the end by the Angel with whom he wrestled, and yet who finally blessed him. As <em><a href='B:350 12:4'>Hos 12:4</a></em> had made clear, Jacob weeping in the Angel's arms and receiving the blessing of gracious forgiveness is all God speaking to us. The older brother who refused to eat with his sinful brother clearly represented, in the context of the parable, the Jewish religious leaders. They were equated with Esau- the very epitome of all that was anti-Jewish. And in any case, according to the parable, the hero of the story is the younger son, Jacob, who is extremely abusive and unspiritual towards his loving father, and is saved by sheer grace alone. This too was a radical challenge to the Jewish perception of their ancestral father Jacob. </p><p>The parable demonstrates that both the sons despised their father and their inheritance in the same way. They both wish him dead, treat him as if he isn't their father, abuse his gracious love, shame him to the world. Both finally come to their father from working in the fields. Jacob, the younger son, told Laban that "All these years I have served you... and you have not treated me justly" (<em><a href='B:10 31:36-42'>Gen 31:36-42</a></em>). But these are exactly the words of the older son in the parable! The confusion is surely to demonstrate that both younger and elder son essentially held the same wrong attitudes. And the Father, clearly representing God, and God as He was manifested in Christ, sought so earnestly to reconcile both the younger and elder sons. The Lord Jesus so wished the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees to fellowship with the repenting sinners that He wept over Jerusalem; He didn't shrug them off as self-righteous bigots, as we tend to do with such people. He wept for them, as the Father so passionately pours out His love to them. And perhaps on another level we see in all this the desperate desire of the Father and Son for Jewish-Arab unity in Christ. For the promises to Ishmael show that although Messiah's line was to come through Isaac, God still has an especial interest in and love for all the children of Abraham- and that includes the Arabs. Only a joint recognition of the Father's grace will bring about Jewish-Arab unity. But in the end, it will happen- for there will be a highway from Assyria to Judah to Egypt in the Millennium. The anger of the elder brother was because the younger son had been reconciled to the Father without compensating for what he had done wrong. It's the same anger at God's grace which is shown by the workers who objected to those who had worked less receiving the same pay. And it's the same anger which is shown every time a believer storms out of an ecclesia because some sinner has been accepted back... </p>


text:
<p><em>And he called one of the servants, and inquired what these things might mean</em>-</p><p> Wondering what things might mean is an idea used by Luke several times, especially concerning Mary and others at the time of the Lord's birth. The ultimate meaning is grace in God's son. That was the meaning those earlier people were intended to come to, and it was the same for the prodigal. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: Your brother came, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safe and sound</em>-</p><p> We are left to imagine in what tone of voice they replied. And whether in fact the elder son already knew what was going on, but was seeking to persuade some of the servants to adopt his perspective. </p>


text:
<p><em>But he was angry and would not go in; and his father came out and encouraged him</em>-</p><p> The elder son would not 'go in' to the wedding (<em><a href='B:490 15:28'>Luk 15:28</a></em>); and the Lord surely constructed that story to use a word which so often is used about going in to the Kingdom (in Matthew alone: <em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:9'>Mat 18:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:17'>Mat 19:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:23-24'>Mat 19:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>). His point clearly is that those who don't enter into His Kingdom <em>chose themselves not to do </em>so, they keep themselves out of the Kingdom, because they cannot bring themselves to show a true love to their brother. In the end, the very end, we receive our dominant desire.</p><p>To refuse a father’s invitation to a family celebration was seen as totally unacceptable, rude, and a rejection of one’s father. Hence the rudeness of the guests refusing the King’s invitations. The older brother would usually have played a prominent role in such feasts. But this son refuses to attend. This would’ve struck the Lord’s initial audience as incredibly rude. Remember how Vashti’s refusal to attend her husband’s feast resulted in her being rejected (Esther 1). What the older son did would’ve been seen as an insult to all the guests; and many fathers would simply have rejected and disowned their son for this, or at least, expressed significant disapproval. Indeed, this was expected of him by society and the other guests. But yet again, the father humiliates himself and breaks all Jewish norms and expectations of correctness and decency. He leaves the feast! For the host to walk out was yet again seen as totally rude to the other guests- it of course echoes the shepherd leaving the 99 sheep and going off after the one lost sheep. &nbsp;The father doesn’t go out and giving the arrogant, unloving, disobedient son a good talking to, as the audience would expect. Again, as so often, the Lord’s parables set up an expectation- and then dash it. The father goes out into the darkness of the courtyard, and “entreats” his son (<em><a href='B:490 15:28'>Luk 15:28</a></em>). The Greek <em>parakaleo</em> means literally to come alongside, as if the father is inviting the son to stand alongside him in his extension of grace. Perhaps Paul is making one of his many allusions to the Lord’s parables when he uses the same word to speak of how he ‘beseeches’ his legalistic brethren (<em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>But all this grace is ignored by the elder son. He insults his father. It may not be so apparent to us, but it would’ve been picked up by the Lord’s first hearers. A son should always address his father in this context with the term “O Father”. But he doesn’t. He speaks of his brother as “Your son” rather than his brother. He speaks of how the prodigal “devoured <em>your</em> living”. And he speaks of how he has faithfully served his father <em>as a servant</em>-</p><p> like his younger brother, he failed to perceive the wonder of <em>sonship</em>. His awful outburst is doing in essence what his younger brother had done some time before. He was saying that he didn’t want a part in his father’s family. The “living” or wealth of the family was no longer <em>his.</em> He wasn’t going to respect his father as his father any more. He didn’t want to be in the family, so he wouldn’t go to the family reunion. That poor, dear father. And what is the father’s response? He calls him his <em>teknon</em>, his dearly loved son. Notice how the more common <em>huios</em> is used for “son” throughout the story (<em><a href='B:490 15:11'>Luk 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:19'>Luk 15:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:21'>Luk 15:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:24-25'>Luk 15:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:30'>Luk 15:30</a></em>). In the face of such awful rejection, he shows his special love. It’s like the Lord giving “the sop”, the sign of special love and favouritism, to Judas- as he betrays Him. There’s a powerful lesson here for those of us who find ourselves irked and angered by legalistic, arrogant brethren who refuse to fellowship with the rest of us. There was no anger and irksomeness in the father’s attitude. He was only deeply sorry, hurt, cut up… but he <em>so</em> loved that arrogant elder brother. He goes on to say that he gives that son all that he has. But he could only actually do that through being dead! The father is willing to die for that arrogant older brother, whose pride and anger stops him wanting anything to do with his father, whom he has just openly shamed and rejected. And the father wants to die for him. This is to be our attitude to the self-righteous, the divisive, those who reject their brethren. &nbsp;</p><p>But of course, there’s a real and obvious warning not to be like the older brother. It worries me, it turns me, right in my very gut, when I see so many refusing to fellowship with their brethren because ‘He’s in that church… they’ve had her back… she’s divorced and remarried… he’s never said sorry, his motives aren’t right, she only said those words…’. And those attitudes are made out to be expressions of righteousness. It is not for me to judge anyone; I seek to love those who act like this with the love and grief of the father for the elder son. But they must be gently warned as to the implications of their position. By refusing to fellowship with the rest of the family, by making such a fuss about the return of the prodigals, they fail to realize that they are in essence doing what the prodigals have done; and they are de facto signing themselves out of the Father’s family. The issues are that serious. The parable isn’t just a story with a possible interpretation which we can shrug our shoulders at and get on with life. The Lord’s teaching, His ‘doctrine’, was and is in these parables. &nbsp;</p><p>The lost son story finishes, as do the other stories, with a banquet of rejoicing- rejoicing in the father’s love. But it’s no accident that Luke 15 is preceded by the parable of <em><a href='B:490 14:15-24'>Luk 14:15-24</a></em>, where we have another great banquet- symbolic of our communion in the future Kingdom of God. The connection is clear. We will “eat bread in the Kingdom of God” if we eat bread with the Lord in the banquets of this life. And yet <em>so, so often</em> it is said amongst us: ‘I won’t break bread there. They have X or Z… who is divorced… who’s not repentant… they have Q from that fellowship attending there… I’m not going in there’. It is not for us to judge. And I do not do so in what I write here. But it is the fairly obvious teaching of the Lord here that if we won’t eat bread with Him in joy now, if we won’t celebrate His grace and love for the lost in this life, then we will not in the future banquet. His grace is likely large enough to cover even the self-righteous; but we need to realize the eternal gravity of our decisions and feelings about our brethren in this life. Especially must we come to see ourselves as the prodigal. If we plan on being in the Kingdom, we must identify ourselves with the prodigal, and not with the self-righteous elder son who is left outside of the Father’s fellowship, because he placed himself there:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>But he answered and said to his father: Look! For so many years I have served you, and I never transgressed a commandment of yours, and yet you never gave me a kid that I might make merry with my friends</em>-</p><p> He clearly represents the self-righteous Pharisees, who refused to eat with sinners. In the same way as the Jews refused to appreciate the spirit in which Christ was feasting with the repentant sinners who responded to his message (:2), so the elder brother refused to attend the celebrations. Thus he is set up as representative of hard hearted Israel; and all those in the new Israel who share his characteristics proclaim themselves to be aligned with the legalistic Pharisaism which failed to discern the real spirit of Christ when he was among them.</p>&nbsp;<p>Yet the Lord is also talking obliquely to Himself. It was so much harder for the Lord to be as patient with sinners as He was, seeing that He Himself never sinned and experienced God's forgiveness. There is good reason to think that Jesus was speaking about the elder brother partly to warn himself. Hewas the favoured son, having the right of the firstborn. He alone could say to God "neither transgressed I at any time your commandment". The Father's comment "All that I have is yours" (:31) connects with the references to God giving <em>all things</em> into the hands of the Son. His constant abiding in the Father's house echoes <em><a href='B:500 8:35'>Joh 8:35</a></em>: "The servant abides not in the house for ever: but the Son abides ever". Our Lord seems to have been indirectly exhorting himself not to be like the elder brother, thereby setting us the example of framing necessary warning and rebuke of others in terms which are relevant to ourselves. If our perfect Master was so sensitive to His own possibility of failure, how much more should we be, ever analysing our attitudes to our brethren, "considering (ourselves) lest we also be tempted". </p>


text:
<p><em>But when this your son came, who has devoured your living with prostitutes, you killed for him the fatted calf</em>-</p><p> Association with harlots is a common Biblical symbol of committing sin (see <em><a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a></em>); all our sins are unfaithfulness against Christ our husband. They are not just passing adulteries; the Spirit uses the even more powerful figure of harlotries. There are quite a number of other references in James to this parable, which indicate that the prodigal's experience can apply in an ongoing sense to the believer after baptism. The&nbsp;son '<em>spending all'</em> uses the same word which occurs in <em><a href='B:660 4:3'>Jas 4:3</a></em> concerning the believer who 'asks amiss' (cp. the prodigal's request to his father), that he might "<em>consume</em> it (same word) upon (his) lusts". <em><a href='B:660 4:4'>Jas 4:4</a></em> continues: "Ye adulterers... know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?". This is all prodigal language. The next verses then seem to go in their allusions, implying that the prodigal is ultimately far more acceptable than the elder brother in the ecclesia: "The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy (cp. the elder brother)... God... giveth grace (forgiveness?) unto the humble... draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you (cp. the prodigal's return being matched by the Father coming to meet him)... let your laughter (cp. the son's "riotous living") be turned to mourning... he that speaketh evil of his brother (is) <em>not</em> a doer of the law (as the elder brother thought he was), but a judge" (<em><a href='B:660 4:5-11'>Jas 4:5-11</a></em>).</p><p>The parables are full of almost incidental indications of how well the Lord knew our nature and how accurately He foresaw the future struggles of His body. He foresaw that the elder brothers would be self-righteous and unwilling to accept back into fellowship the repentant. Yet instead of making the father address the older boy with words like "You hypocrite! You yourself are disobedient! Get away from me, you callous hypocrite!", the Lord puts the words of grace themselves in the father's mouth: "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine" (<em><a href='B:490 15:30'>Luk 15:30</a></em>). The Lord foresaw that the elder brethren's relationship with the Father would be damaged by their harshness. But in the way the story ends, I see real hope for the hard line, right wing Christian who condemns his brother, in the light of the Lord's teaching that we will be judged as we have judged. Wrong such brethren certainly are; but their Lord is gracious enough, it seems, to still work with them. In the same breath as the Lord warned that by our words we will be justified and condemned, and that we will have to account for them at the judgment, He also said that whoever speaks words against Him, He will forgive. I'd like to concentrate on other examples of where the Lord Jesus in His sensitivity foresaw this problem of dealing with apparently weak believers. &nbsp;</p><p>The prodigal son parable has as its end stress the problem of the self-righteous elder son. This is in fact the crux of the whole story. He refuses the invitation from his father to come in to the feast- an image used elsewhere in the parables to describe rejection of God’s invitation. To refuse such an invitation was a public insult and rejection of his Father. He refuses to address his father as “Father” and refuses to call his brother “brother” [cp. “thy son”]. By breaking his relationship with his brother, he broke his relationship with his Father. As we do likewise. And the end stress of the whole wonderful parable is that we are left wondering how the story finished. The elder brother is left standing there, temporarily rejecting his father, wondering… whether to storm off into the evening darkness, or to turn back and go in to the feast and accept his brother. And this is really the essential point of the story, and the appeal which it makes to us. We may just mindlessly forget some disfellowship case of years ago, leave the decision to others, forget in our own minds that there is a brother or sister begging for our renewed fellowship and forgiveness. Yet it is exactly these issues and our response to them which may decide our eternal destinies. And this was the end stress of the parable…</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: Son, you are ever with me, and all that is mine is yours</em></p><p>- See on :29. Who does the father represent? The context for the three stories is the Lord Jesus justifying his eating with sinners. The fact that the father had received the sinful younger brother is phrased in the same way as the Pharisees’ complaint about the Lord Jesus receiving sinners (<em><a href='B:490 15:2'>Luk 15:2</a></em> = <em><a href='B:490 15:27'>Luk 15:27</a></em>). And each of the stories involve a closing scene featuring a joyful meal of celebration. The father would appear therefore to refer to Jesus; and yet clearly enough we are intended to see the father as also our Heavenly Father. I don’t go for the primitive equation ‘Jesus = God’. I’m not a Trinitarian. So I take this to be an exemplification of how “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their iniquities unto them” (<em><a href='B:540 5:19'>2Co 5:19</a></em>). Notice in how many ways the father humiliates himself before everyone, and breaks all traditional Jewish expectations to do so. He gives the younger son what he asks, and more than the Law allowed; he runs to meet the son; he accepts the son; he leaves the banquet where he is the host in order to plead with his older son; he doesn’t discipline either of his sons as expected. He makes a fool of himself time and again, upsetting Jewish rules and norms. And the younger son pestering the father to divide up the inheritance may indicate that the father was about to die. Likewise, when the father says to the older son that he gives him there and then all that is his… this is language only really appropriate if the father is about to die, or has actually died. Does not all this speak of the cross as the basis for the Father’s love, grace and acceptance? That there, God was in Christ to reconcile us to Himself, not imputing sin to us… there the Father was humiliated in Christ, made a fool of, ridiculed. The Almighty God came this low… to the public shame and death of the cross. The suffering of God in the cross was all about rejected and unaccepted love; and so it is to this day. </p><p>Much homework awaits someone to work out all the times when the Lord was speaking <em>to Himself</em> in the parables, through the elements of unreality. Perhaps He saw Himself tempted to be like the elder brother in the Prodigal parable, who was “always” in the Father’s house (as Jesus per <em><a href='B:500 8:35'>Joh 8:35</a></em>) and ‘everything the father has is his’ is the very wording of <em><a href='B:500 17:10'>Joh 17:10</a></em>. Or is it co-incidence that the only time the Greek word translated "choked" is used outside the sower parable, it's about the crowds 'thronging' Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:42'>Luk 8:42</a></em> - note how they're in the same chapter and section of the Lord's life)? Was the Lord not aware of how the pressure of the crowds, whom He carefully tried to avoid, could choke His own spiritual growth? Was it for this reason that He begged those He cured not to generate big crowds to throng Him? And thus yet another layer of the Lord's mind and thinking will be revealed to us. </p>


text:
<p><em>But it was fitting to celebrate and be glad. For this your brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost and is found</em>-</p><p> We are left, as so often, to imagine how the story finished. How hard it would’ve been for the younger son to live with the older brother! And one day, dear, darling dad would’ve died. The younger son would’ve had <em>his</em> sons, been called upon to uphold the family honour, make decisions in the village. We are left to imagine how his experience of grace would’ve made him judge differently to all others. </p><p>The three parables of the lost which climax in the parable of the lost son all depend for their power upon the many elements of unreality found within them; and the lost son parable requires us to fill in many details, try to finish the story, and to take due note of the crescendo of ‘end stress’ which there is. To appreciate the full power and import of these parables, we need to try to read them through the eyes of the Palestinian peasants who first heard them. Correct understanding of Scripture requires us to read it and feel it within the context in which it was first given. Bombarded as we are by billions of pieces of information each day, especially from the internet, we only cope with it all by letting it all fit into the worldviews and assumptions which we’ve adopted. Words and information and ideas tend to only fit in to what we’ve already prepared to house them, rather than us seeing <em>God’s</em> word as something radically different, and allowing it to totally upset and change our cherished worldviews, constructs and approaches to life. God’s word is still words- although they are inspired words. The problem with words is that we read or hear them, and interpret them within our frames of reference and culture. Take an example: “She’s mad about her flat!”. An American takes this to mean that she’s angry and frustrated about the puncture / ‘flat tire’ which she has on her car. But in British English, the phrase would mean: ‘She’s really happy and enthusiastic about her apartment’. To understand what the speaker or writer means by those words, we have to understand their cultural background. And so it is with the Lord’s teaching, aimed as it was to first century peasants. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said also to the disciples- </em>The Lord Jesus without doubt focused upon the twelve disciples; they were His special love, His predominant concern. And when they came to write up their records of their experience of this amazing Master, they bring this out very much. He clearly chose them in order to impress His character upon them, and then left them to continue the witness to Him. Even in high society, surrounded by the elitist Pharisees, He spoke parables which were to them- even though the others heard (<em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:14'>Luk 16:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:45'>Luk 20:45</a></em>). There is a repeated feature, in Luke particularly, of the Lord teaching the twelve in front of a multitude- as if the huge crowds were there just listening to what the Lord was speaking specifically to the twelve. When one of the crowd interrupts, the Lord quickly returns His focus to the twelve (<em><a href='B:490 6:19-20'>Luk 6:19-20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 7:1'>Luk 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:13'>Luk 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:22'>Luk 12:22</a></em>). For Jesus, the disciples were His focus and priority:&nbsp; </p><p><em>There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; and the same was accused of wasting his goods</em>-</p><p> The corrective to the elder brothers' attitude is provided by the following parable of the unjust steward which comes straight afterwards in Luke 16. The steward was accused of 'wasting' his master's goods (<em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em>), using the same Greek word translated "substance" in <em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>, concerning how the son wasted his father's substance. The steward forgave others, and therefore ultimately found a way of escape from his dilemma. The implication is that it was on account of the prodigal being willing to do this, not daring to point the finger at others in the Father's household because of his awareness of his own sins, that he was eventually saved. We can also infer that the elder brother walked out of the Father's fellowship because of his refusal to do this. Again we see how God works through our sins. Because of the prodigal's experience of sin and forgiveness, he was better able to show that vital love and tolerance towards others, without which we cannot receive God's ultimate acceptance. In a sense, it was much <em>more</em> difficult for the elder brother.</p><p>The parable of the unjust steward must be read in the context of the preceding parables of forgiveness. The man is in debt to his Master, surely speaking of our sinfulness (<em><a href='B:490 16:3-4'>Luk 16:3-4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 18:24'>Mat 18:24</a></em>). He has wasted his goods- which are given to us at baptism (<em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>). He <em>could have</em> begged, but he was too proud. Therefore <em>in order to get forgiveness</em> he raced roundforgiving everybody else. This suggests a spiritual selfishness which surely isn't ideal. And yet "the Lord commended the unjust steward":&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And he called him and said to him: What is this that I hear of you? Render the account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 20:25'>Luk 20:25</a></em>. The parable of the unjust steward suggests that there are times in this life when we are called to give an account of our stewardship- and how we react to those judgment calls is what will affect our ultimate destiny (<em><a href='B:490 16:2'>Luk 16:2</a></em>). We have a tendency to consider God as passive to our failures and acts of righteousness, simply because His judgments are not openly manifest. We may forget that on, say, 6:6:96 we swore under our breath in anger… but God, in this sense, doesn't forget. The passage of time doesn't act as a pseudo-atonement for Him as it does in our consciences. The tendency for human beings to assume that God forgets our wrong actions and will never judge them is frequently commented upon in Scripture. "They consider not in their hearts that I remember all their wickedness", i:e. to judge them for it at a future date (<em><a href='B:350 7:2'>Hos 7:2</a></em>). The day of judgment is likened to God 'awaking' (<em><a href='B:230 68:1'>Psa 68:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:20'>Psa 73:20</a></em>). Not that He is now sleeping; but then, the principles of His judgment which now appear to lie dormant will be openly manifested. Peter warns that the condemnation of false teachers is given by God in an ongoing sense, and that damnation doesn't slumber (<em><a href='B:680 2:3'>2Pe 2:3</a></em>).</p><p>The 'unjust steward' was saved because he forgave others their debts after getting into a mess himself. He wasted his Lord's goods, as the prodigal did (<em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em> connects with <em><a href='B:490 16:2'>Luk 16:2</a></em>). Seeing the prodigal represents all of us, the lesson is surely that we all waste our Lord's goods, therefore the basis of salvation is through our forgiving others as an outcome of our own faith in the Lord's grace. This is one explanation of why the parable of the steward flows straight on from that of the prodigal.</p><p>One of the most telling examples of an unfinished ending is to be found in the parable of the unjust steward. This is perhaps the hardest parable to interpret; but I suggest the thought is along the following lines. The steward has done wrong; but the element of unreality is that he isn't jailed or even scolded, it's just left as obvious that he can't do the job of steward any longer. The usual response of a master would be to jail servants for running up debts (<em><a href='B:470 8:23-25'>Mat 8:23-25</a></em>). But the Master is unusually gracious. The steward now faces poverty, and so he takes a huge gamble. Before news of his fall is common knowledge, he urgently runs around to those in his master's debt and tells them that their debts are forgiven. His haste is reflected in the way he says "Write quickly... and you... ". He has to write off their debts before his master finds out, and before the debtors know that he now has no right to be forgiving them their debts. His gamble is that his master is indeed such a generous and gracious guy that he will actually uphold these forgivenesses or reductions of debt, and that therefore those who have received this forgiveness will be grateful to the steward, and be generous to him later, maybe giving him employment. The story reflects a theme of the other parables- how the servant knows and understands his master extremely well, and can guess his response. The way the servant invites the beggars to the feast even before his master has told him to do so is an example. But the power of the parable is in the unended story. Does the gracious Master indeed forgive those in his debt? And seeing he is impressed by how the steward has acted, does he in fact re-instate him, impressed as he obviously is by this sinful steward's perception of his grace? From the other parables we are led to believe that yes, the Lord and Master is indeed this gracious. And of course we are to see ourselves in the desperate position of the steward, staking our whole existences upon His grace and love beyond all reason. For me, this approach to the parable is the only one which can make any sense of the master dismissing the steward for fraud, and then praising him for his apparently 'dishonest' behaviour in forgiving the debtors (<em><a href='B:490 16:2'>Luk 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:8'>Luk 16:8</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 10:34'>Luk 10:34</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the steward said to himself: What shall I do, seeing that my master takes away the stewardship from me? I do not have strength to dig. To beg I am ashamed</em>-</p><p> This continues the linkage with the ideas of the prodigal son parable which precedes it. The desperate son at rock bottom feeding the pigs is this disgraced steward. He is unable in his own strength to get himself out of this awful situation. He is ashamed to beg, rather like the son proposes to return to his father and ask to become a hired servant, so that he can repay his debt. </p><p>"What shall I / we do?" is a question which keeps occurring in the Gospels and Acts. It is one of those phrases which flies out of the text, forcing us to engage with it and to ask ourselves the same question (<em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:40'>Mat 21:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:22'>Mat 27:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:17'>Mar 10:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:28'>Joh 6:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:47'>Joh 11:47</a></em>). And especially in <em><a href='B:490 3:10'>Luk 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:12'>Luk 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:14'>Luk 3:14</a></em> [the whole account of the gospel begins with people being forced to ask this question]; <em><a href='B:490 10:25'>Luk 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:17'>Luk 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:3-4'>Luk 16:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:18'>Luk 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:41'>Luk 18:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:15'>Luk 20:15</a></em>. And Luke brings the question to a head when the crowds ask Peter: "What shall we do?", and the same question is on the lips of the repentant Saul (<em><a href='B:510 2:37'>Act 2:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:6'>Act 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:6'>Act 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:10'>Act 22:10</a></em>):The answer of course is to repent and be baptized; and in the context here in this parable, it is to madly forgive others. But the rich fool ignored that and identified himself with his possessions (<em><a href='B:490 12:15'>Luk 12:15</a></em>), and answered accordingly. </p>


text:
<p><em>I have resolved what to do, so that when I am discharged as steward, others may receive me into their houses</em>-</p><p> The parable of the unjust steward must be read in the context of the preceding parables of forgiveness. The man is in debt to his Master, surely speaking of our sinfulness (<em><a href='B:490 16:3-4'>Luk 16:3-4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 18:24'>Mat 18:24</a></em>). He has wasted his goods- which are given to us at baptism (<em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>). He <em>could have</em> begged, but he was too proud. Therefore <em>in order to get forgiveness</em> he raced round forgiving everybody else. And we are to take this same full blooded 'resolution'. This suggests a spiritual selfishness which surely isn't ideal. And yet "the Lord commended the unjust steward"- He makes concessions to our weakness:&nbsp;We all live within parameters of personality and spiritual development which we should exceed but will not- because none of us shall attain total moral perfection in this life. Pride in various forms is typical of those kinds of parameters. This is not to suggest that we are not to try; rather is this observation merely some comfort in our weakness.</p><p>The man envisaged having to declare bankrupt and losing absolutely all things, even his family- for he reasoned that if he forgave the debts of these debtors, they might have him as a family member, just allowing him to live out his days in their homes. It is this same spirit to which we should all be driven by the realization of our sin; willing to cast ourselves upon the mercy of our brethren, to live out our days in humbled fellowship with them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And calling to him each one of his master's debtors, he said to the first: How much do you owe my master?</em>-</p><p> The steward knew how much they owed. Quite possibly, the debtors stated a reduced figure, or didn't come clean about every aspect of their debt. But whatever they acknowledged, however they wanted to see it- he forgave them. And this is a pattern for our forgiveness of others, knowing the inevitability of our own shameful judgment. Forgiveness does not involve an agreed version of events and issues. We are to simply and frankly and urgently forgive.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: A hundred measures of oil. And he said to him: Take your bill and sit down quickly and write fifty</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 14:5'>Luk 14:5</a></em>. "Quickly" is the essence of all this; knowing that our judgment is just around the corner, there is no time to be lost in forgiving others. The steward reduced the debt rather than totally writing it off. That may be merely the furniture of the parable, but perhaps we are left to imagine that the further he reduced the debt, the more likely they were to later accept him as a family member (:4). And maybe we are intended to deduce that he would have been better to offer them a total forgiveness rather than some negotiated settlement. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then said he to another: And how much do you owe? And he said: A hundred measures of wheat. He said to him: Take your bill and write eighty</em>-</p><p> The man who owed oil was forgiven more than the man who owed wheat (100 reduced to 50, compared to 100 reduced to 80). Perhaps this reflects how our forgiveness is not of the frank and total measure of the Lord's, for in another parable we read of the Lord Himself frankly forgiving the total debt of His servant, rather than just reducing it somewhat. The steward had the power to act in his lord's name in reducing or even cancelling debt. Perhaps here we see here some reflection of the idea that what we unloose on earth is unloosed in heaven; our forgiveness of others is in a way accepted by God. How exactly this works out, and the mechanism and theology of it, is not explained. But there is some connection, however vaguely expressed, between our forgiveness of others and God's forgiveness of them. Whilst the steward is commended (:8), he could have totally forgiven them. We too tend to make limited deals of forgiveness with others, at least in our own minds; writing down the debt of one more than for another. When we ought to scribble the whole thing.</p>


text:
<p><em>And his master commended the unrighteous steward, because he had done wisely. For the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light</em>-</p><p> </p><p>There were times when the Lord used shock tactics to get His message over. He did and said things which purposefully turned accepted wisdom and understanding on its head. Thus He touched the leper, spoke of drinking His blood... and used leaven, the usual symbol for sin, as a symbol of the quiet influence of His Gospel. And His parables feature the same element. Because the parables are so familiar to us, we can overlook the fact that their true character is intended to be shocking and disturbing- they are most definitely not just comfortable, cosy, moralistic tales. Consider the way He chooses to take a lesson from a crook who fiddles the books. The 'hero' of the story was a bad guy, not a good guy. Yet the point of the story was that we must realize how critical is our situation before God, and do literally anything in order to forgive others. We can't let things drift- disaster is at the door unless we forgive others <em>right now</em>. Everything is at stake in our lives unless we forgive others. The parables didn’t give simple teaching to those who first heard them. He used that form of teaching so that men would <em>not</em> understand Him; and even His disciples had to come to Him in order to receive the interpretations. </p><p>The way "the children of this world" are so zealous in forgiving others their debts so as to get themselves out of major trouble is an example to us, the Lord said. It could be that His comment that they were "wiser than the children of light" was a rebuke to the children of light- that those in the world are more eager to forgive, more zealous in their secular lives, than many of us are. The unjust steward in the parable of Luke 16 ran round forgiving others their debts, so that in his time of crisis and judgment he would have a way out of his own debt problems. And in the context of forgiving our brethren, the Lord holds him up as an example. But He laments that sadly, the children of this world are often wiser than the children of the Kingdom, i:e. the believers. I take this as meaning that the Lord is sorry that His people don’t see the same obvious need to forgive each other, in view of their own inadequacies and the coming of judgment. The children of this world see the coming of their judgments and the urgency of the need to prepare, far more strongly than many of us do; we who face the ultimate crisis of sinful, responsible man meeting with an Almighty God.</p><p>The story of the indebted steward likewise stresses the importance of true forgiveness. The master commends the steward because he had told others that their debts to his master were reduced. No <em>human</em> master would ever commend his steward for acting so irresponsibly. But the Lord Jesus does commend us for forgiving those who sin against Him, even though our forgiving of those indebted to us and Him is against all the laws of human common sense. See on <em><a href='B:470 18:23'>Mat 18:23</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And I say to you: Make to yourselves friends by means of worldly riches; that, when they shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal dwellings</em>-</p><p> The parable has been about forgiveness, following on from that of the prodigal son. But the Lord makes this parable have another meaning- concerning the need to use wealth wisely. </p><p>The Bible has a lot to say about the sacrifice of 'our' material possessions; not because God needs them in themselves, but because our resignation of them to His service is an epitome of our whole spirituality. So great is the Lord's emphasis about this, that He suggests in the parable of the crafty steward that if we use our worldly things prudently, when we spiritually fail, the fact we have used them wisely will bring us into the Kingdom. This implication that we can almost buy our way into the Kingdom is hyperbole. This is a device the Lord commonly used in His parables: an exaggerated statement to make a point. When He spoke of the good shepherd leaving the 99 good sheep to go chase the foolish one, this doesn't really mean that He does in fact leave us. He will never leave us. But so great is His love of the lost that it's <em>as if</em> He leaves us for the sake of finding them. Or the command to gouge out our eye if it offends us. This is a gross exaggeration; but our self-deprival of those things which lead us into sin requires the same self-will and self-mastery. So here, the Lord is saying that the use of our material possessions is <em>so</em> important that it's <em>almost as if</em> (in the hyperbole) we can buy our way into the Kingdom. See on <em><a href='B:490 11:41'>Luk 11:41</a></em>.</p><p>We have nothing now, we own nothing, all we have is given for us to use wisely, so that when we fail (morally, in the failures of our lives), our use of these things may prepare the way for our entry into the everlasting place of the Kingdom. We fall so easily into the trap of thinking 'this is <em>my</em> money… <em>I</em> worked for it, saved it…’. It's God's money. The danger of materialism is to think it is <em>ours. </em>Israel were told that every seventh year they were to cancel debts, release each other from the debt they had; and yet it was "the <em>LORD's </em>release". You released a man from his debt, Yahweh released him. What it meant was that your money was Yahweh's money. He released the debt, you released it. In being generous spirited, then, and realizing 'our' money is God's, we are Yahweh-manifest. We are invited to see ourselves as the Levites- whose inheritance was Yahweh, and not anything material in this world. Relationship with God and the honour of doing His service was seen as the ultimate antidote to materialism. Eliphaz seems to have perceived this when he told the wealthy Job: “Lay thou thy treasure in the dust… and the Almighty shall be thy treasure” (<em><a href='B:220 22:24-25'>Job 22:24-25</a></em> RV).</p><p>There is no doubt that our attitude to materialism is a sure indicator of our real spiritual position. We are to make friends of mammon [riches] by giving it away, forsaking all we have- the implication being that riches / mammon are our spiritual enemy, no matter how little of them we possess. And yet we are surrounded as never before by a materialistic, money <em>loving</em> world.</p>


text:
<p><em>He that is faithful in a very little, is faithful also in much, and he that is unrighteous in a very little, is unrighteous also in much</em>-</p><p> God Himself ‘detests’ the mammon which man so highly esteems (<em><a href='B:490 16:13-15'>Luk 16:13-15</a></em> NIV). A day will come when man <em>will</em> despise material possession. "In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold... to the moles and to the bats; to go into the clefts of the rocks... for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty" (<em><a href='B:290 2:20-21'>Isa 2:20-21</a></em>). But for us, today is the day of the Lord's coming in judgment. If we will be forsaking all we have in that day; we ought to now, in spirit. The parable of the unjust steward surely teaches that our attitude to the “mammon of unrighteousness” will determine our eternal destiny. The wealth of this world is called “that which is least… that which is another’s [i:e. God’s]” (<em><a href='B:490 16:10'>Luk 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:12'>Luk 16:12</a></em> RV). We are told: “make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail [at the Lord’s return], they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles” (<em><a href='B:490 16:9'>Luk 16:9</a></em> RV). There will come a day when money will fail, and when we will despise it for what it was- “that which is least”.</p>


text:
<p><em>If therefore you have not been faithful in the handling of worldly riches, who will commit to your trust the true riches?</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 16:11-12'>Luk 16:11-12</a></em> draws a parallel between the "true riches" and "that which is your own"; both phrases, in the context, refer to our reward in the Kingdom. The true riches is the spiritual knowledge of God. In Christ are hid all the riches of God. David rejoiced at the truths of the word more than at finding great riches. We can look forward to a highly personal knowledge of God in the Kingdom; the riches of knowledge "which is your own". This is in the same sense as <em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em> speaks of each believer receiving a stone with "a new name written, which no man knows saving he that receives it". No other being will be able to enter into the personal knowledge of God which we will then have; as even in this life, it is scarcely possible to enter into another believer's spirituality and relationship with God. To some degree, the Kingdom will be something different for each of us, although this diversity will be bound together by the great unity of all being the collective bride of Christ, and all manifesting the same God, all having the same "penny a day".</p><p>If we are faithful with the riches we have been given, <em>then</em> we will be given the true riches of eternal salvation. This "unrighteous mammon" is not our own, it is the wealth of "another man", i:e. God, just as the steward was dealing with money which was not his but his lord's; whereas in the Kingdom, we will have our very own "true riches". This is an altogether lovely idea. Whatever we have now is not ours; we come into this world with nothing, and at death we carry nothing out (<em><a href='B:610 6:7'>1Ti 6:7</a></em>). We must give our all if we are to attain the Kingdom.</p><p>If we are faithful in how we use the things lent to us by God in this life, we will be given "the true riches". What we now have is "the Truth", because this is how the Spirit speaks of it. But Truth is relative, and the Truth God wants us to accept as Truth is doubtless designed by Him to be acceptable by mere mortals. But it isn't "the true riches" spoken of here. We are asked to be faithful in that which is God's, and then we will be given "that which is your own" (:12) in the Kingdom, as if we will be given "true riches" which somehow are relevant to us alone, the name given which no one knows except ourselves (<em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>). "Riches" represent the riches of wisdom and knowledge (<em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>), and they are paralleled with "that which is your own", as if somehow in the Kingdom we will be given a vast depth of spiritual knowledge and perception which is in some way relevant to us alone. To me, those few words of <em><a href='B:490 16:11-12'>Luk 16:11-12</a></em> take me to the brink of understanding what the Kingdom will be about. We can go no further.</p>


text:
<p><em>And if you have not been faithful in what is another's, who will give you that which is your own?</em></p><p>- See on :11. The time is soon coming when I will be given that which <em>is</em> my own- the things associated with being in the Kingdom. We are slaves now, owning nothing (<em><a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a></em>), but then we will be gloriously free (<em><a href='B:520 8:21'>Rom 8:21</a></em>). So this idea of owning nothing, not even ourselves, is only true of this life; the day of release from slavery will dawn, we will receive that true freedom and that true concept of personal possession- if <em>now</em> we resign it. Abraham really grasped this idea that we now can own nothing. He swore to Yahweh as "the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take anything that is yours..." (<em><a href='B:10 14:22-23'>Gen 14:22-23</a></em>). He knew that Yahweh is the owner of all, and <em>therefore</em> he was not going to yield to the temptation to increase what appeared to be 'his' possessions. See on <em><a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a></em>.</p><p>We are asked to be faithful in that which is God's, and then we will be given "that which is your own" in the Kingdom, as if we will be given “true riches" which somehow are relevant to us alone, the name given which no one knows except ourselves (<em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>). "Riches" represent the riches of wisdom and knowledge (<em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>), and they are paralleled with "that which is your own", as if somehow in the Kingdom we will be given a vast depth of spiritual knowledge and perception which is in some way relevant to us alone. The reward given will to some degree be totally personal. Each works out his <em>own</em> salvation, such as it will be (<em><a href='B:570 2:12'>Phi 2:12</a></em>)- not in the sense of achieving it by works, but rather that the sort of spirituality we develop now will be the essential person we are in the eternity of God's Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p><em>No servant can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or else, he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus surely based His words on those of Elijah in <em><a href='B:110 18:21'>1Ki 18:21</a></em>: “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon”. So although on one hand the Lord Jesus Himself quotes Elijah’s ‘truth’ approvingly, there is evidence galore that at the very same time, Elijah’s attitudes were far from Christ-like. At the very same time, Elijah mocks the Baal worshippers, teasing them to shout louder, because maybe their god has gone ‘in a journey’- a Hebraism for ‘gone to the toilet’ (<em><a href='B:110 18:27'>1Ki 18:27</a></em>). This kind of mockery and crudeness is surely not how the Father and Son would have us act. Yet Elijah did this whilst at the same time deeply believing the fire would come down, and bringing it down by his faith. And saying other words which were alluded to with deep approval by the Lord.</p><p>Mammon is an “abomination” (:15)- a word associated in the Old Testament with idol worship. We are to not only be free of such idolatry, but despise materialism. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him</em>-</p><p> Scoffing at Divine wisdom recalls so many passages in Proverbs. They were "fools" for all their appearance of wisdom. They justified their love of money (:15), seeing their wealth as a reward for piety, just as the false gospel of wealth does today. They scoffed because they claimed that wealth was the reward for righteousness. But the rest of this chapter records the Lord's deconstruction of that position. They scoffed at the idea of reducing the debts of another- they would've tried to get out of the problem by some other way. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: You are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God- </em>As noted on :14, they justified their love of wealth by claiming it was a reward for righteousness. But the Lord says that wealth is abomination to God. He saw as it were the wealth in their hearts, and hated it, treating it as an "abomination"- a term the Old Testament uses for idols. </p>


text:
<p><em>The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached- </em>This is an explanation of the cut-off point between the time of the Kingdom, and the period of the law and prophets. It was as if their work was being done up until John. The&nbsp;<em>law</em>&nbsp;prophesied until John (<em><a href='B:470 11:13'>Mat 11:13</a></em>) in the sense that in the Messiah whom John proclaimed, the law’s prophecies were fulfilled. Note that the law just as much as the prophets is to be seen as prophesying. And yet other changeover points or boundaries are suggested within the New Testament. The law would ‘pass’ when all was fulfilled, which seems to hint at the ‘finishing’ of all when the Lord cried “It is finished!” on the cross. The law would not pass&nbsp;<em>until</em>&nbsp;this point (<em><a href='B:470 5:18'>Mat 5:18</a></em>). The Lord’s death was clearly a major ending point for the old system. And yet <em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em> speaks of the old system as decaying and becoming old, and being about to vanish away- surely in the destruction of the temple in AD70. There are other hints in the NT that the old system somehow operated with some level of acceptance from God until AD70. Why the different potential changeover points? Presumably because the hope and intention was that John would successfully prepare the way, and the Messianic reign would be ushered in by Israel’s acceptance of their Messiah. And yet they killed Him. That point in itself was the theological changeover moment. But still not all Israel accepted the apostolic preaching of repentance for the crucifixion. And so in practice, the changeover point came when the temple was destroyed and any serious obedience to the old covenant was thereby rendered impossible. In all this we see God’s amazing grace and desire continually to work with people, factoring in the possibility of their repentance.</p><p><em>And every man enters violently into it</em>-</p><p> Just as the unjust steward urgently ran around trying to forgive others once he realized his own soon coming judgment, so John's declaration of judgment soon to come led repentant people to urgently dash into the Kingdom. </p><p>This can be seen as constructing a parable from the idea of Roman storm troopers taking a city. And those men, the Lord teaches in his attention grabbing manner, really represent every believer who responds to the Gospel of the Kingdom and strives to enter that Kingdom. The same word translated 'take by force' is used by the Lord here in <em><a href='B:490 16:16'>Luk 16:16</a></em>; true response to the Gospel of the Kingdom is a struggle. Entering the Kingdom is a fight (<em><a href='B:610 6:12'>1Ti 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:7'>2Ti 4:7</a></em>), and we are right now in process of entering the city of God's Kingdom. It's not that we have no idea as to whether we shall enter it, waiting for judgment day to inform us. We have a sense of purpose to us, being in process of entering now. We either violently snatch / take the Kingdom by force (<em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em>), or the devil of our own nature will snatch us away (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>). The choice before us is that pointed: fight or fall. The Lord graciously and generously saw the zeal of the mixed up, uncertain, misunderstanding disciples as storm troopers taking the city of the Kingdom of God by force- knowing exactly where they were coming from and where they were going. The cause of the Kingdom must be forcefully advanced by “violent men”. This was the sort of language the Lord used. He wasn’t preaching anything tame, painless membership of a comfortable community. The Lord saw the zeal of the uncertain, misunderstanding disciples as storm troopers taking the city of the Kingdom of God by force- knowing exactly where they were coming from and where they were going.</p>


text:
<p><em>But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 5:18'>Mat 5:18</a></em> speaks of jot and tittle. Vine comments: "Jot is for jod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. Tittle is the little bend or point which serves to distinguish certain Hebrew letters of similar appearance. Jewish tradition mentions the letter jod as being irremovable; adding that, if all men in the world were gathered to abolish the least letter in the law, they would not succeed. The guilt of changing those little hooks which distinguish between certain Hebrew letters is declared to be so great that, if such a thing were done, the world would be destroyed". The Lord is reminding them that they were under the Mosaic law. All their schemings to get around its more inconvenient requirements, in order to preserve and extend the wealth which they loved (:14), was in fact a breaking of the law which they were under. </p>


text:
<p><em>Everyone that puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he that marries one that is put away from a husband commits adultery</em>-</p><p> The context here speaks of the need for forgiveness and a lack of materialism, which the Pharisees tried to cleverly get around by their various twists of the Mosaic law. Hence :17 has reminded them that they are still under that law. These two issues were particularly relevant to how and why they divorced their wives; and so this talk about divorce is exactly in context. And the next parable goes on to criticize them for their attitude to wealth. The divorce and remarriage in view is therefore specifically that practiced by the Pharisees, and is being criticized for not showing forgiveness and for being motivated by a love of wealth and its preservation.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now there was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen, dining sumptuously every day</em>-</p><p> The context is of the need to hold feasts to celebrate fellowship with the dirty prodigal who had been licked by pigs in chapter 15. The Pharisees loved wealth (:14), and have been set up as the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal. Their dining whilst excluding Lazarus equates with the older brother refusing to have a feast with the presence of the dirty, smelly, unclean younger son. This exclusion went on "every day". The clothing in purple and fine linen could mean that it is specifically Annas or Caiaphas the high priest who is in view. We marvel that the Lord would even bother to try to get him to see the error of his ways; but such was His desire that literally all men repented. Purple and fine linen recalls Babylon in <em><a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a></em>, which in its first century application refers to the Jerusalem temple cult who were persecuting the Christians whilst enjoying huge wealth. Dining sumptuously" is the word used of the rich fool (<em><a href='B:490 12:19'>Luk 12:19</a></em>). The Lord is calling Caiaphas / Annas and the Jewish leadership no more than fools. </p>


text:
<p><em>And a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores</em>-</p><p> The "gate" is s:w. "porch" as in the temple porch, <em><a href='B:470 26:71'>Mat 26:71</a></em>. 'Lazarus' is a form of Eleazar- 'God is my help'. He was the helper of those excluded by the Pharisees of the temple cult. </p>


text:
<p><em>Desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores</em>-</p><p> "Desiring" continues the linkage with the prodigal parable, where the prodigal 'desired' to be fed with pig food (<em><a href='B:490 15:16'>Luk 15:16</a></em> s:w:). The rich manshould have invited Lazarus to his feast just as the Lord invited sinners to his. And the same word is used of the Gentile woman who wanted to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the table of orthodox Jewry (<em><a href='B:470 15:27'>Mat 15:27</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, that the beggar died; and he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's breast, and the rich man also died and was buried</em>-</p><p> "Abraham's breast" or bosom was a Rabbinic phrase referring to Paradise. The Lord is not teaching that the faithful literally go anywhere on death let alone to Abraham's breast; He is clearly using the terms and ideas which the Jews were familiar with, and telling a story within those frames of reference. Adam Clarke comments: "By the phrase, Abraham’s bosom, an allusion is made to the custom at Jewish feasts, when three persons reclining on their left elbows on a couch, the person whose head came near the breast of the other, was said to lie in his bosom. So it is said of the beloved disciple, <em><a href='B:500 13:25'>Joh 13:25</a></em>".</p><p>Carrying by Angels after death is not a Biblical idea, but again is alluding to apostate Jewish beliefs.</p>&nbsp;<p>The way the Lord constructed His parable about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 is proof enough that He Himself alluded to false ideas without correcting them, but rather in order to make a moral point within the faulty framework of understanding of His audience. Indeed, the Bible is full of instances of where a technically ‘wrong’ idea is used by God without correction in order to teach a higher principle. Thus an eagle doesn’t bear its young upon its wings; it hovers over them. But from an earth-bound perspective, it would appear that [looking up], the eagle is carrying its young on its wings. God accommodates Himself to our earthly perspective in order to lead us to Heavenly things. He doesn’t seek to correct our knowledge at every turn, or else His end aim would not be achieved.</p><p>We assume too quickly that the Lord's reference to the Angels carrying Lazarus to the bosom of Abraham means 'straight after his death'. But not necessarily so. He died, was buried, and then at the Lord's return, the Angels will carry the faithful to judgment / the Kingdom- they will go forth and gather the elect. The rich man would only be thrown into Gehenna at the last day, as Jesus so often taught elsewhere. The only element of accommodation to, or parody of, existing Jewish beliefs was in the rich man asking that Lazarus be returned from the dead to warn his brethren. And this element is doubtless inserted into the story by the Lord as a prophecy of how even His resurrection would not convert those who did not truly listen to the Old Testament.</p><p>So serious is the tendency to material acquisition that the Lord uses a telling hyperbole in Luke 16 (in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus): He implies that the rich man was condemned just for being rich. This is hyperbole, an exaggeration to make a point. And the point was, that being rich is <em>very likely</em> to lead you to condemnation. The rust of riches is likened to the fire of condemnation and rejection (<em><a href='B:660 5:3'>Jas 5:3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And in Hades- </em>As noted on :22, the Lord used ideas current amongst the Jews for reward, i:e. "Abraham's breast", and here He likewise uses their ideas of what happened as punishment. But this doesn't mean He approved their ideas as true. <em><a href='B:220 21:13'>Job 21:13</a></em> clearly explains what happens to the rich on death: "They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave". </p><p><em>He lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his breast</em>-</p><p> Forget, for one moment, that 'the rich man and Lazarus' is a 'difficult passage'. Focus on how Lazarus is “in" Abraham's 'bosom' or chest. This doesn't mean literally inside it. He was 'in' Abraham's arms, on his chest; and this is explained to us in :25 as meaning that Lazarus was receiving "comfort" at the same time as the rich man was experiencing torment. <em><a href='B:400 7:5'>Mic 7:5</a></em> uses the same figure of being “in" a man's bosom to describe how a wife is held by her husband. And <em><a href='B:310 2:12'>Lam 2:12</a></em> uses it again to mean 'receiving comfort'. This is what the Kingdom will be like, especially immediately after our reward. For this is what the parable is about- the rich man will not be eternally tormented, his torment will be on knowing the reality of the fact that he stands there rejected. But while he is temporarily tormented, some poor beggar brother is getting comforted by Abraham. Both of them with Divine nature. Abraham holding the other brother to his chest and comforting him. And, in passing, this would interpret for us John's words in <em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>: "The… son, who is in the bosom of the Father" (after His ascension). After His ordeal, Jesus was as it were receiving comfort from His Father. There was and is an emotional bond between them. And so there will be between us all in the Kingdom. The parable of Luke 16 goes on to say that there will be those who will want to cross over from rejection to acceptance, and <em>also</em>-</p><p> and note this- there will be some who will want to go the other way to save those in the group of the rejected- weeping, screaming, gnashing their teeth as they will be. But it won't be possible for them. Even in Divine nature, some of us will have the desire to do the impossible- to save those rejected. It will be rather like the Angels in the time of Ahab suggesting their plans of action to God, but they were all turned down except for one. To have Divine nature, as Angels do, doesn't preclude having emotional thoughts. Nor does it mean we will have 100% understanding of God's ways beamed into us.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he cried and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame</em>-</p><p> The rich man appeals to his physical descent from Abraham ("father Abraham"), but this is of no value. As Lazarus had begged crumbs, so now the man begs for drops of water. His hard heartedness to Lazarus is exactly related to his punishment. </p><p>In the day of judgment, that man will cry out "father... have mercy / pity on me", just as Lazarus used to cry out to him daily. The apparent terseness and indifference of Abraham's response in the parable is surely intended as a reflection of the attitude which the rich man had shown to Lazarus in his mortal life. A great gap had been <em>fixed</em> between the saved and the rejected; and the language begs the question, 'Fixed by whom?'. Clearly, by the rich man in the attitude he adopted in his daily life. For it would not be God who fixed a gap between the damned and the saved; through His Son He seeks to save and bridge such gaps. The lesson is that whenever we hear the voice of the desperate, we hear inverted echoes of our own desperation at the final judgment. And how we answer now is related to how we will be answered then. We make the answer now.</p><p>Note that the parable talks in terms of tongues, fingers etc:- bodies and not 'immortal souls' are in view. Note that only 11 of the 26 parables recorded in Luke are called "parables". This is clearly a parable and not to be taken as a literal description of things. G. B. Caird, <em>The Gospel of St. Luke</em> (Penguin Books), p. 191 concludes that "the story of the wicked rich man and the pious poor man, whose fortunes were reversed in the afterlife, seems to have come originally from Egypt, and was popular among Jewish teachers:&nbsp; …It was not the intention of Jesus to propagate a strict doctrine of rewards and punishments…or to give a topographical guide to the afterworld."</p>


text:
<p><em>But Abraham said: Son, remember how you in your lifetime received your good things and Lazarus in like manner evil things, but now here he is comforted, and you are in anguish</em>-</p><p> "Son" reflects the Lord's pity and tenderness even towards the condemned. Or it could be that this continues the idea of the rich man appealing to Abraham as his father. Indeed he was a son of Abraham- but that was of no avail. Abraham is dead and not yet rewarded (<em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:13'>Heb 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:39-40'>Heb 11:39-40</a></em>) so the idea of Abraham being alive after death is all the language of the Jewish beliefs being used. In the same way the Lord spoke as if Beelzebub really existed, when this was a pagan god (<em><a href='B:470 12:27'>Mat 12:27</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:110 1:2'>1Ki 1:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And besides all this, between us and you there is fixed a great gulf, so that they that would pass from here to you cannot, and none may cross over from there to us</em>-</p><p> The eternal chasm between them was foreseen by the Psalmist: "As for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the Lord shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity [cp. the condemned goats]: but peace shall be upon Israel [the sheep, looking on at the rejection of the wicked]" (<em><a href='B:230 125:5'>Psa 125:5</a></em>). Those who will want to cross the chasm then will be unable to (<em><a href='B:490 16:26'>Luk 16:26</a></em>); the great gulf is fixed. In the context of describing the establishment of the Kingdom, we read that God's servants will eat, drink and rejoice, singing for joy of heart, at the same time as the rejected will be ashamed, hunger and thirst and howl for "breaking of spirit"- all the language of the rejected (<em><a href='B:290 65:13-14'>Isa 65:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 65:17-18'>Isa 65:17-18</a></em> RVmg:). It seems that this is a picture of the rejected watching the accepted eating with Christ as the Passover is eaten anew. Hence their howling and shame; for shame implies being naked in the presence of others. Thus the rejected will in some sense be in the presence of the accepted.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Therefore I beg you father that you would send him to my father's house</em>-</p><p> The point of the parable is at the end, and such 'end stress' is common in the parables. After death, there is no literal communication between the rewarded faithful and the wicked; these were all incorrect Jewish ideas which the Lord was using to construct a story which led up to His major point. He as God's messenger had indeed been sent to the father's house, the people of Israel and their leadership, with an appeal to urgently repent. </p>


text:
<p><em>For I have five brothers- </em>The High Priest Annas had five sons who each succeeded to the Priesthood,—Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and Annas. These therefore were the brothers in law of Caiaphas, who appears to be the rich man in view.</p><p><em>That he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torment</em>-</p><p> The fact that sin really does result in eternal death, and that death is really unconsciousness, there is no immortal soul, the Hebrew word nephesh doesn't mean that, leads us to preach the hope of resurrection which we have. It must do- for otherwise we would be plain selfish. And it makes us realize for ourselves the decisiveness and finality of this life's decisions for the determining of eternal destiny. The hope of resurrection is the first and most basic need of our fellows. It was said of the 18th century British preacher Richard Baxter that "he preached as a dying man to dying men". Our mortality, and our appreciation of that of others, should lead to an intensity of appeal to them. Knowing the truth about death leads to a great desire to testify to others. Recall how the rich man in the parable, once he perceived the truth about the death state, earnestly wished to testify to his brethren and persuade them to believe (<em><a href='B:490 16:28'>Luk 16:28</a></em>). Elie Wiesel tells how victims of the holocaust either facing death or reflecting upon it later, felt an overbearing desire to testify to others: "We [victims of the holocaust] have all been witnesses and we all feel we have to bear testimony... and that became an obsession, the single most powerful obsession that permeated all the lives, all the dreams, all the work of those people. One minute before they died they thought that was what they had to do". We don't- quite- have to go through those starings of death in the face to perceive death as we should; for the Bible has a lot to say about it, and if we accept the Biblical definitions, then we too will feel this strong compulsion to testify to others.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Abraham said: They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s argument was that hearing the Old Testament was going to be more motivational to change than meeting the risen Jesus. In John 14-16 He likewise seems to discount His personal presence; the disciples were so upset that He would not be physically with them, but He assures them that the presence of His Spirit in their hearts was going to be of far greater spiritual moment for them than His physical presence. Resurrected persons of themselves were not going to be a powerful source of persuasion to the Jews unless the hearers first of all respected Moses and the prophets. And this very thing, in which Jewish Orthodoxy were so proud, was actually their weak point. The Lord in <em><a href='B:500 6:45'>Joh 6:45</a></em> makes the same point; every man who had truly “heard” the prophets would come to Jesus as Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: No father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent</em>-</p><p> Reflect on what the Lord was really saying in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It was Abraham who showed the rich man how useless were human riches. The rich man thought that his natural ancestry was enough- he appeals to “father Abraham”. But the point of the parable was surely that the rich man was not a true son of Abraham because he had been materialistic and had neglected the needs of his poorer brother. <em>This</em> was and is the implication of being a true son of Abraham. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, even if one rises from the dead</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 24:11'>Luk 24:11</a></em>. "Persuaded" is parallel with "repent" (:30). Repentance is a persuasion; whether it takes seconds, minutes or years, we are persuaded towards it.</p><p>The parable of the rich man and the poor beggar Lazarus surely carried with it the message that we ought to be generous to the poor; and that there is a need to do this in view of the judgment to come and sense of the future we may miss because of our selfishness in this life. The condemned rich man wanted to warn others of the need to be generous to the poor so that they would not be condemned. The Lord's comment was that it was His resurrection from the dead which was intended to "persuade" people of this (<em><a href='B:490 16:31'>Luk 16:31</a></em>). Accepting the import of His resurrection therefore should result in our being "persuaded" towards a life of generosity to the marginal- just, of course, as the Lord's death and resurrection was God's grace to us, the marginal beggars in spiritual terms. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to his disciples: Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!</em>-</p><p> The context of chapter 17 has been an appeal to the Pharisees to accept the likes of the prodigal son and the beggar Lazarus, and not to make them stumble by refusing to have them present at their fellowship table- continuing a theme which began at the beginning of chapter 15. The Lord is urging the disciples not to have any part in the system which caused stumbling. The Jewish religious system caused men to stumble, as the Lord often pointed out (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 18:7'>Mat 18:7</a></em>). But there would be an especial woe to the individuals who caused the stumbling, because for doing this they will be liable to personal condemnation. The Jewish world, the system, was to face the "Woe" of Divine judgment specifically because it made men stumble spiritually. That's what these words of Jesus seem to be saying, and His criticisms of that system recorded elsewhere would accord with that view- the 'Woes' He pronounces on the Jewish system in Matthew 23 particularly focus on the damage that system did to people, and the barrier it became between God and man.</p>


text:
<p><em>It would be better for him if a millstone was hung about his neck and he was thrown into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble</em>-</p><p> As noted on :1, the "little ones" in view are the likes of the prodigal son and Lazarus. Our attitude to the spiritually "little", the spiritually vulnerable, is critical to our discipleship. And not having them at our table, like the elder brother of Luke 15 and the "rich man" of chapter 16, is to cause them to stumble. So often, those turned away from fellowship then stumble. And the woe pronounced is so great that we have to urgently enquire of ourselves whether we are in any way responsible for such exclusions. Even if we are separated from this world externally, we can still act in a worldly way, and share the world’s condemnation. The Lord taught that the believer who makes his brother stumble should have a millstone hung around his neck and be cast into the sea (<em><a href='B:490 17:2'>Luk 17:2</a></em>). This is exactly Babylon’s judgment (<em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em>). The unloving in the ecclesia will be treated like the unloving world whose spirit they share. </p>


text:
<p><em>Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him- </em>The context of :2 is that we must not make little ones stumble; and we make them stumble by not forgiving them, not welcoming them at our table, like the elder son of chapter 15 and the "rich man" of chapter 16, which forms the context for these words<em>. </em>This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>, where Paul says we should <em>take heed to ourselves</em> of the likelihood of false teachers. Surely what he's saying is 'Yes, take heed to forgive your brother personal offences, take heed because you'll be tempted <em>not </em>to forgive him; but have the same level of watchfulness for false teaching'. But the Lord is not necessarily teaching that we are to only grant forgiveness upon repentance; for the implication of much Bible teaching is otherwise. He may be setting us up to think that this is what He means, and then in :4 He challenges us by saying we should forgive even if repentance is so evidently insincere that effectively it is not repentance.</p><p>The Greek and Hebrew words translated ‘repentance’ strictly mean a change of mind, and not necessarily any works / actions. God in this sense can ‘repent’. It seems to me that we have to recognize a changed state of heart in our repentant brother, without demanding ‘works’. In <em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>, the Lord says of a sinful brother: “If your brother sins… go and point out the fault… if he listens to you, you have regained your brother”. But in <em><a href='B:490 17:3'>Luk 17:3</a></em>, He says: “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him”. This would parallel the brother’s ‘repentance’ with him ‘listening’ to you. Seeing repentance is a state of the heart, and we simply can’t know the hearts of others, it seems to me very hard indeed to judge the level of another’s repentance.</p><p>“See that you despise not one of these little ones” is how the parallel account puts it (<em><a href='B:470 18:10'>Mat 18:10</a></em>). We offend people by ‘despising’ them, as the "rich man" did to Lazarus and the older brother did to the prodigal. To&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;seek others’ salvation by forgiving them is to despise them. We may not think we are despiteful people. But effectively, in His eyes, we are…if we neglect to actively seek for their salvation until we find it. To not offend others is thus made parallel to seeking their salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And if he sins against you seven times in the day and seven times turns again to you, saying: I repent: You shall forgive him</em>-</p><p> Peter found it hard to grapple with the idea that the degree or amount of sin was irrelevant. But "seventy times seven" indicated how far out he was. Even when a brother's repentance seems humanly unlikely (the 490th time in the day, the seventy sevens of Matthew, takes some believing!), we must still have that covenant mercy for him. Note that only a verbal repentance was required- and the Lord said that the forgiver was to just accept this, rather than demand evidence of 'forsaking' in physical terms. The Greek word for repentance is a compound meaning ‘to think differently after’. Repentance is essentially a changed <em>attitude of mind</em>. This is why it’s difficult to judge whether it exists within the heart of another person. and the Lord seems to be saying that we are not to judge the quality of another's' repentance, which effectively means not demanding repentance before forgiving. We live constantly in need and receipt of mercy, every second of our existence. The New Covenant is often spoken of in the Old Testament as "mercy" and/or "truth". If we are <em>in</em> that Covenant, we are permanently living <em>in</em> grace/mercy. Mercy is not something which we just receive in the few moments while we pray for forgiveness. It is something constantly ongoing. We live <em>in</em> it. If we appreciated this, we would not see our forgiveness of others as something we occasionally 'grant'; we will extend mercy to them constantly, as God does to us. So the Lord's apparent requirement for repentance before forgiveness in :3 is tempered by this explanation- that we are to forgive when repentance seems so insincere that it is not repentance. This is rather typical of His teaching style and usage of language and ideas.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the apostles said to the Lord: Increase our faith- </em>The disciples asked that as a community, their faith may be increased so as to forgive others as Jesus requires them to. They believed, correctly, that faith can be given directly by the Lord; and through His Spirit He likewise works on human hearts today too. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:480 4:24'>Mar 4:24</a></em> of how the Lord adds spirituality to those who have it. The Lord's response is that they should on an individual level realize that even if they were perfectly obedient, they were "unprofitable servants" (<em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em>)- and the only other time that term occurs on the Lord's lips is when speaking of how the unprofitable servant will be cast away to condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). What He's saying is: 'Imagine condemnation. Being cast away as you stand before the judgment seat. That's you- that's what <em>should</em> happen, even if you "do" all. Get it- you're saved by grace, an amazing grace- respond to that, and forgiving others and zealous service will flow easily and naturally enough from that'. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the Lord said: If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you would say to this sycamore tree: Be rooted up and be planted in the sea- and it would obey you</em>-</p><p> As noted on :5, the faith in view concerns the ability to accept and forgive others. And the Lord says that if they had faith, then the sycamore tree could be planted in the sea. Israel was then covered with sycamore trees (<em><a href='B:110 10:27'>1Ki 10:27</a></em>) to the point that the tree became emblematic of Israel (<em><a href='B:290 9:10'>Isa 9:10</a></em>). By faith, they could extend Israel to the Gentiles, the sea of nations. The choice was either to be cast into the sea in condemnation for refusing to accept the spiritually little ones (:2), or to take the hope of Israel into the sea and plant it there, so that the sea of nations became as the land of Israel. 'Planting' is a metaphor regarding the teaching of the Gospel in <em><a href='B:530 3:6-8'>1Co 3:6-8</a></em>, and the parables of the 'planting' of a vineyard likely have the same sense. It was by faith, the disciples' faith in inclusivity and grace, that the gospel of the hope of Israel could be taken to the Gentiles. And the mustard seed is a symbol of the basic Gospel, which grows up into a tree giving shelter to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:490 13:19'>Luk 13:19</a></em>). Here, it refers to their faith in grace, forgiveness and inclusivity toward others- which was necessary for them to take that Gospel to the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>But who is there of you, having a servant ploughing or keeping sheep- </em>Not all the disciples were dirt poor. Their fishing business employed hired servants. The parable about “one of you” having a servant ploughing and preparing his food was spoken to the twelve. This continues the theme so far developed in the chapter; that we should have the love, faith and vision to be forgiving and radically inclusive of others. The disciples had asked for more faith to forgive effectively without repentance [when repentance is patently insincere]; and the Lord gives part of the answer in this observation that we are all desperate sinners. The motivation for radical forgiveness of others is because we recognize that even if we are fully obedient, we are "unprofitable servants"; and even the highest standard of behaviour, as was seen uniquely in the Lord, is simply what is expected of us as God's servants.</p><p><em>That will say to him when he comes in from the field: Come immediately and sit down to eat</em>-</p><p> We are not worthy to sit at the table of our master and eat. Eating together has been a theme of this entire section, beginning in chapter 15, where the Lord answers the objection that He eats with sinners. The elder brother of chapter 15 and the "rich man" of chapter 16 refuse to eat with the likes of the prodigal son or Lazarus. To motivate us in not being exclusive and rejecting our brethren from the Lord's table, we are here reminded that our place at His table is by grace. For in no secular situation at that time would a servant ever eat at his lord's table as an equal, let alone have his master serve him there. And yet this is that the Lord Jesus does to us; this is the unique nature of His table. </p>


text:
<p><em>Instead will he not say to him: Make ready my supper and dress yourself and serve me, and after I have eaten and drunk, then you shall eat and drink?-</em></p><p> The picture is of a hard life, full of works. Out working in the field all day, and then preparing food for the master in the evening; then, personally eating and drinking, sleeping- and getting up early to another similar day. This is &quot;our duty&quot; (<a href='B:490 17:10'>:10</a>). Whilst we are saved by grace through faith, and it is not of works lest any man should boast- it is also true that the Lord here envisages the Christian life as being totally centered around His cause and person. True Christianity is therefore no mere occasional hobby nor an inherited tradition. If we acccept the Lord's assurance of salvation, then our lives are totally taken over by it.</p>


text:
<p><em>Does he thank the servant because he did the things that were commanded? I think not- </em>A master doesn't thank his slave for ploughing all day. When he comes home in the evening, the slave's job is to get the Master's food ready, and then when the Master has been looked after, he can get himself something. The Master has no need to thank (Gk. <em>charis</em>, s:w. to give "grace") the slave, and the slave expects nothing else. This is how the Lord sees our works; He expects us to serve Him for nothing, because of our role as His slaves, and not because we expect any gratitude, recognition or reward. We serve because we are His slaves. The parable teaches that absolute obedience should be the norm of our lives, not the exception, and that this is only what our Master demands and expects. From the way He told the story, the Lord framed our sympathy to be with the slave. But His point is that when we have done all, worked all day and then gone the extra mile in the evening, we should still feel unprofitable slaves, slaves who aren't mush profit to their Master. The passive, unspoken <em>acceptance</em> seen between Master and slave in the parable should be seen between us and the Lord. There is no attempt by the Lord to ameliorate the Master : slave figure; "You call me master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am" (<em><a href='B:500 13:13'>Joh 13:13</a></em>). And yet we are told that at the judgment we will receive "praise of God" (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). This can not, therefore, be praise of our efforts at obedience; it will be praise for the status we are in on account of being in Christ, being counted as righteous as Him. The parable was spoken in the context of the disciples thinking that God would be very happy with them if they forgave their brother seven times a day (<em><a href='B:490 17:3-6'>Luk 17:3-6</a></em>). But the Lord is replying that things like this, which to us may seem going more than the extra mile, should be the norm; such heights of spirituality are only the daily ploughing of the field, and are only the obvious minimum which Christ accepts. He won't shew us grace ("thank") for doing this- with the implication that His grace is totally undeserved, not related to our forgiveness of others or other acts of obedience. The story paints the Master as being rather ungrateful and hard, to see his servant work so hard, then go the extra mile, and not utter a word of thanks. And the Lord is saying: 'Yes, to the natural mind, that's how I am':&nbsp;Christ says that the slave will not expect the Master to say to him "Sit down to meat", but will expect to be told, tired as he is, to gird himself and serve his Master (<em><a href='B:490 17:7-8'>Luk 17:7-8</a></em>). The Lord's words here are surely intended to recall when He said that in the Kingdom He would make us each sit down to meat and come forth and serve us (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>). The point of the connection is to show that Christ's treatment of us in the Kingdom <em>will</em> be different from that of an ordinary Master, but we really, honestly shouldn't expect it; we should serve because we are His servants, not expecting any praise or response from him. And this experience of grace should motivate us to forgive whether or not the repentance seems sincere (:5). As it happens, He will give us all this in the Kingdom, but we shouldn't expect this at all. As the slave would have been dumbfounded if his Master did this, so should our response be in the Kingdom. What makes it difficult is that we <em>know</em> our Master is like this, that He's a most unusual Lord, one who washes our feet (<em><a href='B:500 13:13-14'>Joh 13:13-14</a></em>); and the extraordinary relationship we have with Him ought to make us eagerly desire to show a similar service to our brethren, and to forgive them whether or not their repentance appears sincere.</p><p>The story of the slave who worked all day in the field and was then expected to come home and cook for his master without a word of thanks to him seems to be more realistic, lacking the element of unreality usually seen in the parables. But the Greek word <em>charis</em>, usually translated "grace", is the one used for "thank" here. The point is that we don't receive grace because of our going the extra mile, as we are inclined to think. We receive grace, but not as a result of all our special efforts; these are what are expected of us, on account of the fact that we have become salves to our Master, the Lord Jesus. At the end of all our special efforts (in whatever sphere), we must consciously make an effort to recognize that we are "unprofitable servants" (<em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em>). This must surely connect with <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>, which describes the rejected at the day of judgment as unprofitable servants. If we judge / condemn ourselves, we will not be condemned (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). This is just one of many examples of where the Lord's parables seem intended to be linked with each other- which further proves that they are not stories with a deeper meaning, whose storyline is not intended to be carefully considered. We must recognize not only that we are unprofitable servants, but that we have only done what was our "duty" or debt to do- the implication being that we were sold into slavery on account of an unpayable debt. This is exactly the figure used by the Lord to describe us in <em><a href='B:470 18:25'>Mat 18:25</a></em>. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Even so you also, when you shall have done all the things that are commanded of you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do- </em>It may be that this is taking us forward to the Kingdom; it is at the judgment that we 'do all' (<em><a href='B:560 6:13'>Eph 6:13</a></em>), it is in the Kingdom that we will obey all the commandments (<em><a href='B:230 119:6'>Psa 119:6</a></em>). This parable is a glimpse into the appreciation of grace we will have as we enter the Kingdom; once we are fully righteous, we will realize how unprofitable we are of ourselves (notice we may still feel in a sense "unprofitable" then). We will realize that all our service is only the repaying of the huge debt incurred by our sinfulness. <em>Then</em>, and perhaps only then, will we see works in their true perspective. This surely is the purpose of the judgment seat. We will walk away with the sense of wonder at the grace of Jesus that filled the one-hour workers as they walked away from the pay table with a day's wages:&nbsp; </p><p>The sin offering to be offered after the Nazarite vow had finished (<em><a href='B:40 6:14'>Num 6:14</a></em>) suggests the principle of <em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em> was being taught even back there. There was to be no spiritual pride in commitment made apparently over and above God's minimal requirements. The language of "have done all those things which are commanded" recalls the language of the priests and Moses doing all things which were commanded them under the old covenant (<em><a href='B:20 29:35'>Exo 29:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:36'>Lev 8:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:18'>Deu 1:18</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em> would therefore be hinting that even complete obedience to God's law was not of itself enough to make a man profitable unto God, which was something Job likewise concluded (<em><a href='B:220 22:2'>Job 22:2</a></em>). And the legislation about concluding the Nazarite vow was teaching the same. </p><p>We shouldn’t be discouraged if in our self-perception we see ourselves as serious sinners. We must say of ourselves that “we are unprofitable servants”- i:e. condemned, for this is how the phrase is used elsewhere in the Lord’s thinking (<em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). This is the finest paradox of all. If we perceive ourselves as worthy of&nbsp;condemnation, we will be saved. If we would judge [i:e. condemn] ourselves, we will not be judged / condemned (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). If we understand the seriousness of our sin, then forgiveness of others will come easier- and this is the purpose of the story (:5). If we realize our utter spiritual desperation, our worthiness of rejection, our betrayals of our Lord's love, if we condemn ourselves in our own judgment; <em>then</em> we will not have to go through this process when the Lord comes. Yet if we don't do this, Paul says, then we are drinking condemnation to ourselves at the last day. It's a powerful, terrifying argument. Such <em>must be</em>-</p><p> not ought to be- our level of self-analysis and knowledge of our desperation. If we so know our desperation now, we will not be condemned. Knowing and feeling our desperation is the key to so many Christian problems: monotony and boredom in spiritual life, problems with our partner, with our ecclesia, pride, a critical, ungrateful spirit, a lack of heartfelt praise, a reserve in witnessing. Even division amongst us would be outlawed by a true sense of our personal desperation. See on <em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em>.</p><p>As slaves, we serve without expecting any thanks at all; and the service in the immediate context is forgiving our brother whether or not his repentance appears sincere. We do what is our duty to do by reason of who we are- sinners. The Lord spoke this in response to the disciples saying it was impossible for them to accept His teaching about unconditional forgiveness of each other (:5). Man’s ingratitude is perhaps one of the hardest winds to weather, and it can so easily blow us off course in our service. But as the Lord’s slaves, judged by Him alone, we didn’t ought to look for recognition of our labours nor our forgiveness of others; neither should we demand apologies for <em>anything</em>. The Lord humbled Himself to wash the feet of His brethren, even though He was their leader (<em><a href='B:570 2:4-11'>Phi 2:4-11</a></em> is full of allusion to the foot washing incident, as if there the Lord exemplified the spirit of the cross). There may be brethren who consider it beneath them to talk to others or forgive others, who think it is not for them to help wash up or move furniture or all the host of other tasks that our gatherings require. But in these things lies the spirit of Christ. Paul didn’t lord it over others, but was a fellow-worker with them (<em><a href='B:540 1:24'>2Co 1:24</a></em>). It is one of the finest paradoxes: that he who is the greatest must be the servant of all. See on <em><a href='B:480 10:45'>Mar 10:45</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as they were on their way to Jerusalem, that he was passing along the borders of Samaria and Galilee</em>-</p><p> Time and again, the Gospel records reveal how the disciples manifest the Lord Jesus. There are several passages where the text is unclear, as to whether it should read, e.g., “As <em>they </em>were on the way” or “As <em>He </em>went” (<em><a href='B:490 17:11'>Luk 17:11</a></em> RV cp. AV). The textual confusion may reflect the unity between the Lord and His preachers. Even within the Gospels, incident after incident shows the Lord doing something alone, and then the disciples somehow being presented as doing the same.</p><p>Even when He was heading away from Jerusalem during the course of that final journey, He's still described as going to Jerusalem. This was the degree to which His focus was upon His journey unto death; when He passed through a Samaritan village, His whole body language was as if He were going up to Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 9:53'>Luk 9:53</a></em>). And we are asked to have the same focus and sense of direction as we carry His cross.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men who were lepers, who stood far away- </em>Reflect how the group of ten lepers huddled together, Jew and Samarian together, their differences sunk in their common appreciation of their desperation. In deep seated humility, we can wait with unfeigned faith for the day of acceptance to dawn, serving with a true love, not interested in feuding with our brethren, thankfully partaking of the emblems with them, not forgetting <em>how</em> we were cleansed from our past sins (cp. <em><a href='B:680 1:9'>2Pe 1:9</a></em> RV- a sure allusion to the nine ungrateful lepers who forgot the wonder of their cleansing). If we remember how we were cleansed, then there will abound in us virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, culminating in a true love (so Peter’s logic runs in <em><a href='B:680 1:5-9'>2Pe 1:5-9</a></em>). For our desperation, the cross of the Lord Jesus, the frankness of the Father's forgiveness- these things will ever <em>live</em> within our grateful, gracious souls. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they lifted up their voices, saying: Jesus, master, have mercy on us!</em>-</p><p> The grammar suggests they the many had one voice. And yet they included at least one Samaritan, with whom normal Jews would have nothing to do. The basis of our unity should be our desperation for grace and healing.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he saw them, he said to them: Go and show yourselves to the priests. And it came to pass, as they went, they were cleansed</em>-</p><p> The motive for this in <em><a href='B:490 5:14'>Luk 5:14</a></em> had been in order to make a testimony to the priests. Such was His zeal for their salvation. And the fact that “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>) shows how this apparently hope-against-hope desire of the Lord for the conversion of His enemies somehow came true. We noted on <em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em> that the work of the priests was to cleanse the leper- but this had been done by the Lord. The man was therefore to show himself to the priests- in order to demonstrate to them that another priest and priesthood was already coming into operation.</p><p>The healing happened "as they went". There had to be an element of faith and obedience before the cure- in this case. For the Lord operated variously when it came to preconditions for healing. </p>


text:
<p><em>And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, glorifying God in a loud voice</em>-</p><p> He turned back from going to the priests to thank the Lord, because he perceived that not only would he as a Gentile not get much audience with them, but because he saw that the Lord Jesus was far greater than the priesthood. He took the initiative in technically disobeying the Lord's commandment to come and thank the Lord. It was when he saw that he was healed that he praised God. The others presumably thought that their full healing would only be once they appeared before the priests. But the Samaritan perceived that the total power of healing was with the Lord and that the priests had no role to play in this. Being a Samaritan and therefore separated from the community of Israel made this perception somewhat easier for him, just as those outside religious systems find it easier to perceive the direct hand of the Lord Jesus in their lives- once they encounter Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he fell upon his face at his feet, giving him thanks- though he was a Samaritan</em>-</p><p> Jews and Samaritans had no dealings, and yet they lifted up their voices as one voice (:13 Gk:). They were united in their desperation, just as we ought to be. This is one of many hints that the work of the Lord Jesus was for non-Jews as well as Jews, and that the Gentiles would respond better to it. The command to go and teach "all nations" the Gospel seamlessly follows from all these hints throughout the Lord's ministry, and the disciples and the early church were all the more culpable for initially refusing to perceive it. But such is the power of assumed correctness of inherited positions, prejudice, nationalism and elitism- even within the hearts of otherwise sincere believers. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus responded: Were not ten cleansed? Where are the other nine?</em>-</p><p> The Lord's response was to the Samaritan. The implication was that the Lord was deeply disappointed in the Jewish response, and in their consideration of the priestly acceptance of them as being far more important than gratitude to their healer-Messiah. And He wanted the Samaritan to know that indeed, Israel were not OK with God. The Lord Jesus was on that man's side and not, in that sense, approving of Israel just on the basis of their ethnicity. The question as to "Where are the other nine?" was a leading one. The answer was 'With the priests'. The implication was that they should have been with the Samaritan at the Lord's feet, and not, in the first instance, with those priests. </p>


text:
<p><em>Were there none found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger?</em>-</p><p> This comment seems more towards the disciples, or perhaps the Lord was just speaking to Himself. The Samaritan had returned to Jesus, glorifying God (:15). It would be far too simplistic to assume that Jesus as He stood there was God Himself. For no man can see God. Further reflection reveals a far profounder situation. By returning to Jesus in gratitude, the man was glorifying God. The worship and glorification of the Son is therefore to the glory of God the Father, as Philippians 2 makes explicit. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: Arise and go your way. Your faith has made you whole</em>-</p><p> The healing had occurred "as they went" to the priests (:14). It could be that the Lord is saying that the man's faith had made him so whole that he didn't need to go to the priests. He was to go his way, back to his Samaritan community, as the living witness to the Lord's passionate care for non-Jews. Luke seems to stress the role of faith in the cures (<em><a href='B:490 7:50'>Luk 7:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:48'>Luk 8:48</a></em>). He also speaks more about Samaritans than any other gospel; perhaps because his material was partly aimed at converting Samaritans and other Gentiles. </p>


text:
<p><em>And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God comes, he answered them and said: The kingdom of God comes not with observation</em>-</p><p> 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>). "When will the Kingdom come?" was another perennial question- again answered by the Lord redirecting the entire enquiry. "The kingdom of God is within you... as it was in the days of Lot... one shall be taken and the other shall be left" (<em><a href='B:490 17:34'>Luk 17:34</a></em>). 'Don't worry about the calendar date, don't let a fascination with prophecy distract you from the personal reality that whenever I do come, some will be left behind. Will that be <em>you</em>?'. See on <em><a href='B:490 19:11'>Luk 19:11</a></em>. The implication could be that the Kingdom of God is hastened by action- by the repentance of Israel, the spiritual maturity of God's believing children, intense prayer, outreach to the Gentile world and other preconditions for the Lord's return. It will not be hastened by attempts to match current events with Bible prophecies- which perhaps is what the Lord refers to by "observation" here. It's as if He is warning against the obsession with latter day political prophecies which has stymied so much spirituality over the ages. </p><p>And yet "observation" translates a word which only Luke uses to describe how the Jews critically "watched" Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 6:7'>Luk 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:1'>Luk 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a></em>). They were actually looking at Him; the Kingdom was amongst them. They need not observe / look around / watch out for Messiah any further.</p>


text:
<p><em>Neither shall they say, Here it is, or, There it is! For the kingdom of God is among you- </em>The life that He had and now lives is the essence of the Kingdom life. Who He was and is, this is the definition of the Kingdom life. It’s why one of His titles is “the kingdom of God”. And it’s why it can be said that we ‘have’ eternal life now, in that we can live the essence of the life we will eternally live, right now. "The kingdom of God is within you" (AV) is more correctly translated "the kingdom of God is <em>among</em> you" (see A:V. mg:):&nbsp;The context shows that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees (:20);&nbsp;the "you" therefore refers to them:&nbsp;They were certainly not Christian believers- the kingdom of God was not established in <em>their</em> hearts. The Jews were making a great public show of their zeal in looking for Messiah:&nbsp;In this passage, "the kingdom of God" seems to be a title of Messiah, seeing He is to be the king of the kingdom:&nbsp;Thus when the Lord Jesus entered Jerusalem, the people shouted, "Blessed is he (Messiah) that comes in the name of the Lord:&nbsp;blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that comes in the name of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:480 11:9-10'>Mar 11:9-10</a></em>):&nbsp;This parallels Messiah and "the kingdom":&nbsp;Thus John the Baptist preached that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand:&nbsp;For this is he (Jesus) that was (prophesied)" (<em><a href='B:470 3:2-3'>Mat 3:2-3</a></em>):&nbsp;So here, the Lord answered their question about "when the kingdom of God should come", by speaking about the coming of "the son of man". His point was that the Jews were making so much show of being on the look out for Messiah's coming, expecting Him to be suddenly revealed in power, that they failed to realize that that Messiah- "the kingdom of God"- was already among them in the humble person of Jesus:&nbsp;Thus He warned them:&nbsp;"The kingdom of God (Messiah) comes not with outward show... behold, the kingdom of God is among you" (<em><a href='B:490 17:20-21'>Luk 17:20-21</a></em>). A well known theologian, Joachim Jeremias, has come to the same conclusion: “The meaning ‘indwelling in’ can certainly be excluded. Neither in Judaism nor elsewhere in the New Testament do we find the idea that the reign of God is something indwelling in men, to be found, say, in the heart; such a spiritualistic understanding is ruled out both for Jesus and for the early Christian tradition” (Joachim Jeremias, <em>New Testament Theology</em> (London: SCM, 1972) p. 101):&nbsp;He goes on to draw out the parallel between <em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 17:23-24'>Luk 17:23-24</a></em>: “Neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you…And they shall say to you, Lo, there! Lo, here! go not away, nor follow after them: for as the lightning, when it flashes out of the one part under the heaven, shines unto the other part under heaven; so shall the Son of man be in his day”. </p><p>The parallel is between the Kingdom of God coming at the return of Christ at the last day- and the Kingdom being ‘within’ or ‘among’ you. Jeremias suggests on this basis that “the Kingdom of God is within / among you” means ‘The Kingdom of God will come among you suddenly and visibly, at the last day- so it’s no good expecting it right at this moment now’.</p><p>Who He was and is, this is the definition of the Kingdom life. It’s why one of His titles is “the kingdom of God” (<em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>). And it’s why it can be said that we ‘have’ eternal life now, in that we can live the essence of the life we will eternally live, right now. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to the disciples: The days will come, when you shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man and you shall not see it</em>-</p><p> Yet <em><a href='B:500 8:56'>Joh 8:56</a></em> implies it is always possible to see one of the days of the Son of man through faith in Him. As explained in John 14-16, the promised Comforter would enable believers to always have the same sense of the Lord's presence as His followers had during His ministry. Is the Lord not hinting here that there will be a clouded spiritual vision amongst His latter day followers, even though they will “desire” this not to be the case? And can we not see uncomfortable similarities with our position and feelings today, realizing our vision is somewhat clouded, desiring for things to be different, but still not seeing…? </p><p>The Lord's coming is "the day of the Son of man"; and yet He speaks of the days of His ministry as the days of the Son of Man. The Lord is the same yesterday, today and forever. The same Jesus who was then in Palestine, speaking from the larynx of a Palestinian Jew, is essentially the same who shall return, likewise as judge, friend and patient saviour. <em><a href='B:490 17:24-26'>Luk 17:24-26</a></em>&nbsp;speaks of&nbsp;the "days of the Son of man" and refers them to three things: </p><p>1. The days of the Lord's ministry</p><p>2. The time leading up to His return</p><p>3. The day of judgment, of His actual second coming.</p><p>Putting these together, we come to the following conclusion: those living in the very last days will effectively be living with the actual presence of the Lord, it will be as if He has physically returned, although He has not done so. This may well be in order to provide encouragement to the persecuted saints in their latter-day tribulation; but it surely suggests that they will <em>know</em> that the Lord is about to return, that they are living in the days of the Son of man. The Comforter will be poured out, or accepted, so that the believers feel strongly the Lord's presence:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And they shall say to you, Look there, or, Look here. Do not go, nor follow after them</em>-</p><p> The Lord has been teaching that He is "amongst" them; there is no need to go looking for Him anywhere. But His thought moves on specifically to the time of His return. For the Lord repeats this warning in the Olivet prophecy. There will be false Christs and bogus claims that the Lord has returned. Spoken to the disciples, this 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;</p><p>“Lo” [AV] suggests the actual pointing out of a person. “Here… or there” 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 the Lord is about to be revealed, and in those days [and they may literally be days or hours] the world will know that His 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 the Lord 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><em>For as the lightning shines from one part under the heaven to the other part under heaven, so shall the Son of Man be in his day</em>-</p><p> This is the "lightning" and earthquake associated with the return of Christ when His people, natural and spiritual, are at the nadir of persecution and tribulation (<em><a href='B:730 4:5'>Rev 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 8:5'>Rev 8:5</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>). Lightning doesn’t do as described here. The reference is therefore to the Old Testament manifestation of lightning as part of the Cherubim, which flashed with lightning (<em><a href='B:330 1:4'>Eze 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 1:14'>Eze 1:14</a></em>). Ezekiel saw the Cherubim depart from the temple (<em><a href='B:490 24:1'>Luk 24:1</a></em> has alluded to this already), go Eastward to the mount of Olives and then mount up to Heaven (<em><a href='B:330 10:19'>Eze 10:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 11:22-23'>Eze 11:22-23</a></em>). This is why “the Glory”, the lightning of the Cherubim chariot, was seen as returning to the Mount of Olives "by the way of the east" into the temple (<em><a href='B:330 43:2-4'>Eze 43:2-4</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>As the Lord stood amongst them, He was the Son of Man in His day. Those who accepted Him as Messiah were accepting His 'coming' to them. For those who did not, and who argued about whether or not He fulfilled all the prophecies they were analysing ["with observation"], He would 'come' unmistakably, but in judgment. The day of the Lord was right upon them, if only they would realize it; and they made the decision standing right there as to whether they would then be saved or condemned.</p>


text:
<p><em>But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected by this generation</em>-</p><p> We wonder whether the Lord's tone of voice and body language changed; having talked of the glories of His second coming, He returns to the reality that He must be crucified by His people. The Lord's rejection by Israel is a major theme (<em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:31'>Mar 8:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 12:10'>Mar 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:22'>Luk 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:17'>Luk 20:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:4'>1Pe 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em> all use the same word). Any who struggle with rejection find an instant connection with the Lord. It has been given to us to "suffer for His sake", the same word used here for "suffer" (<em><a href='B:570 1:29'>Phi 1:29</a></em>). His sufferings are reflected in our experience, that we might experience in practice the status of being "in Christ". The passages just listed mainly state that the Lord would be rejected by "the builders", by the "elders... priests... scribes". Now He extends that to all "this generation". They followed their religious leaders- to reject God's Son and all His love. This is the danger of following religious leaders without thinking things through for ourselves from God's word. </p>


text:
<p><em>And as it was in the days of Noah, even so shall it also be in the days of the Son of Man</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:680 2:5-8'>2Pe 2:5-8</a></em>. “The days” are parallel with “the coming” of the Lord. The scenario outlined elsewhere is of the Lord ‘coming’ for the faithful, them consciously choosing to go to meet Him, and then their ‘coming’ along with Him in judgment upon the unfaithful and Israel’s immediate enemies. Therefore a period of time is made parallel with the Lord’s “coming”. The "days of Noah" may refer to the way in which God told Noah of the flood, but in <em><a href='B:10 7:1'>Gen 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:4'>Gen 7:4</a></em> told him that now there were "yet seven days" until the flood actually came, and he must now enter the ark. The gathering of the animals was done within those seven days (<em><a href='B:10 7:1-3'>Gen 7:1-3</a></em>). In this lies the similarity with the last days. We know the outline picture- that judgment will come, and there are reasons and signs of that. But only a few days before judgment breaks will the faithful be invited to go to meet the Lord, to enter the ark. And in that period the Gospel will be spread to all nations, the last final appeal will be made. Just as Noah filled the huge ark, which could have saved so many people, with any animal willing to agree to come on board. The shutting of the door of the ark would then directly correspond with <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>: "The door was shut". Just as desperate people would've knocked on the shut door of the ark, so the unfaithful will knock on the door which the Lord has now closed. In this life we can knock on the closed door, recognizing our condemnation- and it will be opened (<em><a href='B:490 11:7'>Luk 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:8'>Rev 3:8</a></em>). But after the Lord has 'come' in the sense of inviting us into the ark, to go forth and meet Him, the door will be shut.</p><p>Perhaps those seven days were a period of feasting in the world around Noah, just as there will be a brief period of hedonistic prosperity in the world before Christ's coming, perhaps because of some international agreement which offers prosperity to the entire planet in return for some nominal acceptance of false religion [Islam?]. We note the period of "seven days" used for funeral celebrations (<em><a href='B:10 50:10'>Gen 50:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 31:13'>1Sa 31:13</a></em>), wedding celebrations (<em><a href='B:70 14:12'>Jdg 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 14:17'>Jdg 14:17</a></em>) and general feasting (<em><a href='B:190 1:5'>Est 1:5</a></em>; Job 1). The people around Noah were doing this right up until the last day of the seven days. Passover, a clear type of the final deliverance of God's people at the Lord's second coming, required a similar seven days preparation period (<em><a href='B:20 12:19'>Exo 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:6'>Exo 13:6</a></em>) followed by a "day of the Lord", the actual feast, and "a solemn assembly" (<em><a href='B:160 8:18'>Neh 8:18</a></em>). Indeed, the feasts of Yahweh all required a seven day period (Leviticus 23), and each of them was in some way typical of the second coming:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>A number of passages describe the AD70 judgments of Israel in terms of the flood; which suggests that they also have reference to the last days:</p><p>- 2 Peter 3 is a clear example, describing the destruction of the Jewish system in AD70 as being by fire as opposed to water used in Noah's time. Yet the chapter also has reference, e.g. through its links with the new Heavens and earth of Isaiah 65, with the destruction of the present age at the Lord's return.</p><p>- Nahum 1 describes the coming judgements on Israel in terms of mountains and hills splitting, and there being a great flood; all Genesis flood language.</p><p>- <em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em> describes the Romans in AD70 destroying "the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood", the LXX implying with a sudden flood, as in Noah's time.</p><p>- <em><a href='B:290 54:9'>Isa 54:9</a></em> describes the judgments on Israel being "as the waters of Noah". The end of the flood, the end of Israel's judgments, therefore typifies the second coming.</p><p>- In the light of this the Lord's parable about the man building on sand whose house was destroyed when the heavy rain came (<em><a href='B:470 7:25'>Mat 7:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em>) must have primary reference (as so many of the parables do) to the judgement on the Jewish house in AD70. Those who built on sand as a result of not hearing Christ's words were the Jews- also described as shoddy builders in <em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 3:10'>Mic 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 22:13'>Jer 22:13</a></em>.</p><p>- The flood waters were upon the earth for 5 months. The siege of Jerusalem in AD70 lasted for the same period, coming after 3 years of the Roman campaign against Israel which started in AD67. The three and a half year suffering of Israel which culminated in AD70 may well point forward to a similar period in the last days; in which case the flood would typify the final months of that period, during which the judgments will be poured out most intensely. The five month tribulation of <em><a href='B:730 9:10'>Rev 9:10</a></em> may also have some relevance here.</p><p>Thus the state of Israel in AD70 was typified by the world of Noah's time, which therefore looks forward also to the last days, in the light of the evident connections between that period and our last days which are made in 2 Peter 3 and the Olivet prophecy.</p>


text:
<p><em>They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark and the flood came and destroyed them all</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 21:34'>Luk 21:34</a></em> is specific: "And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, so that day come upon you unawares". It could fairly be asked 'Why is there this warning, if the believers of the last days are to be actively persecuted?'. This verse implies that the world will be in a materially prosperous state in the last days; it will be possible for us to become so preoccupied with it that we do not prepare for the time of tribulation, so that it comes as a sudden surprise. Of if "that day" is the day of Christ's coming, then it may be that by opting out of the persecution, we will be able to continue to enjoy the materialism of the world, in which case we will be caught unawares by the second coming. Thus while the saints are persecuted, the world enjoys a time of prosperity as it did in the times of Lot and Noah.</p><p>The flood "came", Gk:&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>. This is effectively the same word as used about Noah "entering" or 'coming into' the ark (<em>eis-erchomai</em>). The coming of the flood represents the coming of Jesus to the world-<em> erchomai</em>&nbsp;is so often used in the context in that connection (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:42-44'>Mat 24:42-44</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 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>). The 'coming in' of Noah into the ark seven days before the flood (cp. the response of the faithful to the call to go out and meet the returning Lord Jesus) is essentially the coming of the Lord, even if His public 'coming' may be a few days after the 'coming' to the believers. Keil translates <em><a href='B:340 9:26-27'>Dan 9:26-27</a></em>:&nbsp;“The city, together with the sanctuary, shall be destroyed by the people of the prince who shall come, who shall find his end in the flood; but war shall continue to the end, since destruction is irrevocably decreed. That prince shall force a strong covenant for one week on the mass of the people, and during half a week he shall take away the service of sacrifice, and borne on the wings of idol abominations [cp. <em><a href='B:230 18:10'>Psa 18:10</a></em>, where the true God is also borne on wings] shall carry on a desolating rule, till the firmly decreed judgment shall pour itself upon him as one desolated” (<em>Commentary&nbsp;</em>&nbsp; p. 373). Antichrist’s destruction with&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;flood [note the definite article] comfortably connects with the Lord’s usage of the flood as a symbol of the latter day judgment upon His enemies (<em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>). The person spoken about will be involved in war until the end of his days; he will die at the end of his military campaign against God’s people. This was certainly not true of Titus in AD70.</p><p>In <em>Contra Celsum</em> we read Origen justifying the Christian church against Celsus’ criticisms that it is a church of poor, simple people. That the majority of Christians would be poor and simple was indeed the expectation of both the Lord Jesus and Paul. Yet Origen seeks to justify the Christian church as middle class and respectable, with respected intellectuals amongst its membership. It was and is this desire to be seen as worldly-wise and ‘normal’ which is the death-knoll for any revival of Christianity. It was this which led to the acceptance of the Trinity; and it is this which robs true Christianity of its radical nature and appeal today. Perhaps in our last days this lesson needs to be learnt as never before. The Lord’s picture of the world of the last days is of a household eating and drinking, absorbed with being normal (<em><a href='B:470 24:38'>Mat 24:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:27'>Luk 17:27</a></em>). But the Lord’s point is that this very ‘normal’ behaviour done in the wrong spirit is what He finds so wrong.</p>


text:
<p><em>Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot- they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built</em>-</p><p> There can be no doubt that the sexual aspects of Sodom's sins have great similarity to the moral filth of our present world. But significantly it was not this aspect which our Lord chose to highlight when speaking of how "the days of Lot" typified those of His return. Instead He spoke of those things which were more likely to ensnare His people: "<em>They</em> (as well as our present world) did eat, <em>they</em> drank, <em>they</em> bought, <em>they</em> sold, <em>they</em> planted, <em>they</em> built". Their obsession with daily activities without an awareness of God was as bad as their other sins; a point we would do well to be aware of. However, their eating and drinking must have been to gross excess- <em><a href='B:330 16:49'>Eze 16:49</a></em> defines "the iniquity of Sodom" as being "fullness of bread" among other things. Some lavish Christian lifestyles frequently feature "fullness of bread" - but because it is not perceived as a gross sin, this unhealthy similarity with Sodom slips by unchallenged:&nbsp;"They bought, they sold" suggests that Sodom was a major trading centre, rapidly increasing in wealth; "they planted, they built" implies a real boom town. Such success resulted in the people being proud and haughty (<em><a href='B:330 16:49-50'>Eze 16:49-50</a></em>); the wealth created at the expense of others brought about "abundance of idleness in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (<em><a href='B:330 16:49'>Eze 16:49</a></em>). It is these aspects of Sodom which are so precisely matched by our self-centred, money mad world. As our Lord realized, it is these aspects which are most likely to ensnare the child of God. Yet Sodom's people were not completely unaware of their religious conscience. Jeremiah likened the false prophets of Israel to the people of Sodom, who effectively taught that sin was service to God, (<em><a href='B:300 23:14'>Jer 23:14</a></em>). This is another hint that the people of Sodom had some degree of responsibility, as have latter day Israel whom they typify.</p><p>Lot is presented here as representative of the latter-day believers. But he was hardly strong in faith. He chose to live in Sodom, first pitching his tent near it and then getting a house within the city and even becoming a judge. His wife was consumed in the materialism of the city as were most of his children. He argued with the Angel about leaving Sodom and was only saved by grace; and even after that, he slept with both his daughters whilst drunk. And yet he was counted as faithful. All the virgins in the parable slumber and sleep at the time their Lord comes; when clearly the last generation is exhorted not to slumber but to keep awake. We can conclude that the last days will be a time of spiritual weakness for the church.</p>


text:
<p><em>But in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all</em>-</p><p> Lot in his last days in Sodom was a type of the believers living in the world at the time of the end. Lot in those last hours was walking around the streets of that city trying to save his family, walking amidst angry, blind people who hated him, drunk on their own lusts. Walking those streets must have been an uncanny experience. But that is God's picture of the world of our day, and our own uncanny, almost charmed life amongst the sleepwalkers. The whole human experience is analogous to sleepwalking; we go through the motions of reality, but actually (as a race) we are spiritually asleep. The world around us are sleepwalking, in God's eyes. And we too should share His perspective.</p><p>The Lord initially has in view that Jerusalem is as Sodom, an equation the Old Testament prophets make several times. The need to leave Sodom referred to the need to break with the temple cult, and the Olivet prophecy urges the faithful to flee out of Jerusalem to the mountains to avoid her judgment. This is the language of "Babylon" in Revelation, which in its primary application refers to the Jerusalem temple cult. All who remained in it would perish; hence the appeal of the letter to the Hebrews to leave it and resist the temptation to return to it.</p>


text:
<p><em>After the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of Man is revealed</em>-</p><p> This commonly used phrase "Son&nbsp;of man" (<em><a href='B:470 16:28'>Mat 16:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:27'>Mat 24:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:64'>Mat 26:64</a></em>) clearly quotes from <em><a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a></em>: “One like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven”. This prophecy clearly speaks of the giving of the Kingdom to the Lord Jesus and His people at the end of the dominion of the fourth beast and its related horns. The prophecy could have been fulfilled in the first century- but it was rescheduled. This is another example of the conditionality in Daniel’s prophecies which we discussed in an earlier digression. <em><a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a></em> speaks of how the Son of Man comes with the clouds of Heaven&nbsp;<em>before the Ancient of Days</em>&nbsp;and is given the Kingdom. What is in view is not so much the coming of Christ to earth but His coming to receive the Kingdom from the Father. <em><a href='B:340 7:26-27'>Dan 7:26-27</a></em>: “The judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it to the end. The kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole Heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him”. “The Son of Man” is here interpreted as “the people of the saints of the Most High”. The Son of Man, therefore, refers not just to the Lord personally but to all those in Him. Having chosen to go out to meet Him once they hear the trumpet call, they are snatched away to meet Him in the air and the Lord comes with them in judgment. This is the picture presented in <em><a href='B:590 4:16-17'>1Th 4:16-17</a></em> and elsewhere. This is why His “coming” is parallel with a period of time, "the days of the son of man".</p>&nbsp;<p>The Son of man will be “revealed”; and yet the other references to the Son of man being revealed refer to the way He is even now revealed to His true followers by the Father (<em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em> etc:). At the second coming, the real nature of God’s Son, the essence of His character, will be revealed to all. At the very time that the Wicked One will be revealed, so will the Son of God (<em><a href='B:600 2:8'>2Th 2:8</a></em>). In the way God judges man, His character is again glorified and revealed; for in the way He judges, His essential characteristics are revealed. It is therefore possible to see anticipations of the day of future judgment in how God has judged in the past- thus incidents like Adam and Cain's rejection, the Babylonian and Roman invasions and the subsequent condemnation of God's people, the flood... all these are prototypes of the future judgment. Take, for example, the prophecy of Obadiah against Edom. It is full of language elsewhere used about the judgment seat.</p>


text:
<p><em>In that day, he that shall be on the housetop with his goods in the house- </em>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 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 needing to leave immediately naturally connects with the words of :36 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>Let him not go down to take them away, and let him that is in the field likewise not return back</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>. 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. All who love the Lord in spirit and in truth will respond to the sign or call to leave with immediacy. </p><p>Initially, it does not appear that there will be much compulsion to come to the judgment. After a meeting of the Lord in the air (<em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em>), both sheep and goats eventually appear before the judgment seat. When the Angels first come to call us to judgment at the second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:39'>Mat 13:39</a></em>), there will be an element of choice as to whether we immediately accept the call to go and meet Christ. “In that day” we will have the choice to go and take our goods from the house, or to go immediately with the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 17:31'>Luk 17:31</a></em>). Under the law, the trumpet sounded and Israel had to gather themselves together (<em><a href='B:40 10:4'>Num 10:4</a></em>); yet Paul says in Thessalonians that the Lord comes with a trumpet to gather His people together. If this is indeed based upon the Old Testament pattern, then there is an element of choice as to whether we gather ourselves unto Him- at least initially. Noah and Lot were invited, not forced, to leave the world. Those who respond to Christ's return "immediately" will be accepted, implying that the unworthy delay. This means that the response is optional in the first instance (<em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>). There are other indications of this:&nbsp; The most obvious is in the parable of the virgins, where the wise go out to meet their Lord immediately, whilst the foolish delay in order to spiritually prepare themselves. Our attitude in that split second is so vital. The rejected will mourn and wail, in anticipation of their future condemnation, when they see the sign of the Son of man indicating His imminent coming (<em><a href='B:470 24:30-31'>Mat 24:30-31</a></em>). And this is why there is the implication that effectively, the division between sheep and goats happens in the gathering process (<em><a href='B:470 25:33'>Mat 25:33</a></em>); our response to the gathering is our judgment. The parables invite us to see the Lord gathering the wheat to one place and the tares to another, as if the gathering is the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>); the wheat is gathered to the garner, and the chaff to the place of burning (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>). The Angel who reaps for judgment 'thrusts in' his sickle, and 'casts out' the wicked in rejection (<em><a href='B:730 14:19'>Rev 14:19</a></em>). But 'thrust in' and 'cast out' in that verse both translate the same Greek word <em>ballo</em>-</p><p> the implication being that the gathering-to-judgment process is in fact the separation process. Likewise the net is "cast" into the sea in order to gather people for judgment, and then the rejected are "cast" away (<em><a href='B:470 13:47-48'>Mat 13:47-48</a></em>).</p><p>The news that Joseph was alive and glorified was received rather like that of Christ's resurrection: initial disbelief, but then the family of Jacob who believed it rose up and left all they had to go to be with Joseph; Israel in AD70 and the last days are likewise bidden leave their stuff and go to be with Christ (<em><a href='B:10 45:20'>Gen 45:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 17:31'>Luk 17:31</a></em>). </p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


