# commentaries

text:
<p><em>And His mercy is to generations and generations on them that fear Him</em>-</p><p> The subsequent generations who would bless her would do so because through her Son, "mercy" was experienced. She perceived that Messiah would bring mercy to sinners, indeed to all; rather than just the re-establishment of Israel's political Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>He has shown strength with His arm, He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their heart</em></p><p>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. Through the Lord, God "scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts" (<em><a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a></em>). This is quoting from <em><a href='B:10 6:5'>Gen 6:5</a></em> LXX concerning the wicked imagination of man's heart at the flood. This is even more evidence that we can read the events of the flood as typical of two things; our salvation from the judgment upon sin, and also of the events of the last days, when that salvation will be physically manifested. We are in Noah's position; we can see clearly the judgments which must come upon sin.</p><p>Such a Bible minded woman inevitably had faith. For faith comes by hearing the word of God. Mary believed the Angel’s words fully- hence her rejoicing. The aorist tenses of <em><a href='B:490 1:51-53'>Luk 1:51-53</a></em> seem the equivalent of prophetic perfect tenses in Hebrew- Mary firmly believes that what is still future is as good as happened. She had the faith that considers what has been promised to have actually happened. At that moment it was as if God <em>had</em> scattered the proud, the rulers and the princes- even though this would only be achieved by the Lord’s life, death and glorification (<em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:24-27'>Act 4:24-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>He has put down princes from their thrones and has exalted them of low station in life</em></p><p>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. Despite all the undoubted spiritual perception in the Magnificat, she didn’t have totally pure understanding. It seems from her allusion here to <em><a href='B:330 21:26'>Eze 21:26</a></em> [the mighty being put down from their thrones and the humble one exalted] that she thought that Ezekiel’s prophesy about Messiah’s restoration of the Kingdom had already been fulfilled in her conception of Jesus. It could be that she was so sure that her child would one day do this that she saw the time of the coming of “Him whose right it is” as being right there and then; and yet we know that it is in fact still future. Likewise “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” <em>may</em> imply [although not necessarily] that she hadn’t grasped the implications that Messiah must be the result of a virgin birth, as per <em><a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a></em>. Yet for all this, she still had acceptability before God, and the required spiritual ambition to be Messiah’s mother:&nbsp;</p><p>Mary perceived the importance of humility. Her song of rejoicing is a consciously arranged poem by her. It is in two strophes, each climaxing with the themes of lowliness / exaltation. She saw humility as the true exaltation, and the structure of her little song reflects this. She perhaps prepared the song in her mind as she walked down from Nazareth to the Judean hills to meet Elisabeth; there is a rhyme established by the last&nbsp;words of the four lines in <em><a href='B:490 1:52-53'>Luk 1:52-53</a></em>: <em>thronon</em> with <em>agathon</em>, and <em>tapeinous</em> with <em>kenous</em>. In all this she reached a new paradigm for humility was a concept foreign to the first century mind. Strength, wealth and ability were to be demonstrated; to show strength by being humble was just unheard of. Only those who were forced into humble submission by the stronger were ‘humble’. To clean the toilets when nobody else notices, and the host of other such opportunities for service in ecclesial life... this is the true humility, the real strength and exaltation before God:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The hungry He has filled with good things and the rich He has sent away empty</em></p><p>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. Not only was the Lord Himself influenced by His mother. Paul and Peter allude to Mary and her words in their writings. The hymn to Jesus which Paul wrote in Philippians 2 is full of themes taken from Mary’s song- the same themes of God’s manifestation in His Son, humiliation and exaltation, occur there. There are several connections between the accounts of the early preaching of the Gospel in Acts, and Mary’s song of praise. Her words came to influence the brethren who stood up there and preached. Perhaps Mary, who was meeting with them (<em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>), sung the words to them and they all memorized it. Raymond Brown claims there are 18 words or items shared by the preaching of Peter (<em><a href='B:510 3:12-26'>Act 3:12-26</a></em>) and the Magnificat [Mary’s song of praise] (<em>The Birth Of The Messiah</em>, New York: Doubleday, 1993 p. 354). Mary had quoted <em><a href='B:230 107:9'>Psa 107:9</a></em> about how she had been filled with good things; but Zacharias quoted the next verse, <em><a href='B:230 107:10'>Psa 107:10</a></em>, shortly afterwards (<em><a href='B:490 1:79'>Luk 1:79</a></em>). Surely Mary had gotten him thinking in the same paths as she did. And she should likewise influence us.</p><p>Mary felt that through her being granted the honour of bearing Jesus, the hungry had been filled. The Lord in <em><a href='B:490 6:21'>Luk 6:21</a></em> alludes to all this. He speaks of how blessed [=Mary] are the hungry who will be filled, using the same three words as in Luke 1 - <em>blessed </em>was Mary, the <em>hungry</em>, who was <em>filled </em>in her stomach:&nbsp; He states that there is a blessedness upon all of us who believe (<em><a href='B:500 20:29'>Joh 20:29</a></em>)- just as His mother was proclaimed blessed for her belief (<em><a href='B:490 1:45'>Luk 1:45</a></em>). &nbsp;Mary had felt that God had “Filled the hungry [i:e. their stomach, cp. the womb of Mary] with the good thing [Gk:]”- Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em>). He calls Himself this good thing, using the very same Greek word in <em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>: "I am the good one"; <em><a href='B:500 1:46'>Joh 1:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:12'>Joh 7:12</a></em> [where the "good thing" is Messiah]. Her perception of Him became his. And so with us; if we perceive our children as future brethren, so, hopefully and prayerfully, they will be. Jesus could have sinned; He could have failed. But Mary right from His babyhood believed that He wouldn’t. She believed in Him and in His successful completion of His destiny from when she first conceived Him. And surely this is a pattern for Christian mothers too.</p>


text:
<p><em>He has given help to Israel His servant, that He might remember mercy</em></p><p>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. As noted on :28, she saw herself as the "Servant" Israel. "Mercy" is a real theme with her; she saw Messiah as enabling mercy for multiple generations (see on :50). The fulfilment of the prophecies in Messiah she saw as a mercy, a grace, even though it was her faith which enabled them to work out as they did. "Given help" is literally to take hold of, and she is alluding to <em><a href='B:290 41:8-9'>Isa 41:8-9</a></em> LXX, where God helps or takes by the hand His servant Israel; but this was only going to be possible through Messiah, her son, because she realized that Israel of themselves had refused Yahweh's outstretched arm towards them. She was very far from the nationalism which was tied up with Messianic expectation at the time. She saw Messiah as the channel for the grace and mercy upon Israel which their sinfulness required.</p>


text:
<p><em>(As He spoke to our fathers) toward Abraham and his seed for ever</em></p><p>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. </p><p>She speaks in <em><a href='B:490 1:55'>Luk 1:55</a></em> Gk. of “<em>the</em> seed of him”- she understood the seed of Abraham to be Messiah, her son, and makes many references and allusions to the promises to Abraham. She had clearly reflected upon the way that the things of the Gospel were all promised to Abraham (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And Mary stayed with her about three months and then returned home</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;As noted earlier, she took lessons from Elisabeth's example. She too therefore hid herself during the early part of her pregnancy. She must have returned home just before Elisabeth gave birth (cp. :36), seeking to avoid the public eye by being present at the birth of John. It was presumably at her return that she was "found with child" (<em><a href='B:470 1:18'>Mat 1:18</a></em>), as the end of the first trimester of pregnancy would have given her certain evidence that she was really pregnant. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she gave birth to a son</em>-</p><p> "The time came" alludes to how the prophetic words "shall be fulfilled in their time" (:20). </p>


text:
<p><em>And her neighbours and her kinsfolk heard that the Lord had magnified His mercy towards her; and they rejoiced with her</em>-</p><p> The idea of magnifying mercy is that we live by God's mercy, but in this open answer to prayer, that mercy was magnified, made the more visible before all. We can logically deduce from this that God's mercy is there even when prayer is apparently not answered; it is just that answered prayer magnifies that pre-existing and ever present mercy. We note the emphasis upon Elizabeth here- the time came for <em>her</em> to give birth, and the neighbours heard of God's mercy towards <em>her</em>, and they rejoiced <em>with her</em>. This is typical of Luke's inspired emphasis upon the importance of women; a secular account of those times would have focused upon how the famous priest Zacharias was now having a son etc. To claim the Bible is somehow against women is facile; it was far ahead of its time in being careful to honour both genders.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child, and they would have called him Zacharias, after the name of the father</em>-</p><p> 'John' means 'Yahweh's grace / favour'; "Zacharias" means 'Yahweh has remembered'. God did indeed remember the prayers of Zacharias; and 'remembering' when used about God is a Hebrew idiom used about God answering prayer. But Zacharias had not lived up to his name. Instead the prayer was heard by grace, and righteousness was imputed to Zacharias, as noted on :6. It was therefore appropriate that there should be a break with tradition, and the child named 'John' rather than 'Zacharias'. </p>


text:
<p><em>But his mother answered and said: No, he shall be called John</em>-</p><p> One of Luke's themes is the equality and dignity of women before God. For a woman to stand up against her male relatives and take the decision about the naming of a child, in defiance of tradition whereby a male firstborn child must have the name of his father, was quite something. Mary took encouragement from this by naming her child 'Jesus' rather than some form of 'Joseph'. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they said to her: There are none of your kindred that are called by this name</em>-</p><p> This break with tradition was to reflect how God was beginning a new creation, in which family ties and names were of no significance. This was radical stuff for a kinship oriented society. We too, in our own times and over our contemporary issues, are asked to radically step out from societal expectations.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they made signs to his father, what he wanted him called</em>-</p><p> The family, as noted on :60, were shocked that a woman could assert such dominance in this matter of naming the child. They refused to let her get away with it without at least some semblance of male agreement.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he asked for a writing tablet and wrote, saying: His name is John. And they all marvelled</em>-</p><p> Perhaps he had used the same tablet in explaining to his wife what had happened in the temple, and the need to name the child 'John'.</p>


text:
<p><em>And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed and he spoke, blessing God</em>-</p><p> This recalls the opening of Ezekiel's mouth so that he too could speak prophetic words. The context was similar- of a sinful Judah facing judgment unless they urgently repented and accepted God's prophetic word. The idea of the tongue being loosed is another example of wrong medical ideas being used to express healing; and the same is done with the idea of demons. The immediacy of healing demonstrated that the naming of the child was hard for Zacharias, who would have been tempted to want his own name continued in his only son. But he overcame that struggle in faith and obedience to the Father's revealed word.</p>


text:
<p><em>And fear came on all their neighbours. And all these things were talked about through all the hill country of Judea</em>-</p><p> We might rather have expected 'joy'. But their secular joy turned to fear when they realized how close God was in all these things. And this in essence is why people struggle to believe the good news of the Gospel. The intellectual search is one thing, but coming face to face with 'John', Yahweh's grace, is quite another. And it is at that point that many turn away.</p>


text:
<p><em>And all that heard them laid them up in their heart, saying: What then shall this child be? For the hand of the Lord was with him</em>-</p><p> Mary and Elisabeth are likewise described by Luke as laying these things up in their hearts. There was clearly a psychological expectation amongst the people that John was going to be significant. Somehow they perceived that God's hand was with the child and was going to use him; they were being prepared to be potentially open to the message he would preach. The "hand of the Lord" being "with" people is the language of the exodus (<em><a href='B:50 6:21'>Deu 6:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:8'>Deu 7:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:26'>Deu 9:26</a></em> and often). There was a sense that deliverance from bondage was at hand through this man's ministry. But of course they failed to perceive that the bondage in view was to sin rather than to Rome; and the freedom was not immediate political freedom, but the priceless gift of freedom from sin and death.</p>


text:
<p><em>And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying</em>-</p><p> Just as Ezekiel's dumbness was ended by "the hand of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:330 33:22'>Eze 33:22</a></em>) and he was able to immediately prophesy; it was the same hand of the Lord that was operating here (:66):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, for He has visited and redeemed His people</em>-</p><p> Zacharias' song of praise was largely about the salvation to be achieved in the Lord Jesus, whom his son John was to herald. Zacharias therefore assumed that the work of John was going to be ultimately successful and thereby enable the Lord Jesus to appear and bring salvation. "He has visited His people" is a quotation from <em><a href='B:80 1:6'>Rth 1:6</a></em>. The same miraculous creation of a family that happened to Ruth and the elderly Boaz was happening to the family of Zacharias. Zacharias understood the Divine visitation of Israel to be through the dawning of the Messianic sun of righteousness (:78; <em><a href='B:490 7:16'>Luk 7:16</a></em>). He doesn't glory in his own son, but rather in Mary's son. This is an essay in how Christ-centeredness will displace our natural tendency to be self-centred. Mary would have taken great encouragement from this song; she would have recognized it was a Divinely inspired (:67) statement that John's birth guaranteed the birth of her son. The stress of the journey to Bethlehem, the lack of accommodation there etc. would have all been assuaged by meditating upon these Divine statements that the birth of John guaranteed, as it were, that of her son.</p>


text:
<p><em>And has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David</em>-</p><p> This again is a reference to the Lord Jesus and not to John; for John was a Levite whereas the Lord was from Judah via David. Zacharias was focused not upon his own son and his natural joy, but upon the far greater spiritual things portended by it. We need to likewise not focus solely upon our own immediate family experiences but to see the far greater picture in the perspective of the Lord Jesus:&nbsp;The horn of David was Yahweh's anointed or Christ, which would sprout fruit (<em><a href='B:230 132:17'>Psa 132:17</a></em>). For David, Yahweh was the horn of his salvation (<em><a href='B:100 22:3'>2Sa 22:3</a></em>); the idea is that this Divine salvation would appear as a horn arising within the family of David. This is the kind of human and Divine fusion which was implied in the great promises to David about his seed; this seed would be God's son and also David's son. The only way that could be achieved was through the virgin birth. Zacharias would have reflected on these things, recalling that Mary was in the line of David. His own son John is not in view at all, for he was a Levite. The focus of Zacharias was so completely upon the Lord Jesus, Mary's son, rather than his own son. And he seems to have passed on to his son John this focus upon the Christ. </p>


text:
<p><em>(As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets that have been since the world began)</em>-</p><p> The promised Messianic seed was the message of all the prophets, and Luke concludes his Gospel with the Lord explaining these things from all the prophets to the two on the way to Emmaus. This is one of many points of contact between the opening and closing of the Gospel. The beginning of the world was seen as the time when the prophets began, presumably referring to Adam. The world and its beginning as presented in the Bible began then. All angst about the ultimate origins of the earth, previous creations, the process of creation etc. is all misplaced. We are asked to see the time when God's prophetic word began to be spoken as the beginning of the world. </p><p>The words could also be read as meaning that all the prophets somehow pre-existed at the beginning. This language of pre-existence is therefore not to be read literally, but in terms of them being within the Father's prophetic plan from the beginning. And this empowers us to better understand the language of the Lord's 'pre-existence'- not literally, but within the purpose of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>Salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all that hate us</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 7:19'>Luk 7:19</a></em>. Clearly he understood Messiah as the One who would bring immediate relief from the Roman occupation. He'd misread, as many Jews do today, the Old Testament prophecies and types which involve two comings of Messiah, and the need for Him to firstly die the death of rejection. But all the same, we find no hint of condemnation, but rather of commendation, for this Godly man. </p>


text:
<p><em>To show mercy towards our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant</em>-</p><p> This cannot mean that mercy was now given to the fathers, but that the fulfilment of the promised mercy to them had now come. This is why "mercy and truth" is a phrase used about the fulfilment of the promises to the fathers- the promised mercy had in truth been fulfilled, now in the utter "truth" which was and is Jesus Christ (<em><a href='B:10 24:27'>Gen 24:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 98:3'>Psa 98:3</a></em> and often in the Psalms; <em><a href='B:290 16:5'>Isa 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 7:20'>Mic 7:20</a></em>). The fulfilment of the promises was in the Christ and not in John the Baptist; but the focus of Zacharias is totally upon the Lord whom his son would testify to.</p>


text:
<p><em>The oath which He spoke to Abraham our father</em>-</p><p> The path to Abraham was understood as "mercy" (:72). Peter likewise interprets the promises to Abraham as being ultimately about the turning away of his seed from sin, and personal salvation (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>To grant to us, that we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, should serve Him without fear</em>-</p><p> The promises were "to us". “Salvation is of the Jews” (<em><a href='B:500 4:22'>Joh 4:22</a></em>) in the sense that the promises concerning salvation were made only to Abraham and his seed. We can only have those promises made to us if we become <em>in </em>the seed, by being baptised <em>into</em> Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:22-29'>Gal 3:22-29</a></em>). Then, all that is true of the Lord Jesus becomes true of us. Thus Zacharias quoted prophecies about the seed of Abraham and David as applying to all believers (<em><a href='B:490 1:69'>Luk 1:69</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:73-74'>Luk 1:73-74</a></em>). As noted on :72 and :73, the essential salvation promised in Christ was of mercy towards our sins. These are our enemies, from which we are to be delivered in Christ; we can serve Him now "without fear"- the fear of ultimate failure, of condemnation. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:690 4:18'>1Jn 4:18</a></em> of how we can now live without fear, secure in his love and salvation by grace. This is the good news of the Gospel. The idea of serving <em>without</em> fear is in conscious contrast to the repeated Old Testament commands for those under the law to serve God <em>with </em>fear (<em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:20'>Deu 10:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 2:11'>Psa 2:11</a></em> and often). It would have been a strange, novel and challenging idea; and yet it was in fact implicit in the promises to Abraham. This is the good news.</p>


text:
<p><em>In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days</em>-</p><p> We read in :6 that Zacharias and Elisabeth <em>"</em>were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless". But that holiness is now possible for all Israel, not just the Levites and dedicated religionists like that pious couple. And this holy walk in daily life and thought is motivated by the fact we are freed from fear of condemnation, the fear of ultimate spiritual failure; for we are saved by grace. This is a far stronger motivation than striving for obedience to any legal code, in the hope that we shall somehow one day be possibly saved by our obedience.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yes, and you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High- </em>We can imagine Zacharias now turning his eyes to his own newborn child. If he had received no more information than what is recorded, then he had done well to perceive that this child was the Elijah prophet, and therefore Mary's child was to be Messiah. </p><p><em>For you shall go before the presence of the Lord to make ready His ways</em>-</p><p> John the Baptist was to “prepare” the way for the Lord’s coming- evidently a process- in reflection of how God had been working a long time to“prepare” [same Greek word] the way for His Son’s coming (<em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:31'>Luk 2:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>). We likewise, in our preaching work in these last days, are working in tandem and in step with God. The idea of God 'preparing' implies that there is therefore a gap between the plan being made, and it being executed- hence “The Lord has both planned and done what He spoke concerning the inhabitants of Babylon” (<em><a href='B:300 51:12'>Jer 51:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:28'>Jer 4:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:17'>Lam 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 22:11'>Isa 22:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 37:26'>Isa 37:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 1:6'>Zec 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 8:14'>Zec 8:14</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>To give knowledge of salvation to His people in the remission of their sins</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>. The experience of forgiveness is a foretaste of salvation; as John's gospel puts it, we have eternal life now. Not in that we shall not die, but in so far as we live in the experience of sin forgiven, without fear of condemnation should the Lord return right now... for this is "salvation", the present experience of the great salvation to be brought to us at the Lord's second coming. And we can share this knowledge of salvation with others; Paul alludes to these words, showing that he was to bring others to the light just as John had (<em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:79'>Luk 1:79</a></em> =&nbsp; <em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:23'>Act 26:23</a></em>). Luke is the only evangelist to continue the quotation of Isaiah 40 to include the words “all mankind will see God’s salvation”. And he focuses especially upon the wonder of forgiveness (<em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:48'>Luk 7:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:38'>Act 13:38</a></em>). Only he records the parable of the prodigal (<em><a href='B:490 15:11-32'>Luk 15:11-32</a></em>), and only he describes the great preaching commission as relating to “repentance and remission of sins” (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>).</p><p>The principles God will use in the final judgment are manifested now, and have been reflected in His previous judgments of men. In our very personal lives, there are foretastes of that future judgment. When we receive forgiveness we experience the essence of the future salvation (<em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>). Indeed, whenever man meets with God, whenever His ways have contact with those of men (which so often happens in the life of the believer) there is a judgment experience; His holiness, His demands, the imperatives which lay within His very being, reveal quite naturally our failures. The Hebrew word used to describe God’s ‘meeting’ with men is also used in the senses of ‘summoning’ or gathering to a trial (<em><a href='B:20 30:6'>Exo 30:6</a></em>). And positively, the <em>degree to which </em>we have responded to Him will be revealed by our meeting with Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>Because of the tender mercy of our God- </em>The fact that God has a “heart of mercy”- a lovely phrase- is His glory. It leads Him to glory in overlooking sin. And on this basis John appealed to people to repent and claim that forgiveness, thus allowing God to glory. In the light of all this, one wonders in what tone of voice John spoke. The cold printed words in our Bibles can lead us to imagine him speaking in a gruff, austere manner.</p><p><em>When the sunrise shall dawn upon us</em>-</p><p> "The sunrising (AVmg:) from on high hath visited us" through the Lord's mission, fulfilling the prophecy of <em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em> about Him as the sun of righteousness in the first century, although it clearly has reference also to the greater dawning yet to come:&nbsp; </p><p>Many of the incidents in the first coming of the Lord Jesus are intended to point us forward to events which will happen at the his second coming. There is clear indication in the records of Luke 1, 2 that there were a faithful remnant in Jerusalem at the time of our Lord's birth, whose attitude points forward to that of the latter-day remnant at the time of His second coming:&nbsp;Whilst only Zacharias, Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna are mentioned, we can be sure that there were others in this group - Anna "spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (<em><a href='B:490 2:38'>Luk 2:38</a></em>);&nbsp;"many" rejoiced even at the birth of John, on the understanding that he was Christ's forerunner (<em><a href='B:490 1:14'>Luk 1:14</a></em>). It is possible that the shepherds, too, were in this group, which would confirm the impression that the 'remnant' were in the lower ranks of society - Zacharias a superannuated priest, Anna a servant of the temple (<em><a href='B:490 2:37'>Luk 2:37</a></em>) - the equivalent of a modern office cleaner. This connects with the 'remnant' left in the land by Nebuchadnezzar being the poorest of the poor (<em><a href='B:120 24:15'>2Ki 24:15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:120 25:11-12'>2Ki 25:11-12</a></em>), and suggests a working-class Jewish 'remnant' in the last days. </p><p>There is much language used concerning he birth of Jesus which is easily applicable to His second coming:&nbsp;This in itself encourages us to see the record of those awaiting His first coming as typical of the last days. The birth of John and Jesus is described as God 'visiting and redeeming his people' (<em><a href='B:490 1:68'>Luk 1:68</a></em>); what better way of describing God's latter-day intervention? "The sunrising from on high hath visited us" (<em><a href='B:490 1:78'>Luk 1:78</a></em> A:V. mg:) was Zacharias' comment upon God's purpose in John and Jesus, making an unmistakeable allusion to <em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em> concerning Christ's second coming being like the rising sun. Note how this sun rising is upon the righteous remnant of the last days (<em><a href='B:460 4:1-2'>Mal 4:1-2</a></em>) - identifying Zacharias with them. The Angels rejoiced that through Christ's birth there was "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men" (<em><a href='B:490 2:14'>Luk 2:14</a></em>), although this will only be fully done in the Kingdom. Simeon spoke of the baby Jesus as "a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel" (<em><a href='B:490 2:32'>Luk 2:32</a></em>), although this will only be fully true after the second coming (<em><a href='B:290 42:6'>Isa 42:6</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:290 49:6'>Isa 49:6</a></em>):&nbsp;The remnant "looked for redemption (to appear) in Jerusalem" (<em><a href='B:490 2:38'>Luk 2:38</a></em>);&nbsp;they could only have figured this out from realizing that the Old Testament 'kingdom' prophecies concerning Jerusalem, which we normally associate with the second coming, had a primary fulfilment in the birth of Christ.</p><p>John the Baptist commented that he preached repentance and baptized in Israel, <em>so that</em> the Messiah might be manifest to Israel (<em><a href='B:500 1:31'>Joh 1:31</a></em>). His work was a pattern for the Elijah ministry of the last days. It could be argued that Messiah was only manifest in the first century because of the success of John's work- for large numbers were baptized of him. Could it be that the timing of the final revelation of Messiah likewise depends upon the success of the Elijah ministry in leading Israel to repentance? And what implications are there in this, if actually <em>we</em> are the voice of that ministry...</p><p>We can now scan the record for more detailed latter-day typology:-</p><p>-&nbsp; The remnant were in or around Jerusalem - as it seems the latter-day faithful will also be:&nbsp;&nbsp; They looked for Messiah to appear in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 2:38'>Luk 2:38</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; If latter-day Jewry are persecuted to the extent that the only Jews left alive in the land are in Jerusalem (see previous studies, especially Chapter 8), then they, too, will expect Messiah to come to them in that same city. Note that the woman whose intense pleadings represent the prayers of the latter day remnant (<em><a href='B:490 18:2-8'>Luk 18:2-8</a></em>) "was in a city" - Jerusalem? </p><p>-&nbsp; They eagerly looked for the Lord's birth as a fulfilment of the Abrahamic promises, that through his seed "we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve (God) without fear" (<em><a href='B:490 1:74'>Luk 1:74</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; Likewise the latter-day remnant will meditate how the Abrahamic promises concerning freedom from their (Arab) enemies are so relevant to them - perhaps due to the Elijah ministry turning their hearts to the Jewish "fathers", a phrase often used about the patriarchs who received the promises (<em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>).</p><p>-&nbsp; Israel in the first century were under the domination of Rome, the fourth beast of <em><a href='B:340 7:23'>Dan 7:23</a></em>:&nbsp;&nbsp; In the latter-day application of this, necessitated by the image upon which the beasts are based standing complete in the last days, the fourth beast with its horns corresponds to the Arab coalition which will then dominate Israel.</p><p>-&nbsp; Some of the remnant had the Spirit gift of prophecy (<em><a href='B:490 1:41'>Luk 1:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:67'>Luk 1:67</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:26'>Luk 2:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:36'>Luk 2:36</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; The latter-day remnant may also experience this - their old men (cp. Zacharias and Simeon) and young people (cp. Mary), may have the gift of prophecy around the time of the Lord's return - "before the great and terrible day of the Lord come" (<em><a href='B:360 2:28-31'>Joe 2:28-31</a></em>).</p><p>-&nbsp; The shepherds watching at night while the Lord was born (<em><a href='B:490 2:8'>Luk 2:8</a></em>) echoes the Passover:&nbsp;&nbsp; There is good reason to think that the second coming may be associated with Passover time:&nbsp;&nbsp; The vision of Angels which they saw may correspond to the remnant in Jerusalem seeing a literal "sign of the (coming of the) son of man in (literal) heaven" (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>), composed of the Angel-cherubim:&nbsp;&nbsp; This "sign of the son of man in heaven" must be alluding back to the literal portent which the shepherds saw in the sky, pointing to the Lord's first coming. Thus there will be no need to say "See here; or see there", because the Lord's return will be so evidently public (<em><a href='B:490 17:23'>Luk 17:23</a></em>). </p><p>-&nbsp; Zacharias and Elisabeth "were both righteous before God" (<em><a href='B:490 1:6'>Luk 1:6</a></em>) amidst a corrupt Jewish world that refused to prepare itself for God's manifestation in Christ, despite the availability to them of God's Word, which clearly prophesied it:&nbsp;&nbsp; This recalls the description of Noah as being "righteous before God" (<em><a href='B:10 7:1'>Gen 7:1</a></em>) in the context of the flood coming upon the world:&nbsp;&nbsp; We have earlier shown this to be full of reference to the last days.</p><p>-&nbsp; There is a triple emphasis on Israel praying to God in the lead up to Christ's birth (<em><a href='B:490 1:10'>Luk 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:13'>Luk 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:37'>Luk 2:37</a></em>):&nbsp;We know from <em><a href='B:360 2:17'>Joe 2:17</a></em> and many other passages that the remnant will likewise devote themselves to prayer in the last days, as will spiritual Israel.</p><p>-&nbsp; The appearance of Angels before Christ's birth (<em><a href='B:490 1:12'>Luk 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:26'>Luk 1:26</a></em>) is similar to their visiting Israel under persecution during the times of the Judges, bringing the news of deliverance from their Arab enemies through a 'saviour' ('Jesus').</p><p>-&nbsp; The conception of John (the Elijah prophet of the first century) preceded that of Christ - he was Christ's forerunner - there is therefore a necessity for this type to be fulfilled in the literal coming of the latter-day Elijah as a prelude to Christ's manifestation to Israel.</p><p>-&nbsp; The "joy and gladness" (<em><a href='B:490 1:14'>Luk 1:14</a></em>) of the remnant at Christ's birth will be but a dim foretaste of the ecstasy which the embattled remnant of the last days will experience at their Lord's return.</p>


text:
<p><em>To shine upon them that sit in darkness and the shadow of death; to guide our feet into the way of peace</em>-</p><p> Without Messiah, Israel under the law were in darkness and under the shadow of death. This would have been hard for proud Judaism to swallow. The allusion is clearly to the Messianic prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 9:2'>Isa 9:2</a></em>, but sitting in "the shadow of death" means to live in the prospect of imminent death. And that is in fact where all humanity are situated- if only they would perceive it. For we are all terminally ill, on borrowed time, with an urgency to get out from under that shadow. The result of the Messianic sun would be to guide feet into the way of peace with God, living before Him without fear of death and condemnation because they are assured of their salvation in Him (see on :74,77). It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps into that way of peace; it is the Lord's work to guide human feet into that way. That guidance is by His Spirit, by grace:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the desert until the day he appeared publicly to Israel</em>-</p><p> The reference to "spirit" could be to the work of the Spirit, active in the formation of his character from his mother's womb (:15). God's Spirit and John's spirit are clearly connected here; and this is how the Holy Spirit works in our spirit / lives too, through a collaboration, a conspiracy of the willing. Presumably at some point in his youth, John left his parents, or perhaps they died, and went to live "in the desert". He may have encountered the Essenes there, or even lived with them, for there are undoubted points of contact and allusion between his teaching and theirs. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered</em>-</p><p> Clearly the term "all the world" doesn't refer to the globe. Many errors of exposition have arisen from failing to perceive that such global language is not to be taken literally, but is relative to the context in which it is used. Perhaps we are to see in the Lord's birth the reckoning of all the world. </p>


text:
<p><em>This census first took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria</em>-</p><p> Maybe Mary grasped the relevance of <em><a href='B:230 87:6'>Psa 87:6</a></em> LXX to the fact she gave birth to Messiah during a census: “In the census of the peoples, this one [Messiah] will be born there”. The relevance of this verse to the Lord’s birth may explain why Luke says that the census of Quirinius was part of a census of the whole world, which wasn’t strictly true. But as all historians do, he presents the facts within the framework of his wider intentions and themes.</p>


text:
<p><em>And all went to register themselves, everyone to his own city</em>-</p><p> As noted on :1, we have global language used here, within the framework of the general thematic impression which the inspired historian wishes to give (see on :2). Not "everyone" in the Roman empire, let alone a poor backwater like Palestine, would have gone to their birth place to be registered. It is also unclear why everyone had to physically go to their birth place for registration. Surely the tax registration census was of people where they were then living and working. Old people and children were surely not required to journey to their birth place just to be counted. But the impression is given that everyone went to their birth place, and then the Lord was born. There is no such thing as pure, factual history. Every record of events reflects the agenda of the historian; and this is true of the inspired historian Luke. The idea is that everyone has a birth place; and so did the Lord Jesus. His humanity is thereby emphasized. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Joseph also went from Galilee out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house and family of David)</em>-</p><p> As noted on :3, it is unlikely that everyone literally went to their birth place for this tax registration. Perhaps Joseph had enough income to require this; although there is every indication of poverty in the family. Perhaps he wished to be carefully obedient to every human law as far as he could; and this meant that Mary went with him and therefore gave birth in Bethlehem, David's city. </p>


text:
<p><em>To enroll himself with Mary, who was engaged to him, being great with child</em>-</p><p> It could be that this is recorded as a fulfilment of how <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em> had predicted that Jesus would be “numbered with the transgressors”. He was numbered amongst humanity, and was born where both Mary and Joseph were, in Bethlehem. "With Mary" could suggest that she too had been born there; otherwise we are left to assume that only the males had to register, and so Mary tagged along with him. If indeed Mary had also been born in Bethlehem, as is here implied, then this would reinforce the idea that the Lord was truly David's seed, and should have been the legitimate king of Israel by descent.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, while they were there, the time came that she should give birth</em>-</p><p> "While they were there" heightens the connection with the fact the Lord was born in Bethlehem, the birth place of His mother and adoptive father (see on :5). The time which came was that precise moment so carefully prepared and calculated by the Father; <em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em> surely alludes here in saying that "when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman". </p>


text:
<p><em>And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:300 14:8'>Jer 14:8</a></em> was addressed to the Lord and Saviour of Israel, Jesus-Messiah: “Why are you like an alien in the land, like a traveller who stays in <em>lodgings</em>?”. If Mary had made all these connections, the hurt of being told there was no room in the lodging, and having to give birth in a stable, laying her dear child in a cattle manger… would have been far less felt by her. These things would have thrilled and rejoiced her heart rather than hurt her, just as we can joyfully perceive how present sufferings are working out so analogous to a Biblical verse or character:&nbsp;</p><p>The whimpering, vulnerable <em>Son of God</em> was laid down in a cattle stall (Luke, the doctor who appreciated the need for hygiene, so emphasizes this: <em><a href='B:490 2:7'>Luk 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:12'>Luk 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:16'>Luk 2:16</a></em>), because the other guests in that cheap hotel couldn't make space for a heavily pregnant woman (again, Luke the doctor would've sensed the shame of it):&nbsp;<em>"</em>No room for them in the inn<em>" </em>can also be translated "The inn was not the place for them" (Lucien Deiss, <em>Joseph, Mary, Jesus</em> (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996) p. 28). It had to be this way- the way of rejection, of poverty. God's children ultimately know no other way in this world. Did Mary see the link between her giving birth in a stable and laying Jesus down in a “manger” (Gk. <em>phatne</em>), perhaps with oxen and donkeys onlooking, and <em><a href='B:290 1:3'>Isa 1:3</a></em> LXX: “The ox knows its owner, and the donkey knows the <em>phatne</em> (“manger’) of its Lord (<em>kyrios</em> as in <em><a href='B:490 2:11'>Luk 2:11</a></em>), but Israel has not known me”.</p><p>The serene paintings of the scene do no justice to it. The whole setting would have been dirty, noisy and inappropriate for a birth place. The Lord was born into rejection, poverty and desperation; with Mary in a strange place, far from home and her relatives, having her first child so humanly alone. And the Father continues His same style of working to this day, through the things which man despises.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there were shepherds in the same region staying in the field and keeping watch at night over their flock</em>-</p><p> It has been observed that the choice to reveal the good news of Christ to the shepherds first of all was surprising; for these too were the poorest of the poor, deprived [along with tax collectors] of Jewish rights. They belonged to the "most despised" of all social groups. See Joachim Jeremias, <em>Jerusalem In The Time Of Jesus </em>(London: S:C:M:, 1969) p. 304; Richard Horsley, <em>The Liberation Of Christmas: The Infancy Narratives In Social Context</em> (New York: Crossroad, 1989) pp. 102-106. </p><p>The fact they were in the fields with their flocks shows clearly enough that the Lord's birth was not in December- for then the flocks would have been kept under cover and not in the fields.</p>


text:
<p><em>And an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them; and they were terrified</em>-</p><p> As noted on :8, shepherds were at the bottom of the social ladder; and there is a purposeful juxtaposition between them and the glory of God which shone about them. The picture is of them identified with the Angel which stood with them, so that the impression was given to an observer of a halo of glory shining about the despised shepherds. God's glory was identified with weak men, at the very bottom end of the social ladder; just as His Son was born in a stable amongst animals, and laid in a manger- the birth style of the lowest of the low:&nbsp; </p><p><em>But he that denies me- </em>The whole purpose of the true church is to be a light to the world- “the only cooperative society in the world that exists for the benefit of its non-members”, as William Temple put it. The Lord will tell some in the last day that He never knew them, He will deny them; and yet He will deny those who never confessed Him before men (<em><a href='B:470 8:23'>Mat 8:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:32-33'>Mat 10:32-33</a></em>). These people will have prophesied in His Name [i:e. preached to the ecclesia], and done “mighty works” for Him; but the fact they didn’t confess Him before men is seen as not knowing Him; for to know Him is to perceive that we are intended to confess Him before men. This, perhaps, is our greatest danger. The presence and witness of God is no longer in a tent in the Sinai, nor in a Jerusalem temple. God reveals Himself through the group of ordinary, mixed up folks who comprise the ecclesias. For the watching world, we present proof that Christ is indeed alive; we provide the visible shape of what God and Jesus are really like. This is how vital is the matter of witness. It is utterly fundamental to the whole purpose behind our having been called. If we deny Christ, we deny that Jesus is the Christ (<em><a href='B:690 2:22'>1Jn 2:22</a></em>); and yet we deny Christ if we don’t preach Him (<em><a href='B:470 10:33'>Mat 10:33</a></em>). It follows that if we really believe that Jesus was not just Jesus of Nazareth but the Christ of God, therefore we won’t deny Him but will preach Him. This is why there is connection between confessing Jesus as Christ and preaching Him (<em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:5'>Act 18:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:11'>Phi 2:11</a></em>). A grasp of who the Lord Jesus really is and the height of His present exaltation will naturally result in a confession of Him to the world, as well as a deep personal obedience to His word and will (<em><a href='B:650 2:1'>Heb 2:1</a></em>).</p><p>There are at least three Biblical examples of people denying Jesus- the same Greek word is used- and yet repenting. Peter denied the Lord “before all” (<em><a href='B:470 26:70'>Mat 26:70</a></em>), and yet was restored. The entire crowd around Jesus, including the healed woman, initially ‘denied’ they had touched Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 8:45'>Luk 8:45</a></em>); but the woman then came out into the open and confessed Christ before all. The Jews ‘denied’ Christ (<em><a href='B:510 3:13-14'>Act 3:13-14</a></em>) but then repented and were baptized publicly. The point is, that in the moments when we deny Him, He denies us; but we can change the situation.</p><p>It’s tempting to wonder whether all this talk of confession and denial is only really relevant to those standing trial for their Christian faith, with the threat of death before them and the possibility of saving their life if they make some symbolic denial of Christ. But the words for confessing and denying occur together in <em><a href='B:630 1:16'>Tit 1:16</a></em> about those within the ecclesia who “Profess [s:w. ‘confess’] that they know God, but in works<em> deny</em>&nbsp;Him”. We can make the profession of faith before men, and in the public confession of baptism- whilst effectively denying the faith in our lives. There were some within the ecclesias of the first century who ‘denied’ the Lord (<em><a href='B:680 2:1'>2Pe 2:1</a></em>). External membership can appear as ‘confession’, but the point is that it isn’t necessarily. It can actually be a front for denial of Him…</p><p><em>In the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus in the last day will confess, or witness to in a legal sense, for His people "before the angels of God" (<em><a href='B:490 12:8-9'>Luk 12:8-9</a></em>); and yet He uses the same language to describe how right now, He confesses us in Heaven in the presence of His Father (<em><a href='B:470 10:32'>Mat 10:32</a></em>). Thus when we witness- or don't witness- to our relationship with Him, the Lord Jesus either confesses or denies knowledge of us before His Father. Right now. And this, therefore, is a foretaste of the final judgment. And we face these foretastes day by day in human life, as we encounter the choices of confessing or denying our Lord.</p><p>There is a direct correlation between our attitudes to witnessing before men now, and the attitude of the Lord Jesus about us in Heaven “before”, or ‘before the face of’, the Father. Witnessing is essentially personal, each of us individually “before men”. As modern life progresses in reducing relationships to online abstractions, we must remember this. An individual may press the right keys on their keyboard, send money online to a preaching organization- and yet never be making any witness about Christ before the faces of men. Indeed, those with whom the person does have face to face relationships may well be totally unaware he is a Christian. It’s this kind of thing which the Lord is addressing in such demanding terms- our witness&nbsp;<em>before men</em>, not in some anonymous world of avatars, is related to how we witnesses about us&nbsp;<em>before the face of God in Heaven</em>:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>So whoever denies the Lord before men will be denied before the Angels. Two words are used here, the first weaker than the second. If we deny Jesus, He will utterly deny us before the Angels- what we do now on earth is even more strongly reflected in Heaven and at judgment day. The Heavenly response to our words and actions is out of proportion to our words. This surely inspires us in our daily words and decisions.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the angel said to them: Be not afraid. For I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people</em>-</p><p> Their fear was because of their own sense of unworthiness in the presence of the Lord's glory. But Luke has already begun the theme that the grace to be revealed in the Lord Jesus takes away our fear and sense of unworthiness (see on <em><a href='B:490 1:74'>Luk 1:74</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>). And it continues with this assurance to the shepherds, that the good tidings of the Gospel are that "all people" [implying the Gentiles too] could serve God without fear. It is this which is the greatest joy, and which is good news indeed; that we need not fear God's condemnation because we are identified with His Son. Anything less than this would make the "Gospel" not so much good news, but rather just a worrying and burdensome weight of responsibility before God.</p>


text:
<p><em>For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord</em>-</p><p> They were not to "fear" (:10), because a Saviour had been born. The salvation in view was therefore from sin and the fear which arises from it. This was a great theme in the song of Zacharias (see on <em><a href='B:490 1:74'>Luk 1:74</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>). Salvation from the Romans was what everyone wanted, but the spiritual reality was far greater. "Christ the Lord" is an unusual phrase; the idea is that because of this great salvation, Messiah was to become the personal "Lord" and master of those shepherds. The implication is surely that those shepherds, famed for their dishonesty, petty crime and disobedience to the Law, actually came to believe in the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>And this will be a sign to you: You shall find a baby wrapped in birth clothes and lying in a manger</em>-</p><p> The "sign" that this great salvation was for real was in the very absurdity of a Divine saviour being born in the very lowliest of human situations, placed in a manger from where animals ate, born amidst the smell and sound and dirt of animal excrement. The whole thing had the hallmark of the Divine. </p>


text:
<p><em>And suddenly there was with the angel a crowd of the heavenly host praising God, and saying</em>-</p><p> It's important to realize that praise isn't just singing or using musical instruments. In Hebrew the same word means both 'worship' and 'service' (<em>abodah</em>). The supposition that praise = music is deeply ingrained in many minds. Thus there is the common assumption that the Angels sang to the shepherds; but in fact they <em>spoke</em> their praise.</p>


text:
<p><em>Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those in whom He is well pleased</em>-</p><p> The peace in view was peace with God, resulting in a lack of fear ofcondemnation before Him (see on :10,11 and <em><a href='B:490 1:74'>Luk 1:74</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>). This peace with God vertically also has a horizontal dimension. A major result of the existence of the Lord's work was unity amongst God’s people. If we are not at peace amongst ourselves, then God is not well pleased. The One in whom the Father was well pleased was His Son (<em><a href='B:470 3:17'>Mat 3:17</a></em>). Those who are "in Christ" are described therefore with the same language as He is described with. It is by being in Him that we find peace with God, and the grateful recognition and acceptance of this gives glory to Him.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 8:4'>Act 8:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>And it came to pass, when the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to each other: Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us</em>-</p><p> We assume they left their sheep in the field, willing to sacrifice their careers and livelihood for the sake of obedience to the word about the Lord Jesus. The Lord surely had them in mind when He later taught that He was like the shepherd who left His sheep unattended in order to go to the one all important sheep. He reasons as if He identifies with them and they with Him. It could be that these shepherds were keeping flocks which would later be taken to Jerusalem and sold as sacrifices; in which case we wonder about how far they connected Messiah with the Passover lamb. They went to see the thing which they considered "has some to pass"; they absolutely believed the word spoken.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they went with haste, and found Mary and Joseph and the baby lying in the manger</em>-</p><p> The baby was asleep and not feeding; the "sign" had been that they would find the baby in a manger, and this is what happened as they opened the door of the shed. Their response to the word "with haste" fits in with a major Bible theme- that the faithful respond to God's word and the Divine calling immediately and with haste. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they saw it, they told people about the saying which was spoken to them about this child</em>-</p><p> "The saying" was that about "the sign" (:12). It was indeed remarkable; that the Son of God, Israel's Messiah, should be born in the lowest way, in a strange place, to an unmarried teenager, without any human father present, with no money... and the baby was laid down to sleep in a cattle manger in a shed. And this great Messianic secret was revealed not to intellectually rigorous theologians or pious priests, but to a bunch of secular despised shepherds sitting one night on a hillside, interrupted from their lowlife gossip and chatter by a vision of Angels who told them of this great sign. This is absolutely God's way. </p>


text:
<p><em>And all that heard it wondered at the things which were spoken to them by the shepherds</em>-</p><p> As noted in :17, "shepherds" were not the most credible of witnesses, and so people "wondered at" rather than "believed" the message. We notice how at the end of Luke, the chosen witnesses include women, who were not allowed to bear credible legal witness, and men who had just been disgraced by their public disloyalty to the Messiah they testified about. And this is why the likes of you and me have likewise been chosen as witnesses.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Mary treasured up all these sayings, pondering them in her heart</em>-</p><p> When the shepherds came to worship, Mary pondered within herself what it all meant, as if she was now rather lacking in comprehension. Luke describes his Gospel as a compilation of eyewitness accounts. Where did he get the material from about Mary pondering things in her heart [<em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:51'>Luk 2:51</a></em>]? Was it from interviewing her himself? Or was her inward meditation and frozenness evident to others who on this basis told Luke?</p><p>We read that Mary “kept” God’s words in her, yet the Lord in one of His allusions to His dear mother says in <em><a href='B:490 5:38'>Luk 5:38</a></em> that we must preserve or “keep” [s:w:] the new wine of the Gospel in us. The Lord saw His mother as a pattern for us all. When He heard the comment “Blessed are the breasts which you sucked!”, His comment is to draw attention rather to the spiritual side of Mary: “Blessed are they [like My dear mother] who hear the word of God and keep it”. Thus He held her up as an example to them all; she shouldn’t be marvelled at just because of the fact she carried the Son of God (Catholics take note) but rather because of her reflective and tenacious attitude to the word of God. Mary’s song has so many Biblical allusions in it:&nbsp;Mary’s Bible minded-ness was really quite something. The Greek word translated “ponder” (<em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>) comes from syn, “with”, and <em>ballein</em>, “to throw”, as if she combined Scripture with her experience of life, seeking to find her place in the mass of OT allusion and teaching which she was being presented with. Her every phrase has multiple allusions to Scripture, which in itself indicates a fair level of intelligence to think on so many levels simultaneously. </p><p>The descriptions of Mary as keeping things in her heart (<em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>), and the way it seems she didn’t tell Joseph about the Angel’s visit, but instead immediately went down to Elisabeth for three months… all these are indications that Mary, like many sensitive people, was a very closed woman. Only when Mary was “found” pregnant by Joseph (<em><a href='B:470 1:18'>Mat 1:18</a></em> - s:w. to see, perceive, be obvious) was the situation explained to him by an Angel. It seems His move to divorce her was based on his noticing she was pregnant, and she hadn’t given any explanation to him. She “arose” after perhaps being face down on the ground as the Angel spoke with her, and went immediately off to Elisabeth. And then, after three months she returns evidently pregnant (<em><a href='B:490 1:39'>Luk 1:39</a></em>). Mary is portrayed as somehow separate from the other ministering women. It would have been psychologically impossible, or at best very hard, for the mother of the Lord to hang around with them. The group dynamics would have been impossible. Likewise in Act 114 we have “the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus”, as if she is separate from them. She followed Him to Cana, uninvited, and also to Capernaum. Next she is at the cross risking her life, but she isn't among the women who went to the grave. Why not? It was surely natural that she would go there, and that the other women would go with her to comfort her. But she was a loner; either she went alone, as I think I would have tried to, or she just couldn’t face contact with the others and simply hid away. And could it be that Jesus, in recognition of her unique perception of Him, appeared to her first privately, in a rightfully unrecorded meeting? But by <em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>, she was in the upper room, as if His death led her to be more reconciled to her brethren, to seek to get along with them... although by nature, in her heart and soul, she was a loner, maybe almost reclusive. A struggler to understand. A meditator, a reflector, who just wanted to be alone, one of those who take their energy from themselves rather than from other people. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, just as it had been spoken to them</em>-</p><p> Again we see a connection between the beginning and ending of Luke's Gospel; for he concludes with the disciples praising God in the temple. These shepherds are presented as believers, as converts. They rejoiced in the fulfilment of what had been prophetically told them; and likewise the disciples at the end rejoiced when they perceived how the Old Testament prophetic word had been so accurately fulfilled in the things that happened to the Lord. The "things heard and seen", the "things" preached by the shepherds (:18), the "thing" told by the Angels (:15), all clearly look forward to the "things" concerning the Kingdom and name of Jesus which Luke later says were the basis of the apostolic preaching (<em><a href='B:510 8:5'>Act 8:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>). The shepherds are being set up as examples of preachers, telling forth the "things" of the Gospel which they had personally experienced- even when they appeared so strange to secular ears, and were testified by those apparently least qualified to be witnesses.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after eight days, when he was circumcised, his name was called Jesus, which name was given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb</em>-</p><p> The obedient naming of John as John rather than Zacharias no doubt encouraged Mary to be likewise obedient. For her son too had been given a name by an Angel before His birth. Our acts of obedience are likewise encouraged by our fellowship with other believers in similar situations who have likewise been obedient and responsive to God's word. We note the chronology; Mary's conception came<em> after</em> the Angel appeared to her. Presumably the conception only began after she had demonstrated her belief and desire to partner with God in this profound plan:&nbsp; <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p><em>And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord</em>-</p><p> There was no Mosaic requirement to take a newborn child to Jerusalem, but despite their poverty, Mary and Joseph clearly tried to do the most they could for the Lord Jesus. Joseph's willing cooperation in all this is to be noted; for it was after all not his child. We can only conclude that he accepted the Lord's virgin birth and willingly went along with it- at least at that time. The Lord was perfect, without any barrier between Himself and the Father; "holy, harmless and separate from sinners" (<em><a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a></em>). The purification ritual was not therefore to remove any sin from Him; it is no sin to be human, to be alive, and this must affect our view of what 'human nature' really Is. For all we posit about it we posit about the Lord Jesus, who fully had our nature. The Greek translated "purification" here means literally a washing, and is used many times of how the Lord cleansed lepers and also sinners from their sins. The Lord did so knowing that He Himself had been likewise cleansed.</p>


text:
<p><em>(As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord)</em>-</p><p> Again we note the medical language of the day; for the womb is not literally opened by the birth of a firstborn child. The quotation from <em><a href='B:20 13:2'>Exo 13:2</a></em> concerns how the dedication of the firstborn was to be a reminder of how the slain lamb had saved the firstborn from death at the time of the exodus. The dedication of the firstborn was therefore to effectively say: 'This child ought to have died. It will not die, but will be dedicated to the Lord as a living death, a life lived out for Him and not for self'. And the Lord was therefore the supreme firstborn, to the point that "the firstborn" is a title for Him (<em><a href='B:580 1:18'>Col 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord: A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons</em>-</p><p> This was the sacrifice for the poor who could not afford an animal; and we have here a picture of their poverty. It was therefore all the more sacrificial for them to have made the journey to Jerusalem for this dedication, when this was not actually required&nbsp; by the Mosaic law. We must carefully note that the Mosaic legislation in <em><a href='B:30 12:8'>Lev 12:8</a></em> stated that the two birds were for the mother; there is no hint that they were a sacrifice for the cleansing of the human nature of the child born. They were for a sin offering and for a burnt offering. It could be fairly argued that they were not in fact necessary in the Lord's case, but Mary made the offering anyway and thereby the Lord's connection with sinful humanity was emphasized. It was for the same reason that He was baptized by John in a baptism which was "for the remission of sins"; not because He was a sinner, but to portray His unity with sinful humanity. They actually offered the birds, whereas Edersheim claims that at the time, the poor usually just dropped the coins which were the price of two birds into the temple coffers, and it was accepted as if the sacrifice had been offered. But Mary insisted on actually offering the birds. When the Lord paid such special attention to the widow woman casting two small coins into the same collection trumpets, He may well have thought of His mother doing the same at His birth, a coin for each of the two birds. Such restimulation is a profound window onto the total nature of His humanity.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel. And the Holy Spirit was upon him</em>-</p><p> Simeon waited for "the consolation (comfort) of Israel", referring to the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 40:1-2'>Isa 40:1-2</a></em> - and saw it have a fulfilment in the first coming of the Lord. "Simeon", the hearing one or 'the one who was heard', had heard God's word and looked for its fulfilment; and perhaps the idea is also that he had prayed for Messiah's coming, and had been heard. Therefore he was assured that his prayers would be heard, and he would see the Messiah. The consolation of Israel is therefore paralleled with Messiah personally (:26), just as "the hope of Israel" refers to the One for whom Israel hoped, Jesus the Messiah. We should not over emphasize the material aspect of the Gospel; the implicit hope of eternityin God's Kingdom on earth is in fact secondary to the things about the Lord Jesus. He personally is the hope and consolation of Israel. This tendency is very human, and a reflection of our own deep reservations- to focus upon the material [the things of the material Kingdom on earth] rather than on upon a person, the Lord Jesus, with all the issues involved in a living relationship with that person. Israel at the Lord's time likewise had the emphasis misplaced- upon the material issues of freedom from the Romans, rather than upon the wonder of their King and Messiah coming to save them from their sins through self-sacrifice. The comfort / consolation which we need above all is the comfort that our sins shall not stand between God and us. The Lord refers to Himself as the comforter in John 14-16, promising that the gift of His spirit would mean that His comforting presence remained with His people even after His physical departure.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ</em>-</p><p> The Spirit being "upon" Simeon (:25) did not make him infallible; but there had been a special revelation to him that his prayers for the coming of Israel's consolation, the Messiah, would be heard. And "Simeon" means just that, 'hearing', in the context of prayer being heard. Therefore he was comforted that he would live to see the Messiah.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law</em>-</p><p> Mary did not legally have to bring the Lord to the temple; she was poor, as reflected in her inability to offer a lamb but rather two cheap birds. It was a Divinely overruled coincidence that she happened to be in the temple courts at just the time that Simeon entered; Anna likewise (see on :38). This kind of coincidence is simply called being "in the Spirit", and the Spirit is no less active in our encounters and coincidences today. "The parents" is obviously an example of the Biblical record being written from the viewpoint of secular observers; the language of demons is similar. Joseph was not the actual parent, just as demons don't actually exist, but the language of human perception is still used. For language is in a sense a matter of human perception. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then he took him into his arms and blessed God, and said</em>-</p><p> It was of "the Spirit" (see on :27) that Simeon recognized that this particular baby, held in the arms of a poor couple offering the poor person's sacrifice, without the fanfare which attended the dedication of babies from more wealthy families, was in fact the Messiah. And in this again we see how God operates, through the lowly and unnoticed by the world:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Lord, now let Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word</em>-</p><p> "Peace" usually refers to peace with God; we noted on the song of Zacharias that the Lord's birth was understood by the faithful as being essentially about the good news of peace with God through His work and death. Simeon felt he could die at peace with God because of Messiah; he clearly understood that He would atone for his sins. </p><p>This is all the language of Jacob being content to die after seeing Joseph. Joseph is simply one of the clearest types of Christ. There are many echoes of Christ which seem to have no specific purpose apart from to confirm us in our enthusiasm to constantly see the spirit of Christ in this record (e.g. <em><a href='B:10 46:30'>Gen 46:30</a></em> LXX = <em><a href='B:490 2:29-30'>Luk 2:29-30</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>For my eyes have seen Your salvation</em>-</p><p> 'Jesus', Yehoshua, is literally 'the salvation of Yah'. The 'seeing' of salvation alludes to how Israel were redeemed from Egypt through the slain lamb (<em><a href='B:20 14:13'>Exo 14:13</a></em>); Simeon understood this to be representative of Messiah's victory against sin and all Israel's enemies. It is the fulfilment of the "mercy and truth" of the promises to the fathers which enables God's salvation to be seen by all the world (<em><a href='B:230 98:3'>Psa 98:3</a></em>). Simeon's desire for the coming of Messiah was therefore rooted in a deep appreciation of the huge spiritual significance of His work and sacrifice, and not from any passing nationalistic desire to see Israel justified. He surely had <em><a href='B:230 98:3'>Psa 98:3</a></em> in mind, for he goes on to speak in :31 of how all the peoples of the world would 'see' what he was now seeing; he realized that he was typical of all who would later come to 'see' the Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>Which You have prepared before the presence of all peoples</em>-</p><p> As noted on :30, Simeon has in mind <em><a href='B:230 98:3'>Psa 98:3</a></em>, understanding himself as representative of all those worldwide in future ages who would 'see' God's salvation, His 'Jesus'. The translation here is difficult, and the idea is probably that he understood that this child was being prepared for exhibition in the presence of all the Gentile peoples; they in their time would see what he was now seeing. This idea is confirmed in :32.</p>


text:
<p><em>A light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel</em>-</p><p> The light of Messiah was to be what Israel gloried in, and they were to share that light to the Gentiles. Here we have another reference to the great commission; the glorious light of Israel was to be revealed by them to the world. Simeon had in mind <em><a href='B:290 60:1-3'>Isa 60:1-3</a></em>, where Israel were to arise and shine just as their Messiah would. As the Lord said, "you are the light of the world", just as He personally was the light of the world. And because of that, the Gentiles would come to that light in Zion, just as Simeon had come into the temple and see the light. He is presented as representative of all future believers, and he himself perceived this.</p>


text:
<p><em>And his father and his mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning him</em>-</p><p> There must have been certain similarities of personality type between the Lord and His mother. Thus in <em><a href='B:490 2:33'>Luk 2:33</a></em> Mary “marvelled”, and the same word is used about Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 6:6'>Mar 6:6</a></em>. Again we have here an essay in His humanity. And there is another echo of the Joseph story. "The men marvelled" at Joseph’s discernment. Ditto for the Lord Jesus- it is emphasized (<em><a href='B:470 8:27'>Mat 8:27</a></em>; Mat 98; <em><a href='B:470 9:33'>Mat 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:20'>Mat 21:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:22'>Mat 22:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:14'>Mat 27:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:33'>Luk 2:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:27'>Joh 4:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:15'>Joh 7:15</a></em>). Mary had perceived that her son was God's Son, the Messiah; but clearly the extent of the prophetic implications of this were not fully perceived by her. Hence she marvelled at the Biblical allusions made by Simeon.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother-</em></p><p>Addressing himself to the mother rather than the father is another of Luke's emphases upon the high status of women before God. Simeon surely perceived that this was a virgin birth, and Joseph was not the true father- hence he addressed Mary.</p><p><em>Behold, this child is set for the falling and the rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against</em>-</p><p> Simeon knew that the good news of Messiah's coming was to balanced against the fact that the Old Testament taught that He would be the rock of offence over which many would stumble and be broken (<em><a href='B:290 8:14'>Isa 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a></em>). But he knew that many would rise up broken from that encounter into new life, and the "rising again" also therefore has reference to resurrection at the last day. He would be "spoken against", and yet out of that experience of rejecting Him, some would repent and rise again. Indeed, in <em><a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a></em> Peter seems to assume that all believers will go through this- stumbling in spiritual failure, and yet rising again to new life in Him. Luke will go on in <em><a href='B:490 20:18'>Luk 20:18</a></em> to record the Lord developing this logic- He is a stone, and we either fall upon Him and join the community of the broken, or He shall fall upon us as members of this world, and grind us to powder in condemnation- clearly alluding to the stone of Daniel 2. Luke in Acts likes to use this idea of 'speaking against' for the opposition towards the message of the Lord Jesus and those "in Him", who were likewise spoken against; for all that is true of the Lord personally becomes true for we who are in Him (<em><a href='B:510 13:45'>Act 13:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:19'>Act 28:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:22'>Act 28:22</a></em>). We see in all this how the Lord works through our stumbling; there is hardly a strong believer I know who has not at some time seriously stumbled in their walk.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yes, and a sword shall pierce through your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed</em>-</p><p>Mary’s lack of perception caused her great pain. The way the Lord refers to her as “Woman” both in Cana was, apparently, an unusually cold way for a man to refer to his mother. He effectively rebuffed her in Cana for her lack of perception; He responds to the woman who tells Him how blessed His mother is by saying that all who hear the word of God and keep it are equally blessed. And when His mother wants to speak to Him, He says in front of the whole crowd that His mothers are all who do God’s will. And the final pain must have been at the cross, where in His dying words He tells her that she is no longer His mother, but she must now be the mother of John. Simeon’s prophecy that a sword would pierce her soul (<em><a href='B:490 2:35'>Luk 2:35</a></em> - the Syriac text has ‘a spear’) may refer to her feelings on beholding the literal piercing of her son’s side- remembering that He was pierced with “the <em>staff</em> of a spear” (<em><a href='B:100 23:7'>2Sa 23:7</a></em>), it went in so deep. The fact water as well as blood came out is further evidence that the spear penetrated deeply. Yet there is an allusion surely to <em><a href='B:290 49:1-2'>Isa 49:1-2</a></em>, where Messiah’s mouth is likened to a sharp, piercing sword. Note how the passage has reference to Mary: “The Lord has called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother has he made mention of my name. And he has made my mouth like a sharp sword”. Could it not be that Simeon foresaw how the Lord’s words would pierce Mary to the quick? For in all the incidents above, she must have thought with a lump in her throat: ‘But come on Jesus… I’m your <em>mum</em>… the one who knitted and mended your clothes as a child… how can you speak to me like that…?’. And as a sensitive, reflective soul she would have reflected and hurt deeply at these words. &nbsp;</p><p>The sword / spear that pierced the Lord pierced her heart, “that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed”. The cross is therefore the ultimate source of self-examination. The Greek for “thoughts” means “inmost thoughts”, and all 13 uses of <em>dialogismos</em> in the NT are negative- bad thoughts, vain thoughts, doubting thoughts. The five other references in Luke are all very pointedly like this (<em><a href='B:490 5:22'>Luk 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:8'>Luk 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:46-47'>Luk 9:46-47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:38'>Luk 24:38</a></em>). We all find self-understanding and self-examination difficult; and we find it hard to feel our sinfulness as we should. Yet the crossis the ultimate stimulus to self-examination, to conviction of sin, and then of salvation and the reality of grace and God’s love. This same process happened for Mary “also”. Over the years she had perhaps lost something of her initial humility, feeling that her exalted place in God’s plan was due to some personal righteousness, and therefore the cross experience had to pierce her too, so that she too had the inmost thoughts of her heart revealed to herself. We have shown earlier how Mary so identified herself with her dearest Son that she felt in some way part of Messiah. Yet over the years of repetitive domestic life in Nazareth, the height of the call to be “in Christ”, really part of Him and His work, must have been ground away. Yet at the cross, her soul was as it were pierced with the same sword / spear that pierced her Son. <em><a href='B:230 22:20'>Psa 22:20</a></em> prophesied how the Lord would suffer “the sword” on the cross, and 2 Samuel 24 had spoken of Him being filled with a spear. “A sword shall pierce through your own soul <em>also</em>” meant that as Mary was part of Jesus, so she must also share in His sufferings too. The proud and happy mother as she stood before Simeon was so thrilled to be as it were “In Christ”, connected with Messiah. But she had to be reminded that to share in His life is to share in His death- and it was only the actual experience of the cross which brought this home to her. And so with us, brethren in Christ, and rightfully proud of the high calling and association with Him which we have… there is a darker side to our being in Christ. It involves sharing in His death, that we might share in His life. Mary’s achievement of this is perhaps reflected in the way the mother of the man child [Jesus] in Revelation 12 is persecuted after the pattern of her Son Jesus, and yet survives:&nbsp;</p><p>As Simeon held the baby Jesus in his arms, he saw in that beautiful little boy something terrible; for he looked ahead to how His soul would one day be pierced in crucifixion, “that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed". The same word is used for how thoughts will be revealed at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 10:26'>Mat 10:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). In the piercing of the Son of God, the thoughts of hearts would be revealed. But the question arises: revealed to whom? We may (rightly) assume: to ourselves. But Luke’s Gospel emphasizes the ability of the Lord Jesus to know human hearts (<em><a href='B:490 5:22'>Luk 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:8'>Luk 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:2'>Luk 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:6'>Luk 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:47'>Luk 9:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:38'>Luk 24:38</a></em>). Could it not be that the cross is used by the Father and Son to know the minds of men? They see in our response to it the real you and the real me. See on <em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>.</p><p>The cross leads to thoughts being <em>revealed</em>; and the judgment process likewise will lead to thoughts being revealed (s:w. in <em><a href='B:470 10:26'>Mat 10:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). The Lord’s death is described as His washing “his garments in wine, and his vesture in the blood of grapes" (<em><a href='B:10 49:11'>Gen 49:11</a></em> RV). Treading out the grapes is a Hebraism for judgment, and yet it is used here and in <em><a href='B:290 63:1-3'>Isa 63:1-3</a></em> regarding the Lord’s treading of the winepress alone in His death. Indeed, the Isaiah passage is clearly applicable to both the crucifixion and the final judgment of the Lord Jesus. The reason being, that in His death was the judgment of this world.</p><p>We should note that as Mary's soul was pierced at the death of her son, so was the Father's. For "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" (<em><a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a></em>) in its context speaks of the Father and not the Son. So in the Son's piercing, the Father and mother were likewise pierced. The Divine-human family were united at that tragic moment.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, having lived with a husband seven years from her virginity</em>-</p><p> </p><p>Hannah’s example not only influenced Mary, but also Anna’s. ‘Anna’ is an unusual first century name; “of the 247 Jewish women in Palestine from the period 330 BCE -&nbsp; 200 CE whose names are known, Anna [in Luke 2] is the only one who bears this name” (Tal Ilan, ‘Notes of the distribution of Jewish women’s names in Palestine’, Journal of Jewish Studies Vol. 40 (1989) pp. 186,193). She therefore named herself this after Hannah, the Hebrew equivalent of Anna; she was inspired by Hannah’s example of waiting and praying in the sanctuary for a child. For Anna, the coming of Messiah was equivalent to having her own child. Her hope for Messiah’s coming was something which she felt personally. We too are awaiting the Lord’s coming- but with anything of her intensity and feeling? She looked for redemption to appear in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 2:25'>Luk 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:38'>Luk 2:38</a></em>), clearly alluding to the LXX of <em><a href='B:290 52:9'>Isa 52:9</a></em>: “The Lord has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem”. She saw the coming of that little baby as the redemption of God’s people; she had the faith to see things yet unseen. The Hebrew for ‘redemption’ can imply ‘with blood’- is it going too far to suggest that she perceived the need for that little baby to grow up and then shed His blood for Israel’s redemption? Her father’s name, Phanuel, is the Hebrew ‘Peniel’,meaning ‘the face of God’. And ‘Hannah’ means ‘God’s grace’. Straight away we see a link to <em><a href='B:40 6:25'>Num 6:25</a></em>: “The Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you”. The connection implies God’s passionate joy at her attitude and existence. Her remaining in the temple was perhaps inspired by passages like <em><a href='B:230 27:4'>Psa 27:4</a></em>, where David spoke of his desire to dwell in the temple all the days of his life in order to see God’s beauty- which she understood in terms of His Son. And especially, <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em>, which speaks of the Lord’s coming to His temple. We must ask ourselves what our Bible study and knowledge actually leads to. A study of Romans 6 may lead to baptism; but all God’s word demands of us an actual and concrete response in the things of real life. She allowed the example of another woman, Hannah, to influence her, perhaps even to the point of changing her name; what of us?</p>


text:
<p><em>And she had been a widow eighty four years. She departed not from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day</em>-</p><p> She "departed not" in the sense that she was regularly present for the morning and evening sacrifices and prayers. She "came up" to the temple to worship (:38) so she was not actually there all the time. Again we have the language of observed experience, as we have with demons. It appeared that she never left the temple, just as small children have the impression that their school teachers live at the school.</p><p>Men like David, Hezekiah and Daniel appreciated that God knew already. In a sense, all that will happen has happened; so prayer is an opening up of ourselves to God, a <em>service</em> ['worshiping'] of God (<em><a href='B:340 6:16'>Dan 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:37'>Luk 2:37</a></em>), for His glory and for our benefit, rather than a means of communicating information to Him. Therefore they opened themselves up to Him, expressing their understanding that He knew the situation, and didn't present a long list of concrete requests to Him. Their relationship with Him went far beyond that kind of surface level. What of ours?</p>


text:
<p><em>And coming up to worship at that very same hour, she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all those that were looking for redemption in Jerusalem</em></p><p>- See on :36. The loyal band of Bible students in the temple expected redemption to appear in Jerusalem, presumably because of the Old Testament prophecies like Joel 2 concerning Christ being manifested in Jerusalem at His second coming and Kingdom. But their first century application of these was not wrong. "At that very same hour" reflects the same kind of Divine coincidence that we noted on :27. No meeting is by chance for those who are led by the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had accomplished all things that were according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city Nazareth</em>-</p><p> Mary “performed [fulfilled] all things according to the law” in her dedication of Jesus. In doing this, she anticipated the spirit of the cross and whole ministry of Jesus, where He performed [s:w. fulfilled] all things of the law- <em><a href='B:490 18:31'>Luk 18:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:30'>Joh 19:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:29'>Act 13:29</a></em>. These passages each use the same three words for all things, law, and fulfilled. She brought the Lord up in the way of the cross; and He continued in that path:&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him</em>-</p><p> "Grace" often refers to the gift of the Spirit. The parallel is with the growth of John the Baptist in <em><a href='B:490 1:80'>Luk 1:80</a></em>, who was strong in the Spirit, and filled with the Spirit from the womb:&nbsp; </p><p>Hebrews always speaks of Him as “perfected”, as a verb (<em><a href='B:650 2:10'>Heb 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:9'>Heb 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:28'>Heb 7:28</a></em>)- never with the adjective ‘perfect’. Apart from being a major problem for Trinitarian views, this simple fact sets Him up as <em>our</em> pattern, whom the Father seeks likewise ‘to perfect’. Yet the path the Lord had to take to achieve this was hard indeed. Not only did it culminate in the cross, but His growth as a young man is described by the word <em>prokoptein</em> (<em><a href='B:490 2:40'>Luk 2:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>), defined by Karl Barth [<em>Church Dogmatics</em> I 2, p. 158] as meaning ‘to extend by blows, as a smith stretches metal by hammering’. Through childhood crises and the turmoil of adolescence, this is what He went through, to lead Him to the final ‘perfection’ of being able to say “I am”:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And his parents went up every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover</em>-</p><p> It was only the enthusiasts who went to Jerusalem every year. The Mosaic command was that every male should appear; but Mary went too. Perhaps she was motivated by the example of her heroine Hannah, who also went up to the tabernacle each year (<em><a href='B:90 1:7'>1Sa 1:7</a></em>). We can conclude that Joseph was indeed a spiritual person, and that Mary supported him in this. For her to go to Jerusalem every year for the first 12 years of marriage indicates that she placed great priorityon it; for she would surely at times have been pregnant, yet she still made the pilgrimage.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to the tradition of the feast</em>-</p><p> There was no legal requirement for this; but they are presented as obedient to Jewish tradition. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had finished the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not</em>-</p><p> "The days" which they "finished" may refer not to Passover but to the traditional dedication of a 12 year old boy. The Lord clearly wanted to remain in Jerusalem, and may well have arranged circumstances so that His parents would not initially notice His absence. He must have felt some need to do His true Father's business in His house at that time; perhaps He felt the need to make a first appeal to the Jewish leadership at that time.</p>


text:
<p><em>Supposing him to be in the company, they went a day's journey; and then they looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances</em>-</p><p> It has been speculated that men and women travelled in different companies, and so Joseph assumed the Lord was with Mary, and vice versa. But we cannot avoid a suspicion of negligence on their part, especially given that He was known by them to be God's Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him</em>-</p><p> The Lord gently rebukes them for not knowing that He would be in the temple; we note that they searched for three days (:46) before thinking to look for Him in the temple. Presumably He had made some comment to them about His need to remain three days in the temple, and they had not perceived His sense at all. This all paves the way for how His clear predictions of His three days disappearance in death were likewise not understood. His followers came seeking Him at that time, but in the wrong way and place. His clearly stated words at this time were not understood, just as His later words about His resurrection would not be.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them and asking them questions</em>-</p><p> The three days were clearly a significant period; see on :45. The Lord presumably slept rough, perhaps on the mount of Olives. By that age He would already have perceived much about His death and how it would all transpire, and wished to familiarize himself with the city where it would all happen. He is often portrayed later as sitting in the midst of His students; here, at 12 years old, the teachers are already His students. His asking of questions may not necessarily mean that He asked them things He didn't know; it could refer to the rabbinic method of teaching by asking rhetorical questions, a style frequently used by the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>And all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:510 2:7'>Act 2:7</a></em>. These men who were so impressed by His intellect and insight would have had amongst them some who 18 years later would have encountered Him again, and become filled with the same envy which perhaps began to well up within them even then. As He posed rhetorical questions to them, so they did to Him; and they were amazed at His answers. Despite this intellectual and spiritual supremacy which the Lord had as Son of God, His neighbours and family considered Him a mere carpenter and were offended when He indirectly claimed to be Messiah. We can deduce that He clearly held Himself back from revealing Himself as radically different from the rest of them. It would have been so frustrating and irritating to be so intellectually and spiritually more developed than others, and yet to say nothing, time and again, and relate with them on their level. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him: Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you</em>-</p><p> "Anxiously searching" is “sorrowing”, using a word elsewhere used about despair and anguish for the loss of life (<em><a href='B:490 16:24-25'>Luk 16:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:38'>Act 20:38</a></em>). She feared He was dead. But where, then, was her faith in the promise that He would have an eternal Kingdom…? The distraction of poverty, the demands of the other children, perhaps an unsupportive partner, self-doubt… all these ground away at her earlier spirituality and faith, just as happens to so many of us after baptism too.</p>&nbsp;<p>“Why have you done this to us?” is a rebuke- as if she implied that Jesus had sinned / done wrong by what He had done? Surely her faith in a sinless Messiah was now put to a brutal test by a domestic upset; just as, in barest essence, ours is too by such things. Yet notice that she frames those words in the LXX language of <em><a href='B:10 3:14'>Gen 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 4:10'>Gen 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 13:11'>1Sa 13:11</a></em>. Those allusions would imply that she felt Jesus had sinned; and yet at the same time as revealing that gross lack of perception, another part of her mind is still back in Scripture. Unlike 12 years previously, she is now using Scripture without correct context; but she has far from totally lost her spirituality. </p><p>Mary and Joseph were “astonished”. She shared Joseph's amazement; and the word is only used of the amazement / incomprehension of the crowds- <em><a href='B:470 7:28'>Mat 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:54'>Mat 13:54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:25'>Mat 19:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:33'>Mat 22:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:26'>Mar 10:26</a></em>. Slowly she became influenced by the world's view of her son- not totally, but partially, to the extent that she lost that keen perception and height of spiritual ambition which she had earlier had. And so it can be for so many of us; the world comes to influence our view not only of our own children, but of all things in spiritual life. </p><p>Mary scolds Him that his father [Joseph] and her have been seeking for Him. The surrounding world perceived Him as the carpenter’s son (<em><a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a></em>), the son of Joseph (<em><a href='B:500 6:42'>Joh 6:42</a></em>). He was “as was supposed” [‘reckonedlegally’?] the son of Joseph” (<em><a href='B:490 3:23'>Luk 3:23</a></em>). Even Philip perceived Messiah to be “the son of Joseph” even after he had accepted Him (<em><a href='B:500 1:45'>Joh 1:45</a></em>). Hence Jesus gently rebuked her that He was about His true Father’s business, in His true Father’s house. Her description of Joseph as “thy father” is surely worthy of the Lord’s rebuke. She had allowed the views of the world to influence her view of the Lord. “Is not this the son of Mary?” (<em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em>) is paralleled in <em><a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a></em> by “the carpenter's son”, and in <em><a href='B:490 4:22'>Luk 4:22</a></em> Joseph's son; everyone assumed they were His natural parents, the son of Mary & Joseph, and this came to influence her. Jesus told them that they should have sought Him in His true Father’s house- and this may not only be a reference to the temple, but to the way in which they had assumed He was somewhere with the house / family of Joseph in the convoy; and perhaps they had gone round Joseph’s relatives in Jerusalem hunting for Him. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: How is it you searched for me? Did you not know that I would be in my Father's house?</em>-</p><p> I suggested on :45 that the Lord had in fact told them that He was going to be in His Father's house, the temple, for three days. They had misunderstood or ignored His words; just as His followers would do to His later predictions of His three days 'disappearance'. </p><p>There are Biblical examples of refusing to take guilt when others feel that it should be taken. The Lord’s own parents blamed Him for ‘making them anxious’ by ‘irresponsibly’ remaining behind in the temple. The Lord refused to take any guilt, didn’t apologize, and even gently rebuked them (<em><a href='B:490 2:42-51'>Luk 2:42-51</a></em>). In similar vein, Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Even if I made you sorry with a letter, I do not regret it” (<em><a href='B:540 7:8'>2Co 7:8</a></em>). He would not take guilt for their being upset with him. Likewise Absalom comforted his raped sister not to ‘take it to heart’, not to feel guilty about it, as it seems she was feeling that way, taking false guilt upon her (<em><a href='B:100 13:20'>2Sa 13:20</a></em>).</p><p>A window into the Lord's self-perception is given here in the record of His behaviour in the temple at age 12. Within the psychological matrix in which the young Jesus existed, as well as within the cultural norms of first century Palestine, it was rude for a 12 year old to retort to his mother: "Didn't you know I would be about my father's business?". It appears insolent towards Joseph too. But that statement, in the Lord's case, was not a sin, nor a typically precocious childish comment- although it would've been on the lips of any other 12 year old. Instead it reflects an abnormal degree of detachment from His mother and step-father, and a remarkable statement as to how much He was Himself, how mature and strong was His sense of identity as the uniquely begotten Son of God. </p><p>A sense of compulsion was found in the Lord’s whole life of service, leading up to the cross as it did (see on <em><a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a></em>):</p><p>“Wist ye not that <em>I must be</em> about my Father's business?" (<em><a href='B:490 2:49'>Luk 2:49</a></em> AV). “And he said unto them, <em>I must preach </em>the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent" (<em><a href='B:490 4:43'>Luk 4:43</a></em>). “He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. And he <em>must needs </em>go through Samaria" (<em><a href='B:500 4:3-4'>Joh 4:3-4</a></em>). This is significant, as this was not from geographical necessity. The Lord was in the Jordan valley (<em><a href='B:500 3:22'>Joh 3:22</a></em>) and could easily have taken the valley road north through Bethshan into Galilee, avoiding Samaria entirely. “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work" (<em><a href='B:500 9:4'>Joh 9:4</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And they did not understand what he spoke to them</em>-</p><p> He had told them that He would be in His Father's house for three days. But they did not understand. And now they see plainly what has happened, they still do not understand. This is exactly the situation we find at the end of Luke's gospel, where the resurrected Lord [after three days disappearance] is still not understood. </p><p>records that Mary "understood not”, using the same phrase as is on the lips of the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 13:13'>Mat 13:13</a></em>, speaking of those without who " hear not neither do they understand”; and ominously, Mary stood without and asked to see Jesus, only to be told that His real mothers were those women sitting around Him listening to His words. In passing, note how the disciples also often "understood not" (<em><a href='B:470 16:12'>Mat 16:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:52'>Mar 6:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:17'>Mar 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:21'>Mar 8:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:34'>Luk 18:34</a></em>). And yet the Lord counted them as more understanding than they were. As with Mary. She “understood not” (<em><a href='B:490 2:50'>Luk 2:50</a></em>) the clear enough statement that He was in <em>His</em> Father’s house. And the Lord rebuked her for spending so long, three days, looking elsewhere when she should have perceived quicker that He was going to be in the house of His true Father. I take His words not as a sharp rebuff but rather more of grief, that Mary had known him so poorly, sad at her loss of perception. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he left with them and went to Nazareth, and was subject to them; and his mother treasured all these sayings in her heart</em>-</p><p> It could be that she had pondered from the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:11'>Gen 37:11</a></em> how Jacob “observed” (s:w:) the saying of Joseph / Jesus, and therefore felt that she too must meditate on all the words associated with her Son. The Lord at 12 years old displayed such piercing knowledge and spirituality, but it seems He returned to Nazareth and suppressed the expression of it. This is why the villagers were so amazed when He stood up in the Nazareth synagogue and on the basis of Old Testament exposition, indirectly declared Himself the Messiah. He must have stored up so much knowledge and spirituality within Him, but hid it from the eyes of men. This was quite an achievement- to be perfect, and yet not to be noticed as somehow other-worldly. The Lord was “subject unto” Mary- to train Him for the time when we would be subject to Him as we are now (<em><a href='B:530 15:27-28'>1Co 15:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:22'>Eph 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:24'>Eph 5:24</a></em>), and all the world subject unto Him (<em><a href='B:670 3:22'>1Pe 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 2:8'>Heb 2:8</a></em>). And so, wondrous thought that it is, the training of His mother has effect even now; with literally <em>all</em> subject to Him, He was prepared for this by having been subject unto His mother:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:480 6:2'>Mar 6:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Jesus developed both in wisdom and body, and in favour with God and men</em>-</p><p> A Joseph allusion: "The Lord... gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison" (<em><a href='B:10 39:21'>Gen 39:21</a></em>). As noted on :40, Hebrews always speaks of Him as “perfected” or as we have it here in Luke, "developed", as a verb (<em><a href='B:650 2:10'>Heb 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:9'>Heb 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:28'>Heb 7:28</a></em>)- never with the adjective ‘perfect’. Apart from being a major problem for Trinitarian views, this simple fact sets Him up as <em>our</em> pattern, whom the Father seeks likewise ‘to perfect’. Yet the path the Lord had to take to achieve this was hard indeed. Not only did it culminate in the cross, but His growth as a young man is described by the word <em>prokoptein</em> (<em><a href='B:490 2:40'>Luk 2:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>), defined by Karl Barth [<em>Church Dogmatics</em> I 2, p. 158] as meaning ‘to extend by blows, as a smith stretches metal by hammering’. Through childhood crises and the turmoil of adolescence, this is what He went through, to lead Him to the final ‘perfection’ of being able to say “I am”:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene</em>-</p><p> Luke's careful attention to historical detail is understandable if his Gospel was partly written for use in Paul's defence whilst imprisoned in Caesarea and / or Rome. And the material is also used specifically to seek to convert Theophilus.</p>


text:
<p><em>In the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness</em>-</p><p> John came preaching the word (<em><a href='B:470 3:1'>Mat 3:1</a></em>); and the word came to John. All witness and evangelism is a reflection of an ongoing mutual relationship between God and the preacher, mediated through His word. John's message of repentance (:3) was taken from the word of God in the Old Testament; and so the word of God which came to him was perhaps the command to begin his ministry. He had been in the wilderness from a young man, awaiting the call to begin his ministry. We have here another example of a man experiencing a period in the wilderness before starting his ministry; Moses, Paul and the Lord Jesus are other examples. And in essence the same is often the pattern in human life today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he came into all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins</em>-</p><p> Presumably this connects with <em><a href='B:470 2:23'>Mat 2:23</a></em>, meaning that whilst the Lord was still living in Nazareth, John began preaching. One wonders whether John maybe began his ministry up to three and a half years before the baptism of Jesus, seeing his work was typical of the three and a half year Elijah ministry preparing for the&nbsp;<em>second</em>&nbsp;coming of the Lord Jesus:&nbsp;</p><p>The two clauses in this sentence appear to be the wrong way around. We would expect to read that John came preaching baptism, and then baptized people. One way around the problem is to imagine that the second clause ("preaching the baptism...") is as it were in brackets, explaining that the baptism he performed was not Christian baptism but simply a sign of repentance and request for remission of sins. But<a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a> makes it explicit that his baptism <em>preceded</em> the call for repentance. "Baptize... unto repentance" alludes to the Isaiah 40 passage which offered forgiveness in order to provoke repentance. John baptized in order to lead people to repentance, rather than baptizing only those who had repented and got their lives in order. Even the NET Bible's "baptize... for repentance" could be read the same way- baptism was for the end of provoking repentance, rather than being baptism only for the visibly repentant. This likelihood is strengthened once we realize that there is surely an allusion here to <em>Wis_11:23</em>: "You overlook the sins of men, unto repentance". Repentance in any case is an internal attitude (see on <em><a href='B:470 3:6'>Mat 3:6</a></em>), and John as he stood in the Jordan River was totally incapable of judging whether or not in practice his hearers had actually changed their lives. He baptized them because they had confessed their sins and re-thought, re-pented. Not because they had actually changed in practical, ongoing lifestyle issues. Likewise the apostles who baptized 3000 people in Acts 2 had no way of measuring repentance in practice. <em><a href='B:480 1:15'>Mar 1:15</a></em> records John’s message as being: “Repent ye and believe the Gospel". This might seem to be in the wrong order- for we have come to think that surely belief of the Gospel comes before repentance. And so it does very often- but there is another option here- that the repentance is ongoing. Life after conversion is a life of believing the basic Gospel which led us to conversion and repentance in the first place. </p><p>The Greek <em>metanoia</em> ["repentance"] was used as a legal term describing the re-thinking of a sentence. Paul uses this figure in Romans to describe how we are condemned as guilty, but the sentence is re-thought because we are in Christ. Strong's lexicon claims that the word can mean "by implication, reversal of another's decision". Our re-thinking thus becomes God's re-thinking. In this we see something of the intimacy and connection between God and man achieved by human repentance. The legal metaphor continues in the word translated "remission"- the idea is of legal pardon or freedom from the accusation.</p><p>John the Baptist's audience responded to his preaching by being baptized "with the baptism of repentance" (<em><a href='B:480 1:4'>Mar 1:4</a></em>); and yet the Lord Jesus built on this by appealing to people to repent because the Kingdom was at hand (<em><a href='B:480 1:15'>Mar 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>). Their repentance was therefore only surface level. The Lord cursed the fig tree (cp. Israel) because they had only leaves, an appearance of repentance and spiritual fruit, but actually there was not even the first sign of real fruit on that tree when it was really analysed. Earlier, Israel had appeared to have fruit, when actually, they didn't have any at all (<em><a href='B:350 10:1'>Hos 10:1</a></em>). The man in the parable built his spiritual house, but in fact he didn't get down to the real nitty-gritty of obedience to the Lord's words; and so it miserably, pathetically fell at judgment day. The seriousness of sin becomes de-emphasized in our lives, until repentance comes to mean a vague twinge of guilt. This, again, was the problem of Old Testament Israel. "They return, but not to the Most High" (<em><a href='B:350 7:16'>Hos 7:16</a></em>);&nbsp;they had the sensation of regret, of turning back- but it wasn't real repentance. A few verses earlier God had commented: “They do <em>not</em> return to the Lord their God” (<em><a href='B:350 7:10'>Hos 7:10</a></em>); but they on a surface level <em>did</em> return to Him. Hosea continues his theme: “Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself” (<em><a href='B:350 10:1'>Hos 10:1</a></em>). Did they or did they not bring forth fruit? They did- but only in their own eyes. They felt they had repented, and brought forth spiritual fruit. But not in God’s estimation. And we too can have the sensation of spirituality and even spiritual growth, but only in our own eyes. “Though they called them to the Most High, none at all would exalt him” (<em><a href='B:350 11:7'>Hos 11:7</a></em>) in the way which true repentance requires. "Judah hath not turned unto me with her <em>whole</em> heart, but feignedly" (<em><a href='B:300 3:10'>Jer 3:10</a></em>). They did turn back to Yahweh- but not in their heart. Israel rejoiced in the light of John’s teaching- and he taught real, on-your-knees repentance. They thought they’d repented. But the Lord describes John as mourning, and them not mourning in sympathy and response (<em><a href='B:490 7:32'>Luk 7:32</a></em>). They rejoiced in the idea of repentance, but never really got down to it. </p>


text:
<p><em>As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: The voice of one crying, In the wilderness make ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight</em>-</p><p> Just as the preaching of the Gospel was to make straight paths for the Messiah to come, so we are to make <em>our</em> paths straight (<em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>)- as if somehow we are the Lord Jesus; His revelation to this world at the second coming will in a sense be our revelation. Hence the final visions of Revelation speak of the Lord's second coming in terms which are applicable to the community of those in Him [e.g. a city of people coming down from Heaven to earth]. John’s preaching was in order to make [s:w. ‘to bring forth fruit’] His [the Lord’s] paths straight- but the ways of the Lord are “right” [s:w. “straight”] anyway (<em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>). So how could John’s preaching make the Lord’s ways straight / right, when they already are? God is so associated with His people that their straightness or crookedness reflects upon Him; for they are His witnesses in this world. His ways are their ways. This is the N:T. equivalent of the O:T. concept of keeping / walking in the way of the Lord (<em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 21:22'>2Ki 21:22</a></em>). Perhaps this is the thought behind the exhortation of <em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em> to make straight paths for our own feet. We are to bring our ways into harmony with the Lord’s ways; for He is to be us, His ways our ways. Thus <em><a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a></em>, which is being quoted in <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>, speaks of “Prepare ye the way <em>of the Lord</em>”, whereas <em><a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a></em> speaks of “Prepare ye the way <em>of the people</em>”. Yet tragically, the way / path of Israel was not the way / path of the Lord (<em><a href='B:330 18:25'>Eze 18:25</a></em>).</p><p>There was an intensity and critical urgency about John and his message. John urged people to make their path “straight”- using a Greek word elsewhere translated “immediately”, “forthwith” (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 1:12'>Mar 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:28'>Mar 1:28</a></em> and often). Getting things straight in our lives is a question of immediate response. He warns people to “flee from the wrath to come” (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>). This was what their changed lives and baptisms were to be about- a fleeing from the wrath to come. He speaks as if that “wrath to come” is just about to come, it’s staring them in the face like a wall of forest fire, and they are to flee away from it. And yet Paul (in one of his many allusions to John’s message, which perhaps he had heard himself ‘live’) speaks of “the wrath to come” as being the wrath of the final judgment (<em><a href='B:590 1:10'>1Th 1:10</a></em>), or possibly that of AD70 (<em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>). But both those events would not have come upon the majority of John’s audience. And the day of ‘wrath to come’ is clearly ultimately to be at the Lord’s return (<em><a href='B:730 6:17'>Rev 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:18'>Rev 11:18</a></em>). Yet John zooms his hearers forward in time, to perceive that they face condemnation and judgment day right now, as they hear the call of the Gospel. This was a feature of John; he had the faith which sees things which are not as though they already are. Thus he looked at Jesus walking towards him and commented that here was the “Lamb of God”, a phrase the Jews would’ve understood as referring to the lamb which was about to be sacrificed on Passover (<em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>). John presumably was referencing the description of the crucified Jesus in <em><a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a></em>; for John, he foresaw it all, it was as if he saw Jesus as already being led out to die, even though that event was over three years distant. And so he could appeal to his audience to face judgment day as if they were standing there already. We need to have the same perspective.</p>


text:
<p><em>Every valley shall be filled and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the crooked paths shall become straight, and the rough ways smooth</em>-</p><p> John the Baptist's ministry was so that the 'crooked' nation of Israel should be 'made straight' and ready to accept Jesus as Messiah. God's enabling power was present so that this might have happened; but the same word is used in <em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em> and <em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em> to describe Israel as still being a 'crooked' nation. John's preaching, like ours, was potentially able to bring about the conversion of an entire nation. So instead of being discouraged by the lack of response to our witness, let's remember the enormous potential power which there is behind it. Every word, witness of any kind, tract left lying on a seat... has such huge potential conversion power lodged within it, a power from God Himself. </p><p>John's mission was to prepare Israel for Christ, to figuratively '<em>bring low' </em>the hills and mountains, the proud Jews of first century Israel, and raise the valleys, i:e. inspire the humble with the real possibility of salvation in Christ. Paul uses the same Greek word for "bring low" no fewer than three times, concerning how the Gospel has humbled him (<em><a href='B:510 20:19'>Act 20:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 4:12'>Phi 4:12</a></em>). It's as if he's saying: 'John's preaching did finally have its’ effect upon me; it did finally make me humble enough for the Lord Jesus'. And as John made straight paths for men's feet that they might come unto Christ (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>), so did Paul (<em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And all flesh</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>. </p><p><em>Shall see the salvation of God</em>-</p><p> John perceived how eager God is to forgive, and how our acceptance of that forgiveness is His glory and His salvation. John says, quoting <em><a href='B:290 40:5'>Isa 40:5</a></em>, that if men repent and ready themselves for the Lord’s coming, then “all flesh shall see the salvation of God”. But he is changing the quotation- Isaiah said that all flesh shall see the glory of God. But saving men and women is the thing God glories in. </p>


text:
<p><em>He said to the crowds that went out to be baptized by him: You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath tocome?</em>-</p><p> The ideas of fleeing wrath and preparing a way are surely based upon the Law’s command in <em><a href='B:50 19:3'>Deu 19:3</a></em> that a way or road should be prepared to the city of refuge (symbolic of Christ- <em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em>), along which the person under the death sentence for manslaughter could flee for refuge. John was preparing that way or road to Christ, and urging ordinary people to flee along it. They didn’t like to think they were under a death sentence for murder. They were just ordinary folk like the soldiers who grumbled about their wages, and the publicans who were a bit less than honest at work. But they had to flee. But they wouldn’t be alone in that. If a man prepares his way after God’s principles (<em><a href='B:140 27:6'>2Ch 27:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 4:26'>Pro 4:26</a></em>), then God will ‘prepare’ that man’s way too (<em><a href='B:230 37:23'>Psa 37:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:5'>Psa 119:5</a></em>), confirming him in the way of escape.</p><p>This intense, urgent presentation of the ultimate issues of life and death, acceptance and rejection, brought forth a massive response. People lined up for baptism. And John was hardly polite. He called his baptismal candidates a “generation of vipers”, alluding obviously to the seed of the serpent in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>. Yet his tough line with them, his convicting them of sin, led them to ask what precisely they must do, in order to be baptized. They didn’t turn away in offence. They somehow sensed he was for real, and the message he preached couldn’t be ignored or shrugged off as the ravings of a fanatic. Time and again we see the same- the very height of the demand of Christ of itself convicts men and women of Him. And it’s for this reason that it seems almost ‘easier’ to convict people of Christ and the need for baptism into Him in societies [e.g. radical Moslem ones] where the price for conversion to Him is death or serious persecution… than in the easy going Western countries where being ‘Christian’ is the normal cultural thing to do. </p><p>The Gospel was presented in different forms by the early preachers, according to their audience. John the Baptist set the pattern in this. Having quoted the prophecy about the need for the rough to be made smooth and the proud to be humbled in order for them to accept Jesus, John “said <em>therefore</em> to the multitude… ye offspring of vipers” (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em> RV). He used tough and startling language because that was what the audience required. He had set his aims- to humble the proud. And so he used “therefore” appropriate approaches. The early preachers as Paul became all things to all men, so that they might win some. They therefore consciously matched their presentation and <em>how</em> they articulated the same basic truths to their audience.</p><p>But perhaps even his comment “Generation of vipers” was said with a heart of love and appeal, reflecting the “heart of mercy” which he had come to know in the Father. He was “the friend of the bridegroom” (<em><a href='B:500 3:29'>Joh 3:29</a></em>)- the one who introduced the groom to the bride and arranged the marriage and then the wedding. John’s “Generation of vipers” stuff was all part of his attempt to persuade the bride, Israel, to accept the groom, the Lord Jesus. He wasn’t angrily moralizing, lashing out at society as many a dysfunctional preacher does today, working out his own anger by criticizing and condemning society in the name of God. No, John was appealing. He had an agenda and an aim- to bring Israel and the Son of God together in marriage.</p><p>When asked who he was, John’s reply was simply: “a voice”. He was nothing; his message about Jesus was everything. In all this there is a far cry from the self-confident, self-projecting speaking off the podium which characterizes so much of our ‘preaching’ today. So John’s appeal to repentance was shot through with a recognition of his own humanity. It wasn’t mere moralizing. We likely don’t preach as John did because we fear that confronting people with their sins is inappropriate for us to do, because we too are sinners. But with recognition of our own humanity, we build a bridge between our audience and ourselves. In this context it's worth reconsidering <em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>: "Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?". John said these words to those who were coming to him wishing to be baptized by him- exactly because he had warned them of the wrath to come. It's possible that John meant this as a rhetorical reflection, thus enabling us to paraphrase him something like this: 'And what kind of man am I, who am I, just another sinful guy like you, who has warned you to flee? I'm nothing- don't get baptized because of me, but because you repent and are committed to bringing forth the fruits of repentance". And it’s worth meditating that if Israel had responded to his preaching, then the glorious salvation of God might have even then been revealed in the form of the Kingdom coming on earth, even then. But instead of heeding John’s message, Israel in the end crucified their King, necessitating a latter day John the Baptist mission (<em><a href='B:470 11:13-14'>Mat 11:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:11-12'>Mat 17:11-12</a></em>). And it’s not going too far to suggest that our latter day witness to Israel and indeed to the world is to conducted in the spirit of John’s preaching; hence the crucial importance of understanding the spirit and content of his witness.</p>


text:
<p><em>Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves: We have Abraham as our father. For I say to you, that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones</em>-</p><p> The eagerness of John for the inculcation of faith is seen in the way He foresees the likely thought processes within men. “Begin not to say within yourselves…." (<em><a href='B:490 3:8'>Luk 3:8</a></em>), He told a generation of vipers; and the Lord eagerly strengthened the centurion’s faith when it was announced that faith was pointless, because his daughter had died. Always the Biblical emphasis is upon internal thought processes and the need to be aware of them. John's great convert Paul several times uses the same device in his letters- foreseeing the likely thought process in response to his message, and answering it ahead of time (e.g. 1Co 1535).</p><p>"These stones" was said perhaps pointing to the stones. Perhaps they were the 12 stones set up after the Jordan crossing (Joshua 3, 4). There is a word play between&nbsp;<em>avanim</em>, stones, and&nbsp;<em>banim, </em>sons:&nbsp;<em>Avanim</em>, stones, in turn sounds like&nbsp;<em>evyonim</em>, the term for the poor, the social outcasts- these were the "stones" which were being accepted into the covenant of grace:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:490 13:8'>Luk 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:13'>Col 3:13</a></em>:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><em>And even now, the axe also lies at the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bring forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire</em>-</p><p> John's words about cutting down the fruitless tree are directly quoted by the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 7:17-19'>Mat 7:17-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:33'>Mat 12:33</a></em> - as if to show His solidarity with John's teaching. Perhaps the Lord Jesus had heard these very words being preached by John when He went to be baptized by him. "Now [also]", right now; John felt that the day of Christ's judgment was very close. The language of gathering grain into the barn and burning the chaff is used by the Lord concerning the future judgment at His second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>). John saw the Lord Jesus as already having the winnowing fork in His hand (<em><a href='B:470 3:13'>Mat 3:13</a></em>), meaning that in essence, judgment began with the ministry of Jesus. In essence, we stand before His judgment right now. Judgment day is not some unknown future entity which has no connection with this life:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And the crowds asked him, saying: What then must we do?</em>-</p><p> Luke phrases this in the same language he uses of the crowds who responded to Peter's preaching in Acts 2. The answer was the same- repent, accept Jesus as Messiah and be baptized. John saw the essence of the Christian gospel as just that, and it was essentially the same message taught by both John and Peter. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he answered and said to them: He that has two coats, let him give to him that has none, and he that has food, let him do likewise</em>-</p><p> In order to prepare the way of the Lord, to make a level passage for Him, the man with two coats should give to him who had none, and likewise share his food. So the ‘equality’ and levelling was to be one of practical care for others. We have to ask, how often we have shared our food, clothing or money with those who don’t have… for this is all part of preparing for the Lord’s coming. It could even be that when there is more of what Paul calls “an equality” amongst the community of believers, that then the way of the Lord will have been prepared. And He will then return.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there came also tax collectors to be baptized; and they said to him: Teacher, what must we do?</em>-</p><p> There is a parallel between desiring baptism and realizing that they must <em>do</em> something concretely in their lives. The baptism process brings us into the realm of God's gracious forgiveness and redemption, and into living contact with the real Christ. There is no way we can be passive to this and do nothing about it. Note that Matthew himself was a publican and also records this- this is an example of the Gospel records being a transcript of the message standardly taught by e.g. Matthew. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Collect no more than what you have been ordered to</em>-</p><p> John the Baptist showed a spirit of concession to human weakness in his preaching. He told the publicans: “Extort no more than that which is appointed you” (<em><a href='B:490 3:13'>Luk 3:13</a></em> RV). He tacitly accepted that these men would be into extortion. But within limits, he let it go. Likewise he told soldiers to be content with their wages- not to quit the job. And seeing there were no Roman Legions in Judaea at his time [Josephus, <em>Antiquities</em> 18:5:1], these were likely Jewish soldiers.</p>


text:
<p><em>And soldiers also asked him, saying: And we, what must we do? And he said to them: Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages</em>-</p><p> </p><p>The nature of how demanding John was is reflected in his response to the soldiers and publicans. He didn’t tell them to quit their jobs, but to live with integrity within those jobs. He told the soldiers to be content with their wages- implying he expected them to not throw in their job. And seeing there were no Roman Legions in Judaea at his time [Josephus,&nbsp;<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;18:5:1], these were likely Jewish soldiers. He didn’t tell them to quit their jobs, but to live with integrity within those jobs. He told the soldiers to be content with their wages- implying he expected them to not throw in their job. This is juxtaposed with the command for them to do no violence. But not grumbling about wages was as fundamental an issue for John as not doing physical violence to people. To have as Paul put it “Godliness with contentment” [another of his allusions to John’s preaching?] is as important as not doing violence. And yet our tendency is to think that moaning about our wages is a perfectly normal and acceptable thing to do, whereas violence is of an altogether different order. It’s like Paul hitting the Corinthians for their divisiveness, when if we’d been writing to them we would likely have focused upon their immorality and false doctrine. John would have been far less demanding had he simply told the publicans and soldiers to quit their jobs. By asking them to continue, and yet to live out their lives within those jobs with Godly principles, He was being far more demanding.</p><p>John places complaining about wages [a common human fault] in juxtaposition with doing violence to others (<em><a href='B:490 3:14'>Luk 3:14</a></em>)- to show that in his serious call to a devout and holy life, there are no such things as little sins. <em><a href='B:330 16:49-50'>Eze 16:49-50</a></em> defines the sins of Sodom as including “pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor… they were haughty, and committed abomination”. The abomination of their sexual perversion is placed last in the list, as if to emphasize that all the other sins were just as much sin. Likewise Paul writes to the Corinthians about their failures, but he doesn’t start where I would have started- with their drunkenness at the memorial meeting. Instead he starts off with their disunity. Those things which we may consider as lesser sins, the Bible continually lists together with those things we have been conditioned into thinking are the greater sins. Clearest of all is the way Paul lists schism and hatred in his lists of sins that will exclude from the Kingdom. The Anglo-Saxon worldview has taught that sexual sin is so infinitely far worse than a bit of argument within a church. But is this really right…?</p>


text:
<p><em>And as the people were in expectation, and all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether he was the Christ- </em></p><p>There was strong Messianic expectation. The fact they missed recognizing Messiah when He came... is evidence enough that a desire for a new age, for the coming of the Christ, is not the same as true spirituality. We must take the warning of <a href='B:370 5:18'>Am. 5:18</a>: &quot;Woe to you who desire the day of Yahweh! Why do you long for the day of Yahweh? It will be darkness for you, and not light&quot;.</p>


text:
<p><em>John answered, saying to them all: I indeed baptize you with water, but there comes he that is mightier than I, whose shoelaces I am not worthy to untie. He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire</em>-</p><p> The Greek for "mightier" is that translated 'stronger' and the idea of Jesus as the one 'stronger / mightier than' recurs in <em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em>, where Jesus is 'mightier than' the 'strong man' who had previously possessed the house of Israel. That there is a connection of thought here cannot be denied, but the existence of such a connection doesn't of itself mean that there is a detailed semantic connection. Perhaps John's words had simply left a subconscious impression upon the word choice of the Lord.</p><p>Christ "shall baptize&nbsp;<em>you</em>" plural was deeply meditated upon by Paul, until he came to see in the fact that we&nbsp;<em>plural</em>&nbsp;are baptized the strong implication that therefore we should be one body, without unnecessary divisions (= <em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em>).</p><p>John prophesied that the disciples would be baptized with fire; this was fulfilled by tongues of Spirit descending which looked like fire (<em><a href='B:510 2:3'>Act 2:3</a></em>). Evidently this was not literal fire or else it would not have rested on the heads of the disciples. So the words here spoke of how things would&nbsp;<em>appear&nbsp;</em>to the disciples, without saying so explicitly.</p><p>John described himself as a preacher of Christ who was not "worthy" to do so. The same Greek word is used by Paul when he says he is "not&nbsp;<em>meet</em>&nbsp;(s:w:) to be called an apostle" (<em><a href='B:530 15:9'>1Co 15:9</a></em>); and that it was God's grace alone that had made him an "<em>able</em>&nbsp;(s:w. "worthy") minister of the Gospel" (<em><a href='B:540 13:6'>2Co 13:6</a></em>). He knew that his "<em>sufficiency</em>" (s:w. "worthy") to give knowledge of salvation (John language- <em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>), to be a preacher, was from God alone (<em><a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:5'>2Co 3:5</a></em>); and that in fact this was true of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;preachers. But do we really feel like this in our preaching? John was a burning and shining light to the world (<em><a href='B:500 5:35'>Joh 5:35</a></em>), just as we should be (<em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em>). And therefore, if we are to witness as John did, we need to have the humility of John in our preaching. He was 'in the Truth' from a baby, he lived a spiritual, self-controlled life. And yet he had this great sense of personal sinfulness and unworthiness as a preacher. It's difficult for those raised Christian to have the sense of sinfulness which Paul had, and thereby to have his zeal for preaching. But actually his zeal was a reflection of John's; and John was a 'good boy', brought up in the Faith. Yet he had a burning sense of his spiritual inadequacy. Anglo-Saxon Christianity urgently needs to capture his spirit:&nbsp; Truly Paul 'bore' Christ to the world just as John 'bore' (s:w:) Christ's Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 9:15'>Act 9:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>). If ever a man was hard on himself, it was John the Baptist. His comment on his preaching of Christ was that he was not worthy (RVmg. ‘sufficient’) to bear Christ's sandals (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>). The sandal-bearer was the herald; John knew he was heralding Christ's appearing, but he openly said he was not worthy to do this. He felt his insufficiency, as we ought to ours. Would we had that depth of awareness; for on the brink of the Lord's coming, we are in a remarkably similar position to John. Paul perhaps directs us back to John when he says that we are not “sufficient” to be the savour of God to this world; and yet we are made sufficient to preach by God (<em><a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:5-6'>2Co 3:5-6</a></em> RV). To carry the master’s sandals (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>) was, according to Vine, the work of the lowest slave. This was how John saw himself; and this is what witnessing for Jesus is all about, being the lowest slave and servant of the Lord of glory. It's interesting in this context to note how the Lord Jesus states that in some sense, John 'was Elijah', whereas he himself denies this (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:12'>Mat 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:13'>Mar 9:13</a></em>). Such was his humility.</p><p><em>"</em>He shall baptize you" points up the contrast is between John baptizing unto repentance, and Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit. The contrast is between 'repentance' and 'the Holy Spirit'. I suggest that the idea is that the gift of the Holy Spirit would empower repentance and new-mindedness far more than what was achieved by unaided, steel-willed human repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whose fan is inhis hand, to cleanse his threshing-floor thoroughly, and to gather the wheat into his barn; but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire</em>-</p><p> John says that the axe is laid to the root of the trees; his hearers were about to be cut down and thrown into the fire of condemnation. And He says that the Jesus whom he heralds is about to come and divide the wheat from the chaff in judgment, gathering in the wheat, and burning the chaff with “unquenchable fire” (<em><a href='B:490 3:17'>Luk 3:17</a></em>). But the ‘fire’ of condemnation and the division of wheat and chaff is to be done ultimately at the Lord’s second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:48'>Mar 9:48</a></em>). But for John, the moment his audience met Jesus, they were standing before the Lord of judgment, the Judge of all the earth. In their response to Him, they were living out the final judgment. And this is just as true of us, both as preachers and hearers of the Gospel.</p><p>"He (Jesus) shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit (even) with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and... he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (<em><a href='B:470 3:11-12'>Mat 3:11-12</a></em>). John put a choice before them: fire, or fire. Either we are consumed with the fire of devotion to God, or we face the figurative fire of condemnation. This is the logic of judgment. John says that the axe is laid to the root of the trees; his hearers were about to be cut down and thrown into the fire of condemnation. And He says that the Jesus whom he heralds is about to come and divide the wheat from the chaff in judgment, gathering in the wheat, and burning the chaff with “unquenchable fire” (<em><a href='B:490 3:17'>Luk 3:17</a></em>). But the ‘fire’ of condemnation and the division of wheat and chaff is to be done ultimately at the Lord’s second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:48'>Mar 9:48</a></em>). But for John, the moment his audience met Jesus, they were standing before the Lord of judgment, the Judge of all the earth. In their response to Him, they were living out the final judgment. And this is just as true of us, both as preachers and hearers of the Gospel. The message that the Lord will "burn with unquenchable fire" those who reject Him is described as preaching "good tidings unto the people" (<em><a href='B:490 3:18'>Luk 3:18</a></em> RV). Likewise the stark teaching about the mortality of man in Isaiah 40 is quoted in 1 Pet. as being the Gospel. The harder side of God is in fact the good news for those who reflect deeply upon the essential message and nature of the Almighty. In <em><a href='B:300 26:2'>Jer 26:2</a></em>, Jeremiah is warned to “diminish not a word, if so be…” Israel may repent. His temptation of course was to water down the message which he had to deliver. But only the harder, more demanding side of God might elicit response in them. By making the message less demanding, it wouldn’t have any chance of eliciting a response.</p>


text:
<p><em>With many other appeals he preached good tidings to the people</em>-</p><p> The need to repent is in fact good news. The message that the Lord will "burn with unquenchable fire" those who reject Him is described as Jesus preaching "good tidings unto the people" (<em><a href='B:490 3:18'>Luk 3:18</a></em> RV). Likewise the stark teaching about the mortality of man in Isaiah 40 is quoted in 1 Pet. as being the Gospel. The harder side of God is in fact the good news for those who reflect deeply upon the essential message and nature of the Almighty. In <em><a href='B:300 26:2'>Jer 26:2</a></em>, Jeremiah is warned to “diminish not a word, if so be…” Israel may repent. His temptation of course was to water down the message which he had to deliver. But only the harder, more demanding side of God might elicit response in them. By making the message less demanding, it wouldn’t have any chance of eliciting a response.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for marrying Herodias his brother's wife, and for all the evil things which Herod had done</em>-</p><p> Josephus claims that she was in fact married to another relative, not Philip, before she married Herod (<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp; 18:136). We can simply decide to trust the Biblical record over Josephus. Or it could be that Josephus refers to a previous relationship she had. See on <em><a href='B:470 14:10'>Mat 14:10</a></em> for another conflict with Josephus. John's example here raises the question of whether we should protest immoral behaviour in society. It could be argued that Herod claimed to be Jewish and therefore responsible to Divine law.</p><p>The laws of <em><a href='B:30 18:16'>Lev 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:21'>Lev 20:21</a></em> were applicable to Jews; which opens the wider question as to whether we ought to be drawing the attention of the world to their disobedience to Biblical principles, even though they do not claim any faith in the Bible. Criticizing others’ ways of living leads to anger if the point isn’t accepted; and we have a classic case of it here. The Herods were from Idumea, but although they weren’t ethnic Jews, they claimed to be religious Jews. So it could be that John’s attitude was that if someone considered themselves as being under God’s law, then they should be obedient to it and were therefore culpable before Him for disobedience to it. In this case, we do not actually have here any reason to think that a Christian’s duty is to lobby the unbelieving world leaders to be obedient to God’s law.</p>


text:
<p><em>Also added this, that he locked John up in prison</em>-</p><p> Even with very sinful men, their continual sins still register in the feelings of God. The way God progressively senses the weight of accumulated sin is reflected in His description of the Amorites' iniquity filling up (<em><a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a></em>); or Israel marrying Gentiles “to increase the trespass of Israel" (<em><a href='B:150 10:10'>Ezr 10:10</a></em>). “The iniquity of Israel is bound up, his sin is kept in store” (<em><a href='B:350 13:12'>Hos 13:12</a></em>). God sees some wicked men as more wicked than others; for He is sensitive to every one of their sins (e.g. 2Ki 172). "For three transgressions and for four" of Israel or the Gentiles, God would still punish Jew and Gentile alike (Amos 1, 2)- i:e. He still feels the fourth sin, He doesn't become insensitive after the third sin. And this doesn't only apply to His people; but to all sin, committed by anyone, anywhere. Thus Herod "added yet this above all" when he imprisoned John after also sinning with another man's wife. We have an uncanny ability to become numb to sin the more we see or do it. But not so Almighty, all righteous God. This is a feature of His nature that needs meditation.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also having been baptized and praying, the heaven was opened</em>-</p><p> The Lord's baptism was in his case not for forgiveness, but as a sign of identity with "all the people". And Luke in his words here recognizes that. Sometimes God indicates from what perspective the record is written; at other times He doesn’t. Thus <em><a href='B:470 3:16'>Mat 3:16</a></em> makes it clear that the Lord saw Heaven opened at his baptism, and the Spirit descending like a dove. But <em><a href='B:490 3:21-22'>Luk 3:21-22</a></em> just says that “the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended”. Luke doesn’t say that this is only what happened from the Lord’s perspective. This problem of perspective is at the root of the misunderstanding of the demon language in the Gospels.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the Holy Spirit descended upon him in a bodily form as a dove, and a voice came out of heaven: You are My beloved Son- </em>Surely an allusion to <em><a href='B:10 22:2'>Gen 22:2</a></em> (LXX), where the sacrificed Isaac was Abraham's beloved son.</p><p><em>In you I am well pleased</em>-</p><p> Combining references to <em><a href='B:230 2:7'>Psa 2:7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a></em>. Klausner: "In whom I shall be blessed". Quoted about the Lord also in <em><a href='B:470 12:18'>Mat 12:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:5'>Mat 17:5</a></em>. The contrast is with how the Father was not "well pleased" with Israel when they were in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:530 10:5'>1Co 10:5</a></em>); but He was well pleased with His Son in the wilderness. Many prophecies about Israel, the 'servant' of Isaiah's prophecies, come true in Jesus. God's plan in Israel failed due to their disobedience, but the intention behind it came true in Jesus; He was the Son who fulfilled the Father's wishes after Israel failed Him. Jesus thus became the embodiment of Israel; He was their representative before God. It is in this context that the representative nature of the Lord Jesus was first established; He was God's Son who was fully representative of Israel. It is thereby through Him that Israel can be finally restored to their Father:&nbsp; See on <em><a href='B:680 1:17'>2Pe 1:17</a></em>. The voice had the same intonation as the voice on the mount of transfiguration; it was the voice of God Himself in person. The Father's 'pleasure' spoke also of His 'will'. His will was done, and His pleasure thereby achieved, "in" His Son; because of the Lord's internal state of mind. And this sets the path toward understanding our own status "in Christ". </p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age- </em>Thirty was the age at which priests began to minister; and yet Luke connects this with the Lord's beginning to teach. For the duty of priests was to teach.</p><p><em>Being the son (as was legally reckoned) of Joseph, the son of Heli</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 2:49'>Luk 2:49</a></em>. The genealogies focus upon Joseph because Mary has already been stated to be the descendant of David, in his direct line. Giving the genealogies of Joseph is however a kind of concession to human weakness in not accepting genealogies through the mother; for Joseph was of course not the Lord's biological father. But even he could be traced as the rightful inheritor of Israel's throne had there been a monarchy at the time of Jesus. Jesus was his adopted son; he was "as was supposed", or 'as was reckoned by law', the son of Joseph. And the genealogy is included for the sake of those who reckoned by law. And yet the record in Luke appears to effectively be that of Mary; Joseph being "the son of Heli" was probably by reason of marrying Mary, the daughter of Heli; the Talmud speaks with gross vitriolic about Mary the daughter of Heli going to hell for her blasphemy, referring to Mary the mother of Jesus. This shows that the Jews accept that Mary was the daughter of Heli. Heli's father was Matthat, who can be equated with Matthan the grandfather of Joseph. Thus Mary and Joseph were cousins (hinting at an arranged marriage?), and therefore Jesus was a son of David through both his mother and father by adoption. In the light of this it is evident that the question mark over the validity of a genealogy through Joseph is an irrelevancy, seeing that Joseph and Mary had a common grandfather. The point has to be made that a humanly fabricated genealogy would be sure to make some glaring errors, especially if it was produced by simple, uneducated men as the Jews claim the New Testament was. The wonder of the New Testament genealogies is that closer study reveals ever more intricate internal evidence for their truth and reliability, rather than exposing more problems.</p>&nbsp;<p>The Talmud (<em>Treatise Bava Bathra</em>, 110a) claims that Mary the mother of Jesus was called the daughter of Heli. In this case we would then effectively have here the genealogy of Mary; and this is rather confirmed by the fact that Matthew's genealogy gives a man called Jacob as the Lord's grandfather, whereas Luke gives "Heli". Both can be correct, if one [i:e. Luke] is the genealogy of Mary as it were attached to Joseph, the "supposed" father of Jesus. </p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph</em>-</p><p> This "Jannai" is identified by Philo with Hyrcanus the second, who reigned sixteen years. </p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai</em>-</p><p> These are all identified by Philo as being kings during the period of the Maccabees. </p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda</em>-</p><p> "Joda" or "Juda" is identified by Philo with Hyrcanus the first, in whom the kingly and priestly lines crossed, making him and his offspring 'king-priests'. This is how the Lord is portrayed, as a king who is also priest after the order of Melchizedek.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri</em>-</p><p> Luk 327 in some versions describes Zerubbabel as the head / chief / leader. The term Rhesa is incorrectly rendered in many versions as a name. Perhaps Luke’s point was that the Lord Jesus was the final Messiah, after the failure of so many potential ones beforehand. ‘Zerubbabel the chief’ would then be a similar rubric to “David the king” in Matthew’s genealogy (<em><a href='B:470 1:16'>Mat 1:16</a></em>). It could be that Shealtiel adopted Zerubbabel.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er</em>-</p><p> From verses 28 to 31 we have 20 names; Matthew for the same period has 14, demonstrating that the genealogies do not cover every generation; "son of" can mean grandson or descendant of. Those named are clearly for a purpose.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi</em>-</p><p> The mention of a "Levi" could suggest that although this is the line through Judah, there was some intermarriage with the Levites; this made the Lord a king-priest, as required for the Messianic priest after the order of Melchizedek. </p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim</em>-</p><p> We read of a Levi in :29; now of a Simeon, Judah and Joseph. And yet this is the genealogy through Judah (:33). We can assume from these names that the tribes intermarried. This was far from ideal and was not God's intention; and yet all this was in the genetic pool and background of the Lord Jesus. Yet none of these factors make us inevitable sinners, and the Lord overcame them as we can.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David</em>-</p><p> The line is traced not through Solomon but rather through Nathan, named perhaps after the prophet Nathan who had rebuked David, and whom he so respected that he names a son after Nathan. Yet Nathan openly rebuked David for what he had done with Uriah and Bathsheba. This in the end led to deep respect. </p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon</em>-</p><p> Boaz was unashamed to marry Ruth the Moabitess and raise up his seed to his relative, meaning that his inheritance would have to be further divided. This was at a time when the fields were split up into strips, as we also learn from the book of Ruth, and further subdividing the strips made farming difficult and unprofitable. The nameless relative who was closer to Ruth than Boaz refused to marry her because he didn't want to spoil the inheritance he was going to hand over to his existing children. And yet he who was so concerned about secular things and the good continuance of his name- found himself anonymous in the final account. It was Boaz, the one prepared to have more children and further subdivide his inheritance, who goes down in history as an ancestor of the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Amminadab, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah</em>-</p><p> Perez was born by the strange and immoral set of events recorded in Genesis 38, whereby Judah's daughter in law Tamar acted as a prostitute to seduce Judah to get her pregnant- and Perez was the result. So often it seems that pre-existing background, family and genetic issues all set up a person for spiritual failure. One lesson of these genealogies is that sin is not inevitable. The Lord Jesus had all this, and far more, in His ancestry- and yet He never sinned. We are a new creation in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor</em>-</p><p> This is a clear statement that the Lord was indeed the promised seed of the Jewish fathers. His humanity was critically important to the fulfilment of those promises. </p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah</em>-</p><p> "Eber" has been suggested as the first occurrence of "Hebrew". The Lord is being presented as a well qualified Jew, despite the admixture of Gentile blood at many points. We note that it is Matthew, writing to Jews, who tends to mention the Gentile connections of the Lord's genealogy; whereas Luke, writing to Gentiles, doesn't emphasize them. Perhaps this was in order to demonstrate to them that indeed "salvation is of the Jews" (<em><a href='B:500 4:22'>Joh 4:22</a></em>); Gentile salvation was brought about by the Lord being Israel's Messiah and fulfilling the promises to the Jewish fathers.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech</em>-</p><p> The apparent differences with the genealogy in <em><a href='B:10 10:24'>Gen 10:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:12'>Gen 11:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 1:24'>1Ch 1:24</a></em> are because Luke is following the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text. It is common for the New Testament writers to do this. We note that Shem's grandson was called Cainan; clearly there was intermarriage between the descendants of Noah, and the theory that different coloured human beings emerged from the three sons of Noah is simply fantasy.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan</em>-</p><p> Luke is concerned with the facts of the genealogy; he could have done what people tend to do in presenting genealogies, and present the hero as continuing a prestigious line. Positive things could have been noted about Enoch and Methuselah, as we find when we read their histories in Genesis; but there is not a word about this. The great truth presented is that the Lord is truly the seed of Abraham and David, and really had our nature and connection with us all.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God</em>-</p><p> The Roman emperors and Greek heroes sometimes traced their pedigree back to a god- and therefore the genealogies of Jesus we find in Matthew and Luke were quite radical in this regard. For they traced the pedigree of Jesus back to God- as if He were the emperor. This would have made this gospel record forbidden literature at some periods of the Roman empire and emperor cult.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus was led of the Spirit at His time of testing; and Paul uses just those words of us in our present experience of trial (<em><a href='B:520 8:14'>Rom 8:14</a></em>). &nbsp;His victory in the wilderness therefore becomes a living inspiration for us, who are tempted as He was (<em><a href='B:650 4:15-16'>Heb 4:15-16</a></em>). Note how Mark speaks of Jesus being 'driven' at this time. Being driven by circumstances can be a form of leading- it just depends which perspective we have.</p>


text:
<p><em>Being tempted by the Devil for forty days. And he ate nothing in those days; and when they were completed, he was hungry-</em></p><p> Commentary on what this passage does not mean can be found in my The Real Devil, http://www.realdevil.info .</p><p>The only other two men recorded as doing this are Moses and Elijah (<a href='B:20 34:28'>Ex. 34:28</a>; <a href='B:110 19:8'>1 Kings 19:8</a>). The Lord chose to seek to enter into their experience; it was presumably His decision to fast for this period. And the Father responded to that by giving Him the encouraging vision of those same two men at the transfiguration. We see here how God is in dialogue with man; if we wish to identify with some Bible character, the Father will respond His side to enable us to do so yet more.</p><p>With His familiarity with Scripture, Christ would have seen the similarities between Himself and Elijah, whose morale collapsed after 40 days in the wilderness (<a href='B:110 19:8'>1 Kings 19:8</a>) and Moses, who forfeited his immediate inheritance of the land at the end of 40 years in the wilderness. Jesus at the end of 40 days, was in a similar position to them - faced with a real possibility of failure. Moses and Elijah failed because of human weakness - not because of a person called &quot;the devil&quot;. It was this same human weakness, the &quot;Satan' , or adversary, that was tempting Jesus.</p><p>The temptations were controlled by God for the Lord's spiritual education. The passages quoted by the Lord to strengthen Himself against His desires (&quot;devil&quot;) are all from the same part of Deuteronomy, regarding Israel's experience in the wilderness. Jesus clearly saw a parallel between His experiences and theirs:</p><p><a href='B:50 8:2'>Deuteronomy 8:2</a> &quot;The Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments (word), or no.&quot;</p><p>Matthew 4 / Luke 4 &quot;Jesus led up of the spirit&quot; &quot;forty days&quot; &quot;in the wilderness&quot;. Jesus was proved by the temptations. Jesus overcame by quoting the Scriptures that were in His heart (<a href='B:230 119:11'>Ps. 119:11</a>), thus showing it was the Scriptures that were in His heart.</p><p><a href='B:50 8:3'>Deuteronomy 8:3</a>. &quot;And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna... that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word...of the Lord...&quot;</p><p>&quot;He was afterward an hungered&quot;. In John 6 manna is interpreted by Jesus as representing the Word of God, which Jesus lived by in the wilderness. Jesus learnt that spiritually He lived by the Word of God. &quot;He answered...it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word ...of God&quot;.,</p><p><a href='B:50 8:5'>Deuteronomy 8:5</a> &quot;Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee&quot;</p><p>Jesus no doubt reflected on His experiences. God chastened His Son, Jesus- <a href='B:100 7:12'>2 Sam. 7:12</a>; <a href='B:230 89:32'>Ps. 89:32</a>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the Devil said to him: If you are the Son of God, command these stones that they become bread</em>-</p><p> The first temptation- to turn stones into bread- would not in itself have been a sin if He had agreed to it. But it would have been choosing a lower level, by breaking His fast. But the next temptations were to actually sin. If He had agreed to the first suggestion, obedience to the next ones would have been harder. It could even beargued that to put the Lord to the test was permissible on a lower level- for passages like <em><a href='B:230 34:8'>Psa 34:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:460 3:10'>Mal 3:10</a></em> almost encourage it for those with a weak faith. Gideon likewise put the Lord to the test and was answered. But the Lord chose the higher level: and He knew Scripture which could support it. But the fact He chose the highest level first of all, meant that He was better able to take the higher level again, and to finally overcome the third temptation, which was definitely a clear choice between right and wrong. More than this, anything other than a desire to make the highest maximum commitment can lead to failure. “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left” (<em><a href='B:250 10:2'>Ecc 10:2</a></em> NIV) has been understood as referring not so much to right and wrong, good and evil, as to the highest good and lesser good (cp. how the left hand can stand for simply lesser blessing rather than outright evil, e.g. <em><a href='B:10 48:13-20'>Gen 48:13-20</a></em>). The fool inclines to lower commitment. The wise will always incline to the maximum, wholehearted level.</p><p>It's perhaps noteworthy that in the wilderness temptation, the Lord responds to the "If you are the Son of&nbsp;<em>God</em>..." by quoting <em><a href='B:50 8:3'>Deu 8:3</a></em> "<em>man</em>&nbsp;shall not live by bread alone"- and the Jonathan Targum has&nbsp;<em>bar nasha</em>&nbsp;[son of man] here for "man". If we are correct in understanding those wilderness temptations as the Lord's internal struggles, we see Him tempted to wrongly focus upon His being Son of<em> God</em>, forgetting His humanity; and we see Him overcoming this temptation, preferring instead to perceive Himself as Son of&nbsp;<em>man</em>. The&nbsp;<em>if... then</em>&nbsp;structure here (a 'first class conditional') effectively means 'Because…' (See Craig A. Evans,&nbsp;<em>Matthew</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C:U:P:, 2012) p. 83). In this case, we are clearly being given an insight into the internal thinking of the Lord Jesus. 'Because You are Son of God, why not…'. A truly human Jesus would inevitably have had such thoughts, and the record here makes that clear. Seeing that Mary appears to have become somewhat influenced by the surrounding view of Jesus as her illegitimate son, it's likely the Lord too had moments when He wondered whether this could all be true- whether He really was God's Son:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answered him: It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone- </em>The Lord&nbsp;overcame&nbsp;all&nbsp;His&nbsp;temptations&nbsp;by&nbsp;quoting&nbsp;from Deuteronomy, showing that His mind was seeking strength from the words of the Angel leading Israel through the wilderness. There are clear similarities between the Angel's leading of Israel through the wilderness and the Lord's experience in the wilderness:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>Deuteronomy 8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Luke 4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>v. 2 "The Lord your God [an Angel] led you... in the wilderness"</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>v. 1 Jesus led by the spirit (an Angel?) into the wilderness.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Forty years in the wilderness</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Forty days in the wilderness</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>v. 3 "He (the Angel who led them in v. 2) suffered you to hunger".</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>The Angel made Jesus hunger.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Angel "fed you with manna" (<em><a href='B:230 78:25'>Psa 78:25</a></em>)</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Jesus was tempted to ask the Angel to provide bread as He did to Israel in their testing.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Man does not live by bread alone"</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>v. 4 "Man does not live by bread alone"</td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;<p>Thus the Lord Jesus surveyed His own experience in the wilderness, and saw that He could take to Himself personally the lessons given to Israel. The Angel led Israel through the wilderness "to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments or no" (<em><a href='B:50 8:2'>Deu 8:2</a></em>). God Himself knows anyway, so this must be regarding the Angel, seeking to know the spiritual strength of Israel, as Job's&nbsp;Satan Angel sought to know Job's strength. Similarly, theLord’s&nbsp;Angel led Him into the wilderness, suffering Him to hunger, to humble and&nbsp;prove Him, to reveal His real attitude to the word of God. His quoting of the word to answer the temptations surely proved this to the Angel, especially since the Lord showed Himself so capable of thinking Himself into Scripture, and therefore taking the lessons most powerfully to Himself. The Lord was made to realize the importance of His memory of the word, as He would have later reflected that this was the only way He had overcome- that man spiritually lives by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God". As a result of their wilderness temptations, both Israel and Christ were led to "consider in (their) heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God (the Angel) chasteneth thee". The chastenings of the Lord spiritually&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;wilderness&nbsp;were therefore arranged by the Angels. There did not have to be Angels actually tempting Christ in the wilderness temptations- because they can act directly on a man's heart, they can lead us into temptation. The fact we pray for Him not to implies that He does- through the Angels, as He Himself tempts no man (<em><a href='B:660 1:13'>Jas 1:13</a></em>), although the Angels tempted Abraham, and Israel among others. Thus the Angels may arrange an external stimulus, e. g. the fruit of the tree of knowledge, knowing it must produce certain internal desires within us which tempt us. Note how the temptation to throw Himself off the top of the temple was a temptation to misuse Angelic care. He answered it by a quotation which has an Angelic context: "You (Jesus) shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted Him in Massah" (<em><a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a></em>). At Massah the Israelites put the Angel to the test by questioning whether He could provide water (<em><a href='B:20 17:2-7'>Exo 17:2-7</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And he led him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time</em>-</p><p> This was surely a vision or imagination of the Kingdom, when "the kingdoms of this world" becomes those of the Lord Jesus. It can hardly be that a fiendish being took the Lord Jesus literally up the highest mountain (Everest) from where He could see all the world. Nor would being up a tall mountain enable the Lord to see "the glory of them". Surely a non-literal event is implied here- within the Lord's mind.</p><p>The temptations are hard to take literally:</p><p>- <em><a href='B:470 4:8'>Mat 4:8</a></em> implies that Jesus was led up into a high mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world in their future glory, “In a moment of time”. There is no mountain high enough to see all the world. And why would the height of the mountain enable Jesus to see what the world would be like in the future? The earth, being a sphere, there is no point on its surface from which one can see all the parts of the world at one time. </p><p>- A comparison of Matthew 4 and Luke 4 shows that the temptations are described in a different order. <em><a href='B:480 1:13'>Mar 1:13</a></em> says that Jesus was “in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan”, whilst <em><a href='B:470 4:2-3'>Mat 4:2-3</a></em> says that “when he had fasted forty days... the tempter (Satan) came to Him...". Because Scripture cannot contradict itself, we can conclude that these same temptations kept repeating themselves. The temptation to turn stones into bread is an obvious example. This would fit nicely if these temptations occurred within the mind of Jesus. Being of our nature, the lack of food would have affected him mentally as well as physically, and thus his mind would have easily begun to imagine things. Just going a few days without food can lead to delirium for some (cp. <em><a href='B:90 30:12'>1Sa 30:12</a></em>). The similarity between rolls of bread and stones is mentioned by Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 7:9'>Mat 7:9</a></em>, and doubtless those images often merged in his tortured mind - although always to be brought into swift control by his recollection of the Word </p><p>- Jesus probably told the Gospel writers the record of His temptations, and to bring home in words the intensity of what He underwent, He could have used the figurative approach seen in Matthew 4 and Luke 4. </p><p>- It seems unlikely that several times the devil led Jesus through the wilderness and streets of Jerusalem and then scaled a pinnacle of the temple together, all in view of the inquisitive Jews. Josephus makes no record of anything like this happening - presumably it would have caused a major stir. Similarly, if these temptations occurred several times within the forty days as well as at the end of that period (which they did at least twice, seeing that Matthew and Luke have them in different order), how would Jesus have had time to walk to the nearest high mountain (which could have been Hermon in the far north of Israel), climb to the top and back down again, return to the wilderness and then repeat the exercise? His temptations all occurred in the wilderness - He was there for forty days, tempted all the time by the devil (he only departed at the end). If Jesus was tempted by the devil each day, and the temptations occurred only in the wilderness, then it follows that Jesus could not have left the wilderness to go to Jerusalem or travel to a high mountain. These things therefore could not have literally happened. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the Devil said to him: To you will I give all this authority and the glory of them. For it has been delivered to me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it</em>-</p><p> The Lord knew full well that "all things" (Mt:), the Kingdom of God when the kingdoms of this world have been subsumed beneath it, could only be given to Him to God. He was tempted to play God, to assume that by His own action He could grasp it for Himself without the cross. It is perhaps to this that Paul alludes when he writes that the Lord did not consider such equality with God a thing to be even grasped after (<em><a href='B:570 2:6'>Phi 2:6</a></em>). Again we see how the essence of the wilderness temptations returned to the Lord on the cross. For <em><a href='B:570 2:6'>Phi 2:6</a></em> specifically speaks of the Lord in His time of dying.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, if you will worship me, it shall all be yours</em>-</p><p> All the kingdoms of the world will indeed be the Lord's. This was the subtlety of the temptation. The question was when and how that was to be achieved. The Lord knew that the cross must come before that crown. But the temptation would have been to try to circumvent that, and this is portrayed as falling down and worshipping self.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answered and said to him: It is written, you shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve</em>-</p><p> The record of the Lord’s wilderness temptations is almost certainly a reflection of <em>His</em> self-perception; He spoke to the ‘devil’ / personification of sin which was within Him, He saw Himself as two people, and His spiritual man triumphed gloriously against the man of the flesh. He understood that we can only serve two masters: God or the flesh (“mammon” is another personification of the flesh, similar to ‘satan’). He saw His own flesh, His own internal thoughts, as a master begging to be served which He must totally reject. His words are a quotation from <em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em>, which warns Israel to serve Yahweh alone and not idols. He perceived His own naturalmind and desire as an idol calling to be served. When the Lord explained what had happened in the wilderness to the disciples and thereby to the Gospel writers, He opened His heart to them. He gave us all a window on how He perceived Himself, as He sought to explain to men the internal struggles of the Son of God. Bringing it all back home, I must ask firstly how much we even <em>struggle</em> with temptation? And as and when we do, would we not be helped by the Lord’s example of talking to ourselves, and personalizing Scripture as He did? ‘You don’t want to do <em>that</em>! Give up your place in the Kingdom, for that... drug, that girl, that job? Of course not! Come on. There <em>is</em> a way of escape; Paul told me God won’t try me beyond my strength, He will make me a way of escape’. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he led him to Jerusalem, set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him: If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down from here</em>-</p><p> The idea may well be that He was imagining being received into rulership of the Messianic Kingdom, and was wondering whether that would be possible through accepting 'the devil', be it His own flesh or the Jewish system, who humanly speaking seemed able to offer a path to this. Likewise '<em>set him</em>' in <em><a href='B:470 4:5'>Mat 4:5</a></em> carries the idea of being appointed, established in authority:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For it is written: He shall give His angels charge concerning you, to guard you</em>-</p><p> The Angels were given “charge concerning thee” (Jesus)- in the court of Heaven, God’s purpose was declared and His charge made clear concerning His Son (<em><a href='B:490 4:10'>Luk 4:10</a></em> RVmg:). </p><p>Presumably this was to be taken literally- the Angels physically with Him would have literally held Him under the arms if He jumped from the temple. So we see the literal physical presence of the Angels in our lives. The eyes of God, an evident reference to the Angels, are associated with the temple (<em><a href='B:110 8:29'>1Ki 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 5:6-8'>Psa 5:6-8</a></em>). The implication surely is that the Angel[s] specifically functioned in the temple / sanctuary. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen.</p><p>The ‘devil’ of the Lord’s own thoughts tempted Him to apply <em><a href='B:230 91:11'>Psa 91:11</a></em> in a wrong context, and jump off the pinnacle of the temple. But if the Lord had gone on, as surely He did, He would have found the words: “You shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shall you trample under feet” (<em><a href='B:230 91:13'>Psa 91:13</a></em>). This promise would have been of wonderful comfort, as throughout the wilderness temptations the Lord “was with the wild beasts” (<em><a href='B:480 1:13'>Mar 1:13</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And on their hands they shall carry you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone- </em>Presumably this was to be taken literally- the Angels physically with Him would have literally held Him under the arms if He jumped from the temple. So we see the literal physical presence of the Angels in our lives. The eyes of God, an evident reference to the Angels, are associated with the temple (<em><a href='B:110 8:29'>1Ki 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 5:6-8'>Psa 5:6-8</a></em>). The implication surely is that the Angel[s] specifically functioned in the temple / sanctuary. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen (<em><a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answering said to him: It is said, you shall not test the Lord your God</em>-</p><p> The Greek in Matthew effectively means 'On the other hand, it is also written…'. The Lord Jesus did not try to reconcile the two verses, He accepted them as part of a dialectic whereby this verse says that but this verse says this- which is typical Hebrew reasoning. Geek reasoning would seek to explain that this verse says this, but that is qualified by this other verse, so the truth is a mixture between the two verses. The Hebrew style of reasoning leaves apparent contradictions to the Western, Greek reasoning mind. But they are not this at all, just dialectical style.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the Devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him for a time</em>-</p><p> The essence of all the temptations returned to the Lord, particularly in Gethsemane and on the cross. Every time we discern them returning, they are at the hands of the Jews- to become king immediately in John 6, to come down from the cross. Which leads us to perceive that the 'devil' in the wilderness may have been manifested through the Jewish satan; the idea of the Jewish system as the great satan or adversary to the Lord and His later work is continued throughout the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and the news about him went out throughout all the region</em>-</p><p> This was no glorious entry into Galilee; He withdrew into Galilee (<em><a href='B:470 4:12'>Mat 4:12</a></em>) after cleansing the temple (Joh 213-22), taking the imprisonment of John as the sign to begin His ministry. He felt He was withdrawing, heavy in spirit at the loss of John the Baptist to prison, but in the eyes of the world, it was a triumphal entry (:15). "The power of the Spirit" may mean that He began doing miracles, thus accounting for news of Him spreading like wildfire, or simply that He was propelled by the leadership of the Spirit as we can be today. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all</em>-</p><p> The entry to Galilee could be that of <em><a href='B:500 4:43'>Joh 4:43</a></em>, meaning that by this stage He had already turned water into wine at Cana (John 2). The miracles had begun, but the 'glorifying' of Jesus is presented as in connection with His teaching rather than His miracles. This is an important theme- that His teaching was far more significant than His miracles. And that teaching we have recorded for us. It ought to elicit the same desire to glorify Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read</em>-</p><p> This suggests He had been a regular synagogue attender and reader, but somehow this time, as He read the Messianic prophecies, it was clear that He was the word made flesh. He was the One. He must have previously somehow contained the fact He was the Messiah, living His life of perfect obedience in a somehow obscured manner. Now, He let down the mask and revealed Himself for who He was. </p>


text:
<p><em>And there was delivered to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written</em>-</p><p> The record is as it were of a video capture, focusing on every detail of His body language- He stood up to read (:16), the scroll was delivered into His hands, He opened it and He found the place in the scroll. All this is to present in more visual form what John states more enigmatically- the word was made flesh.</p><p>Although the Greek <em>euangelion</em> is not used, the LXX of <em><a href='B:290 40:9'>Isa 40:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 52:7'>Isa 52:7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:290 60:1-2'>Isa 60:1-2</a></em> clearly envisage a Messianic figure proclaiming the "good news" of Israel's freedom from oppression and sin. The Lord seems to assume that His audience would know what 'good news' He had in view. Perhaps He was alluding to those Servant Songs in Isaiah, and saying that the good news is of "the Kingdom of God". And He goes on in Matthew particularly to explain that this good news is of the life of forgiveness and grace lived out now, under the rulership of God, and coming to its material climax in His second coming and the literal establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. </p>


text:
<p><em>The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and the recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those that are bruised</em>-</p><p> The Lord began His ministry by proclaiming a freedom from burdens through Him (Luke 4). And He concludes it by telling the disciples to proclaim the same deliverance (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). Consider how He brings together various passages from Isaiah in His opening declaration in <em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>: <em>“</em>The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives,&nbsp;&nbsp; and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach [proclaim] [Heb. ‘call out to a man’] the acceptable year of the Lord”<em>. </em>This combines allusions to <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:30 25:10'>Lev 25:10</a></em>); <em><a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a></em> LXX&nbsp;and&nbsp; <em><a href='B:290 61:2'>Isa 61:2</a></em>.<em>&nbsp;</em> </p><p><em><a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a></em> AV: “To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free (cp. <em><a href='B:50 15:12'>Deu 15:12</a></em> re freedom of slaves, s:w:), and that you break every yoke” is in the context of an insincerely kept year of Jubilee in Hezekiah’s time, after the Sennacherib invasion. Isaiah 58 has many Day of Atonement allusions- the year of Jubilee began on this feast. We are as the High Priest declaring the reality of forgiveness to the crowd. Hence <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em> asks us to proclaim a Jubilee of atonement. The Greek for “preach” in <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em> and for “preach / proclaim the acceptable year” in <em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em> are the same, and the word is used in the LXX for proclaiming the Jubilee. And the LXX word used for ‘jubilee’ means remission, release, forgiveness, and it is the word used to describe our preaching / proclaiming forgiveness in <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>. It could be that we are to see the cross as the day of atonement, and from then on the Jubilee should be proclaimed in the lives of those who accept it. It’s as if we are running round telling people that their mortgages have been cancelled, hire purchase payments written off…and yet we are treated as telling them something unreal, when it is in fact so real and pertinent to them. And the very fact that <em>Yahweh</em> has released others means that we likewise ought to live in a spirit of releasing others from their debts to us: “The creditor shall release that which he hath lent…<em> because</em> the Lord’s release hath been proclaimed” (<em><a href='B:50 15:2'>Deu 15:2</a></em> RV). </p><p>Isaiah 61 was the Jewish synagogue reading for the Day of Atonement and especially on the first day of a jubilee year, and it could be that the Lord is alluding to this when He said that "today" those words were coming true. Perhaps that day was a day of atonement. He was the means for atonement, on which basis the Jubilee was proclaimed; the good news of Messiah was not so much a political kingdom free from the Romans but the good news of atonement for sin.</p><p>Christ means 'Messiah', the&nbsp;anointed one. He was anointed in order "to preach the Gospel"; and we too have been anointed insofar as we are in Christ, the anointed one (<em><a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a></em>). Therefore as He was ordained a preacher of the Gospel to the world, we too share that honour (as we do all His honours, to some extent). He was anointed (‘oiled’) by God in order to give the oil of joy to His people; He shared His experience of anointing with us, and we must go out and do likewise (<em><a href='B:290 61:1-2'>Isa 61:1-2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord</em></p><p>- See on :18. To preach [proclaim] the acceptable year of the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em>) is thus parallel with “You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants” (<em><a href='B:30 25:10'>Lev 25:10</a></em>). Likewise there are to be found other such allusions to the proclamation of Jubilee: “We as workers together with him, beseech you also that you receive… the grace of God… a time accepted… in the day of salvation [the Jubilee] have I succoured you: behold, now is the accepted time” (<em><a href='B:540 6:1-2'>2Co 6:1-2</a></em>) “Repentance and remission of sins should be preached [proclaimed, s:w. <em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em>] in his name among all nations” (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And he closed the book and gave it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him</em>-</p><p> “The word was made flesh” in daily reality for Jesus. The extraordinary connection between the man Jesus and the word of God which He preached and spoke is reflected here, as noted on :17. Here we have as it were an exquisite close up of Jesus, His very body movements, His handling of the scroll, and the movement of the congregation's eyes. Notice that at this stage He had only read from the scroll, and not yet begun His exposition of what He had read. The impression I take from this is that there was an uncanny connection between Him and the word of His Father. The Son reading His Father’s word, with a personality totally in conformity to it, must have been quite something to behold. He was the word of God made flesh in a person, in a way no other person had or could ever be. See on <em><a href='B:490 4:36'>Luk 4:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:10'>Joh 14:10</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he began to say to them: Today has this scripture been fulfilled in your hearing</em>-</p><p> It was fulfilled "today" in that it was on that day that He chose to remove the mask He had worn before His neighbours, and reveal Himself for who He was- the Messiah. </p><p>Some prophecies are fulfilled according to the acceptance of their fulfilment by believers, and therefore have their fulfilments in different ways at different times. Thus for those who received it, Malachi’s ‘Elijah’ prophecies were fulfilled in John the Baptist, for those who accepted him (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em>). The implication is that for those who didn’t, those prophecies weren’t fulfilled. He didn’t mean that His reading those words in a synagogue had fulfilled them. He speaks of “your ears” or "hearing" as standing for ‘your correct perception / understanding’ in <em><a href='B:470 13:16'>Mat 13:16</a></em>. What He was surely saying was that for those of them who perceived who He was, Isaiah’s words were ringing true. For those who rejected Him, of course, they weren’t fulfilled, and therefore their complete, universal acceptance&nbsp;/ fulfilment would be delayed until a future day; just as it was with the ‘Elijah’ prophecy. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And all bore him witness, and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said- </em>Because of the gracious words and manner of speaking of Jesus, therefore God so highly exalted Him (<em><a href='B:230 45:2'>Psa 45:2</a></em>). The Father was <em>so </em>impressed with the words of His Son. <em><a href='B:490 4:22'>Luk 4:22</a></em> records how people were amazed at the gracious words He spoke, as in <em><a href='B:500 7:46'>Joh 7:46</a></em>; there was something very unusual in His manner of speaking. Evidently there must have been something totally outstanding about His use of language. God highly exalted Him because He so loved righteousness and hated wickedness (<em><a href='B:230 45:7'>Psa 45:7</a></em>), and yet also because of His manner of speaking (<em><a href='B:230 45:2'>Psa 45:2</a></em>); so this <em>love </em>of righteousness and hatred of evil was what made His words so special. &nbsp; </p><p><em>Is this not Joseph's son?</em>-</p><p> Mary had clearly not shared with others what had happened around the Lord's conception. She had perhaps come to see Him as Joseph's son by the time she rebuked Him at age 12 in the temple, when she refers to Joseph as His father. She became influenced in her view of the Lord by the view of others. And we can take a warning from this. Such was His humanity that He appeared to have just followed the profession of His supposed ‘father’ on earth. In essence, the same is happening to Trinitarians. They just can't hack that Jesus, Son of God, perfect human being... was truly human, with a human brother, mother and relatives. And so they have stumbled off into various wrong theories and theologies about Jesus to try to rationalize and spiritually legitimise their lack of faith in Him as a human person:&nbsp;</p><p>One of the most surpassing wonders of the Lord’s character was that He could live for 30 years in a small town in Galilee, never ever committing sin, and never ever omitting an act of righteousness... and yet when He stood up and basically proclaimed Himself to be Messiah, the people were scandalized. They were shocked that this carpenter’s son should think He was anything much more than them. Yet whenever we try to be a bit more righteous than our fellows, it’s always noticed and held against us. Yet the Lord Jesus was both perfect, and also in favour with men. He came over as the ordinary guy, and yet He was perfect, and the light of this world. In this there is a matchless example for us. This wondrous feature of the Lord’s achievement in His own character is reflected by the way His own brothers, who knew Him better than any, perceived Him to be just an ordinary person. When He started implying that He was the Son of God, they thought He’d gone crazy. When He declared Himself as Messiah, the people who had grown up with Him were scandalized. He was <em>so</em> human that even though He never sinned, the people who intimately knew Him for 30 years thought that He was truly one of them. In our making the word flesh, we tend to irritate people by our apparent righteousness, or turn them away from us by our hypocrisy. But the Lord truly made the word flesh, to the extent that the very dregs of society could relate to Him as one of them. There is a wonder in this that requires sustained meditation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Doubtless you will say to me this proverb: Physician, heal yourself. Whatever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in your hometown</em>-</p><p> The nobleman's son had been cured in Capernaum, as recorded in John. "Heal yourself" could suggest the Lord had some illness or physical weakness. The language of Isaiah 53 is full of allusion to leprosy. He may have had the appearance of leprosy, some skin condition, whilst not having leprosy itself. This would speak much of the Lord's relationship with sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Truly I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own hometown</em>-</p><p> We need to ask&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;this is so true. In the first century Palestinian world, a person wasn’t defined so much by ‘who they were’ as by ‘whom they belonged to and where they originated from’. Hence their problem with seeing that the Lord had access to wisdom and power which they did not have as a group. He didn’t get that from them- and this confused them and their lack of understanding it turned to anger with Him. He had become different to them, therefore He was not of them- so they reasoned. And yet He&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;of them- the record stresses that they were His natural&nbsp;<em>patris</em>(“country”) and&nbsp;<em>oikos</em>&nbsp;(“family”). This is the same problem as Trinitarians have- they can’t see that the Lord could have what He had, and yet be one of us, of our human nature. And perhaps that partly explains their frequently observed anger with non-Trinitarian Christians. This proverb is quoted again in <em><a href='B:500 4:44'>Joh 4:44</a></em> but in a different sense. The Lord is recorded as leaving Judea and going to Galilee exactly because a prophet has no honour in “His own country”. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, not in Galilee. It could be that He went to Galilee from Judea because the “country” He had in mind here in quoting this proverb was Bethlehem, rather than Nazareth. And yet in <em><a href='B:470 13:57'>Mat 13:57</a></em> He uses this proverb about Nazareth. Perhaps this explains His deep amazement at His rejection now in Nazareth</p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:470 13:58'>Mat 13:58</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>But of a truth I say to you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:660 5:16-18'>Jas 5:16-18</a></em>. We only learn of the length of the famine in the New Testament. Three and a half years is a period we often meet in the latter day prophecies- 1260 days, 42 months, a time, times [two times] and a half. This latter day period is therefore flagged up as the time of the ministry of the latter day Elijah, as an appeal for Israel to repent. </p>


text:
<p><em>And to none of them was Elijah sent, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman that was a widow</em>-</p><p> In the context of :27, the implication would be that this woman too was a Gentile. Even at the start of His ministry, the Lord stressed Gentile acceptance. This was not simply because He realized Israel would reject Him and the door thereby opened to the Gentiles; but because He understood that the good news of the Hope of Israel was in fact good news for the Gentile world if they embraced that hope. </p>


text:
<p><em>And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them were cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian</em>-</p><p> When Naaman's maid asserted that Elisha could cure him of his leprosy, this was not therefore based on experience. She had not even heard of Elisha curing any lepers in Israel. But she believed it was the kind of thing he could do.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were all filled with anger in the synagogue as they heard these things</em>-</p><p> There is a similar account in <em><a href='B:470 13:55-58'>Mat 13:55-58</a></em>. If this is indeed a later, similar incident, then we marvel at how despite this rejection, the Lord later returned to give them another chance- and was treated likewise. Anger is demonstrated here to be rooted in a bad conscience. They realized the truth of who He was, but refused to accept it. And this leads to anger. Much human anger, although not all of it, is rooted in such bad conscience. And the anger is directed at the one[s]whose words have been rejected. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they rose up and threw him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong</em>-</p><p> This was the punishment for a heretic. They knew He said the truth, but because it demanded so much of them, they claimed He was heretical. So many cries of 'heresy' and 'heretic' are psychologically rooted in a subconscious refusal to accept the truths presented. I suggest this is why there has been such a long tradition of hatred, anger and calling of 'heretic' against those who preach a non-Trinitarian Jesus. If He truly had our nature and therefore was not God, this demands so much of us. And men shy away from that and cry 'heresy' rather than be challenged as to what are the very high possibilities for we who share the nature the Lord had when mortal.</p><p>There may be an allusion here to Jephthah, who had been "despised and rejected of men" during the time of Israel's suffering:&nbsp; In this and many other ways he is a clear type of Christ. Jephthah reminded the "elders of Gilead" who were now seeking his help, "Did not you hate me, and expel me out of my father's house?" (<em><a href='B:70 11:7'>Jdg 11:7</a></em>):&nbsp; The Hebrew for "expel" is also translated 'thrust out';&nbsp;Jesus was 'thrust out' from his native town as Jephthah was from Gilead, perhaps a technical term for local excommunication from the city synagogue region:&nbsp;It was "the elders" who were also responsible for Christ's rejection. He was despised as "the son of a strange woman" (<em><a href='B:70 11:2'>Jdg 11:2</a></em>) as the Lord was accused of being born out of wedlock (<em><a href='B:500 8:41'>Joh 8:41</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>But he passing through the midst of them went his way- </em>The Lord clearly had the ability to avoid capture and death. This explains why towards the end of His ministry He was not taken and killed earlier. He gave His life, it was not taken from Him (<em><a href='B:500 10:17-18'>Joh 10:17-18</a></em>). So we see highlighted the fact that He could have avoided the cross, but chose not to- the essence of His wilderness temptations.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them on the Sabbath day</em>-</p><p> He had been there earlier (:23), and cured the nobleman's son there. But Luke is writing for Gentiles, and so he mentions where Capernaum was located.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were astonished at his teaching; for his word was with authority</em>-</p><p> The synagogue minister gave the lesson or sermon, but invited members of the congregation to contribute their thoughts. The Lord's message would therefore have been brief, but so powerful that it astonished people. The Gospel records twelve times record astonishment at the Lord's teaching. How could the passage of mere ideas from the larynx of a Palestinian Jew be so utterly astonishing, no matter how profound the content of the message? The Old Testament prophets likewise spoke God's word, but they were met with cynicism and mocking. Surely there was another factor which elicited such astonishment at His teaching, and I suggest it was in the way that His person was so perfectly congruent with the amazing ideas He was teaching. He was after all the word made flesh. </p><p>His authority was based upon something. And I suggest it was not His miracles, but rather the congruence between His person and His word. The scribes indeed claimed authority. But the teaching of Jesus somehow had that authority within itself. It was not therefore just the nature or profundity of the ideas and content itself which were authoritative. He really did have authority, and He didn't need to make any claim to having it. The amazing challenge is in the parable of <em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>, where the Lord gives His authority to us His servants... We are not merely standing on a street lamely holding out tracts, offering them to anyone willing to come up and take one. We have an element of His authority if we are teaching His word in His Name; and thus Paul uses the word when speaking of his 'authority in the [preaching of] the Gospel' (<em><a href='B:530 9:18'>1Co 9:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:8'>2Co 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:10'>2Co 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:9'>2Th 3:9</a></em>). And in our personal standing before the Father, we likewise have been given authority by the Lord Jesus to be the sons of God (<em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em>). Paul realized we have each been given this authority, and uses the same word when warning believers not to let their "authority" (AV "this liberty of yours") cause others to stumble (<em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And in the synagogue, there was a man that had a spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice</em>-</p><p> Notice that the man [singular] cried out in the plural ["us... we", :34], and then changes immediately back to the singular "I know you..." (:34). This is a classic case of schizophrenia- not literal demon possession. </p>


text:
<p><em>Leave us alone! What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are! The Holy One of God</em>!</p><p>- See on :33. Notice the changes of pronouns from plural to singular. The supposedly spirit-possessed man was what we would call a man suffering from multiple personality disorder or a schizophrenic. Perhaps the dominant personality of the man was that which could say "I know who you are- the Holy One of God". "You Nazarene" may suggest this man had met the Lord previously, and was one of the few who during the Lord's carpenter years had perceived that He was God's Holy One. Despite his affliction, in his deepest heart and most fundamental personality, the mentally ill man perceived what few others did- that Jesus was the Son of God. The man's less dominant personalities feared condemnation and destruction from this Son of God, and wanted Him to leave. The dominant personality recognized Him as Son of God, and maybe we are to imagine him saying "I know who you are..." said in a totally different tone of voice, as if another person was speaking compared to the ones who feared condemnation and didn't want closer engagement with Jesus. That same struggle, in essence, goes on in the mind of every person as they come to Jesus; a desire to pull back before it gets too serious and risky, and yet another desire to accept Him for who He is, the saviour Son of God. The Lord's apparent exorcism of the other personalities therefore left the man with who he really was in his heart of confused hearts- a believer in Jesus as God's Holy Son. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus rebuked him, saying: Hold your peace and come out of him. And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst, he came out of him, having done him no hurt</em>-</p><p> If as suggested on :34, the man had multiple personalities, the Lord is rebuking the less dominant personality. He speaks of course in terms which the man would have related to- of demon possession. The language of "rebuke" is appropriate to rebuking a personality; for one could hardly "rebuke" a erson for being mentally disturbed. That is not a moral issue. </p><p>This is recorded from the perspective of the onlooking crowd, with their beliefs and observations coloured by those beliefs. The video camera of the Gospel writer is as it were focused on them, and therefore the language of demon possession is used. The Greek for "tearing" used in Mark at this point is literally 'to make gasp'. It is appropriate to an epileptic convulsion or fit. But these incidents are not the work of indwelling demons; for they can be managed by medication today. The convulsion is described in the language of the day, as if there was a struggle within the man, and then in the man's panting afterwards we are invited to imagine a spirit departing from him. There was no actual "unclean spirit" involved; the cure was of personality, as noted on :34, it was as if one of the man's less dominant personalities now left him. And that is the kind of healing which the Lord through the Spirit can work today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And amazement came upon all, and they spoke together, one with another, saying: What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits and they come out</em></p><p>- See on :32. We can see here one reason why the Lord 'went along' with their misunderstanding about evil spirits. They were left with the impression, within their albeit incorrect worldview, that His <em>teaching</em> had the power to change radically, and to cause a spirit or mindset to depart from a person permanently. They thereby perceived that His words had power; the ideas in His teaching were of themselves powerful.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there went a rumour concerning him into every place of the region round about</em>-</p><p> "Rumour" is literally "a noise". The word about the Lord Jesus went to "every place", every isolated dwelling. The Lord clearly used an economy of miracle, but He did so initially in order to publicize His Messianic claims and above all, His message. For we have noted above that He was using the miracles to exemplify and back up His message. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he rose up from the synagogue and entered into the house of Simon. And Simon's wife's mother was sick with a high fever- </em>The Greek literally means ‘to be on fire’. This is yet another example of phenomenological language. A high temperature was thought to be a sign that something was on fire within a person; that wrong idea is repeated without correction, just as the language of demons Is. The simple point being made, time and again, is that however folk understood disease, the power of the Lord Jesus was so infinitely greater that whatever was supposed to be causing the illness effectively didn’t exist.</p><p><em>And they made request of him concerning her</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 8:14'>Mat 8:14</a></em> says:&nbsp;<em>"</em>And when Jesus had entered Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying", as if the Lord noticed the problem and took the initiative to assist, rather than being asked to- although Luke says they did ask Him. But they asked for what He already had noticed and knew all about. <em><a href='B:480 1:31'>Mar 1:31</a></em> states that “they [told] Him about her” and He responded. Surely the overall picture is that He did notice her need. But He waited to be asked before responding- not because He would not otherwise have responded, but because He wanted to pique the intensity of request and entreaty on their part. We sense the same spirit in how He appeared to be asleep on the sinking boat, and how He made as if He would go further on the way to Emmaus. And His apparent silence in our own lives is surely to provoke our prayerfulness and faith likewise.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he stood over her and rebuked the fever; and it left her-</em></p><p> Also the language of the day, because illness was understood as having to go somewhere when it was healed.</p><p><em>And immediately she rose up and served them</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; Her response to her healing was to serve the Lord and His people. This should be the underlying motive why we ask for healing and good health- so that we can serve. And our response to the Lord’s touching of us can never be passive- it involves some level of active serving. Perhaps the use of&nbsp;<em>diakoneo</em>&nbsp;looks forward to the office and practice of women being deacons, ministers, in the early church. For the church of any age is to be an extension of the men and women who followed the Lord Jesus in Galilee:&nbsp; There was a Rabbinic prohibition of women serving men at table, so this is yet another instance of the Lord and His people being driven by their desire to respond to God's grace to breaking accepted social norms about gender.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the sun was setting, they brought to him all that were sick with various diseases; and he laid his hands on everyone of them and healed them</em>-</p><p> The healing had been done on a Sabbath, and so they only carried their sick to the Lord after sunset. We see here the power of religious tradition and fear of religious leaders and infringement of their traditions. There would have been urgently sick people, who needed healing as soon as possible. The people believed the Lord could heal them; but their fear of infringing Sabbath traditions was even greater. And we see the same in essence today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And demons also came out from many, crying out and saying: You are the Son of God!- </em>The "many" had "various diseases" (<em><a href='B:480 1:34'>Mar 1:34</a></em>). The "various diseases" demonstrated His wide ranging power; for healers tended to specialize in specific diseases, claiming power over particular [supposed] demons. But the Lord could heal all kinds of diseases. The purpose of the healings was not simply to meet human need, but to elicit a belief in Him as "Son of God". His miracles were always to back up His preaching.</p><p><em>But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ</em>-</p><p> "Allow / permit" is the same word translated "send forth". The idea could simply be that the Lord didn't send out these converts as 'sent forth' missionary apostles. "The demons" are put for the [supposedly] 'demon possessed' people. The focus is ultimately upon the person and not upon whatever was thought to be possessing them. Note how it was the Egyptian people who were judged (<em><a href='B:10 15:14'>Gen 15:14</a></em>); their idols (“gods”) are used by metonymy to stand for those who believed in them. Likewise “demons” is sometimes put by metonymy for those who believed in them.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now when it was day, he departed and went into a deserted place. And the crowd sought him and came to him, and tried to keep him from leaving them</em>-</p><p> We continually notice the Lord's dislikeof melodrama and large crowds. He was used to sustained personal contact with the Father, and the pressure of the crowds would have been unbearable for Him. He loved solitude with God. Many of us can relate to Him in this, and He thereby to us. But He worked with the crowds exactly because He saw their need, He as it were came out of Himself for their sakes and for the sake of God's glory. </p>


text:
<p><em>But he said to them: I must preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for this is why I was sent</em>-</p><p> He did not want to be a mere miracle man. His focus was upon preaching the Kingdom, and so He departed rather than meet all the human need which He could have done. His approach ought to be programmatic for us; and too often the focus of our ministry has either been upon purely academic pushing of Biblical ideas at one extreme, or mere do-gooding for its own sake at the other.</p><p>Comparing with :19, the preaching of the Kingdom is made parallel to preaching the time of acceptance with God and forgiveness of sins <em>now</em> (<em><a href='B:540 6:2'>2Co 6:2</a></em>). <em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em> seems to teach that the Kingdom of God is more about "peace and joy in the Holy Spirit", both now and eternally, than physical, tangible things. Christ's parables about the Kingdom don't speak of a political Kingdom, but rather about the relationship between God and the believer in the here and now. See on <em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee</em>-</p><p> As with Paul's ministry, the openness of the synagogues to visiting teachers was well used by the Lord. <em>"</em>Went about… teaching… preaching… healing" (<em><a href='B:470 4:23'>Mat 4:23</a></em>) is just what we read of the Lord's followers doing in Acts. The preaching of the apostles (and of ourselves) continues the personal work of the Lord in whom they lived and moved, and therefore often Acts records the preaching work in language lifted from Luke as well as the other Gospel records (e.g. <em><a href='B:510 4:2'>Act 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:12-16'>Act 5:12-16</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 4:23'>Mat 4:23</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Now it came to pass, while the crowd pressed upon him and heard the word of God, that he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret</em>-</p><p> As elsewhere in the Gospels, the Lord's focus is presented as being upon the disciples rather than upon the crowds. He sought to develop and teach a small body of serious converts rather than make mass conversions; the mass conversions were to be made by them, rather than Him personally. And Acts continues this theme.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he saw two boats standing by the lake; but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets</em>-</p><p> The impression is that they were potentially ready to go 'fishing' for the Lord, but with His presence in the boat they were able to do it. "Fishermen" is literally, 'salty ones'. The Greek can equally mean 'sailors'. The Lord must have had this in mind when He said that they were "the salt of the earth" (<em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>). If we are likewise the salt of the earth in our influence upon others, we will find ourselves as the modern counterpart to those 'salty ones' who followed the Lord in His Galilee days.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he entered into one of the boats, which was Simon's, and asked him to put out a little from the shore. And he sat down and taught the crowds out of the boat</em>-</p><p> It was for all the world as if the boat belonged to the Lord. He was setting these men up to continue His preaching ministry. He sat in their place, so that they would take His place later. Teaching from a boat is in intended contrast with the idea that teaching could only take place within the synagogue. He surely would have been better standing up, so that His voice carried, and so that He could speak louder. But He "sat", as His style was, just as an adult gets down to the level of a child in order to talk with them. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon: Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch</em>-</p><p> The scene is purposefully repeated by the Lord after His resurrection. He wished them to see that He was the same essential Jesus both in His mortal life and also in His post resurrection glory. And the same Jesus who loved little children and so desperately wished human salvation is the same yesterday, today and for ever- including when we meet Him at judgment day. He had asked Peter to "put out" into shallow water, with Him in the boat teaching (:3 s:w:). Now He asks them to "put out" into deeper water, alone, without Him, to fish. This was an acted parable of how their calling was to share the Gospel with others as the Lord had done; His teaching was their fishing of men. Prior to His presence and entering of their lives, they could not have done this. But He was present on the shore. This is expressed in more abstract terms in John 14-16, where the Comforter, the spirit of Jesus, is promised to all who will teach Him to others. He is with us just as really as He was in His mortal life. But they were to go fishing "for a catch", in the expectation of response. Our witness too is not merely a witness for the sake of it, but is to be made in firm faith that there are fish / men out there to be caught. A "catch" is literally a 'bringing', the same word is used of how sick people were 'brought' to the Lord in <em><a href='B:490 4:10'>Luk 4:10</a></em>. The drawing process depends partially upon our bringing of men into the Gospel net.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Simon answered and said: Master, we toiled all night and took nothing, but at your word I will let down the nets</em></p><p>- See on :4 and <em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em>. Despite having toiled all night and caught nothing, Peter was able to subdue his natural wisdom, his sense of futility, and the sense of irritation and superiority which exists in the experienced working man: "Nevertheless ["but"] (how much that hides!) at <em>your word</em>&nbsp; I will let down the nets". It would seem that the parallel record of this is found in <em><a href='B:470 4:18'>Mat 4:18</a></em>, which describes the call of the disciples soon after Christ's triumphant emergence from the wilderness temptations. We learn from <em><a href='B:500 1:41-42'>Joh 1:41-42</a></em> that it was Peter's brother, Andrew, who first told Peter about Jesus, and who brought him to meet Jesus first of all. The point is that at the time of Peter's call as hewas fishing, he had probably heard very few of Christ's words personally. He had heard about Him, and listened to His words for perhaps a few hours at different times in the past. So where did he get this tremendous respect for the word of Christ from, which he demonstrated when Christ called him? The answer must be that he meditated deeply on those words that he had heard and understood, and came to appreciate that the man saying them was worth giving all for. Our far easier access to God's word does not seem to make us more meditative as individuals. We have access to hearing God's word which previous generations never had. We can listen to it on a Walkman, have tapes of well-read Scripture playing at home, analyse it by computer, hear it sung to us according to our taste in music, read it from pocket Bibles as we work and travel... we <em>can</em>&nbsp;and <em>could</em>&nbsp;do all these things. My sense is that we just don't make use of our opportunities as we should. Why has God given our generation these special opportunities to be ultra-familiar with His word? Surely it is because our age contains temptations which are simply more powerful than those of former years. So it is <em>vital</em>, vital for our eternal destiny, that we do make as much use as possible of all these opportunities. We should be <em>cramming</em>, yes cramming, our hearts and brains with the words of God. I certainly get the feeling that Peter would have listened to a tape of Isaiah on his Walkman if he had one, as he went out fishing; that he'd have had tapes of the Psalms going all evening long in his little fisherman's cottage, wife and kids caught up in his enthusiasm too (<em><a href='B:480 10:10'>Mar 10:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:15'>Mar 10:15</a></em> suggests that the incident with the little children occurred in Peter's house). There <em>are</em> a handful of Christian homes where this spirit is truly seen. &nbsp;</p><p>It seems to me that the Lord asks each of us to do that which is essentially difficult for us personally, something against the grain of our very nature and personal understanding of and position in life. This may explain why sometimes He asked those He cured to spread the message (perhaps the introverts, or those whose past lives had been notorious?), whilst others (perhaps the extroverts?) He asked to remain silent about what He had done. When the Lord asked Peter to go out fishing, for example, this was totally and exactly against every grain of Peter's natural self. He was a fisherman, he'd been fishing all night, he knew it was <em>absolutely</em> pointless to try again. He knew that a carpenter didn't know what a fisherman did. The Lord's request was a blow at the justifiable pride in his specialism which every working man has. If the Lord Jesus had asked let's say <em>Paul</em> to go out fishing, well, I guess he'd have obeyed with no real difficulty. But He asked Peter to do that, at that very moment, because it was a real cross for Peter to pick up. Likewise it would have seemed logical for Paul to preach to the Jews, and Peter to the Gentiles (note how the Gentiles approached Philip, from semi-Gentile Galilee, in <em><a href='B:500 12:20-21'>Joh 12:20-21</a></em>). Yet in fact the Lord God used those men in the very opposite way, right against the grain of their natural abilities. He asked goldsmiths to do the manual work of building the wall of Jerusalem, bruising their sensitive fingers against lumps of rock (<em><a href='B:160 3:8'>Neh 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 3:31'>Neh 3:31</a></em>); and Barak’s victorious warriors were civil servants and writers (<em><a href='B:70 5:14'>Jdg 5:14</a></em>), not military men. Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews, when we’d have thought that naturally speaking, they would have been far more comfortable in the reverse roles. Judas was put in charge of the money amongst the twelve; when Matthew the tax collector would presumably have been the obvious man for the job. Naaman wanted to do some great act, but was asked to do the hardest thing for him- to dip in Jordan. And Abraham was asked to do what was so evidently the hardest thing- to offer up his only, specially beloved son.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had done this, they caught a great many fishes; and their nets were breaking</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:510 2:6'>Act 2:6</a></em>. As explained above, the Lord was teaching them that they were to do His work of fishing men into the Gospel net. In the similar incident after the resurrection, their nets did not break. The Lord will somehow provide the resources needed for this work. And perhaps He was also encouraging them to follow Him and forsake their fishing business because He is absolutely able to provide any amount of fish. All human endeavour and desire for income can be dramatically overridden by the Lord if we devote ourselves to His work.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they beckoned to their partners in the other boat, that they should come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink</em>-</p><p> Paul seems to allude here in saying that the desire for wealth can drown believers (<em><a href='B:610 6:9'>1Ti 6:9</a></em>). The Lord is warning them not to allow their desire for wealth and good income to drown them; rather they were to focus upon doing the work of the Gospel, and somehow all shall be provided.</p><p>It would seem that Peter as a working man had a love of his job. He left his fishing in Mark 1 to follow the Lord, but returned to it by Luke 5. Then he left it, and returned to it in the post-resurrection crisIs. The Lord’s provision of fish on the shore was simply saying: ‘You don’t need to fish any more’. He asked them to drag the nets to land, which would usually have broken them, but they didn’t break. Likewise He had earlier told fisherman Peter to cast the net on the other side, when Peter knew full well which side of the boat there were likely to be fish. And a whirlwind storm had come upon Galilee which would have drowned fisherman and sailor Peter were it not for the Lord’s presence. In all these things, Peter was being taught to quit the life that he loved. “Lovest thou me more than these?” was asked with the huge catch of fish lying there on the shore- a fisherman’s dream. It could be that the question referred to them. ‘Go and feed <em>my</em> sheep rather than worry about <em>your </em>fish’. When earlier the boats had begun to sink with too many fish, the word used for ‘sinking’ occurs in <em><a href='B:610 6:9'>1Ti 6:9</a></em>, about believers being drowned in materialism and thereby condemning themselves (<em><a href='B:490 5:7'>Luk 5:7</a></em>). Whether it’s a career that we love, a livelihood that we simply trust as a sure means of human survival, or the spiritual pride that we love the Lord more than our brethren, all these things are demanded of us by the demanding Lord, as we seek to follow Him to the cross:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But Simon Peter, when he saw it, fell down at Jesus' knees, saying: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord </em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em>. The Father seems to have wanted Peter to make the connection between preaching and recognition of personal sinfulness quite early on. “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord” was followed by a commission to go preach the Gospel to Israel, just as Isaiah had been brought to the same point and then been sent on a like mission. The picture of the condemned is presented in Scripture in some detail. We are all condemned men and women before the light of the glory of Jesus Christ. If we are to be saved in that future day, we must judge / condemn ourselves now in our self-examination (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). This means that we ought to have their feelings in some respects; as they will have no desire to go on living in the flesh, as they will so earnestly desire entry into the Kingdom, as they will then desperately not want to go back into the world... so we should feel now, grateful that for us there is entry into the Kingdom made possible. Thus Peter asked the Lord to depart from him (<em><a href='B:490 5:8'>Luk 5:8</a></em>), with the very same words the Lord used about what He will say to the rejected (<em><a href='B:490 13:27'>Luk 13:27</a></em>).</p>&nbsp;<p>"Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord" was capturing the spirit of Isaiah. But the Lord responded that he was not to fear, but no now "catch men". Peter's deep recognition of his sinfulness resulted in him being given a preaching commission. And in similar vein, Peter was given another commission to teach the word when he met the Lord after his denials (<em><a href='B:500 21:15-17'>Joh 21:15-17</a></em>). In response to this he stood up and preached that forgiveness of sins was possible to all those that are afar off from God (<em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em>). As he did so, consciously or unconsciously, part of his mind must have been back in the way that on that shameful night he followed the Lord “afar off”, and far off from Him, denied Him (<em><a href='B:480 14:54'>Mar 14:54</a></em>). Peter’s vision of the unclean animals in the net taught him that those people whom he considered unclean, he was to “eat”, i:e. preach to and fellowship with. When he recounts the vision, he comments [in an account that is strictly factual in all other regards and without any embellishment]: “It [the sheet with the animals] came <em>even to me</em>” (<em><a href='B:510 11:5'>Act 11:5</a></em>). He is expressing his unworthiness at being called to the task of preaching, just as Paul likewise expressed his inadequacy.</p>


text:
<p><em>For he was amazed, and all that were with him, at the catch of fish which they had taken</em>-</p><p> The huge catch of fish, which nearly drowned them, was what provoked Peter to confess how sinful he was. He felt therefore that his sin was in being materialistic, in being obsessed with that huge catch, thinking of all the money they could earn in the market by selling it. The gift of wealth elicited within him a sense of sinfulness; and it should likewise within us all.</p>


text:
<p><em>And so were also James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon: Fear not. From this time forward you shall catch men</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 9:59'>Luk 9:59</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:2'>Joh 21:2</a></em>. <em>"</em>Catch men" is Gk. 'to catch alive'. This is an example of where what sounds like predictive prophecy is actually a command, which men are free to obey or disobey. The whole section about the temple to be built in Ezekiel 40-48 is another example. Peter was not to "fear" his tendency to materialism and his momentary failure in this matter. He was to move onwards from that and see that the greatest thing in life is not success in our business, but bringing others into the Gospel net, dragging them, with the help of our brethren ["partners" is <em>koinonos</em>, those we fellowship with], into the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had brought their boats to land, they left all and followed him</em>-</p><p> They became His disciples, that is the meaning of the idiom. They powerfully learnt the lesson- that the Lord could give business success and wealth at ease. And therefore they in a moment left it all and focused on following Him. The "all" which they left included the huge catch of fish.</p><p>Peter on the shore doesn’t say to the Lord that he had ‘made a mistake’ or cast the net on the wrong side etc:- he confesses that he is a “sinful man” altogether. Jesus taught that sin was no longer to be seen as a list of specific actions which must be avoided in order to have a good conscience before God. The conviction of sin as God intends is far deeper than this. As the Lord makes clear, it’s all about motives, what is inside the cup rather than what appears on the outside (<em><a href='B:490 11:39'>Luk 11:39</a></em>). And we are to press on with the work of the Gospel, regardless of our previous failings in being distracted by issues of wealth and income. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, while he was in one of the cities, that there was a man full of leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, saying- </em>The Greek literally means to bow or crouch. Perhaps it is being used here in that literal sense, inviting us then to imagine the Lord extending His hand to the kneeling man (:13). Or the idea could be that the man's worship was not in any external display of respect, but in the fact he believed in the Lord's ability and power to respond to his request. In this case, the man worshipped Jesus&nbsp;<em>in saying</em>&nbsp;"If You will, You can...".</p><p>"Begging" is the Greek <em>parakleo</em>; and John's Gospel records at length the Lord's promise to be our<em> parakletos</em>, doing the work of comfort and entreaty, <em>parakleo</em>, for <em>us</em>. We see here the mutuality between a man and his Lord; both relate to each other in the same passionate way, in prayer [from our side] and in the Lord's gracious response [from His side]. The<em>parakleo</em> group of words are appropriate to both sides of the relationship.</p><p><em>Lord, if you will, you can make me clean</em>-</p><p> The Lord replied that this was indeed His will (:13). This coincidence of human will with that of our Lord is what fellowship with Him and answered prayer is all about. The phrase "If You will, You can..." is recorded identically in all three of the synoptics (<em><a href='B:480 1:40'>Mar 1:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:12'>Luk 5:12</a></em>), as if they all wished to draw attention to the man's attitude and make an example of it- accepting that the Lord has all power ("can" =&nbsp;<em>dunamai</em>), but that our will is not always his.</p><p>The man recognized that it was within the Lord's power to heal him, but he also recognized that the Lord's will is not always ours, as His longer term plan may require Him not to respond to our request in the immediate term. This is a great example to us. For he would have been aware that the Lord did not heal all human need which He encountered; He had just left Simon's house, apparently because He didn't want to cure all the crowds surely gathering there for healing.</p><p>Faith is inculcated by an appreciation of the height of Christ’s exaltation. He now has all power in Heaven and in earth, and this in itself should inspire us with faith in prayer and hope in His coming salvation. On the basis of passages like <em><a href='B:20 4:7'>Exo 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 12:10-15'>Num 12:10-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 5:7-8'>2Ki 5:7-8</a></em>, “leprosy was regarded as a “stroke" only to be removed by the Divine hand which had imposed it" (L:G. Sargent,<em> The Gospel Of The Son Of God</em>, p. 28). The leper lived with this understanding, and yet he saw in Jesus nothing less than God manifest. Inspired by the height of the position which he gave Jesus in his heart, he could ask him in faith for a cure: “If You will, You can [as only God was understood to be able to] make me clean". </p>


text:
<p><em>And he stretched forth his hand and touched him, saying: I will. Be made clean- </em>The Lord responds within the terms of the man's request: "If You will, You can make me clean". We note the man sought cleansing above mere healing; his spiritual need for cleansing was paramount in his mind. We likewise should ask for material blessings motivated by spiritual concerns. The Lord could have cured the man in multiple ways, but he chose to touch the man, making Himself technically unclean; although it could be argued that the cure was so immediate that it was therefore debatable as to whether the Lord had actually touched a leper or not. Surely He did it the way He did to provoke such questions; for the process of questioning led to them becoming the more aware of the fact that the Lord's touch had indeed cleansed the man. And the whole question of ritual uncleanness was of course put in the spotlight. The Lord was and is unafraid to associate with the very dirtiest of human conditions and situations. There was no revulsion from them, as there is not today. The Lord is described a staggering 28 times in the synoptics as touching people. This was a studied rejection of the false teaching of 'guilt by association' or 'contamination by contact'. More than that, the Lord was at such lengths to identify Himself with suffering people.</p><p><em>And immediately the leprosy departed from him</em>-</p><p> The immediacy of the cure upon touching the Lord raised all kind of questions for the legalistic mind, as to whether the Lord was made unclean or not. The Greek literally means 'scales' and the same word is used of scales falling from Saul's eyes in <em><a href='B:510 9:18'>Act 9:18</a></em>. It could've been any skin disease rather than Hansen's disease. In <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em> the Lord told the disciples to likewise "cleanse the lepers". Again the Lord is giving the disciples the work of the priests to do. For it was their job to pronounce lepers cleansed. But He is asking them to do what He Himself had done here. His work was to be theirs. The later NT references to&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;being cleansed by the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:560 5:26'>Eph 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 2:14'>Tit 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:7'>1Jn 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:9'>1Jn 1:9</a></em> etc:) perhaps look back to how the historical Jesus cleansed lepers in Galilee. We are to see ourselves in that isolated and rejected man.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he ordered him: Tell no one, but go your way and show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing according as Moses commanded, for a testimony to them</em>-</p><p> The Lord had told the cured leper to tell no other man but go and offer for his cleansing, in order to make a witness to the priests. All three synoptics record this, as if it made a special impression on everyone (<em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:44'>Mar 1:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:14'>Luk 5:14</a></em>). It could be that the Lord is using an idiom when He told the leper to tell nobody: ‘Go and make a witness&nbsp;<em>first and foremost</em>&nbsp;to the priests as opposed to anybody else’. Such was His zeal for their salvation. And the fact that “a great 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>


text:
<p><em>However, the report went around concerning him all the more; and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:480 1:45'>Mar 1:45</a></em> notes that therefore "Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but stayed in deserted places". If we put the stress on the word "openly", we are left imagining Jesus somehow disguising Himself in order to enter the towns. This is the reason why the Lord so sternly charged the healed man not to spread the news (:43); the stampede of people wanting healing meant that the Lord was unable to perform His most important ministry, which was to preach ratherthan to heal</p>


text:
<p><em>But he withdrew himself into the desert and prayed</em>-</p><p> Each healing took energy and spiritual power from the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 8:46'>Luk 8:46</a></em>). As noted on <em><a href='B:490 4:42'>Luk 4:42</a></em>, the Lord was desperate for aloneness with God in prayer; for this was His source of being filled by the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass on one of those days that he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, who had come out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was with him to hea</em>l- The power of the Lord was present to heal the Pharisees- but they would not make use of what was potentially made available. The text suggests that the healing was possible for the Pharisees. The healing in view was therefore spiritual healing; and the whole incident of curing the paralyzed man was therefore in order to potentially provide the religious leaders with spiritual healing. The Lord's work in our lives is likewise multifaceted. Things happen in order that others may be taught, as happened in the life and sufferings of Job- it was to convert and teach the friends rather than Job personally, who is presented as "perfect" both before and after the recorded sufferings.</p>


text:
<p><em>And men brought on a bed a man that was paralysed; and they sought to bring him in and to lay him before him</em>-</p><p> The term for "brought" is also used of bringing a sacrifice to God, but in this case of the lame:&nbsp;"Bed" is Gk. a table or a couch. They had grabbed whatever could serve as a stretcher.</p>


text:
<p><em>But not finding by what way they might bring him in, because of the crowd, they went to the housetop and let him down through the tiles with his couch, into the midst before Jesus</em>-</p><p> This was all done in faith, and by doing this the Lord saw their faith (:20). <em><a href='B:480 2:3'>Mar 2:3</a></em> says they "carried" him, the term means literally to be taken up or away, and reflects the Hebrew term used for the bearing away of sin. And :20 confirms this association by stating that it was through the faith of the four friends that the man's sins were forgiven. This is the huge horizon of potential which there is for us in our efforts for others- we can even play a role in the Lord forgiving them their sins. This lifts the concept of pastoral work far beyond mere doing of good works.</p>


text:
<p><em>And seeing their faith, he said- </em>This is emphasized in all the accounts of this incident. Because of the faith of third parties, the sins of this man were forgiven. James speaks of the same possibility (<em><a href='B:660 5:15'>Jas 5:15</a></em> - the same Greek words for "sins" and "forgiven" are used there). Here we have a principle which can totally affect the course and hourly practice of our lives. In some cases, the sins of others can be forgiven because of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;faith. Job understood that when he offered for his sons after their wild parties. Of course there are invisible limits to the principle, but many of those with whom we have to do in church life are surely within those limits. Quite simply, the salvation of others depends to some extent and in some cases- upon our faith and prayers, and effort to get them to Jesus. This imparts huge and eternal significance to our lives, lived and prayed for others. The same Greek words for "sins" and "forgiven" are used again in the enigmatic <em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em>: "Whose soever sins you forgive, they are forgiven them". I suspect this is John's version of the great commission to preach the Gospel of forgiveness to others- the idea being that if we bring them to Jesus, then thanks to our efforts for them, they will be forgiven. And if we are slack to do this, then God may not always find another way, and their sins remain unforgiven. Prayer really does change things. God is willing to do things in the life of a third party (even forgive them) for the sake of the prayers and efforts of others. That man was healed for the sake of the faith of others. The widow woman’s son was resurrected because God heard Elijah’s faithful prayer (<em><a href='B:110 17:22'>1Ki 17:22</a></em>).</p><p><em>Man, your sins are forgiven you</em>-</p><p> The Lord emphasized this first, and then went on to heal him physically. It's common for the sick and their carers to focus almost exclusively upon their need for healing, whereas the most essential human need is for forgiveness. So the Lord stressed the forgiveness first, and the healing secondly. Clearly there was a link in this case between sin and illness. It could be argued that the two things are connected as they both arise from the curse in Eden. But I would suggest that it's likely that in this case, the connection between the man's paralysis and his sin was more direct. We too often shrug at those in such situations and consider that 'it's their fault'. So it may be, but if a man digs a hole and falls into it, he's still in the hole. And we have all done this, and the Gospel was designed for us exactly because we have done that. There is an inevitable connection between this incident and <em><a href='B:290 33:24'>Isa 33:24</a></em>, where we read of the restored Zion that "the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity". The Lord is implying here as elsewhere that the prophecies of the restored Zion were to be fulfilled in the lives of individuals who had come to Him, and not in the literal glorification and exaltation of Jerusalem over the Roman occupiers.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason-</em></p><p>Matthew adds "within themselves". Consider the huge emphasis of the New Testament upon 'thinking / talking within oneself', especially within the Gospels. The same Greek phrase is used repeatedly:</p><p>- "Think not to say within yourselves" (<em><a href='B:470 3:9'>Mat 3:9</a></em>)</p><p>- "The scribes said within themselves" (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>)</p><p>- "She said within herself" (<em><a href='B:470 9:21'>Mat 9:21</a></em>)</p><p>- The believer who fails to grow spiritually has no root "within himself" (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>)</p><p>- "They reasoned within themselves... Why do you reason within yourselves..." (<em><a href='B:470 16:7-8'>Mat 16:7-8</a></em>)</p><p>- "The husbandmen... said within themselves" (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>)</p><p>- The disciples "disputed within themselves" (<em><a href='B:480 9:33'>Mar 9:33</a></em>)</p><p>- Have salt "within yourselves" (<em><a href='B:480 9:50'>Mar 9:50</a></em>)</p><p>- The Pharisee "spake within himself" (<em><a href='B:490 7:39'>Luk 7:39</a></em>)</p><p>- The guests "began to say within themselves" (<em><a href='B:490 7:49'>Luk 7:49</a></em>)</p><p>- The rich fool "thought within himself, saying..." (<em><a href='B:490 12:17'>Luk 12:17</a></em>)</p><p>- "The steward said within himself" (<em><a href='B:490 16:3'>Luk 16:3</a></em>)</p><p>- The unjust judge "said within himself" (<em><a href='B:490 18:4'>Luk 18:4</a></em>)</p><p>- Peter "doubted in himself" (<em><a href='B:510 10:17'>Act 10:17</a></em>)</p><p>- Jews who heard the Gospel "reasoned within themselves" (<em><a href='B:510 28:29'>Act 28:29</a></em> Gk:)</p><p>- Israel "through the lusts of their own hearts... dishonoured their bodies within themselves" (<em><a href='B:520 1:24'>Rom 1:24</a></em>)</p><p>- "Within yourselves... you have a better and enduring substance" (<em><a href='B:650 10:34'>Heb 10:34</a></em>)</p><p>- "Partial within yourselves, judges of evil thoughts" (<em><a href='B:660 2:4'>Jas 2:4</a></em>).</p><p>There are many other Bible verses which likewise speak of the internal state of a person and the significance of our self-talk- these are just examples of one Greek phrase. It is logical therefore to expect that the great adversary or 'satan' to be internal thinking, how we think and speak within ourselves. And properly understood, this is indeed what 'satan' in the Bible sometimes refers to. We should deeply note at this point that the thoughts of men in their hearts are known to the Father and Son, and have been recorded publicly here in these records for many centuries. </p><p><em>Saying: Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?</em>-</p><p> The miracles of Jesus exposed the error of local views, e.g. of demons, without correcting them in so many words. Thus in <em><a href='B:490 5:21'>Luk 5:21</a></em> the Jews made two false statements: that Jesus was a blasphemer, and that God alone could forgive sins. Jesus did not verbally correct them; instead he did a miracle which proved the falsity of those statements. It was clearly the belief of Jesus that actions speak louder than words. He rarely denounced false ideas directly, thus he did not denounce the Mosaic law as being unable to offer salvation, but He showed by His actions, e.g. healing on the Sabbath, what the truth was.</p><p>The Jews got caught up on the issue of whether Christ's forgiveness of others made Him God or not- just as some folk do today. His response was to refocus them on the fact that He wanted&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;to<em> know</em>&nbsp;that He had real power to forgive&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;sins (<em><a href='B:490 5:24'>Luk 5:24</a></em>). I spend a lot of time arguing against the trinity and the 'Jesus = God' mentality. But the essence is, do we&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;on a personal level that the Lord Jesus really has the power to forgive&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;sins?</p>


text:
<p><em>But Jesus, perceiving their reasoning, answered and said to them- </em>Time and again, the Gospels record how He “perceived” things about people. Admittedly this could have been because He simply had a Holy Spirit gift to enable this. But I prefer to think that His sensitivity, His perception, aided by His extraordinary intellectual ability as the Son of God [for intelligence and perception / sensitivity are related]… these things developed within Him over the years so that He could sense the essential needs and feelings of others to an unsurpassed extent. “Jesus, seeing their thoughts…” (<em><a href='B:470 9:4'>Mat 9:4</a></em> RVmg:) shows how He came to perceive the hearts of others from His observation of them. This was the same Jesus who could be ridiculed into scorn / shame / embarrassment (<em><a href='B:470 9:24'>Mat 9:24</a></em>), such was His sensitivity to others. This incident helps us to understand the ability of the mind / spirit of the Lord Jesus to connect with that of human beings. <em><a href='B:480 2:8'>Mar 2:8</a></em> puts it like this: "Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, "Why are you thinking such things in your hearts?" (NET Bible). The spirit / mind of Jesus was at one with the spirit / mind of those men. Such was His sensitivity. I don't think it was a gift of Holy Spirit knowledge so much as His sensitivity to the minds of men... and yet <em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em> calls Jesus "The Spirit" as a title, saying that He bears witness with our spirit / mind, in His intercession to the Father. So this incident in the Gospels gives us as it were an insight into how He&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;operates too... He's the same today as yesterday. He's at one with our mind / spirit, and also with the mind / Spirit of the Father. Thus is He such a matchless mediator. The way the Lord Jesus 'knew' things because of His extreme sensitivity, rather than necessarily by some flash of Holy Spirit insight, isn't unparalleled amongst other men. Elisha knew what Gehazi had done when Gehazi went back to ask Naaman for a reward- Elisha commented: "Went not my heart with you, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet you?" (<em><a href='B:120 5:26'>2Ki 5:26</a></em>). Elisha imagined Naaman dismounting from his chariot, etc. And he could guess that the request had involved "money... garments" etc. That the Lord's knowledge wasn't necessarily automatic is reflected in the way we read things like "When he saw their faith... when Jesus heard it..." (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:17'>Mar 2:17</a></em>). He 'saw' and knew things by the sensitivity of His perception.</p><p><em>Why reason you so in your hearts?</em>-</p><p> This was a rhetorical question. Why did they struggle with His offer of forgiveness? Because it required an acceptance of it from them, which in turn required repentance. </p>


text:
<p><em>Which is easier to say-</em></p><p> Gk. 'less work'. The Lord meant 'Which is easier&nbsp;for Me'. There were plenty of claims to heal people; but to forgive sins was of a different order altogether. But the Lord is saying that for Him, they are one and the same; and that His healing was performed in this case on the basis of having forgiven the man his sin. Not only could He forgive sin, but in this case He could remove the consequence of it. For the Lord healed the man&nbsp;<em>so that&nbsp;</em>they would realize that He had power to forgive sins (:24).</p><p><em>Your sins are forgiven; or to say: Arise and walk?</em>-</p><p> The same words used by Peter when he tells the lame man to 'arise and walk' (<em><a href='B:510 3:6'>Act 3:6</a></em>). Peter consciously or unconsciously replicated his Lord in doing healing miracles. The very body language and word choice of the Lord were so impressed upon him that they became the pattern for&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;ministry; and the same should be true of us. The paralyzed man of <em><a href='B:500 5:8'>Joh 5:8</a></em> was likewise told to arise, take up his bed and walk- using the same words used here about the paralyzed man. Clearly the Lord Jesus worked with people according to some pattern. And we can discern similar hallmarks of His work as we get to know each other within the body of Christ today, perceiving as we exchange stories and testimonies that the Lord in essence works in similar ways between human lives today.</p>


text:
<p><em>But that you may know-</em></p><p> The reason for the healing miracle was to teach that He could forgive sins. This is why I suggest that in this man's case, his paralysis was a direct and publicly known result of his sin. Perhaps he had been alcoholic, or become paralyzed in an accident whilst stealing something. In this case his friends are to be commended for so wanting his healing, because many would have shrugged him off as someone who was suffering justly. The link between his illness and his sin was so clear that to heal him was seen as effectively forgiving him&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;removing the consequence of his sin. David, Moses and others often asked for the consequences of sin to be removed and at times received this. The palsied man was healed by the Lord in order to&nbsp;<em>teach others</em>&nbsp;that Jesus had the power to forgive sins. Job was a “perfect” man before the afflictions started; and he is presented as a ‘perfect’ man at the end. The purpose of his trials was not only to develop him, but also in order to teach the friends [and we readers] some lessons. The purpose of our trials too may not only be for our benefit, but for that of others. If we suffer anything, it is so that we might help others (<em><a href='B:540 1:4'>2Co 1:4</a></em>). He didn’t&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;reward the faith of the man’s friends; His motive for the miracle was to seek to teach those Scribes. Our tendency surely would have been to ignore them, to be angry that in the face of grace they could be so legalistic and petty and so far, far from God... and get on and heal the sick man who believed. But the Lord’s picture of human salvation was far wider and more inclusive and more hopeful than that.</p><p><em>That the Son of Man- </em>The humanity of Jesus was the very basis upon which He could and can forgive human sin. This is why <em><a href='B:470 9:8'>Mat 9:8</a></em> records that the crowds praised God for having given such power&nbsp;<em>unto men</em>. He understood Himself as rightful judge of humanity exactly because He was "son of man" (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>)- because every time we sin, He as a man would've chosen differently, He is therefore able to be our judge. And likewise, exactly because He was a "son of man", "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins". If it is indeed true that "'Son of Man' represents the highest conceivable declaration of exaltation in Judaism", then we can understand the play on words the Lord was making- for the term 'son of man' can also without doubt just mean 'humanity generally'. Exactly because He was human, and yet perfect, He was so exalted.</p><p><em>Has authority on earth to forgive sins (he said to him who was paralyzed)-</em></p><p> He had that power during His mortal life, and yet after His resurrection "<em>all</em>&nbsp;power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth" (<em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em>). His power to save and forgive is therefore even greater. Perhaps the contrast was that He had the power of forgiveness delegated to Him in specific cases during His ministry, but after the resurrection He had power in His own right to forgive, not on the basis of delegated power but power / authority in His own Name; even though that exalted position was of course given Him by God the Father.</p><p>The Jews got caught up on the issue of whether Christ's forgiveness of others made Him God or not- just as some folk do today. His response was to refocus them on the fact that He wanted <em>you</em> to <em>know</em> that He had real power to forgive <em>their</em> sins. I spend a lot of time arguing against the trinity and the 'Jesus = God' mentality. But the essence is, do we <em>know</em> on a personal level that the Lord Jesus really has the power to forgive <em>our</em> sins?</p><p>The disciples observed as Jesus made a lame man <em>arise</em>, take up his bed, and follow Him. But in <em><a href='B:510 9:34'>Act 9:34</a></em>, we find Peter doing just the same to Aeneas, even taking him by the hand as he had seen Jesus do to Jairus’ daughter. What Peter had seen and learnt of the Lord Jesus, he was now called to do. Not for nothing did he tell Aeneas that “Jesus Christ makes you whole”, thereby recognizing the connection between him and his Lord.</p><p>"He said to him that was paralyzed" suggests He turned from the Jews to the paralyzed man. It could be that the healing was really for the benefit of the hard hearted scribes- the Lord was going to all this trouble to try to persuade them of His authority as God's Son. We would likely have given up with them, but the way the Lord kept on trying with the orthodox Jews of His day is an essay in perseverance in witnessing. And amazingly, it paid off- in that a number of priests and Pharisees were baptized after His resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>).</p><p><em>I say to you, arise and take up your bedding and go to your house</em>-</p><p> The same word is used for taking up the cross (<em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>), and the Greek for "bed" is also translated a table or couch. He was to pick up a piece of wood and go his way. He was given a simple task of obedience immediately after meeting with Jesus, and we can see that pattern repeated in how the Lord works with people today.</p><p>The Lord was sensitive to the situation of those He healed or converted. Just as He commanded the resurrected girl to be given something to eat, so He realized the pressure that would be on the healed man- and so He told him to go home immediately and thus avoid the limelight.</p>


text:
<p><em>And immediately, he stood up before them, picked up what he had been lying on and went home, glorifying God</em>-</p><p> Emphasizing his exact and studied obedience to the Lord's command to Him to go home (:24). He did it "before them [all]"- another hint that the miracle was for teaching purposes; the Lord was surrounded by people eager for healing, and instead He taught them. The immediacy of the cure, especially in response to the faith of third parties, was utterly unknown amongst those who had seen too many fake healers attempting to heal illness.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were all amazed, and they glorified God; and they were filled with fear, saying: We have seen strange things today</em>-</p><p> This is a strange mixture, at first blush- glorifying God and yet being filled with fear instead of joy, describing the wonderful healing and forgiveness as "strange things". Why the barrier to joyful acceptance of the Lord's work? I suggest as noted on :22 that His offer of forgiveness demanded acceptance of it, and therefore repentance. And so they preferred to act bemused and confused, as many do to this day when faced with God's truth in Christ, preferring the search rather than the finding of the ultimate truth- that really we can be forgiven and faith rewarded in salvation and the ultimate healing of persons. On one hand, they knew it was all true, and "glorified God". But then their humanity kicked in. And we see this so often in folk today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after these things he went and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax office, and said to him: Follow me</em>-</p><p> Matthew, according to Matthew's record. There is reason to believe that Matthew was himself a converted Scribe, who had perhaps turned away from it to being a tax collector; the way he has access to various versions of Scripture and quotes them as having been fulfilled in a way reminiscent of the Jewish commentaries (compare <em><a href='B:470 4:12-17'>Mat 4:12-17</a></em> with <em><a href='B:480 1:14-15'>Mar 1:14-15</a></em>) suggests this. Matthew's other name was Levi, strengthening the possibility he was once a Levitical scribe; for the scribes were drawn from the priests and Levites. The point is that in this case Matthew would be referring to himself when he writes: “Every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old” (<em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em>). Yet he does so in a beautifully oblique and selfless manner. The Scribes have just been mentioned in the previous incident, which apparently took place within sight of Matthew's desk (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>).</p><p>It's hard to grasp the degree to which tax collectors were despised and distrusted. We may at times think that we need to show our best front personally when preaching the Gospel, to display our credentials, in order to persuade others of our message. Matthew thought otherwise. He was quite open about who he had been when he was called. Human credentials do not ultimately persuade men and women of Christ- a degree in theology, knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, academic status, a stable career, an externally spotless family history. Rather do the Gospels show us that it is those from questionable backgrounds who are chosen by the Lord as His most effective messengers. The content of the message ultimately far outweighs the credibility of the messenger. And the same is seen today in the preaching of the Gospel:&nbsp;</p><p>It was whilst he was at work that he was called, just as the other disciples were called exactly whilst they were about their fishing business, and like Matthew, left all and "followed" the Lord. This is when the call of Christ comes to us- in the very midst of secular life, rather than resting at home looking at a screen.</p><p>"Follow me" means to share the same road with. And the road or way of Jesus led to Jerusalem, to the death of the cross, and then to life eternal. The word is used about 80 times in the Gospels. The call was to follow Jesus; the crowds followed, the disciples followed, but often the Lord tries to teach them the difference between merely externally following Him on the same public road, and following Him as He intends; which is to carry a cross and follow Him to Golgotha. We who follow Him in our life situations today are in essence continuing the following of Him which began in those early days in Galilee. But we likewise are challenged as to whether our following is mere membership of a denomination, or a personal following of Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he forsook all, and rose up and followed him</em>-</p><p> Exactly as he had just observed the paralyzed man obediently arise and go where the Lord told him. It's as if Matthew saw himself in that paralyzed man. As the man was laying on the 'bed', so Matthew was sitting 'on' the receipt of custom, the elevated chair and desk (<em>epi</em>, translated "at", is better translated in this context "on"). The Lord spoke with "authority" in the eyes of the people- so that a man arose and followed Him. What gave Him this? Surely it was His lifestyle, who He was, the way there was no gap between His words and who He was. The word of the Gospel, the message, was made flesh in Him. There was a perfect congruence between His theory and His practice. The repeated amazement which people expressed at the Lord's teaching may not only refer to the actual content of His material; but more at the way in which He expressed it, the unique way in which word was made flesh in Him. The way the Lord could ask men to follow Him, and they arose and followed is surely testimony to the absolute, direct and unaccountable authority of Jesus. It was surely His very ordinariness which made Him so compelling.</p><p>The Lord valued persons for who they were, and this had radical results in practice. And yet He spoke with "authority" in the eyes of the people. What gave Him this? Surely it was His lifestyle, who He was, the way there was no gap between His words and who He was. The word of the Gospel, the message, was made flesh in Him. There was a perfect congruence between His theory and His practice. The repeated amazement which people expressed at the Lord's teaching may not only refer to the actual content of His material; but more at the way in which He expressed it, the unique way in which word was made flesh in Him. The way the Lord could ask men to follow Him, and they arose and followed (<em><a href='B:480 2:14'>Mar 2:14</a></em>), is surely testimony to the absolute, direct and unaccountable authority of Jesus. It was surely His very ordinariness which made Him so compelling. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And Levi made him a great feast in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and of others that were dining with them</em>-</p><p> Clearly the associates of Matthew. They came and sat down with Jesus whilst He was eating. And He accepted them. Given the religious significance of eating together, note the Lord's open table:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And the Pharisees and their scribes murmured against his disciples, saying: Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 7:39'>Luk 7:39</a></em>. To eat together had a religious dimension; the Lord was seen as fellowshipping sinners at His table in a radically open manner, just as we should. To break your bread with someone, to eat together, was a religious act in Palestinian Jewish society. The Lord broke His bread with sinners in order to bring them to repentance; not because He considered they had cleared some kind of bar of moral and doctrinal acceptability. His table was open, radically so, and so should ours be.</p><p>The disciples were from very varied backgrounds; and <em><a href='B:490 5:30'>Luk 5:30</a></em> RVmg. describes how publicans and sinners had Pharisees and Scribes among them as they all sat at the same table gathered around Jesus. There was something in His person and teaching which welded people together:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answering said to them: They that are in health have no need of a doctor, but they that are sick</em>-</p><p> "Doctor" is literally, a healer. The same word is used f how "by his stripes you were healed" (<em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>). All who will finally be saved have been healed by Jesus. Therefore "they that be whole" must be understood as meaning 'those who&nbsp;<em>think they are</em>&nbsp;whole'. The Lord's healing work was done by fellowshipping with those who realized their need for healing. He broke His bread with them first; He didn't heal them and then invite only the healed to His exclusive table. This breaking of bread with them was a 'calling to repentance' (:32). The many records of the Lord's physical healing were all intended to be acted parables of His healing of spiritual sickness</p><p>The Greek word for "in health" is usually translated with the sense of 'being able'. The Lord's work was with them who felt&nbsp;<em>unable</em>&nbsp;to be righteous, who felt that circumstance and past history had left them spiritually incapacitated. </p><p>Perception of need and spiritual helplessness is the vital prerequisite. The Lord healed "them that had need of healing" (<em><a href='B:490 9:11'>Luk 9:11</a></em>), those who perceived their need. The Lord uses the same word in speaking of how He doesn't go find and save those "which need no repentance" (<em><a href='B:490 15:11'>Luk 15:11</a></em>); again, an ellipsis must be read in: 'Those who&nbsp;<em>think they</em>&nbsp;need no repentance'. And again in <em><a href='B:730 3:17'>Rev 3:17</a></em> - the Laodiceans thought that they "had need of nothing". This, therefore, was a major concern of the Lord- that we cease to perceive our need for Him. The attitude that 'I have no need…' is picked up by Paul in <em><a href='B:530 12:21'>1Co 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>, where he warns against thinking that we have no need of weaker members of the body of Christ. Our need for Christ personally is to be reflected in practice in our need for association with His body, however weak we feel it to be. God supplies all our need in Christ (<em><a href='B:570 4:19'>Phi 4:19</a></em>), but that supplying of our need is not solely in the death of Christ for us, but in the body of Christ:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance</em>-</p><p> He was implying, ‘I came not to call those who believe they are righteous’. But Jesus spoke to them on their own terms, even though, technically, He was using language which was untrue. See on <em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em>:&nbsp;The Lord is referring to the wicked Pharisees here as “the righteous… they that are whole”. Yet they were not righteous. He was speaking of them according to how they saw themselves.</p><p>It was the disciples who had only recently been 'called'- because they considered themselves sinners, the sick who needed a doctor:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Consider how the Lord asks Zacchaeus to eat with Him- a public sign of religious fellowship in first century Palestine. This acceptance of the man for who and where he was, inspired Zacchaeus to then start changing his life in practice- he then offered to give back what he had stolen. When quizzed as to why He ate / fellowshipped with sinners, the Lord replied that He had come to call sinners to repentance. Think through the implications of this. He fellowshipped with those who were so weak within the ecclesia of Israel so as to bring them to repentance; His eating with them was like a doctor making a home visit. The religious attitude of the Pharisees was that one only fellowshipped someone who was repentant; whereas the Lord said that He fellowshipped with people to bring them to repentance. Note how in <em><a href='B:490 19:1-10'>Luk 19:1-10</a></em>, the Lord offered salvation to sinners <em>before</em> they had repented. It’s the same idea. </p><p>The fellowship of the Lord Jesus was a call towards repentance, not a reward for it. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>; John baptized people&nbsp;<em>unto</em>&nbsp;repentance. The methods of the Lord should be ours, for having spent His ministry doing this, He transferred it to us in bidding us likewise go worldwide and call others to repentance (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And they said to him: The disciples of John fast often and make supplications, likewise also the disciples of the Pharisees; but your disciples eat and drink</em>-</p><p> Was this also in Capernaum? If so, we note that John's influence had spread as far north as Galilee. In any case, the impression is given of wave after wave of questioning, activity, controversy. It would've all been so mentally draining of the Lord's spirituality and emotions.</p><p>The implication was that they didn't even fast at the Day of Atonement, the one Biblical command for fasting. The Lord's disciples were mostly secular men whom He was trying to turn into spiritual people. And this continues to be the thrust of His work with people. The focus of our preaching should likewise be on getting unspiritual, secular people to believe, rather than focusing on trying to persuade those who already believe in Him to change their understandings of some points. I don't say we shouldn't do this, but far more will be achieved to His glory by bringing unbelievers to faith, rather than correcting misbelievers. Another reason why John's disciples thought the Lord's men didn't fast could have been because they took seriously His command to not appear to others to fast. And John's disciples proclaiming their fasting meant they were overlooking the Lord's clear teaching&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to do this in the Sermon on the Mount. But in His gracious way, the Lord didn't point out the obvious&nbsp;<em>faux pas</em>&nbsp;in their reasoning. He could've said 'John told you to obey Me. I teach not to proclaim your own fasting. Why aren't you obedient to My teaching?'. But instead He reasoned with them on their own ground. And again, we see a pattern for our engagement with others- not to always baldly confront misunderstanding and reduce it to a right / wrong, black and white issue, but to lead the person further by accepting for a moment that their faulty assumptions are true; for they are true to the person who holds them, and the Lord recognized that.</p><p>We also see the Lord's gentle grace in teaching His disciples how to fast, acting as if they were not fasting; when actually they never fasted at all until that point. He wanted them to continue showing themselves to be secular men, who really believed in Jesus. This had been exactly His approach until age 30, to manifest God's perfection through the shroud of ordinariness.</p><p>The Lord defended the non-observant Judaism of the twelve as being due to their joy that He, the bridegroom, was with them. When they ‘ground corn’ on the Sabbath, the Lord defended them to their critics by saying that they were like David’s men eating the shewbread. Those guys were just walking through a cornfield rubbing ears together as their manner was, as they had done on many a Sabbath day, but not realizing that this time there was some Scribe out with his binocular vision scrutinizing them. They surely weren’t doing it because their minds were on the incident of David’s men eating the shewbread. The Lord had asked them to obey the Scribes, who sat in Moses’ seat, over this kind of trivia. But He doesn’t rebuke them. Rather, He defends them to others, imputing far more spiritual perception to them than they had (<em><a href='B:490 6:1-4'>Luk 6:1-4</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to them: Can you make the wedding guests fast, while the bridegroom is with them?</em>-</p><p> He spoke of how that band of rough, mixed up men were filled with the joy of little bridesmaids because He was among them. Now this is an essay in imputed righteousness. 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 (<em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em>). And even after reprimanding them for their slowness of heart to believe, the record graciously says that they “believed not for joy”- although joy can never hinder faith. </p><p>John had likened himself to the Lord's best man at a forthcoming wedding. The Lord phrases his reply to John's disciples in terms they would've understood- a pattern for us to follow in our response to people. Note too that the Lord's answer implied that His wedding was about to happen. He hoped against hope that Israel would respond, and the Messianic banquet would be soon. But in His later parables, He spoke of how even the guests couldn't be bothered to attend it; it was delayed until human response was suitable. But His hopefulness for human response is again a pattern for us, to have a hopeful attitude in our witness.</p><p>The joy of the bridegroom's friends is a sharing of the groom's joy. John's Gospel records this truth in a different way when speaking of how the Lord's joy is to be our joy (<em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em>); at His return, we will enter into His joy (<em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>). We note again how the Lord phrased His response to John's disciples in terms they would best relate to- for John had said that his joy was complete, because he was 'the friend of the bridegroom' (<em><a href='B:500 3:29'>Joh 3:29</a></em>). The Lord is saying that His disciples are also friends of the bridegroom- He is seeking to persuade John's disciples that actually His disciples are the same as they are, notwithstanding differences in spiritual culture, in that they are related to Jesus in the same way, as friends of the groom. The Lord was always very positive about His followers. He explained their lack of fasting on their joy at the forthcoming Messianic banquet, when in reality their lack of fasting was because they were secular, non-religious people. The Lord wasn’t naïve, although He was so positive. He told the disciples quite frankly that they were full of “unbelief”, and couldn’t do miracles which He expected them to because they didn’t pray and fast (<em><a href='B:470 17:19-21'>Mat 17:19-21</a></em>). And yet when quizzed by the Pharisees as to why His disciples didn’t fast, He said it was because they were so happy to be with Him, the bridegroom. Here surely He was seeing the best in them. They come over as confused, mixed up men who wanted the Kingdom there and then and were frustrated at the Lord’s inaction in establishing it. But He saw that they recognised Him as the bridegroom, as Messiah, and He exalted in this, and saw their lack of fasting as partly due to the deep-down joy which He knew they had.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the days will come- </em>Not necessarily plural- s:w. "the day" (<em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:15'>Mat 10:15</a></em>), "that day" (<em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em>).</p><p><em>When the bridegroom shall be taken away from them; then will they fast, in those days</em>-</p><p> The Gk:&nbsp;<em>apairo</em>&nbsp;["taken away"] is a form of the Greek&nbsp;<em>pairo</em>&nbsp;which has just been used in <em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em> ("<em>take up</em>&nbsp;your bed") and which is now used in the next verse about the new cloth 'taking from' the old garment (<em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em>). What exactly the connection of thought might be is hard to say. But clearly the 'taking of Jesus from' the disciples was to be at the same time as when the new wine and new cloth were available, which would 'take from' the old cloth in destroying it. This time was surely the death of the Lord Jesus, at which the new wine of His blood confirmed the new covenant and thus ended the old. It was then of course that the disciples mourned (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 16:10'>Mar 16:10</a></em> "they&nbsp;<em>mourned</em>&nbsp;and wept"); and the same Greek word for 'taken from' occurs in <em><a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a></em> where the Jews cry "Away with Him!"- to the cross; in <em><a href='B:500 19:31'>Joh 19:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em> where the body of Jesus is 'taken from' the cross and in <em><a href='B:510 8:33'>Act 8:33</a></em> "His life is&nbsp;<em>taken from</em>&nbsp;the earth". Significantly, <em><a href='B:580 2:14'>Col 2:14</a></em> uses the word to describe how on the cross, Christ 'took away' the old covenant. This is the idea of its usage in <em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em>, that the new wine and new garment would 'take from / away' the old. And it was achieved by the 'taking away' of Jesus at the cross. Through the grace of Jesus, He is in love with us; He has called us to be His bride. He sees us in an extremely positive light. He counts us as righteous to a degree that is a real struggle to believe- even during His ministry, "when we were yet sinners", and when the only example He had of His bride were those faltering 12. He tells the Jews that&nbsp; His people will fast and mourn for His absence after His departure, with the intensity that the friends of the bridegroom would have if the groom suddenly collapsed and died at the wedding (this seems to be the picture of <em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em>, seeing "taken away" as an idiom for sudden death). This is surely a positive view of the sorrow of the body of Christ for their Lord's absence. Even if we see in this mini-parable only a description of the disciples' sorrow after the&nbsp;Lord's death, He is giving a very positive description of the disciples' joy, saying that they didn't fast for joy of being with Him; He describes their joy as the joy of the friends of the groom at the wedding. Yet the Gospels paint the twelve as a struggling, uncertain group of men, eaten up with the petty arguments of this life, unused to the self-control of fasting. Peter, for example, had until very recently been a possibly immoral young fisherman (<em><a href='B:670 4:3'>1Pe 4:3</a></em>):&nbsp;The happiness of the disciples is explained in terms of them being at a wedding. The appiness of the wedding is normally associated with alcohol, and the context here goes on to explain that Christ's new covenant is symbolised by new wine. The difference between John's disciples and Christ's was that Christ's were full of the joy of the new covenant. But there is ample reason to think that they were heavily influenced by Judaist thinking; they didn't go and preach to the Gentile world as Christ commanded, and even Peter was marvellously slow to realize the Jewish food laws had been ended by Christ, despite the Lord's strong implication of this in <em><a href='B:480 7:19'>Mar 7:19</a></em> (not AV). Yet the grace of Jesus saw His men&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they had grasped the meaning of the new covenant,&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they had the joy of true faith in and understanding of His work; and He spoke of them to the world in these terms. We can take untold comfort from this; for we dare to believe that the Lord does and will confess our name (character) in a like exalted manner to the Father and His Angels.</p><p>There seems to be the idea that fasting was somehow part of the Mosaic system that we have now left behind. Yet the Sermon on the Mount clearly implies that the Lord saw fasting as part of the path of discipleship (<em><a href='B:470 6:16-18'>Mat 6:16-18</a></em>). And there are many examples of fasting in the Old Testament that are quite unconnected with obedience to the Law. When the bridegroom is away, then we will fast [by implication, for His return]. Try it, that's all I can say. Just start by going without some meals. Use the time and the natural desire to eat to increase the poignancy of the special requests you are making. <em><a href='B:290 58:4'>Isa 58:4</a></em> RV says that fasting makes “your voice to be heard on high”. Yet the essence of fasting is to take us out of our comfort zone. We human beings have a great tendency to form habits in order to create or keep us within the comfort zone. Yet truly creative thinking and action, not to say true obedience to the call of Christ, all occur outside of the comfort zone. Fasting is only one of many ways to go outside of it. Take a different route home from work; describe your faith to yourself in terms and language you wouldn't usually use. Pray at different times, bring before the Lord the most banal things you usually wouldn't dream of talking with Him about.</p><p>Time and again, the Lord uses language about the restoration from exile and applies it to Himself. Thus fasting was common amongst Palestinian Jews of His time, and it was involved with mourning the destruction of the temple and Judah's submission to Rome. And yet the Lord pronounced that the days of fasting were over, and His people were to be feasting because of His work. But He brought no freedom from Rome, and spoke of the principles of the Messianic Kingdom as being non-resistance to evil rather than military resistance to it. He spoke of Yahweh as 'visiting' His people- but not to save them as they expected, but rather to judge them, with Messiah on His behalf at the head of the Roman armies who would come to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. And thus Jesus deeply disappointed people who didn't want to change their self-centred, nationalistic outlook- those who didn't want to see things spiritually rather than naturally, those who refused to accept the extent of Israel's sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke also a parable to them: No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it upon an old garment, else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not agree with the old</em>-</p><p> The same phrase for "old garment" is used to describe the Mosaic system in <em><a href='B:650 1:11'>Heb 1:11</a></em>. The stress may be on "a&nbsp;<em>piece</em>". Taking parts of Christ's teachings like fasting was the temptation being given in to by John's disciples. The torn old garment had to be thrown away and the new one totally accepted and publicly worn. The Greek for "new" is not the same as in "new wine" in :37. Here the word means not dressed, not worked by a dressmaker. The only other time the related word occurs is in <em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em> concerning the clothes of Jesus not having been worked by a dressmaker (AV "fuller"). The Lord Jesus presents Himself here as raw, fresh, unworked to suite the appearance of men:&nbsp;</p><p>To get a piece out of a new garment, that new garment would be spoiled; and the old one likewise would be rent further (Mt:, Mk:). "New"&nbsp;cloth refers to cloth which hasn't yet been washed; on first washing of the new garment, it would shrink, and thus make a tear. The tragic waste envisioned here is like the new wine running away on the ground from the burst old bottles. Likewise the old wine skins would've had to have the old wine poured out from them to have this new wine put into them. Mixing the old life and the new covenant, a bit of the one here and a bit of the other there, results in this tragic wastage all around. The parables make it seem so obvious that this isn't the way to go; but in reality, we find it hard to be so complete in our devotion to the new covenant.</p><p>Jesus told this parable in the context of His eating with sinners- clothing and wine were part of the 'eating out' scene; He took whatever was around Him and made spiritual lessons out of it. To get a piece out of a new garment, that new garment would be spoiled; and the old one likewise would be rent further (Mt:, Mk:). "New"&nbsp;cloth refers to cloth which hasn't yet been washed; on first washing of the new garment, it would shrink, and thus make a tear. The tragic waste envisioned here is like the new wine running away on the ground from the burst old bottles. Likewise the old wine skins would've had to have the old wine poured out from them to have this new wine put into them. Mixing the old life and the new covenant, a bit of the one here and a bit of the other there, results in this tragic wastage all around. The parables make it seem so obvious that this isn't the way to go; but in reality, we find it hard to be so complete in our devotion to the new covenant. </p><p>The unrent garment is that of Christ- the same Greek words are used about the fact that His garment was not rent at His death (<em><a href='B:500 19:24'>Joh 19:24</a></em>). Division both within ourselves and within the community is caused by partial response to the new covenant; mixing grace with legalism; it is a rending of Christ's garment, cutting out just a part of it and mixing it with the old way. An old garment that is torn can't be mended by anything new- it must be thrown out and a new garment accepted. The Mosaic system is described as an old garment in <em><a href='B:650 1:11'>Heb 1:11</a></em>; it "shall perish" uses the same Greek word as in <em><a href='B:490 5:37'>Luk 5:37</a></em>, where the bottles "perish". The new garment of Christ is unrent. We are each clothed with the white garment of Christ's imputed righteousness (<em><a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>); by dividing with each other we are seeking to rend and thereby destroy that covering. "New" translates a different Greek word than that which in the parallel <em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 2:21'>Mar 2:21</a></em> is translated "new". The word there means something which has not been carded. "<em>Agnaphos</em> is a combination of the negative article <em>a</em>, with <em>knapto</em>, meaning, "to card":&nbsp; It is sometimes translated undressed, uncombed or, as above, unfinished, and refers to wool or cotton cloth that has not been carded or combed so that the fibers are aligned, giving it both strength and a smoother, more finished appearance":&nbsp; This suggests that the New Covenant is an unfinished work, God's work in us is ongoing and may take apparently unstable turns and changes- e.g. prophecy is often conditional, the intended timing of Christ's return has and may yet still change, dependent upon factors like the freewill repentance of Israel; God may plan one line of possibility for someone or a whole nation, e.g. Nineveh or Israel at the time of Moses- but change His stated intention in response to human prayer and repentance. This open-ended approach simply can't be squared with the "old" set-in-stone approach of the Old Covenant. The same message is taught by the next parable- <em>new</em> wineskins are required, because the New Covenant wine is fermenting, they need to be soft and flexible enough to change; if they are old and set, they will burst because of the movement and dynamism of the new wine. The wine of the Lord Jesus is therefore not about tradition, about a set pattern; but is rather a call to constant change and evolution. Yet paradoxically, religious people become set in their ways more than any, and seek stability in those traditions; whereas the activity of the Lord Jesus is the very opposite. </p><p>Old and new covenants cannot overlap. The encounter with Christ means that ultimately there can be no brinkmanship in remaining partly with the old way, be it the Mosaic way of legalism or the way of secular modern life, and partly in the Lord's way. There will only be a painful and messy division in the end.</p>


text:
<p><em>And no one puts new wine into old wine-skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilt, and the skins will perish</em>-</p><p> The new wine is a clear reference to Christ's blood of the new covenant.</p><p>Wine skins were made of goat skin. The goats speak of the rejected, the sinners, in the parable of the sheep and goats. The wine skins may therefore speak of our flesh of sin. It's no sin to be a human being and have human flesh, but because of the nature of the new wine, we must become wholly new- or we will be destroyed. The new wine fermented powerfully- similar to the Lord describing His Gospel as yeast which works through flour (<em><a href='B:490 13:21'>Luk 13:21</a></em>). The new covenant will work powerfully in us if we let it, and our skins, the life structure we have, must be prepared to accept that. Each wineskin expanded slightly differently in response to the fermenting of the new wine poured into it; no two wineskins expanded to an identical shape or form. We too will individually and uniquely respond to the new wine. </p><p>The skins will be "burst", Gk. to shatter, divide. The context is of John's disciples uniting with the Pharisees against the disciples of Jesus. He's saying that if His new wine is not totally accepted, if it is mixed with the old, then lives will be destroyed through further schism. The only basis for avoiding schism is a total acceptance by all parties of the blood of the new covenant:&nbsp;</p><p>"Spilt" is the same word used in <em><a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a></em> about the blood of the new covenant being "shed". We can crucify Christ afresh (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>), His death can be "in vain" for us (<em><a href='B:550 2:21'>Gal 2:21</a></em>)- if we refuse to respond and be renewed, or trust in our own works:&nbsp; Especially significant is the reference in <em><a href='B:470 26:28'>Mat 26:28</a></em> to Christ's blood of the&nbsp;<em>new</em>&nbsp;covenant being "shed". Failed spiritual life, the life which only partially accepts the new wine of Christ but refuses to change, refusing to be new containers for it, results in the blood of Christ being as it were shed, the blood of Calvary wasted in the dust, and Christ crucified afresh by our apostasy (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>). This is the final tragedy of refusing to change upon receipt of the new wine.</p>


text:
<p><em>But new wine must be put into fresh wine-skins</em>-</p><p> AV adds "and both are preserved", Gk. preserved from loss / ruin. There is a very real sense of loss to Jesus if His blood (the new wine) is as it were poured out in vain. There will be tragic loss both to Him and to the person who refuses to be wholly renewed. The word is used of the final destruction in condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:15'>Joh 3:15</a></em>). The lives of the untransformed recipients of the new wine are shattered ("break") and then finally they are destroyed in final condemnation:&nbsp;The loss is not only to the untransformed person. There is also a loss and damage to the new wine, the Lord Jesus. He is not undamaged by the loss of any of His people. Their failure is His re-crucifixion, the pouring out again of His blood, but in vain. All this signals the danger of not being totally transformed after having received the Truth. Interestingly, a form of the Greek&nbsp;<em>suntereo</em>&nbsp;["preserved"] is used in <em><a href='B:500 2:10'>Joh 2:10</a></em>, where it is noted that the Lord Jesus&nbsp;<em>kept</em>&nbsp;[Gk:&nbsp;<em>tereo</em>] the best wine:&nbsp;<em>Tereo</em>&nbsp;is frequently on the lips of the Lord in John's Gospel (and is widely used by John in his letters), in the context of 'keeping' His word. But this is done by totally surrendering human life to be a vessel totally devoted to the new wine we have received, rather than steel willed, nail-biting, white-knuckled struggle for obedience to specific laws.</p>


text:
<p><em>And no one having drunk old wine immediately then desires new wine; for he says: The old is good</em>-</p><p> The Lord here recognizes the basic conservatism of human nature; even those who consider themselves "liberal" are often only so in comparison to others, in relative terms- we are all in fact basically conservative. We stick with what we know and don't easily go outside our comfort zone of the old and familiar. We all find change hard; new wineskins are able to be stretched. He was perhaps, in the context, making some apology for John's disciples, who still couldn't fully allow themselves to be filled with the new covenant wine. The Gospel of Jesus is all about change and being stretched; and He recognizes that we find this so very difficult. People do not immediately / quickly respond to the new wine of the new covenant because, the Lord piercingly observed, they think the old was better (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). He perceived, with His amazing penetration of the human psyche, that there is a conservatism deep within us all that militates against the immediate response to Him and the new wine of His blood / sacrifice which He so seeks. Yet once we have made this immediate response in a few things, it becomes easier to get into an upward spiral of response to Him. We become truly a new creation in Him, breaking constantly with factor after factor in our past, which has previously defined us as persons. Quite simply, we become new persons, with all the rejection of the ‘old’ ways which this requires.</p><p>The parable of the sower shows how the Lord foresaw that the majority who responded to His word would not hold on; He knew that men would not immediately appreciate the blood of His cross, but would prefer the old wine of the old covenant (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). He saw that our spiritual growth would be an agonizingly slow business; as slow as a tiny mustard seed growing into a tree, as slow as a man digging a foundation in rock, or a seed growing and bringing forth fruit. Such growth is <em>very</em> slow <em>from a human perspective</em>. &nbsp;</p><p>The parable of the wine exactly predicted the attitude of people to Christ's work in taking the Old Covenant out of the way. The Lord is surely saying: 'I know you won't immediately want the blood of my new covenant. I understandyour nature, by nature you'll prefer what you are familiar with, the Old Covenant; you won't "straightway" desire the new wine, but (by implication) you will, after a while' (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). He foresaw how the implication of the blood of His sacrifice wouldn't be accepted by His people first of all. It would be a process, of coming to accept how radical the gift of His blood Is. As we weekly take the cup of His covenant, we come to see more and more the excellency of that blood, and its supremacy over all else. Christ recognized that conservatism in human nature which will naturally shy away from the marvellous implications of what He achieved for us. And true enough, whenever we talk about the present aspect of the Kingdom of God, our present blessings of redemption in Christ, the sense in which we have already been saved…there is a desire to shy away from it all:&nbsp; And true enough, the early Christian believers desperately clung on to the Mosaic food laws, circumcision and synagogue attendance as far as they could; the command to witness to the Gentiles was likewise not taken seriously for some time. It must have been painful for the Lord to know this and to see it, recognizing in it a lack of appreciation of His life and final sacrifice, a desire to reconcile with God without totally committing oneself to His work. He saw the possibility of His blood being wasted if men didn't change from old to new wineskins. The slowness of the changeover in attitudes amongst the early believers must have been a great pain to Him; as if His blood was being poured out again. The implication is that we shed His blood afresh if we won't change, if we allow the conservatism of our natures to have an iron grip upon us we not only destroy ourselves, but waste the blood of the Son of God. The picture of the new wine being "spilled" uses the same word as in <em><a href='B:470 26:28'>Mat 26:28</a></em> concerning the 'shedding' of Christ's blood. Again, how utterly, painfully accurate. This is the danger of the conservatism that is in our natures; it was this which led men to shed the Lord's blood, and it is this same element within us which He foresaw would lead us to crucify Him afresh. How many times has this conservatism been mistaken as true spirituality! How careful we must be, therefore, not to adopt any attitude which glorifies that conservatism and masks it as the hallmark of a stable believer. The sensitivity of Jesus to the value of the human person was the very opposite of this. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now it came to pass on a Sabbath that he was going through the grain fields- </em>The very poor were allowed to do this by the Law (<em><a href='B:30 19:9'>Lev 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:24-25'>Deu 23:24-25</a></em>), and so we see in this a picture of the deep poverty of the Lord’s followers; He later parallels the urgent hunger of David’s men at the time of 1 Samuel 21 with that of His followers. It would seem that He Himself did not make use of the concession, because the criticism was focused upon His disciples rather than Himself. W:D. Davies lists evidence that Judaism forbad fasting on the Sabbath (Jubilees (W:D. Davies&nbsp;<em>Matthew&nbsp;</em>p. 312 (<em>op cit.</em>)). In this case, the record is showing how the legalism of the time would’ve condemned the disciples- and the poor generally- either way: for fasting on the Sabbath, or for ‘threshing’ on the Sabbath to get food so as not to fast. The Lord therefore takes the whole argument to a level far above such petty legalism:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And his disciples plucked the ears and ate, rubbing them in their hands</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 26:11'>Mat 26:11</a></em>. The only point in mentioning this would presumably be because the Pharisees came and stopped them. This shows how closely the Lord and His men were under the critical eyes of others, even from a distance.</p>


text:
<p><em>But certain of the Pharisees said: Why do you do what is unlawful on the Sabbath day?</em>-</p><p> A constant concern with the Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 19:3'>Mat 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:17'>Mat 22:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:6'>Mat 27:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:10'>Joh 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:31'>Joh 18:31</a></em>). The Lord's attitude here was to show that the Old Testament itself envisaged situations where true spirituality was above law. The parable of <em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em> brings the point home- the generous employer justified his pouring out of grace, giving the weak and lazy the same penny a day as the hard workers, on the basis that 'It is lawful for me to do what I wish'.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answered them, saying: Have you not read- </em>Of course they had, many times. But the Lord here and several times elsewhere challenges them (and us) as to whether we have really read what we have. The Lord could have legitimately answered them: ‘It is lawful to pick corn whilst passing through a field, the Law allows for this if one is poor, and my followers are indeed poor. There is nothing in the Law which stipulates this permission doesn’t operate on the Sabbath’. But as always, the Lord was prepared to meet people where they were, and to take them to a higher level. He seeks to teach by general principle that the extent of His Lordship meant that He and His men were free to do as they pleased on this kind of matter. He reasoned that ‘OK, let’s assume you’re right, but David and&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;men broke the law because they were about God’s business, this over-rode the need for technical obedience’. The Lord Jesus wasn’t constantly correcting specific errors of interpretation. He dealt in principles much larger than this, in order to make a more essential, practical, useful point.</p><p><em>What David did when he was hungry, he and they that were with him?</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s reasoning depends upon drawing a parallel between Himself and David, and David’s warriors and the disciples. Again, He is encouraging them to see themselves as no less than the warriors of David who later became the governors of Israel. Aaron’s sons were the ones who were intended to eat the showbread (<em><a href='B:30 24:5-9'>Lev 24:5-9</a></em>)- and again the Lord is inviting His secular disciples to see themselves as a new priesthood.</p>


text:
<p><em>How he entered the house of God- </em>For non-Levites to enter the Sanctuary was also not 'lawful', quite apart from eating the bread which only the priests could lawfully eat. This prepares the way for the Lord's later parable about God urging unclean street people to 'enter [His] house' because Israel had rejected the invitation (the same words are used-<em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em>). The psychological magnitude of the Lord's new system of thinking is hard to appreciate. Non-Levites could now enter it- and even the worst of the Gentiles. But the magnitude of the new thinking in Christ for anyone, not least secular people of the 21st Century, is no less.</p><p><em>And took and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?</em>-</p><p> The Lord defended the non-observant Judaism of the twelve as being due to their joy that He, the bridegroom, was with them (<em><a href='B:490 5:33-34'>Luk 5:33-34</a></em>). When they ‘ground corn’ on the Sabbath, the Lord defended them to their critics by saying that they were like David’s men eating the showbread. Those guys were just walking through a cornfield rubbing ears together as their manner was, as they had done on many a Sabbath day, but not realizing that this time there was some Scribe out with his binocular vision scrutinizing them. They surely weren’t doing it because their minds were on the incident of David’s men eating the showbread. The Lord had asked them to obey the Scribes, who sat in Moses’ seat, over this kind of trivia. But He doesn’t rebuke them. Rather, He defends them to others, imputing far more spiritual perception to them than they had. &nbsp;</p><p>"Gave it to those with him" recalls how the Lord blessed the bread and gave it to those with <em>Him</em>. He was turning the ordinary bread of the people into the shewbread of the sanctuary. Clearly the Lord is suggesting that His ragtag crowd of disciples and questionable ministering women were the new priesthood of a new Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: The Son of Man is lord- </em>Here as elsewhere we see the juxtaposition of the Lord's humanity and His Lordship. His exaltation is precisely because He was human; He has authority to judge us because He was Son of man (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>). The Lordship of Jesus was predicated upon His obedience to death and exaltation (<em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>), and yet Jesus was calmly confident that this would be achieved by Him; to the point that He could reason that He already was "Lord" and thereby able to abrogate the Sabbath and act as the ultimate temple.</p><p><em>Of the Sabbath</em>-</p><p> The “of” is supplied as guesswork by the translators; it could equally be left unsupplied, giving the sense of “the Lord the Sabbath”; or, “Lord&nbsp;<em>on</em>&nbsp;the Sabbath”. Mark adds that the Lord went on to teach that God's law was made for man, rather than man being built in such a way as to easily fit in with God's word (<em><a href='B:480 2:27'>Mar 2:27</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass on another Sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered</em>-</p><p> The point is that the Lord was&nbsp;<em>outside</em>&nbsp;the synagogue when He had recently declared that the "place" where He was then standing, in or near a cornfield, was holy ground; see on <em><a href='B:470 12:6'>Mat 12:6</a></em>. It was "their" synagogue, just as the temple was "the temple of the Jews", and the feasts of Yahweh had been hijacked to become "the feast of the Jews". It's typical of Luke as a doctor to mention the medical details. God's Spirit worked through the natural perceptions and personalities of those who were inspired, and achieves a similar synthesis in working with us today. His right hand suggests his own strength and ability to act was withered:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And the scribes and Pharisees watched him closely, whether he would heal on the Sabbath, that they might find an accusation against him</em>-</p><p> A legal term. They wanted to get Jesus in court over this issue. But there’s no evidence they actually did, and there was no recorded mention of Sabbath breaking in His final trial- so well and profoundly did He answer them. Their false accusation of Him was especially seen at His trials. Pilate’s question to them “What accusation do you bring against this man?” (<em><a href='B:500 18:29'>Joh 18:29</a></em>) shows the Jews as the ultimate false accusers of God’s Son. For it was because of their playing the ultimate role of the Devil, the false accuser, that the Son of God was slain. No wonder the ideas of ‘Devil’ and ‘Satan’ are often associated with the Jewish system’s opposition of Christ and His people. The same Greek word for ‘accuser’ is five times used about Jewish false accusation of Paul in an attempt to hinder His work for Christ (<em><a href='B:510 23:30'>Act 23:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:35'>Act 23:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 24:8'>Act 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 25:16'>Act 25:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 25:18'>Act 25:18</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>But he knew their thoughts- </em>The Lord's ability to read minds and motives (<em><a href='B:490 5:22'>Luk 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:25'>Joh 2:25</a></em>) was partly given by the Spirit, but also an outcome of His own extreme sensitivity to humanity, and also His undoubted intellectual ability as God's Son. He was far ahead of all depth psychologists of later generations. I will suggest later regarding the triumphal entry that the Lord set up all the circumstances surrounding His death and apparent 'capture' by the Jews and betrayal by Judas; He therefore knew exactly the events which would follow, as the chess grandmaster foresees the game in advance. <em><a href='B:730 2:23'>Rev 2:23</a></em> states that the Lord to this day has this ability, even more enhanced by His Divine nature</p><p><em>And he said to the man that had his hand withered: Rise up and stand in the midst. And he arose and stood</em>-</p><p> The Lord's miracles were performed for a range of reasons, quite apart from basic sympathy with the sick. He often used them to teach lessons to the onlookers; and this explains the way He asked the man to cooperate in public display.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to them: I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do harm? To save a life, or to destroy it?</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 9:54-55'>Luk 9:54-55</a></em>. The Lord said that to refrain from saving a man when it was in your power to do so was effectively “to do evil… to destroy” (<em><a href='B:490 6:9'>Luk 6:9</a></em> AV). This is how the Lord looks at our laziness and passivity- as active wrongdoing. Sins of omission are probably our greatest temptation. </p><p>Mark records that He developed this point- if He had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;performed the miracle, He would have been actively committing “evil”, even ‘killing’. When the Lord taught that it was right to break the Sabbath because they were in the business of saving life (<em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em>), His words were purposefully alluding to how the Maccabees had pronounced that it was acceptable for Jewish soldiers to break the Sabbath in time of war, in order to save lives through their fighting (<em>1Ma_2:32</em>). He intended His people to live as active soldiers on duty, at war in order to save the lives of God’s people. Indeed, so frequently, the whole language of the future judgment is applied to us right here and now. We are living out our judgment now; we are standing as it were before the final judgment seat, and receiving our judgment for how we act, speak and feel and are. Thus if He had omitted to heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath, this would have been 'doing evil' and even 'killing' (<em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em>). That's how seriously He took omitting to do good when it's in our power to do it. He had a choice of saving life or destroying life, were He to prefer to keep the Sabbath laws above the need for preserving life. Clearly He saw failing to act to save life as tantamount to destroying life. We must give our Lord's words their due weight here in our decision making. To not act to save life, to excuse ourselves for whatever reason, is effectively destroying life, or, as Mark's record puts it, “to kill" (<em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:9'>Luk 6:9</a></em>). We can't therefore be passive in this matter. The context of the Lord's statement was in response to questions about whether something was "lawful" or not; it was the age old question, 'Is it is a sin to do X, Y or Z?'. His answer was as ever in terms of a principle- that our guiding principle must be the saving and healing and preservation of human life. The attitude of the Pharisees was that the Lord was infringing a letter of the law and therefore was guilty of death. They murdered Him on the Sabbath days; and thus they chose to destroy life rather than save it. The word for “to kill" in <em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em> is so often used in the Gospels about the killing of Jesus. They failed to take His exhortation. The crucifixion of God's Son was thus a result of legalism; it was because of His attitude to the man with the withered hand that the Pharisees first plotted to kill Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 6:11'>Luk 6:11</a></em>). Whatever our individual conscience, let us not "be filled with madness" as the Pharisees were at the fact the Lord approached human behaviour in terms of principles, rather than reducing everything to a common right / wrong scenario. The principle is clearly the saving and preservation and enriching of others' lives. Surely we should each allow each other to articulate this fundamental issue as we each have occasion to do so:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he looked round about on them all, and then said to him- </em>The Lord maintained eye-contact with His listeners: <em><a href='B:470 19:26'>Mat 19:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:5'>Mar 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:34'>Mar 3:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:32'>Mar 5:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:33'>Mar 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:23'>Mar 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:27'>Mar 10:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:10'>Luk 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:17'>Luk 20:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:61'>Luk 22:61</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:42'>Joh 1:42</a></em>. These are all separate occurrences; the fact is really being emphasized. This paying appropriate attention with eye contact is also a good strategy for matching the silences that occur from time to time in any serious conversation:&nbsp; Most of us can tell when another is thinking by&nbsp;observing the eyes, and when they are not their eyes will tell you. </p><p><em>Stretch out your hand. And he did so, and his hand was restored</em>-</p><p> Matthew uses the same word to describe how the Lord Himself stretched forth&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;hand in order to heal, save and welcome (<em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:49'>Mat 12:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>). Again we are encouraged to perceive a sense of mutuality between the Lord and His people:&nbsp;According to the textus receptus, his hand was restored whole as the other. This detail is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is another touch of the eye witness- the man would've held out both his hands and everyone would've looked from the one to the other, observing they now looked so similar:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But they were filled with rage, and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;Here we see the common human feature of doing evil in response to the experience of grace. Even amongst believers, and even at judgment day, there is the possibility of the eye becoming evil because of Hisgoodness and grace to others (<em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>). We see the principle in both secular and church life. Grace shown to others can elicit the worst evil from religious people. We shouldn't be surprised at this phenomenon; but it is the very surprise at encountering it which causes so many to become disillusioned with the church and ultimately with the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass in these days that he went out into the mountain to pray; and he continued all night in prayer to God</em>-</p><p> Luke alone records the all night prayer. How long have you ever prayed for at one time? Luke as a doctor was struck by the psychological intensity of the Lord in maintaining such lengthy contact with God Almighty. He presumably was praying for wisdom and blessing in this matter of ordaining the twelve, probably with special attention to the issue of calling Judas.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when it was day, he called his disciples- </em>He was in the mountain, so He called them up into the mountain, and they came down the mountain with Him (:17). In the same way as Moses was called up into the mount to receive his Divine commission, so the Lord Jesus called up to the mount His disciples- implying that they, who represent all of us, were now a new Moses. Moses was thus an example that challenged those from a Jewish background especially. He was no longer to be gazed at with incomprehension as to his greatness and intimacy with God; he was to become the realistic pattern for all followers of the Lord Jesus, who would meaningfully emulate His closeness to God.</p><p><em>And he chose from them twelve, whom also he named apostles</em>-</p><p> Whoever is sent forth is apostled, and the great commission sends forth all believers. This is not the same incident as the sending forth of the twelve in Matthew 10. But we see how there were various tiers; the crowds, His disciples, the twelve supported by the ministering women; and within them, an inner core of Peter, James and John, with Peter set up as the leader. This kind of hierarchy of leadership was found in the Old Testament too, and is not inappropriate today, if managed with humility and servant-leadership as the dominant spirit. For total equality of role is just unworkable amongst any group of people, and attempts to enforce it often leave Christian communities without the leadership which people need, and the group becomes rudderless.</p>


text:
<p><em>Simon, whom he also named Peter- </em>Simon was anything but rock-like, but the Lord named him Peter, 'rocky'. He perceived the ultimate stability in Peter's faith, despite all the ups and downs he had. And He sees to the core of each of us too. Peter is always listed first in the lists of apostles, and was the one chosen to be the rock of the early church. But the Lord chose the one who seemed most inappropriate for that work. And so is again exhibited a major theme in the Lord's work amongst men and women like us, that the most inappropriate are often chosen for the job. For the Lord's power is made manifest through our inadequacy. </p><p><em>And Andrew his brother, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew</em>-</p><p> Apparently the same as Nathanael, also mentioned with Philip in <em><a href='B:500 1:46-51'>Joh 1:46-51</a></em><em>.</em> </p>


text:
<p><em>And Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot</em>-</p><p> We see the wide range of men the Lord called into His band; Matthew the tax collector would've been seen as a traitor, whereas the zealots were at the other end of the political spectrum. The way the 12 didn't break up as a group after living together under extreme psychological conditions is a testament to the unifying power of the person of Jesus. The composition of the Lord's body is the same today, including "all [types of] men". Sadly denominationalism and churchianity has led to churches often being clusters of believers having the same socio-economic, racial and personality type positions, rather than being conglomerations of literally all types, of whatever accent and formation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became the betrayer</em>-</p><p> "Iscariot" is perhaps 'man of Kerioth:' Kerioth was a small village in Judea (<em><a href='B:60 15:25'>Jos 15:25</a></em>). Judas would therefore have been the only Judean. It could be that 'Iscariot' is from&nbsp;<em>sicarius</em>, 'dagger-man' or 'assassin'. This would suggest that Judas belonged to what was reckoned to be the most far right of the various resistance groups, the Sicarii (the partisans, cp. <em><a href='B:510 21:38'>Act 21:38</a></em>). Again we see the wide range of people the Lord was calling together in order to weld them into one body in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he came down with them and stood on a level place; and a great crowd of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, came to hear him and to be healed of their diseases</em>-</p><p> "Came down" heightens the similarity with Moses coming down from the mountain after receiving the law (Exodus 19). </p>


text:
<p><em>And they that were disturbed with unclean spirits were healed-</em></p><p> The parallel is between being &quot;disturbed&quot; and then being 'not disturbed' through being 'healed' from the 'unclean spirits'. Clearly &quot;unclean spirits&quot; was a way of describing mental disturbance. This is one of the &quot;diseases&quot; of <a href='B:490 6:17'>:17</a>. This is further evidence that the language of unclean spirits and demon possession is to be read as simply describing mental illness, which was cured by the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>And all the crowd sought to touch him, for power went out from him and healed them all</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em>.</p><p>It seems that the apostles were filled with the Spirit in order to do certain acts, and after doing them they were as it were 'drained' of the Spirit, and had to be filled up again. Thus the Lord Jesus felt that something had gone out of Him after performing miracles (<em><a href='B:490 6:19'>Luk 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:46'>Luk 8:46</a></em>). The non-miraculous work of God through His Spirit would seem to follow a similar pattern. We are "strengthened with might by his spirit in the inner man", "strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and long-suffering" (<em><a href='B:560 3:16'>Eph 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:11'>Col 1:11</a></em>). God strengthens us deep inside to have that <em>hupomonè</em>, that patient endurance, that energy to keep on keeping on. But this strengthening is according to our effort in the appropriate spiritual exercises, and the strength given is not ultimately permanent unless we continue responding to it. and it isn't only a N:T. phenomena; even in earlier times, they that waited onthe Lord had their strength renewed, they mounted up on eagle wings, they were made to walk and not faint in God's ways (<em><a href='B:290 40:31'>Isa 40:31</a></em>). As God doesn’t faint or weary, so somehow those who identify their lives with His will also keep on keeping on- even now (<em><a href='B:290 40:31'>Isa 40:31</a></em> cp. 29). David felt that his youth was renewed like the eagle's in his repeated experience of God's grace (<em><a href='B:230 103:5'>Psa 103:5</a></em>), that his soul was restored (<em><a href='B:230 23:5'>Psa 23:5</a></em>), and that a right spirit could be renewed by God within him (<em><a href='B:230 51:10'>Psa 51:10</a></em>):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Then he lifted up his eyes toward his disciples, and said- </em>The way the Lord Jesus had of lifting up His eyes was something which evidently struck the Gospel writers (<em><a href='B:490 6:20'>Luk 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:41'>Joh 11:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em> cp. the emphasis upon the eyes of the risen Lord in <em><a href='B:730 1:14'>Rev 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:18'>Rev 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:12'>Rev 19:12</a></em>). The Hebrew phrase "to lift up the eyes" is used very extensively about the Abraham family; and the Lord was the seed of Abraham. Most Bible characters have the term used at most once or twice about them; but the Genesis record emphasizes this characteristic of this family. It's as if we're being bidden to really visualize them as a family, and to enable this we're even given an insight into their body language. Consider the emphasis on the way this family had of lifting up their eyes:</p><p>Lot lifted up his eyes (<em><a href='B:10 13:10'>Gen 13:10</a></em>)</p><p>Abraham lifted up his eyes (<em><a href='B:10 13:14'>Gen 13:14</a></em>)</p><p>Abraham lifted up his eyes and noticed the Angels (<em><a href='B:10 18:2'>Gen 18:2</a></em>)</p><p>Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place of sacrifice (<em><a href='B:10 22:4'>Gen 22:4</a></em>)</p><p>Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the ram caught (<em><a href='B:10 22:13'>Gen 22:13</a></em>)</p><p>Isaac lifted up his eyes and saw camels coming on which Rebekah was riding (<em><a href='B:10 24:63'>Gen 24:63</a></em>)</p><p>Rebekah, as part of a marriage made in Heaven, lifted up <em>her</em> eyes and saw Isaac at the same moment (<em><a href='B:10 24:64'>Gen 24:64</a></em>)</p><p>Jacob lifted up his eyes and saw the vision of the speckled cattle (twice recorded- <em><a href='B:10 31:10'>Gen 31:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:12'>Gen 31:12</a></em>)</p><p>Jacob lifted up his eyes and saw Esau coming (<em><a href='B:10 33:1'>Gen 33:1</a></em>)</p><p>Esau lifted up his eyes and saw Jacob's family (<em><a href='B:10 33:5'>Gen 33:5</a></em>)</p><p>Jacob's sons lifted up their eyes and saw the traders coming (<em><a href='B:10 37:25'>Gen 37:25</a></em>)</p><p>Joseph lifted up his eyes and saw Benjamin (<em><a href='B:10 43:29'>Gen 43:29</a></em>)</p><p>Of course the classic epitome of this feature is when Abraham lifts up his eyes to Heaven and is asked to count the stars, and there and then believes God's word of promise that "so shall thy seed be". Yet <em>we</em>, as Abraham's family, his children by faith, are likewise asked [with the same Hebrew words] to lift up <em>our</em> eyes to Heaven and consider the stars, and take strength from the fact that their creator is our God (<em><a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:6'>Isa 51:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:4'>Isa 60:4</a></em>):&nbsp; Surrounded by huge crowds, the Lord focused upon teaching the disciples. This was typical of Him, and occurred also at the time of the sermon on the mount. </p><p><em>Blessed are you poor- </em>The poverty in view is spiritual poverty; those who wish to be spiritually rich but are not. It is no blessing to simply be poor materially; for such poverty can distract people from spiritual focus just as much as wealth can. Our prayers should be like those of a man on death row in a dark dungeon, waiting to die, but groaning for salvation (<em><a href='B:230 102:17'>Psa 102:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 102:20'>Psa 102:20</a></em>). This is the extent of our desperation. We are “the poor” (Gk. ‘the crouchers’), cringing in utter spiritual destitution (<em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em>). And yet we have a terrible tendency to only occasionally&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;pray, content with prayer on a surface level. The Lord's parables invite us to see ourselves as, e.g., the desperate widow woman pleading for deliverance from her oppressive landlord (<em><a href='B:490 18:3'>Luk 18:3</a></em>).</p><p><em>For yours is the kingdom of God</em>-</p><p> The Lord's prayer used the same phrase "Yours is the Kingdom" in addressing God. But “Blessed are you poor, for <em>yours</em> is the Kingdom <em>of God</em>”. The Lord thereby assures us that the Father wants to give <em>His</em> Kingdom to those who are poor in spirit, to the broken, to the self-doubters, the uncertain, those uncomfortable with themselves the unbearably and desperately lonely, the awkwardly spoken… the poor in spirit. Those who would be the very last to believe that God would give <em>them</em> what is evidently <em>His</em> Kingdom. But not only <em>will</em> the Father do this, but Jesus stresses that it <em>is</em> ours right now. The certainty of the glory that will be revealed for us means that we cope better with suffering; as Paul writes, they “are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (<em><a href='B:520 8:18'>Rom 8:18</a></em>). </p><p>The similarities with the sermon on the mount are many; but this sermon is delivered on the plain. The Lord is repeating in the Jerusalem area what He had taught in Galilee.</p>


text:
<p><em>Blessed are you that hunger now; for you shall be filled-</em></p><p>According to the beatitudes, the hunger is a spiritual hunger after righteousness (<em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>):&nbsp; “<em>Blessed</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em>) are they which do&nbsp;<em>hunger</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em>) and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be&nbsp;<em>filled&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em>)” (<em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>) shows the Lord clearly alluding to His mother’s own description of herself. It’s as if He stands up there before the hushed crowd and lays down His manifesto with those words. This was the keynote of what He had to say to humanity. Everybody was waiting to hear what His message really was. And this is what He said. He was saying ‘This, guys, is what I essentially and most fundamentally seek to inspire in you’. And He saw His dear mother as the epitome of the converts He was seeking to make. I lay great store by this allusion. For it makes Mary, at least at the time of the Angel’s visit, truly our pattern. She heard the glad tidings and believed that word in faith, holding on to it in her heart (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:21'>Luk 8:21</a></em>). She was a model for all who hear the Gospel. It could even be that the language of <em><a href='B:490 1:32-33'>Luk 1:32-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:35'>Luk 1:35</a></em> is framed in such a way as to make Mary appear to be the first person who heard the gospel about Jesus. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Blessed are you that weep now; for you shall laugh</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em>. Associated in the Old Testament with mourning for sin (<em><a href='B:20 33:4-5'>Exo 33:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 10:6'>Ezr 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 8:9'>Neh 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 38:5-6'>Psa 38:5-6</a></em>). The time of God's grace was extended to those who mourned for their sins (<em><a href='B:290 61:2-3'>Isa 61:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:10'>Isa 66:10</a></em>). Such Godly sorrow is the sorrow of repentance (<em><a href='B:540 7:10'>2Co 7:10</a></em>); and the laughter in view is therefore the utter joy of good conscience with God through His forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p><em>Blessed are you, when men shall hate you, and when they shall reject you, and reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake</em>-</p><p> 'Reject' is literally 'to drive away' (<em><a href='B:470 1:23'>Mat 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:34'>Mat 23:34</a></em>), maybe carrying the idea of excommunication. Being thrown out of the synagogue was a major and frequent occurrence for many who came to Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>). There are Old Testament connections between persecution and suffering for sin (<em><a href='B:50 30:1-7'>Deu 30:1-7</a></em>), so the Lord could also have in view, as in the Beatitudes, that He is offering blessing and happiness for the messed up sinners who are suffering in this life for their sins.</p><p>This is quoted by Peter in <em><a href='B:670 4:14'>1Pe 4:14</a></em> where he says that we are blessed / happy if we are reviled for the sake of Christ's Name. The implication is that persecution, slander and serious opposition is inevitable for all who will follow Christ. Yet when these things happen, we seem to be shocked and surprised. Paul's extraordinary ability to rejoice in his trials seems to have been rooted in his sustained reflection upon these verses. These words are alluded to in at least 5 verses in his epistles. When Corinth reviled him (<em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>), Paul saw this as being reviled and persecuted after the pattern of <em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy; for your reward is great in heaven. For in the same manner did their fathers treat the prophets</em>-</p><p> Again seeking to challenge the prevailing views of the Jewish leadership, the Lord invited His humble fishermen-followers to see themselves as the great prophets of old being persecuted by a wicked Israel. The language of persecution is also rooted very much in the language and experience of the prophets. The similar language in <em><a href='B:480 13:8-11'>Mar 13:8-11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 21:12-18'>Luk 21:12-18</a></em> suggests the same. Again, just as the Lord has challenged his secular, nothing-special followers to see themselves as Moses, now He invites them to see themselves as the prophets. And so a theme develops in the Lord's teaching- that He is seeking to place the mantle of Moses, David and the prophets upon ordinary, sinful members of spiritual society, seeking to show them their huge potential significance in God's program. And that impression must come home to us too in our situations, no longer considering that spiritual heroics and work for God are somehow for 'the others', the leaders.</p>


text:
<p><em>But woe to you that are rich! For you have received your consolation</em>-</p><p> Is the "woe!" in <em><a href='B:490 6:24-26'>Luk 6:24-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:42-52'>Luk 11:42-52</a></em> an imprecation ['woe to'] or a lament ['alas!']? Luke has more to say about the "rich" than any other of the gospels. The implication is that the comfort is for those who are poor in spirit. The comfort offered in Isaiah was specifically comfort for sinners who realized their desperation (<em><a href='B:290 12:1'>Isa 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a></em>). We noted on Matthew 4 that the Lord presented the way that John had prepared the way for Him in terms of the prophecy of Isaiah 40, which spoke of 'comfort' to God's doubting people. If this comfort were accepted, then the glory would come to Zion and John's work would have prepared a highway of repentant people over which the Lord Jesus could have come to Zion and established the Kingdom there and then. Comfort to the mourners was one of Isaiah's descriptions of that possible Kingdom. It could have all happened in the first century, but Israel would not- and so the final fulfilment of this comfort will be at Christ's return and the establishment of God's Kingdom fully on earth. "Be comforted" may be a prophesy of the Comforter which was to give a measure of comfort even in this life (<em><a href='B:500 14:16'>Joh 14:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you, you that are full now! For you shall hunger. Woe to you that laugh now! For you shall mourn and weep</em>-</p><p> The wealth, laughter and fullness refers to spiritual confidence of the type seen in the Jewish religious leadership. The gospel is good news for those who mourn for their sins, and hunger to be righteous. Those who considered themselves spiritually rich would experience the mourning and weeping associated with condemnation at the last day. Either we will mourn now in repentance, or we will mourn at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em> etc:). Having foretold the inevitable coming of judgment day, Yahweh Himself pleads with Israel: "Therefore also <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>). See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you, when all men shall speak well of you! For in the same manner did their fathers do to the false prophets</em>-</p><p> The Lord assumes that His followers will not be people of spotless reputation, but will be as unpopular as the Old Testament prophets. He was at this point largely appealing to secular, irreligious people who wanted to be spiritual but couldn't so far get their act together- rather than seeking to tweak the theology of those who claimed to be believers already. And this should be the focus of our outreach too. But just as in this verse He assumes His people will not be well thought of in society, so He assumes that they shall each one be as the true prophets of Israel. He reasons as if all His followers shall have a prophetic ministry. </p>


text:
<p><em>But I say to you that hear: Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you</em>-</p><p> We tend to love in response to others' love. But the love which the Lord has in mind is the love which is an act of the will, consciously effected towards the&nbsp;<em>un</em>loving:&nbsp;This love of enemies is specifically exemplified in :35 as lending without expecting anything back. It's not usual for an enemy to try to borrow from us; but I suggest that the lending in view is that of forgiveness. For debt is so often used as a metaphor for sin. </p><p>It was the Essenes in their&nbsp;<em>Rule Of The Community</em>&nbsp;who taught that Essenes must yearly chant curses upon their enemies. The Lord's attitude to the Essenes is a case study in bridge building- developing what we have in common with our target audience, and yet through that commonality addressing the issues over which we differ. The Dead Sea scrolls reveal that the terms "poor in spirit" and "poor" are technical terms used only by the Essenes to describe themselves". So when the Lord encouraged us to be "poor in spirit" (<em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em>), He was commending the Essene position. Likewise when He praised those who were eunuchs for God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 19:10-12'>Mat 19:10-12</a></em>), He was alluding to the Essenes, who were the only celibate group in first century Israel. And yet lepers were anathema to the Essenes, and the Lord's staying in the home of Simon the leper (<em><a href='B:480 14:3'>Mar 14:3</a></em>) was a purposeful affront to Essene thinking. The parable of the Good Samaritan has been seen as another purposeful attack upon them; likewise the Lord's teaching: "You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy" (<em><a href='B:470 5:43'>Mat 5:43</a></em>). So the Lord&nbsp;within His teaching as a whole, both commended and challenged the Essenes; His bridge building didn't involve just accepting their position.</p>


text:
<p><em>Bless those that curse you, pray for those that mistreat you</em>-</p><p> Praying for our enemies and abusers, not wishing a curse upon them but rather a blessing, sounds like Job (<em><a href='B:220 31:30'>Job 31:30</a></em>). 'Blessing' has Biblical connection with the ideas of forgiveness and salvation. There would be no point in praying for forgiveness for the obviously impenitent unless God might actually grant it. This opens huge possibilities and potentials to us. God is willing to forgive people for the sake of the prayers and efforts of others (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>). Jesus isn't simply telling us to vaguely pray for our enemies because it is psychologically good for us and eases our pain a bit. Genuine prayer for abusers really has the possibility of being heard- for God is willing to save people for the sake of our prayers. Otherwise, this exhortation to do good to abusers through praying for their blessing would be rather meaningless. 'Cursing' likewise tended to carry the sense of 'May you be condemned at the day of judgment'. Those who condemn others will be condemned (<em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em> etc:)- and yet we can pray for their blessing. It is perhaps only our prayers and desire for their salvation which can over-ride the otherwise certain connection between condemning others and being condemned. This gives those condemned and abused by others so much work to do. In fact, so amazing are the possibilities that that alone is therapeutic. Moses' praying for Pharaoh in <em><a href='B:20 9:28-29'>Exo 9:28-29</a></em> is perhaps the Old Testament source of Christ's words. Let's not read those records as implying that Moses simply uttered a few words to God, and then each of the plagues was lifted. There was an element of real fervency in Moses' prayers- which may well be lacking in ours. This is surely an example of genuinely praying for our enemies.</p><p>Curse [condemn]... hate... despitefully use [slander]... persecute [chase out- excommunicate] the terms used here are very applicable to attitudes from some members of God's people to others- first century Israel, in the first context, and the Christian church in the longer term context. The language is not so applicable to persecution at the hands of the unbelieving world. Likewise the commands to pray for spiritual blessing and acceptance of our abusers is surely more appropriate to prayers for those who are bitter misbelievers than for complete unbelievers who profess no desire to please God.</p>


text:
<p><em>To him that hits you on the cheek offer also the other- </em>&nbsp;You singular. Time and again the Sermons on the Mount and Plain seem to take a broad sweep in its record of the Lord’s teaching to us all; and then He suddenly focuses in on the individual. The AV brings this out well through the use of “you” (plural) and “thee” (singular): “Blessed are you poor… love your enemies… to him who strikes thee on the cheek…”. Note how many times there is this change of pronoun in Luke 6. Clearly the Lord wants us to see our collective standing before Him, and yet not to overlook the purely personal nature of His appeal to us individually:&nbsp;The Lord was smitten on the cheek but enquired why He was being smitten, rather than literally turning the other cheek. But to do this would be so humiliating for the aggressor that it would be a far more effective resistance of evil than anything else. The power in the confrontation is now with the one who turns the other cheek. S/he is calling the shots, not the beater. The idea of not resisting evil and offering the other cheek we normally apply to suffering loss from the world without fighting for our rights. Yet Paul took this as referring to the need to not retaliate to the harmful things done to us by members of the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:520 12:16-17'>Rom 12:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:7'>1Co 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:15'>1Th 5:15</a></em>). When struck on the right cheek- which was a Semitic insult to a heretic- they were to not respond and open themselves up for further insult [surely a lesson for those brethren who are falsely accused of wrong beliefs]. And yet the compassion of Jesus shines through both His parables and the records of His words; as does His acceptance of people for who they were. People were relaxed with Him because they could see He had no hidden agenda. He wasn't going to use them for His own power trip.</p><p><em>And from him that takes away your cloak- withhold not your coat also</em>-</p><p> The simple principle 'Do not resist wrong judgment of you' is a very large ask. Even in this life, truth often comes out. And if we believe in the ultimate justice of the final judgment, we will not for ever be going around correcting others' misjudgements and wrong impressions of us. That is something I have had to deeply learn in my own life. It was forbidden by the Law to keep a man’s outer garment overnight (<em><a href='B:20 22:26-27'>Exo 22:26-27</a></em>). But the Lord taught&nbsp;<em>whilst the law was still in operation&nbsp;</em>that we should be willing to give it up, and even offer it. The threatened man could have quoted the Law and kept his clothing. But the Lord bids us go to a higher level, beyond using God’s law to uphold our own rights. And in this He raises a vital if difficult principle: Don’t always enforce what Biblical rights you have against your brother. Don’t rush to your own defence and justification even if Scripture is on your side. Live on the level of true love and non-resistance to evil. In this case the idea would be that even if someone amongst God's people does something unBiblical to us, clearly breaking God's laws, we are still to not resist evil but rather by our grace to them, shame them into repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>Give to everyone who asks of you, from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back</em>-</p><p> This parallels the Lord's teaching that we receive from God whatever we ask. But that is not to be taken literally. It is paramountly true in spiritual terms. 'Debt' is used as a metaphor for sin. The idea is used in :35 for forgiving sin. Likewise the Lord's teaching here likely has context and parameters to it. The Lord is teaching not to resist evil; for the 'asking' of us is parallel to taking away our goods:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them likewise</em>-</p><p> This is another way of saying 'Love your neighbour as yourself'. The Greek for 'do to you' recurs in <em><a href='B:470 18:35'>Mat 18:35</a></em> where we read how God shall 'do to you' if you do not forgive your brother. We also find the phrase in <em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em> - 'whatever you do' to Christ's brethren, you do to Him and shall receive from Him accordingly. It is true that what goes around, comes around- so it's best to treat others as you would like to be treated. But that kind of truth is expressed in almost every religious and cultural system of the world. My sense is that the Lord is not merely repeating conventional, folksy wisdom, but rather is elevating it to a far higher and more deeply internal, spiritual level. For this is His style throughout the Sermons on the mount and plain. The recurrence of the phrase 'whatever you do' in <em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em> teaches that whatever we do (or do not do) to others, we do to Christ personally. And in that dimension of life, the 'come back' of our actions will not simply be in this life, but more importantly, at the last day. Judgment day, either explicitly or implicitly, forms a major theme in the Lord's teaching. If He is indeed teaching that what we do to others is done to Him and therefore will have its response at the day of judgment, rather than merely in this life as folksy wisdom teaches, then indeed we can understand His comment in <em><a href='B:470 7:12'>Mat 7:12</a></em>: "For this is the law and the prophets". The law and the prophets do indeed teach that human behaviour, especially that done to others, shall come to final judgment in the last day. But I would not say that 'what goes around, comes around' is exactly their major and noteworthy theme, true as that bit of folksy wisdom Is:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For if you love those that love you, what praise do you have? For even sinners love those that love them</em>-</p><p> Taking responsibility for others is often thankless. Our human dysfunction cries out for affirmation, and we tend not to do those things for which we are not thanked. This is one of the most radical aspects of our calling as followers of Christ- to serve without being thanked. Belief in God’s judgment helps us with this. For all our works will be rewarded in some sense by Him at the last day. If we love those that love us, we have no “thank” (AV) or "praise"- but we will have “thank”, or “praise of God” ultimately. And this is what ultimately matters. This speaks of receiving "thank" for making the conscious effort to love the unlovable. The Greek for "thank" or "praise" is <em>charis</em>, normally translated "grace", and often connected with the help of the Spirit which is given to us in response to our own efforts.</p>


text:
<p><em>And if you do good to those that do good to you, what praise do you have? For even sinners do the same</em>-</p><p> There is no <em>charis</em>, no grace, in loving those who love us; grace is found in doing good to those who do not do good to us. Too easily, believing communities can become self-help clubs, whereby we do good to those who do good to us. And that is the way of the world, of secular society. The call of grace is to do good to those who are not of us, and who are against us. </p>


text:
<p><em>And if you lend to those of whom you hope to receive, what praise do you have? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much</em>-</p><p> As noted on :32 and :33, there is no grace [s:w. "praise"] in giving when we hope to receive back in this life. This is the way of secular society and groups within it. From whom do we receive grace or praise? Surely from the Father, the source of grace. Secular people do good (:33) and lend to others because they hope to receive again "as much", literally, the same kind of thing. Our spiritual investment is of an altogether different character. We will not receive back in this life from those we give to. But we are banking in Heaven, and at judgment day, will receive back the grace we are so desperately in need of. Then we shall receive "praise of God" (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>), according to the parable, the Lord will go through our good works to weak people and praise us for them. We will indeed "receive" for what we do, but not "as much", not in the same coin, not things of the same nature which we gave. There is a radical exchange going on- our lending to others, be it literally or in terms of the gift of forgiveness, time and grace, shall be recompensed- but not from them, and on a far more wonderful level.</p>


text:
<p><em>But love your enemies, and do good and lend, never despairing, and your reward shall be great, and you shall be sons of the Most High. For He is kind toward the unthankful and evil</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 5:45'>Mat 5:45</a></em>. The Lord sort to inculcate in His followers His same positive spirit. We must love our enemies “never despairing”. To never give up with people, for all the losses, the casualties, the hurt… never despairing of humanity. This was and is the spirit of Jesus. Debt is a common metaphor for sin, being in need of forgiveness. The constant lending we are called to, not expecting repayment but all the same placing those lent to in an ever greater debt to us, corresponds more accurately with the experience of forgiving people than it does with lending of material things. To lend without hoping for anything back ["never despairing"] is quite some challenge. This appears to be the pattern of God's kindness; He is kind for the sake of it, with no hope of anything back. And yet what joy we must give Him when we form the habit of regular thanks before food, and seek to appreciate His kindness. Worthiness of the recipient is not the way of grace, and the teaching here is in conscious contrast to the Jewish idea, soon to be recorded by Luke, that a man was worthy of a miracle because he had been generous to a Jewish community (<em><a href='B:490 7:4'>Luk 7:4</a></em>). The paradox of this teaching is that although we should serve for nothing, with no hope for anything back, there will in fact be a great reward prepared for us. Although not in this life, nor in secular terms, as noted on :34.</p>


text:
<p><em>Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful</em>-</p><p> Quite simply, who God is should inspire us to be like Him; to copy His characteristics [the things of His Name] in our personalities. We must be "perfect" as our Father is; "be holy", because He is holy (<em><a href='B:670 1:14-16'>1Pe 1:14-16</a></em>); "kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God forgave… be you therefore followers of God, as dear children" (<em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:1'>Eph 5:1</a></em>); "merciful, as your Father is merciful" (<em><a href='B:490 6:36'>Luk 6:36</a></em>). <em><a href='B:240 19:11'>Pro 19:11</a></em> RV uses language frequently applied to Yahweh Himself and applies it to the wise man: "The discretion of a man makes him slow to anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression". And thus Phinehas was commended for being "jealous with my jealousy" (<em><a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a></em> RV)- his emotion at that time was a mirror of that of God Himself.</p><p>Not only was language re-interpreted by the Christian movement. Whole concepts were reoriented. Holiness in the sense of separation from the unclean had been a major theme in the Mosaic Law, and it figured largely in the theology of the Pharisees. But the Lord quoted “Be holy because I, Yahweh your God am holy” (<em><a href='B:30 19:2'>Lev 19:2</a></em>) as “Be merciful, even as your father [in heaven- AV] is merciful”. To be merciful to those who sin is now the true holiness- not merely separation from them and condemnation of their ways. Note, too, how He invites us to interpret the Yahweh as “father”, rather than transliterating the Name.</p>


text:
<p><em>Judge not, and you shall not be judged; condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven</em>-</p><p> This confirms the suggestion so far made in commentary on this chapter; that the lending and giving in view is particularly that of forgiveness, unconditionally granted. For Paul, "judge not..." echoed in his mind throughout the years; thus it is at the basis of <em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em>; the whole of Romans 14, and <em><a href='B:530 4:3'>1Co 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>. The Lord's teaching about judging does not in fact say that the act of condemning our brother is in itself a sin- it's simply that we must cast out the beam from our own eye first, and then we can judge our brother by pointing out to him the splinter in his eye. But the Lord tells us not to judge because He foresaw that we would never completely throw out the beam from our own eye. His command not to judge /&nbsp;condemn at all was therefore in this sense a concession to our inevitable weakness (:41). The commentary of James on this is interesting: “Don’t speak against one another, brothers. He who speaks against a brother and judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of thelaw, but a judge" (<em><a href='B:660 4:11'>Jas 4:11</a></em>). In what sense is to judge / condemn our brother to judge the law? And which law? Maybe James considered <em><a href='B:490 6:37'>Luk 6:37</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em> to be so fundamental a part of "the law of Christ" that he refers to it as "the law". See on <em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em>. The Lord had taught clearly that under His law, to condemn meant being condemned. Yet there were those in James' readership, as there are today, who think they can go ahead and condemn others. Seeing the Lord's law is so clear, James is saying that effectively they are condemning the law of Jesus, placing themselves as judges over His law by deciding that they can break it at will.</p><p>We observe that not forgiving is parallel here to condemning and judging. We are setting ourselves up as judge of others if we refuse to forgive. Forgiveness is not the same as trust, but it is clearly required- otherwise we are condemning. If we assume that all our brethren shall be saved [and seeing we can't prejudge the judgment, we have to assume this, as Paul did about Corinth], then we assume that whatever sins they have committed against us will be forgiven. Therefore we must forgive them, acting in harmony with the Lord's position to them. In this lies the connection between not forgiving and condemning. If we refuse to condemn them, then we must forgive them. And the nature of the logic demands that we are to grant that forgiveness to any whom the Lord will not condemn, and so the forgiveness in view is to be granted without any angst about whether or not the person has repented. That is not for us to judge; it is for us to forgive. The logic of the whole argument requires this. There are passages which picture a person sinning against us and saying they repent and then being forgiven; but their purpose is to teach that we are to forgive when they do that, even if their repentance appears insincere; but we are not thereby taught not to forgive unless they repent. We are being presented in those passages with a theoretical situation, and told to forgive even if repentance seems sincere. But the logic here in <em><a href='B:490 6:37'>Luk 6:37</a></em> is to forgive in any case; for all "in Christ" are not condemned and therefore forgiven.</p><p>Because of the principle that we shall be condemned if we condemn, we need to remember that we will receive according to the measure we use to people in this life. Again, a direct connection is made between our judgment experience before Jesus at the last day, and our attitude to others now:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Give; and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they pour into your lap. For with what measure you use, it shall be measured to you again</em>-</p><p> We are to give expecting nothing again, and we do not get such generous response to our generosity from men in this life. So I suggest the reference is to judgment day, and the "men" refer to Angels. As men gather in a net and sort out the fish, so the angels will at judgment day (<em><a href='B:470 13:47-50'>Mat 13:47-50</a></em>). "Men (angels) gather (the branches), and cast them into the fire, and they are burned" (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). This same equation of men and angels is seen in <em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em>, this time concerning how the angels will mete out rewards as well as punishment at the judgment; for the language here is very much the language of judgment to come (<em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 7:1-2'>Mat 7:1-2</a></em>). This association of "men" (angels) with the judgment is fitting, seeing that our guardian angel will have been with us through every up and down of life, and shall come with the Lord Jesus to our judgment. See on <em><a href='B:490 12:48'>Luk 12:48</a></em>.</p><p>We might have expected Him to say: ‘Give generously, with a good, running over measure, and this is what you will receive in return’. But He doesn’t. He says simply “Give”; and then we will be given to in a generous measure, because with what measure we use in our giving, we will receive. Thinking it through, He means surely that “giving”, by His definition, means a generous, well packed, abundant giving; for that <em>is </em>Christian giving. And note that the context of <em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em> is the Lord talking about not being critical and judgmental of others, but rather forgiving and accepting them. It is our 'giving' in this sense which is to be so full and generous. Only God’s grace / giving can inspire this attitude within us, as we live hemmed in by the people of a materialistic, mean world, where nobody takes up a cross for anyone else. This is why Paul makes a play on the word ‘grace’ when writing to the Corinthians about giving; for <em>charis</em>, “grace”, means ‘giving’. He urges them to not receive God’s grace in vain, but rather, motivated by it, to give grace to others (<em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:6-7'>2Co 8:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:19'>2Co 8:19</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke also a parable to them: Can the blind guide the blind? Shall they not both fall into a pit?</em>-</p><p> The blind can lead the blind into the ditch, i:e. to be 'rooted up' in condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 15:13-14'>Mat 15:13-14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 13:29'>Luk 13:29</a></em>). And yet&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>in this day of marvellous opportunity, we can lift both ourselves and others out of that pit of condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 12:11'>Mat 12:11</a></em>). Some of those who are now 'rooted up', i:e. condemned as they would be in the future judgment (<em><a href='B:470 13:28'>Mat 13:28</a></em>), who are “wandering” as the rejected will in the last day, can still be saved from this by us pulling them out of the fire of condemnation (<em><a href='B:720 1:12'>Jud 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:22'>Jud 1:22</a></em>). Men can escape from the "damnation of hell" in which they are in (<em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>). Herein lies the urgency of our task in both personal repentance and pastoral work. But we notetoo the responsibility of leaders- they can lead others to condemnation. We do well to analyse our leaders. When the Lord elsewhere spoke of the blind leading the blind, He went on to tell the story of the partially sighted man who tries to remove what he perceives as a splinter of wood from his brother’s eye (:39-42). The implication is that we are all blind, and need leadership- but by the Lord, not by each other. And He is saying the same thing here in Matthew 15. By telling the disciples not to be led by the Pharisees in order to avoid falling into condemnation, He is effectively implying that the disciples were blind- for if the blind lead the blind, then they will fall into the ditch of condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p>The pit is that of condemnation. And yet the Lord likens Himself to a man who lifts His sheep out of the ditch / pit (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 12:11'>Mat 12:11</a></em>). We can be condemned in this life, as Peter was, and yet be saved out of it. Just as some of those blind Scribes and Pharisees were saved.</p>


text:
<p><em>The disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is perfected, shall be as his teacher</em>-</p><p> The Lord is partly speaking to the possible desire in some of the disciples to be martyrs for His cause. Peter's attitude in Gethsemane was clearly of that nature, and some of the disciples came from radicalized, fanatical backgrounds. Martyrdom was a common concept in the first century, and the Lord's warning to flee persecution, to bring about a quiet revolution rather than a political one, was aimed at warning against any desire for a quick, glamorous death for the sake of the Kingdom. In the context, He has warned them to endure persecution. He could be saying that the game plan was that&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;was to die, but&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to seek to preserve their lives so that they could make a longer and more effective witness to Him. They were not 'above' Him- He was the one who had to die as the perfect sacrifice, not them. They were to be 'as' Him in terms of personality, and be satisfied with that- it was to be "enough" for them to bear His reproach (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>). The Lord elsewhere taught Peter that the time for martyrdom would indeed come for Peter, when he was "perfected" or matured- but not right then. So there is the possibility that the Lord is implying 'You are not at this stage&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;("above") Me, for the moment, focus on being "as" Me, as disciples learning to copy their teacher'. This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that Paul later writes that we are indeed to be&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Christ, in the sense of being instead of Him, for His sake, in our witness. Thus we are to preach "<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Christ... in Christ's stead [<em>huper</em>&nbsp;again]" (<em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>), suffering in the work of preaching&nbsp;<em>huper&nbsp;</em>Christ (<em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:29'>Phi 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:24'>Col 1:24</a></em>), giving our lives&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Christ (<em><a href='B:510 15:26'>Act 15:26</a></em>), in response to Christ's death&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;us (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em> and often). So when the Lord taught that the disciples were not to give their lives&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Him their Lord and Master, He might have meant 'at this time'. The time would come, but for then, they were to focus on learning of Him:&nbsp;</p><p>Today, students are 'trained' to think for themselves, be creative, develop their own opinions, push forward their own independent research, using question / problem-based learning as a paradigm for their education. 'Education' in the first century wasn't like that at all. The idea was that "every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher" (<em><a href='B:490 6:40'>Luk 6:40</a></em>). The idea was that a person born into a certain social situation was trained to take their place in society, given that 'station and place' into which they had been born. Initiative in that sense was not encouraged; it was all about training up a person to correctly fulfil societies' expectation of them. The idea of being personally taught by the invisible Master / teacher Jesus, becoming like Him rather than like the person whom society expected, being given talents by Him which we are to trade and multiply at our initiative (<em><a href='B:470 25:15-28'>Mat 25:15-28</a></em>)... this was all totally counter-cultural stuff. What was so vital in the Mediterranean world was that a person achieved conformity to accepted values. Cicero advised that in any good presentation of a legal case or encomium, emotions and passions shouldn't be referred to. Individualism was seen as a threat to tradition and the collective society. The huge New Testament emphasis on becoming disciples, learners, of an invisible Lord, Master and teacher located in Heaven, serving Him alone, worried about <em>His</em> standards, perceptions and judgment of us- that was and is so totally opposite to the expectations of society. People were educated to be embedded in society, rather than to come out of their world and live in the new world in which Christ was the light, and all things were made new in a new creation, a new set of values.</p>


text:
<p><em>And why do you see the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye?</em>-</p><p> The Lord prefaces this mini-parable by saying that the blind can't lead the blind. For Him, a man with even slightly impaired vision was effectively blind. In this very context He speaks of the need to be "perfected... as his master". Only the perfect, by implication, can criticize their brethren. And the final reason He gives for not attempting to cast out the plank from our brother's eye is that "For a good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit”. This is rather hard to understand in the context. But on reflection, it seems that He is teaching that if we are good trees, we will have no corrupt fruit, no splinters in our eye- and because none of us are like this, there is corrupt fruit on each of us, we aren't perfect as our Master, therefore we shouldn't think of trying to cast out the plank from our brother's eye (<em><a href='B:490 6:39-43'>Luk 6:39-43</a></em>). And of course He bids us to be perfect as our Father Is. These high standards of demand were mixed with an incredible grace. Only a man who was evidently perfect could speak like this with any realness or credibility. Otherwise His words would just have been seen as the ravings of a weirdo. But there was a realness to His perfection that made and makes His demands so piercingly appropriate to us. The way He handled His perfection is a wonderful insight into His character. He knew that He was without sin; and He knew that the life He lived moment by moment was to be the pattern for all God’s people. Yet somehow, He handled this in a manner which was never arrogant, never proud, and never off-putting to sinners; but rather, actually inviting to them.</p><p>This continues the context about judging. Our attitude to others will be the Lord's attitude to us at the last day. If we are hyper-critical of others, then this is how the Lord will look upon us. If&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;should mark iniquity in us, none could stand (<em><a href='B:230 130:3'>Psa 130:3</a></em>)- and we should struggle with the natural human tendency to mark iniquity in others. The question 'Why…?' is answered by the Lord in verse 42- He perceived that we excuse our judgmentalness and critical attitudes with the excuse that we actually want to assist the poor person who is the object of our critical gaze. How many times have we heard the bitterest, most carping criticism of others- rounded off with the excuse 'I actually really feel so sorry for him'. This is the very mentality the Lord is bringing to our attention. He bids us realize how we justify critical attitudes towards others on the basis that we kind ourselves that we want to help them.</p><p>The splinter is literally, a twig. Both a twig and a beam are all of the same material- wood. If the Lord was indeed a woodworker, He would have prepared this teaching during meditation in His workplace. The point is, all our faults are of the same essence. The problem is that although we have been called out of darkness / blindness into the light of life, we are still blind in so many ways- even though blindness is a feature of the unsaved, and ignorance of God is the basis of His anger with men (<em><a href='B:600 1:8'>2Th 1:8</a></em>). Crystal clear teaching of Jesus relating to wealth, brotherly love, personal forgiveness, the vital unity of His church, personal purity… these all go ignored in some way by each of us, and therefore by us as a community. The Lord gently warns us that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;likely to be blind in some way- why, He asks, are we so keen to comment on our brother's blindness / darkness, when we too have such limited vision (<em><a href='B:470 7:3'>Mat 7:3</a></em>)? We can read the same passages time and again, and fail to let them really register.</p><p>"Consider not" is alluded to by James. James is full of references to the Sermon, and <em><a href='B:660 1:23-24'>Jas 1:23-24</a></em> repeat this Greek word for "consider". James warns that we can be like the man who considers / beholds his face in a mirror and then carries on with life, immediately forgetting what he has seen of himself. It's not that we are totally, blissfully unaware of our faults. We see / consider them, but for a fleeting moment. And then live as if we have not seen them. The Lord is telling us to indeed see / consider our own planks. The idea seems to be that the plank in our own eye is our judgmental attitude towards our brother. This is what damages our vision; John teaches that we cannot see where we are walking if we hate our brother in our heart (<em><a href='B:690 2:11'>1Jn 2:11</a></em>). If we are without this major impediment to our vision, then maybe we will be able to assist others with removing small parts [a twig] of the major problems [a beam] which we have ourselves overcome.</p>


text:
<p><em>Or how can you say to your brother: Brother, let me cast out the splinter that is in your eye- when you yourself do not perceive the beam that is in your own eye? You hypocrite! Cast out first the beam out of your own eye, and then shall you see clearly to cast out the splinter that is in your brother's eye</em>-</p><p> The Lord foresaw the problems we would have within our community; from the schisms of the first century to the struggles of latter day believers. Consider the story He told of the carpenter with a beam in his own eye who is so keen to extract the splinter from the eye of his fellow worker (note how he almost forces himself upon his brother to do this!). There is something grotesque, absurd, over the top in this story. In this story of the two carpenters there is something not only unreal, but almost cartoon-like. We read it and think 'The Lord's obviously exaggerating, nobody would really be so foolish'. But that's exactly how He knew we would think! Our attempts to sort out our brother really are that absurd! Christ is effectively saying: 'Now, I know you'll think I'm exaggerating- but I'm not' (<em><a href='B:490 6:41-42'>Luk 6:41-42</a></em>). Often it seems the Lord intends us to think His parables through to their end, imagining the necessary details. A splinter will come out of the eye naturally, its presence will provoke tears which ultimately will wash it out. 'The grief of life will work on your brother to solve his problem, there are some spiritual weaknesses which time and the experience of life will heal; but I know you people will want to rush in and speed up the spiritual growth of your brother. But you can't do it!'. Christ even foresaw how we will stress the fact that our fellow believer is our "brother" as we try to do this; as if we'll try to be so righteous in the very moment when in God's eyes we do something grotesquely foolish. Doubtless the Lord's carpenter years were the time when He formulated this story of the two carpenters. Significantly they both had wood in their eye- as if a brother will tend to seek to correct another brother who has in essence the same weaknesses, but the ‘helping’ brother considers that the other brother’s is so much greater than his. Perhaps the Lord intends us to take it further, and pick up the implication that these two carpenters couldn't help each other; but there's another one who can... </p><p>If we condemn ourselves in our self-examination, we will not be condemned (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). We are to most importantly [Gk. <em>proton</em>] “cast out” the beam from our own eye (<em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em>)- and the Lord uses the same word about the ‘casting forth’ of the rejected at the last day. We are to judge our own weaknesses as worthy of condemnation. See on <em><a href='B:490 18:10'>Luk 18:10</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>For there is no good tree that brings forth corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree that brings forth good fruit</em>-</p><p> We take a third road of indifferent tolerance to far too many. Having spoken of the need to tolerate our brother, the Lord Jesus repeated His common theme: that there is no third road. There's no third position. Either we love our brother, and bring forth good fruit; or we don't get down to it, and bring forth bad fruit. We can't sometimes bring forth good, sometimes bad. At heart, we are either loving or selfishly hateful. Anything less than following Yahweh with all our heart is seen as doing evil in His eyes (<em><a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a></em>).</p><p>Fruit on a transformed person is obvious and visible. If we are to use the presence or absence of fruit as a basis for perceiving false teachers, then we will have no problem at all discerning who is of the Lord and who isn't. And yet this very issue of deciding on others' status has been fatally divisive and destructive for the Lord's church. Statements of faith are analysed, and the teaching of others is watchfully dissected to see if it fits that given statement- in order to decide whether someone is 'in' or 'out'. The Lord foresaw that tendency, for it was the tendency of the scribes too. And instead He offers us this other way, elevating spirituality to the highest level- whoever has the fruits "cannot" be a bad tree. The issue of 'fruit' therefore becomes the key methodology through which to make the judgments which we are called to make in life. The attitude is often expressed that 'Well they may be very nice Christians and all that, but they do not understand the Truth about... [issue X]'. The Lord is tackling that mentality head on, by saying that this "cannot" be the case; if the fruit is there, then they are a good tree, whatever misunderstandings they may have (and we all have them):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For each tree is known by its own fruit- </em>The Lord knows the evil hearts of people- but we can't see their hearts, and so&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;shall know them by their external fruits:&nbsp;The need for fruit as a sign of repentance had been a theme in John's teaching (<em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>), and the Lord in HisSermon is often building on John's words. The Lord's concern is about those who appear to have accepted His message, dressing as sheep, and yet are in fact completely false. The whole thrust of His Sermon is that acceptance of Him produces a change in human life; there must be fruit. And we take a simple lesson from that- if we are to be able to tell whether someone is a genuine Christian or not by whether their fruits are visible, we have to ask ourselves whether our lives are so markedly different from unbelievers. There is to be something about us, fruit hanging on us, which clearly differentiates us from the unbelieving world. The difference has got to be fairly obvious, because the Lord is here teaching that we can easily discern whether someone purporting to be spiritual is indeed so because the fruits of it will be evident. Therefore there will not be any debate about whether someone is in the wolf / false prophet category- because they either have the fruits of the Spirit, the signs of the transformed life, or they do not. And the difference will be obvious. And yet endless energy has been expended trying to judge false prophets according to the content of their Biblical exposition and teaching. The Lord, however, teaches that the litmus test is in their life, rather than in their intellectual position:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For from thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush do they gather grapes</em>-</p><p> The idea is 'Of course not'. The Lord's point is that spiritual fruit is obvious, it cannot be hidden, like a city set on a hill. If there are grapes, the blessed fruit of the new covenant, on a person- then for sure they are not a thorn bush, with all the associations between thorns and cursing. In <em><a href='B:470 12:33'>Mat 12:33</a></em> the Lord makes an apparently obvious point- a good tree has good fruit, a bad tree has bad fruit. But the point is that we can easily, clearly tell whether someone has the fruit of the transformed life or not. There is no argument about it, because the fruit of the transformed life, lived according to this Sermon on the Mount, is public and visible. The seed of the Gospel which is sown by Jesus either brings forth fruit, or it doesn't (<em><a href='B:470 13:8'>Mat 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:26'>Mat 13:26</a></em>). So much angst about labelling individuals as false teachers is rendered unnecessary if we take this approach. And the false teachers with whom the later New Testament letters engage are teaching a false way of life, and Jude, Peter and John especially point out that their way of life indicates that they are false teachers:&nbsp;</p><p>Figs are associated with spiritual fruit (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>), whereas thistles, like thorns, are associated with the curse (<em><a href='B:10 3:18'>Gen 3:18</a></em> "thorns and thistles"; s:w. <em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em> "that which bears thorns and thistles is rejected"). The point is, that the difference between the accepted and the condemned is apparent even in this life, because the fruit of the transformed life simply has to be seen publicly on people. This is perhaps the Lord's expansion upon His command not to judge / condemn. He's saying that we should not, however, walk around life blind and imperceptive, but rather take good notice of the presence or absence of fruit on a person:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord puts it slightly another way in <em><a href='B:490 6:44'>Luk 6:44</a></em> when He says that men don't "gather" good fruit from a corrupt tree. The language of gathering is very much that of judgment to come; and yet the fruit is produced and gathered now, in the words / fruit that comes out of our mouth. This is why right now we can judge a false teacher, by his corrupt words [this is one of the contexts of the Lord's words about corrupt trees and fruit- we see the fruit&nbsp;<em>now</em>]. The corrupt man&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;speak villainy (<em><a href='B:290 32:6'>Isa 32:6</a></em>). But corrupt words don't just mean expletives- the false teacher would be too smart to use them. He comes in sheep's clothing. But <em><a href='B:490 6:41-44'>Luk 6:41-44</a></em> gives us an example of "corrupt" words; words which create a corrupting spiritual influence in a man or in a community. One may&nbsp;<em>say</em>&nbsp;to his brother that he must cast out the splinter from his eye, although he has a plank in his own. And the Lord goes on to say that a good tree doesn't bring forth corrupt fruit. The corrupt fruit, as in the above passages, means 'corrupt words'. And in <em><a href='B:490 6:45'>Luk 6:45</a></em> the Lord concludes by saying that "for of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh". The corrupt fruit are the corrupt words of <em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em> - saying, 'My brother, I'm very sorry, but I just have to correct you, you are so obviously wrong and stupid to walk round with a splinter in your eye, I can correct your spiritual vision, because I see perfectly. At the moment your spiritual perception ['eye] is just hopeless'. The Lord understood 'the eye' as ones' spiritual vision (<em><a href='B:470 6:22-23'>Mat 6:22-23</a></em>). These kind of words, in essence, are the real leaven; they corrupt / pull apart over time communities as well as individual faith. These criticisms work away within a brother or sister, disaffirming them as believers, disaffirming them for who they are, raising doubt and not hope, humiliating them that they haven't made the grade… until they are corrupted. We have a specific example of a man being punished in judgment for his words, and it may well be the basis for the Lord's teaching here: "When the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks. For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done this…" (<em><a href='B:290 10:11-12'>Isa 10:11-12</a></em>). And there follows a long quotation of his words. These words were the 'fruit of his heart'- out of the abundance of his heart his mouth had spoken. And these words were almost cited back to him at the time of his condemnation. We know, however, that it is quite possible for human actions and words to&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;reflect the heart. Consider how Sennacherib invaded Judah but in his heart "he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so" (<em><a href='B:290 10:7'>Isa 10:7</a></em>). This is why the Lord clearly condemns the thought as being as bad as the action, even if the action isn't actually committed. <em><a href='B:230 55:21'>Psa 55:21</a></em> laments how words cannot reflect the true state of a man's heart: "The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords". So why, then, is there so much emphasis on spoken words as the basis for judgment to come? Surely it is that although thoughts will also be judged, and the hypocrites revealed for who they are, it doesn't follow that a good man sometimes uses 'corrupt speech'. It's impossible. A good man cannot bring forth bad words. But a bad man can sometimes bring forth words which seem good on the surface, but which are in fact counterfeit. But it can't happen another way- a good man's words aren't just his surface level sin. And I for one flinch at this; because when I have to own up to having said inappropriate words, my flesh wants me to think that in my heart, I didn't mean them. And yet, ruthlessly, I must press the point: bad words reflect a bad heart. We can't justify them. We must repent of them, and by the influence of knowing God, through and in His Son and His word, we must change the state of mind that leads to them. And we should be, on one hand, simply&nbsp;<em>worried</em>: that bad words came out of a bad heart. And a good man cannot bring forth such corrupt fruit. There is with some especially the problem of temper, saying things well beyond what they really mean in hot blood. But here again, the words of hot blood do reflect something of the real man or woman. The tongue is a fire that can lead to condemnation, whatever and however we justify its' words as a relatively harmless outcome of our personality type. This may be true, but it isn't harmless.</p>


text:
<p><em>The good man- </em>The good man is as the good tree. His good fruit or works is because of a good mind within- and vice versa. The Lord as always took the issue to its deepest essence- which was within the deepest heart. He was the ultimate “good man” and good tree. His good works came forth from deep within Him, they were a reflection of His mind.</p><p><em>Out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth that which is good- </em>The heart is our wealth. This is the real gold and silver, the core value of a man's life- what we are thinking about. Spiritual mindedness is the essence of Christianity.</p><p><em>And the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth that which is evil- </em>The Lord uses the same word to speak of "this evil (AV "wicked") generation" in <em><a href='B:470 12:45'>Mat 12:45</a></em>. The problem with Jewish society as a whole was how they thought. This is the Biblical emphasis- sin comes from our thinking, and not because society is controlled by a personal cosmic 'satan' figure.</p><p><em>For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'that which remains'. The idea may be that a certain amount of human thought is taken up with basic human functioning, but that which remains over and above that, the part of our thinking which we can consciously control, is what must be controlled- for it is that part of our thinking which controls the words and actions which are the fruit on the tree of a man's life.</p>


text:
<p><em>And why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and not do the things which I say?</em>-</p><p> In <em><a href='B:520 2:13'>Rom 2:13</a></em>, Paul saw the "Lord, Lord" people 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>As with many aspects of doctrine, it is often difficult for us to appreciate how radically revolutionary they were in the first century context; and in essence they should lose none of their radicalness with us. David Bosch observes: “Christians confessed Jesus as Lord of all lords- the most revolutionary political demonstration imaginable in the Roman Empire". Philip Yancey likewise: “As the church spread throughout the Roman empire, its followers took up the slogan “Christ is Lord", a direct affront to Roman authorities who required all citizens to take the oath ‘Caesar [the state] is Lord’" (<em>The Jesus I Never Knew</em>, p. 246). It hurt, it cost, to recognize Him as Lord. And so it should with us. Men and women died for this; and we likewise give our lives in response to that very same knowledge. There is a tendency, which the Lord Himself brought to our attention, of calling Him Lord but not doing what He says. To know Him as Lord in truth is axiomatically to be obedient to Him (<em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em>). The attitude which we have to the Lord Jesus <em>now</em> will be the attitude we have to Him at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em>).</p><p>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 <em>really</em> 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 shew 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. </p><p>In <em><a href='B:530 13:2'>1Co 13:2</a></em> Paul understands those who say "Lord, Lord" as saying it without really&nbsp;<em>knowing</em>&nbsp;Christ, and 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. </p>


text:
<p><em>Everyone that comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you to whom he is like</em>-</p><p> The parable of the builders is fundamentally about our attitude to the Lord. There is good reason to think it mainly concerns the attitude of the responsible; these words of Jesus are set against the background of :27: "I say unto you which hear". The rest of the chapter seems to be addressed primarily to the disciples- e.g. :41,42 speak of them beholding the mote in their brother's eye; warning surely more relevant to believing disciples than to the world generally. The parable of the builders likewise refers to those within the ecclesia, who know Christ as their Lord: "Lord, Lord", they say. Among this class of people there would be "many" (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-23'>Mat 7:21-23</a></em>) who would hear Christ's sayings, but not do them. See on <em><a href='B:500 13:13'>Joh 13:13</a></em>. I'm obviously labouring this point, that the builders in the parable are those within the ecclesia, or at best the responsible. This is because the parallel record in Matthew 7 is rather unpleasant to apply to the ecclesia; it says that "many" of us will be in the category who say "Lord, Lord", and whose house will be destroyed. The Greek for “many" can imply 'the majority'. Even the majority of those who hear Christ's words simply don't do them. Now that's an uncomfortable statistic for us who sit before the bread and wine each week, seeking to hear Christ's words and do them. This parable was spoken in the context of crowds of the ecclesia of Israel coming to Christ, hearing His words, and doing sweet nothing about it. Such an attitude is not building a house on a rock. </p><p><em>Logos</em>&nbsp;suggests more than simply words. The Lord intends us to get to the essential intention of His Spirit. God's word is often styled His 'judgments' in the OT (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 119:43'>Psa 119:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:160'>Psa 119:160</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 147:19'>Psa 147:19</a></em>). In His word we see His judgments- how He judges and will judge. And in the wealth of Bible history we see examples of how these judgments have been articulated with men in practice. Thus the Lord Jesus concluded the sermon with a parable of judgment, that of the two builders. One heard the Lord's words of the sermon and did them, the other heard but didn't deeply apply them. The message was clear: 'Deeply meditate on what I've just been saying. For this is the basis upon which I will judge men in the last day. You can try to discern for yourselves how seriously and fundamentally you apply my words; and in this you will have a preview of how I will judge you".</p><p>The figure of building a house on a rock conjures up the idea of sweating labour. Do we feel that we are spiritually sweating, in a sense? Is it that hard to understand and therefore do the words of Christ? A number of passages make this connection between labouring&nbsp;and understanding the word. Elders labour in the word (<em><a href='B:610 5:17'>1Ti 5:17</a></em>), as the prophets laboured in writing the word of God (<em><a href='B:500 4:38'>Joh 4:38</a></em>); and the true Bible student is a labourer who will not be ashamed of his work at the end (<em><a href='B:620 2:15'>2Ti 2:15</a></em>). And the Lord Jesus spoke of us labouring for the manna of God's words, even harder than we labour for our daily bread, and more earnestly than the crowds ran around the lake of Galilee in the blazing midday sun in order to benefit from Christ's miracles (<em><a href='B:500 6:27'>Joh 6:27</a></em>). One could be forgiven for thinking that most of us find hearing the words of Christ easy. But there is an element of difficulty, even unpleasantness for us, in truly understanding Him in practical application. &nbsp;How do we hear and do? We are helped to get the answer by considering how Christ elsewhere appealed to people to "Hear&nbsp;<em>and understand</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 15:10'>Mat 15:10</a></em>). Truly understanding is related to action, 'doing'. In the parable, hearing and doing is like the hard work of digging the foundation on a rock. This is how hard it is to truly understand the words of Christ. Remember how the one talent man also dug into the earth (<em><a href='B:470 25:18'>Mat 25:18</a></em>). He did some digging, he did some work. But he failed to truly understand. The very physical action of digging deceived him into thinking he had done enough, as the physical action of building deceived the man who built on earth. Of course we are progressing somewhere spiritually, as we live day by day. But our movement can deceive us. &nbsp;</p><p>James clearly alludes to the appeal to not only hear but do: “But be doers of the word, and not only hearers, deluding your own selves” (<em><a href='B:660 1:22'>Jas 1:22</a></em>). James spells out the problem- we hear the Lord's words and for a moment assent to them- but don't continue to do them in the long term. "The word" is paralleled by James with "the perfect law of freedom":&nbsp; “But he who looks into the perfect law of freedom, and continues, not being a hearer who forgets, but a doer of the work, this man will be blessed in what he does” (<em><a href='B:660 1:25'>Jas 1:25</a></em>). The term "perfect law of freedom" is hard to interpret, and it seems to be in contrast with how the New Testament elsewhere speaks of the Mosaic law as being a form of bondage, with Christ's teaching as the way to freedom. I would suggest that this "perfect law of freedom" refers to the Sermons on the Mount and plain (see on <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>), perhaps specifically to the challenge to be perfect (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>); the Sermon, as we showed in commenting on <em><a href='B:470 5:1'>Mat 5:1</a></em>, was the Lord's equivalent to the Mosaic Law. The Sermon would've been memorized and recited by the vast mass of early Christians who were illiterate. And James is urging them to not merely encounter the words and nod approvingly at them, nor even merely recite them- but continuing in actually doing them. And this of course is the challenge to us too, assailed as we are in our generation by too many words, to the point that we can easily give a passing 'like' to them, and yet live on uninfluenced.</p>


text:
<p><em>He is like- </em>Present tense. Matthew says he "shall be like"; the essence of judgment is now. We can discern the principles by which we shall be judged. The future tenses in Matthew's version imply that the truth of the parable of the builders will only be apparent at the day of judgment. The purpose of judgment day is largely for our benefit, and therefore the process will be public- we will learn from the rejection and acceptance of others. Paul alludes to the idea by saying that "the day [of judgment] shall declare" each man's building work (<em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). And to whom will it be declared? The Lord already knows them that are his. It will be declared to the individual being judged, and to those who are observing. The Lord uses the same word translated 'likened' in speaking of how in this life, the state of the Kingdom in a man's life "<em>is</em>&nbsp;likened", present tense, right now, to various things (<em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:23'>Mat 18:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:2'>Mat 22:2</a></em>). But in <em><a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a></em> we find another future tense- at the Lord's return, the Kingdom&nbsp;<em>will be likened unto</em>&nbsp;the wise and foolish girls [cp. the wise and foolish builders]. We can perceive the essence of the Lord's future judgment in this life- for the Bible is full of His "judgments" ahead of time. Therefore the nature and outcome of the final judgment need not be a mystery for us, if we perceive the principles of judgment which the Lord teaches in the Sermon and elsewhere. But all the same, that day will be the final and ultimate declaration of those values.</p><p><em>A man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation upon the rock- </em>This is exactly what the Lord Himself is doing (<em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:61'>Mat 26:61</a></em>). There is a mutuality between the Lord and us. We build upon a rock, and He builds us upon a rock. We ourselves build, and yet we are "built up a spiritual house" by God (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; note how Peter goes right on to speak of the Jews as foolish builders in <em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em>; he surely had the Lord's parable of the two types of builder in mind). Both men&nbsp;<em>built</em>&nbsp;in that both men&nbsp;<em>heard</em>&nbsp;the Lord's sayings. We are all making progress on our spiritual journey, for good or bad. There's no way to just take a break from the journey. We are building, hearing the Lord's will- but the question is, where is our foundation. The fundamental core, the dominant desire, of the Lord's people is Him. For the rock is clearly a symbol of the Lord Jesus ("that rock was Christ", <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a></em> s:w:). On one hand, the Lord teaches that obedience to His sayings in practice is building upon a rock. And yet the rock is Him. He was the word made flesh, the perfect fulfilment and example of obedience to His sayings. To follow the Sermon fully means becoming as Him. And yet the judgment of the last day will not be a simple test of legalistic obedience. It will be a revelation of where our core foundation, our dominant desire, really Is. Many people living in this postmodern, passionless world will have to think long and hard before answering the question: 'What is your dominant desire?'. Short term things such as getting a qualification, a career, a particular level or form of wealth, buying a particular house, marrying a particular person, some specific success for our children... all these things fade from dominance in the course of a person's life. Many people simply don't have a dominant desire. The difference with true believers is that we do- and it is 'Christ', Him as a person, the things of His eternal Kingdom. This perhaps more than anything else is the simple difference between the true believer and all other people. This is why there is a simple test as to whether a person is a genuine Christian or not- and it's 'fruit', as the Lord has just previously explained. The difference is clear. The dominant desire of a true Christian is manifest and cannot be hid:&nbsp;</p><p>Comparing with the parallel in Matthew 7 it seems that both men built on the same kind of ground- it was rock overlaid with sand. The difference was that the wise man dug through the sand to the rock, whereas the fool built only on the sand. To really get down to the rock of Christ is hard and long work. It is achieved through the process of 'doing' what He teaches. And the story is true to life- for so many of us in our spiritual biography can relate how we passed through years of being 'Christian' or religious without having any personal relationship with Jesus, not praying nor talking to Him, not sensing Him at all as a living Lord. The story suggests that there will be some, perhaps "many", who build a spiritual edifice of grand appearance which has no personal root in a relationship with Jesus- indeed, some actually preach against this because of their obsession with upholding theologies about the supremacy of God the Father. But getting through the sand, through the dirt and dust of our own humanity, to truly knowing Christ- this is what alone will come through judgment day.</p><p>Paul uses the metaphor of building about the work of converting and building up others in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:23'>1Co 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:18'>Gal 2:18</a></em>), knowing that the day of judgment shall declare the quality of our work (<em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). But even if that building work does not pass through the fire of judgment, we shall personally be saved (<em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>). But our personal house must stand firm throughout the judgment process. Note there is a continuity between the house before and after the storm of judgment day- it "fell not". Who we essentially are in spiritual terms is who we shall eternally be; our spirit shall be saved at that day (<em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em>), our essential spiritual person will be preserved. The experience of the day of judgment will not make us somehow flip over another side and relationship with the Lord, previously unknown to us. Those who say "Lord, Lord" in this life without meaning will use the same empty terms in that day.</p><p>To get down to the rock, the man who truly heard Christ had to dig through the earth which the foolish man also dug into. Hearing Christ's words is likened to digging into that earth. Doing and understanding them is likened to then digging into the bed- rock. The foolish man did allow the word to go into him- skin deep. We need to ask ourselves how often these days the word really goes right through our skin, and forces us to hack into the bed- rock. Are we truly building our house on a rock? The force of <em><a href='B:480 16:16'>Mar 16:16</a></em>, for example, went more than skin deep just before our baptism. We read it, thought about it, and did it. But now. Are we old and brave, thick skinned, hardened by the humdrum of repetition, no longer building a house on a rock? My sense is that many of us are. Let's be aware that <em><a href='B:650 6:1-2'>Heb 6:1-2</a></em> defines "the foundation" as "repentance", and an awareness of the reality of the resurrection and coming judgment. In some ways, the longer we are in Christ, the more likely it is that we will not reach down to the bedrock of these things as we ought to. I mean, how often these days do we really repent of something? How often does the reality of the judgment seat truly come home to us? The poetry of the Bible's language, especially if we read the same version, makes God's word glide over us. Exhortations, even the recollection of Golgotha's tragic scene, the final, friendless end... can all slip so easily over our heads. We rest on the laurels of past spiritual victories. Nothing really shakes us up, reaching right down to the bedrock. Surely each of us should be sensing a surge of spiritual urgency when we look at ourselves like this. Yet God will help us; it is He Himself who will "settle" us, or 'make a foundation for' us, as the Greek can mean (<em><a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>The rock which our response to the word must reach down to is that of the crucified Christ. That rock represents Christ and Him crucified, according to Paul (<em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:11'>1Co 3:11</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 2:2'>Luk 2:2</a></em>). The Lord's parable of building on the rock was surely quarried from His understanding of <em><a href='B:290 28:16-17'>Isa 28:16-17</a></em>: “I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone... a precious cornerstone. The hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place". Truly doing God's word will always lead us back to the spirit of the suffering Christ on Calvary. If it does not, our building, our apparent development within the much-vaunted biblicism of our faith, is just a "refuge of lies". All our spiritual effort and suffering finds its ultimate summation in Christ's crucifixion. His suffering there is the quintessence of all spiritual struggle:&nbsp; It is quite possible that as we break bread weekly, we are merely digginga little deeper than usual in the earth, yet still not reaching down to the real meaning of building on the example of Christ's death. The wise man's house was "founded upon a rock". The same Greek word occurs in <em><a href='B:580 2:7'>Col 2:7</a></em>, describing how we are "rooted and built up in him". The parallel <em><a href='B:560 3:17'>Eph 3:17</a></em> expands this to mean that if Christ dwells in our hearts, we are "rooted and grounded in love... able to comprehend... and to know the love of Christ", which was supremely shown in His death. <em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em> associates this being "grounded and settled" with not being "moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard". If the word really sinks down deep within us, it will reveal to us the love of Christ on the cross, it will result in true love, and all this will be the outworking of the basic doctrines of the Truth which we understood at baptism. Thus the hacking away at the rock is not only hard, grim work against human nature. It reveals the wondrous love of Christ. The implication is that we can only really understand this love, that passes human knowledge, if we are really sweating away to obey Christ's words, to build our house on a rock.</p><p>Luke seems to translate the Palestinian style of things into terms which were understandable by a Roman audience. He had an ambition to preach the gospel to Gentiles even when this was felt by the other brethren to be an outrageous thing to do. Thus <em><a href='B:490 6:48'>Luk 6:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em> speak of houses with cellars, which were uncommon in Palestine; and in <em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em> of houses with an entrance passage from which the light shines out. The synagogue official of <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em> becomes the "bailiff" in <em><a href='B:490 12:58'>Luk 12:58</a></em>. In Palestine, the cultivation of mustard in garden beds was forbidden, whereas <em><a href='B:490 13:19'>Luk 13:19</a></em> speaks of mustard sown in a garden, which would have been understandable only to a Roman audience. It seems in these cases that inspiration caused Luke to dynamically translate the essence of the Lord's teaching into terms understandable to a non-Palestinian audience. Even in <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em> we read of going to prison for non-payment of debts, which was not the standard Jewish practice. Imprisonment was unknown in Jewish law. The point of all this is to show that we must match our terms and language to our audience. See on <em><a href='B:480 13:35'>Mar 13:35</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when the flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it; because it had been founded upon a rock</em>-</p><p> The allusion is clearly to Noah's flood; although the Greek for 'flood' here usually refers to a river. Only those within the ark of Christ were saved. To do he will of God, to hear and do the Lord's teaching, to be in the ark of Christ, to be founded upon the rock of Christ as our dominant desire- these are all different ways of saying the same thing. Our core root, our foundation, our dominant desire, our main self-perception and self-understanding, must be of being and living in Christ. This is the fundamental divide between persons, not their statement of faith, their spiritual culture. It comes down to whether they have a heart for the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom. And we cannot judge those "secrets of men" in this life, but we can at least be sure never to reject anyone who professes to have such a heart for the Lord. Paul uses the same word for "descended" to describe how Christ shall descend from Heaven at His return (<em><a href='B:590 4:16'>1Th 4:16</a></em>); likewise the word for "came" is used about the coming of Christ (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em> parallel the coming of Noah's flood with the coming of Christ). The coming of Christ will be judgment; our meeting with Him will be the coming of the rain etc. Even the house founded upon the rock took a fair beating- the purpose of judgment day is to reveal to the builder (and other observers) how he built:&nbsp;</p><p>The flood which came was like the day of judgment. This fits in exactly with the way Christ used the figure of the flood to describe His second coming in Matthew 24. Peter does the same in 2 Peter 3. The beating of the stream upon the house on a rock is a truly apposite figure for the day of judgment. It certainly implies a process of judgment, in which the unworthy will experience a gradual collapse of their spirituality. For the man with the firm foundation, the flood of the parable would have been a worrying experience. Would the house stand up to it? In many of the parables, we can profitably speculate as to likely details of the story. The wise man would have remembered his hard work on the foundation, not with any sense of pride or self-gratitude. But he would nevertheless have been aware of it. Our real spiritual effort will be so valuable in that day. Only then will we realize the extent of the fact that there can be no short cut to true spiritual development. A man cannot be crowned, unless he strive lawfully:&nbsp; The Lord's parable was no doubt partly based on <em><a href='B:290 28:17'>Isa 28:17</a></em>, which speaks of the day of judgment being like hail which "shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters (which) shall overflow". The spiritual house of the foolish builder was a lie, effectively; an appearance of real development which deceived men. For externally, men cannot know anything about the different foundations of houses built side by side. We are left to imagine the details of the parable. The foolish man would have run outside and watched his house being beaten down and washed away. He would have thought of trying to do something to stop the destruction, but then given up, realizing it was too late. The foolish girls saw that "our oil&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;running out" (Gk:). The unworthy will have that terrible sense of their opportunity and spirituality ebbing away from them. The impression is given in the parable that the two houses were next door to each other; again confirming our feeling that this parable is about different attitudes to the word within the ecclesia:&nbsp;</p><p>"Came" is the same word in the model prayer- we pray for God's Kingdom to "come" (<em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em>), but again we find it hard to pray that prayer if we understand it. We are praying for the storm of judgment to come and beat upon our house:&nbsp;</p><p>The picture of the storm beating on the house to see if it collapses implies a purpose and process of the judgment. If it were only a yes / no decision, the language of tribunal, judgment and appeal which occurs in passages concerning the judgment seat would appear to be out of place. Both sheep and goats register their surprise at their Lord's comments on various specific actions of theirs which he discusses with them (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>).</p><p>The same house stood before and after judgment. Every knee shall bow to Him in this manner- either in this life, or in condemnation before Him. This is what flesh must come to; and we must realize that now. We must fall down and be broken upon the rock of Christ now, or that rock will fall upon us and grind us to powder with the rest of the kingdoms of men (<em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>). Ananias and Saphira fell to the earth at their condemnation, whereas Saul fell to the earth in repentance (<em><a href='B:510 5:5'>Act 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:10'>Act 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:4'>Act 9:4</a></em> s:w:). At the last day, we shall fall to the earth but be lifted up and made to stand (<em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>"Because it had been founded upon a rock" is surely alluded to by Paul when he teaches that we must be rounded / have a foundation in love (<em><a href='B:560 3:17'>Eph 3:17</a></em>), in the Gospel of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em>). And God Himself has the ability to "settle" or ground / foundation us (<em><a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a></em> s:w:)- if we so wish to have the things of the Lord Jesus, His love and His Kingdom, as the dominant, master passion of our lives, then God will confirm us in that.</p>


