# commentaries

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>9:32&nbsp;<em>As they were leaving</em>-</p><p> S:w. "departed" in :31. This was a very long day for the Lord. Again, Matthew's record focuses upon physical movement of the players in the scene. It was as the cured blind men were going out of the house, intent on disobedience to the Lord's request not to publicize their cure, with the Lord surely guessing that would be the case, that people brought a dumb man to him for healing. Wave after wave of pressure and human need broke against the Lord; we can only admire His stamina and core principle of love which enabled Him to endure and not turn others away because of His own exhaustion.</p><p><em>A dumb man who was possessed with a demon was brought to him</em>-</p><p> Gk. they lead to Him. Again, Matthew focuses close up on the person of the Lord and the physical movements involving Him. The statement is not that he was dumb&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;demon possessed. Clearly the idea was that his dumbness was thought to be due to His possession by a demon. The causes of dumbness have now been analysed and explained. It's not caused by demons, and is today usually capable of some degree of cure or improvement. Therapy doesn't partially drive demons away. Clearly, the language of demon possession was used to describe illness and human conditions which could not be otherwise explained in the first century.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p>9:36&nbsp;<em>But when he saw the crowds, he was moved with</em>-</p><p> This is part of the general summary of His preaching work which we have in :35. Most men would've inwardly groaned whenever they saw the crowds surging towards them. But not the Lord. Every time He saw a crowd of humanity, He was moved with compassion. We too are faced by human need, crowds of it, if only we will have the sensitivity to perceive it. And instead of groaning and raising eyebrows, we ought to be moved with compassion at their need, at how humanity is rudderless- if we have the spirit of Christ.</p><p><em>Compassion for them</em>-</p><p> Several times used in the Gospels about the Lord's response to people. In His self-revelation in the parables, the Lord uses the same word about Himself and the Father- He is the Samaritan who "had compassion" on the wounded man (<em><a href='B:490 10:33'>Luk 10:33</a></em>), as the Father of the prodigal son likewise had compassion on him (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). <em><a href='B:480 6:34'>Mar 6:34</a></em> adds at this point that He&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>, as a result of that compassion, started to “teach them many things”. Then He asked His disciples, "The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest…” (<em><a href='B:470 9:36-38'>Mat 9:36-38</a></em>). It was their spiritual as well as their material and human need which evoked His compassion. I have to say that this spirit of urgent compassion is not as strong among us as it should be. There seem few if any tears shed for the tragedy of humanity. The world’s desperation seems written off as ‘they’re not interested’ rather than felt as a tragedy that should evoke our emotional and practical response. When Jesus saw the leper who wanted to be “clean”- not just ‘cured’ or eased of his discomfort- He made an emotional response. He put forth His hand, touched him, and made him clean- because He was “moved with compassion” (<em><a href='B:480 1:40-41'>Mar 1:40-41</a></em>). <em><a href='B:470 14:14'>Mat 14:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:32'>Mat 15:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:34'>Mat 20:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 7:13'>Luk 7:13</a></em> all record other times when the sheer humanity of the situation evoked the Lord’s compassion: e.g. the woman in the funeral procession of her dear son, or the hungry crowds, unfed for 3 days…</p><p>Because they were distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a shepherd</p><p>- Could be rendered "harassed and helpless". The hypocrisy of the Pharisees didn't simply irritate the Lord, He went further to proactively feel sorry for the crowds who were without a shepherd- and He did something about it. Their lack of shepherds is the background for the Lord's command to pray therefore for&nbsp;<em>workers</em>&nbsp;to be sent out into the harvest (<em><a href='B:470 9:37-38'>Mat 9:37-38</a></em>). We might think that the crowds being without a shepherd would lead the Lord to urge that good shepherds be sent to them. But instead He chooses another metaphor- seasonal labourers required to go and reap a harvest. Perhaps this was because He didn't consider the disciples nor indeed anyone in Palestine at the time to really be capable for shepherding. He was the only shepherd- the singular good shepherd. Perhaps the point of the change of metaphor was that the Lord's flock doesn't need mere shepherds, those in the positions of leadership, so much as&nbsp;<em>workers</em>&nbsp;first and foremost. The Lord is clearly alluding to the concern of Moses that after he died, the people would not be "as sheep which have no shepherd" (<em><a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a></em>). The hint is that Israel were in effect without Moses- whereas the Jewish religious leadership considered that they were being fiercely faithful to Moses. Perhaps there is also the hint that the Lord realized that He would not always be with these crowds (He had just taught that the bridegroom would be taken away from them in 9:15), and His prayer is that the Father will send out workers to replace Him. For our ministry in this world is effectively that of Jesus reincarnated in us as His body. See on 10:1.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>10:3&nbsp;<em>Philip and Bartholomew&nbsp;</em>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><p><em>Thomas and Matthew the tax collector, James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus-&nbsp;</em>The Gospel records were transcripts by the evangelists of their personal preaching of the Gospel. Matthew adds in the list of the disciples that he was “the publican” (<em><a href='B:470 10:3'>Mat 10:3</a></em>). And throughout, there are little hints at his own unworthiness- in his own presentation of the Gospel to others.</p>


text:
<p>10:4&nbsp;<em>Simon the Canaanite</em>-</p><p> Not 'from Canaan' but a&nbsp;<em>kananites</em>, a zealot. We see the wide range of men the Lord called into His band; Matthew the tax collector would've been seen as a traitor, 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 t, of whatever accent and formation.</p><p><em>And Judas Iscariot who betrayed him-&nbsp;</em>"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>10:5&nbsp;<em>These twelve Jesus sent out and ordered them, saying</em>-</p><p> Literally, apostled them. Whoever is sent forth is apostled, and the great commission sends forth all believers.</p><p><em>Do not go unto the Gentiles and do not enter into any city of the Samaritans</em>-</p><p> Given Judaism's strong opposition to Jesus and His teaching, did the Lord foresee they would be tempted to go to the Gentiles? He surely wanted them to replicate His ministry as exactly as possible- and He was sent at that stage to Israel and not to the Gentiles.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>10:10&nbsp;<em>No wallet for your journey, neither two coats</em>-</p><p> Maybe a reference to a double garment. But the similarity with Israel's wilderness journey is clear. No food pouch for the road, no extra clothes or shoes- because as the Father provided those things for Israel, so He would for those who preach His Kingdom:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Nor shoes, nor staff; for the labourer is worthy of his food</em>-</p><p> The Lord has used the word about how the labourers are "few", meaning both weak and also few in number (<em><a href='B:470 9:37-38'>Mat 9:37-38</a></em>), and He will go on to speak of how the labourers He uses to reap the harvest are those who have been standing around unused by others because they are maybe old, weak, lazy or have a poor work record (<em><a href='B:470 20:1-2'>Mat 20:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>). Clearly the Lord recognized that His labourers would be weak, but He still expects them to be recognized as "worthy" of support as they attempt to do His work.</p><p>The Greek for "food" can mean 'rations', as if they were to be as soldiers on duty. They were to believe that their needs would be met. The mechanism for meeting that need was presumably from the things provided by those who would receive them, although the Lord was clear that they wouldn't always get a positive reception (:14). Their faith in the provision of their needs by their audience was therefore tantamount to faith that some at least would respond positively to their message. Note that by the time Paul wrote <em><a href='B:610 5:18'>1Ti 5:18</a></em>, this phrase was considered as "Scripture", another hint at an early date for the writing down of the Gospel accounts. The context of that verse is of the financial support of teachers of the Gospel. It seems the Lord expected that those who gave their lives to spreading and teaching His word should be supported in doing so. Note that the context here in Matthew 10 is of itinerant preachers being supported; Paul doesn't quote the Lord's words strictly in context, because he applies them to teachers based in one particular church. But this is how we are to interpret Scripture- taking the principles and applying them to our situation locally, even if that situation may differ in some ways from the original situation and context in which the principle was first established or stated.</p><p>There is a strong theme in the NT that none of the Lord's people are ultimately "worthy", but rather unworthy. There will be faults with all preachers. But by reason of their devotion to the Lord's word and work we are to consider them "worthy" of support- even if aspects of their wider unworthiness are apparent. Support is not only to be given to those who appear faultless, for none are. The word 'worthy' is used later in Matthew 10. Those who respond to the message are "worthy" (:13); there is a mutuality between the teacher and the convert, they both consider each other 'worthy' in that the righteousness and worthiness of the Lord is imputed to them both. Later in the chapter, the Lord teaches that the 'worthy' are those who take up their cross and follow Him, regardless of loss of family and social standing. Their journeys in the preaching of the Gospel were therefore seen by the Lord as a taking up of the cross and following Him (<em><a href='B:470 10:37-38'>Mat 10:37-38</a></em>). There is nothing therefore glamorous to missionary work, and that point needs to be well understood especially by young people who jet off to exotic places in the name of Gospel extension work:&nbsp;</p><p>According to Mark’s record of the Lord’s words here, He is picking out the picture of Israel as they were on Passover night, as an illustration of how His disciples should be on their preaching mission:&nbsp;"He called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth... and commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only;&nbsp;no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:&nbsp; but be shod with sandals;&nbsp;and not put on two coats":&nbsp;&nbsp; All this is couched in the language of Israel on Passover night:&nbsp;His next words for them appear to be stating the obvious, unless they allude to Israel remaining at whatever place they reached until the fire and cloud moved them on: "In what place soever ye enter... there abide till you depart from that place" (<em><a href='B:480 6:8-10'>Mar 6:8-10</a></em>):&nbsp;It must be remembered that God intended Israel to be a missionary nation, teaching the surrounding world of His ways by their example of obedience to His law:&nbsp;As Israel left Egypt with the gold and jewels of Egypt, so, Jesus implied, the disciples were to carry the precious things of the Gospel.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>10:17&nbsp;<em>But beware of men</em>-</p><p> As in 10:16, this is an appeal to not be like sheep in their naivety. The apostles were going to suffer, ultimately. Therefore, they should beware of trusting men too quickly, because the aggression towards them was going to be far greater than they imagined. The apostles likely didn’t think that the Jewish religious leadership were as bad as the Lord knew them to be, and they were initially too concerned not to upset them (<em><a href='B:470 15:12'>Mat 15:12</a></em>). The “men” of whom they were to “beware” were surely the Pharisees, because elsewhere the Lord teaches the disciples to “beware” of them (<em><a href='B:470 7:15'>Mat 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:6'>Mat 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:11-12'>Mat 16:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:46'>Luk 20:46</a></em>); and He goes on in this verse to speak of “<em>their</em>&nbsp;synagogues”, showing that “men” are in fact the Jewish religious leadership.</p><p><em>For they will deliver you up to councils-&nbsp;</em>Their Sanhedrin. The language of ‘handing over’, Sanhedrin and scourging is all relevant to the sufferings of the Lord Jesus. He is teaching here that the preaching of His Gospel is an incarnation of Himself, and will result in our suffering the essence of His own sufferings and death. To go out on the road of missionary witness is to walk the path of the cross. It’s not anything glamorous- if done properly as He intended.</p><p><em>And in their synagogues they will scourge you</em>-</p><p> Scourging was usually only practiced for blasphemy or breaching public order. Maybe we are to read this in the context of the Lord asking His preachers to be as snakes and doves, to not be provocative and not seek to create public showdowns with the Jewish leadership. Perhaps the Lord foresaw that some of His men would fail in this, and suffer accordingly. Or perhaps He foresaw how belief in Him as God’s Son would be classified as the ultimate blasphemy. And yet synagogues could only scourge those who were members. The Lord foresaw that His preachers would remain within the synagogue system rather than leave it totally. The fact Paul was scourged in synagogues (<em><a href='B:540 11:25'>2Co 11:25</a></em>) shows that in being a Jew to the Jews, he opted to remain within the synagogue system. This fact shows that the Lord Jesus didn’t intend His people to formally break with the synagogue system, even though it was apostate in doctrine and practice. This indicates that there was absolutely no sense within Him of ‘guilt by association’ nor a demand for His people to leave apostate systems- they were to remain there until they were cast out of the synagogues (<em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>) (See references to the Jewish laws in W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison,&nbsp;<em>Matthew</em>&nbsp;(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988) Vol. 2 p. 183):&nbsp;</p>


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


text:
<p>10:19&nbsp;<em>But when they deliver you up</em>-</p><p> The Jews (the “men” of :17, the “them” of :18) delivering Christian preachers to Gentile powers, after the pattern of what they did to Jesus.</p><p><em>Do not be anxious how or what you shall speak, for it shall be given to you at that time what to speak</em>-</p><p> A major theme of the Sermon on the Mount is not to be anxious; the same word occurs in <em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:27-28'>Mat 6:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>. Here the Lord is surely saying that the general principles He had taught there would not have specific fulfilment in time of persecution. Likewise “for My sake” in 10:18 alludes to <em><a href='B:470 5:11'>Mat 5:11</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p>"Given you" is language appropriate to Moses and prophets like Jeremiah; it is here applied to the Lord's generally secular followers (<em><a href='B:20 4:10-12'>Exo 4:10-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 1:6-10'>Jer 1:6-10</a></em>). He was continually encouraging them to see that ministries which they had never considered possible of realistic emulation were in fact to be their pattern. Time and again, the Lord is saying that His experience under persecution will be ours. For it was&nbsp;<em>given&nbsp;</em>Him what to&nbsp;<em>speak&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:500 3:34'>Joh 3:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:49'>Joh 12:49</a></em> same words) and He wants us to know that if we preach Him and seek to replicate His ministry in our own, then God likewise will strengthen us as He did His own Son. We note that it was likewise&nbsp;<em>given</em>&nbsp;to the apostles what to&nbsp;<em>speak</em>&nbsp;in <em><a href='B:510 2:4'>Act 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:29'>Act 4:29</a></em>. They misunderstood the great commission- they twisted it to mean that they must preach to all Jews rather than to all the Gentiles; but by grace, God still kept this aspect of the promise to support obedience to the commission given; even if it was misunderstood.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>10:24&nbsp;A<em>&nbsp;disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord</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 flee persecution (:23). He could be saying that the game plan was that&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;was to die in 'that city' of Jerusalem, but&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to seek to preserve their lives so that they could make a longer and more effective witness to Him. They were not 'above' Him- He was the one who had to die as the perfect sacrifice, not them. They were to be 'as' Him in terms of personality (:25), and be satisfied with that- it was to be "enough" for them to bear His reproach (:25). The Lord elsewhere taught Peter that the time for martyrdom would indeed come for Peter- 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 (:25), 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 in <em><a href='B:470 10:24'>Mat 10:24</a></em> that the disciples were not to give their lives&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Him their Lord and Master, He might have meant 'at this time'. The time would come, but for then, they were to focus on learning of Him:&nbsp;</p>


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


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


text:
<p>10:27&nbsp;<em>What I tell you</em>-</p><p> It could be argued that the content of the Gospel which is to be preached is therefore to be the words of Jesus, what He told the disciples. That is certainly how they understood it, for the four Gospel records are transcripts of the early preaching of the Gospel by the disciples, and they are just that- what the Lord told the disciples.</p><p><em>In the darkness</em>-</p><p> In the same way as the day of judgment will be a bringing to light what was done and said in darkness (:26), we should live now in that transparent spirit, openly speaking the Gospel, not hiding it, bearing in mind that one day and for eternity, it will be openly revealed who we are and what we believe. The Lord later stated that "in secret [s:w. "hid" in :26] have I said nothing" (<em><a href='B:500 18:20'>Joh 18:20</a></em>). He was for a moment adopting the perspective of the disciples, just as He does with the language of demons;&nbsp;<em>to them</em>, what He was telling them was said in darkness, was hidden. But it was not to remain hidden within their hearts and brain cells, they were to speak it forth&nbsp;<em>now</em>, in that they were to live in the spirit of judgment day today. There are many allusions to Job in the New Testament; far more than may be apparent on the surface. <em><a href='B:470 10:27'>Mat 10:27</a></em> is one of them: "What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops". The idea of God telling us things in the ear which we must then openly declare is surely looking back to Job's words in <em><a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a></em>. "Darkness" is also a Job idea; the word occurs at least 30 times in the book. The final appearance of Yahweh in the darkness of the thundercloud was His reproof of Job's repeated suggestion that the darkness of sin somehow separated God from involvement with man. What Job was told out of darkness, he had to speak forth in the light. It seems that Job's spiritual growth is being picked up by the Lord and presented as our pattern. He does the same in <em><a href='B:490 18:30'>Luk 18:30</a></em>, another of the allusions to Job in the New Testament, when He speaks of how each of us must give up house, wife, brethren and children for the Kingdom’s sake, and then afterwards receive “manifold more in this time, and in the world to come…”. This is exactly the position of Job (<em><a href='B:220 42:10'>Job 42:10</a></em>), and yet the Lord applies it to each of us:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Speak in the light</em>-</p><p> This verse is repeated in <em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em> but from a different perspective: "Therefore whatever you have said in the darkness shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors shall be proclaimed upon the housetops". We are to preach upon the housetops what the Lord told us in the ear. But what&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;have spoken in the ear, or whispered, shall likewise be broadcast from the housetops. Nothing will be secret in the day of judgment, and so we are not be secretive about our faith now. We are to live as if we are in the Lord's judgment day presence- because in essence, we are. For judgment is going on right now. John's take on light and darkness is that Jewish society was the darkness in which the light of Christ was shining (<em><a href='B:500 1:5'>Joh 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:46'>Joh 12:46</a></em>). The Lord may therefore be implying that they were still partially in darkness, and into that darkness He had come and was showing them the light.</p><p><em>And what you hear in the ear-&nbsp;</em>The personal relationship which we have had with Christ will be very evident at the judgment. What we say to Christ in His ear in the bedroom in the darkness, will be openly spoken by Christ at the judgment (<em><a href='B:490 12:2-3'>Luk 12:2-3</a></em>). God dwells in darkness (<em><a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:12'>1Ki 8:12</a></em>). Speaking in the bedroom in secret with the knowledge we will be openly rewarded is the language of prayer (<em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>). Our private relationship with the Lord now, praying to Him in our bedroom, meditating about Him there, will then be spoken out loud. But there is a related statement from the Lord: What we hear from Him in the ear, we must speak openly (<em><a href='B:470 10:26-27'>Mat 10:26-27</a></em>; after the pattern of Isaiah in <em><a href='B:290 22:14'>Isa 22:14</a></em>). Putting these passages together, we get the picture of us speaking to God through Christ, talking in His ear, as one might whisper something very personal into a friend's ear, in the darkness of our bedroom. And then the Lord whispers back in our ear, i:e. His revelation to us (through the word) is very personal and not perceived by others; but we must openly, publicly act upon it. And this private relationship we have with the Lord in our prayer life will then be revealed openly at the judgment. God told Samuel "in his ear" about Saul's future, and although the message must have been hard to relay to Saul, Samuel did so, on the housetop (<em><a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 9:25'>1Sa 9:25</a></em>). The similarities with the Lord's words are too close to be accidental. Surely He saw each of us as passing through the essential experience of Samuel. As we witness our relationship with Christ to an unspiritual world now, so He will&nbsp;speak openly of us to God (<em><a href='B:470 10:32'>Mat 10:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>), Angels (<em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>) and to the world (<em><a href='B:490 12:2-3'>Luk 12:2-3</a></em>). He will openly confess our name, i:e. our character and personality. What we have said to Him privately will be revealed in the light, i:e. in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:580 1:12'>Col 1:12</a></em>). &nbsp;Preaching on the housetops is built on the language of <em><a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 9:25'>1Sa 9:25</a></em>, where God speaks in Samuel’s ear, and then he speaks that word to Saul on the housetop. The Lord is saying that in essence, we are all in Samuel’s position; we hear the word of this world’s salvation, the word about “the Kingdom” as it was for Saul, and that very fact is in itself the imperative to overcome our natural reservations and share it with those for whom it is intended- even if, as with Saul, we consider them unlikely and unspiritual hearers.</p><p>The outcome of the judgment seat will be a reflection of our&nbsp;attitude to witnessing to others: "What you (the twelve disciples) hear in the ear, that preach upon the housetops…&nbsp;<em>whosoever&nbsp;</em>therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven" (<em><a href='B:470 10:27'>Mat 10:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:32'>Mat 10:32</a></em>). The Lord seems to go beyond briefing His men before they set off on their preaching mission; He goes on to say that in a sense,&nbsp;<em>whoever</em>&nbsp;follows their example will be confessed before the Father. Notice what He&nbsp;<em>isn't&nbsp;</em>saying: He isn't saying that if you're keen about preaching, this is the be-all-and-end-all of spiritual life, and this alone will guarantee your acceptance with God. He says that what we hear (i:e. believe) in the ear, our own very personal understanding and belief of the Gospel, must be spread abroad openly to others. Our salvation is through faith in God's absolute grace; but if it is&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;faith, we will preach it on the housetops, we simply can't keep the knowledge of&nbsp;<em>such</em>&nbsp;grace, such great salvation, to ourselves:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Proclaim upon the housetops</em>-</p><p> According to the Talmud (<em>Shabbat&nbsp;</em>35b), it was the priests who were to proclaim the commencement of the Sabbath by blasts on the shophar from the housetops. Again, the Lord takes language appropriate to the professional religionists and applies it to His largely secular followers. All the time He was seeking to encourage them that&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to do this work. And the proclamation of the Kingdom is thus turned into a form of proclaiming a Sabbath of rest. Hebrews uses the language of the Sabbath concerning the Kingdom of God. The idea of teaching upon the housetops what we hear in the ear is language which surely alludes to how Isaiah and the prophets heard God's word in their ear and then taught it to others (<em><a href='B:290 5:9'>Isa 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:4'>Isa 50:4</a></em>). The idea was that the Lord’s followers were not to see the prophets as pale faced, iconic figures- but to realize they were no less than them in their service of God and His Son.</p>


text:
<p>10:28&nbsp;<em>And do not be afraid-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord was quite clear that His followers should expect death and serious suffering for preaching Him. He perceived that fear of audience response would be a strong factor in the temptation not to preach Him. But He gave the reason for not fearing in :26- all shall be revealed at the day of judgment. Belief in the doctrine of final judgment therefore has huge impact upon life in practice- in this case, giving us strength not to fear the consequences of our witness. For many believers today, persecution unto death is not a likely consequence of witness; fear of slight embarrassment, being thought ‘odd’ for turning a conversation around, is a very small price. The Lord is asking us here to accept that witness for Him may well cost us death. If we accept that, accept it as part and parcel of the Lord’s basic message, then our approach to witness will be quite different. Fear of audience response will no longer be a major factor, if we have solemnly accepted that we are prepared to die for the sake of preaching the Gospel. Luke’s record adds: “I say unto you&nbsp;<em>My friends</em>, Be not afraid of them…” (<em><a href='B:490 12:4'>Luk 12:4</a></em>). If we are His friends, the friends of the Son of God, the prince of the kings of the earth- why fear audience response when we witness? The laboured assurances of the next verses about being of more value than sparrows etc. are all in the context, therefore, of assuring us that we need not ultimately fear negative response to our witness.</p><p><em>Of those that kill the body but are not able to kill the soul-&nbsp;</em>It is our ‘real self’ which will eternally endure. In this sense, for the faithful, their body may be killed but their soul cannot be. I take this to mean that who they essentially are is for ever recorded by the Lord, and they will be given that same personality at the resurrection. Significantly, the Bible speaks not of the ‘resurrection of the body’ [it’s the creeds which speak of this], but rather “the resurrection of the just”, “the resurrection of the dead”. The resurrection is more about resurrected characters than resurrected bodies, although the process will involve a new body being given.</p><p><em>But rather fear Him who is able to destroy</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>lose it</em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Both soul and body-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The inference can be drawn that the rejected will have both soul and body destroyed at the last day. This means there must be a resurrection of the body- and then the destruction of that body in the condemnation process, as well as of their "soul":&nbsp;<em>Psuhe</em>&nbsp;has a wide range of meaning- sometimes it can mean simply the body, at other times, the essential personality. This too will be destroyed, for the memory of the rejected will be forgotten, they will cease to exist in all dimensions. There should be a "fear" of rejection; there are more details, more frequently, about the condemnation experience than the joy of acceptance in that day. This is not negative psychology; the Lord in His wisdom knew that this was necessary for us, to keep ever before us the sense of the future we may miss. This should be our fear, far more than death or social rejection by those to whom we witness.</p><p><em>In Gehenna</em>-</p><p> The Jews believed that ‘hell’ had three sections: Gehenna, a place of eternal fire for those Jews who broke the covenant and blasphemed God; ‘the shades’, an intermediate place similar to the Catholic idea of purgatory; and a place of rest where the faithful Jew awaited the resurrection at the last day. This distinction has no basis in the Bible. However, it’s significant that the Lord Jesus uses ‘Gehenna’ and the figure of eternal fire to describe the punishment of people for what the Jews of His day would’ve considered incidental sins, matters which were far from blasphemy and breaking the covenant – glancing at a woman with a lustful eye (<em><a href='B:480 9:47'>Mar 9:47</a></em>), hypocrisy (<em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:5'>Luk 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:27-33'>Mat 23:27-33</a></em>), not giving a cup of water to a “little one”, forbidding a disciple of John the Baptist to follow Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 9:39-43'>Mar 9:39-43</a></em>); not preaching the Gospel fearlessly and boldly (<em><a href='B:470 10:25-28'>Mat 10:25-28</a></em>). These matters were and are shrugged off as of no eternal consequence. But just like the prophets of Israel did, the Lord Jesus seizes upon such issues and purposefully associates them with the most dire possible punishment which His Jewish hearers could conceive – Gehenna. Time and again, the Bible alludes to incorrect ideas and reasons with people from the temporary assumption those ideas might be true. The language of demons, as we will show later, is a classic example. And it’s quite possible the Lord is doing the same here with the concept of Gehenna – the punishment for the Jew who breaks the covenant and blasphemes. The Lord was primarily teaching about behaviour, not giving a lecture about the state of the dead. And so He takes the maximum category of eternal punishment known to His audience, and says that this awaits those who sin in matters which on His agenda are so major, even if in the eyes of the Jewish world and humanity generally they were insignificant.</p>


text:
<p>10:29&nbsp;<em>Are not two sparrows-&nbsp;</em>“An inscription of the Emperor Diocletian setting out the maximum prices that might be paid for various articles of commerce shows that sparrows were the cheapest of birds used for food..." (Leon Morris,&nbsp;<em>The Gospel According to Matthew</em>&nbsp;(Leicester: I:V:P:, 1992)). This is another example of the Lord’s radical collision course with the Rabbis; He taught that God’s care even embraces sparrow. For the Rabbis explicitly forbad prayers that mentioned God’s care for birds, because they argued that it was dishonouring to God to associate Him with something so small as a bird (<em>Berith</em>&nbsp;5:3). And the Lord purposefully stood that idea upon its head. The Rabbis had a whole list of unforgivable sins, like murder, apostasy, contempt for the Law, etc. But the Lord went further. His many words of judgment weren’t directed to the murderers and whores and Sabbath breakers; they were instead directed against those who condemned those people, considering themselves righteous. He calls those who appeared so righteous a ‘generation of vipers’. The publican, not the Pharisee, finds God’s acceptance, according to Jesus. And again, the Lord is making a telling point- because Rabbis held that repentance for publicans was almost impossible, because it was impossible for them to know exactly all the people they’d cheated. Very clearly, the Lord’s message was radical. He was out to form a holy people from whores and gamblers, no-good boys and conmen. And moreover, He was out to show that what God especially judges and hates are the things that humanity doesn’t think twice about: hypocrisy, self-righteousness, judgmentalism, exclusion of others…&nbsp;</p><p><em>Sold for a very small coin-&nbsp;</em>An&nbsp;<em>assarion</em>&nbsp;/ farthing, the tenth part of a drachma / denarius, which was a day's pay for a labourer. The Matthew record has the Lord saying that two sparrows are sold for one farthing; <em><a href='B:490 12:6'>Luk 12:6</a></em> records that He said that five sparrows were sold for two farthings. So what did the Lord really say? I suggest something like this: 'As you know, two sparrows are sold for one farthing, they cost half a farthing each; but often, as you know,&nbsp;<em>five&nbsp;</em>sparrows are sold for&nbsp;<em>two</em>&nbsp;farthings, they'll throw one extra in for free, they're worth so little'.</p><p><em>And not one of them shall fall on the ground-&nbsp;</em>One sparrow "shall not fall&nbsp;on&nbsp;the&nbsp;ground&nbsp;without (the knowledge of) your Father". God is aware of the death of each bird- He does not allow animals to die due to their natural decay (the clockwork mechanism) without Him being actively involved in and conscious of their death. Again, Jesus shows how God's knowledge&nbsp;and participation in the things of the natural creation must imply an even greater awareness of us. "The very hairs of your head are all numbered… you are of more value than many sparrows" (<em><a href='B:470 10:30-31'>Mat 10:30-31</a></em>). God hasn’t wound up this world and left it ticking by clockwork, dispassionately looking on as Israel and all His people make such a mess of things. He sends the rain, consciously; not a sparrow falls from the air [i:e:, as the result of a man’s sling stone- for birds die in their nests usually, not in mid-flight] without Him being aware, and, by implication, grieving for it. He even knows how much sparrows are sold for. &nbsp;See on 6:26.</p><p><em>Without your Father</em>-</p><p> The Lord was “the word made flesh”. All that He taught, He in some way experienced and obeyed. In the time of His persecution and death, He fell to the ground literally (same words- <em><a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a></em>) as well as figuratively (same words <em><a href='B:500 12:24'>Joh 12:24</a></em>); and called out to the “Father”. Clearly He had in mind His own earlier teaching; but how hard and demanding it was for Him to live it out:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:30&nbsp;<em>But the very hairs of your head are all numbered-&nbsp;</em>see <em><a href='B:100 1:23'>2Sa 1:23</a></em>:&nbsp;The redeemed are a community whom man cannot number (<em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>), as many as the stars in the sky which neither Abraham nor any man could number. The Lord may be making an allusion to this in order to highlight the scale of knowledge which God has- He numbers the community of believers exactly, over space and over time, and He also numbers the hairs on every one of His people. This vast knowledge of God is often referred to in the Psalms as a guarantee that therefore God will ultimately protect His people. <em><a href='B:490 21:18'>Luk 21:18</a></em>, which we have shown to have similarities with the preaching commission of Matthew 10, comments that “there shall not an hair of your head perish”. The question is whether the Lord is assuring His preachers that they will not ultimately die; it might sound like it, from such assurance. And yet earlier verses in the preaching commission sound as if the preachers will indeed suffer, quite possibly unto death. And we know that some of them did suffer death. So what are we to make of these assurances of protection, so strong that the preacher should be fearless and not fear death as a consequence for preaching? I suggest that the Lord, as often in His teaching, is speaking on an elevated, spiritual level. The possibility of death for witness is a clear theme of His, especially in Revelation. These strong assurances of protection and salvation from death would therefore be His way of saying that His ultimate salvation of His preachers at the resurrection will involve the preservation of them as unique personalities, down to the hairs of their head. And therefore they should not fear death in this life. For He knows them. The fear of death revolves around the sense that I as the sum of all my experiences, my uniqueness, shall be no more- and the Lord is urging us to believe that God not only knows our unique attributes better than we do, but shall ultimately preserve them in the resurrection of the body and in the nature of the life eternal.</p>


text:
<p>10:31&nbsp;<em>Therefore fear not</em>-</p><p> The Lord is asking a lot here; He’s asking for us to preach without fear of consequence and audience reaction. That is a step beyond preaching knowing the likely price, and being willing to pay that price. To know that price and yet preach without fear is a step beyond being willing to accept consequence.</p><p><em>You are of more value than many sparrows</em>-</p><p> The same word is used in the same context in <em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>. Having spoken of how God provides for the birds of the air, the Lord drives home the comparison: “Are you not much better [s:w. “of more value”] than them?”. The term is again used in <em><a href='B:470 12:12'>Mat 12:12</a></em>: “How much then is a man better than a sheep”. We must give full weight to this triple emphasis on how much more valuable we are than the mortal animals whom God is so careful for. The request that we do not fear is repeated and laboured throughout the section. It is fear of what others think and may do which so often holds us back from witness, be it to family members or literally approaching people on the street. With such laboured assurances, we are to overcome fear and “therefore” preach openly- this is the force of the “therefore” in :32.</p>


text:
<p>10:32- see on <em><a href='B:470 10:27'>Mat 10:27</a></em>.</p><p><em>Therefore</em>-</p><p> See on :31 “more value”. The sense here is ‘accordingly’- in accordance with the colossal emphasis upon not being held back one bit by fear of consequence, we are to accordingly confess Christ before men. The requirement not to fear but to confess is so strong that it could be called a first principle of the Lord’s teaching. We are to be fearless in witness.</p><p><em>Everyone who shall confess me before men-&nbsp;</em>Confessing Christ before men can also be an allusion to baptism, not just bucking up the courage to give someone a tract at work (<em><a href='B:470 10:32'>Mat 10:32</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em>). This allusion is confirmed when we realize that “confess” translates two Greek words, ‘to confess in’. We confess in Christ by baptism into Him. In another sense, our witness is because we are in Christ, we are Him to the world, and therefore His fearlessness unto death in witness should be ours. The Lord spoke of how if we confess Him before men, He will confess knowledge of us before the Father; and if we deny Him, He will deny us. This language is applied by John to John the Baptist- for he comments that John the Baptist "confessed and denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ" (<em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>). In this sense, John Baptist is being set up as our example in preaching- and again, John comments that we too are to confess the Son and not deny Him (<em><a href='B:690 2:23'>1Jn 2:23</a></em>), after the pattern of John the Baptist. And yet note what John's 'confession' was- it was a profession of his unworthiness, that although he was the herald of the Christ, he was not Jesus. Again, we see here a pattern for our witness to the Lord. <em><a href='B:560 6:15'>Eph 6:15</a></em> speaks of our each being 'sandaled' with the preparation of the Gospel. Who prepared the way of the Lord by preaching, wearing sandals? John the Baptist. It seems Paul is alluding to John here, setting him up as the preacher's example. The reference to "loins girt" (<em><a href='B:560 6:14'>Eph 6:14</a></em>) would also be a John allusion- the record twice (in <em><a href='B:470 3:4'>Mat 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:6'>Mar 1:6</a></em>) stresses how John had his 'loins girded'.</p><p>When He says He will confess&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;before the Father, He means He will confess&nbsp;<em>our name</em>&nbsp;before God (<em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>); He knows us according to our names / characters. He speaks of ecclesial members as "names" in <em><a href='B:730 3:4'>Rev 3:4</a></em>; He calls His own sheep by name, and they each know His voice, responding to His word&nbsp;<em>individually</em>. The call to one sheep will only be recognized by that sheep; the others won't respond (<em><a href='B:500 10:3'>Joh 10:3</a></em>). He will take individual note of each sheep, treating them accordingly, as the shepherd leads more gently those that are with young (<em><a href='B:290 40:11'>Isa 40:11</a></em>). It seems that even now, we each have our own individual name with the Father and Son, encompassing their understanding of our essential character. It may even be that in the record of Scripture, God inspired the writers to record the names of individuals according to His judgment of them (or at least, how the faithful viewed them at the time), rather than by the names they actually went under. What mother would have named her child Nabal (fool), or Ahira (brother of evil, <em><a href='B:40 1:15'>Num 1:15</a></em>), or 'sickness' or 'wasting' (Mahlon and Chilion)? These names were either given to them by others and the use adopted by God, or simply God in the record assigned them such names:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The same two words for "confess [in]" are found in <em><a href='B:520 10:9'>Rom 10:9</a></em> “If you shall&nbsp;<em>confess with</em>&nbsp;your mouth the Lord Jesus… you shall be saved”. The idea of&nbsp;<em>homolegeo</em>&nbsp;seems to be of public confession; literally to&nbsp;<em>homo-logos</em>. The Lord has just used the word&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;with reference to the “words” of our preaching before men (<em><a href='B:470 10:14'>Mat 10:14</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Homo</em>&nbsp;has the sense of being together with others. It can carry the sense of ‘assent’, in that our<em>&nbsp;logos</em>&nbsp;comes together with the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of another; but the majority of NT usage is clearly with the sense of professing, making our&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;before others. At the day of judgment, the Lord will “profess” His verdict to men (<em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em>) and here we learn that He will “profess” it to His Father too. The weight of evidence on the basis of usage is that this word refers to public profession of a&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, of our innermost thought- which is exactly in line with the themes of the Sermon on the Mount: that our internal thought and position, our&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, is crucially important; but if it is a Christ-like&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;then it will be impossible to conceal it, it must naturally become public, for a city set on a hill cannot be hid. Consider the evidence:</p><p>-Herod&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;[AV “promised”] with an oath” in front of witnesses to give Herodias’ daughter whatever she wished (<em><a href='B:470 14:7'>Mat 14:7</a></em>)</p><p>- John the Baptist&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;in his preaching (<em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>)</p><p>- If anyone&nbsp;<em>confessed&nbsp;</em>openly that Jesus was Messiah, then they would be cast out of the synagogue (<em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>)</p><p>- The Pharisees&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;their doctrinal positions, i:e. they openly taught them (<em><a href='B:510 23:8'>Act 23:8</a></em>)</p><p>- Paul&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;his beliefs publicly when on trial (<em><a href='B:510 24:14'>Act 24:14</a></em>)</p><p>- Timothy&nbsp;<em>confessed&nbsp;</em>his confession before many witnesses (<em><a href='B:610 6:12'>1Ti 6:12</a></em>)</p><p>- Some openly&nbsp;<em>confess</em>&nbsp;their knowledge of God when their private lives don’t match that public confession (<em><a href='B:630 1:16'>Tit 1:16</a></em>)</p>- <p>The faithful&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;their faith in God’s promises before all (<em><a href='B:650 11:13'>Heb 11:13</a></em>)-</p><p> Teachers&nbsp;<em>confess</em>&nbsp;a doctrinal position about Jesus in their teaching and must be assessed by their audience accordingly (<em><a href='B:690 2:23'>1Jn 2:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:2-3'>1Jn 4:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:15'>1Jn 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:700 1:7'>2Jn 1:7</a></em>).</p><p>In Matthew 10, the Lord uses the word in the very context of the need to openly witness. He who refuses to make this public profession will not be accepted in the day of judgment; the Lord Jesus will not confess such a person before “My Father”. <em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em> likewise predicate salvation upon this public confession. And the contrast in <em><a href='B:470 10:32-33'>Mat 10:32-33</a></em> is between&nbsp;<em>confessing</em>&nbsp;Christ and&nbsp;<em>denying&nbsp;</em>Him before men, leading to being&nbsp;<em>denied</em>&nbsp;by Jesus before “My&nbsp;<em>Father</em>”. Without doubt, <em><a href='B:690 2:23'>1Jn 2:23</a></em> has all this in mind when teaching that “Whosoever&nbsp;<em>denies</em>&nbsp;the Son, the same has not&nbsp;<em>the Father</em>, but he that&nbsp;<em>confesses</em>&nbsp;[s:w:; AV “acknowledges”] the Son has the Father also”. Taken together, these usages of&nbsp;<em>confession</em>&nbsp;present a solid case- that salvation is related to public confession. That is not to say that salvation is by works, nor is it to say that evangelism is the be all and end all of the Christian life- after all, we all have different gifts, some are more pastoral than evangelical. Salvation is by grace&nbsp;<em>through faith</em>; and if we believe, then we cannot be passive, we become a city set on a hill which cannot be hid. Otherwise, as the Lord teaches several times in the Sermon on the Mount, we have not really believed in God’s grace. The Sermon teaches that there is no such thing as a secret Christian, a candle lit which nobody else sees or gets a hint of. The absolute necessity of public confession was taught throughout the Sermon, and it is being made plain again here in Matthew 10 and throughout the other references to confession. In this area particularly, we are faced with the temptation of sins of omission- to consider that we are believers because we have mentally assented to certain theological propositions about Christ, but not making any public commitment or confession about them. No wonder the Lord raised this theme in encouraging His preachers to go forth fearlessly.</p><p><em>I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven-&nbsp;</em>The “also” suggests there will be a direct correlation between our confessing of Him before men now, and how He speaks of us before the Father both now and in the last day. The same idea is found in the way in which He earlier taught that we are forgiven&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;we forgive others. What’s going on in Heaven concerning us need be no mystery to us- because it is a direct reflection of our lives of forgiveness, witness etc. in this world. The future judgment seat will be only a bringing to earth of the judgment seat which even now is going on in Heaven. <em><a href='B:470 10:32'>Mat 10:32</a></em> surely also has in view the Lord's speaking to the Father in Heaven right now, in this life. But compare the parallel <em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>: "Everyone who acknowledges Me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God". Of what does this speak? Surely of the last judgment [note the reference to the "Son of man", a term usually used about judgment to come; and denial before the angels surely equates with the "I never knew you" of the final judgment]. The events of the last day, with the Lord confessing or denying us before the Father and the Angels, are actually going on this very day.</p>


text:
<p>10:33&nbsp;<em>But whoever shall deny me-&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;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>Before men I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven-</em></p><p>&nbsp;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;</p>


text:
<p>10:34&nbsp;<em>Think not that I came to send peace on earth</em>-</p><p> The Lord surely has in mind what He has just commanded in <em><a href='B:470 10:13'>Mat 10:13</a></em>, where He uses the same words to describe how the apostles were to let their&nbsp;<em>peace</em>&nbsp;<em>come</em>&nbsp;upon the households they entered- the peace of&nbsp;<em>shalom</em>&nbsp;with God, the salvation of Jesus. But that peace could return to them unclaimed, and the Lord's words here in :34 seem to imply that He is warning them that generally, their message of peace will not be accepted. In the exposition of <em><a href='B:470 10:13-14'>Mat 10:13-14</a></em> I suggested that the households being visited were those who had initially responded to the message about Jesus as preached by John. The sad reality was that many of these did not further respond to the peace offered to them in Christ.</p><p>"Peace on the earth<em>"&nbsp;</em>is an allusion to the prophecies of peace in the Messianic Kingdom, and to the Angelic proclamation that there would be peace on earth through Christ (<em><a href='B:490 2:14'>Luk 2:14</a></em>). The disciples were prone to be influenced by Jewish expectations and hopes for an imminent Messianic Kingdom to be established. The Lord's point is therefore surely that they were not to preach a gospel of immediate peace on earth, but rather one to come in the future; He made the point later that He had come to take peace from the earth (<em><a href='B:730 6:4'>Rev 6:4</a></em>), but of course He offered&nbsp;<em>peace with God</em>&nbsp;through forgiveness and reconciliation which He would achieve through His life and death (<em><a href='B:580 1:20'>Col 1:20</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>I came not to send peace-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The context is the Lord telling His preachers to 'come' to households and pronounce the 'coming' [s:w:] of peace (<em><a href='B:470 10:13'>Mat 10:13</a></em>). But He is warning them that the potential will typically not be realized; only a few individuals within those households would accept the message, and effectively they were going to be breaking up those households because of the total loyalty to Christ and the new household in Him which they were to demand. Their coming to those households was effectively His personal coming to them- for in the work of witness they were Him, just as we are too. Who wants to break up another's household? I found myself thinking about that after coming to realize the social and relational results of baptizing individuals into Christ in Moslem families and societies. We can only do so if we are utterly convinced that the only ultimate household worth belonging to is that in the body of Christ.</p><p><em>But a sword</em>-</p><p> The&nbsp;<em>machaira</em>&nbsp;was really a dagger, suggesting interpersonal conflict and hatred. He wanted His preachers to be under no illusion as to the result of people accepting their message; there would be acceptance of it on a national level, the implication is that the Lord expected individuals to accept it, and to suffer in their relationships and family life as a result of it. This needs to be remembered in our preaching too. We are not offering an easy life now, of peace and happiness on all fronts- but rather peace with God and hope in the future Kingdom of God on earth.</p>


text:
<p>10:35&nbsp;<em>For I came to set a man at variance against</em>-</p><p> The single Greek word translated here is a form of the noun for 'two'. The division would be down one line, into two groups- the household of origin, and the household of Christ, where He was head of the household. Division within families, especially between sons and fathers, was seen as far more awful than it is today. But the offer of Christ to be Lord, to be our head, is so compelling and colossal in implication that there can simply be no other option than division, at least emotionally and psychologically, between those members of a household who accept Him as Lord and head, and those who will not. The implications of what the Lord is teaching here outlaws any thought of marriage out of the faith; to consciously create a divided family from the start can only reflect a very low level of commitment to Him as Lord, Master and household head.</p><p><em>His father and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law</em>-</p><p> Why these specific examples? Perhaps the Lord envisaged the younger generation being more responsive than their elders. But maybe His point was that the younger members of an extended family were expected to obey the head of the household- and the good news of His Kingdom, His dominion over men and women, was that loyalty was no longer to be to the head of the family, but to Him. For He was offering men and women entrance into a new King-dom, where He was King and His dominion was accepted in the lives of those who accepted the Gospel of that Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>10:36&nbsp;And<em>&nbsp;a man's foes shall be they of his own household</em>-</p><p> Jewish thought was that their enemies were the Romans, and Zechariah's song reflects this expectation- that Messiah was to save Israel from her foes (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 1:71'>Luk 1:71</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:74'>Luk 1:74</a></em>). The Lord is redefining things. The foes were no longer to be the Gentiles, but all those who rejected the Gospel. For a strongly family based society, this was an almost impossibly high bar to jump. But the implication was that those who accepted it would not be alone, but would be making the sacrifice in order to take their place in a new family. For those raised within believing households, the radical nature of the call to leave family is hard to appreciate. One can understand all the positive hopes and often unrealistic expectations held by those who do break with their families in order to come to Christ, and their difficulty in finding that many long established members within the new household are sceptical and highly critical of the community. The Lord's teaching about the cost of following Him in terms of loss of relationships must be given its full weight. Loss of relationships, especially family ones, is part of following Him in spirit and truth.</p><p>The use of "own" in "own household" suggests that the believer was still to accept his or her unbelieving family as their own.</p>


text:
<p>10:37&nbsp;<em>He that loves father or mother more than me is-&nbsp;</em>This is the language of Levi (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>), encouraging the disciples that they, secular men that they largely were, must consider themselves the new priesthood by whom Israel were to be taught and saved.</p><p><em>Not worthy of Me-</em></p><p>&nbsp;We must supply something for the “Me”; the idea is surely that we are not worthy of His love and death for us, of&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>family, if we love&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;family members more than Him. The contrast is between “Me” and our earthly families. ‘Worthiness’ was an idea associated in the first century mind with families. We cannot be worthy of membership in His family if we choose to identify ourselves as members of our natural family first and foremost. On one hand we are never worthy of Christ, and yet He implies here that He does consider us worthy of Him&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;we respond. This is not the same as salvation by works in the sense that Paul later decries; it is salvation by grace through faith, but faith without works is dead. There must be some response. The idea that we can never be worthy of Christ is therefore quite simply wrong, or at best poorly worded and inadequate. He speaks here of being worthy of Him by sacrificing family relationships; and being not worthy of Him by refusing to sacrifice them.</p><p><em>And he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Huper</em>&nbsp;Christ means just that in the accusative, “more than” Him. But the idea of&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;in relation to the Lord is used many times in the NT concerning His death “for” or&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;us. It would seem likely that the Lord had His death for us in mind at this point, for He goes straight on to speak of how we are to take up our cross and follow Him to His death on Golgotha (:38). The shift of thought towards the cross in :38 is more natural if we perceive that He is already thinking of it in :37 when speaking of our being worthy of ‘Him’, i:e. His death for us.</p>


text:
<p>10:38&nbsp;<em>And he that does not take his cross</em>-</p><p>  The context is about the preaching of the Gospel. It is not at all glamorous. We should be ready to die a martyr's death. That is the clear teaching here. The context before and after this teaching about the cross is of preaching the Gospel and suffering persecution and broken relationships because of it. This, then, is the sense in which the Lord foresaw many of us suffering for His sake. We are bidden carry His cross (<em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:12'>Gal 6:12</a></em>), and yet also our own cross (<em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>). In our cross-experiences, those times when there is no other Christian option but to shoulder it…&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;we know something of the cross of the Lord, and then He is actively aware of that small kindred between His cross and ours. He remembers how it was, and sees the commonality of feeling which we have attained.</p><p><em>And follow after me, is not worthy of me</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;Reflect on a Gospel parallel to see the huge importance of being a disciple of Jesus. In <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em> the Lord says that whoever doesn’t take up his cross and follow after Him, “is not worthy of me”. In <em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em> we have the same words, but concluded with “… the same cannot be my disciple”. To be a disciple of the Lord is to be worthy of Him. To seek to walk as He walked, to follow behind Him, is to be worthy of Him. The important thing is to follow, for all our stumblings, but at least to be in the way behind Him<em>:&nbsp;</em>I have made the point that the instructions regarding witnessing here have their equivalent in the Olivet prophecy, and they may particularly refer to our preaching just before the Lord’s return. At that time especially, "a man's foes shall be they of his own household", and therefore "he that takes not his cross (then), and follows after Me, is not worthy". Our response to our trials then during the tribulation will effectively be our judgment seat:&nbsp;</p><p>Consider the contexts in which the Lord spoke of taking up His cross:</p><p>(1) In <em><a href='B:490 9:23-26'>Luk 9:23-26</a></em> He tells the crowds that they have come to His meetings because of the intriguing miracles of the loaves and fishes. The Lord is saying: 'Don't follow me because of the loaves and fishes; take up my cross'!</p><p>(2) The rich young man was willing to be obedient in everything apart from parting with his wealth. In this context, of asking the most difficult thing for him to do, the Lord spoke of taking up His cross - in the man's case, giving up his wealth.</p><p>(3) The command to take up the cross in <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em> is in the context of the Lord's description of the family problems which would be caused by responding to His word. Presumably some were willing to follow Christ if they didn't have to break with their families; but He asks them to take up the cross in this sense.</p><p>In all of these cases people were willing to follow the Lord - but only insofar as it didn't hurt them. They were unwilling to take on board the idea of consciously deciding to do something against the grain of their natures and immediate surroundings. Yet this is what taking up the cross is all about, and it is vital for our identification with our Lord. It is very easy to serve God in ways which reinforce the lifestyles we choose to have anyway; it is easy to obey Divine principles only insofar as they compound our own personality. By doing so we can deceive ourselves into thinking that we are spiritually active when, in reality, we have never walked out against the wind, never picked up the cross of Christ.</p>


text:
<p>10:39&nbsp;<em>He that finds his life</em>-</p><p> The Lord must surely mean us to read in an ellipsis: ‘Thinks he has found the meaning of life without Me’. For the Lord has just called the unsaved audience of His preachers “the lost” (<em><a href='B:470 10:6'>Mat 10:6</a></em> s:w:).</p><p><em>Shall lose it</em>-</p><p> The Lord has just spoken of how God will “destroy” (s:w. “lose”) the “soul” (s:w. “life”) of those rejected at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>). So here in :39 He is surely thinking of destruction of the ‘soul’ / “life” at the last day. Only those responsible to judgment will appear at the day of judgment; so the Lord’s teaching here concerns those who have known Him, who are responsible to Him, but who are not totally committed to Him; those who think that despite their knowledge of Him, they can ‘find their lives’ without Him. See on <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>lose it</em>.</p><p><em>And he that loses his life for my sake-&nbsp;</em>The same Greek word is translated to destroy, to die, to mar, to cause to perish. Once again, this is not what we wish to hear- that we must do real damage to our human life, crucify it, if we are to share in the life of Jesus. <em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em> has just spoken of the destroying / losing of life in condemnation; perhaps the ‘loss / destruction of life’ is in self-condemnation. This would continue a major theme of the Lord’s teaching- that those who condemn themselves in this life shall be saved from condemnation at the last day.</p><p><em>Shall find it-&nbsp;</em>As we go up the spiral of spiritual growth, we will find the true life- perceive, see, realize (<em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em> Gk:) the real, spiritual life, as the wayward son "came to himself", he found himself, when he repented. The Lord had laboured the point that whoever seeks shall&nbsp;<em>find&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:470 7:7-8'>Mat 7:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:14'>Mat 7:14</a></em>), and the context clearly is of spiritual things and salvation. The Lord spoke in Matthew 7 of&nbsp;<em>seeking</em>&nbsp;and finding, here He speaks of&nbsp;<em>losing life</em>&nbsp;in order to find it. The language of seeking and losing suggests a process, rather than some finely spoken, albeit genuinely intended, momentary statement of commitment to the Lord. The more we<em>&nbsp;seek</em>&nbsp;the things of the Kingdom, the more we will naturally lose our fleshly life. The loss of life the Lord has in view is clearly a process of “seeking” the things of His Kingdom- rather than the death of martyrdom. The taking up of the cross in the previous verse is the epitome of losing life… but the Lord intended it to be understood as a way of life, a sharing of the same road as Him [“following” Him], upon which dying is literally a way&nbsp;<em>of</em>&nbsp;life as well as the way&nbsp;<em>to</em>&nbsp;life. What in practice does it mean to ‘lose life’? Issues concerning where we live, careers, food, the pleasures of this life, all become eclipsed by the mission before us- of consciously dying,&nbsp;<em>in His service</em>. For the entire context here is about serving the Lord by sharing the Gospel with others, engaging fully with the mission the Lord intends for us. The context of the Lord giving His people work to do would suggest that the life which is ‘found’ is not only the life eternal at the last day, but is the life in His service. This kind of life will be eternally lived, and it is in that sense that we can understand the Lord’s words elsewhere that those who follow Him right now begin living the eternal life, the kind of life in His service which they will eternally live. If we are ever seeking to balance and arrange things so that we can apparently live our fleshly life as well as ‘His’ life, then we have failed to grasp the entire point of His teaching. Total surrender, absolute and eager, willing submission, is what He is about.</p>


text:
<p>10:40&nbsp;<em>He that receives you receives me, and he that receives me receives him that sent me</em>-</p><p> The Lord is speaking of ‘receiving’ His preachers and materially supporting them (:13). He’s saying that every act of support given to them is done as it were directly to Him. He has the same idea in <em><a href='B:470 25:35-45'>Mat 25:35-45</a></em> - whatever was done to “the least of these My brothers” was done to Him. His “little ones”, the disciples / preachers in their immaturity (:42), were all the same His, and whatever was done to them was done to Him and to His Father. We note that Matthew 25 speaks of material support of food, clothing, hospitality to the unknown and visiting in prison- all exactly in the context of the preaching mission He sent His disciples on. Whatever more general reference there may be in <em><a href='B:470 25:35-45'>Mat 25:35-45</a></em>, clearly the primary reference was to the Lord’s future judgment of those who claimed to be His (who had accepted John the Baptist’s message), in accordance to whether or not they had materially supported the disciples on their preaching mission. Luke’s version of this teaching records that the Lord said that “He that&nbsp;<em>hears&nbsp;</em>you, hears Me” (<em><a href='B:490 10:16'>Luk 10:16</a></em>). The ‘receiving’ was therefore of the message and therefore receiving the disciples personally (10:14 “receive you… hear your words”). We are the voice and face of Jesus to people- it’s a concept colossal in its implications. Our attitude to receiving or accepting each other is our acceptance or rejection of Jesus personally. Hence Paul tells the Galatians that they had “received me… as Christ Jesus” (<em><a href='B:550 4:14'>Gal 4:14</a></em>), surely alluding to the Lord’s teaching here. We are to “receive one another, as Christ also received us” (<em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>).</p><p>The idea of&nbsp;<em>shaliach</em>, whereby someone’s representative was seen as them, was well known in Judaism; the Lord is almost quoting it here, and He does the same in the next verse. Realizing this is going on is a key to correct interpretation of the next verses.</p>


text:
<p>10:41<em>&nbsp;He that receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward, and he that receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward-&nbsp;</em>This is a quotation of well-known Jewish thinking. I have shown multiple times in this commentary that the Lord was seeking to encourage His followers that they were no less than Moses, the prophets and the “righteous men” of the Old Testament. The context here is encouraging them that they are worthy labourers, worthy to receive material support from those they stay with. The ‘receiving’ of them on their preaching mission (:13) is the ‘receiving’ the Lord now has in view. His idea is that just as those who received Old Testament prophets will receive a prophet’s reward at the last day, possibly ‘from the prophet’ as the Greek could mean- so just as much those who materially support the disciples will be rewarded. Such supporters will in no wise lose their reward (:42) – just as surely as those who supported Old Testament prophets will be rewarded, to no lesser extent, those who supported the disciples would likewise be rewarded.</p>


text:
<p>10:42&nbsp;<em>And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple; truly I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward-&nbsp;</em>Giving a cup of cold water to the little ones doesn’t necessarily refer to sticking banknotes in a collection for Oxfam. The Hebrew writer took it as referring to our love for Christ's little ones, within the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em> = <em><a href='B:650 6:10'>Heb 6:10</a></em>). And the context says the same:&nbsp;The Lord was inviting the disciples to see themselves as none less than the likes of Elisha, who were supported in their work by various well-wishers:&nbsp;</p><p>According to the interpretation of :41, these “little ones” refer to the disciples. But why “<em>these</em>&nbsp;little ones” and not “you”? I suggest that verse 42 is effectively a soliloquy, perhaps spoken out loud in the presence of the disciples, but all the same, it is Jesus speaking to Himself.</p>


text:
<p>11:1<em>&nbsp;And it came to pass when Jesus had finished commanding his twelve disciples</em>-</p><p> Vine feels that the&nbsp;<em>dia&nbsp;</em>in&nbsp;<em>diatasso</em>&nbsp;["commanding"] suggests "a distributive force: giving to each his appropriate charge". In this case we see the initial application of the parables about the servants being each given a specific work to do. That work was to preach to specific people whom the Lord intended for each of the disciples. Those parables apply to us- perhaps in that we are each intended to take the Gospel to specific individuals. If we fail in that work, there is no guarantee that the Lord will give that work to others; the harvest will simply not be gathered as it could have been.</p><p><em>He departed from there to teach and preach in their cities</em>-</p><p> Without their presence (as they were away on their preaching tour), the Lord went to their home areas. He showed by this how He saw out witness amongst those whom we know and our families to be of the utmost importance- and He was and is willing and eager to back up our credibility in such witness.</p>


text:
<p>11:2&nbsp;<em>Now when John heard about the works of the Christ while in prison, he sent word by his disciples-&nbsp;</em>AV "Sent two of his disciples". It can’t be insignificant that John sends two disciples out just after the Lord had sent out&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;disciples two by two in Matthew 10. Surely this is a literary device to set up John in negative contrast to the Lord at this time; John sent out his pair of disciples in response to his crisis of faith. He knew Jesus was to do mighty works- but he had heard of them only by report. Those he sent out had already heard and seen the Lord’s miracles (:4), and yet John sends them to Jesus to ask if He is Messiah. It all reads rather negatively about John. It could even be that he died at a low point in his faith, and yet the Lord’s positive comment about Him surely suggests that He saw John as being ultimately saved. The records of the Kings of Israel and Judah, along with various passages in Ezekiel 18, place great emphasis upon how a man&nbsp;<em>finishes</em>&nbsp;his spiritual journey, and yet there are also Biblical examples of faithful men dying at low ebb spiritually; this will not necessarily exclude from the Kingdom, and John the Baptist may be another example.</p>


text:
<p>11:3&nbsp;<em>And said to him: Are you he that comes</em>-</p><p> The emphasis may be on the word “you”. The coming one was a well-known term for Messiah, based upon <em><a href='B:230 118:26'>Psa 118:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>Or look we for another?</em>-</p><p> Despite John’s clearly stated belief that Jesus was the promised bridegroom, the lamb of God and Son of God (<em><a href='B:500 1:29-34'>Joh 1:29-34</a></em>), it seems things had not gone according to the prophetic program John had imagined- and he now had doubts about Jesus. For a man claiming (at least implicitly) to be Messiah, it would’ve been an unnecessary question to ask Him ‘Are you Messiah?’. It could be inferred that John still believed in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, but had begun to wonder if He was only the&nbsp;<em>herald</em>&nbsp;of “another” whom they should be looking for in order to establish the Kingdom. It could be that John’s understanding of himself as the Elijah prophet had led him to expect that all Israel would repent, and then Messiah Himself would come and establish His Kingdom immediately. For this is indeed how the prophecies of Isaiah 40 and Malachi 4 could be read. Perhaps John was full of such self-doubt that he wondered if he really had been the Elijah prophet, and was thinking that maybe he had just heralded the Elijah prophet, Jesus, who was in turn to herald “He that should come”. This is the problem with holding a dogmatic view of prophetic sequences- when they prove wrong, either because our interpretation was faulty or because human lack of response means they are to come true in another way than ideally planned, then often peoples’ faith in Christ Himself is damaged. If we have an open ended view of prophecy, whereby we understand it to state possibilities which may have other ways of fulfilment than what is ideally intended, then such crises don’t arise. “Look we for another?” doesn’t sound as if John was simply asking for a sign, in the spirit of Gideon. He had major questions about the whole prophetic program, sensing that something had changed; the word for “another” is also translated “altered” (<em><a href='B:490 9:29'>Luk 9:29</a></em>). In this sense, his question may not necessarily reflect a crisis of faith in Jesus personally, but rather an earnest desire to know the new details of the revised prophetic program.</p><p>So even John the Baptist, whose teaching had prepared most of the twelve to accept Jesus, seems to have not been altogether clear about what we might consider fundamental things. He speaks here of Jesus as “the one to come”, a commonly understood description of the Elijah prophet, based on the phrase being used about him in <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em> - and not of Messiah Himself. Thus John the Baptist anticipated that this “one to come”, his cousin Jesus, would be a refining fire (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>)- which is exactly Malachi’s language about the Elijah prophet (<em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 4:1'>Mal 4:1</a></em>). This would explain why John the Baptist had apparent ‘doubts’ whilst in prison as to whether Jesus really was the Messiah. And it would also explain why the disciples expected Jesus to act like Elijah in <em><a href='B:490 9:52-56'>Luk 9:52-56</a></em>. It was not until the baptism of Jesus that John the Baptist came to understand Jesus as the “one to come”; so the preparatory work which he had done with the disciples must have had what we would call a flimsy doctrinal basis. When Jesus called them to follow Him, and they so quickly obeyed, it is often assumed that John the Baptist had prepared them for this. But that preparation must at best have been very shallow and incomplete, given John’s own admission that he did not recognize Jesus for who He was until His baptism. Why, however, was John’s misunderstanding recorded in the Gospel records? Or the misunderstanding of his father Zacharias, that John was in fact the promised Messiah, “the prophet”, the one would bring forgiveness of sins and freedom from the Romans (<em><a href='B:490 1:71-79'>Luk 1:71-79</a></em>)? Perhaps for the same reason as the language of demons is used, especially to describe the miracles at the beginning of the Lord’s ministry. He didn’t correct this. But over time it became evident that the sheer power of the Son of God meant that in practice, demons didn’t exist. Likewise, as the ministry of Jesus unfolds to us in the Gospel records, it becomes apparent that He was Son of God, the Messiah- and not merely an Elijah prophet:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:4&nbsp;<em>And Jesus answered and said to them: Go and tell John-&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;They had already told him once- the same word is used for how they initially had told John these things (<em><a href='B:490 7:18'>Luk 7:18</a></em>). There is definitely the sense that John needed to work through the implications of what he was hearing, rather than having some specific explanation from the Lord.</p><p><em>The things which you hear and see</em>-</p><p> The request that John ‘hear’ these reports more carefully begs connection with the Lord’s frequent comment that the Jews heard but did not really hear (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 13:13-17'>Mat 13:13-17</a></em>). John’s lack of understanding appears to be in some sense culpable and at best disappointing to the Lord. The Lord is seeking to assure John that if he just thinks about the evidence, it’s clear that Jesus is indeed Messiah, and as John had earlier preached- Son and lamb of God, who saves His people from their sins. He seems to be saying that that was so wonderful and fundamental, that the rearrangement of the prophetic timetable is in a sense irrelevant compared to that. Whether or not the timing or chronology of events surrounding the Kingdom comes true as we expect, or whether or not we discern how God has re-planned the fulfilment of prophecy- is all irrelevant compared to the wonder of knowing Jesus as the Christ and personal Saviour.</p>


text:
<p>11:5<em>&nbsp;The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear and the dead are raised up-&nbsp;</em>The teaching of Jesus included frequent quotations from and allusions to the Old Testament. When we go back and read around the contexts of the passages He quoted, it becomes apparent that He very often omits to quote the negative, judgmental, or conditional aspects of the blessings which He quotes. Consider the way He quotes <em><a href='B:290 29:18'>Isa 29:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:5-6'>Isa 35:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em> in <em><a href='B:470 11:5-6'>Mat 11:5-6</a></em>. These are all talking about Messianic blessings. But they are embedded amidst warnings of judgment and the conditionality of God’s grace. Likewise Luke records how Jesus read from <em><a href='B:290 61:1-2'>Isa 61:1-2</a></em>, but He stopped at the very point where Isaiah’s message turns from promise to threat. None of this takes away from the terrible reality that future failure is a real possibility, even tomorrow. We can throw it all away. We may do. We have the possibility. And some do. There is an eternity ahead which we may miss. And each one who enters the Kingdom will, humanly speaking, have come pretty close to losing it at various points in his or her mortal life. But the Lord’s positivity is a powerful example.</p><p><em>And the poor have good tidings preached to them</em>-</p><p> This was as remarkable and significant as the previous miraculous signs, of the blind seeing etc. There was a deep impression that religion was for the middle class or wealthy. Teachers didn’t bother preaching to the poor because there was no possibility of financial support coming from them. Yet the Lord opened His manifesto in the Sermon on the Mount by saying that His message was especially intended for “the poor” (<em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em> s:w:). In many Christian circles, the same is true today. Churches need money (or, they think they do), and so their focus is not on taking the Gospel to the poor but rather to the potential tithers. The disciples were amazed that the rich wouldn’t be saved (<em><a href='B:470 19:24-25'>Mat 19:24-25</a></em>), so deeply ingrained was this idea that spirituality and wealth were somehow supposed to go together. The Lord was teaching the opposite. There’s no doubt that the Gospel is designed for the poor; and that if one were to bring “the poor”&nbsp;<em>en masse</em>&nbsp;into many churches / ecclesias today, the existing membership would up and go somewhere else. The Spirit was clearly upon the Lord Jesus exactly&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;He preached the Gospel to the poor (<em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>). Our preaching attitude to “the poor” is a reflection of our spirituality. “The poor” in the immediate context were the disciples, for the Lord had just looked upon them in love and commented: “Blessed are you poor” (<em><a href='B:490 6:20'>Luk 6:20</a></em>). In the response of “the poor” to Him, the Lord saw a Divine confirmation of His ministry. And it is the same with us. Our ministry is to take the Gospel to the unbelieving poor, and not to get middle class Christian religionists to shift churches and allegiance to our group. <em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em> is clear that God chooses the poor&nbsp;<em>more than&nbsp;</em>the rich to be heirs of His Kingdom; so in this case, our preaching focus should be specifically towards them.</p>


text:
<p>11:6&nbsp;<em>And blessed is he, whoever shall find no cause to stumble over me-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Clearly the Lord saw John as likely to be about to stumble. As explained earlier, the cause of stumbling was [and is to this day] that the Lord at times makes changes in the outworking of His prophetic program. Because things haven’t gone just as mere humans imagined it, because they can’t get their heads around God’s huge sensitivity to human repentance and choices, nor His subsequent willingness to change His timetable to accommodate that… therefore people stumble at Christ. The Lord encountered a similar situation in Nazareth, where people again were “offended in Him” (<em><a href='B:470 13:57'>Mat 13:57</a></em>) because His Messiahship was not as they supposed it ought to be. Likewise the death of the Messiah by crucifixion caused even the disciples to be offended- it was simply not how they had imagined Messiah’s salvation. They were “offended” exactly because He was ‘smitten’ (<em><a href='B:470 26:31'>Mat 26:31</a></em>), even though the Lord had warned them ahead of time about His death so that they would not be offended (<em><a href='B:500 16:1'>Joh 16:1</a></em>). The cross was therefore a rock of offence to many (<em><a href='B:530 1:23'>1Co 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:11'>Gal 5:11</a></em>). So often we see the process- people come to Jesus with preconceived notions of how things should be, and fit those notions into the structure of their ‘Christianity’. But the Christ’s most fundamental teachings may in fact outlaw their beloved notions and favourite suppositions. And because their imagination of Jesus doesn’t fit in with who He actually is- they stumble. It’s like falling in love with an idea of a person, rather than with the person as they actually are. God’s word presents Jesus as He actually is, and it is this which we must accept, allowing it thereby to jettison all preconceived notions we have of Him. The parable of the sower taught that persecution leads to people being offended (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>), and John was certainly undergoing persecution for the word there in prison. But persecution leads to spiritual stumbling largely because of the dashed expectations- that with Christ, all shall go well for us, and we in this life shall be delivered from problems. But the Lord is stressing throughout His teaching that that Jewish conception of Messiah and Messiah’s Kingship over men was simply incorrect. Those who followed Him would suffer and die, in one form or another, the death of the cross.</p><p>The Lord tried not to offend people (<em><a href='B:470 17:27'>Mat 17:27</a></em>) and yet people were indeed offended in Him. But in <em><a href='B:470 18:6-9'>Mat 18:6-9</a></em> He makes offence of others a serious sin. In this connection of thought we see an example of where there are some things which can be said of Jesus, some things He could do, which we simply cannot do. In forgiving others, we are often challenged to forgive&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;the Lord does. Not all that He does can be replicated by us, nor indeed is it possible. Thus for us, forgiveness is usually a process, whereas for the Father and Son it appears to be more instantaneous.</p>


text:
<p>11:7&nbsp;<em>And as these went their way, Jesus began to say to the crowds concerning John: What did you go out into the wilderness to see?-&nbsp;</em>The crowds whom the Lord was addressing were therefore eager listeners of John, even perhaps in a sense his disciples. We see her the fulfilment of John’s commission- to prepare&nbsp;<em>in the wilderness</em>&nbsp;a smooth way for the coming of the Messianic King of glory. But the crowds didn’t respond, and Messiah didn’t come in His glorious Kingdom. I suggested on <em><a href='B:470 10:11'>Mat 10:11</a></em> that the mission of the disciples was initially to those who had responded to John the Baptist’s teaching; and now whilst they were away on their preaching tour doing such follow up work, the Lord was doing the same, addressing a crowd who had also responded to John enough to trek out into the wilderness to hear him.</p><p><em>A reed shaken with the wind?-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The reference is probably to the reeds growing in the Jordan where John baptized. Just as the people didn’t go there to look at the reeds but at John as God’s prophet, so the Lord is hinting that they should not look on John’s weakness but upon who he essentially was. When John the Baptist had this crisis of faith, the Lord spoke of John to the multitude as if he was a strong believer, no reed shaken in the wind of doubt. And yet He didn’t just paper over John’s doubts and forget them, pretending He hadn’t seen. The message He returned to John encouraged him to look back to the Isaiah prophecies of Messiah, and to remember especially the way that the weak, doubting ones would be made strong. The Lord evidently sought to strengthen the weak John by this allusion. The language of being&nbsp;<em>shaken</em>&nbsp;by&nbsp;<em>wind</em>&nbsp;is used elsewhere by the Lord in describing the process of condemnation at the last day (both Greek words are found in <em><a href='B:470 7:25'>Mat 7:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em>). The Lord’s idea may therefore be: ‘Sure, John is wavering at this very moment. But when you saw him in the wilderness, he wasn’t; and in God’s eyes, even now, he’s not shaking in the wind, he’s not going to be condemned at the day of judgment- even though, as you’ve just heard, he has his doubts and weaknesses’. Perhaps the Lord had John in mind when He soon afterwards spoke of how He would not condemn even a broken reed (s:w:- <em><a href='B:470 12:20'>Mat 12:20</a></em>), but rather still use it as a channel for the oil of the Spirit. The whole situation with John is helpful in coping with others who clearly are passing through times of trial which is resulting in their faith wavering. Think positively of who they were, have been, and still essentially are…</p>


text:
<p>11:8&nbsp;<em>But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments?</em>-</p><p> The allusion is surely to Herod and Herodias, who had imprisoned John. John’s clothing was rugged, not soft (<em><a href='B:470 3:4'>Mat 3:4</a></em>).</p><p><em>Those that wear soft garments are in king's houses-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord is drawing a contrast between John and Herod who imprisoned him. Herod Antipas had minted coins with a reed on them to celebrate the building of Tiberias. Perhaps the Lord is saying: 'OK, so John is weak for the moment, there in prison. But just think of the man he was when he was free, and how in God's eyes he compares so favourably against Herod who imprisoned him'. In His gracious way, the Lord is teaching that the overall sum of a man's spiritual life must be considered, and not whether he ends it with some element of weakness. This approach is also to be found in the way the inspired record appears to comment upon some of the kings of Israel and Judah- weakness at the end didn't necessarily scribble God's overall judgment of their lives.</p>


text:
<p>11:9&nbsp;<em>But what did you go out to see?-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Three times in :7-9 the Lord reminds them of their trek out into the wilderness to hear John; His point is that the respect they once had for him should remain, despite his wavering under extreme suffering. God's overall impression of Job appears similar, and it is a good teaching for we who are all too inclined to too harshly judge a good believer for a temporary period of weakness. The Greek phrase ‘go out to see…’ is used in classical Greek about going out to a spectacle or show. The Lord is suggesting that perhaps that was all their interest in John might have been, just as today likewise, it’s quite possible to visit the truest church and hear the truest teaching, yet unperceived by those who are merely ‘going to church’.</p><p><em>To see a prophet? Yes! And I say to you, much more than a prophet!</em>-</p><p> The idea is 'the greatest prophet'. Judaism had various theories about who had been the greatest of the Old Testament prophets. The Lord was saying that actually, the greatest of them was that man who was now sitting in the grim prison cell in Machaerus Fort, having a crisis of faith and understanding.</p>


text:
<p>11:10&nbsp;<em>This is he-&nbsp;</em>The emphasis is on the word "is". He&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;the prophet who came to herald Messiah. And yet John had denied that he was Elijah, nor "that prophet" (<em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>), surely a reference to the Elijah prophet; even though he later stated that he had been 'sent before' Messiah (<em><a href='B:500 3:28'>Joh 3:28</a></em>), and was the voice of the Isaiah 40 prophet crying in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:500 1:23'>Joh 1:23</a></em>). The Lord is saying 'Actually, John&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;that prophet. He initially denied it in his humility, but he really was and is "that prophet". Now again his humility has led him to self-denial, he's wondering whether in fact I am the Elijah prophet and the Messiah Himself is yet to be 'looked for'. But take it on My authority- he really was the Elijah prophet, even though his humility leads him to self-doubt at times'. See on :14&nbsp;<em>this is Elijah</em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Of whom it is written: Listen</em>-</p><p> AV "Behold". An invitation to perceive, and the Lord was asking them to perceive in that imprisoned man a great prophet, to see beyond his temporary, surface-level crisis of John, to perceive that "this&nbsp;<em>is&nbsp;</em>he".</p><p><em>I send my messenger before your face; he shall prepare your way before you-&nbsp;</em>The pronouns are somewhat different from the original in <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em>: "Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before [My face] ... says Yahweh of Armies". Jesus, as the face and presence of God to men, interpreted the words of His Father as being spoken personally to Him. The way was prepared before God's face, according to Malachi, but God's Son applies that to Himself. That is not to say that Jesus was God in any Trinitarian sense. He was the supreme manifestation of God, and He quotes Malachi 3 in such a way as to teach that to those with ears to hear. We have a window here onto how the Lord Jesus read Scripture; passages about His Father were applied by Him to Himself, but that is no claim by Him to be God Himself in person.</p><p>The Lord is reminding the crowds who had gone out to hear John in the wilderness that&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were the way which John had tried to prepare, and He was now the face of Yahweh standing before them. But they had become side-tracked from the essence of personal transformation by a worry about the credibility and humanity of the messenger; and again, this is a principle which badly needs our attention in our own path. So often believers leave the path, the way prepared, because of the perceived weakness or plain humanity of the one who taught them.</p><p>The Hebrew text being quoted in <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em> has a word play here. "Prepare" translates&nbsp;<em>panah</em>, meaning to turn the face (s:w. <em><a href='B:10 18:22'>Gen 18:22</a></em> where the Angels "turned their faces"), and "Before [your face]" translates&nbsp;<em>paniym</em>. The idea is that the messenger would turn the faces of people towards the face of God. The height of the calling was hard for Jewish minds, indeed for any human mind, to take on board; that the God whose face even Moses could not see can be seen face to face, thanks to the work of John the "messenger" turning men's faces to the face of Christ, who is the image of God. No wonder the people so easily became distracted from the height and wonder of the invitation, by focusing upon the fact that a depressed and humble prophet awaiting death in a dark prison cell had some crisis of Biblical interpretation. And so, so often the wonder of our calling likewise is eagerly forgotten by us and eclipsed by petty gossip and speculation about the faith and possible spiritual status of another man.</p>


text:
<p>11:11- see on <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>Truly I say to you, among those that are born of women-&nbsp;</em>The Lord Jesus was Himself the greatest of all born of women (<em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em>), but in His humility He adds no rider to the effect 'John was the greatest of all born of women, Myself excepted, of course'. How we love Him for His humility.</p><p><em>There has not arisen a greater than John the Baptist. Yet he that is the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he-&nbsp;</em>The little ones were the disciples, according to what the Lord had recently said in <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em> (s:w:). He was urging them, yet again, to see their exalted status and to get over Judaism's attitude that the prophets were icons to whom the rank and file of God's people should never pretend. The Lord is using hyperbole here to make the point- that His immature 'little ones' were going to be far greater than even John, the greatest prophet. Or He could be implying that there will be some element of rank in God’s future Kingdom- ruling over different numbers of cities, one star differing from another in glory. And the least in that age will be far greater than John was&nbsp;<em>in this life</em>. And yet Jesus was proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom in the sense of the breaking in of God’s principles in the lives of men. He could mean that John was the greatest under the old system, but the least of those within the new system were greater than John. Oscar Cullmann made a case for translating&nbsp;<em>mikroteros</em>&nbsp;here as “the youngest”, with reference to the Lord being younger than John the Baptist and yet greater than him (see <em><a href='B:500 3:30'>Joh 3:30</a></em>).</p><p>Note the present tense in "is greater". The following verse speaks of preaching the Gospel of that Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 16:16'>Luk 16:16</a></em>), perhaps implying that by responding to Christ's Gospel of the Kingdom we are associated with the Kingdom, and are thereby "greater" than the message which John preached.</p><p>Luke adds: “But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized by him” (<em><a href='B:490 7:30'>Luk 7:30</a></em>). God will fulfil His purpose for us- if we align ourselves with it, and thus see in everything that happens in our lives&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;will being forwarded. We can choose to not align ourselves with His will. The Pharisees rejected the purpose of God against themselves by not being baptized by John (<em><a href='B:490 7:30'>Luk 7:30</a></em> ESV). His will is not that we should sit around doing Sudoku, watching movies, bantering on the internet, trying to get as much money as possible to finance our nice meals, expensive coffees and designer clothes. His will, as expressed in His very Name, is that He ‘will be’ grace, love, care, justice, salvation, righteousness, all over the world and to every man and woman. If these things are our focus, our mission, our purpose, our passion, our underlying heartthrob, if&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;will is behind&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;will… then everything somehow comes together for us in a dynamic and fulfilling existence, both in this world and in the life eternal.</p>


text:
<p>11:12&nbsp;<em>And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence and men of violence take it by force</em>-</p><p> This can be seen as constructing a parable from the idea of Roman storm troopers taking a city. And those men, the Lord teaches in his attention grabbing manner, really represent every believer who responds to the Gospel of the Kingdom and strives to enter that Kingdom. The same word translated 'take by force' is used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:490 16:16'>Luk 16:16</a></em>: "The Kingdom of God is preached, and every man&nbsp;<em>presses into</em>&nbsp;it"; true response to the Gospel of the Kingdom is a struggle. Entering the Kingdom is a fight (<em><a href='B:610 6:12'>1Ti 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:7'>2Ti 4:7</a></em>). We either violently snatch / take the Kingdom by force (<em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em>), or the devil of our own nature will snatch us away (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>). The choice before us is that pointed: fight or fall. The Lord graciously and generously saw the zeal of the mixed up, uncertain, misunderstanding disciples as storm troopers taking the city of the Kingdom of God by force- knowing exactly where they were coming from and where they were going. The cause of the Kingdom must be forcefully advanced by “violent men”. This was the sort of language the Lord used. He wasn’t preaching anything tame, painless membership of a comfortable community. The Lord saw the zeal of the uncertain, misunderstanding disciples as storm troopers taking the city of the Kingdom of God by force- knowing exactly where they were coming from and where they were going.</p><p>However, there are other alternatives in interpretation. It’s been suggested that ‘the violent ones’ may have been a term used to describe Jesus and His followers by His opponents; in which case the Lord would be alluding to this and saying that the enthusiasm of His people was in spiritual and not physical terms. Another option would be that the Lord is alluding to the Zealots and other groups who were trying to bring the Kingdom of God about by political, violent action; and the Lord would then be lamenting that since John’s time, there were men who had misunderstood his message of the Kingdom by trying to bring it about by force. And there is a telling double meaning in the Greek for ‘take it by force’; it could also mean that the Kingdom is under attack by these violent men. In this case, the real meaning and progress of the Kingdom as God intended, in terms of His spiritual dominion in human life, was being hindered by those who were trying to establish it by force. This suggestion is re-enforced by the use of the same word in <em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>, where the mistaken multitudes wanted to 'take [Christ] by force' and make Him King there and then. And this would explain the context- the imprisonment of John by the violent Herod would then be the basis for this saying. The violent were attacking and taking by force the Kingdom preachers like John.</p>


text:
<p>11:13&nbsp;<em>For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The sentence begins with “For…”. This is an explanation of the cut-off point between the time of the Kingdom, and the period of the law and prophets. It was as if their work was being done up until John. The&nbsp;<em>law</em>&nbsp;prophesied until John in the sense that in the Messiah whom John proclaimed, the law’s prophecies were fulfilled. Note that the law just as much as the prophets is to be seen as prophesying. And yet other changeover points or boundaries are suggested within the New Testament. The law would ‘pass’ when all was fulfilled, which seems to hint at the ‘finishing’ of all when the Lord cried “It is finished!” on the cross. The law would not pass&nbsp;<em>until</em>&nbsp;this point (<em><a href='B:470 5:18'>Mat 5:18</a></em>, using the same word as in <em><a href='B:470 11:13'>Mat 11:13</a></em> “until”). The Lord’s death was clearly a major ending point for the old system. And yet <em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em> speaks of the old system as decaying and becoming old, and being about to vanish away- surely in the destruction of the temple in AD70. There are other hints in the NT that the old system somehow operated with some level of acceptance from God until AD70. Why the different potential changeover points? Presumably because the hope and intention was that John would successfully prepare the way, and the Messianic reign would be ushered in by Israel’s acceptance of their Messiah. And yet they killed Him. That point in itself was the theological changeover moment. But still not all Israel accepted the apostolic preaching of repentance for the crucifixion. And so in practice, the changeover point came when the temple was destroyed and any serious obedience to the old covenant was thereby rendered impossible. In all this we see God’s amazing grace and desire continually to work with people, factoring in the possibility of their repentance.</p>


text:
<p>11:14- see on 21:32.</p><p><em>And if you are willing to receive it-&nbsp;</em>The same word was used earlier in this section, when the Lord spoke of the apostles being ‘received’ by those who had initially responded to John’s teaching (<em><a href='B:470 10:14'>Mat 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:40-41'>Mat 10:40-41</a></em>). If Israel would receive it, John the Baptist was the Elijah prophet. The course of fulfilment of prophecy was conditional upon whether John succeeded in turning the hearts of Israel back to the fathers or not; on preparing them for the great and terrible day of the Lord. The Kingdom&nbsp;<em>could&nbsp;</em>have come in the 1st century had Israel received John as Elijah. But they would not. And so another Elijah prophet is to come in the last days and prepare Israel for her Messiah. “If ye are willing to receive him, this is Elijah which is to come” (RVmg:) says it all. The Elijah prophet who was to herald the Messianic Kingdom&nbsp;<em>could have been</em>&nbsp;John the Baptist- if Israel had received him. But they didn’t, and so the prophecy went down another avenue of fulfilment. It could be that <em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em> implies that there is still the possibility that even the latter day Elijah ministry may not be totally successful- for the earth / land is to be smitten with a curse unless he succeeds in turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and there is no lack of evidence that the land may well be ‘smitten’ in the last days:&nbsp;</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. When the Lord stood up and read from Isaiah, He commented that “this day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears” (<em><a href='B:490 4:21'>Luk 4:21</a></em>). He didn’t mean that His reading those words in a synagogue had fulfilled them. He speaks of “your ears” 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.</p><p>The “it” in "receive it" could refer to the prophetic message of the Law and prophets- hence GNB offers “and if you are willing to believe their message…”. It was taken as assumed that every Jew received / accepted the Law and the prophets, but the Lord’s point was that if they really received it, then they would accept John’s message and now accept Him as Messiah. Likewise the Lord challenges the Jewish scribes as to whether they had ever really read the Old Testament (<em><a href='B:470 21:16'>Mat 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:25'>Mar 2:25</a></em>)- when they spent their days doing so (<em><a href='B:500 5:39'>Joh 5:39</a></em> RV):&nbsp;</p><p><em>This was Elijah that has to come</em>-</p><p> See on :10. John in humility and self-effacement had denied being the Elijah prophet (<em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>), and he now had a similar doubt, wondering whether in fact Jesus was the Elijah prophet and the Messiah was still to be looked for. The Lord is saying that John was who he was, the Elijah prophet, despite John's self-doubt. And we again have an example- we are to treat our brethren as whom God sees them as being, notwithstanding their temporary weaknesses and self-doubt. The use of “this” rather than “he” could be because the Lord had in mind the Elijah prophet’s ministry, and not just John personally. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:15&nbsp;<em>He that has ears to hear, let him hear</em>-</p><p> The Lord often uses this phrase, the idea seems to be that not all have the capacity to really hear, but if we do, then, we still have to exercise a choice as to whether we do or not. That would also be true to observed experience, because that is indeed how it seems- some people have no interest in God’s word, something is not ‘given’ them, so that they never ‘get it’; and those to whom it is given, there must still be a conscious choice exercised. For those who decide rightly, it becomes true that to him who has, more is given (<em><a href='B:470 13:12'>Mat 13:12</a></em>). That verse in 13:12 begs the question ‘Has what?’. The answer is surely given here in 11:15: ‘ears to hear’. The hearing or listening which the Lord refers to is listening to the message of John- for the next verses liken John’s ministry to calling out to people to respond, although most choose to be non-responsive. Maybe the idea is ‘Despite John having a temporary crisis of faith and understanding, that is no excuse for not hearing his message’. Perhaps the tension is being developed between the need to&nbsp;<em>hear</em>&nbsp;John, whereas it is thrice stressed that this crowd had gone out into the desert to&nbsp;<em>see</em>&nbsp;John (11:7-9), as if they were going to a show- a powerful challenge that echoes down to our generation of churchgoing and churchianity.</p>


text:
<p>11:16&nbsp;<em>But unto what shall I liken this generation?</em>-</p><p> The Lord several times spoke of that entire generation as sinful and unresponsive to the Gospel. Yet the context here is talking of John the Baptist’s work. This therefore was a tacit recognition that John’s ministry had been unsuccessful in terms of converting all Israel, and therefore clearly&nbsp;there was to be a change in the prophetic program. As noted earlier in commentary on this chapter, it was this change in the prophetic program which was worrying John, even though unnecessarily in terms of his own salvation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>It is like children sitting-&nbsp;</em>John’s ministry was like children wanting to play funerals, and taking the initiative by beginning with mock weeping- but not getting any response. The Lord’s ministry was as children wanting to play weddings, piping to the other children, who would not respond by dancing. Note that in <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em> the Lord has likened His preachers to little children. Children were considered non-persons in society, and yet the Lord uses children in this parable as representative of His preachers. We note that although He likened them to children, He had to sternly warn them that they still needed to be converted and become&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;children (<em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>). We see Him so often imputing status to His followers which they had not in reality attained. This is to help us appreciate how He can impute righteousness to we who are not righteous. The parable of preaching here pictures children appealing to children. The commonality between us and our audience is very attractive and persuasive. We are humans reaching out to humans, indeed, children to children; the children called out (cp. calling out the Gospel) to “their&nbsp;<em>fellows</em>”:&nbsp;</p><p><em>In the market places, who call to their fellows</em>-</p><p> The town square. The Lord uses the same word in the parable of <em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>, where the call of the Gospel comes to men who are standing idle in the market place (s:w:). The picture is perhaps of society getting on with its existence, but the weak labourers and the children being left to one side, excluded from standard adult social and economic life. And it is to these that the call of the Gospel comes, in the midst of human busyness:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:17&nbsp;<em>And say: We piped to you and you did not dance. We wailed and you did not mourn-&nbsp;</em>The Old Testament as well as the New is written in such a way as to encourage memorization, although this is often masked by the translation. There are several devices commonly used to assist in this. Not least is alliteration, i:e. similarly sounding syllables. "We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced (<em>orchee-sasthe</em>); we have mourned unto you and ye have not lamented (<em>ekop-sasthe</em>)" (<em><a href='B:470 11:17'>Mat 11:17</a></em>) could be dynamically rendered: 'We piped for you, and you never&nbsp;stept; we dirged for you, and you never&nbsp;wept". We note that the Lord parallels the work of the children John’s ‘children’ or disciples, and his. Although both of them were somewhat negative about each other, the Lord saw both groups of children as doing the same work, despite a different culture and even doctrinal emphasIs. The division in the town square was between the children begging the others to respond, and the children of this world who didn’t want to, in the midst of those who didn’t even have ears to hear and were just getting on with their worldly business and never ‘heard’ the invitation from either group of children.</p><p>The Lord was speaking this whilst the disciples were away on their preaching tour. He could say that just as John’s preparation of the way had not been responded to on the level of the whole “generation” or society, neither had His more upbeat and joyful invitation been accepted. Note that the call of the Gospel is a call to engage with the preacher, to dance in response to the tune piped. Community and fellowship are all part of response to the Gospel; it’s not about delivering truths to an individual who then accepts them and has no further relationship with the preacher. This is why the father-son analogy is used for preaching and conversion later in the NT. There is the implication too that the initial preacher continues to call the tune, to direct the dancing of the convert, even after initial acceptance of the invitation.</p><p>Remember that the Lord is addressing those who had gone out to hear John preach (:7-9). He is implying that they had no actually responded to his call to them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:18&nbsp;<em>For John came neither eating nor drinking and they say he has a demon-</em></p><p>The Gospels give the impression that there was mass response to John’s preaching, but according to the Lord’s reasoning here, He felt that “this generation”, society as a whole, had rejected John’s message and slandered him as in league with demons. Exactly the same was said about the ministry of Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 8:48'>Joh 8:48</a></em> uses the same term about Jesus- “He has a demon”). Surface level interest in the message, even applauding it and making a great effort to go out into the desert to hear it preached, was and is not the same as responding in real repentance.</p>


text:
<p>11:19&nbsp;<em>The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they say, Look, a gluttonous man and a drunkard-&nbsp;</em>The Lord was accused of being a drunkard, a glutton, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners (<em><a href='B:470 11:19'>Mat 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:34'>Luk 7:34</a></em>). This is all language reminiscent of the commands for the parents to slay the 'rebellious son' of <em><a href='B:50 21:18-21'>Deu 21:18-21</a></em>. It's conceivable that one of the reasons why His death was demanded was because of this. Hence His relatives sought to take Him away out of public sight. It's also been claimed that the Jews' complaint that Jesus 'made Himself equal to the Father' (<em><a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a></em>) is alluding to a rabbinic expression which speaks of the 'rebellious son' of Deuteronomy 21 as being a son who makes himself equal to his father. The shame of being Jesus' mother eventually wore off upon Mary, or so it seems to me. Just as the shame of standing up for Christian principles can wear us down, too. In passing, note that the prodigal son is likewise cast in the role of the 'rebellious son' who should be killed; the correspondence suggests that the Lord Jesus can identify with sinners like the prodigal because He was treated<em>&nbsp;as if</em>&nbsp;He were a sinner, a rebellious son; even though He was not in actuality.</p><p>The criticisms of the Lord here were all related to His drinking, eating and table company. Jesus showed by His fellowship with “the poor in spirit” that He meant what He said. He, as God’s Son, extended His Father’s fellowship to them in the here and now of this life. Luke seems to have been especially perceptive of the fact that Jesus often accepted invitations to eat with those whom others despised (<em><a href='B:490 5:29'>Luk 5:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:36'>Luk 7:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:38'>Luk 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:37'>Luk 11:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:1'>Luk 14:1</a></em>). In 1st century Palestine, to eat with someone was a religious act:&nbsp; The host blessed and broke the bread and then broke off a piece for each guest, thus binding together all present. This was why the many sects of Judaism carefully limited their table fellowship (notably the Pharisees and Essenes). Thus it was the Lord’s desire to share table fellowship with the very lowest (apparently) within the community of God that brought Him such criticism (<em><a href='B:470 11:19'>Mat 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:16'>Mar 2:16</a></em>). His teaching also made it plain that He saw table fellowship with Him at a meal as a type of the future Messianic banquet, to be enjoyed in His Kingdom at His return, when redeemed sinners will again sit and eat with Him (<em><a href='B:490 22:29-30'>Luk 22:29-30</a></em>). To accept the gift of the bread of life at the breaking of bread is to symbolize our acceptance of the life that is in Him. If we believe what we are doing at the memorial meeting, we are showing our acceptance of the fact that we will be there, and that what we are doing in our humble breakings of bread is in fact a true foretaste of the Kingdom experience which awaits us.</p><p><em>A friend of tax collectors and sinners!</em>-</p><p> The Lord was ‘fond’ [<em>philos</em>] of sinners; He liked them and their company. In this we see His greatness, for most spiritual people admit to finding the company of the unspiritual somewhat of a burden. But the Lord’s spirituality was beyond that. Truly He is the sinners’ friend. And Matthew as a tax collector is testifying to this personally.</p><p><em>But wisdom is justified by her children-&nbsp;</em>Appreciating the inter-relation between 'doctrine' and practice will result in our seeing through the fallacy that because someone's deeds are good, therefore it doesn't matter too much about their doctrine. The spiritual fruit which God seeks is that which is brought forth by the seed of His word, the Gospel. To&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;understand the basic Gospel with one's heart is to bring forth fruit, to be converted. True wisdom is justified by the works she brings forth (<em><a href='B:470 11:19'>Mat 11:19</a></em>). This is why true conversion involves understanding and perceiving, and not merely hearing doctrinal truth (<em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em>). Yet the counter argument would be that there are people who know God’s truth who behave poorly, and there are those who know little of it who act well. This is why the Lord speaks of “wisdom”, not “truth”; for wisdom is God’s truth applied in practice:&nbsp;</p><p>On another level, we see here the Lord’s response to slander, both of Himself and John. Wisdom is justified of her children- in the end. The “children” are those of Himself and John, who have just featured in His parable of the preachers, His children, meeting lack of response in the town square. Even if there is lack of response to the invitation, the Lord was confident that both His ‘children’ (the “little ones” of <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em>) and John’s would be the justification of the truth and wisdom which they were teaching. This is all a comfort to those undergoing slander. In the end, if we are on the side of wisdom, we shall be justified.</p>


text:
<p>11:20&nbsp;<em>Then he began to chastise the cities-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord also upbraided the disciples for their unbelief (<em><a href='B:480 16:14'>Mar 16:14</a></em> s:w:). Again we see the Lord being positive towards His disciples in the eyes of the world, and yet privately challenging them with the same language of criticism which He had for the unbelieving world. His imputation of righteousness to us doesn’t mean He is blind to our weakness.</p><p><em>Wherein most</em>-</p><p> Gk. ‘the majority’. We must give this word its full weight. The majority of the Lord’s miracles were done in three tiny villages- Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum. We have just learnt that whilst the disciples were away on their preaching tour, He had gone to preach in their home villages (<em><a href='B:470 11:1'>Mat 11:1</a></em>). Perhaps some time had elapsed between verses 19 and 20. He had had little response. Philip, Andrew and Peter were all from Bethsaida, the ‘home of fishermen’ (<em><a href='B:500 1:44'>Joh 1:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:21'>Joh 12:21</a></em>). We sense that the Lord had a specific plan in mind for His preaching work. He made a particular focus upon Galilee and the home villages of His disciples- and Galilee was of course His own home area. We see in this policy a desire by Him for us to witness in our own immediate environment and family situations. <em><a href='B:480 8:22-26'>Mar 8:22-26</a></em> records the only miracle the Gospels record as performed in Bethsaida, and the Lord told the cured blind man not to tell anyone in Bethsaida about the miracle- presumably because the people there had already seen ample miracles and had not repented:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Of his mighty works had been done, because they had not repented-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Here we see the purpose of the healing miracles. They were not simply to alleviate human suffering for the sake of it- they were specifically designed to lead people to repentance. God’s goodness is intended to lead to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). The doing of Christian ‘good works’ can’t be criticized in itself, but it needs to be observed that they often seem to be performed ‘for the sake of it’, whereas the Lord’s works were always within a wider plan and aim of bringing people to spiritual healing:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:21&nbsp;<em>Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have-&nbsp;</em>God likewise looks down upon our lives today, seeing all possibilities, and how unbelievers would respond so much more to Him than His own dear people. It's the pain of the parent, knowing that other children would respond so much more to their love than their own beloved offspring. The Lord Jesus had something of this when He commented that Tyre and Sidon would've repented had they had His message preached to them; but Israel would not. To know all possible futures must make experiencing human life and poor decision making all the harder and more tragic for the Father and Son.</p><p><em>Repented-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Here we see that the intention of the miracles was not merely healing in itself, as a good to humanity- but rather to invite people to repentance. Hence the connection between healing and forgiveness in the account of the healing of the paralyzed man:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Long ago in sackcloth and ashes</em>-</p><p> Made of camel and goat hair, therefore very similar to the clothing of John the Baptist- which is the context here (<em><a href='B:470 11:8'>Mat 11:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:22&nbsp;<em>But I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Tyre and Sodom were major Gentile cities. The Lord clearly believed their inhabitants would be resurrected and appear at the future day of judgment. Seeing that knowledge is the basis of responsibility to judgment, it follows that there was some witness made to them. Ezekiel’s prophecies of condemnation against Tyre can therefore be seen as conditional prophecies, like the prophecy of Nineveh’s destruction- they could have repented in response to them. The witness to Sodom was presumably through the witness of Lot’s righteous life. The extent of human responsibility to Divine judgment would appear to be far greater than we might suspect. Those who live in the presence of believers are surely responsible to judgment, according to the pattern of Sodom. Clearly there will be degrees of punishment at that day- and for the home villages of the disciples, their suffering will be ‘intolerable’. The implication is that if the witness of Ezekiel, Lot etc. had been backed up by the kind of miracles the Lord was performing, then this would’ve tipped the balance- and they would’ve repented:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:23&nbsp;<em>And you Capernaum, shall you be exalted to heaven? -&nbsp;</em>Here we have another example of the Bible being written from the perspective of men. Capernaum was exalted in her own eyes, the people there were spiritually proud and exalted in their own eyes. Likewise “the wise” in :25 refers to those who thought they were wise.</p><p><em>You shall go down to hades-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The prophecy against Babylon of Isaiah 14 is here applied to the towns of Israel. The point is that the condemnation of the wicked Gentiles will come upon those of God’s people who act like them. Likewise the punishment of Babylon was to be cast as a millstone into the sea, but this is applied by the Lord to those of God’s people who make their brethren stumble (<em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em>).</p><p><em>For if the mighty works-&nbsp;</em>The Greek&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;also has the sense of ability, possible power. The miracles, to which the “mighty works” clearly refer, had potential power to bring the people to repentance, but they were content to just accept the temporal blessings of knowing Jesus rather than being moved by those blessings to repentance.</p><p><em>Had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes-&nbsp;</em>The Lord knew that cities like Tyre and Sidon would have responded to the Gospel in the first century; had it been preached to them. But the message was taken to Jewish villages like Chorazin and Bethsaida instead. Such was God’s love, His especial and exclusive love for Israel. Sodom likewise would have repented if the message of Lot had been backed up by miracles; but, that extra proof wasn’t given. But such a concession was made to Israel through the ministry and miracles of Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>11:24&nbsp;<em>But I say to you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you</em>-</p><p> The Greek for "tolerable" could suggest ‘endurance’, hinting at a period of suffering rather than an eternal state of suffering. The suffering will be the sense of regret for what could have been, how they could have responded. This sense will be so acute that it is described in figurative terms as Gehenna fire, gnashing of teeth etc. Time and again we must remind ourselves of this, so that day by day we ‘grasp the moment’ and proceed in life with no ultimate cause for spiritual regret.</p>


text:
<p>11:25&nbsp;<em>At that time Jesus answered-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Often the Gospels record that Jesus "answered and said...". Yet it's often not clear whether anyone had asked a question, or said anything that needed a response (<em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:1'>Mat 22:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:24'>Mar 10:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:51'>Mar 10:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:14'>Mar 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:22'>Mar 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:33'>Mar 11:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 12:35'>Mar 12:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:2'>Mar 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:48'>Mar 14:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:22'>Luk 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:40'>Luk 7:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:50'>Luk 8:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:2'>Luk 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:3'>Luk 14:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:5'>Luk 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:17'>Luk 17:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:51'>Luk 22:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:50'>Joh 1:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:19'>Joh 5:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:70'>Joh 6:70</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:32'>Joh 10:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:30'>Joh 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:31'>Joh 16:31</a></em>). If you go through this list, you will see how Jesus 'answered' / responded to peoples' unexpressed fears and questions, their unarticulated concerns, criticisms, feelings and agendas. This little phrase reveals how sensitive Jesus was. He saw people's unspoken, unarticulated needs and responded. He didn't wait to be asked. For Jesus, everybody He met was a question, a personal direct challenge, that He responded to. And of course this is how we should seek to be too. And yet here in <em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em> He could be responding to His own question and reflection upon why so few responded and why only the immature disciples seemed to understand anything at all? We see here a window into the very internal thought process of the Lord, something which could only come from a Divinely inspired record.</p><p><em>I thank You O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth-</em></p><p>&nbsp;This is language taken directly from the&nbsp;<em>Hodayot</em>, the Qumran “Thanksgiving Psalms”. There is reason to think that in his years in the Qumran area, John the Baptist became familiar with the Qumran community, and may have passed on some of their style and culture to his converts. The multitudes addressed here by the Lord had initially responded to John (<em><a href='B:470 11:7'>Mat 11:7</a></em>). So it would seem that the Lord is bridge building with them, speaking to them in terms known and accessible to them, and yet leading them further and away from the legalism and extremes of Qumran thought. Note how there is a juxtaposition of God’s Almightiness, as Lord of Heaven and earth, with His closeness to us as “Father”.</p><p><em>That You did hide these things from the wise</em>-</p><p> Those who think they are wise in their own eyes- see on “exalted” in :24.</p><p><em>And prudent-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Again we see the Lord’s grace, for the disciples themselves weren’t ‘understanding’ (s:w:) of everything at this time (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 13:51'>Mat 13:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:52'>Mar 6:52</a></em> they considered / understood not; <em><a href='B:470 8:17'>Mat 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:21'>Mat 8:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:34'>Luk 18:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:45'>Luk 24:45</a></em>). Yet to them was revealed the Truth which others had hid from them.</p><p><em>And did reveal them to-</em></p><p>&nbsp;This continues the thought of 11:15, that only some have ears to hear. The word is used in <em><a href='B:470 16:27'>Mat 16:27</a></em> of how the truth of Christ was revealed to Peter, one of the “babes”:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Babes</em>-</p><p> An essay in the serious immaturity of the disciples, and yet the Lord’s love of them all the same. They are the ‘little ones’ of <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em>, the little children in the town square of <em><a href='B:470 11:16'>Mat 11:16</a></em>:&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:530 1:19'>1Co 1:19</a></em>. Paul saw the simplicity of the Corinthian believers as the sort of thing Christ referred to in <em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>11:26&nbsp;<em>Yes Father, for so it was well-pleasing in Your sight</em>-</p><p> We have the same kind of thing in Revelation, where Angels as it were take a breath and praise the Father for His wisdom in the judgments which they have just executed. We have here one of the few times when we get the record of the Lord's actual words to God in prayer. We note that He repeatedly addresses Him as "Father"; and through receipt of the Spirit, His relationship with the Father becomes ours. And "Father" ought surely to be our most common form of address to God.</p>


text:
<p>11:27&nbsp;<em>All things have been delivered to me by my Father-&nbsp;</em>Gk. 'were delivered'. The “all things” may be the power of salvation for all men:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And no one knows the Son save the Father. Neither does anyone know the Father</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'to know fully'. Nobody, the disciples included, to whom the Father had ‘revealed’ repentance, fully knew the Son nor the Father. There is a parallel to be observed here between ‘knowing the Father’ and repenting; for the context speaks of how the majority had not repented despite the Lord’s miracles. The little ones, the babes, the disciples, had repented- but this had been ‘revealed’ to them by the Father (:25). Now, the Lord speaks of how the Son ‘reveals’ the Father. The life of repentance is the life of knowing the Father. To know God is to know our sinfulness and repent. And this is the “rest” from sin which the Lord speaks of in :28:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Save the Son-&nbsp;</em>Whether or not Joseph died or left Mary by the time Jesus hit adolescence, the fact was that Joseph wasn’t His real father. He was effectively fatherless in the earthly sense. As such, this would have set Him up in certain psychological matrices which had their effect on His personality. He could speak of His Heavenly Father in the shockingly unprecedented form of ‘abba’, daddy. He grew so close to His Heavenly Father because of the lack of an earthly one, and the inevitable stresses which there would have been between Him and Joseph. A strong, fatherly-type figure is a recurrent feature of the Lord’s parables; clearly He was very focused upon His Heavenly Father. He could say with passionate truth: “No one knows a son except a father, and no one knows a father except a son” (<em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:22'>Luk 10:22</a></em>).</p><p><em>And to whomsoever</em>-</p><p> The idea is not that the Lord Jesus had a list of humanity and chose a few from that list. He has earlier spoken of the freedom of choice to ‘receive’ (:14) God’s message, and He was urging all men to do so. Although all men are potentially delivered to Him, the Father is revealing Himself to only some of them. The Father is revealed in the Son, as John’s Gospel makes clear. It’s not that some people are chosen by the Son to have this revelation; rather is it a statement of fact, or method- the knowledge of the Father is through the Son revealing Him. And this is why He goes straight on in :28 to urge people to come to Him. The ideas of coming to Him and ‘whomsoever’, anyone, are very much the language of John’s Gospel and the Revelation, which concludes with an appeal to ‘whosoever will’ to ‘come’ to Christ and salvation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>The Son wishes to reveal Him</em>-</p><p> This revealing is by the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:5'>Eph 3:5</a></em>). It was not flesh and blood that revealed the Lord to Peter (<em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em>). As noted on <em><a href='B:670 1:21'>1Pe 1:21</a></em>, relationship with God is predicated upon relationship with the Son; He is the only way to the Father. Academic Bible study, consideration of the apparent evidence of apologetics, will not reveal God as Father to men. It is the Son who reveals Him. If we take the jump of faith in accepting Him, only then will He reveal the Father to us:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:28&nbsp;<em>Come to me all you that labour and are</em>-</p><p> See on :27 “whomsoever”. The Lord may be urging the audience to come unto&nbsp;<em>Him</em>&nbsp;in the same way as they had come out to hear John preaching (:7-9). The invitation at the last day to “Come” into the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em> s:w:) is heard even now in the invitation to come after Him. The preceding verses share with us a beautiful insight into the mind and inner prayer of the Son to the Father. He meditated upon why apparently so few were responding, and went on to marvel at the Father’s wisdom in revealing only to some, and to the immature ‘little ones’ of His disciples. But arising out of that time of prayer and meditation, the Lord goes on to make a public appeal to whosoever will to come to Him. And this is the exact pattern which our public witness and appeal to others should follow.</p><p><em>Heavy laden</em>-</p><p> The context is a lament that because people are wise, prudent and exalted in pride, they will not come to the Father and Son. But this way of life and thinking is in fact a hard way to live. Hence the Lord commends His own humility to those proud people. Whilst the arrogance and self-assurance of modern man seems an impossible barrier to the Gospel, we must be aware that actually they are struggling with it and are laden down with it. The word is only elsewhere used about the lawyers lading people with heavy burdens (<em><a href='B:490 11:46'>Luk 11:46</a></em>)- not only of guilt, but also of pride in having kept irrelevant laws. David found his sins associated with Bathsheba "as an heavy burden... too heavy for me... I am (thereby) bowed down greatly" (<em><a href='B:230 32:4'>Psa 32:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a></em>). Surely our Lord was thinking back to David when he invited all of us: "Come unto me, all you who labour and are heavy laden (with sins), and I will give you rest... for My... burden is light" (<em><a href='B:470 11:28-30'>Mat 11:28-30</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And I will give you rest-&nbsp;</em>The Lord Jesus invites those who follow Him to accept the “rest” which He gives (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>). He uses a Greek word which is used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, for the Sabbath rest. Jesus was offering a life of Sabbath, of rest from trust in our own works (cp. <em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:10'>Heb 4:10</a></em>). We shouldn’t, therefore, keep a Sabbath one day per week, but rather live our whole lives in the spirit of the Sabbath:&nbsp;</p><p>The Pharisees were the ones burdening the people (<em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:46'>Luk 11:46</a></em>), so this could be read as a fairly direct appeal to quit respecting the religious leaders of the day and follow the teaching of Jesus instead. Legalism and obedience to the Law is likened to an unbearable yoke (<em><a href='B:510 15:10'>Act 15:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:1'>Gal 5:1</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:29&nbsp;<em>Take-&nbsp;</em>The same word is used in the challenge to "take up" the cross. To take up Christ's cross, to take on His yoke, is to learn of Him, to come to know Him. Yet do we sense any&nbsp;<em>pain</em>&nbsp;in our coming to know Christ? We should do, because the cross was the ultimate symbol of pain, and to take it up is to take on the yoke, the knowledge, of Christ. Clearly the knowledge of the Father and Son is so much more than knowing theological propositions about them.</p><p><em>My yoke</em>-</p><p> The yoke metaphor was commonly used at the time to speak of a career or profession / daily occupation. Our 'career' is to be in His service, and any human yoke or career is to not be seen by us as our defining situation in life. We can't be 'career people' in the sense that many are in this world- for our career is with the Lord. And yet the yoke was also understood as ‘teaching’; for <em>Sir_51:26</em> has the sage inviting students to put their necks under his yoke and learn his teaching. The Lord Jesus is a yoke- He unites men together, so that the otherwise unbearable burden of the spiritual life is lighter (<em><a href='B:470 11:29'>Mat 11:29</a></em>). If we do not let our fellowship with others lighten our load, then we basically have not been brought under Christ. To be in Him, under His yoke, is to put our arms around our brethren and labour together. The Lord paralleled "Come unto&nbsp;<em>Me</em>" with taking His yoke upon us, in order to have a light burden (<em><a href='B:470 11:28-30'>Mat 11:28-30</a></em>). A yoke is what binds animals together, so that they can between them carry a burden which otherwise would be too great for them individually. The invitation to come unto Jesus personally is therefore an invitation into a community- to be lined up alongside another, and have a yoke placed upon us. Without submitting to this, we can't actually carry the heavy burden laid upon us. This heavy burden laid upon the believer must surely have some reference to the cross we are asked to share in and carry. We can't do this alone; and perhaps it happened that the Lord Himself couldn't even bear His own cross without the help of another, in order to show us the point. We can't claim to have come personally unto Jesus, somehow liking the idea of the Man Jesus, intellectually accepting His teachings on an abstract level- and yet keep our distance from our brethren. It seems increasingly true that human relationships are almost impossible to maintain at an intimate level- without Christ. He is the yoke which enables the psychological miracle of people pulling together, for life, in order to carry His cross. The most essential “law of Christ” is to bear one another’s burdens (<em><a href='B:550 6:2'>Gal 6:2</a></em>). Paul had this in mind when he described his brethren as 'yokefellows' (<em><a href='B:570 4:3'>Phi 4:3</a></em>). For Paul, his joy and crown would be to see his brethren accepted into God's Kingdom at judgment day. David had the same spirit when he wrote of how he longed to "see the prosperity of Your chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of Your nation, that I may glory with Your inheritance" (<em><a href='B:230 106:5'>Psa 106:5</a></em>). His personal vision of God's Kingdom involved seeing others there; there's no hint of spiritual selfishness in David. And he goes straight on to comment: "We have sinned with our fathers, we have committed iniquity... our fathers understood not..." (<em><a href='B:230 106:6'>Psa 106:6</a></em>). David felt himself very much at one with the community of God's children, both in their failures and in their ultimate hope. Life with God simply can't be lived in isolation from the rest of His people. Our salvation in that sense has a collective aspect to it, and if we want 'out' with the community of believers in this life, then we're really voting ourselves out of their future glory.</p><p>The reference to having a heavy yoke lifted recalls the servant song which spoke of the need to “undo the bands of the [heavy] yoke” (<em><a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a></em>). Paul takes passages from Isaiah’s servant songs and applies them to us. The servant who suffered and witnessed to the world was evidently the Lord Jesus. And yet Isaiah is also explicit that the servant is the whole seed of Abraham, “Jacob”, the slowly-developing people of God (<em><a href='B:290 41:8'>Isa 41:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:1'>Isa 44:1</a></em>). There are many connections within Isaiah between the servant songs, and the descriptions of the people of Israel into which the songs are interspersed. The Saviour-servant was to bring out the prisoners from the dungeons (<em><a href='B:290 42:7'>Isa 42:7</a></em>), so was every Israelite “to let the oppressed go free... loose the bonds”, and to “undo the bands of the [heavy] yoke” (<em><a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a></em>) as Christ does here (<em><a href='B:470 11:28-29'>Mat 11:28-29</a></em>); His work of deliverance is to be replicated by each of us in our witness. Whoever is in Him will by this very fact follow Him in this work. In Isaiah’s first context, the suffering servant was King Hezekiah. Yet all Israel were to see themselves as ‘in’ him, as spiritual Israel are to see themselves as in Christ. “He was oppressed”, as Israel at that time were being “oppressed” by Assyria. As they were covered in wounds and spiritual sickness (<em><a href='B:290 1:5-6'>Isa 1:5-6</a></em>), so the suffering servant bore their diseases and rose again in salvation victory. Significantly, Isaiah 40-53 speak of the one servant, whereas Isaiah 54-66 speak of the “servants” who fulfil in principle the work of the singular servant. When the Lord speaks of a change of yokes for the weary and a granting of rest in Him (<em><a href='B:470 11:28-30'>Mat 11:28-30</a></em>), He is using terms taken from Isaiah’s restoration prophecies. The offer of rest was rejected by the exiles then; but is taken up now by all who accept Christ, realizing that they are in the same state as the exiles in Babylon.</p><p><em>And learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart</em>-</p><p> Vine comments: "The word for the Christian virtue of humility was not used before the Christian era, and is distinctly an outgrowth of the Gospel". To be able to say in genuine humility that one knows the state of their own heart, and that it is humble, is an essay not only in humility but in the acute self-knowledge of the Lord. The Greek translated “lowly” definitely means cast down, depressed, implying a bringing down from a superior position (s:w. <em><a href='B:540 7:6'>2Co 7:6</a></em>). This helps us understand the language of <em><a href='B:570 2:5-11'>Phi 2:5-11</a></em>, which speaks of the progressive humiliation of Christ, culminating in the death of the cross. Even at this point in His ministry, the Lord felt that He had been brought down in mind- He felt the progressive nature of His humility. And in that passage, the appeal is to allow that kind of mind and process to be in us, which was in Christ:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And you shall find</em>-</p><p> The yoke is&nbsp;<em>given</em>&nbsp;but we still have to&nbsp;<em>find</em>&nbsp;it by accepting the potential enabled by the Lord.</p><p><em>Rest for your souls-&nbsp;</em>He assures us that if we come to Him, we will find “rest” (<em><a href='B:470 11:29'>Mat 11:29</a></em>); but the same word is only used elsewhere about the&nbsp;rest / comfort which our brethren give us (<em><a href='B:530 16:18'>1Co 16:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:13'>2Co 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:640 1:7'>Phm 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:640 1:20'>Phm 1:20</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:30- see <em><a href='B:20 2:11'>Exo 2:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>For my yoke is easy</em>-</p><p> A poor translation. The cross of Christ is anything but "easy"; the idea is more that it is helpful for service; the relationships He enables between believers is what makes it easier for us to carry the heavy loads of His service, i:e. the cross. Even if we still insist on the translation “easy”, we reflect that the way to the Kingdom is easy relative to the wonder of what is in store for the faithful (<em><a href='B:540 4:17'>2Co 4:17</a></em>); and yet from our human perspective it is hard indeed, a life of self-crucifixion (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:14'>Rev 7:14</a></em>). “Easy” translates&nbsp;<em>chrestos</em>, which sounds very like the ‘Christ’. By this word play the point is being made that Christ&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;His yoke. One of the most essential things about Christ is that those in Him are bound together with each other. Any view of ‘Christ’ which excludes those in Him is therefore fundamentally flawed. Paul therefore teaches avoidance of any who cause division contrary to the teaching of Christ which we have “learned”- using the same word used here about Christ’s uniting yoke being ‘learning’ of Him (<em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em>). See on&nbsp; <em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>And my burden is light-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:400 2:3'>Mic 2:3</a></em>&nbsp;reminded Israel that they will be under the yoke of judgment if they reject Yahweh’s yoke. The Lord spoke of His servants having a light yoke. The Bible minded among His hearers would have thought back to the threatened punishment of an iron yoke for the disobedient (<em><a href='B:50 28:48'>Deu 28:48</a></em>). 'It's a yoke either way', they would have concluded. But the Lord's yoke&nbsp;<em>even in this life</em>&nbsp;is light, and has promise of the life which is to come! The logic of taking it, with the restrictions it inevitably implies (for it is a yoke), is simply overpowering. Note that the Greek for ‘light’ essentially means ‘able to be carried’- which connects with the idea of ‘taking up’ the yoke and cross (see on <em><a href='B:470 11:29'>Mat 11:29</a></em>). The point is- it is doable. The cross can be carried, the yoke can be worn- if we learn of Christ and thereby learn to take our place with others in carrying it.</p>


text:
<p>12:1&nbsp;<em>At that time, on the Sabbath day, Jesus went through the grainfields, and his disciples were hungry</em>-</p><p> 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 50:12) (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.</p><p><em>And began to pluck ears of grain to eat</em>-</p><p> 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>12:2&nbsp;<em>But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said to him: Look, your disciples do what is unlawful on the Sabbath</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>12:3&nbsp;<em>But he said to them: Have you not read-</em></p><p>&nbsp;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, and they that were with him-</em></p><p>&nbsp;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>12:4&nbsp;<em>How he entered into the house of God</em>-</p><p> 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 ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests? </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 (<em><a href='B:490 6:1-4'>Luk 6:1-4</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>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>12:5&nbsp;<em>Or have you not read in the law, that on the Sabbath day-</em></p><p>&nbsp;We need to reflect upon the implications of the fact that the vast majority of the early Christians were illiterate. Literacy levels in first century Palestine were only 10% at the highest estimate. Some estimate that the literacy level in the Roman empire was a maximum of 10%, and literacy levels in Palestine were at most 3%. Most of the literate people in Palestine would have been either the wealthy or the Jewish scribes. And yet it was to the poor that the Gospel was preached, and even in Corinth there were not many educated or “mighty” in this world within the ecclesia. Notice how the Lord said to the Pharisees: “Have you not&nbsp;<em>read</em>?” (<em><a href='B:480 2:25'>Mar 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:5'>Mat 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:4'>Mat 19:4</a></em>), whilst He says to those who responded to Him: “You have&nbsp;<em>heard</em>” (<em><a href='B:470 5:21'>Mat 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:27'>Mat 5:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:33'>Mat 5:33</a></em>). His followers were largely the illiterate:&nbsp;As the ecclesial world developed, Paul wrote inspired letters to the ecclesias. Those letters would have been&nbsp;<em>read</em>&nbsp;to the brethren and sisters. Hence the great importance of ‘teachers’ in the early churches, those who could faithfully read and transmit to others what had been written.</p><p><em>The priests in the temple</em>-</p><p> The rabbis taught that “Temple service takes precedence over the Sabbath” (W:D. Davies&nbsp;<em>Matthew&nbsp;</em>p. 313 (<em>op cit.</em>)). Thinking through the logic of the Lord’s argument, He clearly has the view that His disciples are about the work of the temple, walking through that cornfield. Otherwise His appeal to the rabbinic dictum had no sense. Again, He is encouraging His followers to see themselves as far more than secular, not very spiritual people who are personally attracted to the teachings of Jesus and are awed by His miracles. He’s saying that actually they are as priests, professionally committed to serving God actively.</p><p><em>Profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?-&nbsp;</em>The Lord (<em><a href='B:470 12:5'>Mat 12:5</a></em>) said that the priests "profaned" or ‘desecrated’ the Sabbath; He didn't say that because they kept the spirit of it, that was OK. By using a word as extreme as "profaned" He seems to be even emphasizing the point of paradox within God’s self-revelation.</p><p>Having accepted the Bible as the source of authority, we find that the Bible does not categorically list what behaviour is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Even within the Law of Moses, to obey some commands meant breaking others. And it is a common dilemma of sincere believers that they find themselves having to break one principle to keep another. The Bible is written in such a way as to give clear instruction to those who love and respect it, and yet to confuse those who do not fundamentally accept it into thinking that their faulty understanding is in fact the will of God. This is why it is true, on a surface level, that you can prove what you like from the Bible. Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh&nbsp;<em>et al</em>&nbsp;all managed to 'prove' the most bizarre things from the Bible- and persuade others to genuinely think that to do evil was in fact doing righteousness. So the fact that someone thinks that they are correctly interpreting the Bible does not thereby justify them, however sincere their conscience may be. And it does not mean that the church must therefore accept them, just because their conscience is clear and they think the Bible justifies their behaviour. The opposite of love isn’t so much hatred, as indifference. To be indifferent to the real welfare of our fellows in this world, and of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;our own brethren, is perhaps our most common sin. The Lord taught us that we should have a sense of urgency in our response to others. The Lord showed by His example that it is better to meet the hunger of human need than to keep the letter of Sabbath law (<em><a href='B:480 2:25-26'>Mar 2:25-26</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>urgency,&nbsp;<em>God’s&nbsp;</em>urgency,&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>consequent urgency… all means that when even Divine principles appear to come into conflict, we are to be influenced above all by the urgency of others’ need.</p>


text:
<p>12:6&nbsp;<em>But I say to you, that one greater than the temple is here</em>-</p><p> AV "in this place". Sacred space was a big idea within Judaism. The Lord is directly challenging it by stating that He as a person was more holy and significant than the temple. The way He ate with sinners and touched the ritually unclean likewise reflect a redefinition of the holy. The implication could be that the Lord was standing at the edge of a cornfield (He was not within the synagogue- :9)- and He declared everywhere touched by Him to be holy.</p>


text:
<p>12:7&nbsp;<em>But if you had known what this means</em>-</p><p> This continues the challenge of :3- "Have you never read?". They&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;read, but without understanding. They had read without perceiving meaning- and it led them to "condemn the guiltless". Without unduly exalting intellectualism for its own sake, this is a sobering thought- that the crucifixion of God's Son was the result of a chronic lack of understanding of God's word. To pay lip service to Biblicism is not enough; the meaning in the words, the whole issue of interpretation, is crucially important; getting it wrong can lead to crucifying the Son of God afresh. The Greek&nbsp;<em>esti</em>&nbsp;translated 'means' is basically the verb 'to be'- if they had known what the Scripture 'is' they would've have condemned the guiltless. The Bible 'is' its true interpretation, and this idea comes to its ultimate term in the declaration of Jesus as being 'the word':&nbsp;</p><p><em>I desire mercy</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a></em> says that Yahweh "desires mercy". These two Hebrew words sound similar to each other- mercy / grace is so identified with God's passion and desire. The same Hebrew words are to be found in the statements that He desires / delights in grace / mercy (<em><a href='B:300 9:24'>Jer 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 7:18'>Mic 7:18</a></em>). If&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;delights in forgiveness and grace, then we should also; His passion should be ours. This of itself outlaws the critical eyes of the Pharisees, noticing the disciples' infringement of a law and feeling the need to 'take up the matter' with them. And it will be the same with us. The human tendency to observe others with eyes of criticism and sensitivity to their weaknesses will be displaced if we simply delight in mercy. The Hosea passage goes on to condemn the Jewish religious leadership in language which the Lord clearly used in constructing the parable of the good Samaritan: "As troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent" (<em><a href='B:350 6:8'>Hos 6:8</a></em>). But there's a subtle twist- the priest in the Lord's story passed by on the other side and simply did nothing. That inaction is paralleled with being as bad as the thieves themselves. The priest was returning from having offered sacrifice, but he didn't show mercy- and God wants mercy and not sacrifice. Note that the passage in <em><a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a></em> is perhaps purposefully ambiguous. It could mean 'I want to see you showing mercy, and not [so much offering] sacrifice'; or it could mean 'I myself want / love / delight in [showing] mercy rather than [receiving] sacrifice'. The ambiguity is because God's will / love / delight should be ours. And we can read the quotation of that passage here in <em><a href='B:470 12:7'>Mat 12:7</a></em> with the same double meaning. His passion for grace must be ours, and this precludes looking critically at others, eager to perceive their breaches of our perceptions of God's law.</p><p><em>And not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless</em>-</p><p> Who exactly did the Lord have in mind? He has just used the same word when stating that the priests work on the Sabbath and are “blameless”. By condemning the disciples, the Pharisees were thus condemning the priests too. This argument of course supposes that the Lord’s secular, spiritually ragtag followers were in fact priests- the priests of the new system He was bringing in. The ultimately guiltless was of course the Lord Himself, and He foresaw their final condemnation of Him, perceiving that in essence it had already happened. For whoever condemns His followers condemns Him, so deeply is He associated with them. But how would the Pharisees have avoided condemning the guiltless disciples by appreciating that God wants mercy and not sacrifice? I suggest that the Lord is again meeting them on their own level: ‘You consider the disciples are guilty. OK, that’s not what the Law says, but OK, let’s assume they are. But if you simply&nbsp;<em>loved</em>&nbsp;showing mercy as God does, then you would not have condemned them anyway. You would’ve overlooked the incident’.</p>


text:
<p>12:8&nbsp;<em>For the Son of man is Lord-</em></p><p>&nbsp;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>&nbsp;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>12:9<em>&nbsp;And he departed from there and-&nbsp;</em>Luke’s record adds that this was on another Sabbath- at least the next week.</p><p><em>Went into their synagogue</em>-</p><p> The point is that the Lord was&nbsp;<em>outside</em>&nbsp;the synagogue when He declared that the "place" where He was then standing, in or near a cornfield, was holy ground; see on :6. 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".</p>


text:
<p>12:10&nbsp;<em>Behold</em>-</p><p> AV. I have suggested that this word is best understood by likening Matthew to a cameraman shooting a movie, who now zooms in on an encounter.</p><p><em>And saw a man having a withered hand. And they asked him, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?</em>-</p><p>His right hand, according to Luke. His own strength and ability to act was withered:&nbsp;</p><p><em>So that they might accuse 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.</p>


text:
<p>12:11&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Which of you, if having only one sheep</em>-</p><p> A poor man, who had only one sheep- as in the parable Nathan told David. The Lord saw the man with the withered hand as His sheep- His only sheep. Here we have an insight into an old problem: ‘Seeing we are many and Jesus is one, how can it be that He feels so uniquely towards me, when He has so many other people to think about and relate to?’. It is possible for God and His Son to have emotional and psychological capabilities which we do not have. The Lord seems to be teaching here that He identifies with the poor, who has only&nbsp;<em>one</em>&nbsp;sheep; but He feels to each of us as if we are all that He has. Likewise in the parable of the woman who lost one of her dowry coins; they were all she had. We are all Jesus has. He has no other group on another planet in another dimension- we here on earth, we with all our dysfunction and poor response to His love, are all He has. And further-&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;are all He has. The man had been sick for some time, but the Lord saw his situation as if it had only just happened, that Sabbath day, and felt an urgency to respond. The&nbsp;<em>urgency</em>&nbsp;is a key issue- for the issue wasn’t healing, it was why Jesus couldn’t wait a few hours until the end of the Sabbath to heal. The Mishnah taught that the Sabbath could be broken if life was in immediate danger (m. Yoma 8:6). The Pharisees obviously reasoned that this wasn’t the case- a paralyzed hand could wait a few hours for healing. But Jesus was perhaps making the point that to Him, human need is urgent and cannot wait. We must remember His sense of urgency when we struggle with His apparent slowness to respond. The spirit of urgency comes through the Gospel records and also the Acts.</p><p><em>And it falls into a pit on the Sabbath day</em>-</p><p> The Law specifically foresaw such a situation, pronouncing judgment against the person responsible for leaving a pit open so that animals might fall into it (<em><a href='B:20 21:33-34'>Exo 21:33-34</a></em>). The Lord's point was that there was not a moment to lose once this happened- there was an urgency to save the animal, and that urgency was far more important than seeking to condemn the person who had breached the law. And this was how the Lord saw that man with a "withered hand"; the need was the call, and to Him there was an urgency about the situation that was far more important than any concern about legalistic obedience to laws- be they real or imagined.</p><p><em>Will not grab hold of it</em>-</p><p> This apparently unnecessary detail is included because the same word is used about the Lord's touching or grasping of people before He healed them (<em><a href='B:470 9:25'>Mat 9:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:31'>Mar 1:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:41'>Mar 5:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:27'>Mar 9:27</a></em>). As they would urgently lay hold upon a lost sheep and lift it out of a pit, so the Lord laid hold upon people and healed them. Reflect on how the Lord 'took hold' of people before healing them. This feature of the miracles demonstrated His desire to fully take hold of our human experiences, thereby identifying Himself with us- and on that basis, healing us. The same idea, although a different word, is to be found in the language of <em><a href='B:650 2:16'>Heb 2:16</a></em>, speaking of the Lord Jesus taking hold upon humanity by having our nature.</p><p><em>And lift it out?</em>-</p><p> The same word is used for people 'rising up' after being healed by the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 8:15'>Mat 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:5-6'>Mat 9:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:25'>Mat 9:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:5'>Mat 11:5</a></em>):&nbsp; Jewish people would’ve thought of the rescue of Joseph and Jeremiah from pits. The healing of this man, like so many of the healing miracles, had a spiritual intention- it was in order to save him from the pit of death. We saw on 11:20 that the purpose of the miracles was to lead people to repentance, not simply to alleviate human need for the sake of it.</p>


text:
<p>12:12&nbsp;<em>How much then is a man of more value than a sheep!-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord favourably compares men to animals (to birds, <em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>; sparrows, <em><a href='B:470 10:31'>Mat 10:31</a></em>; and again in <em><a href='B:490 12:7'>Luk 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:24'>Luk 12:24</a></em>). Whilst in the manner of our death we are as "the beasts of the field", the Lord seems to be at pains to ensure we realize the value and meaning of the human person, made as we are in God's image. If we treat people as animals, we have failed to perceive something of God which is uniquely in humanity:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Therefore</em>-</p><p> Again, the Lord doesn't base His argument around the obvious misunderstanding of the Law which the Pharisees had. He avoids a tit-for-tat expositional battle over semantics by introducing higher principles- the sheer value and need of the human person transcends any issue of legalistic obedience to any law, be it God's laws or the interpretation of them. This is a principle which legalistic churches need to bear in mind to this day in their decision making.</p><p><em>It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day</em>-</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>12:13&nbsp;<em>Then said he to the man: Stretch out your hand-</em></p><p>&nbsp;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;</p><p><em>And he stretched it out and it was restored whole, as the other-</em></p><p>&nbsp;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>12:14&nbsp;<em>But-&nbsp;</em>AV "then":&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 His goodness 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><p><em>The Pharisees went out</em>-</p><p> Again, an emphasis on physical movement. We imagine Matthew's camera covering their departure from the synagogue.</p><p><em>And took counsel against him, how they might destroy him</em>-</p><p> S:w. "a consultation". Nothing formal is necessarily implied by the word. Perhaps we are to imagine them gathering in a tight circle somewhere outside the synagogue.</p>


text:
<p>12:15&nbsp;<em>And Jesus perceiving it-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Were there sympathizers for Jesus within the Pharisees who told Him this? Or is this another case of Him perceiving the minds of men?</p><p><em>Withdrew from there; and many followed him and he healed them all</em>-</p><p> Several times we read of the Lord withdrawing from the public, or at least trying to (<em><a href='B:470 4:12'>Mat 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:13'>Mat 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:21'>Mat 15:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:7'>Mar 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>). We get the impression that He made public appearances, did some healing and teaching, and then 'withdrew'. The Gospel records focus much on the last week and months of His ministry. The first three years has relatively little recorded- but there is a lot of information about some very long, action packed days. We can assume too easily that these recorded days were typical. But perhaps they were not. There are probably no more than 20 days' events recorded- out of the three and a half years of the Lord's ministry. One possibility is that the rest of the time, or much of it, He spent simply teaching the disciples. If the Lord maintained the same tempo and intensity of His recorded activity throughout the three and a half years, it surely would've been almost impossible to have avoided His being propelled to political power by the masses. This suggestion of limited public activity makes better sense of the note we made on <em><a href='B:470 11:20'>Mat 11:20</a></em>, that the majority of His miracles were performed in three small villages in Galilee. That also must provide some context to the comment here that He healed 'all' the multitudes on this occasion; He healed 'all' amongst the crowds who were in need of healing, not every member of the crowd.</p><p>Mark adds that the Lord withdrew grieving for their hard hearts. The way the Lord didn’t just ignore the Jewish leaders, as we might ignore trouble makers at a public meeting or correspondence course students who ask endless questions... this is really quite something. He grieved for the hardness of their hearts (<em><a href='B:480 3:5'>Mar 3:5</a></em>), and finally broke down and wept over Jerusalem, in an agony of soul that they would not respond. The apparently foolish catch questions of <em><a href='B:480 3:21-29'>Mar 3:21-29</a></em> are answered in some depth by the Lord, and He concludes with pointing out that they are putting themselves “<em>in danger&nbsp;</em>of eternal damnation” (although, notice, not yet condemned). One senses the urgency with which He put it to them. He was angry [i:e. frustrated?], “being grieved for the blindness of their hearts” (<em><a href='B:480 3:5'>Mar 3:5</a></em>). Are we just indifferent or evenly smugly happy that men are so blind…? Or do we grieve about it to the point of angry frustration? Remember how Moses and Paul would fain have given their eternal life for the conversion of Israel, this is how they felt for them.</p>


text:
<p>12:16&nbsp;<em>And charged them that they should not make him known</em>-</p><p> It was predicted of the Lord’s preaching that He would not “strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice [raised up in this way] in the streets”. And for this reason He asked His converts not to “make him known” in this way; He wanted them to witness&nbsp;<em>as He witnessed</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 12:16'>Mat 12:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:19'>Mat 12:19</a></em>). This is quite something, the more we reflect upon it. He rebuked the self-righteous, restored peoples’ dignity, alleviated their poverty and sicknesses to give them a foretaste of the future blessings of His Kingdom on earth, opposed legalistic and corrupt religious practices, and ultimately gave His life to show that even His enemies were encompassed in His love. This is the pattern for us, especially in our seeking to do these things in the lives of those who respond to the Gospel.</p><p>But the same words (“<em>make Him known</em>”) are used about how later, He was made known by the church (<em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:10'>1Jn 3:10</a></em>). It could well be that as so often with Semitic languages, we must read in an ellipsis- 'Not make Him known [immediately, right then, at that time]'. The implication could be that they were indeed to make Him known- but later. The great commission, to take the knowledge of Christ to all men everywhere, could then be comfortably read in this context; the commission signalled the end of the relative silence which the Lord called for. In line with our comments on how and why the Lord withdrew Himself from the crowds in the preceding verse (:15), it would seem that the Lord was constantly concerned on a practical level that His ministry would be badly impaired if the masses of Palestine rose up out of His control and made Him King. He wanted above all to teach and personally model the Kingdom, and being at the centre of a political uprising thrusting Him forward would not enable that:&nbsp;<em>Phaneros</em>, "known", is only elsewhere used in Matthew in the Lord's teaching about what would happen "openly" (s:w:) at the establishment of the Kingdom at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 6:4'>Mat 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:18'>Mat 6:18</a></em>). The Lord didn't want them trying to establish the Kingdom there and then in their own strength, and especially whilst so seriously misunderstanding the nature and essence of the Kingdom- for they still thought it was all about military victory against Rome. So it could be that the idea of 'to make known' may mean far more than 'Don't tell anyone'; it was psychologically impossible to expect that multitudes of people who had seen healings would literally not breathe a word to anyone else. It was obvious that healings had been done- people came home healed. To 'not make known' doesn't have to mean 'Don't tell a word of this to anyone', indeed the Lord's parables and other teachings suggest that such telling of others is an inevitable part of response to Him. I suggest it means more of the flavour of 'Don't declare Me publicly as King'.</p>


text:
<p>12:17&nbsp;<em>That it might be fulfilled-</em></p><p>&nbsp;This is often stated as the reason why the Lord did and said things. He was consciously seeking to be 'the word made flesh' and consciously tried to fulfil the Old Testament prophecies. Despite strong resistance to this idea by some expositors, Harry Whittaker particularly, it seems to me the most natural understanding of the phrase and the force of the word "That...":&nbsp;</p><p><em>Which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying</em>-</p><p> The implication could be that Isaiah publicly spoke these words, directing Israel's attention to a "servant" figure of his own time, who all the same failed to be Messianic as intended, meaning that the prophecy had its fulfilment reapplied in Jesus. Or perhaps it was because the Lord was addressing people who had largely only&nbsp;<em>heard</em>&nbsp;Isaiah being read. Literacy was only a few percent in first century Palestine, and nobody had the Old Testament scrolls at home. Therefore the Lord speaks in terms of Isaiah&nbsp;<em>speaking</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>saying</em>, rather than writing and us reading:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:18<em>&nbsp;Look at My servant whom I have chosen, My beloved in whom My soul is well pleased. I will put My Spirit upon him-&nbsp;</em>The focus was to be upon beholding Jesus personally, and not listening to endless tales of miracles, inevitably exaggerated as they were passed around. If this is the reason for the quotation, then the stress would be upon&nbsp;<em>beholding</em>&nbsp;Him, appreciating Him, rather than seeking to get temporal benefit from His healing miracles:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord didn't want the crowds getting so maxed out on His miracles and other physicalities that they paid no attention to His message; for the purpose of His being amongst men was primarily to "show justice". And that justice was to be shown to&nbsp;<em>Gentiles</em>-</p><p> they were to be shown justice and salvation, not slain so that a Kingdom of God open to Jews only could be established upon Gentile corpses. This was the kind of false view of the Kingdom which the Lord didn't hold and didn't want given credibility by associating Himself and His miracles with it. But&nbsp;<em>krisis</em>, translated "justice", can also mean judgment in the sense of future judgment to come. Yet these same Gentiles who were to be shown (according to that reading) judgment to come, were to be given the opportunity to trust in the Messiah's Name (:21). And justice [s:w:] was to be "cast out" in victory- i:e. victory against judgment. In Christ, mercy was to triumph against judgment, rejoicing against it as if after a bitter contest which was won by mercy (<em><a href='B:660 2:13'>Jas 2:13</a></em>). But to appreciate that good news, the Gentiles firstly had to realize what "judgment" really was. These were the things the Lord wanted to teach, but to get the points over, He needed the crowds to not be so hyped up by His miracles and to stop all talk of establishing a political Kingdom at that time:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord's showing judgment to the Gentiles and not publicly striving or crying in his preaching (<em><a href='B:470 12:18-21'>Mat 12:18-21</a></em>) primarily fulfilled the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 42:1-3'>Isa 42:1-3</a></em>. Note how His gentle, low pressure attitude to preaching will be the same in the Kingdom as it was in the first century. In the same way <em><a href='B:290 54:13'>Isa 54:13</a></em> concerning the future preaching of the Gospel in the Kingdom is quoted about Christ in <em><a href='B:500 6:45'>Joh 6:45</a></em>.</p><p>As in :21, the purpose of the healing was to show something to the Gentiles. But there were no Gentiles mentioned as being in the audience. Are we to infer that there were some present? More likely, as this whole incident occurred in a Jewish synagogue (:9), the Lord’s point was that the unbelieving amongst God’s people are no better than Gentiles. The Lord's miracles showed forth God's judgment principles; in them He showed judgment to the Gentiles, and sent forth God's judgments (<em><a href='B:470 12:18-20'>Mat 12:18-20</a></em> quotes <em><a href='B:290 42:1-3'>Isa 42:1-3</a></em> concerning how the Lord will do this at the events of the second coming).</p>


text:
<p>12:19<em>&nbsp;He shall not strive, nor cry aloud, neither shall anyone hear his voice in the streets-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:290 42:1-2'>Isa 42:1-2</a></em> concerning Christ's witness to the&nbsp;<em>Gentiles</em>&nbsp;is quoted in <em><a href='B:470 12:19'>Mat 12:19</a></em> regarding His witness to an apostate Israel. Those among God's people who break their covenant with Him, He sees as the world. Israel were to be made like “the top of a rock” just as Gentile Tyre would be (<em><a href='B:330 24:7'>Eze 24:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 26:4'>Eze 26:4</a></em>). “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers”, the Lord said to Israel (<em><a href='B:470 23:32'>Mat 23:32</a></em>)- yet He was alluding to how the Gentile Amorites filled up the cup of God’s judgments and then had to drink it. Pharaoh's heart was hardened to bring about God's glory, but Paul uses the very same language, in the same context, to describe what was happening to an apostate, Egypt-like Israel (<em><a href='B:520 9:17'>Rom 9:17</a></em>). Korah and his company were swallowed by the earth, using the very language which Moses so recently had applied to how the Egyptians were swallowed by the earth at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 15:12'>Exo 15:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>Not strive-</em></p><p>&nbsp;This is quoted from the servant song of Isaiah 42, and the Lord is applying it to all those who follow Him. If&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;is not to strive or clamour in the streets, then neither are those who follow Him to do so. For all that is true of Him is true of them. Paul makes the same point in stating that "the servant of the Lord must not strive" (<em><a href='B:620 2:24'>2Ti 2:24</a></em>). The "servant" is ultimately the Messianic servant of Isaiah's servant songs, but the point is that all that is true of that Servant is true of all those in Him.</p><p><em>The streets-&nbsp;</em>The Lord didn’t shout out in the streets who He was. He wished His followers to follow His example in&nbsp;<em>showing</em>&nbsp;the message to the world just as He did- in who He was (<em><a href='B:470 12:18'>Mat 12:18</a></em>). Christ's instruction to His recent converts not to spread the Gospel in an unseemly way, because it was written about&nbsp;<em>Him personally&nbsp;that</em>&nbsp;“he shall not strive nor cry; neither shall any man hear&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;voice in the streets". In other words, the true preacher of Christ is solidly identified with Him by the very act of preaching. Truly "we are ambassadors for Christ" (<em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>) in our witnessing. His voice is our voice.</p>


text:
<p>12:20&nbsp;<em>A bruised reed he shall not break and a smoking wick he shall not quench</em>-</p><p> The Hebrew words used in <em><a href='B:290 42:3'>Isa 42:3</a></em> suggest this is a reference to the candlestick; the words respectively mean a shaft / stem, and a wick. Little strength, little light (if the reference is to the reed which took oil to the lamps of the candlestick), little heat- but all the same, the Lord seeks to fan it into life rather than walk away in disappointment; and by doing so, sets a challenging example to many of us, whose most frequent complaint is the weak state of the brotherhood's members. If the reference is to a damaged and smoky candlestick, this becomes the more poignant- for the candlestick was a clear symbol of Israel and then of the ecclesias (<em><a href='B:730 1:12-13'>Rev 1:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:1'>Rev 2:1</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>When judgment is finally cast out by mercy at the last day, then the dysfunctional candlestick will be quenched or destroyed in condemnation. Note how the metaphor of quenching a fire is used here for condemnation; but in another metaphor, condemnation is spoken of as the very opposite- unquenchable fire. This is sure proof that we are not to read 'unquenchable fire' as literal.</p><p><em>Until</em>-</p><p> The Lord's patience with the useless candlestick of Israel and the weakness of the ecclesia will be "until" His final victory over judgment. That happened in one sense on the cross, but in another sense it will only happen when death is swallowed up in victory at the day of judgment. Until then, both He and us are to patiently bear with the damaged and dysfunctional ecclesial candlestick. But in that day, those elements of the candlestick which refuse to give light to the house will be "broken", the Greek meaning 'broken in pieces'- the language of condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 21:44'>Mat 21:44</a></em>).</p><p><em>He sends forth judgment to victory-&nbsp;</em>Gk. to cast out, thrust out. See on 12:19&nbsp;<em>show justice</em>. Judgment is cast out&nbsp;<em>eis</em>, "in", victory.</p>


text:
<p>12:21&nbsp;<em>And in his name shall the Gentiles hope</em>-</p><p> Mark's record adds what Matthew strangely omits- that the great crowds whom He charged to not "make Him known" included Gentiles (<em><a href='B:480 3:6-8'>Mar 3:6-8</a></em>). This makes sense of why the Lord healed "all" in the crowd (:15)- the sense is not that He healed every person in the crowd, as not all of them were in need of healing; perhaps rather the stress on "all" is to show that the sick Gentiles who were present were&nbsp;<em>also</em>&nbsp;healed. Note that "In His Name shall the Gentiles trust" is a quotation from the LXX of <em><a href='B:290 42:4'>Isa 42:4</a></em> and not the Masoretic Text, which reads "The isles shall wait for His law". The ready acceptance of the LXX by the inspired NT writers, even preferring it over the Hebrew, has many implications. One of them is that the genealogies as found in the LXX do not support the idea of Adam being 4000 years before Christ, which is essential to those who believe that the six day / thousand year periods ended in 2000 AD and the Millennium must now be established.</p>


text:
<p>12:22&nbsp;<em>Then was brought to him one</em>-</p><p> The Greek is used about bring an offering. We recall how the conversion of individuals is spoken as offering them as a sacrifice in <em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>. Bringing people to the Lord is offering them to Him because they are to present themselves, or be presented, as living sacrifices in His service (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). There may therefore be a connection with the use later in this verse of&nbsp;<em>thereapeuo</em>&nbsp;for "healed", as this word is also translated "worship" in the sense of Divine worship. The Lord had just cured large numbers of people, but then withdrew from them. Now they find Him again and bring just one sick person for healing. The people were "amazed" (:23) at this one healing- whereas the Lord had healed many sick people in :15. We are left with the impression of how deeply "amazed" the crowds must have been, if there was so much amazement at just one cure, there must have been super amazement at the mass healings.</p><p><em>Possessed with a demon, blind and dumb, and he healed him, so much so that the dumb man spoke and saw-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Greek strictly means to be exercised or controlled by a demon. This is the language used at the time for explaining medical situations which today we would diagnose differently. Blindness and deafness are explicable in medical terms. The verse states that the Lord 'healed' the man and therefore, because of that healing, the blindness and deafness left him. The language of healing of persons is not what we would expect if the Lord instead engaged in battle with demonic entities in Heaven or at least, outside of the man.</p>


text:
<p>12:23&nbsp;<em>And all the crowds were amazed, and said</em>-</p><p> See on 12:22&nbsp;<em>brought</em>. This is a strong word, meaning utterly astonished, and even used about madness (<em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:13'>2Co 5:13</a></em>).</p><p><em>Can this be the son of David?-&nbsp;</em>The people made a direct connection between the ability to do miracles and being Messiah. Yet earlier in this commentary I have pointed out that generally the Lord worked with an economy of miracle, and the number of miracles He did appear to have decreased as His ministry progressed. His understanding of <em><a href='B:290 42:1-3'>Isa 42:1-3</a></em> just quoted was that Messiah should be 'beheld', be understood and appreciated on a spiritual level, rather than be a miracle worker whipping up mass support because of that. And yet He appreciated the strong connection in peoples' minds between Messiahship and miracles, and He therefore conceded to this by doing miracles.</p>


text:
<p>12:24&nbsp;<em>But when the Pharisees heard it, they said: This man does not cast out demons but</em>-</p><p> Their comment appears to have been made in very hot blood, for it was logically contradictory to claim that someone who cast out demons must therefore be in league with the prince of the demons; because their own sons (either literally or in the sense of their disciples) claimed to cast out demons (:27). And if Jesus was actually on the side of the prince of demons, why then was he as it were fighting for the other side by casting out demons. Such gaping error in logic was exactly what the Pharisees were constantly careful to avoid; but their intense jealousy of the Lord led them to make this logical error. Again we note that the Lord's style was not so much to directly state the errors of his opponents, but to work on the assumption that their beliefs were correct- and to then follow those beliefs to their logical conclusions, thus showing how those positions contradicted themselves to the point they could not be true. This is one explanation for the use of the language of demons in the Gospels, even though demons don't in fact exist.</p><p><em>By Beelzebub-&nbsp;</em>By the instrumentality of Beelzebub. They were driven to assume that the Lord was in league with some higher power in order to perform His miracles. If it wasn't the Holy Spirit of God- it had to be by some other power, and the only option in their theology was some form of the Satan myth. Their logical desperation is a reflection of the undeniable nature of the Lord's miracles (as in <em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>). Any who claim to be able to do miracles through the Holy Spirit should likewise be producing healings which even their most sceptical opponents cannot deny are miracles; but that feature is not seen in many claims of healings today. When accused of being in league with ‘satan’, the Lord didn’t read them a charge of blasphemy. He reasoned instead that a thief cannot bind a strong man; and likewise He couldn’t bind ‘satan’ unless He were stronger than Satan (cp. <em><a href='B:480 3:23-27'>Mar 3:23-27</a></em>). He doesn’t take the tack that ‘Satan / Beelzebub / demons’ don’t exist; He showed instead that He was evidently stronger than any such being or force, to the point that belief in such a concept was meaningless. Faith must rather be in Him alone.</p><p>The Jews accused the Lord of being in league with the prince of the demons, Beelzebub. His comment was that if the family / house of Satan was so divided, then Satan “has an end” (<em><a href='B:480 3:26'>Mar 3:26</a></em>). His approach was ‘OK you believe in demons, Beelzebub etc. Well if that’s the case, then according to the extension of your logic, Satan will soon come to an end, will cease existence. That’s the bottom line. As it happens, I am indeed ‘binding the strong man’, rendering Satan powerless, making him ‘have an end’, and so whichever way you look at it, believing in demons or not, the bottom line is that My miracles demonstrate that effectively Satan is powerless and not an item now’. The way the New Testament is written reflects the same approach. When the Lord was alone with His disciples, He explained further: “If they have called the Master of the House [i:e. Jesus] ‘Beelzebub’, how much more shall they call them of his household?” [i:e. the disciples] (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>). By saying this, the Lord was clarifying that of course He didn’t&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>mean that He was part of the Satan family, working against Satan to destroy the entire family. Rather was He and His family quite separate from the Satan family. But He didn’t make that clarification to the Jewish crowds – He simply used their idea and reasoned with them on their own terms. Note in passing how the Jews actually thought Jesus was Beelzebub, or Satan. This would be one explanation for their mad passion to kill Him; for those labelled ‘Satan’ were hunted to their death in such societies, as seen later in the witch hunts of the middle ages. The Jews say Jesus as a false miracle worker, a false Messiah, a bogus Son of God – all characteristics of their view of ‘Satan’. Some centuries later, the Jewish sage Maimonides described Jesus in terms of the antichrist: “Daniel had already alluded to him when he presaged the downfall of a wicked one and a heretic among the Jews who would endeavour to destroy the Law, claim prophecy for himself, make pretences to miracles, and allege that he is the Messiah” (<em>Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen</em>). It’s been suggested that the way the Jewish rabbinical writings call Him&nbsp;<em>Yeshu</em>&nbsp;is an acronym for the Hebrew expression&nbsp;<em>yemach shemo vezichro</em>&nbsp;– “May his name and memory be obliterated”). This was the very Jewish definition of Satan. They saw Jesus as Satan himself; hence they were so insistent on slaying Him. Yet by the deft twist of Divine providence, it was through the death of Jesus that the&nbsp;<em>real&nbsp;</em>Devil (i:e. the power of sin) was in fact slain (<em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em>). To those with perceptive enough minds to see it, yet once again the Jewish ideas had been turned back upon them to reveal the real nature of the Devil to them, within their own frames of reference and terminology. Likewise Beelzebub means literally ‘the lord of the house’; and the Lord Jesus alludes to this in describing Himself as the Master of the House of God:&nbsp;</p><p>Judaism had taken over the surrounding pagan notion of a personal ‘Satan’. And the Lord Jesus and the Gospel writers use this term, but in the way they use it, they redefine it. The parable of the Lord Jesus binding the “strong man” – the Devil – was really to show that the “Devil” as they understood it was now no more, and his supposed Kingdom now taken over by that of Christ. The last Gospel, John, doesn’t use the term in the way the earlier Gospels do. He defines what the earlier writers called “the Devil” as actual people, such as the Jews or the brothers of Jesus, in their articulation of an adversarial [‘satanic’] position to Jesus.</p><p><em>The Prince of the demons</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Archon</em>, "the first", would imply that Beelzebub was also a demon, the "first" or leading one. Thus the fallacy of their argument is the more apparent- if Beelzebub really existed, why would he cast out his own fellow demons?</p>


text:
<p>12:25&nbsp;<em>And knowing their thoughts, he said to them-</em></p><p>&nbsp;But they had "said" these things (:24). Perhaps they said these things within their own minds. Or maybe the contrast is to highlight the upcoming teaching that thoughts are as good as words (:34-37). To hear their words was to know their thoughts.</p><p><em>Every kingdom-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Again the Lord accepts their position for one moment as true, and yet takes it forward to its logical implication. If Beelzebub was fighting against his own side, then all the same, Satan's Kingdom was divided against itself and would soon crumble into self-destruction. Therefore what Jesus had done ought to be seen as a presage of Satan's Kingdom ending and, by implication, the soon triumph of God's Kingdom.</p><p><em>Divided against itself</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus framed His parable about Satan's kingdom rising up and being divided against itself in the very language of the Kingdom of Israel being "divided" against itself by Jeroboam's 'rising up' (<em><a href='B:110 12:21'>1Ki 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 13:6'>2Ch 13:6</a></em>)- as if Israel's Kingdom was Satan's kingdom.</p><p><em>Is brought to desolation-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord only uses the Greek word elsewhere with regard to latter day Babylon's destruction as a result of her followers rising up against her (<em><a href='B:730 17:16'>Rev 17:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:19'>Rev 18:19</a></em>). This typically been how God destroyed Israel's enemies in the Old Testament- by them turning upon themselves. It follows another great Biblical theme- that those who ultimately will be condemned are in practice self-condemned and bring about their own condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And every city or house divided against itself shall not stand-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord is teaching that the breakup of a Kingdom, even Satan's, must start on the household level and progress higher. Perhaps this is a hint at the growth of&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;kingdom beginning with the household conversions and house churches with which Christianity started.</p>


text:
<p>12:26&nbsp;<em>And if Satan-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Mark adds that the Lord spoke all this "in parables" (<em><a href='B:480 3:23'>Mar 3:23</a></em>). 'Satan' was a parable and is being used here in a non-literal sense. The Lord reasons with them on their own ground, assuming for a moment that their wrong ideas were true- hence "<em>if</em>&nbsp;Satan...". The one who cast out Satan / demons was of course Jesus personally. Their false logic and theology had led them to label a good man as Satan just because He did a good work of healing. So quickly, false logic and theology drives jealous people along a path of demonization, negative labelling of others and religious hatred:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Casts out Satan-</em></p><p>&nbsp;But the argument is about casting out of&nbsp;<em>demons</em>&nbsp;(:27). One thing we learn from this use of language is that beliefs about 'Satan', demons and the casting out of demons were very vague and poorly defined. And that is how it is to this day with those who believe in the literal existence of 'Satan' and demons. When pressed for definition and a more connected theology, they flounder.</p><p><em>He is divided against himself. How then shall his kingdom stand?-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:330 17:14'>Eze 17:14</a></em> uses this language about how Old Testament kingdom of Judah no longer 'stood' because of their disobedience. The true Kingdom of God would 'stand' for ever (<em><a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a></em>). The Lord may be hinting that Israel was no longer God's Kingdom and was in fact therefore Satan's kingdom- for the true Kingdom of God would always stand. It is Satan's Kingdom which falls, not God's.</p>


text:
<p>12:27&nbsp;<em>And if I</em>-</p><p> Three times in succession the Lord uses the "if... " clause. Logic and consequence of position is therefore significant to Him. If it were not, it would totally not matter what we believed about anything.</p><p><em>By Beelzebub-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a></em> clearly tells us that Beelzebub was a false god of the Philistines. Jesus did not say, ‘Now look, <em><a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a></em> says Beelzebub was a false god, so your accusation cannot be true’. No, He spoke as if Beelzebub existed, because He was interested in getting His message through to His audience. So in the same way Jesus talked about casting out demons – He did not keep saying, ‘actually, they do not exist’, He just preached the Gospel in the language of the day.</p><p><em>Cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?</em>-</p><p> The miracles claimed by the Jews would've compared poorly with the Lord's, rather like the attempts by the Egyptian magicians to imitate the miracles of Moses. The Lord never makes that point directly. He accepts that these people claimed to 'cast out demons' and reasons as if that is true- in order to clinch the greater point, that their whole belief system was deeply flawed. It seems to me that this is one reason why the NT writers go along with the idea of demons- to demonstrate by colossal implication that either they do not exist, or they are utterly powerless.</p><p><em>Therefore shall they be your judges-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Their own sons who had claimed to do miracles would be presented at the day of judgment when their lives were examined. The point would be made that they had condemned Jesus for something which their own sons did, and yet they had not condemned&nbsp;<em>them</em>, and therefore they would be condemned / judged at the hands of their own sons. Likewise the Lord reasoned that the presence of the Queen of Sheba at judgment day would be a condemnation for some in first century Israel (<em><a href='B:470 12:42'>Mat 12:42</a></em>). Judgment day will not be a mere yes / no encounter. Our lives will be laid bare, specific incidents raised and the implications of them discussed, with the persons involved or implicated standing there giving testimony; or at least, this is how it shall be for the rejected. There is a colossal importance to life and living, to justice, to the implications of actions. It’s no good just shrugging and hoping for the best, allowing the passage of time to work a kind of pseudo-atonement, whereby we forget the implications of our actions.</p><p>The fact the Pharisees' children cast out demons condemned the Pharisees. Noah's very example was a condemnation of his world (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>); the very existence of believing Gentiles judges the Jews as condemned (<em><a href='B:520 2:27'>Rom 2:27</a></em>); and the very existence of the repentant Ninevites condemned first century Israel (<em><a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a></em>). The faithful preaching of the Corinthians would judge an unbeliever (<em><a href='B:530 14:24'>1Co 14:24</a></em>). Noah's very act of righteousness in building the ark condemned / judged those who saw it and didn't respond (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). This is why the rejected will be shamed before the accepted; they will bow in shame at their feet (<em><a href='B:730 3:9'>Rev 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). Perhaps it is in this sense that "we shall judge angels" (<em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>)- rejected ecclesial elders, cp. the angels of the churches in Revelation 2, 3? The point is, men's behaviour and conduct judges others because of the contrast it throws upon them. And this was supremely true of the Lord. No wonder in the naked shame and glory of the cross lay the supreme "judgment of this world".</p>


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


text:
<p>12:29&nbsp;<em>Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man and ruin his goods-</em></p><p>&nbsp;'Beelzebub' can mean 'Lord of the house'. The 'strong man' is clearly 'Satan' in the parable the Lord is creating here (<em><a href='B:480 3:23'>Mar 3:23</a></em>). See on :28&nbsp;<em>by the Spirit</em>. And note the allusions to Samson (<em><a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a></em>):&nbsp;The strength of sin, and thereby the extent of the Lord’s victory, is brought out by another unreal element in the Lord’s picture of “a strong man fully armed [guarding] his own court” (<em><a href='B:490 11:21'>Luk 11:21</a></em> RV). This householder is fanatic; he wanders around fully armed to protect his own courtyard and his goods, rather than getting servants or guards to do it. The Lord being “stronger than he” through the cross was therefore indeed strong:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Except he first bind the strong man?-&nbsp;</em>The binding of the strong man was already in process, for the Lord's miracles were proof that his goods were being spoiled and he was powerless to stop it. But the ultimate binding of the enemy was in the Lord's death- and several times the records of the Lord's passion use the word to describe how He was 'bound'. Surely He was encouraged by the intended paradox- that through His binding, the power of sin was being bound. The binding of the strong man in the parable was done by the death of Christ. One of the spoils we have taken from his house is the fact we don't need to keep the Mosaic Law (<em><a href='B:470 12:29'>Mat 12:29</a></em> = <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em>).</p><p>The idea of Christ binding satan (the "strong man"), stealing his goods and sharing them with His followers is a picture of His victory on the cross. It is full of allusion to <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>, which says that on account of the fact that Christ would pour out His soul unto death and bear our sins, "he shall divide the spoil with the strong (Heb: 'those that are bound')”. With the same thought in mind, Paul spoke of how through the cross, Christ "<em>spoiled</em>&nbsp;principalities and powers" (<em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em>). It may be that this is one of many examples of the New Testament writers thinking in a Hebrew way, despite writing in Greek. "Principalities and powers" is perhaps an intensive plural, referring to the&nbsp;<em>great&nbsp;</em>principality and power, i:e. Satan. The way He 'triumphed over them in himself' (Gk. + AVmg:) would certainly make more sense if they referred to the Biblical devil / satan which was overcome within Christ (cp. the language of <em><a href='B:650 2:14-18'>Heb 2:14-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>). <em><a href='B:560 2:15-16'>Eph 2:15-16</a></em> appears to be parallel to <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em>. It speaks of how Christ "abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments... for to make&nbsp;<em>in himself</em>&nbsp;of twain one new man, so making peace; and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby". <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em> speaks of the Lord on the cross as the victorious champion, killing "principalities and powers" and then triumphing over them by sharing their spoils with his soldiers. <em><a href='B:560 2:15'>Eph 2:15</a></em> speaks of Christ on the cross "slaying the enmity" (the Biblical Devil) and achieving peace and reconciliation for all those within His body. Yet in the immediate context, the Lord is offering an explanation of why His miracles proved He was the Messiah. He hadn't yet died on the cross; but He was doing the works which were possible as a result of the binding of Satan which He would then achieve. This is yet another example of the Lord's confidence that He would overcome, and God going along with Him in this. The Lord's miracles were a physical foretaste of the great spiritual blessings which would be made available as a result of the binding of Satan by Christ's death and resurrection.</p><p><em>And then he will ruin his house-&nbsp;</em>AV "Spoil his goods<em>":&nbsp;</em>The same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em> of how the Kingdom of God is being "taken by force" by those entering into it. The "spoils" of Satan are those things which he has taken away; surely the spoils taken from Satan by Christ refer to the righteousness which our nature takes away from us. <em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em> adds another detail to the story. The "armour" of Satan which he depends upon is taken away by Christ on the cross, and then Satan is bound, and his spoils shared out. The armour of Satan is the antithesis of the armour of righteousness (<em><a href='B:560 6:11'>Eph 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:13'>Eph 6:13</a></em>). As the Kingdom of God has a God who dwells in darkness, a Prince, an armour, a Christ, a dominion, a will and spirit, fruits, rewards etc:, so does the kingdom of (the personified) Satan. The armour of righteousness is the fruit of the Spirit, the righteous characteristics of the Spirit. The armour of Satan is the fruits of the flesh nature. These have been taken away by Christ, He has bound Satan, and therefore what Satan has robbed us of, the fruits of righteousness, his spoils, can be taken at will by the Lord Jesus. We have shown that Christ was alluding to <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>, which says that through the cross, Christ divides the spoil with the bound ones, i:e. us. In this lies a paradox. Binding is associated with sin (<em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 1:14'>Lam 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:16'>Luk 13:16</a></em>). We are bound, in many ways, intrinsically limited by our own natures. Only at the second coming will Satan be bound, i:e. the Lord's personal achievement will be physically shared with the world (<em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>). Yet we, the bound ones, are given the goods which the Lord personally took away from the bound Satan. Those goods are the righteous attributes which our natures stop us possessing as we should. The dividing of the spoils to us by the victorious Lord (<em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>) recalls how the Lord divided&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;His goods between His servants (<em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>), the dividing of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the Father's goods between the sons (representing the good and bad believers, <em><a href='B:490 15:12'>Luk 15:12</a></em>).</p><p>We have elsewhere shown that these goods refer to the various aspects of the supreme righteousness of Christ which are divided between the body of Christ. The spoils divided to us by the Lord are the various aspects of righteousness which He took for Himself from Satan. The picture of a bound strong man having his house ransacked before his eyes carries with it the idea of suspense, of daring, of doing something absolutely impossible. And so the idea of Christ really taking the righteousness which the Satan of our very natures denies us, and giving these things to us, is almost too much to believe. It is normally the fellow-soldiers who share the spoils (cp. <em><a href='B:650 7:4'>Heb 7:4</a></em>). But we didn't even fight; the spoils are divided amongst the bound ones (<em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em> Heb:). Satan in general is still unbound (cp. <em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>). Christ bound the Satan within Himself personally, and took the spoils of victory for Himself. <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em> says that Christ "spoiled" as a result of His victory on the cross; and the Greek specifically means 'to completely divest&nbsp;<em>for oneself</em>'. He is being painted as the lone hero who took it all for Himself; of the people there was none with Him in His great battle on the cross (<em><a href='B:290 63:3'>Isa 63:3</a></em>). And indeed, He was the lone hero. But the point is that He has shared with us the spoils of righteousness which He took for Himself as a result, even though we are not worthy to receive them. Seeing the teaching of the Lord is just outline principle, it is evident that through His death He gained possession of absolute righteousness, and then shared this with us. In the first century, the outward demonstration of this was in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. "He led captivity captive (more language of the heroic victor), and gave gifts unto men", the miraculous gifts, in the first century context (<em><a href='B:560 4:8'>Eph 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:11'>Eph 4:11</a></em>). But what was taken away from Satan was not only power over illness. If this was the main meaning of Satan being bound and his spoils shared with us, then it would follow that the effect of Christ's binding of Satan was only in the first century; for those miraculous gifts of the Spirit are no longer available; illness still triumphs over God's people. The spoils of Satan refer to the righteousness which Satan limits and denies. It is this which has been taken from him, and divided to us all as a result of the cross. The miracles of the first century were a physical reflection of this, just as the rending of the temple veil and resurrection of some dead saints was a physical foretaste of the spiritual possibilities opened up by the Lord's death. There are many references to the spiritual blessings which are even now mediated to us (as the whole body of Christ) on account of the Lord's death; we (as a community) are given peace and "eternal life" (<em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:2'>Joh 17:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:11'>1Jn 5:11</a></em>), knowledge (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>), wisdom (<em><a href='B:560 1:17'>Eph 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:15'>Jas 1:15</a></em>), peace (<em><a href='B:600 3:16'>2Th 3:16</a></em>), understanding (<em><a href='B:530 2:12'>1Co 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:7'>2Ti 2:7</a></em>), love in our hearts (<em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>), grace (<em><a href='B:560 4:7'>Eph 4:7</a></em>), comfort (<em><a href='B:600 2:16'>2Th 2:16</a></em>), righteousness (<em><a href='B:520 5:16-17'>Rom 5:16-17</a></em>), confidence (<em><a href='B:620 1:7'>2Ti 1:7</a></em>), sexual self-restraint (<em><a href='B:530 7:7'>1Co 7:7</a></em>). All the different aspects of the 100% righteousness of our Lord,&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;His goods, the spoils He personally took from Satan, are divided up amongst ourselves, some having spiritual possibilities in one area, others in another. As a community we are counted as if we have overcome the world, overcome Satan, as Christ did, although on a human level we are still bound (<em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:690 2:13-14'>1Jn 2:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:4'>1Jn 5:4</a></em>). Only at the day of judgment will we have overcome all (<em><a href='B:730 21:7'>Rev 21:7</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em> s:w:), but we are treated as if we have already done so:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Goods-</em></p><p>&nbsp;If indeed sickness was caused by Satan's power, then the Lord's miracles were a spoiling of his goods. The language here is clearly parabolic- including the reference to 'Satan'. But the miracles were an invitation to others to come and share in the victory the Lord Jesus had won over the 'strong man'; and this provides the context for the 'gathering' of the next verse.</p>


text:
<p>12:30&nbsp;<em>He that is not with Me is against Me</em>-</p><p> The original is memorable- either&nbsp;<em>meta</em>&nbsp;Me, or&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;Me. The Lord is speaking here from&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;perspective. For He Himself observed that Judas 'ate&nbsp;<em>with Me</em>', but lifted up his heel '<em>against</em>&nbsp;Me' (<em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em>). It's simply not so that all those who claim to be with the Lord are therefore with Him and on the same side as we who know we are in truth 'with' Him. He is simply observing an ultimate truth- that finally, there will be (and therefore is not now) any middle position in relation to Him. It's not therefore for us to insist that anyone who claims to be 'with Him' is so merely because they say so. Let His words sink in to you personally: “He who is not with me is against me… he that is not against us is for us” (<em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:40'>Mar 9:40</a></em>). We may think we are not against the Lord’s cause, even if we’re not as committed to it as we might be; many an unbaptized young person has told me this. But to be ‘not against’ Jesus means we must be&nbsp;<em>with Him</em>. Nobody can be passively ‘not against’ Jesus. If we’re not whole heartedly with Him, we’re against Him. That’s how His demanding logic goes. A relationship with Him demands the whole person;&nbsp;<em>you</em>, your very heart and essence.</p><p><em>And he that does not gather with me scatters-</em></p><p>&nbsp;In connection with the gathering of spoil from the strong man's house in :29. There is a tendency to use this verse as a general statement of principle, but the surrounding context is specifically about the Lord's healing miracles being part of the spoil He has plundered from the 'Lord of the house', Beelzebub / Satan. We saw on :28 that people were faced with the choice of accepting the Lord's miracles were performed using either God's power, or Satan's. The whole issue pushed the audience to a crucial choice- of accepting of Jesus as God's special Son, or as Satan. The miracles were proof that the Lord Jesus had bound the power of Satan- the power which people believed was behind illness. If you didn't want to go and gather the spoil, then you were actively scattering it abroad. This hyperbole was used to force all the cautious people who remained undecided to realize that ultimately, there is no such thing as agnosticism. If you are not eagerly gathering the spoil the Lord has now released, then you are actively working against Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:31&nbsp;<em>Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men</em>-</p><p> His simple claim that God can forgive men all sins was radical (see the parallel <em><a href='B:480 3:28'>Mar 3:28</a></em>)- for the Rabbis had a whole list of unforgivable sins, like murder, apostasy, contempt for the Law, etc. But the Lord went further. His many words of judgment weren’t directed to the murderers and whores and Sabbath breakers; they were instead directed against those who condemned those people, considering themselves righteous. He calls those who appeared so righteous a ‘generation of vipers’. The publican, not the Pharisee, finds God’s acceptance, according to Jesus. And again, the Lord is making a telling point- because Rabbis held that repentance for publicans was almost impossible, because it was impossible for them to know exactly all the people they’d cheated. Very clearly, the Lord’s message was radical. He was out to form a holy people from whores and gamblers, no-good boys and conmen. And moreover, He was out to show that what God especially judges and hates are the things that humanity doesn’t think twice about: hypocrisy, self-righteousness, judgmentalism, exclusion of others… See on <em><a href='B:470 10:29'>Mat 10:29</a></em>.</p><p><em>But the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven</em>-</p><p> The exposition offered above suggests that people were forced to a choice. Jesus of Nazareth had access to superhuman power, far more than anyone had ever had. Which power was it, within the framework of their dualistic view of the cosmos- of Satan or God? Was He God's supreme agent on earth- or Satan's? There was no middle ground. All had to choose. The miracles were good. Therefore, it was Satan who had been bound. Jesus was therefore of God. To insist He was from Satan was to wilfully refuse to believe the evidence God had placed before them. There was no forgiveness for this choice- whilst it continued. If anyone wanted to repent and accept that Jesus was of God, to gather with Him, to be with Him rather than against Him- then that was always possible. Note that there is no statement that&nbsp;<em>repentance</em>&nbsp;is impossible, rather that&nbsp;<em>forgiveness</em>&nbsp;is impossible whilst a person is in the position of so strongly rejecting Christ as God's Son. For those who did accept Christ as of God rather than of Satan, then "all manner of sin" could be forgiven them, including even at times speaking against Him personally (:32). From one viewpoint, the only way we cannot be saved is to wilfully refuse to participate in the new covenant. The Lord laboured the point that the "unforgivable sin" was to "blaspheme the Holy Spirit" (<em><a href='B:480 3:28-30'>Mar 3:28-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:31-37'>Mat 12:31-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:10'>Luk 12:10</a></em>). But it's been demonstrated that this is a reference to Jewish writings and traditions such as Jubilees 15:33 "where not circumcising one's child is unforgivable, because it is a declaration that one does not belong to the covenant people".</p>


text:
<p>12:32&nbsp;<em>And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man</em>-</p><p> See on :31. The sin of stating that Jesus was Satan's agent rather than God's could not be forgiven whilst it continued to be the position of a person- although repentance was always possible. For those who had accepted Jesus as God's unique agent, they can be forgiven all manner of failure (:31), including speaking "a word" against Him. Maybe the Lord foresaw the situations in which persecution could be avoided for an apparently few words calling Him accursed. And He, along with Matthew, wanted to assure those who would do this in the weakness of a moment that in fact they had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;blasphemed the Spirit and were not beyond forgiveness. The 'speaking against' is clearly parallel to 'blaspheming'. Blaspheming the name of Jesus was and is required by various anti-Christian regimes such from Judaism through the Roman empire to fundamentalist Islamic states today. Surely the Lord had this in mind. And the encouragement is that this is forgivable. But to decide He is not the Son of God but the embodiment of evil is a situation for which there is no forgiveness because it is wilfully continued in. The Lord has just stated that whoever is not with Him is against Him (:30), but here He foresees a situation when one of those who is ultimately 'with Him' will speak 'against Him'- and yet be forgiven. Because that moment of failure was not the overall position of a man's life. The denials by Peter, replete with curses / blasphemy, would surely be the parade example.</p><p>The “son of man” here could refer to Jesus, but it could just as comfortably mean ‘human beings’. One angle on this passage is to remember that the Gospels were written as a means of preaching to Jewish people at some point after the Lord’s resurrection. The message may be: ‘Whatever sin you committed against Jesus, even to the point of crucifixion, is forgivable. But now the Holy Spirit is witnessing to you through the apostles to repent and accept His forgiveness. If you refuse&nbsp;<em>that</em>, then there will [obviously] be no forgiveness for you’. The Lord foresaw the situation as it would be in the lives of his audience, and that explains His language here.</p><p><em>It shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him</em>-</p><p> Whenever we sin, we are judged by the court of Heaven as deserving condemnation. Yet now is our day of opportunity; the verdict really is given, but we can mercifully change it. Consider the implications of the parallel <em><a href='B:480 3:29'>Mar 3:29</a></em>: "he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness but is in danger of&nbsp;<em>eternal</em>&nbsp;damnation". Not being&nbsp;<em>ever</em>&nbsp;forgiven is paralleled with having&nbsp;<em>eternal&nbsp;</em>damnation. The implication is that when we sin and are unforgiven, we are condemned. But in this life we can be forgiven, and therefore become uncondemned. Abimelech was "but a dead man" for taking Sarah (<em><a href='B:10 20:3'>Gen 20:3</a></em>), as if although he was alive, for that sin he was in God's eyes condemned and dead. But that verdict for that case was changed by his change of the situation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Neither in this age, nor in the age to come</em>-</p><p> This is not suggesting that there is some kind of forgiveness in this world and another kind of forgiveness in the world to come, the Kingdom age. Rather is the simple point being made that the forgiveness granted or not granted now is directly related to "the world to come". The judgment is as it were ongoing now. The positions we adopt now are those we shall eternally hold.</p>


text:
<p>12:33&nbsp;<em>Either make</em>-</p><p> In their interpretation of Jesus they had to see Him as either good or bad, and He urged them to make a choice. The miracles were good fruit- therefore He was good, and working by God's Spirit rather than being an agent of Satan. The fruit of the tree equals the words (as in <em><a href='B:240 12:14'>Pro 12:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 13:2'>Pro 13:2</a></em>); a corrupt man will speak corrupt words. And these will be the basis of his condemnation. By contrast "the fruit of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;lips" should be praise (<em><a href='B:650 13:15'>Heb 13:15</a></em>). "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth" (<em><a href='B:560 4:29'>Eph 4:29</a></em>) refers to this passage- the corrupt fruit is corrupt words. But the idea is that we bear the fruit<em>&nbsp;now</em>-</p><p> our words&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;are our fruit:&nbsp;</p><p><em>The tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree corrupt-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord had taught in the Sermon on the Mount that it was a fundamental principle with Him that true spirituality cannot be hidden; what is within is openly revealed, even in this life. Good fruit means a good tree. His works were the good fruit. The Pharisees were claiming that His fruits, His works, were corrupt, and therefore He was corrupt. The Lord is asking everyone, especially the disciples, to decide one way or the other- either He is a good man doing good works, or an evil man doing evil works. There is no half way position, as He made clear in :30 (“He that is not with Me is against Me”). They were to ‘make’ or consider, decide, about Him one way or the other.</p><p><em>And its fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by its fruit-&nbsp;</em>As so often, the Lord is repeating the principles of His opening manifesto in the Sermon on the Mount (cp. <em><a href='B:470 7:17-18'>Mat 7:17-18</a></em>). The fruit of a man's life reflects who he essentially is; the good fruit of the Lord's miracles was clear proof He was not of Satan but God's Son and supreme agent:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:34&nbsp;<em>You offspring of vipers</em>-</p><p> A clear allusion to the Jews as the seed of the serpent of <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em> who would be the ones who would be in conflict with the seed of the woman, the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>How can you-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Because of the principle that who we are internally is ultimately reflected by our external actions and words (:33), it was impossible that their 'good words' could be sincere because the other fruit of their lives showed they were rotten within. "How can you..."&nbsp; doesn't mean that they could not change. It means that given their present internal condition, they could never speak good things. The 'good word' which the context has in view is the confession that Jesus of Nazareth is God's Son; the evil word was that He was Satan's agent. This wrong judgment of Jesus' identity was because of their evil heart. Their doctrinal mistake was a reflection of their internal fleshly thinking. The Lord said that the Jews were evil, and therefore good things could not come from them (<em><a href='B:470 12:34'>Mat 12:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:17-20'>Mat 7:17-20</a></em>). And yet He also said, presumably with the same audience in mind, that although they were evil, they potentially knew how to give good things, e.g. to their children; and therefore how much could God give them good things if they repented (<em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em>).</p><p><em>Being evil speak good things-</em></p><p>&nbsp;This may be an intensive plural, 'the good thing'. The good thing to be spoken was the confession that Jesus was Son of God. John's Gospel emphasizes this, and <em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em> suggests that a verbal confession of Jesus as Lord was required in the conversion process: "if you shall confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and shall believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation". This confession was likely made at baptism, as in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch. We must ever remember that Matthew's gospel is the transcript of his preaching of the Gospel; it was a missionary document, intended to bring forth the confession that Jesus is Lord and Son of God. This is not to say that the Lord's teaching here does not establish basic principles regarding the connection between thought and speech. It does. But the specific context is of confessing that He is Lord rather than of Satan:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks-</em></p><p>&nbsp;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 (:33).</p>


text:
<p>12:35&nbsp;<em>The good man</em>-</p><p> 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 his good treasure brings forth good things-</em></p><p>&nbsp;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 his evil treasure brings forth</em>-</p><p> The Lord uses the same word to speak of "this evil (AV "wicked") generation" in :45. 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>Evil things</em>-</p><p> The words of blasphemy accusing Jesus of being Satan's agent.</p>


text:
<p>12:36&nbsp;<em>And I say to you, that every idle word that men shall speak-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Gk. lazy, unproductive. At first blush, this seems a strange word to use in the context of explaining that the words of blasphemy the Jews had uttered would be judged at the last day. We expect a word to be used which carries the sense of blasphemy or proactive aggression. Instead, the Lord uses this word for "idle". His point was that what is ultimately wrong with blasphemy is what is wrong with all unspiritual language- it is not creative, not productive, it is a waste of potential resource. We marvel at His insight. Words can be powerful and creative, but we will answer for those which are not. The connection between <em><a href='B:520 14:12'>Rom 14:12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 12:36'>Mat 12:36</a></em> suggests that Paul recognized that we all speak idle words which we will have to give account of at judgment. Therefore, because of our rampant tongue, we will stand in deep need of grace. So therefore, Paul says, you'd&nbsp;better be soft on your brother now, in this life. Every word will be judged (<em><a href='B:470 12:36'>Mat 12:36</a></em>), and in some cases by words we will justified and by our speech we will be condemned. So we must speak as those who will be judged for what we speak (<em><a href='B:660 2:12'>Jas 2:12</a></em>). The man who&nbsp;<em>says&nbsp;</em>to his brother 'Raca' or 'You fool' is in real danger of hell fire (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>). The tongue has the power to cast a man into hell fire (<em><a href='B:660 3:5-6'>Jas 3:5-6</a></em>)- some may be condemned for what they have said, perhaps connecting with how the beast is thrown into the fire of destruction because of his words (<em><a href='B:340 7:11-12'>Dan 7:11-12</a></em>). Thus there is a link between the judgment of the unworthy and that of the world. The process of condemnation will remind the wicked of all their hard words and hard deeds (<em><a href='B:720 1:15'>Jud 1:15</a></em>). Yet now, we can speak words all too easily. Yet we talk and speak as those whose words will be taken into account at the last day. This little selection of passages is powerful- or ought to be. There is reason to think that specific record is kept of incidents, and in some form there will be a 'going through' of them. Thus when self-righteous Jews told their brethren "Stand by yourself, come not near me, for I am holier than you", God comments that "This is written before Me... I will recompense" (<em><a href='B:290 65:5-6'>Isa 65:5-6</a></em>).</p><p><em>They shall give account of it in the day of judgment-</em></p><p>&nbsp;For every idle&nbsp;<em>rhema</em>&nbsp;["word"], men shall give a&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;["account"], another word. We shall have to explain the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, the intention, of idle words. Literally we will have to give a word for a word. This surely suggests that words will be as it were played back to us in that day and we will explain the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;, the intention and inner sense, behind those words. But the Lord of course will know all this anyway. It will be a profound preparation for entry into eternity- to have our idle words played back to us, and our having to give an explanation of what our innermost thought behind them really was. The whole process will elicit self-knowledge to the ultimate extent. The words behind 'give an account' are found elsewhere in NT teaching about judgment. We must give an account of our stewardship of the Lord's goods (<em><a href='B:490 16:2'>Luk 16:2</a></em>), give an account of our moral lives (<em><a href='B:670 4:3-5'>1Pe 4:3-5</a></em>), give an account of those under our spiritual care (<em><a href='B:650 13:17'>Heb 13:17</a></em>); and give an account / logos of our idle words. Without doubt, judgment will not be a mere yes / no decision, nor an awards ceremony. It will be a revelation to ourselves of our motives, the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;behind our words and actions.</p>


text:
<p>12:37&nbsp;<em>For by your words you shall be justified and by your words you shall be condemned-</em></p><p>&nbsp;In the context, the Lord is referring to how their words regarding Him being an agent of Satan would lead to their condemnation. Yet their words had all started from basic jealousy which ran on unbridled. From their own mouth and words men will be judged (<em><a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:100 1:16'>2Sa 1:16</a></em>). The reference may be to Eliphaz (<em><a href='B:220 15:6'>Job 15:6</a></em>): “Your own mouth condemns you, and not I”; or to <em><a href='B:240 18:21'>Pro 18:21</a></em>: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”. And yet perhaps even now, men are justified by their words before the court of Heaven- for 'justify' means to pronounce righteous, and this pronouncement / justification is therefore given even now. "So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it" (<em><a href='B:110 20:40'>1Ki 20:40</a></em>). It could even be that the Lord cites the condemnatory words of the rejected uttered during their lifetimes and leaves these as their condemnation. Woe, therefore, to he or she who has said unrepentantly that they don't want to be in the Kingdom if brother x or sister y are going to be there. The specific words which some have spoken will be the reason for their condemnation. "Their princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue" (<em><a href='B:350 7:16'>Hos 7:16</a></em>)- not so much for their idolatry, their worldliness… but for their uncontrolled and cruel words. By our words we will be acquitted [Gk:] and by our words we will be condemned (<em><a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a></em>)- but it is God who acquits, and therefore nobody but He can condemn us (<em><a href='B:520 8:33'>Rom 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:8'>Isa 50:8</a></em>). Yet how does and how will He do this? Surely on the basis of our acquittal or condemnation of others. The connection in thought surely shows that through our words, we form our own judgment of ourselves, to acquittal or condemnation.</p><p>Our eternal destiny will be&nbsp;<em>ek</em>, from out of, our words. If the Lord had simply meant 'according to, on account of', another word or construction would've been used. The use of&nbsp;<em>ek</em>&nbsp;suggests that the decision on our eternity will not only be on account of our words, but&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;our own words- for it will be&nbsp;<em>out of</em>&nbsp;our own mouths. We think of David's response to Nathan's parable and how his own words were his appropriate judgment. <em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em> is clearest: "Out of [<em>ek</em>] your own mouth will I judge you". The servants&nbsp;<em>thoughts</em>&nbsp;about his Lord are then cited back to him as if they were his spoken&nbsp;<em>words</em>, and he is judged according to those words. There could be no more powerful exhortation as to the significance of spoken words, but the appeal must not be to merely curb the tongue by brute psychological force, but rather to have the new mind and spirit of Christ which simply will not speak words leading to condemnation. The intensity and deeply personal force of the Lord's reasoning was such that that group of Pharisees went silent and brought in another group to raise yet more legalistic and theological issues with Him; but those things were and are to this day simply a way of trying to take the Lord's intense and practical&nbsp;<em>moral</em>&nbsp;pressure off us. It is a common theme that the wicked snare themselves, falling into their own pit, judged by their own words, rather than God specifically snaring them (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 7:15'>Psa 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 9:15'>Psa 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 57:6'>Psa 57:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 26:27'>Pro 26:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 28:10'>Pro 28:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 10:8'>Ecc 10:8</a></em>):&nbsp; From their own mouth and words men will be judged (<em><a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:100 1:16'>2Sa 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 20:40'>1Ki 20:40</a></em>). It could even be that the Lord cites the condemnatory words of the rejected uttered during their lifetimes and leaves these as their condemnation. Woe, therefore, to he or she who has said unrepentantly that they don’t want to be in the Kingdom if brother x or sister y are going to be there. “He that keeps his mouth keeps his life; but he that opens wide his lips [in this life] shall have destruction” at judgment day (<em><a href='B:240 13:3'>Pro 13:3</a></em>). The link between the final verdict and the words we use today is that clear. See on 21:43.</p><p>The words by which men shall be condemned are clear from the context- the words of blasphemy against Jesus, making Him the supreme agent of Satan rather than of God. But this is not to say that a general principle is not also being demonstrated. Words reflect the inner man, the Lord has taught- and so they are a fair index for judgment. This cuts right through the idea that we can harbour evil thoughts and yet cover them in nicespeak. The culture of nicespeak lays revealed for what it is- the Lord is saying that ultimately, our words&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;at some point reflect our thoughts. The whole section began with the explanation in :24,25 that the Jews "said" but Jesus "knew their thoughts". I suggested in the commentary there that perhaps they never actually spoke those words out loud. It is these thoughts for which by which we shall be judged.</p><p>The idea of being "justified" by our words at first sight it could seem that this contradicts Paul's argument for justification by grace alone- and not by the steel willed control of our words. But Romans 1-8 is a unit, and the teaching about justification by grace is on the basis that those in Christ are in a status, "in Christ", under grace- and in that status, the Spirit of God is at work in the human minds of all those who are in that status. And the Lord has made clear here that the words He will judge are those which are a direct reflection of the human heart or spirit:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:38&nbsp;<em>Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Teacher</em>-</p><p> It would seem these were a different group of Pharisees to those with whom the Lord was in engagement earlier in the chapter; they address Him as "Master". They appear at least to be trying a more subtle approach than the previous group. <em><a href='B:480 3:22'>Mar 3:22</a></em> notes that this group had come from Jerusalem.</p><p><em>We would see a sign from you</em>-</p><p> The context of the chapter makes it clear that the Lord had been clearly doing signs / miracles. So maybe the emphasis is on&nbsp;<em>we</em>. They were maybe claiming that they personally had not been present when the signs were done, and now they wanted to see one:&nbsp; But <em><a href='B:490 11:16'>Luk 11:16</a></em> adds the detail that they sought a "sign&nbsp;<em>from Heaven</em>". This continues the issue under debate; the Pharisees accepted that Jesus was doing signs / miracles, but they considered them to be from 'Satan'; the Lord has responded by saying that His good works show He is a good man working on God's behalf, and that they would be called to account at the last day for their blasphemy. But it seems this other group of Pharisees continue in the blasphemous position- their response is to assume that the earlier miracles were signs from 'Satan', but now they give the Lord a chance to do a sign / miracle from God ("Heaven"). They repeated this request later (<em><a href='B:470 16:1'>Mat 16:1</a></em>), and again the Lord answered them with "the sign of the prophet Jonah". It's not necessarily wrong to require a sign- Gideon's example comes to mind. The disciples themselves asked for a sign (<em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>), and the Lord answered them to the effect that there would be "the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven" (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>). "In" Heaven can mean 'by the instrumentality of [Heaven]'. The similarity of words and concepts is so close that there must be some continuity in meaning. It could be that the sign of the Son of Man given by Heaven in the last days is the sign of Jonah- the successful preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles and the resurrection from the dead.</p>


text:
<p>12:39&nbsp;<em>But he answered and said to them: An evil and adulterous generation-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord may have in mind female adultery, alluding to the Old Testament passages which liken Israel to an adulterous wife. The parallel is between self-righteous Jewish society of the first century and sexually immoral but penitent Nineveh of previous centuries:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Seeks after a sign, and there shall no sign be given it</em>-</p><p> The idea could be 'no&nbsp;<em>further</em>&nbsp;sign', as if the Lord was saying that He would do no further dramatic miracles to seek to persuade the Pharisees. In this case, the allusion would be to the Egyptians not believing the signs given them (<em><a href='B:20 4:9'>Exo 4:9</a></em>), resulting in their final destruction. Unbelieving Israel are no better than Egypt / the world, and will "be condemned with the world". Note that here as often we have to read in an ellipsis: 'No&nbsp;<em>more</em>&nbsp;sign'. For He had been doing signs / miracles in abundance. Or perhaps, seeing that He did continue doing miracles: 'No sign&nbsp;<em>greater than</em>&nbsp;[that of Jonah]'.</p><p><em>Except the sign of Jonah the prophet-&nbsp;</em>The ‘resurrected’ Jonah was a type of the Lord- and he was a ‘sign’ to the Ninevites presumably in that he still bore in his body the marks of a man who had been three days within a fish. It could be that the fish beached itself, and vomited Jonah out of its stomach in its death throes (this is how beached whales meet their end). In this case, the fish would have drawn the attention of the local population, as would have the man with bleached hair and strange skin who walked away from it. We too as witnesses of Christ will have something about us that is unintentionally striking in the eyes of those with whom we mix. There was no human chance that Jonah would be listened to when he came to preach judgment against Nineveh. Some guy standing on the edge of town, saying ‘You’re all gonna be destroyed’. People would have laughed, ignored him, or told him to shut up. But there was something about him that was gripping and arresting. He was living proof that the judgment of God is real, and that His mercy is just as real. Presumably Jonah must have said far more than “Nineveh is going to be destroyed”.</p><p>It is a worthwhile speculation that for Jonah to be a sign to the Ninevites by reason of being three days in the whale (<em><a href='B:470 12:38-40'>Mat 12:38-40</a></em>), he must have borne in his body the marks of his experience for all to see, as our Lord did. Being inside the fish for that period may have made his flesh change colour or bear some other physical mark so that he could be a sign to them of what had happened. Doubtless he recounted his story to them- so that they were encouraged by the fact of God's love to the resurrected Jonah to repent and likewise throw themselves on God's mercy. In all this we see Jonah as a type of Christ. They would have looked upon that man as we look upon Jesus, to see the love of God manifested in him; they responded by repenting in sackcloth, casting off their materialism, and living in a way that showed their complete belief that " the judge stands before the door”. What is our response to Jonah/Jesus?&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:40&nbsp;<em>For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth</em>-</p><p> Matthew’s Gospel doesn’t seem to teach a literal 72 hours for Jesus in the grave. But a ‘day’ can mean ‘part of a day’- as in <em><a href='B:110 20:29'>1Ki 20:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:190 4:16'>Est 4:16</a></em> to <em><a href='B:190 5:1'>Est 5:1</a></em>. The term is surely used to highlight the connection with Jonah’s experience.</p><p>As Jonah was three days in the whale and then came up out of it to preach to the Gentiles, so the Lord would be three days in the grave and then would rise- as a sign to the Jews. But how was His resurrection a sign to them, seeing they never saw His risen body? Yet the Lord’s reasoning demands that His resurrection be a sign to them, just as tangible as the re-appearance of the drowned Jonah. But, the Jews never saw Him after the resurrection…? The resolution must be that in the preaching of the risen Jesus by those in Him, it was as if the Jews saw Him, risen and standing as a sign before them, every bit as real as the Jonah who emerged from the whale after three days.</p>


text:
<p>12:41&nbsp;<em>The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation and shall</em>-</p><p> Again we must read in an ellipsis, ‘[the people of] this generation’. For individuals and not entire generations will be judged. 'Standing up' is possibly an allusion to the resurrection of the responsible at the last day, but more likely the figure is of a judge arising in judgment to state the verdict; which in this case, is condemnation. The Lord in :27 has spoken of how the children of the Jews would judge those Jews in the last day. The Lord clearly seems to envisage the judgment process as having a public dimension to it. The fact one person was spiritually responsive, given a similar or harder set of circumstances than what another has had who did not respond, will therefore as it were be the judgment of the person who didn’t respond. It clearly won’t be merely an awards ceremony nor a yes / no decision, but rather will context and precedent from others be taken into account. ‘If&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;responded and&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;did not, given similar circumstances, then&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;will condemn&nbsp;<em>you</em>’- that seems to be the Lord’s reasoning.</p><p><em>Condemn it</em>-</p><p> The truly righteous among the remnant "shall tread down the wicked... (as) ashes under the soles of your feet" (<em><a href='B:460 4:3'>Mal 4:3</a></em>). "The wicked" are those of <em><a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 4:1'>Mal 4:1</a></em> - the unspiritual element amongst the latter-day Jewish 'remnant' in Jerusalem:&nbsp;This implies that in some way the spiritual Jews acceptable to Jesus will mete out judgment on the rejected ones:&nbsp;Perhaps in similar fashion the men of Nineveh will condemn the first century Jews at the judgment, and we will judge Angels (<em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>):&nbsp;In this way the righteous remnant shall " discern (judge) between the righteous and the wicked" (<em><a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a></em>). The men of&nbsp;Nineveh will condemn first century Israel, just as the folly of the rejected will be made manifest unto all men (<em><a href='B:620 3:9'>2Ti 3:9</a></em>). This is not so as to simply humiliate the rejected. It is so that the faithful&nbsp;<em>learn&nbsp;</em>something too. This was all foreshadowed in the way that Israel experienced their judgments in the sight of the nations, so that God's principles would be taught even to the Gentile world (<em><a href='B:330 5:8'>Eze 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 5:15'>Eze 5:15</a></em>). Indeed, the idea of God executing judgment on His people&nbsp;<em>in the sight</em>&nbsp;of others is quite common (e.g. <em><a href='B:330 5:8'>Eze 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:41'>Eze 16:41</a></em>). But we can learn the principles of God's judgments right now, from His word.</p><p><em>For they repented-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord is going to soon claim that initially the people had responded to John’s message- the demon had been as it were cast out and the house of Israel left swept and cleaned (:43,44). But both John and Jesus appealed for repentance, in the very same words: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (<em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:17'>Mat 4:17</a></em>). But they had not really repented; they had responded to a religious message but not really repented. And the challenge comes down to us- as to whether our repentance, along with any spiritual act, is indeed the real thing or a mere appearance.</p><p><em>At the preaching of Jonah; and, behold, one greater than Jonah is here!-</em></p><p>&nbsp;This effectively is a noun, referring to "the preaching" as in the message of Jonah. What he preached was judgment to come, and the Ninevites repented on hearing it. The Lord was teaching not only judgment to come, but was making specific the call to repentance implicit within that message, and urging people to accept God's grace. Hence those who heard Him were even more guilty before the Ninevites. Jonah's preaching occurred&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;he had been three days within the whale; after the Lord had been three days in the earth, He too would preach mightily, through the ministry of those 'in Him' who were effectively His representatives and appealed on His behalf. But He reasons as if that appeal was already being made- as if in essence He had already passed through the cross and resurrection. This is not the only time He reasons in this way; in proclaiming Himself Lord, the serpent lifted up on the pole, the One who had already "overcome the world", He reasoned as if the successful outcome of His death had already occurred. Such was His faith that He would come forth triumphant.</p>


text:
<p>12:42&nbsp;<em>The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment</em>-</p><p> “Rise up” translates&nbsp;<em>egeiro</em>&nbsp;whereas “rise up” in :41 translates&nbsp;<em>anistemi</em>. The Ninevites will “rise in judgment”, as a judge arises to pronounce a verdict; whereas the Queen of the South arises “in&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;judgment”, with the article. The difference may be because the Queen of the South is being portrayed as being resurrected along with the people of the Lord’s generation. The reference is perhaps more to resurrection than to arising in judgment.</p><p><em>With this generation and shall condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, one greater than Solomon is here!-</em></p><p>&nbsp;If Sheba is at the very end of 'the earth', we have another confirmation that the 'earth' or land in Scripture often refers to the land promised to Abraham, and not the entire planet. The point is that she made a huge effort to come to hear Divine truth, whereas Christ as "the wisdom of God" stood before their eyes and they refused to believe and repent. The parallel is between the Queen of Sheba and the Ninevites, who repented. We may be able to infer that she likewise repented upon hearing Solomon's wisdom. The whole theme in this section is of the need to make an abiding repentance upon hearing God's Truth as spoken by His Son.</p>


text:
<p>12:43<em>&nbsp;When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none-&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>The ministry of the Lord Jesus was a follow up to that of John the Baptist, and that theme is never far from us in Matthew's Gospel. The unclean spirit was cast out of Israel due to their surface level response to John's preaching- this was the sweeping of the house. But it returned and that generation became more evil than before. This lays the basis for the parable of the sower, which was told the same day (13:1)- the seed initially experienced some growth, but then the 'evil one', the Jewish system, stunted that growth.</p><p>Demons supposedly didn’t like water (as in <em><a href='B:470 8:28-34'>Mat 8:28-34</a></em>). Again we find the Lord using the language of the day without correcting it. The reference is also to the Jews going into the wilderness to hear John’s preaching.</p><p>The Lord has just given an invitation to come to&nbsp;<em>Him</em>&nbsp;and find "rest" (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em> s:w:). Hebrews may allude here when suggesting that Moses and Joshua could not give Israel "rest", only Messiah could (<em><a href='B:650 4:8-10'>Heb 4:8-10</a></em>). John's work gave Israel a desire for this "rest" and pointed them to Jesus as the One who could give it- but they were refusing to take it. And so the (parabolic) unclean spirit was returning to the house of Israel and would make them worse than before.</p>


text:
<p>12:44&nbsp;<em>Then it says: I will return-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Greek word is elsewhere translated to convert (<em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em>). Israel's rejection of Jesus was effectively a re-conversion away from John's message. The same word is used of how John was to convert Israel to their God (<em><a href='B:490 1:16-17'>Luk 1:16-17</a></em>).</p><p><em>To my house from which I came out</em>-</p><p> The same word is used thrice about that generation going out into the wilderness to hear John (<em><a href='B:470 11:7-9'>Mat 11:7-9</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order</em>-</p><p> The only other usage of the word "swept" is in the Lord’s self-description of His ‘sweeping’ the house of Israel in order to find the lost (<em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>). The house of Israel had been swept- but the nation had not been ‘found’ because they would not come to Jesus in repentance.</p>


text:
<p>12:45&nbsp;<em>Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation</em>-</p><p> “State” is an addition from the translators. “The last” was the state of condemnation which that generation ended up in. The Lord’s comments that the first would be “last” (<em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>) could therefore be taken as a reference to the final condemnation of the Jewish religious leadership, “the first”. However, “the last”, the&nbsp;<em>eschatos</em>, could refer to their status at the judgment of the last day. But the essence of judgment is now, and the Lord saw them as already in that state. It “<em>is</em>&nbsp;worse” and yet thus ‘it&nbsp;<em>shall&nbsp;</em>be’ for that generation.</p>


text:
<p>12:46&nbsp;<em>While he was yet speaking to the crowds-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The same word for "speaking" is used later in the verse, in reporting that His mother and brothers wished to talk / speak with Him. The impression is given that He was talking, but they wanted to talk to Him rather than to listen.</p><p><em>His mother and his relatives stood outside, seeking to speak to him</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 12:46-50'>Mat 12:46-50</a></em> five times repeats the phrase “his mother and his brethren”, as if to link her with them. In the parallel <em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:31-35'>Mar 3:31-35</a></em> we read of how “his own” family thought He was crazy and came to talk to Him. Then we read that it was His mother and brothers who demanded an audience with Him, perhaps linking Mary with her other children. Their cynicism of Jesus, their lack of perception of Him, came to influence her- for He effectively rebuffs her special claims upon Him by saying that His mother and brethren are all who hear God’s word. Clearly the brothers, who didn’t believe in Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 7:5'>Joh 7:5</a></em>) influenced her. When He speaks of how His real family are those who hear the word of God and do it, the Lord is alluding to <em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>, where we have the commendation of Levi for refusing to recognize his apostate brethren at the time of the golden calf: “Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren… for they [Levi] have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant”. The last sentence is&nbsp;the essence of the Lord’s saying that His true family are those who keep God’s word and do it. The strong implication of the allusion is that the Lord felt that His mother and brethren had committed some kind of apostasy. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:47&nbsp;<em>And someone said to him: Look, your mother and your relatives wait outside, wanting to speak to you</em>-</p><p> Note how in the parallel <em><a href='B:480 3:32'>Mar 3:32</a></em> we read that “thy mother and brethren seek for thee”, and in <em><a href='B:480 1:37'>Mar 1:37</a></em> the same word occurred: “all men seek for thee"; and also in <em><a href='B:490 2:45'>Luk 2:45</a></em>, of how Mary sought for Jesus. The similarity is such that the intention may be to show us how Mary had been influenced by the world's perception of Him. And we too can be influenced by the world’s light hearted view of the Lord of glory. It’s so easy to allow their patterns of language use to lead us into blaspheming, taking His Name in vain, seeing His religion as just a hobby, a social activity…&nbsp; In passing, it was not that the Lord was insensitive or discounted her. It is in <em><a href='B:470 12:46'>Mat 12:46</a></em> that Mary wanted to speak with Him, and presumably she did- but then He goes to His home town, back to where she had come from (<em><a href='B:470 13:54'>Mat 13:54</a></em>), as if He did in fact pay her attention.</p>


text:
<p>12:48&nbsp;<em>But he answered and said to him that told him: Who is my mother? And who are my relatives?-</em></p><p>&nbsp;These terms are repeated three times in :48-50. In a fiercely family based society, such radical redefinition of family was remarkable, and the Lord was labouring His radical point lest there be any misunderstanding. He was creating a new family, based around hearing and doing His Father's will; there was a new Father, God, and those who did His will were His children. The nature of the scene portrayed here seems to suggest that in His case, as in so many others afterwards, the new spiritual family was separate from the family of origin; for they were here outside the house. And we must bear in mind that 'house' meant not only a building but a family. This gives new meaning to the way that Paul and James (especially James) so love to address their brethren as "my brothers" (<em><a href='B:660 1:2'>Jas 1:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:16'>Jas 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:19'>Jas 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:14'>Jas 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 3:1'>Jas 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 3:10'>Jas 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 3:12'>Jas 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:10'>Jas 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em>). Their brethren in Christ were really their new family. And it should be the same for us. The divided state of the body of Christ today is surely a result of over-familiar, over-privileged believers failing to grasp the wonder of the fact that others have come into the family by conversion into Christ. In believing communities comprised of first generation converts, there is generally a far greater sense of brotherhood.</p>


text:
<p>12:49&nbsp;<em>And he stretched out his hand towards his disciples, and said: Behold, my mother and my relatives!-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Another mark of an eyewitness account is found in this reference to His stretching out His hand. Given the loss of family many had experienced, this visual image would've remained in their memories, to be drawn upon in the hard times of rejection by family of origin. The Greek&nbsp;<em>epi</em>&nbsp;translated "toward" could strictly mean 'over'- as if the disciples were sitting near to Him. For it was they, rather than the general audience, whom He knew were doing the Father's will.</p><p>The Lord implied that those who did God’s will were closer to Him than His physical mother or sister or brother (<em><a href='B:470 12:48-50'>Mat 12:48-50</a></em>). It has been observed that “in a kinship-oriented society like Israel, it must have been startling for people to hear of a bond that was even deeper than that of the natural family”. And so it is in many parts of the world today.</p>


text:
<p>12:50&nbsp;<em>For whoever shall please my Father who is in heaven-&nbsp;</em>Or, "Do the will of"- another allusion back to the crunch line of the Sermon on the Mount, that the true community would be comprised of those who did the will of the Father in Heaven. The Lord spoke of Himself as 'doing the will' of the Father, supremely in His death on the cross. <em><a href='B:650 10:7'>Heb 10:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:9'>Heb 10:9</a></em> speaks of the Son 'doing the will' of God in dying on the cross, and the passage then goes on to appeal to us likewise to do that same will (<em><a href='B:650 10:36'>Heb 10:36</a></em>). And it is God who will work in us through the Spirit to empower us to do that will- if we ourselves so wish (<em><a href='B:650 13:21'>Heb 13:21</a></em>).</p><p><em>He is my brother and sister and mother-&nbsp;</em>The very fact the Lord calls us brethren in <em><a href='B:470 12:50'>Mat 12:50</a></em> the Hebrew writer saw as proof of Christ's humanity (= <em><a href='B:650 2:11'>Heb 2:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>13:1&nbsp;<em>On that day</em>-</p><p> This is programmatic to our understanding of chapter 13. The preceding chapter 12 has recorded how the Lord now changes His position regarding the Jews. Instead of the positive tone of the Sermon on the Mount and the hopeful appeal to Israel, from now on in Matthew there is much talk of condemnation to come, of Israel's rejection of the Gospel, and of how they were an adulterous generation for whom judgment was reserved. From now on, the Lord started using parables- hence the shock of the disciples and their question 'Why parables?' immediately after He had finished the sower parable (:10). And He spoke in parables exactly so that from now on, the masses would&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>understand. The mission of John had been largely unsuccessful, despite the good initial response. The Jewish religious leaders and the hopes for an immediate Kingdom in this world had lead Israel to reject the message, and their last state would be now worse than the first. The parable of the sower speaks of seed which initially grew (Israel's response to John's message) and then went wrong.</p><p><em>Jesus went out of the house and sat by the sea side</em>-</p><p> He has just spoken of how the house of Israel is being re-inhabited by seven evil spirits. The suggestion could be that He was now dissociating Himself from the house of Israel and was going to the sea of Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>13:2&nbsp;<em>And great crowds gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat down, and the whole crowd stood on the beach-&nbsp;</em>The Gospel records give more information about the day on which Christ told the sower parable than concerning almost any other in his ministry, with the exception of the crucifixion (compare <em><a href='B:470 12:22'>Mat 12:22</a></em> to <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:27'>Luk 11:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:10'>Mar 4:10</a></em>). Various types of people heard his words; the immediate context in <em><a href='B:470 13:2'>Mat 13:2</a></em> is that "great multitudes were gathered together unto him". The parable of the differing types of ground which were for the most part unresponsive to the seed therefore refer to the various reception given to Christ's sowing when he first "went forth to sow" in his ministry.</p><p>"Gathered together" is the Greek&nbsp;<em>sunago&nbsp;</em>from whence 'synagogue'. The idea is that there in the open air, on the sea shore, and&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;in a building, was the synagogue- with the Lord as rabbi, sitting in a fishing boat to teach whilst the audience&nbsp;<em>stood</em>&nbsp;instead of sitting (as they did in a Jewish synagogue, <em><a href='B:660 2:2-3'>Jas 2:2-3</a></em>). The whole scene is a radical inversion of orthodox Jewish values and culture. The true synagogue was now in the open air, and beyond the imagination, frames and culture of orthodox religion.</p><p>In Mark we read that Jesus “entered in to a ship, and sat in the sea” (<em><a href='B:480 4:1'>Mar 4:1</a></em>). All else was irrelevant- even the boat He was in. The focus is so zoomed in on the person of Jesus. And Paul in his more 'academic' approach sees Jesus as the very core of the whole cosmos, the reason for everything in the whole of existence. Of course He didn’t literally sit in the sea. But this is how it would have appeared to a spectator sitting on the grassy hillside, hearing Jesus’ voice clearly from a great distance because of the natural amphitheatre provided by the topography. In this case, the Spirit adopts this perspective in order to invite us to take our place on that same hillside, as it were, beholding the Lord Jesus in the middle distance, looking as if He were sitting in the sea. Perhaps the record is implying that listeners were so transfixed by the words and person of Jesus that they stopped seeing the boat and only saw Jesus, giving the picture of a magnetic man with gripping words sitting in the sea teaching a spellbound audience. There’s another example of this kind of thing in <em><a href='B:70 4:5'>Jdg 4:5</a></em>: “The mountains melted [‘flowed’, AV mg:]” – to a distant onlooker, the water flowing down the mountains gave the impression that they themselves were melting; not, of course, that they actually were.</p>


text:
<p>13:3&nbsp;<em>And he spoke many things to them in parables, saying</em>-</p><p> The Lord in chapter 12 seems to have concluded that the contemporary generation was wicked and bound for condemnation; they had rejected John’s message after having initially responded to it, and had rejected Him. This is now the first time that we read in Matthew of the use of “parables”, and it seems to be in direct context with what He has said to Israelite society at the end of chapter 12. He is now speaking to them in this form so that they will be confirmed in their disbelief. The Kingdom principles which He had so clearly expressed in the Sermon on the Mount now become “mysteries” of the Kingdom (:11); instead of the Kingdom which could then have been established had Israel accepted Jesus as Messiah, the Kingdom principles would work quietly from within until such time as the Kingdom were to be politically established at a far future date. No longer do we read of the Kingdom coming ‘near’ and being ‘heralded’. And the themes of most of His subsequent parables in Matthew include Israel’s rejection of the Gospel. He spoke&nbsp;<em>things</em>&nbsp;to them, but in parables. This of itself suggests that He used parables so that people would&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;understand, as is made explicit in :11,12. His parables were not, therefore, simple stories with an obvious meaning. They may appear that way to us who have some understanding of their interpretation, but that was clearly not how they were understood by most of the initial audience. Even if they thought they understood them, it's made clear in :11 and :12 that they didn't. The change in style is due to His conclusion that that generation were condemned and had refused John's ministry and therefore Christ's message. From now onwards He would not be giving them any more- He was cloaking the message in parables, and explaining them only to the minority who had properly responded.</p><p>The chiasmic structure of Matthew 13 (<em><a href='B:470 13:1'>Mat 13:1</a></em>) has been observed by several expositors, and it makes the sowing of the weeds by “the enemy” the central point of the entire presentation; the point is, that Israel initial response to the Gospel preached by John had been destroyed by a conscious program to stop the message being accepted, operated by the Jewish enemy / satan:</p><p>Sower and the Soils (vv. 1-9)&nbsp;</p><p>Question by Disciples/Answer by Jesus (Understanding) (vv. 10-17)&nbsp;</p><p>Interpretation of the Sower and the Soils (vv. 18—23)&nbsp;</p><p>Tares (vv. 24—30)&nbsp;</p><p>Mustard Seed (vv. 31—32)&nbsp;</p><p>Leavening Process (v. 33)&nbsp;</p><p>Fulfilment of Prophecy (vv. 34—35)&nbsp;</p><p>Interpretation of the Tares (vv. 36—43)&nbsp;</p><p>Hidden Treasure (v. 44)&nbsp;</p><p>Pearl Merchant (vv. 45—46)&nbsp;</p><p>Dragnet (vv. 47—48)&nbsp;</p><p>Interpretation of the Dragnet (vv. 49—50)&nbsp;</p><p>Question by Jesus/Answer by the Disciples (Understanding) (v. 51)&nbsp;</p><p>Householder (v. 52)</p><p><em>Listen, the sower went out to sow</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s teaching in 12:43 that the Jews had not responded to John the Baptist lays the basis for the parable of the sower, which was told the same day (13:1)- the seed initially experienced some growth, but then the 'evil one', the Jewish system, stunted that growth. Who is the sower? The preacher, or the Lord Jesus? Some Greek texts read “<em>a&nbsp;</em>sower” (followed by the AV), others “<em>the</em>&nbsp;sower” (cp. the Diaglott). Perhaps the Lord said both: ‘A sower, the sower, went out…’. Surely the sower is the Lord Jesus, but in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;work of witness we are&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;witnesses. For we represent Him to the world. This is why “the Spirit (the Lord the Spirit, Jesus) and the bride (the ecclesia) say, Come”; ours is a united witness with Him.</p><p>"Went out" is the same Greek word has just been used in :1 to describe how Jesus had 'gone forth' out of the house to preach by the lakeshore. Although multitudes were there listening, the Lord knew that only a few would be good ground for the word. The word is several times used of the Lord 'going forth' to teach, and four times He uses it about His 'going forth' to hire workers for His harvest (<em><a href='B:470 20:1'>Mat 20:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:5-6'>Mat 20:5-6</a></em>). The 'sowing' of the word was therefore not merely a placing of ideas and theology in the minds of men, but in practice it was (and is) a call to go out and work, to harvest others for the Kingdom. The Lord 'came forth' in order to preach (<em><a href='B:480 1:38'>Mar 1:38</a></em> s:w. "... that I may preach there... for&nbsp;<em>therefore came I forth</em>"). Note that He didn't 'come forth' from Heaven as a pre-existent person; rather Matthew begins his Gospel by using the word about how the Lord 'came forth' from Bethlehem, His birthplace (<em><a href='B:470 2:6'>Mat 2:6</a></em>). John's Gospel records the Lord as saying that He 'came forth' from God (<em><a href='B:500 16:28'>Joh 16:28</a></em> etc:), but this was in a spiritual sense; this is John's spiritual equivalent of Matthew's statement that He came forth from Bethlehem.</p><p>The condemned man in the parable of <em><a href='B:470 25:24-26'>Mat 25:24-26</a></em> complained that the Lord expected to reap where He had not sown. But the parable of the sower makes it clear that the Lord sows, even fanatically, everywhere. We perhaps would've reminded the man of the Lord's parable and His unceasing work of sowing, and reasoned 'That's not true!'. But this isn't the Lord's style. He takes people where they are and uses their own words and reasonings as if they are true- and shows by an altogether higher level of reasoning that they are not true. This explains His approach to the issue of demons. Matthew doesn't record that the Lord made a big issue about the seed- Luke's account records this: "A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed..." (<em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em>). This appears to state the obvious- a sower sows seed. But "his seed" can also mean 'the seed of Him'. There is an obvious connection with the great Messianic promises to the Jewish fathers about their "seed". The seed is God's word, but it is also effectively 'Jesus'. For He personally is the essence of the Gospel message. This parable of the types of ground is explaining to the disciples why the majority of Israel were failing to accept Him, and thus had rejected the ministry and message of John.</p>


text:
<p>13:4&nbsp;<em>And as he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>hodos</em>&nbsp;means simply 'the way'. It is the very word used about John the Baptist seeking to prepare the way for the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>). If Israel had responded as envisaged in the Isaiah 40 passage which speaks of this, then the way or road would have been prepared and the glory of Yahweh would have travelled over it to establish God's visible Kingdom in Jerusalem. On one hand, the fact the sower sowed even on the 'way' is an element of unreality in the parable which simply points to the extreme enthusiasm of this sower, casting the seed onto all types of human personality, including those who appear hopeless cases. The seed of God's word would have made the rough way smooth for the King of glory to ride over to Zion. But instead the seed was despised and even condemned, trampled underfoot - an idiom meaning it was despised and even condemned. And then the birds came and took it away altogether. The way was not prepared by response to the seed because of the Jewish leadership stopping others responding. We note the usage of the same word to describe how some despised individuals sitting in 'the way' were in fact persuaded to respond to the Kingdom invitation (<em><a href='B:470 22:9-10'>Mat 22:9-10</a></em>); Bartimaeus was likewise sitting in the way [s:w:] and responded, following Jesus "in the way" (<em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em>). The 'way [side]' could have responded to the seed- but it didn't. Because men came and trampled it under foot, and the birds came and took it away. It wasn't as if there was no chance at all that it could have responded:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the birds came</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em> adds that first of all, the seed was "trodden down" before the birds came. The impression is given of something, someone or a group of people hindering the growth of the seed- and that is a theme explaining the failure of the seed to grow in the other cases of 'bad ground'. The Lord has in mind the damage done to the growth of the word in the hearts of first century Israel by a group of people- and those people were the Jewish religious leaders. On a wider level, it's true that in practice it is the attitudes and pressures from others, conscious and unconscious, which stops people today from responding to God's word beyond an initial interest. Birds were symbolically understood in Judaism as the Gentiles- and the Lord is applying the symbol to the very religious leaders of Judaism, whom He saw as Gentiles in that they were consciously trying to stop people responding to the seed of God's word of Christ. And yet His later parable in the same chapter speaks of the birds coming and dwelling in the branches of His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 13:32'>Mat 13:32</a></em>). I see in this His hope, even His fantasy, that His worst opponents would come into His Kingdom. And some did- for some Pharisees did later repent and were baptized, even Saul. And this is a great example to us, of wishing the very best, the Kingdom, for even the worst.</p><p>The picture of fowls coming down to take away the seed is firmly rooted in a host of Old Testament passages which speak of fowls descending on apostate Israel (<em><a href='B:290 18:6'>Isa 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:33'>Jer 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 15:3'>Jer 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 16:4'>Jer 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 19:7'>Jer 19:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 34:20'>Jer 34:20</a></em>). These birds taking away the seed are interpreted as "the wicked one" (the Biblical devil) 'catching away' the word. There must be a thought connection here with Jesus' comment that from him who would not understand the sower parable "shall be&nbsp;<em>taken away</em>&nbsp;even that he hath" (<em><a href='B:470 13:12'>Mat 13:12</a></em>). Those who would not make the mental effort to grapple with Christ's parable had what understanding they did have snatched away by the Jewish devil. "The wicked one" responsible for this easily connects with "the devil" of the parable of the tares which follows; this parable has frequently been interpreted with reference to Jewish false teachers of the first century. "The wicked one... catcheth away" the seed/word, as the Jewish wolf "catcheth" the sheep (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>). This association of the first century Jewish system with the wolf/ wild beast/ devil/ wicked one is probably continued by some of the beasts of Revelation having a similar Jewish application in the first century.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em> literally translated speaks of "birds of Heaven". The fowls taking away the unfruitful seed is the first of a number of connections with the true vine parable of John 15, where the ideas of Divine husbandry and fruitfulness due to the word recur. In <em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em> the fruitless branch is taken away by God; in the sower parable, the birds remove the fruitless plant. The conclusion is that God sends 'birds' of various kinds to remove the spiritual deadwood from His ecclesia. It is in this sense that false teaching (e.g. the Judaist "fowls" of the first century) is allowed by God. parable of the sower connects the Devil with the fowls which take away the Word from potential converts, stopping their spiritual growth. This would aptly fit the Judaizers who were leading the young ecclesias away from the word, and the Jews who “shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men... neither suffer ye them that are entering (young converts) to go in” (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>). The Devil takes away the word of the Kingdom, “lest they should believe and be saved” (<em><a href='B:490 8:12'>Luk 8:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>And devoured it</em>-</p><p> The same word is used of how the Pharisees "devour[ed] widows houses" (<em><a href='B:470 23:14'>Mat 23:14</a></em>) and of how the Judaist fifth column within the fledgling church 'devoured' some (<em><a href='B:550 5:15'>Gal 5:15</a></em>). The sober fact is that we can be barriers to the response of others to the word of Jesus, the word which is&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;seed- Jesus. One lesson we can take from the parable is that spiritual growth involves resisting other influences in order to respond to the Lord Jesus personally through His word.</p>


text:
<p>13:5&nbsp;<em>And others fell upon the rocky places where they had not much earth</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>petrodes</em>&nbsp;is a form of&nbsp;<em>petra</em>. The Lord had taught that the wise man who heard and did His sayings developed his spiritual house upon a&nbsp;<em>petra</em>, a rock (<em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em>). And of course Peter was the&nbsp;<em>petra&nbsp;</em>upon which the church would be built (<em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>). So again we see that it was not impossible for the seed on the rock to prosper. The problem was that some who began their growth upon rocks stopped growing because of persecution and tribulation (:21)- which in the first instance was from the Jews.</p><p><em>And immediately</em>-</p><p> There is nothing wrong with this, indeed this is as response to the word should be; and Matthew often notes the immediacy of response. When you perceive an opportunity to do the Lord's service,&nbsp;<em>respond immediately</em>. See it as another opportunity for "redeeming the time". This is a major Biblical theme. Israel were not to delay in offering their firstfruits to God (<em><a href='B:20 22:29'>Exo 22:29</a></em>), lest their intentions weren't translated into practice. The disciples&nbsp;<em>immediately</em>&nbsp;left the ship, simply put their nets down and followed (<em><a href='B:470 4:20'>Mat 4:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:22'>Mat 4:22</a></em>); Matthew left his opened books and queue of clients in the tax office and walked out never to return (<em><a href='B:490 5:17-18'>Luk 5:17-18</a></em> implies). There is a marked theme in the NT of men and women hearing the Gospel and&nbsp;<em>immediately</em>&nbsp;responding by accepting baptism. In this spirit Cornelius immediately sent for Peter (<em><a href='B:510 10:33'>Act 10:33</a></em>), and the Philippian jailer was immediately baptized, even though there were many other things to think about that night (<em><a href='B:510 16:33'>Act 16:33</a></em>). Joseph was twice told in dreams to “arise” and take the child Jesus to another country:&nbsp; Both times he “arose” in the morning and just did it, leaving all he had, responding immediately (<em><a href='B:470 2:13-14'>Mat 2:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:20-21'>Mat 2:20-21</a></em>). Paul and Luke immediately went to preach in Macedonia after seeing the inviting vision (<em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em>); Paul "straightway" preached Christ after receiving his vision of preaching commission (<em><a href='B:510 9:20'>Act 9:20</a></em>). Indeed, the records of the Lord's ministry are shot through (in Mark especially) with words like "immediately", "straightway", "forthwith", "as soon as...". He was a man of immediate response, Yahweh's servant&nbsp;<em>par excellence</em>. He dismissed the man who would fain follow Him after he had buried his father, i:e. who wanted to wait some years until his father’s death and then set out in earnest on the Christian life. The Lord’s point was that we must immediately respond to the call to live and preach Him, with none of the delay and hesitancy to total commitment which masquerades as careful planning. Note how the Lord told another parable in which He characterized those not worthy of Him as those who thought they had valid reason to delay their response to the call (<em><a href='B:490 14:16-20'>Luk 14:16-20</a></em>). They didn't turn Him down, they just thought He would understand if they delayed. But He is a demanding Lord, in some ways. What He seeks is an immediacy of response. If we have this in the daily calls to service in this life, we will likewise respond immediately to the knowledge that 'He's back' (<em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>, cp. the wise virgins going immediately, whilst the others delayed). And whether we respond immediately or not will be the litmus test as to whether our life's spirituality was worth anything or not. All this is not to say that we should rush off in hot-headed enthusiasm, crushing the work and systematic efforts of other brethren and committees under foot. But when we see the need, when we catch the vision of service, let's not hesitate in our response, dilly dallying until we are left with simply a host of good intentions swimming around in our brain cells. Instead, let's appreciate that one aspect of the seed in good soil was that there was an&nbsp;<em>immediacy of response&nbsp;</em>to the word, a joyful and speedy 'springing up' in response (<em><a href='B:480 4:5'>Mar 4:5</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>They sprang up</em>-</p><p> The idea is that they germinated. The seed of the Gospel began to grow- the multitudes had begun to respond to John's message. The same word is used in the next verse to describe how the sun then 'sprung up'. After response to the word begins, there will be trouble and testing. Just as Israel's Red Sea baptism was immediately followed by tribulation and testing. The sun arising and withering the seed is a symbol of tribulation arising in the life of the believer (<em><a href='B:480 4:6'>Mar 4:6</a></em>). But the sun arising is also a clear symbol of the day of the Lord’s return. Thus whenever we encounter tribulation, our response to it is in some sense a preview of our response to the Lord’s coming in judgment. Trials and reproofs from God are Him “entering with thee into judgment”, here and now (<em><a href='B:220 22:4'>Job 22:4</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Because they had no deepness of earth</em>-</p><p> John perhaps explains the 'depth' in his account of the woman at the well. The salvation in Christ was brought from the 'deep' [s:w:] well (<em><a href='B:500 4:11'>Joh 4:11</a></em>). These people had only a surface level interest and did not really grasp the deep reality of Christ and His work.</p>


text:
<p>13:6&nbsp;<em>And when the sun had risen</em>-</p><p> See on 13:5&nbsp;<em>sprung up</em>.</p><p><em>They were scorched</em>-</p><p> Literally, burnt. John the Baptist had presented a powerful logic- either baptism by fire by the Jesus whom he preached, or being burnt up with [figurative] fire at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 3:10-12'>Mat 3:10-12</a></em>). The Lord clearly has that in mind here- those who had refused John's message about Him were even now burnt up, for judgment in its essence begins now, according to our response to the word of Christ:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And because they had no root, they withered away-&nbsp;</em>The same word used by the Lord about how Israel were the fig tree who had once had promise of fruit (in their initial response to John) but was now withered (<em><a href='B:470 21:19-20'>Mat 21:19-20</a></em>). Those who initially accept Christ but do not abide in Him are likewise "withered" (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). John's emphasis upon 'abiding' in Christ likely has reference to the need to accept John's message about Christ and abide in it, rather than wandering off and back to Judaism. Both James and Peter seem to allude to this point of the parable in their teaching that the word of God stands forever, whereas flesh withers away (<em><a href='B:660 1:11'>Jas 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:24'>1Pe 1:24</a></em>). As we will note on 13:22, the seed is to become the person. Those who do not wither are those who have the seed within them, the power of eternal life which endures. "Because they had no root, they withered away" (<em><a href='B:470 13:6'>Mat 13:6</a></em>) is alluded to in <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> concerning the branches of the vine withering as a result of God's word not abiding in them. The connection between the plants of the sower parable and the branches of the vine is further evidence that the sower parable mainly concerns the response to the word of those&nbsp;<em>within</em>&nbsp;the ecclesia.</p>


text:
<p>13:7&nbsp;<em>And others fell upon the thorns</em>-</p><p> This of itself didn't mean that growth was impossible. The Lord's next parable makes that clear- the good sees brings forth fruit, clearly alluding to the 'good ground' of the sower parable,<em>&nbsp;despite</em>&nbsp;being surrounded by "tares", weeds, within which category are thorns (13:26). The point of the later parable would therefore be to make the point that fruit can be brought forth&nbsp;<em>despite</em>&nbsp;a spiritual environment in which we have to grow and fruit next to thorns. "Thorns" were defined by the Lord as&nbsp;<em>people</em>-</p><p> those who do not bring forth good fruit, even though they may claim to be true believers (<em><a href='B:470 7:16'>Mat 7:16</a></em>). <em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em> likewise speaks of 'thorns' as people ("He that bears thorns... is rejected"). The later interpretation in :22 is that the thorns are the deceitfulness of riches and the cares of "this world"- and yet these abstract things operate upon the believer through persons, through people devoted to them. For we all 'are' the principles which we live by; and our example and influence upon others is more significant than we realize. Those people in the first instance were Jewish people in first century Palestinian society who strangled the growth of the seed in the hearts of people by their attitudes and the pressure of their example. We note that "this world" in the first instance referred to the&nbsp;<em>aion</em>&nbsp;around Jesus- which was the Jewish world. Especially in John's Gospel the phrase carries that meaning in most occurrences:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the thorns grew up and choked them</em>-</p><p> The next parable explains that both good and bad seed 'spring / grow up' (:26); the point is that the good seed continues to bear fruit despite this. They intertwined with the roots of the crop beneath the ground, and later kept light from reaching the plants. Again the suggestion is that there was a specific group of people [the Jewish religious leadership] who were damaging the growth of seed which had begun to grow [in response to the preaching of John]. And yet the interpretation is that the thorns represent the worry of the world, and wealth (:22). We can understand these things in the context of the Jews loving wealth and the whole system of Judaism, the Jewish ‘world’, making them worry about appearances to the point that the real seed of the word grows no more. The same can be seen in legalistic forms of Christianity today, where appearance to others becomes all important and thereby real spirituality goes out of the window.</p><p><em>"</em>Choked" is again language more relevant to persons. The same word is found in the Lord's description of the man who initially accepted forgiveness from God and then went and 'choked' or 'took by the throat' his brother (<em><a href='B:470 18:28'>Mat 18:28</a></em>). That man who was initially forgiven and then finally condemned speaks in the primary context of those who responded to John's message of forgiveness, but ended up condemned because of their aggression towards their brother- the Christians. Again, those who choked the response of others to the word are the members of Jewish society. The parable of the sower can be interpreted as fulfilling every time we hear the word sown in us. Thus some seed is "choked with cares" (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>)- exactly the same words used about Martha being "cumbered" with her domestic duties so that she didn't hear the Lord's word at that time (<em><a href='B:490 10:40'>Luk 10:40</a></em>). We bring various attitudes of mind- stony, receptive, cumbered etc:- to the word each time we hear it. And it is our attitude to it which determines our response to it.</p>


text:
<p>13:8&nbsp;<em>And others fell upon the good ground and yielded fruit, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The next parable is clearly related to this parable of the sower. There, the same word is used for the "good seed", the "children of the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>). The ground refers to the hearts of people; but in the parable of the good seed, the seed itself is paralleled with the person. The word had become flesh in them, as it was in the Lord Himself (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). John the Baptist had preached about the need to be a "good" plant bearing good fruit, or else face condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>, and repeated by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 7:17-19'>Mat 7:17-19</a></em>). The appeal was for the audience to be as John intended, to follow where his teaching led. They had initially accepted that teaching but had failed to follow where it led. And this was to be their condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:480 4:8'>Mar 4:8</a></em> adds the significant detail that it was the&nbsp;<em>fruit</em>&nbsp;that the plant yielded which "sprung up and increased". The picture is of a plant bringing forth seeds which themselves germinate into separate plants and bear fruit. This can be interpreted in at least two ways:&nbsp;</p><p>1) True spiritual development in our lives is a cumulative upward spiral; successfully developing spiritual fruit leads to developing yet more.</p><p>2) The new plants which come out of our fruit refer to our converts, both from the world and those within the ecclesia whom we help to yield spiritual fruit. There is another link here with the parable of the vine bearing fruit: "I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should&nbsp;<em>go</em>&nbsp;and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain" (<em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). This connects with Christ's command to them to&nbsp;<em>go</em>&nbsp;into the world preaching the Gospel and thereby making converts. In this sense our spiritual fruiting is partly through our bringing others to glorify God through the development of a God-like character. It is in this context of using the word for preaching and personal spiritual development that we receive the glorious encouragement "that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he (will) give it you" (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). Every believer who truly strives to bring forth fruit to God's glory, both in preaching to others and in personal character development, will find this promise constantly true.</p><p>God works like this because He is prepared to accept that different people will make something different of His Truth. The parable of the sower shows this in that the "good ground" brings forth 30, 60 or 100 fold. Some believers respond three times as actively to the Gospel as others; yet they will all be accepted at the end. I see a connection between this parable and Christ's words to the rich, righteous young man: '"If thou wilt be&nbsp;<em>perfect</em>..." sell what you've got; and then you'll receive&nbsp;<em>100 fold</em>&nbsp;in this life, and eternal life in the Kingdom' (<em><a href='B:470 19:12'>Mat 19:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>). Presumably, that man at that time was (say) in the 30 or 60 fold category. Christ wanted him in the 100 fold category. But if that man didn't sell all that he had, it doesn't necessarily mean that Christ would have rejected him ultimately. In this context, He says: " Many that are first (in this life) will be last (least- in the Kingdom); and the last shall be first" (<em><a href='B:470 19:30'>Mat 19:30</a></em>). Those who don't sell all that they have will be in the Kingdom, but least in it. The poor of his world, rich in faith, will be great in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em>). We need to ask ourselves whether we really accept the parable of the sower; whether we are strong enough to let another brother be weak, to accept that even if he's in the 30 fold category, he's still acceptable to his Lord, just living on a different level. Indeed, it isn't for us to go very deeply at all into how exactly Christ sees others; because we can't know. The point to note is that God wants us to rise up the levels of commitment. Paul was persuaded that the Romans were “full of goodness, filled with all knowledge”, but he prayed they would be filled yet further (<em><a href='B:520 15:13-14'>Rom 15:13-14</a></em>).</p><p>I have shown in the commentary above that growth was in fact possible on each type of ground, and the New Testament contains examples of where this happened. I suggest that in fact there are only three types of ground- the way side, the rocky and the thorny. These three types of ground would then match the three types of good ground- which gave 30,60 and 100 fold increase. Putting the gospel records together, the Lord's description of the good ground contains elements of the initially good response from the three bad types of ground. The good ground represents a good state of mind- for the ground is clearly to be understood as the heart of those receiving the word. This category therefore refers to those on the three other types of ground who&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;respond to the end, who overcame the pressures upon them not to respond further. This also removes the moral problem which is otherwise presented- in that it would appear that the seed of the word is spread, but the good ground people can do nothing else but respond, and the bad ground people can do nothing but not ultimately respond because of who they are by nature and where they are situated in life. The good ground category had to 'keep the word' (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>)- they didn't let men tread it underfoot nor birds take it away. Given their position in life, even by the wayside, they still responded by keeping the word. There was an element of choice and human effort required- rather than some categories being inevitably unable to keep the word because of their location in life and surrounding influences upon them. In this we see huge encouragement in our cluttered lives today, subject as they are to negative spiritual influences which at times seem too strong to resist. And we are further encouraged in our own sowing of the seed- nobody is incapable of response, from the deepest room in a strict Moslem family to sharing a one room apartment in Europe surrounded by materialistic, unGodly people.</p><p>Jeremias claims that a yield of tenfold was considered good in first century Palestine (Joachim Jeremias,&nbsp;<em>The Parables of Jesus</em>&nbsp;(New York: Scribner’s, 1972) p. 150). Even if that is somewhat conservative, the point is that the seed on good ground yielded amazingly. This element of unreality speaks of how each person in the ‘good ground’ category will experience growth and blessing out of proportion to their tiny spiritual beginnings. The parable of the mustard seed makes the same point. Amazing harvests is the language of the Messianic Kingdom, both Biblically and in Judaism. The beginning of the Kingdom experience is in our response to God’s word in this life. The one hundred fold response is huge- but then so is the loss. It’s as if the Lord is trying to encourage the disciples after the conclusions drawn about the general failure of the ministry of John- and therefore the Lord’s also. His point is that despite all the failure,&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;will respond, and their response and blessing will be so huge that this more than counterbalances all the failure of others. If we can bring one person towards eternity, this is so wonderful that all the rejection of our message is worthwhile:&nbsp;</p><p>Note how the three types of wasted seed and poor ground are matched by three types of response on the good ground. This feature of triads (features occurring in threes) may not necessarily have any meaning, but it may simply be part of a structure designed to aid memorization- which was the initial usage of the Gospel records.</p><p>In Palestine, sowing precedes ploughing. The sower sows on the path which the villagers have beaten over the stubble, since he intends to plough up the path with the rest of the field. He sows amongst thorns because they too will be ploughed in. And it has been suggested that the rocky ground was land with underlying limestone which barely shows above the surface. Even if some preaching work appears not to bear fruit, this shouldn't discourage us from the essentially outgoing spirit we should have in spreading the word far and wide. Many of the parables have an element of unreality about them, designed to focus our attention on a vital aspect of teaching. The sower parable has 75% of the seed sowed on bad ground, due to the almost fanatic way the sower throws the seed so far and wide, evidently without too much attention to whether it lands on responsive soil or not. His emphasis was clearly on broadcasting the seed far and wide. We should desire to see the spread of God’s ways, His Truth, His will, the knowledge of the real Christ, to as many as possible:&nbsp;</p><p>The word / seed which fell into good ground produced fruit. This connects with <em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>, which says that the branches of the vine bring forth fruit through the word abiding in them. Likewise the good ground keeps the word and continually brings forth fruit (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). It is common for us to learn something from the word, apply it for a few days, and then forget it. Yet surely the implication is that if our hearts are truly open to the word, it will have permanent effects upon us, if the word abides in us. For this reason it is necessary to pray at least daily for our minds to be good ground for the word, and to retain what we already comprehend. Those on the good ground who hear and understand in <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em> are described as those who hear and keep the word (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>). True understanding of the word's teaching is therefore related to an ongoing practical application of it. We may read a human book and understand it at the moment of reading; understanding God's word is quite a different concept. Truly understanding it means keeping it in our heart and therefore in our lives. The seed fell on good ground, "sprang up, and bare fruit"; indeed, it kept on bearing fruit (<em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). The plant being sown was therefore a repeating crop. True response to the word will lead to wave after wave of spiritual progression. Again, we see that the sower parable is describing an ongoing response to the word- it keeps on being sown by the believer keeping the word, and fruit is continuously brought forth.</p>


