# commentaries

text:
<p>24:50&nbsp;<em>The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he does not expect him and in an hour-&nbsp;</em>The implication is that the unfaithful servant should have ‘known’ and ‘been aware of’ his Lord’s coming. He should have lived every moment as if&nbsp;<em>this&nbsp;</em>were the day and hour of the Lord’s coming; even whilst recognizing that he does not finally know it. There is another possibility, discussed in a separate digression- and that is simply that the faithful in literally the very last few days&nbsp;<em>will&nbsp;</em>in fact know that the day and hour. The language of the Olivet prophecy brims with certainty as to the faithful&nbsp;<em>knowing</em>&nbsp;the time: "When ye shall see these things come to pass,&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;that it is nigh... ye&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;that Summer is near…&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;that the desolation thereof is nigh... when ye therefore shall&nbsp;<em>see</em>&nbsp;(same Greek translated "know") the abomination of desolation... when ye&nbsp;<em>see</em>&nbsp;(Gk. know, understand, perceive) all these things come to pass,&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;ye that the Kingdom of God is near". The idea is that we will understand clearly certain signs, and know&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;that the Lord is imminent. This all seems in marked contrast to the Lord's conclusion to the prophecy: "of that day and that hour&nbsp;<em>knoweth</em>&nbsp;no man". There is a marked connection here with the fact that he has just been saying that it will be possible to know once the signs are seen and understood. Surely he must be talking specifically to the twelve;&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;didn't&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;know the time, neither could they; but those who saw the signs by implication&nbsp;<em>would</em>&nbsp;know. In the context of these words about them not&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;knowing the day and hour, the Lord said that the believer&nbsp;<em>at the time of his return</em>&nbsp;who didn't know the day and hour of his coming would be found unprepared (<em><a href='B:470 24:50'>Mat 24:50</a></em>). This is surely proof enough that the last generation&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;in some way know the day and hour, i:e. the appointed time (cp. <em><a href='B:730 9:15'>Rev 9:15</a></em>), of the Lord's return. This point is a very powerful one.</p>&nbsp;</p><p><p><em>When he does not know</em>-</p><p> This is&nbsp;<em>ginosko</em>, used of how the world of Noah’s day did not “know” until all too late (:39). We are to “know” the time (:33 “know that it is near”, “know this” :43; <em><a href='B:490 21:31'>Luk 21:31</a></em>). And yet we cannot know the time in terms of a calendar date. Therefore we are to “know” the time in living according to the principle that the Lord&nbsp;<em>could&nbsp;</em>come imminently, at this very moment:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>24:51&nbsp;<em>And will cut him in pieces</em>-</p><p> Gk. ‘to cut him in two’, literally ‘to dichotomize’. This unreal and severe punishment- to cut a slave in half as punishment- emphasizes the extreme nature of the wrongdoing. This may also allude to the idea of cutting a covenant. The parties to the covenant passed between the pieces of the covenant sacrifice and thereby proclaimed that they should be cut in two if they broke the covenant. These condemned persons, in this particular teaching, would therefore refer to those who had already entered covenant with God and are being judged for it. And the hint is that they broke that covenant because they preferred to be hypocrites, to look good in the eyes of men when their heart was somewhere else. The evil servant will be "cut asunder", i:e. his hypocrisy will be openly revealed for the first time (remember, he was an ecclesial elder in mortal life, according to the parable). There will be a public dimension to the judgment process, for the whole purpose of it is for the learning of those present at it, rather than for God’s benefit. What we have spoken in the Lord's ear will be revealed by him openly ("from the housetops") at the judgment (<em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em>). When the righteous receive their inheritance (i:e. at the judgment), then the fool will be held up to shame (<em><a href='B:240 3:35'>Pro 3:35</a></em> NIV).</p><p><em>And put him with the hypocrites-&nbsp;</em>AV "Appoint him his portion with the hypocrites". Christ "will appoint (the wicked servant) his portion with the unbelievers" (<em><a href='B:490 12:46'>Luk 12:46</a></em>), his portion with the hypocrites (<em><a href='B:470 24:51'>Mat 24:51</a></em>), reminiscent of a "goat" in the later parable&nbsp;being told to go to the group of goats at the left hand side- "the unbelievers", i:e. those responsible but lacking in real faith (the word is used concerning this group in <em><a href='B:500 20:27'>Joh 20:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:20'>Rom 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:12'>Heb 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:15'>Tit 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:8'>Rev 21:8</a></em>). Note the parallel between hypocrisy and faithlessness. It is faith which is the real power against hypocrisy; if we believe that the Lord sees and knows all things, we will not act in the eyes of some. We will be ourselves, because we believe in Him and His grace and love towards us. The Lord’s self-indulgent servant will be cut asunder at judgment day- revealed for who he really is- and then be appointed his portion with the other hypocrites (<em><a href='B:470 24:41'>Mat 24:41</a></em>). The Lord used almost identical words earlier in His ministry, but with the conclusion that such a servant would be appointed his portion with&nbsp;<em>the unbelievers&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:490 12:46'>Luk 12:46</a></em>). The rejected servants, who appeared to believe but who only play-acted, are in fact unbelievers. They have as little faith as the unbelieving world, although they think they believe and serve the Lord.</p><p>Just as the man had chosen to be “with&nbsp;<em>meta</em>&nbsp;the drunken” (:49), so the Lord’s judgment of him will reflect the decisions he himself made, and the position in which he was found at the Lord’s coming- he will be “with”&nbsp;<em>meta</em>&nbsp;the hypocrites.</p><p><em>There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth</em>-</p><p> This phrase is recorded seven times on the Lord’s lips, but six of them are in Matthew (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:42'>Mat 13:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:50'>Mat 13:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:51'>Mat 24:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). The awful prospect clearly gripped Matthew, and in presenting the Gospel he felt it his duty to remind people graphically of the future they might miss, and the eternal consequence of rejecting God’s Son.</p><p>The Olivet prophecy doesn't finish at the end of Matthew 24; the chapter break with chapter 25 is unfortunate. The context runs straight on. The Lord spoke a number of parables at the end of the prophecy, which teach us the need for watchfulness against his coming. Each of them speak of his "coming" and the state of his ecclesia. They refer back to various parts of the Olivet prophecy:&nbsp;<em>Without any doubt</em>&nbsp;their main relevance is to the second coming; whatever minor relevance they may have to AD70, when they speak of the Lord coming and judging us, they speak of his second coming. They are a further elaboration on the things of which he had been speaking in the prophecy: and therefore the prophecy must basically concern his second coming and the state of the ecclesia at the time of the end.</p>


text:
<p>25:1- see on <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Then-&nbsp;</em>Immediately after the judgment, we are told, "the Kingdom... will be likened unto ten virgins...", the implication being that&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;we will perceive the truths contained in that parable; only then will we fully appreciate the result of watchfulness and keeping oil in the lamps. "<em>Then</em>&nbsp;shall ye return, and discern judge between the righteous and the wicked" (<em><a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a></em>) is spoken to the "ye" of Malachi 3 (e.g. v. 14) who refused to repent. God had asked them to repent, but their response was: "Wherein shall we&nbsp;<em>return</em>?" (<em><a href='B:460 3:7'>Mal 3:7</a></em>). But in their final rejection, they would repent, all too late, and appreciate the basis of the Lord's condemnation:&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;will discern the crucial chasm between the righteous and the wicked, just as "<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall the Kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins..." (<em><a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a></em>). Then, the wicked will understand the judgments of God. But it is our wisdom to learn and appreciate them now. The chapter division between Matthew 24, 25 is unfortunate. The description of the rejected at the judgment given in <em><a href='B:470 24:51'>Mat 24:51</a></em> is followed straight on by <em><a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a></em>:&nbsp;"Then shall the kingdom of heaven (i:e. entry into it) be likened unto ten virgins...":&nbsp;This may suggest that the rejected will have time for reflection -&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;they will see the 'likeness' between their position and the parable of the virgins:&nbsp;&nbsp; This parable follows that of the negligent steward who will be rejected at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a></em>), implying that a lack of proper spiritual care by the elders of the latter-day ecclesias results in the lack of oil in the lamps of the rejected:&nbsp;</p><p>If the judgment is in time as we now know it, we must be judged before Christ is enthroned, i:e. the Kingdom is established. But Matthew 25 teaches that we will come before Him&nbsp;<em>already enthroned</em>&nbsp;for judgment. The idea of "meeting" Christ at judgment employs a Greek phrase which distinctly means to go out to welcome a respected visitor. Its three Biblical occurrences are all in this context (<em><a href='B:510 28:14-15'>Act 28:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 4:16-17'>1Th 4:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>). This would suggest that the faithful go out to meet the Lord and accompany Him to the judgment. But this is rather difficult to square with the idea of good and bad coming together before the judgment and being separated from each other&nbsp;<em>there</em>:&nbsp; It is almost as if these descriptions are designed to push the thoughtful reader away from seeing the judgment as occurring in real time Christ comes with the saints to save Israel from their enemies. Unless there is a secret coming of Christ to gather and judge the saints and then he is revealed to the world, this just isn't possible. And the idea of a secret coming of the Lord of glory just cannot be reconciled with the clear descriptions of his coming in the NT. The coming of Christ in glory with the saints with him to establish the Kingdom&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the coming of Christ. Therefore it would be fitting if the whole process of Christ coming, resurrecting and judging his people, all happens in a moment of time as we know it. Depending how one reads the Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:450 14:6-7'>Zec 14:6-7</a></em>, this idea of collapsed time at the Lord's return is Biblical: "It shall come to pass in that day, that it shall not be clear in some places, and dark in other places of the world; but the day shall be one, in the knowledge of the Lord, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light" (AV mg:). The RVmg. speaks of "the planets shall contract"- the times and seasons they control would somehow contract. <em><a href='B:290 21:12'>Isa 21:12</a></em> RV has a similar idea, again in the context of a judgment day: “The morning is come and also the night”. This collapsing of time would also explain why it is impossible to construct a chronology of events in real time for the coming of Christ; the various prophecies of the last days just don't seem to fit together in chronological sequence.</p><p><em>Shall the kingdom of heaven be likened to ten virgins</em>-</p><p> Ten men were required for a synagogue to be formed. The Lord may be consciously subverting this idea, implying that in the new Israel He was creating, the congregations would be comprised of believing individuals, whose gender was unimportant.</p><p><em>Who took their lamps</em>-</p><p> Gk. ‘they received’. The same word is used throughout the chapter, also of the servants receiving their talents (<em><a href='B:470 25:16'>Mat 25:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:18'>Mat 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:20'>Mat 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:22'>Mat 25:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:24'>Mat 25:24</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And went to meet the bridegroom</em>-</p><p> Our calling to the Kingdom is effectively a calling to go and meet the Lord. However, the parable seems to be specifically about the response of the faithful immediately prior to the Lord’s coming, once they know He is ‘back’ and must of their own volition go out to meet Him. This would then follow straight on from the teaching of chapter 24. The same Greek word translated “meet” is that in <em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em>. The faithful who are alive at the time of Christ’s coming will be snatched away to “meet” Him. But they will have gone forth to meet Him of their own volition, and those who delay going to meet Him will not meet Him in that way.</p>


text:
<p>25:2&nbsp;<em>And five of them were foolish and five were wise-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a></em> speaks of “they that be wise... they that turn many to righteousness”. This group of people are defined in <em><a href='B:340 12:10'>Dan 12:10</a></em> as “the wise” amongst latter day Israel who are purified and refined in the latter day time of Jacob’s trouble such as never was for Israel. The very same phrase occurs in <em><a href='B:340 11:35'>Dan 11:35</a></em>, where we read that some of these wise and understanding ones will perish during “the time of the end... the time appointed” (RV)- of the three and a half year tribulation? One wonders if the Lord had these “wise” in mind in His parable of the “wise virgins” of the latter days. This would all suggest that some amongst Israel will repent and zealously preach in the last day tribulation, even if it costs them their lives. And Revelation 11 seems to be saying something similar.</p><p><em>Foolish</em>-</p><p> The Lord uses the same word in saying that we are not to call anyone ‘foolish’ because it implies that we are condemning them (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>). Clearly enough, the people of God are divided between those who will be saved, the wise, and those who will be condemned. But that division will only be apparent in the last day, and will be made apparent by varying responses to the knowledge that the Lord has finally come. Likewise the parable of the two builders shows that the difference between the wise and foolish will only be apparent when the flood comes, i:e. at the Lord’s return. The foundation they built is invisible to those around them- nobody can see whether they dug down through the sand onto the rock, or just built in the sand:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>25:3&nbsp;<em>For the foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them-&nbsp;</em>The ten virgins each having lamps may connect with the parable of the ten servants each having the talents of the true knowledge of God (<em><a href='B:490 19:13'>Luk 19:13</a></em>):&nbsp;Those who were "wise" had oil in their lamps;&nbsp;our Lord earlier defined "the wise" as those who truly obeyed the word (<em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em>):&nbsp;By contrast, the "foolish" without oil are those who only superficially respond to it (<em><a href='B:470 7:26'>Mat 7:26</a></em>):&nbsp;The parable of the talents following on from that of the oil lamps suggests that the talents- symbolic of our appreciation and application of the word- are to be equated with the oil:&nbsp;&nbsp; Those whose spiritual lamps go out during the tribulation "took no oil with them" after the first intimation that the second coming is about to occur (<em><a href='B:470 25:3'>Mat 25:3</a></em>). Thus during the delay period they will rely on the feeling of hope that this intimation gives rather than on genuine spirituality:&nbsp;These contrasting attitudes are perhaps hinted at by the wise taking their oil first,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;their lamps;&nbsp;whilst the foolish grabbed their lamps but discounted the need for more oil (<em><a href='B:470 25:3-4'>Mat 25:3-4</a></em>):&nbsp;Thus those who presume too much upon their own personal worthiness, thinking that they are spiritually in "peace and safety" (<em><a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a></em>), fail to properly apply themselves to the oil of the word.</p><p>However, it’s quite likely that the oil has no particular significance. The idea is simply that the foolish take no oil because they are certain they know the day and hour of the bridegroom’s coming; whereas the wise recognize that they do not know the exact day and hour, and therefore act accordingly by taking more oil in case there is a delay. This is exactly the point being made in the Lord’s teaching at the end of chapter 24. Those who are convinced they know the day and hour, for whom the idea of flexibility or delay in the Lord’s purpose is anathema, are in fact those who fall asleep and are caught unprepared.</p>


text:
<p>25:4&nbsp;<em>But the wise took flasks of oil along with their lamps</em>-</p><p> The fact the lamps of the foolish ‘went out’ means that they all had oil in their lamps. The difference was that the wise thought there might well be a delay, and so they took oil with them. The wise took lamps plus vessels; the foolish only took their lamps. The only other time the Greek word translated “vessels” occurs in the New Testament is also in Matthew and also on the lips of Jesus in a parable, in <em><a href='B:470 13:48'>Mat 13:48</a></em>. There, the faithful are likened to good fish which the judge casts into “vessels” whilst the bad fish are cast away. The telling paradox is that the wise, those ultimately saved, are those who have “vessels” exactly because they suspect the oil of their own spirituality will not be enough. It is their awareness of their own likelihood of failure which is their salvation. And further, they recognize that the outworking of God’s purpose is changeable- there may be delays, such is His sensitivity to human spirituality. The foolish, by contrast, think that all will be well with them because they accurately know the time of the bridegroom’s coming, and cannot think that their own oil may not be enough. Personal spirituality oil is therefore related to our perception of God’s sensitivity and openness:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:5'>Mat 25:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 22:9'>Mat 22:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now while the bridegroom was delayed</em>-</p><p> The same word translated ‘delay’ in <em><a href='B:470 24:48'>Mat 24:48</a></em> (see note there). Without doubt, there is a delay in the Lord’s return. Beyond question, the fact not all will work out as expected in terms of chronology means that some will stumble. This is a sober warning to the very many who hold dogmatic views about the interpretation of end time Bible prophecy. <em><a href='B:730 10:6'>Rev 10:6</a></em> uses a related word to speak of how there will finally be no more delay. And yet ‘delay’ is to some extent metaphor- the same word is used in <em><a href='B:650 10:37'>Heb 10:37</a></em> “He that shall come will come, and will not tarry” (s:w. “tarried”, <em><a href='B:470 25:5'>Mat 25:5</a></em>). In one sense there will be a delay, in another sense there will not be. God on one hand foreknows all things, and in that sense there is no delay; in another sense, He does in real terms delay His program in response and sensitivity to human behaviour. This paradox is at the root of <em><a href='B:420 2:3'>Hab 2:3</a></em>, which is being quoted in <em><a href='B:650 10:37'>Heb 10:37</a></em>: “The vision is yet for an appointed time the Hebrew could mean ‘Will still not happen for another year /&nbsp;<em>moed</em>&nbsp;/ until the next feast / until the time appointed… though it tarry, wait for it… it will not tarry”. Despite the delay, it will fulfil, and so it must be waited for. It tarries in one sense, but in another sense “it will not tarry”.</p><p><em>They all became drowsy and slept</em>-</p><p> The word is used figuratively of ‘delaying’. The only other NT usage is in <em><a href='B:680 2:3'>2Pe 2:3</a></em>, where it clearly means ‘delaying’: “Their condemnation&nbsp;<em>slumbers</em>&nbsp;not”. Because the bridegroom delayed, so did they. Here again is the Lord’s commentary upon the dangers of assuming a fixed date for His return. Spiritual life grinds to a halt when it is perceived wrongly that God’s purpose has ground to a halt. The delay in the Lord’s coming means that there is a delay in the spiritual life of those who waited for Him on a particular day. By slumbering, they were assuming that He too is slumbering. But the God of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps (<em><a href='B:230 121:4'>Psa 121:4</a></em>). David had sworn not to slumber nor sleep until God was enthroned in Zion (<em><a href='B:230 132:4'>Psa 132:4</a></em>). Regardless of delays in the program, it is the end result which must ever be kept in view- the coming of the Lord to Zion. The fulfilment of prophecy is not an end in itself, but it is the end result which must be our desire- rather than merely seeing the vindication of our own pet interpretations.</p><p>Both wise and foolish "<em>all</em>&nbsp;slumbered and slept". This slumbering can only be seen in a bad light:&nbsp;The exhortation at the end of the parable is to "watch", i:e. to keep awake rather than be sleepy (<em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em>):&nbsp;We have earlier commented on the many parallels between 1 Thessalonians 5 and Matthew 24, 25. <em><a href='B:590 5:2'>1Th 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:6-7'>1Th 5:6-7</a></em> speaks of the unworthy in the last days as being surprised by the midnight coming of Christ due to their being asleep:&nbsp;Their being "drunken in the night" (<em><a href='B:590 5:7'>1Th 5:7</a></em>) matches the similar description of the weak elements of the latter-day ecclesias in <em><a href='B:470 24:49'>Mat 24:49</a></em>. And yet 1 Thessalonians 5 goes on in this context to say that Christ died for us so that whether we wake or sleep, we may be accepted with Him. This is positivism beyond measure; He&nbsp;<em>wants&nbsp;</em>to save even those who slumber. Clearly enough, the very last generation of believers will all be weak, and those of them who shall be saved will only be ‘ready’ because of their own admission of their weakness and lack of oil.</p><p>That&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the girls should fall asleep whilst awaiting the bridegroom is unusual- an element of unreality in the story. They must have been a pretty unenthusiastic, switched off bunch. And yet immediately we are led by the Lord to pass judgment upon ourselves- which is quite a feature of the parables, e.g. <em><a href='B:470 21:31'>Mat 21:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:43'>Luk 7:43</a></em> (as it is elsewhere- consider <em><a href='B:100 12:5'>2Sa 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 14:8'>2Sa 14:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 20:40'>1Ki 20:40</a></em>). Note how there is surely a similar element of unreality in the Lord’s description of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;those invited to the dinner refusing the invitation (<em><a href='B:490 14:18'>Luk 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:24'>Luk 14:24</a></em>). Would really&nbsp;<em>nobody</em>&nbsp;respond to such a gracious invitation? This was the obvious question that He begged in the minds of His hearers. The intention being that each hearer would reflect: “Is it I…?”… maybe at least&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;could respond to the call of the Gospel… Christ's low expectations of us are clearly demonstrated when He told the parables of the weddings. When you put them together, you get this picture: God made the wedding between Christ and us. The invited guests didn't bother coming, for very trivial, mundane reasons that they put in front of the honour of being invited to His wedding. Only tramps and beggars come to it, motivated selfishly by the thought of a free meal (cp. a penny for the day). But we, the bride, aren't ready (although Christ graciously doesn't mention that in the parable), and so He delays to come to the wedding. Back home, His most trusted household servants realize that He's delaying His return, and start to get drunk and beat each other. The excited young bridesmaids lose their enthusiasm and go to sleep. Eventually, the wedding happens, but some of the guests don't bother to turn up in a wedding garment, just in their filthy rags. The impression is clearly this:&nbsp;<em>the whole thing's a mess</em>&nbsp;Yet this is the marriage of the Son of God to His dearly purchased bride, for whom He died, and lived a life of total self-control. Yet He&nbsp;<em>knew</em>&nbsp;the whole thing would be such a mess. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:25'>Mat 13:25</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But at midnight-&nbsp;</em>Israel both kept Passover and went through the Red Sea at night:&nbsp; Indeed, it is stressed six times in Exodus 12 that it was “night", and hence <em><a href='B:50 16:1'>Deu 16:1</a></em> reminds them to carefully keep the Passover (i:e. at night), "for... thy God brought thee forth&nbsp;out of Egypt by night":&nbsp;Other latter day prophecies speak of the events of the second coming being at "night":&nbsp;Lot left Sodom in the very early hours of the morning; and it was "at midnight (that) there was a cry made" informing the virgins of their Lord's return (<em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>). There can be little doubt that the parable is intended to have a specific latter-day application:&nbsp;&nbsp;And yet there is a general application of the parable to all believers who at the time of their baptism have oil in their lamps- which needs continual topping up by our freewill effort:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The virgins "took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom" (<em><a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a></em>), but settled down to slumber due to his unexpected delay:&nbsp;&nbsp; Then "at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh;&nbsp;go ye out to meet him" (<em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>). The whole of the believer's probation should therefore be in the spirit of a journey to the judgment / wedding, believing that Christ is at the door:&nbsp;The 'arising' of the virgins in <em><a href='B:470 25:7'>Mat 25:7</a></em> would then refer to the resurrection.</p><p><em>There was a cry</em>-</p><p> This is surely representative of some specific indication given to the latter day believers that the Lord is back and they must now exercise their freewill in going to meet Him. It may be in the form of a trumpet blast. The book of Revelation often uses the same word for the ‘crying’ of Angels in their various proclamations. So this may refer to the “voice of an Archangel” (<em><a href='B:590 4:16'>1Th 4:16</a></em>) with which the Lord returns. This great cry also equates with the "shout" of <em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em> at the Lord's return and the resurrection. From this it follows that the faithful will have a separate gathering to judgment than the unworthy; Christ "shall gather together his&nbsp;<em>elect</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>), the unworthy then wish to be with those who have oil, putting their noses in a Bible for a change, and&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;come to the judgment. The wise trim their lamps and go to meet Jesus. The same Greek word translated 'trim' is rendered 'adorned' in <em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em>, concerning the bride of Christ (the wise virgins) "coming down from God out of Heaven (a literal descent from the sky, having been snatched away in clouds?), prepared as a bride&nbsp;<em>adorned</em>&nbsp;for her husband" (<em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em>). The intimation that the second coming is imminent could be due to a number of factors:-</p><p>&nbsp; The open presence of 'Elijah'. The cry of the watchman would be in the spirit of the Elijah prophet.-</p><p>&nbsp; The possible possession of the miraculous spirit gift by the Elijah ministry.-</p><p>&nbsp; The onset of active persecution-</p><p>&nbsp; The Arab domination of Israel-</p><p>&nbsp; Possibly the appearance of a literal sign in the heavenly bodies heralding the Lord's coming; the sign of the Son of man.</p><p><em>Look The bridegroom comes Come out to meet him</em>-</p><p> “Comes” translates&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>&nbsp;and “go out” is&nbsp;<em>ex-erchomai</em>. The coming of Christ must be greeted by our ‘coming out’ to meet Him. The idea is that we cannot be merely passive. The whole parable is designed to debunk the idea that we can know the exact date of the Lord’s return, with the implication that we are just waiting for things to happen to us. But God’s purpose involves us having a hand in the outworking of it; He is responsive to our freewill attitudes and decisions. His coming / going out to us cannot just be waited for by us; we have to go out to Him. The virgins had all ‘gone out’ to meet the bridegroom (:1 s:w:), but now they actually go out to meet Him after the delay. And it is the response to how the Lord delays which is effectively the division between wise and foolish, worthy and unworthy.</p><p>The same Greek word translated "meet" in <em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em> concerning the wise virgins going out to "meet" Christ occurs also in <em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em>:&nbsp; "We which are alive and remain shall be caught up... in the clouds to&nbsp;<em>meet</em>&nbsp;the Lord in the air". The picture is therefore presented of the righteous obeying the call of their own volition, and then being confirmed in this by being 'snatched away' to meet Christ in the (literal) air:&nbsp;We will then travel with Christ "in the clouds" (literally) to judgment in Jerusalem:&nbsp;In no way, of course, does this suggestion give countenance to the preposterous Pentecostal doctrine of being 'raptured' into heaven itself:&nbsp;&nbsp; Every alternative interpretation of <em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em> seems to run into trouble with the phrase "meet the Lord&nbsp;<em>in the air</em>":&nbsp;1 Thessalonians is not a letter given to figurative language, but rather to the literal facts of the second coming.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:7'>Mat 25:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then all those virgins arose and</em>-</p><p> In the general application of the parable, this invites interpretation as resurrection. But the burden of the parable is clearly specifically for those who live in the last days, those who are “alive and remain” and are called to meet their Lord, but find there is a delay. The more obvious picture, however, is that the call will grab all by surprise, and will lead to them arising and taking stop of their lives, and coming to terms with who they really are. Again, this is relevant to the closing section of the Olivet prophecy- the Lord’s point is that even if they think they know the day and hour of His coming, it will be a shock which can in no way be prepared for. And knowing the day and hour is not the essential thing, but rather being willing to immediately go to Him and leave the things of this world.</p><p><em>Trimmed their lamps</em>-</p><p> This is the same word translated “garnished” in the Lord’s parable about how response to John the Baptist’s teaching left a house “garnished” (<em><a href='B:470 12:44'>Mat 12:44</a></em>). And his teaching was about Jesus as Christ and the need for repentance and faith in His grace. Those who properly responded to it would be ready for the Lord’s second coming. The whole language of Jesus as bridegroom was surely intended to recall John, for he had used the very same figure for the Lord. The introduction to the Olivet prophecy had noted that the temple was “garnished” (s:w. “trimmed”; <em><a href='B:490 21:5'>Luk 21:5</a></em>), and the Lord is surely saying that that was irrelevant, for the true garnishing is of personal preparedness for His coming. The bride herself is to be “adorned s:w. for her husband”, the bridegroom (<em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:8'>Mat 25:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the foolish said to the wise: Give us some of your oil</em>-</p><p> Those who thought they knew the day and hour of the Lord’s coming are revealed here as actually having no personal spirituality. They could have just gone to meet their Lord for joy of wanting to see Him, throwing themselves upon His grace. A bridegroom wants to see His bride and would rather see her without some piece of jewellery, than find she turns up very late. Their request for oil from others indicates they have no personal love of Him, no personal relationship with Him, and a group mentality whereby they thought others’ spirituality could count for theirs. All they had was their conviction that they knew the day and hour of His coming. So it’s no surprise when finally the Lord tells them “I know you not” (:12). This puts all obsession about figuring out Bible prophecy into correct perspective:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For our lamps are going out-&nbsp;</em>Apparently the "lamps" which the parable is based upon had to be replenished every 15 minutes or else they went out:&nbsp;&nbsp; The "wise" (relative to the foolish, anyway) can therefore be pictured as dozing for five or 10 minutes, then jolting back into consciousness and refilling their lamps, while the foolish snored on. This presents a powerful picture of the frail spirituality which will characterise the faithful remnant just prior to the second coming. The Lord asks the faithful remnant to "look up, and lift up your heads" (<em><a href='B:490 21:28'>Luk 21:28</a></em>) when the signs of the last days just&nbsp;<em>begin</em>&nbsp;to come to pass. There seems a designed connection with this parable of the virgins, spoken only minutes later: in actual fact, he foresaw that&nbsp;<em>even at His coming</em>, even the faithful would be sleeping:&nbsp; Even now our real faith is but as candles in the wind:&nbsp;There is an urgent need for us each to analyse and appreciate what real spirituality is, to spotlight the few times and ways in which we show it, and to work on these:&nbsp;Such self-knowledge and realisation will be worth its weight in diamonds during the delay period. This said, it will ultimately be the midnight cry which reveals our true spiritual state to us:&nbsp;Each virgin arose and with heightened awareness analysed the state of their oil:&nbsp;The wise will have the faith to quickly prepare themselves to meet Christ- they "trimmed their lamps", pulling out the burnt strands in the wick and adding oil:&nbsp;The foolish panic- "Give us of your oil"&nbsp;&nbsp; In that moment it will be evident to all in the ecclesia who has been wise and who foolish. Those who are spiritually empty will then realize their folly;&nbsp;the parable even suggests that they desperately try to associate themselves with those they know to be spiritually stronger, somehow hoping that they might be covered by their spirituality:&nbsp;"Our lamps are going out" (<em><a href='B:470 25:8'>Mat 25:8</a></em> R:V:) shows that they are not totally without oil, but they feel the oil- what faith they had- ebbing away as the reality of Christ's return and the judgment dawns upon them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:9'>Mat 25:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But the wise answered: Perhaps there will not be enough for us and you-&nbsp;</em>AV "Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you". The translation is problematic, as reflected by the way the AV puts “not so” in italics. This has been added in a valiant bid to make the difficult Greek have at least some kind of sense. The idea seems to more accurately be: ‘In any case there is not sufficient for us, let alone for you too’. The only other time&nbsp;<em>arkeo ou</em>&nbsp;occurs it is translated “not sufficient” (<em><a href='B:500 6:7'>Joh 6:7</a></em>); and there, the idea is ‘We cannot possibly have sufficient of ourselves, only God’s grace can provide the sufficiency’. As it is translated in most English versions, the sense is somewhat selfish- as if the wise are too concerned for their own acceptance by the bridegroom to worry about anyone else. But I suggest the sense of the original is rather ‘We ourselves hardly have any oil, we are woefully unprepared ourselves, we are going to throw ourselves onto His grace when we meet Him. It’s not about how much oil we have. It’s about loving Him enough and trusting His grace enough to just want to go immediately and be with Him. But if you’re so worried about oil, well, presumably you will have to go and get some- a hard job, in the middle of the night, when the shops are all closed’.</p><p><em>Instead, you should go-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Greek really means ‘to depart’, and significantly, the very same word is used by the Lord in this same context when condemning people at judgment day in :41: “Depart s:w. “go” from Me, you cursed”. So the point is again established that in their response to the news of His return, the rejected have their judgment. They are asked to go and meet Him, but they depart, to try to make themselves prepared by relying upon others “them that sell”. Their departing from the Lord was in essence their condemnation, for condemnation is all about departing from the Lord.</p><p><em>To them that sell oil and buy some for yourselves</em>-</p><p> This may well be obeyed by the foolish in the form of getting their noses down to some serious, personal Bible study for a change; or going looking for&nbsp;<em>people</em>&nbsp;who could sell them oil. But again, they go to others- rather than immediately to the Lord Himself. Hence His comment in :12 that they do not know Him, and therefore He doesn’t know them. There is simply a lack of personal relationship with Him, despite their confidence that they knew the day and hour of His coming. "Go... and buy" is surely rhetorical- the rejected know it's too late for them to actually rectify their position, but the process of judgment day&nbsp;will show the rejected how it would have been possible to enter the Kingdom. Likewise the Lord will tell the one talent man: 'Why didn't you, for example, put the money into the bank…?'. I mentioned under&nbsp;<em>Not so</em>… that the only other time&nbsp;<em>arkeo ou</em>&nbsp;“not enough” occurs is when the amount of bread required was described as “not sufficient” (<em><a href='B:500 6:7'>Joh 6:7</a></em>). The advice to&nbsp;<em>go and buy for yourselves</em>&nbsp;is also alluding to that same feeding miracle. The lesson then had been that no amount of bread was enough / sufficient, nor was it possible to go and buy for oneself- rather must there be total reliance upon God’s grace in Christ. I feel the allusion or similarity is purposeful, because lack of oil didn’t have to mean rejection by the Bridegroom. They could simply have thrown themselves upon His grace. If they were ready and eager to go and meet Him at any moment, regardless of whether they felt or externally appeared ready, then this was enough for salvation. And that, really, will be the struggle of every spiritual heart when we know the Lord has returned; our love for Him and trust in His grace must be greater than our awareness of our own unworthiness, lack of preparation and poor external appearance. Those who thought they knew the day and hour and we must ever remember that this is the context of the parable couldn’t cope with things working out other than they had expected, needed to run to others for help, rather than to the Lord personally; and had no sense of His grace nor, in fact, any overpowering desire to simply be with Him. Rather was their own correctness of expectation the most significant self-defining issue for them. And it would appear so many ‘Christians’ have fallen into this trap, becoming obsessed with chronologies of events and accuracy of prophetic interpretation, at the expense of true spirituality and direct personal relationship with the Lord.</p><p><em>Buy for yourselves</em>-</p><p> Literally, ‘redeem yourselves’. The whole point is that we were bought / redeemed by the Lord and not by ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And while they went away to buy</em>-</p><p> There seems no reason to think that the Bridegroom would have rejected them because their lamp was not burning. They could have just gone along anywhere, motivated by the joy that comes from love. But they were too convinced by their need to&nbsp;<em>appear</em>&nbsp;ready externally. I have spoken elsewhere of a collapsing of time as we understand it in the period around the Lord’s return and judgment. But let us not think that such collapsing of time only means that what would otherwise take a long time actually takes a short time. It may be that what is in fact a very short time feels like much longer. Thus we read here of the rejected as foolish virgins going to get oil, and it taking so long that the door was shut and they were eternally outside the marriage. In time as we know it, this may just be a momentary desire to have been more filled with the Spirit in the day of opportunity. But the whole process of realising this will&nbsp;<em>feel</em>&nbsp;to them as if it takes a long time to work out.</p><p><em>The bridegroom came- and they that were ready</em>-</p><p> “You- be also ready” (<em><a href='B:470 24:44'>Mat 24:44</a></em>) uses the same word. This parable is the definition of what ‘readiness’ means. The wise virgins were hardly ready. They fell asleep when they should have stayed awake; and they recognized that they didn’t really have enough oil. They hadn’t calculated the day nor hour of their Lord’s return. They were ‘ready’ only in the sense that they wanted above all to be with their Lord, and this sense was far stronger than their deep awareness of their own shameful unpreparedness. But this is what ‘readiness’ is about:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Went in with Him</em>&nbsp;<em>to the wedding</em>-</p><p> This is another hint that the faithful come with Jesus to judgment. See Digression&nbsp;<em>With Jesus to Judgment</em>. The Lord entering into the wedding feast is the exact picture of His coming in judgment (<em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em> “the King&nbsp;<em>came in</em>” s:w. “went in”). But in that same parable, we ‘come in’ to the wedding feast at our response to the Gospel in this life (<em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em> s:w:). The nature of our initial response is highly significant. “Went in” translates the same Greek word found in 24:38: “Noah&nbsp;<em>entered into</em>&nbsp;the ark”. The next comment that “the door was shut” continues that allusion to the ark.</p><p><em>Went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The very same words are used in <em><a href='B:490 11:7'>Luk 11:7</a></em> concerning how although the door is shut in this life, yet it can be opened by prayer and beseeching. We as sinners are condemned here and now, the door is shut- but we can repent and pray, and the door shall be opened. But like the shutting of the door of the ark, once this is done at the day of judgment, it is too late. Now is the day to change the verdict, then will be too late.</p>


text:
<p>25:11&nbsp;<em>Afterward came also</em>-</p><p> We may be intended to imagine some details of the story. They would have searched for oil sellers in the middle of the night, and finding none, they came without oil to their Lord. I suggested earlier that the issue is readiness, a love for the Lord, rather than having oil; they could have gone immediately and thrown themselves on His grace. But they didn’t do that and chose instead to try to get human help; resulting in their rejection.</p><p><em>The other virgins</em>-</p><p> If the Lord literally meant ‘the others’, He would have used a Greek word like&nbsp;<em>heteros</em>&nbsp;or the Aramaic equivalent. But&nbsp;<em>loipoi</em>&nbsp;definitely has the sense of that or those which remain; it is elsewhere translated “the things which remain” (<em><a href='B:730 3:2'>Rev 3:2</a></em>). The foolish virgins are those who remained, those who didn’t go immediately in response to the call. Yet again, attitudes to the Lord’s coming will decide our eternal futures.</p><p><em>Saying: Lord, Lord</em>-</p><p> The Lord had warned that saying “Lord, Lord” would not guarantee “entry” into the Kingdom (7:21). And here He is speaking about exactly such “entry”- the same word is used here in :10 “they that were ready&nbsp;<em>went in</em>&nbsp;with Him to the wedding”. The category in view are those who considered themselves believers, who thought that externally correct forms of address would impress the Lord Jesus. The “Lord, Lord” contingent indeed had “done many wonderful works” (7:22), but they had never known and loved&nbsp;<em>Him</em>. Whilst organized church life is a necessary part of our present experience and the Lord’s intention, the danger is that it can exalt such “works” and public appearances to the point that personal relationship with the Lord is totally eclipsed.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em> adds the detail that they ‘knocked’. Knocking is sometimes used as a figure for prayer (<em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:7'>Luk 11:7</a></em>). The basis for these foolish virgins is surely in <em><a href='B:240 1:28-29'>Pro 1:28-29</a></em>: "Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer... they shall not find me: for that hated knowledge". The foolish virgins realize the need for prayer all too late; they knocked on the door with great zeal, asking for it to be opened; seeking but not finding. They were so convinced they knew the day and hour that prayer for the Lord’s return, and prayer to Him generally, somehow was overlooked or felt to be unnecessary.</p><p><em>Open to us-&nbsp;</em>The foolish virgins, for all their initial spiritual confidence shown by not taking oil with them, lacked that true love for Christ's appearing which enabled the wise to immediately go forth to meet him:&nbsp;This accords with the description of the righteous as opening the door&nbsp;<em>immediately</em>&nbsp;in response to the 'knock' of the second coming (<em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>):&nbsp;"Lord, Lord, open to us" is met with the response "I know you not"; and this connects with an earlier picture of the rejected at judgment day:&nbsp;"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not... in thy name done many wonderful works?&nbsp;And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you" (<em><a href='B:470 7:22-23'>Mat 7:22-23</a></em>):&nbsp;Thus there is the implication that when the foolish virgins delay their going to meet Christ, they amass a list of "many wonderful works" which they hope will impress their Lord:&nbsp;This would explain the indignation of the rejected at Christ's rebuke of their lack of suitable works (<em><a href='B:470 25:41-45'>Mat 25:41-45</a></em>). These people would probably not have appeared reprobates in this life; works are so impressive to ones' fellow believers. Jesus did not tell this parable about five hookers and five virgins;&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;of them were 'virgins' in the parable, having an appearance of purity from being in Christ. By contrast, "the wise", whose love for Christ makes them respond immediately to the call, are unconscious of their works of faith (<em><a href='B:470 25:35-40'>Mat 25:35-40</a></em>):&nbsp; "Lord, open to us" is therefore to be read as a confident demand by the unworthy for entry into the Kingdom, based upon trust in their "wonderful works":&nbsp;&nbsp;"I know you not" is paralleled with a lack of oil:&nbsp;The Lord knows His people through their attitude to the oil; whether they have enough or not, or whether they think they do or think they do not, is all so irrelevant. The essence is in wanting the Lord’s return:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>25:12&nbsp;<em>But he answered and said: Truly I say to you, I do not know you</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em> adds “From whence you are”, from what nation or ethnicity. They were complete strangers, speaking another language. The intended paradox is in that those who were so confident they knew the day and hour actually did not know it (:13), and did not know Christ. They thought knowing the day and hour was the same as knowing Christ; or at least, they put the two together in their minds as one and the same. But they are not. And that is the point of this parable, which is sandwiched in between warnings that we do not and cannot know the day and hour- but we are invited to know Christ personally.</p>


text:
<p>25:13&nbsp;<em>Therefore, stay awake For you do not know the day nor the hour-&nbsp;</em>"Let us watch and be sober" (<em><a href='B:590 5:6'>1Th 5:6</a></em>) matches our Lord's "Watch, therefore" (<em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em>). This command to watch seems to have a conscious connection with the Lord's urgent plea to the sleepy disciples in Gethsemane to "watch and pray" (<em><a href='B:470 26:38'>Mat 26:38</a></em>), indicating that they at that time typify the latter day believers; about to fellowship their Lord's sufferings during the tribulation period, confused, failing to see the urgency of the situation. The disciples doubtless started to obey their Lord's command to watch and pray, but then drifted off into sleep. Watching and praying are often associated; a real&nbsp;<em>knowing</em>&nbsp;of God through dynamic prayer is the real way to be watchful for the second coming. The foolish virgins realize this all too late; they knocked on the door with great zeal, asking for it to be opened; seeking but not finding. Knocking is sometimes used as a figure for prayer (<em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>). The basis for these foolish virgins is surely in <em><a href='B:240 1:28-29'>Pro 1:28-29</a></em>: "Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer... they shall not find me: for that they hated knowledge":&nbsp;</p><p>It cannot be accidental that Matthew's Gospel twice records Christ's plea for us to watch (<em><a href='B:470 24:42'>Mat 24:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em>); and then goes straight on to describe how in Gethsemane, Christ pleaded with the disciples to join Him in watching and praying, lest they fall to temptation (<em><a href='B:470 26:38-41'>Mat 26:38-41</a></em>). He was evidently deeply, deeply disappointed that they could not share this with Him. Surely the reason for this further mention of watching is to suggest that in the pain of our latter day watching, we will be at one with our suffering Lord in Gethsemane, as He too watched- not "signs of the times", but His own relationship with the Father, desperately seeking strength to carry the cross rather than quit the race.</p>


text:
<p>25:14&nbsp;<em>For it is as when a man, going into another country</em>-</p><p> The same word is used in the parable of the tenants (21:33), and also at the end of the Olivet prophecy in describing the Son of Man travelling into a far country and leaving His servants to watch, not knowing exactly when He shall return (<em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>). The parables of Matthew 25 are an extension of the Olivet prophecy and appear to comment particularly upon the fact we do not know the exact time of the Lord's return but are to live as if He is coming any moment. The key phrase in this parable, in this connection, is the idea of the Lord returning to assess the servants "after a long time" or delay (see on :19). It may be that the Lord foresaw the rescheduling of His intended return in the first century, and wanted to teach that regardless of the delay, His servants were to keep 'ready' and watching by trading the goods He entrusted them with, and progressing His work on the earth. In one sense, the Lord Jesus is very present. The teaching of the Comforter passages in John 14-16 is that through the Spirit, He is as good as personally present with us. And yet He is apparently absent, in that we no longer possess the miraculous gifts, and it visibly appears that He is far away. The metaphor of a man travelling into a far country is a sign of His recognition that on one level, that is indeed how it will appear to us. And clearly the idea is based upon the experience of absent landlords, who left their estates in the hands of their servants and went away to enjoy the good life in some better part of the Roman empire. Such landlords were despised as non-patriotic and disinterested in the welfare of their people. And yet the Lord consciously employs this image concerning Himself. He is not ultimately like that, but through this choice of imagery He gives a nod of recognition towards the fact that indeed this is how it will appear to some. Joseph likewise appeared tough and disinterested to his brothers, when beneath that mask his heart was bursting for them; His whole plan of action was simply to lead them to repentance.</p><p><em>Called his own servants</em>-</p><p> A picture of how the Lord considers us to be His very own.</p><p><em>And delivered to them His goods</em>-</p><p> The same word is used about how all things have been delivered unto the Son by the Father ("All things are delivered to me from My Father", <em><a href='B:490 10:22'>Luk 10:22</a></em>). The totality of the action is the element of unreality- that this Master would share out all He had amongst His servants, when He Himself was not present to oversee their work. Again, this is metaphor. He is present. But He is 'absent' in the sense that He will not forcibly intervene to ensure that His work prospers in our hands. He has left us with absolute freewill and self-determination. In a different metaphor, Paul likens the community of believers to the body of Christ. we are Him, and without us, He is not. We each have part of His work, some aspects of His characteristics, which we are to develop and reveal in the world. The most common usage of<em>&nbsp;paradidomi</em>&nbsp;concerning what has been delivered to us is in the context of "That form of doctrine" which has been "delivered" to us (<em><a href='B:520 6:17'>Rom 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:23'>1Co 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:3'>1Co 15:3</a></em> <em><a href='B:680 2:21'>2Pe 2:21</a></em>; "the faith which was once delivered to the saints", <em><a href='B:720 1:3'>Jud 1:3</a></em>)- not to simply keep buried, but to develop in various ways, to the glory of the Lord who gave it. Thus the basic doctrines of the Faith were "delivered" to us at our conversion, as the talents were delivered to the servants. We are asked to use that understanding of basics to develop our own character. It doesn't mean we're each given different doctrines; but we all have different characters and areas of spiritual growth, and we must each use the same doctrines we are "delivered" to develop these. This would explain why it's so easy to see others' lack of spiritual development in some areas, whilst being so sure that we have grown spiritually in other areas. Our observation is correct; this&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the case. But it's nothing to be proud or critical about; we ourselves have our blind spots. This approach to the parables of the pounds and talents may also explain why brethren of past generations seemed so strong in some areas (e.g. defence of the Faith and preaching) but so weak in others (e.g. compassion).</p><p><em>"</em>His goods<em>"&nbsp;</em>follows on from the Lord's word that "He shall make him ruler over all his goods" (24:47 s:w:). What we are faithful with now will be in some sense eternally given to us in the Kingdom age. We will each have&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the Master's goods, and the description in the next parable of those goods being distributed between us in this life (<em><a href='B:470 24:47'>Mat 24:47</a></em>). In the Kingdom we will no longer know partially, as a result of seeing parts of the whole picture; we will see face to face (<em><a href='B:530 13:9'>1Co 13:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em> Gk:). The talents here are the pounds of the similar parable in Luke 19, His very&nbsp;<em>own</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em>). Here in the parable of the talents we read of the servants as “His own”. The Lord’s personal identity with His servants and His goods could not be more stressed. This is no disinterested business transaction. The goods of Christ are those which He took from the devil (<em><a href='B:470 12:29'>Mat 12:29</a></em>), the absolute righteousness which is possible once sin is bound. I would suggest the goods of Christ refer to the ultimate spirituality which He has, the various aspects of His character. The ten pounds are delivered to the ten servants, who are to be compared with the ten virgins of Matthew 25. The ten servants and ten virgins represent the body of Christ, each of whom has been given a part of Christ's "own" to develop; we are called to develop His likeness, and I am suggesting that each of us has been given a certain amount and aspect of His perfectly righteous character to develop. The unworthy calls what he has been given “…yours” (<em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>)- when it was intended to be&nbsp;<em>his&nbsp;</em>personally (cp. <em><a href='B:470 20:14'>Mat 20:14</a></em>). He just didn’t let himself see the wonderfully personal nature of what God had given him.</p>


text:
<p>25:15&nbsp;<em>And to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one</em>-</p><p> This is one of the most programmatic, persistent and widespread translational problem in the New Testament. A talent is a weight, a measure. The Lord did not have in view ‘talent’ as in the natural ability in a particular area which a person may have. These talents are given to us by Him when we are called to Him; they are not something we had of ourselves. A Roman talent weighed 71 pounds or 32:2 kg. The servants were given&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;goods; something they previously did not have was given to them. And to each servant was weighed out a different amount, suggesting that gold or silver is in view. The use of&nbsp;<em>argurion&nbsp;</em>in :18 confirms it is silver. The suggestion that the one talent could have been left with the bank in order to receive interest confirms that a precious metal is in view. The figures are large- 32 kg. of silver for the one talent man. The story line of the parable suggests he thought he had not been given much- but 32 kg. of silver is a huge amount. Even if we think we have little or no capacity for service, we need to consider that in fact we have been given a huge amount. And the five talent man was given 160 kg. of silver. As I write this in 2014, 1 kg. of silver is worth around 700 US. The one talent man was therefore given the equivalent of around 22,000 . And he considered it not enough to do anything much with. The story line suggests that many of us have been given far more than one talent. The five talent man was therefore given something like 110,000 . This is all a picture of the great riches in Christ which are given to us- each one of us. The relative lack of guidance they were given, with their Lord leaving immediately and leaving them to get on with it, is an insightful picture into how&nbsp;<em>so&nbsp;</em>much has been delegated to us to get on with according to our own initiative, and how we are tempted to think we have not really been given that much. And it’s a powerful statement of what huge potential we have:&nbsp;</p><p>The parables several times speak of the relationship between our Master and ourselves. They do so in somewhat unreal and arresting terms. It would’ve made everyone think when the Lord spoke of how a master handed over a total of eight talents to His servants and told them to use them as best they could. This was, humanly speaking, a huge and unreal risk for a master to take. He&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;trusted those servants And so much has the Lord delegated to each of us, entrusting us with the Gospel. And we can imagine His joy when they lived up to the trust He placed in them. We can also imagine them walking away from their meeting with Him, wondering why ever He had entrusted so much to them, feeling nervous, praying for strength to act responsibly and zealously. The talent was worth 6,000 denarii, i:e. 20 years’ wages for the workers in the parable of the labourers (<em><a href='B:470 10:1-16'>Mat 10:1-16</a></em>). In 2014 the average annual income in the USA was 50,000- 20 years wages would therefore be 1 million in dynamic terms. For one talent. But most of the Lord’s servants are given more than one talent. Looked at in this way, the church is a millionaire’s club. The element of unreality in the story is that this is a huge and unrealistic amount to give to a servant to have responsibility for But this is the huge responsibility which passes to us in having been called to the Gospel. Likewise, what human Owner of a vineyard who give out his vineyard to&nbsp;<em>other</em>&nbsp;tenants, after the first lot had proven so wicked, and killed not only His servants but His beloved Son? But this speaks of God’s amazing desire to keep on delegating His affairs to frail mortals. And just as people typically fail to manage large sums of money which they are unaccustomed to, so we too miserably mismanage the Lord’s wealth. But it was and is His will that we should use our own initiative in progressing His work and managing His wealth.</p><p>Note how valuable just one talent was- equivalent to 20 years earnings of a working man. This seems to me to be an element of unreality in the story, that flags up a lesson. The point is, we have been entrusted with a&nbsp;<em>huge</em>&nbsp;amount. We tend to see it as something ordinary; that we have a faith, a denomination, just like many others do. But the personal, individualized gift which we have been given is simply&nbsp;<em>huge</em>. Imagine if you were given say 1 million to use for the Lord’s service. You’d be quite busy working out how to spend it all. But the point is, we have each been given&nbsp;<em>far more</em>&nbsp;than this. The parable has specific application to our witness; for it was just prior to the Lord’s departure that He gave us the great preaching commission, corresponding to how in the parable, the Master leaves His servants but just beforehand, gives His servants the talents to go and trade with. Hence the one talent man is criticized for not having lent the talent on usury, a practice which Jews could only practice with Gentiles. He should’ve taken his talent, the riches of the Gospel, to the Gentiles. And yet I’d suggest that 21st century disciples aren’t one talent people. We have been given&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;much- not least literacy and having the Bible in our own native languages.</p><p><em>To each</em>-</p><p> This idea is repeated and alluded to so often in the New Testament. Each man shall be judged individually according to his works because to each servant something has been given, and he must answer for its usage (<em><a href='B:470 16:27'>Mat 16:27</a></em>). This parable leads on from the Olivet discourse, which concluded with the Lord’s teaching about the household which “the Son of Man” departed from, “and gave authority to his servants, and to every man s:w. his work” (<em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>). In a culture where religious specialists were thought to be God’s workers, this was a radical teaching- that each and every one of us has been given specific work to do. And the culture of our present age is a no less difficult one into which to introduce this teaching. Our fear of responsibility, our desire to retreat deep within ourselves, to live only semi-aware lives in an age of abstraction and minimalism… all this makes it difficult to accept that we have been given specific work to do, for which we shall be judged at the last day. ‘Every man… each of you’ is a very common term in the New Testament, seeking to persuade people of their personal connection with God and Jesus, and not to rely on mere group membership. Hence "Be baptized&nbsp;<em>every one of you</em>… in turning away&nbsp;<em>every one of you&nbsp;</em>from his sins” (<em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>) would appear redundant until we realize this personal appeal that was necessary against a culture of group mentality:&nbsp;</p><p>Analysing the later NT allusions to this term “to every man”, we have an insight into what in practice the talents may represent. God has “dealt to every man the measure of faith” (<em><a href='B:520 12:3'>Rom 12:3</a></em>); we have each been given a specific ministry, and according to Romans 12, we are to develop that ministry. If we have no idea what that ministry is, what hopes the Lord has for us, we need to earnestly ask Him to reveal it to us. But if we’re not perceiving it, this may well be because we don’t want to perceive it. On a more obvious level, it may be that faith itself is a gift of God, and different people are given different amounts of it- but we are to develop whatever we are given and not leave the potential dormant. This would explain the great diversity of spiritual levels and of faith which there clearly is within the body of believers. Life and especially psychological and spiritual life is not experienced by each person on an even playing field. There are background factors which affect how easy it is for a person to believe; and the Lord is aware of this and will judge accordingly.</p><p>When we read of how “the Lord gave to each man” (<em><a href='B:530 3:5'>1Co 3:5</a></em> s:w:) we have a very clear allusion to the parable. But the context is of how the Lord ‘gave’ converts to both Paul and Apollos. This too is a gift which we must use. Some make much brave effort to preach and never win a single convert. Others seem to keep stumbling across folks eager to hear and respond to the message. But that is all a gift from the Lord, for us to use and develop. And so the testing of ‘each man’s work’ in the day of judgment will be a testing of the quality and extent to which they have worked with people (<em><a href='B:530 3:8'>1Co 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:10'>1Co 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). Another allusion to this part of the parable is in <em><a href='B:530 7:7'>1Co 7:7</a></em>, where singleness or marital situation is described as “every man has his&nbsp;<em>idios</em>&nbsp;gift s:w. “his own /&nbsp;<em>idios</em>&nbsp;ability / power”… one this way… one that way”. This is the same wording used in speaking of how this one was given five talents, that one was given two talents. As God has distributed to and called every man, so we are to develop our lives in that calling (<em><a href='B:530 7:17'>1Co 7:17</a></em>), whether as slaves, single people, married or whatever. Many lament their marital situation, considering that if only it were otherwise, they would be able to serve God better. But it is in fact a gift from God, to be used for Him.</p><p><em><a href='B:530 12:7'>1Co 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:11'>1Co 12:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:18'>1Co 12:18</a></em> again allude to the parable in saying that the gift of the Spirit “is given to every man… the Spirit… dividing to every man&nbsp;<em>idios</em>, personally”. The talents therefore refer to the Spirit, spiritual gifts to be used within the body of Christ- so the passage continues. Likewise “unto every one of us is given grace” (<em><a href='B:560 4:7'>Eph 4:7</a></em>). “Grace”,&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, does indeed mean simply a gift. But it is so often used in the context of God’s forgiveness that we can overlook the obvious fact that the gifts of God to us are His recurrent acts of patient forgiveness, given so freely to “every man” in Christ. These gifts of grace, and so many other such gracious gifts, are to not merely be&nbsp;<em>accepted</em>&nbsp;but developed and used. Again in allusion to this parable, Peter pleaded: “As every man s:w. has received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (<em><a href='B:670 4:10'>1Pe 4:10</a></em>).</p><p><em>According to his abilities</em>-</p><p> The Lord recognizes that we each have unique abilities in some areas- and thereby unique inabilities in others. And He gives us work to do according to those abilities and not according to our inabilities. It may be that understanding of ‘correct doctrine’ is a gift given to one and not another; because not all are wired as Bible students. The giving of such different gifts, in different amounts, suggests that there can never be uniformity of spiritual level or achievement in the church. And yet so much church structure, hope, intention and expectation is geared towards achieving such uniformity. We each start at a different point and much more is expected of those who start further down the road:&nbsp;<em>Kata… dunamis</em>&nbsp;is the very phrase Paul uses in <em><a href='B:540 8:3'>2Co 8:3</a></em> in commending some brethren for responding to others’ needs “according to their ability&nbsp;<em>kata… dunamis</em>, yes, and beyond their ability”. Surely this is an allusion to the Lord’s words here. The point is that the Lord understands our ability and asks us to work according to that; but those brethren excelled themselves in that they responded beyond what the Lord even expected or hoped for from them.</p><p>The goods are distributed "to every man according to his several (Gk:&nbsp;<em>idios</em>, individual, s:w. “private") ability" (<em><a href='B:470 25:15'>Mat 25:15</a></em>). We each have our own private spirituality which we must develop in our own private way. The talents parable is alluded to in <em><a href='B:530 12:7-12'>1Co 12:7-12</a></em>: "The manifestation of the Spirit is given to each man (RV) to profit withal". In the first century, this was seen in the way in which different believers were given different gifts of the Spirit. In our dispensation, each of&nbsp;us is called to manifest a different aspect of the Lord Jesus, the Lord the Spirit (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RV). But the principle of <em><a href='B:530 12:7-12'>1Co 12:7-12</a></em> remains true, as indicated by the way Paul reasons that we each have a different aspect of the Spirit to manifest because “by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body... and have been all made to drink into one Spirit". In principle, these words are true of our baptisms. At baptism we were given our talents, our different aspects of the Spirit / mind of Christ to manifest. We are all in the Christ body, and manifest His spirit / mind in different aspects. And as the manifestation of different aspects of the Spirit in the first century caused frictions, so too today. &nbsp;</p><p>However, there is no equivalent of the pronoun “his” in the Greek text here:&nbsp;<em>The Lord</em>&nbsp;gave the talents to the three servants “according to his own power and immediately took his journey”. The ‘he’ in view could quite easily be the Lord, and the ‘His… ability / power’ would then refer to that of the Lord. This is rather confirmed by the recurrence of&nbsp;<em>kata… dunamis</em>&nbsp;in Paul’s writings which allude once every three verses at least to the Lord’s words in the Gospels, especially His parables. “<em>Kata&nbsp;</em>the gift… given unto me&nbsp;<em>kata</em>… His power&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>” (<em><a href='B:560 3:7'>Eph 3:7</a></em>)… that He would give you,&nbsp;<em>kata</em>… the might&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;through His Spirit” (<em><a href='B:560 3:16'>Eph 3:16</a></em>). “He that is of power&nbsp;<em>dunamai</em>…&nbsp;<em>kata&nbsp;</em>the power&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;that works in us” (<em><a href='B:560 3:20'>Eph 3:20</a></em>). Each of these verses associates&nbsp;<em>kata… dunamis</em>&nbsp;with the&nbsp;<em>gift</em>&nbsp;of the Lord, and the same word is used as in the parable for the giving of the talents to believers. Note too <em><a href='B:620 1:8'>2Ti 1:8</a></em> “<em>Kata&nbsp;</em>the power&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;of God”.</p><p>I suggest there is a purposeful ambiguity of meaning here. We are given some aspects of the Lord’s goods according to&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>power / ability, and in order to develop them and use them we are given&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>power / ability. For His Spirit is to be merged with our spirit. Maybe Paul appreciated this when he wrote: “I also labour&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;His working, which works in me with power&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>” (<em><a href='B:580 1:29'>Col 1:29</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And he went on his journey</em>-</p><p> Perhaps an element of unreality in the story. For we would expect Him to train them and explain to them how He intends the wealth to be used. The one talent man’s response at the end suggests that he had not been given any clear commands by his Lord as to how to use his one talent. But this is the point. We have been given the talents we have, and we are to use them- at our initiative, and not in response to a legal code which defines how we use them. And therefore one believer will make more than another out of what God gives:&nbsp;</p><p>The same word for ‘took his journey’ has just been used by the Lord at the end of the Olivet prophecy in saying that the Son of Man ‘took a far journey’ and “left His house” (<em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>). The leaving of His house surely connects with the introduction to the Olivet prophecy, in which the Lord stated that “Your house is left unto you desolate” (<em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>). It was no longer His house, but theirs. And in departing from the temple, He was leaving the house of Israel. The structure of Judaism was no longer going to be used- instead, He would give His wealth to a few individual servants and leave it to their initiative what they did with it. And this is what was and is so hard for so many- to serve the Lord on our initiative, without religious, legalistic structures. And these are rebuilt exactly because people generally struggle with the calling to take ownership and responsibility for what the Lord has given them.</p><p>This idea of using one’s own initiative was more startling then than it is now. Today, students are 'trained' to think for themselves, be creative, develop their own opinions, push forward their own independent research, using question / problem-based learning as a paradigm for their education. 'Education' in the first century wasn't like that at all. The idea was that "every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher" (<em><a href='B:490 6:40'>Luk 6:40</a></em>). The idea was that a person born into a certain social situation was trained to take their place in society, given that 'station and place' into which they had been born. Initiative in that sense was not encouraged; it was all about training up a person to correctly fulfil societies' expectation of them. The idea of being personally taught by the invisible Master / teacher Jesus, becoming like Him rather than like the person whom society expected, being given talents by Him which we are to trade and multiply at our initiative (<em><a href='B:470 25:15-28'>Mat 25:15-28</a></em>)... this was all totally counter-cultural stuff. What was so vital in the Mediterranean world was that a person achieved conformity to accepted values. Cicero advised that in any good presentation of a legal case or encomium, emotions and passions shouldn't be referred to. Individualism was seen as a threat to tradition and the collective society. The huge New Testament emphasis on becoming disciples, learners, of an invisible Lord, Master and teacher located in Heaven, serving Him alone, worried about<em>&nbsp;His</em>&nbsp;standards, perceptions and judgment of us- that was and is so totally opposite to the expectations of society. People were educated to be embedded in society, rather than to come out of their world and live in the new world in which Christ was the light, and all things were made new in a new creation, a new set of values.</p><p>Several times Paul alludes to the parable of the talents; in <em><a href='B:520 12:6'>Rom 12:6</a></em> he suggests that this parable has an application to each having a different gift within the ecclesia; whilst in <em><a href='B:530 12:11'>1Co 12:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:560 4:7'>Eph 4:7</a></em> he implies that he saw the talents as representing miraculous Holy Spirit gifts. This shows how Paul applied the basic principles of Christ's teaching to local situations, even though it may seem strictly to be slightly out of context. He does the same with Christ's commands concerning personal offences in Matthew 18; he applies them, strictly out of context, to dealing with doctrinal problems at Corinth. But this, presumably, is how we are to read the Gospels; understanding the basic principles, and applying them in different situations in practice. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>25:16&nbsp;<em>Immediately he that received-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Continuing Matthew's common theme of immediacy of response. We have freely received s:w:, and are to freely give (10:8). The context is of giving the things of the Gospel to others. This is the incredible wealth of silver we have been entrusted with. We “receive” s:w. the seed / word of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 13:31'>Mat 13:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:33'>Mat 13:33</a></em>), just as in the previous parable the virgins receive s:w. “took” their lamps (<em><a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a></em>) when we “received the knowledge of the Truth” (<em><a href='B:650 10:26'>Heb 10:26</a></em>). The emphasis upon their ‘receiving’ the talents (:16,18,20,22,24) shows that the talents are not natural abilities, but what is given by the Lord. And straight after this teaching, the Lord uses the same word to urge His followers to take or s:w. ‘receive’ the bread and wine, the symbols of His life given to us (<em><a href='B:470 26:26-27'>Mat 26:26-27</a></em>). But that is ongoing- we receive s:w. “of His fullness” (<em><a href='B:500 1:16'>Joh 1:16</a></em>), all that He is, He has divided amongst us His servants; different aspects of His personality and work in this world. This is achieved practically through the medium of the word and the Spirit- for again He uses the word about us ‘receiving’ the Father’s words (<em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>) and receiving the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 20:22'>Joh 20:22</a></em>). There are specific things we are called to do- Paul surely alludes here when he speaks of how what he “received of the Lord Jesus” was the ministry of testifying to the good news of His grace (<em><a href='B:510 20:24'>Act 20:24</a></em>).</p><p><em>The five talents went</em>-</p><p> This may seem a superfluous word, until we perceive a connection with the great preaching commission, to&nbsp;<em>go&nbsp;</em>into all the world with the Gospel.</p><p><em>And traded</em>-</p><p> The same word is translated "work" in the parable of the sons working in the vineyard (<em><a href='B:470 21:28'>Mat 21:28</a></em>). Whilst salvation is on the basis of grace and not works (<em><a href='B:520 4:4-5'>Rom 4:4-5</a></em>), there is all the same a fundamental call to "work" in response to that grace. If we do not, then we have to remember that "faith without works is dead, being alone" (<em><a href='B:660 2:17'>Jas 2:17</a></em>). And this is a severe temptation. To believe, to assent to Christian and Biblical ideas, but not to respond further, thinking that the mere possession of the ideas is enough. This was the one talent man; his faith remained "alone". The "work" was to be done within the vineyard. The ecclesia of Christ, the body of Christ, is merely a structure enabling our response in practice. The "work" was to harvest the fruit of the vine- to work with others bringing them in to the final harvest of salvation. In another metaphor, we ourselves are to bring forth fruit on the vine; but the metaphor of harvesting used in <em><a href='B:470 21:28'>Mat 21:28</a></em> and in other parables of the vineyard surely speaks of harvesting others for the Kingdom. The same word has just been used by the Lord in saying that the Son of Man has left his house and given to each man in the household his "work" (<em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>). We each have a specific work or trading to do, tailored personally to what the Lord has given us. Sadly, the structure of church life has often become so developed and defined that the average church member assumes that the work is being done by the specialists. "Get professional help" is the comment made on so many cases of personal need encountered; "Read the book... come to the seminars... to the meetings" can all be a passing up of our personal responsibility to work. The judgment seat is largely about presenting to the Lord our work in this life. And yet John uses the same word in recording the Lord's comment that the deeds 'trading', s:w. of the faithful are even now "made manifest that they are wrought in God" if we come to the light of the cross which is the basis of all self-examination and self-understanding (<em><a href='B:500 3:21'>Joh 3:21</a></em>).</p><p>We can indeed prove / examine our own work s:w. even in this life (<em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em>). People are never better than when they perceive clearly their calling and the work they are intended to do- and give their lives to doing it. Barnabas and Saul were 'called' just as the servants here were 'called' (:14) to do the 'work' s:w. 'trading' of spreading the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>), and experienced the Spirit confirming them in the "work" s:w. they were 'fulfilling' (<em><a href='B:510 14:26'>Act 14:26</a></em>). The idea of 'fulfilling' a work given suggests that they were fulfilling God's intention for them. And again we note that the work was related to bringing others to Christ. Just as the servants 'went' to 'trade', so Paul talks of 'going' to "the work" s:w. 'trade', again in the context of missionary work (<em><a href='B:510 15:38'>Act 15:38</a></em>). God will render to every man according to his "works" (s:w. <em><a href='B:520 2:6'>Rom 2:6</a></em>). Our trading is the basis upon which we will be judged. The gift has been given by pure grace, as it was to the servants; but we have to respond to that grace, lest we have believed and accepted in vain. It is the works&nbsp;<em>of the law</em>&nbsp;of Moses which will not justify (<em><a href='B:520 3:20'>Rom 3:20</a></em>); rather our works are to be those in response to the Lord's great gifts to us. <em><a href='B:530 3:13-15'>1Co 3:13-15</a></em> uses this same word for 'working / trading' and again applies it to our work in building others up- and the day of judgment will declare the quality of that work. The Corinthians were therefore Paul's "work in the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 9:1'>1Co 9:1</a></em>), even though he baptized virtually none of them, his efforts for them were his attempt to trade / work with the talents given him. God clearly has intended works / trading for each of us, "Good works s:w. which God has before ordained that we should walk in them" (<em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>). And the NT usage of the idea of works / trading is nearly always in the context of preaching or caring for others. Paul may well have himself in mind when he promises the Philippians that "He who began a good work in you Paul's initial preaching at Philippi will work at finishing it right up to the day of Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:570 1:6'>Phi 1:6</a></em> cp. 22). The key is to be open to God's leading. Thus Paul urged Timothy to purge himself from bad company so that he might be prepared or ready "unto every good work" (<em><a href='B:620 2:21'>2Ti 2:21</a></em>), and to devote himself to the Scriptures that he might be "equipped unto all good works" (<em><a href='B:620 3:17'>2Ti 3:17</a></em>). These works are surely those "Good works s:w. which God has before ordained that we should walk in them" (<em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>). And we should be "ready to every good work... thoughtful to be ready for good works" (<em><a href='B:630 3:1'>Tit 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:8'>Tit 3:8</a></em>), thoughtfully open to God's leading in response to our prayer to be shown what exactly is the work / trading intended for us. A functional church will be a place where the members are all devoted to this principle personally, and thus will "consider one another to provoke unto love and good works" (<em><a href='B:650 10:24'>Heb 10:24</a></em>). And God will confirm our openness and willingness; He will "frame you in every good work to do His will" (<em><a href='B:650 13:21'>Heb 13:21</a></em> Gk:):&nbsp;</p><p>We cannot be passive on receiving the opportunity to serve God. We will urgently seek to do something with what we have been enabled to do for the Lord: “The servant who got five bags&nbsp;<em>went quickly&nbsp;</em>to invest the money and earned five more bags” (<em><a href='B:470 25:16'>Mat 25:16</a></em> NCV). The law of the peace offerings was designed so as to encourage the person who decided to make such a freewill offering to execute immediately- they were to eat it the same day they offered it, and the sacrifice would be totally unacceptable if it was killed but left for some days (<em><a href='B:30 19:5-7'>Lev 19:5-7</a></em>). If we have an impulse to respond to the Lord, we should respond to it immediately. This isn’t mere impetuosity. It’s a spirit of always having an immediacy of response, which empowers us to overcome the procrastination which holds us back so much.</p><p><em>With them-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The idea surely is that we are to trade / work with what the Lord gives us to do, with those same things; rather than decide that our natural talents, which were not given at conversion but rather are an outcome of our own environment and experience, are to be developed just as everyone in the world does- and then claimed as work for the Lord.</p><p><em>And made another five talents</em>-</p><p> “Made” translates&nbsp;<em>poieo</em>, a very common word; but it has just been used by the Lord, again in talking about His servants, in saying that the faithful servant will be found ‘doing’ care to his brethren (<em><a href='B:470 24:46'>Mat 24:46</a></em>). And the word is twice used later in this chapter about ‘doing’ good unto the least of Christ’s brethren, and this being the basis for our judgment (:40,45). Again we see that our work / trading involves fruitfully sharing the spiritual riches we have received with others. It’s worth noting that this teaching is followed by the record of the woman anointing the Lord’s feet; and all the records of it use the same Greek words to describe it. She “did it” (<em>poieo</em>, <em><a href='B:470 26:12-13'>Mat 26:12-13</a></em>), she “worked” (s:w. “traded”) a good work ‘trading’ on the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 26:10'>Mat 26:10</a></em>). It’s as if her humanly senseless pouring out of her wealth for the Lord was in fact smart trading in the spiritual sense. The story line implies that we can add to the total wealth of the Lord Jesus. Yet the extension of His glory, the progress of His work, depends upon us, and we are left to our own initiative in this. This is the meaning of the element of ‘absence’ of the Lord, and the immediacy of His leaving the servants with such huge amounts of silver without instructing them specifically how to use them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:17'>Mat 25:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In like manner he also that received the two gained other two</em>-</p><p> The word is used regarding 'gaining' others for the Kingdom: "You have gained your brother" (<em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>), Paul was sensitive to his presentation of the Gospel "that I might gain the more" (<em><a href='B:530 9:19-22'>1Co 9:19-22</a></em>); unbelieving husbands are "gained" by the example of the believing wife (<em><a href='B:670 3:1'>1Pe 3:1</a></em>). Clearly enough, the trading and gain of talents refers to what we do for others on the basis of what the Lord Jesus has personally given us. Not having oil to give light to others in the house the ecclesia and to the world is made parallel with not gaining more talents, which matches not ministering to the least the word often refers to the spiritually least of Christ’s brethren. This shows the primacy of preaching & pastoral work / effort for others, especially in the last days. Oil burning is giving light to others. Going to sleep / not tending the lamps in the last generation is therefore lacking in love to the household, not keeping ourselves awake to give light to others. Lack of care for others in the last days results in lamps going out and our generation slumbering. Does this imply that in the last days there will not be the care for the least of Christ’s needy brethren which there should be? The last generation will be slumbering when shouldn’t be, i:e. not giving light to the world and brotherhood as they should. And could it be that the spiritually “least” whom they despise are the new converts made in the last days tribulation, whom they somehow disregard?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:18'>Mat 25:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he that received the one went away and dug in the earth and hid his lord's money</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; The tragedy is that the Gospel is hid from the majority anyway (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:7'>1Co 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:9'>Eph 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:26'>Col 1:26</a></em>). It is treasure hid in a field which must be found (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>). And it is hid now by one to whom it was revealed in order to share with others, put back in the earth from which the Lord Jesus had extracted it. By hiding it, the man effectively was placing himself in the same position as the unbelieving world. The allusion is clearly to Achan, hiding God’s talents in the earth, for himself. In this connection we perhaps have an insight into the man’s mentality. Can we infer that the man reasoned that the Lord might in fact never return, and therefore, his Lord’s talents would become his? His excuses about the Lord being unreasonably demanding and “therefore” he did nothing with the talent all seem rather illogical, as if he was just saying it for the sake of mumbling at least something. His real motivation, surely, was to keep the talent for himself- on the basis that his Lord would not return. And this is the context of the parable. The fact we know that Christ will return, even if we do not know when exactly, will guard us against such an assumption- that we can take what is His as ours.</p><p>The fact it was not his ("his Lord's money”) meant that he had no right to simply not use it. The fact we have been given so much by the Lord is undeniable; and we are to use it for Him and not hide it. Because it’s not ours to do that with.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:19'>Mat 25:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now after a long time- Chronos</em>, "time", can as a word imply delay or an interval. If time has ‘length', as it does here, this can only be in the expectation of human beings. It would be fair to interpret this phrase, even simply on the basis of the original Greek, as meaning 'after a long delay'. And this would admirably fit the context- for the parables of Matthew 25 are a commentary upon the closing warning of the Olivet prophecy, that there is indeed a delay to the Lord's coming (<em><a href='B:470 24:48'>Mat 24:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:5'>Mat 25:5</a></em>). Our sufferings now are only for a moment compared to the glorious eternity of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:230 37:10'>Psa 37:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 4:17'>2Co 4:17</a></em>), and yet the language of the Bible also expresses God’s appreciation that from our perspective, our time of probation is “a long time” (<em><a href='B:470 25:19'>Mat 25:19</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>The lord of those servants came and made a reckoning with them</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s coming was surely not in AD70 because He did not reckon up with all His servants then; there was no resurrection of the faithful in order to reckon with them. The Greek text here is&nbsp;<em>sunairo logos</em>-</p><p> He reckons the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;with them, He considers the thought behind their actions. It wasn’t so much a reckoning on a simply utilitarian, mercenary level. Rather was it an examination of their inner<em>&nbsp;logos</em>&nbsp;and motivation, as demonstrated by the discussion with the one talent man concerning his inner thoughts about his Lord:&nbsp;<em>Sunairo</em>&nbsp;is only used elsewhere in 18:23,24 where the Lord’s reckoning with His servants begins now in this life. And they had miserably failed in money management. Yet He still wanted relationship with them, and frankly forgave them, whilst assuming they would on that basis forgive any of their own far smaller debtors. But even that didn’t work out. Putting the Lord’s parables together, so many of them are about servants; and the servants often behave in an incredibly bad way to Him. And we are those servants.</p>


text:
<p>25:20&nbsp;<em>And he that received the five talents came-&nbsp;</em>This is&nbsp;<em>proserchomai,&nbsp;</em>and the word used for the Lord’s coming is&nbsp;<em>erchomai&nbsp;</em>(:19). He comes to us and the faithful come to Him. As outlined earlier, this will have a literal element to it. When we know for sure that the Lord has come, we will have the choice as to whether to go to Him immediately or delay. Those who go immediately will be confirmed in that by being snatched away to meet the Lord in the air (<em><a href='B:590 4:16-17'>1Th 4:16-17</a></em>). One of the great themes of Matthew's gospel is that various men and women 'came to Jesus' at different times and in a variety of situations. The Lord uses the same term to describe how at the last day, people will once again 'come unto' Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:20-24'>Mat 25:20-24</a></em>). The same Jesus whom they 'came before' in His ministry is the one to whom they and we shall again come at the last day- to receive a like gracious acceptance. He will judge and reason the same way He did during His mortality. Likewise we know what kind of judge Christ is, and so the meeting of Him in final judgment need not be for us something so terribly unknown and uncertain. We know that He is the judge who 'justifies' sinners- the Greek word means not so much 'making righteous', but 'acquitting, declaring righteous' in a legal sense. It's unthinkable that a human judge treats the guilty as if they are righteous and innocent, just because they are "in" Christ. It's also unheard of that a judge also is the counsel for the defence But this is the kind of judge we have, day by day- to those who believe. Will He be so different in the last day?</p><p><em>And brought another five talents, saying: Lord</em>-</p><p> He offered / presented the talents to his Lord. Only in the day of judgment will we achieve final self-knowledge and be able to perceive what we have done and achieved with what He has given us. Our trading / work is clearly with the Lord’s people. The presentation of the wealth gained therefore refers to what we have done for others. Paul spoke of how he would ‘present’ his converts to Christ at the last day; hence his concern about their development, “that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>).</p><p><em>You gave me five talents. Look, I have gained another five talents</em>-</p><p> This is the word used for the ‘delivering’ to believers of the body of doctrine comprising the Gospel message (<em><a href='B:530 15:3'>1Co 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:21'>2Pe 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:3'>Jud 1:3</a></em>). Again we see that the talents refer to what is specifically given to us by Christ at the time of our calling by the Gospel, and not to any latent natural ability within us.</p>


text:
<p>25:21<em>&nbsp;His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant</em>-</p><p> The term used in the previous parable (<em><a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a></em>). There, the “faithful servant” was faithful in that he provided food for the other servants within the household, and didn’t beat the fellow-servants. Here, the faithful servant trades his Lord’s wealth for a profit. The metaphors refer to the same essential activity- sharing the wealth we have in Christ for the benefit of our brethren. To cut them off, waste their energy and attention with empty arguments and pedantic concerns, ignore them… is to not trade the talents, to be unfaithful.</p><p><em>You have been faithful over a few things</em>-</p><p> The equivalent parable in <em><a href='B:490 19:17'>Luk 19:17</a></em> says “in a very little” (<em>elachistos</em>). This very same word is found later in Matthew 25, when we read that the final judgment will be based around how we have treated “the least” of the Lord’s brethren (<em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em>). The talents we have been given relate to them- how we have used them, what we have done for them, how we have served them with the riches given us by the Lord. There is obviously a connection between the manner in which we rule over the “few things”, and how we shall be given “many things” to rule over in the Kingdom age. Clearly what we are doing now is in essence what we shall eternally be doing, but on a greater level. If our lives are centred merely around ourselves and doing what we want, developing ourselves, rather than developing the Lord’s work and doing&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;work, then we will be out of step with the life eternal. We are to start living that now. And then we shall live it eternally.</p><p><em>So I will set you over</em>-</p><p> The preceding parable says that we have already been made ruler in the Lord’s household in order to feed the members (<em><a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a></em> s:w:). Our whole church experience, our relations with others and efforts for them, is to prepare us for being made ruler over all the Lord’s goods (<em><a href='B:470 24:47'>Mat 24:47</a></em>). We cannot of course accurately imagine what new dimensions await us, but all we can say is that we are in training for them, and that training involves the care of others within the household now. To separate ourselves from that household, or cast others out of it, is to deny both ourselves and others the environment required for us to prepared for eternity:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Many things</em>-</p><p> The Lord gave a related teaching in <em><a href='B:490 16:10-12'>Luk 16:10-12</a></em>: “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?”. What is given to us now is to test our faithfulness. If we don’t perceive what we have been given, and so many believers tell me they are unsure about this,&nbsp;<em>then you need to ask the Lord to show you</em>. Urgently. And give your life to developing those things. The Luke 16 passage appears to say that in this life, we are stewards of the Lord’s wealth; but if we manage that well, then we will be rewarded with wealth which is actually and personally our own. For eternity. That ‘wealth’ will be of the same nature as that given to us by the Lord initially. Here we have a rare insight into the nature of our eternity. “Many things” is equivalent to “all His goods” (<em><a href='B:470 24:47'>Mat 24:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:44'>Luk 12:44</a></em>). There is nothing that is the Lord’s which will not be shared with us and in some sense give to us to exercise our initiative over.</p><p><em>Enter into</em>-</p><p> This is&nbsp;<em>eis-erchomai</em>, and is the Lord’s confirmation of how the servant responded to the call to come to Him by ‘coming’ to Him,&nbsp;<em>pros-erchomai</em>&nbsp;(:20). Once again we meet the teaching that our initial response at the Lord’s return, our willing desire to go to Him, will be confirmed by Him bringing us closer to Him. The same word has just been used about the wise virgins ‘going in’ to the wedding (<em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>) having initially responded to the call without delay. The same word is used of Noah entering the ark (<em><a href='B:470 24:38'>Mat 24:38</a></em>), and these parables in chapter 25 appear to be an expansion upon that.</p><p><em>The joy of your Lord</em>-</p><p> The joy of the Lord Jesus as revealed in His own teaching is specifically His joy at the repentance of others. He speaks of Himself as the shepherd rejoicing over the lost sheep (<em><a href='B:470 18:13'>Mat 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:5'>Luk 15:5</a></em>) and the repentance of any sinner (<em><a href='B:490 15:7'>Luk 15:7</a></em>), at the return of the prodigal (<em><a href='B:490 15:32'>Luk 15:32</a></em>), joyful that the disciples believed in Him (<em><a href='B:500 11:15'>Joh 11:15</a></em>), joyful at finding the believers in the world (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>). The reasons for the Lord’s joy were all related to the salvation and spiritual blessing&nbsp;<em>of others</em>. He went on to say soon afterwards that His joy was to become the joy of the disciples even in this life (<em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em>). This will ultimately happen at the point of entry into the Kingdom at the day of judgment, but the essence of it is to begin now. And it can indeed begin now, if the Lord’s joy at others’ repentance, growth and salvation becomes&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;joy, and our joy is no longer in ourselves and material things. There is also here a Joseph allusion- “They were merry with him” (<em><a href='B:10 43:34'>Gen 43:34</a></em>). He would fain have them enter into the joy of their Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:22'>Mat 25:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And also he that had received the two talents came and said: Lord, you gave me two talents. Look, I have gained another two talents</em>-</p><p> Paul uses the same word for "received" in <em><a href='B:530 4:7'>1Co 4:7</a></em>: “For who makes you to differ? And what have you that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?”. All that we have spiritually including the knowledge of the Lord Jesus in truth, is a gift we received. And yet we can easily act as if we did not receive it, suggesting instead that we found the Lord ourselves by our own searching. Many people have a spiritual search all their lives and never find much if anything. What we have got is a gift we received, and we must ever be humbled by that.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a few things-&nbsp;</em>The "Truth" we have now (and it is that) is "a very little... a few things". We mustn't see it as an end in itself. Yet because of our humanity, our limited vision, the way we are locked up in our petty paradigms, we tend to think that the Kingdom will be rather similar to our present experience of "the Truth". Yet the Lord emphasizes, at least twice, that what we have now is pathetically limited compared to the infinitely greater spiritual vision of the Kingdom. We (personally) will then be made ruler over&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>that Christ has (<em><a href='B:470 24:47'>Mat 24:47</a></em>; the "many things" of <em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em>); and in him are hid&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>the riches of spiritual wisdom (<em><a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a></em>).</p><p><em>So I will set you over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord-&nbsp;</em>The figure of judgment would suggest a grim faced judge, with all the dignity and soberness of the courtroom, whatever the verdict Is. But there are elements of unreality in the pictures of judgment which are put before us in the parables. This judge is emotionally involved in each case (unheard of in a human court); and He is also the advocate and the witness who finds nothing bad to say; and He exalts: "Well done... enter into the joy of your Lord". The picture is of the happy judge, breaking down in joy at the verdict, inviting the hesitant believer to share his joy in their victory. The picture seems so imaginable; "you, enter into the joy of thy Lord" suggests a reticence, an unbelief, at the outcome. Compare this with the one hour labourers receiving a day's pay (<em><a href='B:470 20:9'>Mat 20:9</a></em>), and the faithful almost remonstrating with their Lord that they have not done the things He reminds them of (<em><a href='B:470 25:38-40'>Mat 25:38-40</a></em>). But we will overcome our reticence; we&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;enter our Lord's joy; for we shall stand before the presence of&nbsp;His glory with exceeding joy (<em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>). “Enter into the joy of your Lord" sounds like the Lord may have to encourage us to get over our weeping, and enter into the sheer joy which He has, that we've finally made it. "<em>Come…&nbsp;</em>You blessed of my Father Enter the Kingdom…" sounds like something similar. Now all these things are highly emotional. Yet we will have God's nature. He therefore has the same kind of emotional capabilities as we will have. And, He exercises them right now.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:24'>Mat 25:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And also he that had received the one talent came and said-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The judgment of the righteous comes before that of the rejected. The faithful respond first to the news that ‘He’s back’, and their willingness to go and be with Him is effectively their judgment. Those who delay are the unworthy and are therefore judged slightly later.</p><p><em>Lord</em>-</p><p> The man considers himself one of the Lord’s servants, within the household. He clearly felt he had been given too little to do anything much with; but actually the talent was worth around 1 million , or 20 years’ wages. He didn’t appreciate the greatness of what he had been given.</p><p><em>I knew you</em>-</p><p> In reality, he didn’t know his Lord. For those who ‘know the Lord’ will be saved, and it is the unbelieving world who do not know Him (s:w. <em><a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:25'>Joh 17:25</a></em>). Because that isn’t at all how the Lord is (hard, unreasonable, etc:). But the Lord doesn’t correct the false understanding, thereby justifying Himself. Rather does He as so often reason with the man upon the basis of the man’s professed belief system. We see this so often in the Lord’s teaching style, and in the way the Gospels use the language of demons. Error is not baldly exposed and corrected, rather are those who believe it worked with according to their understandings, and gently brought to a realization that those views are unhelpful and not the correct reality. The focus, therefore, was upon people, upon the persons holding the ideas, rather than the error of the ideas in themselves. And this has much to teach us; for so many Protestant groups have become obsessed with exposing intellectual error for its own sake; whereas our focus must be upon the individuals who hold those misbeliefs:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Are a hard man</em>-</p><p> The problem was the man’s wrong attitude and laziness to do anything. The prodigal son was given much of his Father’s wealth, and he wasted it rather than trading it. But he recognized the Father’s grace and was prepared to work just as a servant. And this attitude was his salvation. So this man’s rejection wasn’t simply because he had failed to do any trading.</p><p>Another take on this is that there is a sense in which the Lord is indeed a “hard man”, a demanding Lord, His expectations were (and are) high. And yet His parables reveal an immense sympathy and empathy with our weakness. In a normal human situation, it would be difficult to build a relationship with someone who had such apparently contradictory trends in His character. Perhaps we have the same problem in our struggle to know the Lord. He never denied that He came over in some ways as "a hard man" with high expectations; all He said was that seeing this was the case, we ought to act accordingly (<em><a href='B:470 25:24'>Mat 25:24</a></em>). And yet He is also a man of grace and understanding far beyond anything reached by anyone else. He is truly the Jesus who understands human weakness. And note that He is described even now as “the man Christ Jesus”, able to feel the pulse of our humanity. This, in passing, opens a window into what Divine nature will be like: we will be able to completely feel the human experience, to the extent of still bearing the title ‘men’ even in immortality.</p><p><em>Reaping where you did not sow-&nbsp;</em>The moment of conversion is the beginning of the gathering to judgment (<em><a href='B:490 11:23'>Luk 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>). The one talent man didn't appreciate this; he objected to the Lord reaping and gathering him (<em><a href='B:470 25:24'>Mat 25:24</a></em>). But whatever human objections, the responsible from all nations&nbsp;<em>will be gathered&nbsp;</em>to judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>). The servants are called to receive their talents, and then called again to account (Luke 19; Luke 13, 15); there is something in common between the calling to know the Gospel, and the calling to judgment. If reaping refers to judgment which it clearly does in the Lord’s teaching, then the man could hardly claim to have known the Lord on the basis of how He reaps. Because the man hadn’t experienced the Lord’s reaping. The man says he ‘knows’&nbsp;<em>ginosko</em>&nbsp;the Lord is like this; the Lord answers that if indeed the man has ‘known’&nbsp;<em>eido</em>-</p><p> which more means to see / experience that He is like this, then he should have acted accordingly. The suggestion may be that even if a person’s understanding of the Lord Jesus is slightly wrong, the important thing is to live within and according to that understanding, even if it involves breaking some Divine principles lending for interest. If the desire to respond to the Lord’s gift was there, the desire to progress His work, then although such response was not ideal and not as good as that achieved by the other two servants, then the Lord would accept it. The language of sowing, reaping and gathering is all described using the same Greek words in the Lord’s comment that the birds don’t do these three things, and yet God still feeds them (<em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>). Perhaps the man was making a garbled, incoherent attempt to say that he had understood those words of the Lord to mean that He was somehow going to be an unreasonable judge with unreal expectations, therefore he had done nothing, although he had not spent the talent unlike the prodigal son- who desperately wanted to be with the Father. We may be intended to understand his reasoning as being ‘You created birds who don’t sow, reap nor gather into barns, they just expect food. And God thinks that’s good. So, He is like what He creates’. And perhaps the man also had in view <em><a href='B:500 4:38'>Joh 4:38</a></em>: “I sent you to reap that whereon you bestowed no labour. Other men laboured…”. The harvest of people was reaped by those who hadn’t fully worked for it, and the man desperately tries to turn that around to justify his own lack of action. Such desperate twisting of Bible verses can be seen at every hand today, as people wriggle by all means to justify their inaction and selfishness.</p><p><em>And gathering where you did not scatter seed</em>-</p><p> The Lord is clearly the sower of seed, the seed of the word of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 13:3'>Mat 13:3</a></em>). But the man is complaining that the Lord ‘reaps’ or calls to judgment those who had not received that seed. That is not the case- for knowledge of the Gospel is what makes responsible to judgment. The Lord could have corrected him by reminding him of the sower parable. But He doesn’t. He reasons with the man according to the belief system which he claims to have, assuming for a moment that it is in fact true. His whole style ought to be programmatic for us in our frequent encounters with those who misuse Scripture and the Lord’s words. The Lord does&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>expect a harvest from ground He has not sown; and in any case, the man had heard the word, received the talent. He was ground which had been sown, and the Lord could therefore expect a harvest from him. Like many people today, he started to raise philosophical questions about the fate of those who have not heard, and justified his own inaction as one who definitely&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;heard and been called on the basis of his doubts as to the Lord’s justice in dealing with those who had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;been called. Truly these ancient teachings speak to the heart of postmodern man today.</p><p>"Gathering" was highly relevant to the man, for the language of ‘gathering’ is often used about the gathering of God’s servants to judgment (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>). The man was implying that his ‘gathering’ to judgment was unreasonable because the Lord had not sown in his land, had not strawed where he has. He felt he was being gathered to give an account when the Lord had given him nothing to account for. And yet the obvious fact was, the elephant in the room, that the Lord had given him a talent, 20 years’ wages, 1 million. And yet the man reasoned as if he had not been given anything to account for. He totally refused to perceive the immense value of what he had been given. And this is so true for us- we for whom Christ died, the blood of God’s Son shed, we who have been called to eternity, who by status are “saved” and showered with all spiritual blessings… can complain that we have not been given anything. Because in our minds we have buried it away, and reason as if we never received it. Here again, the Lord’s ancient words pierce to the core of modern Christian self-perception.</p><p>The Greek&nbsp;<em>diaskorpizo</em>&nbsp;can mean ‘to scatter’ and can therefore be used about sowing; but it also has the specific meaning ‘to winnow’. In this case, the picture would be of a man who has not winnowed and yet expects to come and gather up wheat. Again, the man may be attempting to twist the Lord’s words about ‘gathering wheat into His barn’ (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>, repeating John’s words of <em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>). His idea would be ‘You expect the wheat to be waiting for You without even winnowing it’. But of course the point was that winnowing represented judgment, and this was exactly what the Lord had come to do. But in His grace, the Lord doesn’t make that obvious point, but runs with the man’s words and reasoning and shows him that however wrong his imaginations were about the Lord, he should have acted according to them if he truly loved his Lord. But he hadn’t done so; because he was selfish and lazy.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>And I was afraid-&nbsp;</em>Fear of the judgment of others is a source of false guilt. It is this which militates against the true and free life of which the Lord speaks so enthusiastically. We fear showing ourselves for who we really are, because we fear others’ judgments. This fear makes us uncreative, not bearing the unique spiritual fruits which the Lord so eagerly seeks from us and in us. The Lord said this plainly, when He characterized the man who did nothing with his talents as lamely but truthfully saying: “I was afraid” (<em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>). Think about this: What or whom was he afraid of? His fear was not so much of his Lord’s judgment, but rather perhaps of the judgments of others, that he might do something wrong, wrongly invest, look stupid, mess it all up... And thus John writes that it is fear that leads to torment of soul now and final condemnation. The Lord’s words in the parable are almost exactly those of Adam. The rejected one talent man says ‘I was afraid, and so I hid&nbsp;<em>my talent</em>’. Adam said: ‘I was afraid, and I hid&nbsp;<em>myself</em>’. The talent God gave that man was therefore himself, his real self. To not use our talent, to not blossom from the experience of God’s love and grace, is to not use ourselves, is to not be ourselves, the&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;self as God intended.</p><p><em>And went away and hid your talent in the earth</em>-</p><p> Just as Achan did, hoping that what was not his would somehow become his in time. In line with our earlier suggestions that the man was alluding to the Lord’s words, one wonders if here he has in mind the Lord’s teaching about the Kingdom as treasure hid in a field i:e. in the ground which must be found (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>):&nbsp; Of course, it’s terribly out of context. But that’s the way so many people use the Lord’s words, as if sharing the same lexical items with Him somehow adds legitimacy to their doing just precisely what&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;want to do- rather than serving Him. The Lord Jesus was the man of <em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em> who sold all that He had to buy / redeem the field in which the treasure was buried. By returning the treasure into the earth, the man was effectively undoing the work of the Lord on the cross; for the field is the world (<em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>), and the price of the field’s redemption was the Lord’s blood. But by laziness and a vague hope that the wealth would by default become his own, the Lord’s work on the cross was undone for this man. The connection with <em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em> is surely purposeful.</p><p><em>Here, have what is yours-&nbsp;</em>So many of the parables build up to a final climax which is the essence of the point the Lord was trying to get across; and this ‘end stress’ is also seen in the talents parable. The warning is not to be like the man who didn’t have the vision to do anything with his talent, but buried it and returned it unused to the Lord. This perhaps is our greatest temptation in our postmodern age of passivity, of staring at computer screens and clicking a mouse. “Lo, there You have what is Yours” suggests an air of confidence in this man; he really didn’t get it, that he was asked to trade what he’d been given. The fact he had retained it pristine appears to have been his reason for thinking that he ought to be accepted, or at least, didn’t ought to be condemned. The story line penetrates deep into the mentality of many small time Protestant sects, according to which the ultimate test of loyalty to the Lord is whether we have retained our understanding of whatever curious or specific interpretations were entrusted to us via the charismatic founder of the sect. This man thought that that was all there was to it. He didn’t spend it on himself, he wasn’t like the prodigal son. But too late he was to learn that sins of omission are the ground for condemnation. To do nothing with God’s Truth is described by the Lord as ‘wickedness’. The grammar emphasizes personal possession:&nbsp;<em>You&nbsp;</em>have what&nbsp;<em>belongs to You</em>. As if to say ‘I didn’t steal it It’s yours, and it remains yours’. But the whole point was that the Lord had given the talents to the servants and gone away- they had to trade in their own name, as if they were theirs. Thus the other two servants speak somewhat differently, of the talents which had been “delivered” to them. We’re not simply receptacles of intellectual truths which are to be preserved for the sake of it until the end of our days. That would be of itself pointless, a kind of mind game played between God and man for no ultimate purpose. We are given God’s Truth, the riches of Christ, in order to use it for others; the whole talk of ‘preserving the Truth in its purity’ is dangerously close to inculcating the mentality of the one talent man- the mentality that led to his condemnation. See on :29&nbsp;<em>Taken away</em>.</p><p>Perhaps we have never seriously thought of being generous to someone else even if it’s a few pennies from our poverty; of actively telling an acquaintance about the Gospel; of doing acts of kindness for someone ‘out of the blue’, thinking up something nice for them which will make them feel ‘Wow’; doing mission work; reconciliation with our enemies; seeing beyond our immediate emotions of hurt, pleasure, anger, passion. When we step out in faith and do these things, we start living a totally new kind of life. We find God setting us up with situations, working with and through us- and we feel it. We will see beyond the steely silence of the skies to know the reality of Angelic existence. One of my favourite Bible stories is that of Elisha and his frightened servant. Elisha asks God to open the man’s eyes so that he might see the Angelic armies surrounding them; Elisha and I so love this didn’t ask for his own eyes to be opened to see them; he was so certain they were there:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But his lord answered and said to him: You wicked and slothful servant-&nbsp;</em>The Lord’s only other reference to a wicked servant is in the parable of the wicked servant who runs up a huge debt, is forgiven, and then refuses to forgive a far smaller debt, putting the debtor in prison (<em><a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a></em>). The two men are clearly intended to be compared. The one of <em><a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a></em> was dishonest with his Lord’s money for how else did he amass such a huge debt to his Lord? Was it not that he was found out for dishonesty?; he was materialistic in the extreme; and he was incredibly ungrateful and unforgiving. He committed many sins. The “wicked servant” of <em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em> does nothing wrong, is not overtly materialistic; but his sin of omission, his laziness AV “slothful”, meant that in reality he had done just the same as the man who committed so much wrong.</p><p>The Lord’s parable was clearly alluding to a contemporary Jewish rabbinic parable later recorded in the Zohar Chadash, folio 47: “A certain king gave a deposit to three of his servants: the first kept it; the second lost it; the third spoiled one part of it, and gave the rest to another to keep. After some time, the king came and demanded the deposit. Him who had preserved it, the king praised, and made him governor of his house. Him who had lost it, he delivered to utter destruction, so that both his name and his possessions were blotted out. To the third, who had spoiled a part and given the rest to another to keep, the king said, Keep him, and let him not go out of my house, till we see what the other shall do to whom he has entrusted a part: if he shall make a proper use of it, this man shall be restored to liberty; if not, he also shall be punished”. The point of contrast is that the Lord is far more demanding. The Jewish story praised the man who simply preserved the deposit. The Lord Jesus condemned the same man for doing nothing positive with it. The third man in the Jewish parable was given the possibility of repentance. But the third man in the Lord’s parable was condemned with no possibility of changing the verdict- for this life is our sole time of responsibility. The Lord is purposefully alluding to this parable, and deconstructing it. Passivity, ‘holding on to the faith’ in a passive sense, much glorified by both Judaism and Protestant Christianity, is what may be glorified in human religion; but it’s exactly this attitude which will be the ground of condemnation.</p><p><em>You knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I did not scatter seed</em>-</p><p> See on :24&nbsp;<em>I knew you</em>. There are different words used. Here,&nbsp;<em>eido</em>&nbsp;means more ‘to see’. The Lord’s response could actually be translated as a question: ‘You really? saw Me reap where I did not sow…?’. The process of reaping definitely refers to the last judgment, and so the man had no basis upon which to make this claim, because he had never actually ‘seen’ the Lord act like that. But I prefer to understand the Lord as taking the man’s ideas and working with them, without specifically correcting them- and saying that even if the man’s understanding of Him was correct, then He expected him to act appropriately to that understanding. Instead of doing nothing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:27'>Mat 25:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You should-&nbsp;</em>Explaining how the man could have entered the Kingdom is surely the basis for the gnashing of teeth. To have it explained like that… is harder than any hell fire of classical imagination. He ought to have given the talent to the exchangers. Either he should’ve given it to the Gentiles, or he should have at least done something, in lending it to his Jewish brethren- even against the Law. “Oughtest”,&nbsp;<em>dia,</em>&nbsp;means you must have, you had to- very possession of the talent meant we have to, we must, share it with others in some way- we are all preachers. I have often pondered what we are to learn in our generation from the strict statement that males without the ability to procreate were barred from the Lord’s congregation during the Old Covenant (<em><a href='B:50 23:1'>Deu 23:1</a></em>). Perhaps the point is that all those who are the Lord’s people must recognize their ability to procreate for Him, in the bringing forth of yet others in their Lord’s image.</p><p>The man being told how he could have entered the Kingdom is after the pattern of rejected Adam and Eve having the way to the tree of life clearly shown to them after their rejection (<em><a href='B:10 3:23-24'>Gen 3:23-24</a></em>). Again, notice how the judgment is for the education of those judged and those who witness it. He will shew them how they should have given their talent, the basic Gospel, to others, and therefore gained some interest. This has to be connected with the well known prohibition on lending money to fellow Israelites for usury; usury could only be received from Gentiles (<em><a href='B:50 23:20'>Deu 23:20</a></em>). Surely the Lord is implying that&nbsp;<em>at the least</em>&nbsp;this person could have shared the Gospel with others, especially (in a Jewish context) the Gentile world. This would have at least&nbsp;brought some usury for the Lord. This would suggest that issues such as apathy in preaching, especially the unwillingness of the Jewish believers to share their hope with the Gentiles, will be raised by the Lord during the judgment process. Of course, the Lord hadn't told the servant (in the story) to lend the money to Gentiles; he was expected to use his initiative. The overall picture of the story is that at least the man should have done&nbsp;<em>something</em>&nbsp;Alternatively, it could be that we are intended to understand that the Lord would even have accepted him if he lent money on usury, something which the Law condemned; if he'd have done&nbsp;<em>something</em>, even if it involved breaking some aspects of God's will... Instead, his attitude was that he had been given the talent of the Gospel, and he saw his duty as to just keep hold on it. He was angry that the Lord should even suggest he ought to have done anything else We really must watch for this attitude in ourselves. He justifies himself by saying that he has "kept" the money (<em><a href='B:490 19:20'>Luk 19:20</a></em>), using the word elsewhere used about the need to&nbsp;<em>keep</em>&nbsp;or hold on to the doctrines of the One Faith (<em><a href='B:610 1:19'>1Ti 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 3:9'>1Ti 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:13'>2Ti 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a></em>). He had done this, he had held on, he hadn't left the faith. And he thought this was enough to bring him to the Kingdom. Sadly, many understandings of spirituality has almost glorified this very attitude. Any who show initiative have been seen as mavericks, as likely to go wrong. The emphasis has been on holding on to basic doctrinal teaching, marking your Bible with it, attending weekly meetings about it (even if you snooze through them), regularly attending…&nbsp; And, son, you won't go far wrong. The Lord, in designing this parable as he did, had exactly this sort of complacency in mind:&nbsp;In view of the man’s beliefs about the Lord, he still should’ve acted accordingly.</p><p><em>Have deposited my money with the bankers</em>-</p><p> The Lord probably means that the man should have done at least something, putting the money into “the bank” (Lk:), doing something effortless in line with his lazy character, but at least doing something. And yet just possibly the Lord may also have in view the money exchangers whom He so despised and whose tables He overthrew in <em><a href='B:470 21:12'>Mat 21:12</a></em>. It’s as if the Lord is saying that He was willing to make major concessions to the man- if he had done at least something, even if that ‘something’ was far less than ideal. A Rabbinic teaching claims that bankers should never be trusted and therefore “Money can only be kept safe by placing it in the earth” (<em>b. B. Mes’ia</em>&nbsp;42A, quoted in R:T. France,&nbsp;<em>The Gospel of Matthew</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) p. 954). The Lord is consciously deconstructing Rabbinic views. If we had more access to such contemporary texts, we would likely understand many of the more enigmatic and difficult passages of Scripture- probably they are alluding to and deconstructing contemporary writings.</p><p><em>So that on my return I would have collected my own money with interest-&nbsp;</em>The Lord will&nbsp;<em>receive&nbsp;or&nbsp;</em>collect back His own. Strong defines this as "to carry off, away from harm" (the same word is used in <em><a href='B:650 11:19'>Heb 11:19</a></em> about&nbsp;Abraham&nbsp;<em>receiving</em>&nbsp;Isaac from the dead). There is the suggestion that the Truth which the Lord has given us is valuable to Him, and He fears our losing it; those who lose the faith lose the personal possession of the Lord Jesus. But at the judgment, when we hand it back to the Lord, He (not to say, we) will have that deep knowledge that now we can't fail Him any more, we no longer have the possibility of causing harm and loss to the treasured wealth which has been entrusted to us:&nbsp;We need to remember, however, that there was no banking system as we have today. Lending money to exchangers was a highly risky business and often resulted in the loss of money; money was safer stored in the earth, as the man did. So the Lord’s point was that he should have taken a risk; indeed, all such trading requires risk taking which may leave us looking foolish. But the Lord may be implying that if he had taken that risk for the right reasons, all ultimately would have worked out well.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em> says at this point that the Lord will “require” of us our use of wealth (<em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em>). The man who did nothing with his pound should have at least lent it out on usury, the Lord said- even though this was illegal according to Moses. He should have done at least&nbsp;<em>something</em>&nbsp;with his money, even if it involved taking a lower level of service than the Lord ideally expects. The Greek means to exact regularly, in an ongoing sense (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 3:13'>Luk 3:13</a></em>); Strong defines it as meaning "to perform repeatedly... not a single act". When the Lord examines our achievements at the judgment, He will expect to keep on receiving the result of what we have achieved for Him in this life. This is the ultimate encouragement for us in our preaching and encouraging of others, as well as ourselves; what we achieve now will yield eternal, continual fruit to the Lord. &nbsp;</p><p>"My own money"reminds us of the fact that He is Lord&nbsp;<em>of all</em>. This means He is owner of absolutely everything to do with us (<em><a href='B:510 10:36'>Act 10:36</a></em>). At the judgment, this fact will be brought home. The Lord will ask for “my money... mine own"; we will be asked what we have done with our Lord's money (<em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:27'>Mat 25:27</a></em>). All we have is God's; it is not our own. Therefore if we hold back in our giving and trading, we are&nbsp;<em>robbing God</em>. Israel thought it was absurd to put it like this: But yes, God insisted through Malachi (<em><a href='B:470 3:8-12'>Mat 3:8-12</a></em>), you are&nbsp;<em>robbing me</em>&nbsp;if you don't give back, or even if you don't give your heart to Him in faith:&nbsp;<em>And will a man rob God?&nbsp;</em>Will a man…? We must give God what has His image stamped on it: and we, our bodies, are made in His image (<em><a href='B:470 22:21'>Mat 22:21</a></em>); therefore we have a duty to give ourselves to Him. We are not our own: how much less is 'our' money or time our own Like David, we need to realize now,&nbsp;<em>in this life</em>, before the judgment, that all our giving is only a giving back to God of what we have been given by Him: "Of thine own have we given thee" (<em><a href='B:130 19:14'>1Ch 19:14</a></em>). The danger of materialism is the assumption that we are ultimate owners of what we 'have'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:28'>Mat 25:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents-&nbsp;</em>The faithful will have enough self-knowledge to be able to say: 'You gave me these basic doctrines and these characteristics to develop with them, and I can now present you with this…'. That part of the character and mind of&nbsp;Christ which was given to the unfaithful servant to develop is taken away and given to the faithful:&nbsp; The unfaithful receive the riches of Christ but do nothing with them; they don't let them impact their character. &nbsp;</p><p>The man having ten talents as his ownis in sharp contrast with the way the one talent man speaks of how the talent is not his but the Lord’s: “Here You have what is Yours” (:25). The Lord is making the point that the faithful will now personally own the talents they were first given, plus they will be allowed to keep for their personal, eternal possession what talents they made during the trading of this life. The progress achieved in this life will be kept eternally. Yet words like ‘achievement’ are almost dirty words in the vocabulary of grace which some insist on. The Lord’s teaching here must be given its due weight.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:29'>Mat 25:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For to everyone that has shall be given, and he shall have abundance</em>-</p><p> This repeats the Lord’s earlier teaching in <em><a href='B:470 13:10-12'>Mat 13:10-12</a></em> about the giving of understanding to those who have some: “And the disciples came and said to him: Why do you speak to them in parables? And he answered and said to them: To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given:&nbsp; For whoever has, to him shall be given and he shall have abundance, but whoever has not, from him shall be taken away even what he has”. Clearly there is an upward spiral in spiritual life, and this will come to ultimate term in the outcomes of judgment day.</p><p><em>But from him that has not, even what he has shall be taken away</em>-</p><p> This is a paradox. Does the rejected man have talents, or not? He did, of course, have a talent; but as far as the Lord is concerned, we only have what we have developed. If we don't develop, we have nothing; the fact we received the talent at baptism won't save us. It’s only what a man has developed from that in the service of others which counts as truly “his”. This likewise is the sense of “To him that has shall be given”; all we have is what we have developed.</p><p><em>"</em>Taken away" is perhaps a special reference to the Kingdom of God being “taken away” s:w. from Israel and given to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:470 21:43'>Mat 21:43</a></em>). The same Greek word is used about the taking away of the rejected individuals at judgment day (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>). But here, it is the unused talent that is “taken away”. The man was therefore to be identified with the talent- it was to be him. And yet he is most careful to speak of the talent as not his, but the Lord’s: “Here you have what is yours” (:25). The Lord intended that we identify with the talent, rather than see it merely as his. See on :25&nbsp;<em>You have what is yours.</em></p>


text:
<p>25:30&nbsp;<em>And cast out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There, shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth</em>-</p><p> Unless we are going to actually achieve something for the Lord, then we are unprofitable. But of course the same words for “unprofitable servant” are found in <em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em> - after we have “done all” that we could, we are to recognize that we are still in this category of “unprofitable servant”. Salvation itself is still by grace. The story of the slave who worked all day in the field and was then expected to come home and cook for his master without a word of thanks to him seems to be more realistic, lacking the element of unreality usually seen in the parables. But the Greek word "<em>charis</em>", usually translated "grace", is the one used for "thank" there (<em><a href='B:490 17:9'>Luk 17:9</a></em>). The point is that we don't receive grace because of our going the extra mile, as we are inclined to think. We receive grace, but not as a result of all our special efforts; these are what are expected of us, on account of the fact that we have become salves to our Master, the Lord Jesus. At the end of all our special efforts (in whatever sphere), we must consciously make an effort to recognize that we are "unprofitable servants" (<em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em>). This must surely connect with <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>, which describes the rejected at the day of judgment as unprofitable servants. If we judge / condemn ourselves, we will not be condemned (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). This is just one of many examples of where the Lord's parables seem intended to be linked with each other- which further proves that they are not stories with a deeper meaning, whose storyline is not intended to be carefully considered. We must recognize not only that we are unprofitable servants, but that we have only done what was our "duty" or debt to do- the implication being that we were sold into slavery on account of an unpayable debt. This is exactly the figure used by the Lord to describe us in <em><a href='B:470 18:25'>Mat 18:25</a></em>. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>25:31&nbsp;</p><p>In <em><a href='B:470 25:31-46'>Mat 25:31-46</a></em> we have a parable depicting the last judgment, where the Lord sits as judge and we come before Him. Usually, a person comes before a judge regarding things which they have committed wrongly. But our expectations, which are set up by the story of a judge and people coming before him in judgment, are shattered. The issues the people are judged about aren’t acts of commission. It’s all about what they&nbsp;<em>omitted</em>&nbsp;to do, continuing the theme of the preceding parable of the talents, which concludes with the one talent man being condemned for what he omitted to do. We tend to be all so freaked out about our committed sins, rather than realizing the tremendous importance the Lord attaches to our&nbsp;<em>omissions</em>&nbsp;of acts of kindness and thoughtful love, and perceiving the image of Christ in our brethren. It’s rather like how Paul starts writing to the Corinthians. He doesn’t start as we might have done with their gross immorality, false doctrine, perversion of the Lord’s supper into a drunken orgy although he comes to those things… rather, he begins with and spends most time discussing their lack of love, their divisiveness etc.</p><p>It is worth observing the very simple fact that the New Testament is essentially a missionary document- all the expressions and articulations of doctrine / theology found there are all in the context of the preaching of the Gospel and the immediate problems of men and women in responding to it. This is why we aren't given a cold statement of faith or catechism in the New Testament, but rather the history of the mission of Christ at its first beginning. Even parables like that of <em><a href='B:470 25:31-46'>Mat 25:31-46</a></em> were relevant in a missionary context- regarding the perils of not supporting the itinerant missionaries in the first century. And this is why the power of the early Christian witness lay in who they were- for this was the real advertisement for the doctrine they preached.</p><p><em>But when the Son of Man shall come in his glory</em>-</p><p> A clear allusion to <em><a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a></em>, which is interpreted later in Daniel 7 as referring to the coming of Jesus with the accepted believers with Him. There is a sense in which we will be involved with judging others; thus the men of Nineveh will condemn the first century Jews at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a></em>). In this case, the judgment of the nations could be a judgment of people from all nations concerning how they have treated the faithful who were recently under tribulation in all nations. This would make good sense of the allusion to <em><a href='B:360 3:2'>Joe 3:2</a></em> “I will gather all nations… into judgment” which we have in :32. The nations gathered to judgment in Armageddon or at least, in Israel somewhere, would then be judged according to how they have treated God’s people. However, the stubborn problem for this interpretation is the reward given to some of these unbelievers- eternal life in the Kingdom just for helping God’s people under persecution. Such salvation is surely predicated upon faith in Christ, rather than the doing of good works.</p><p><em>And all the Angels with Him</em>-</p><p> If all the Angels accompany the Lord Jesus and relocate from Heaven to earth, then we can better understand why the Kingdom of God on earth is described as “the Kingdom of Heaven”. The future Kingdom of God seems to involve Heaven, including God Himself, ultimately, descending from Heaven to earth. This is certainly the scene presented in the final chapters of Revelation.</p><p><em>Then he shall sit on the throne of his glory</em>-</p><p> The Lord's throne is the restored throne of David, in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is called the throne of God's glory (<em><a href='B:300 14:21'>Jer 14:21</a></em>, and <em><a href='B:470 23:22'>Mat 23:22</a></em> may have the same reference), and the Lord's glory is ultimately God's glory. But His glory is ultimately His character and personality- God's revelation of His glory to Moses was the revelation of His Name and character. Yet the Son attained that glory through His own perfectly God-like character, and this is the basis upon which He shall be enthroned as King of the cosmos. There is surely here also a reference to <em><a href='B:450 6:13'>Zec 6:13</a></em>, where the Messianic "Branch" sits upon a throne of glory and rebuilds the temple. But that prophecy was clearly intended to have had a fulfilment in Zerubbabel’s intended rebuilding of the temple when the exiles returned. But the exiles who returned, and their leadership especially, dropped the batton. The intended temple outlined in Ezekiel 40-48 was not built by them. And so the prophecy was rescheduled in fulfilment. Not every detail needs to be literally fulfilled e.g. the rebuilding of a temple, but the essence will be fulfilled in the second coming of Christ to earth. The Lord spoke of how the disciples would sit with Him in His throne of glory (<em><a href='B:730 3:21'>Rev 3:21</a></em>), judging the twelve tribes of Israel (<em><a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a></em>). This would support our earlier suggestion that the Son of Man coming in judgment is in fact a picture of the Lord Jesus along with the faithful coming in judgment. This is why there are thrones plural of judgment (<em><a href='B:730 20:4'>Rev 20:4</a></em>). The contrast is with the man of sin, who at that time will also be sitting upon a throne in the temple (<em><a href='B:600 2:4'>2Th 2:4</a></em> s:w:); the Lord Jesus shall come and depose him.</p>


text:
<p>25:32&nbsp;<em>And before Him</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Emprosthen</em>&nbsp;could just as well mean 'against' Him, referring to the gathering of the nations against Christ which is spoken of in Joel 3, Zechariah 14 and Psalms 2. But the sense is likely the more obvious one, of being gathered in front of Him.</p><p><em>Shall be gathered-</em></p><p>&nbsp;See on :31&nbsp;<em>The Son of Man shall come in his glory</em>. This is a figure used about the gathering of individuals to judgment and both to condemnation and salvation (3:12; 13:30; 24:28; <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> "men gather them and cast them into the fire"; "bring / gather here, and slay them before Me", <em><a href='B:490 19:27'>Luk 19:27</a></em>). And yet right now the gathering is going on as the net of Gospel preaching gathers in people (<em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>; the fragments are gathered that no man be lost, <em><a href='B:500 6:12'>Joh 6:12</a></em>, the other sheep are brought / gathered into the fold, <em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em>). Our first steps in responding to the Gospel call are in fact our first steps towards meeting the Lord at judgment. The Lord has just been falsely accused of gathering where He did not sow, and therefore I suggest that those gathered are those from all nations who have received the seed of the Kingdom message. When we are called to judgment, the immediacy of our response will be a summary of how we have progressively responded to that call to go to Jesus. But the word for 'gather' is used extensively by the Lord in this section of His teaching. The one talent man has complained that the Lord is unreasonably gathering him to judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:24'>Mat 25:24</a></em>), and the Lord now goes on to say that indeed people from all nations will be gathered to Him. And He goes further to say that the basis of acceptability with Him is whether we 'gathered' AV "took me in"&nbsp;<em>Him</em>&nbsp;in this life, when He was manifested to us in the least of His brethren (:35,38). Again we see the idea of mutuality. We gather Him, He gathers us. And this will be literally, visibly manifest in that when the call comes, those who voluntarily, immediately gather towards Him will be confirmed in that by being snatched away towards Him, and will thereby come with Him in glory to His throne (<em><a href='B:590 4:16-17'>1Th 4:16-17</a></em>). The nations will gather themselves together against Christ at the last day (<em><a href='B:730 16:14'>Rev 16:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:16'>Rev 16:16</a></em>; Psalms 2, s:w. <em><a href='B:510 4:26'>Act 4:26</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>All the nations</em>-</p><p> Frequently, New Testament references to “all men” really means “all true believers” or those who have become responsible to God. <em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em> states that Christ killed the devil (the power of sin) on the cross; but this is only true for those in Christ. Those who are ignorant of the saving power of God’s Truth are under the active control of sin- the Biblical devil. <em><a href='B:730 20:5'>Rev 20:5</a></em> speaks of “the dead” as those responsible to judgment, whereas many other Bible passages show that not all the dead will be raised. Only those who have heard the Gospel will be resurrected to judgment. Thus “the dead” in God’s usage does not refer to everyone who has ever died. <em><a href='B:530 15:21-22'>1Co 15:21-22</a></em> speaks of “the dead” as those in Christ. <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em> describes “all nations” coming before Christ for judgment. This indicates that to God, the world He sees is comprised of those who are responsible to Him; not literally “all nations” will come before Christ, only those people from them who are responsible to Him. We must surely read in an ellipsis here, 'People from all nations', because the Gospel will have gone to all nations before the Lord returns (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>). The great commission to take the Gospel to all nations (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> s:w:) will finally have been fulfilled. Knowledge of the Gospel is the basis of accountability to judgment, and that fact alone means that if people from all nations come to judgment, then the Gospel must have gone to all nations; the believers spiritual Israel will be persecuted in all nations (<em><a href='B:470 24:9'>Mat 24:9</a></em> s:w:) at the same time as Jews natural Israel are lead away captive into all nations (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>) and this likely will be the basis of our witness to all nations, just as the early church needed persecution to make them take the Gospel to the Gentiles. If we do that now in this day of opportunity, maybe that final persecution by "all nations" will be unnecessary. The whole scenario could have been allowed a first century fulfilment in that Jews from all nations were converted at Pentecost (<em><a href='B:510 2:5'>Act 2:5</a></em> s:w:), but clearly they did not return home and take the Gospel further to the Gentiles of literally all nations. it took Peter until the Cornelius incident to realize that people from literally all nations could be accepted (<em><a href='B:510 10:35'>Act 10:35</a></em> s:w. "all nations"), but the church generally struggled with that understanding. <em><a href='B:730 14:6'>Rev 14:6</a></em> explains that only in the last days will the Gospel go to all nations, during the tribulation period; only when God's judgments are revealed in maybe literally the very last days before the Lord's coming will people from "all nations" come to Him (<em><a href='B:730 15:4'>Rev 15:4</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And he shall separate them</em>-</p><p> The separation between sheep and goats is not, therefore, ultimately visible now. <em><a href='B:470 13:49'>Mat 13:49</a></em> uses the same word to describe how "the Angels" shall do this work of separation. And yet the essence of separation does go on in this life, insofar as men "shall separate s:w. you from their company" (<em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:9'>Act 19:9</a></em>). The final judgment will be a confirmation of processes which have been ongoing in our lives today. Likewise, separating ourselves from our brethren as Peter did in weakness due to political pressures (<em><a href='B:550 2:12'>Gal 2:12</a></em> s:w:) is effectively separating ourselves from the sheep, and placing ourselves with the goats. Significantly, the only other occurrence of the phrase “from one another” is in <em><a href='B:510 15:39'>Act 15:39</a></em>, where Paul and Barnabas “departed asunder the one from the other”. The Greek translated "separate" in these passages means to set a boundary, a limit. And in this lies the danger of the misuse of Statements of Faith and legalistic fellowship boundaries. Any drawing of a line in the wrong place can lead to our condemnation, so it's better to be open to all our brethren.</p><p><em>One from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Sheep and goats were similar looking. The sheep of the first century would typically have been dirty and with dark patches, making it possible to separate them from goats only by an experienced shepherd who knew his flock. The point may have been that from a distance, sheep and goats looked quite similar. The Lord Jesus was the shepherd during His ministry, and commented that “I know My sheep” (<em><a href='B:500 10:14'>Joh 10:14</a></em>). He knew who were the goats and who the sheep. But His judgment will only be made manifest in the last day. But the purpose of the last judgment is not, therefore, to gather information about us; for the judgment in essence is ongoing now as we live our lives before the shepherd of our souls:&nbsp;</p><p>The way the Lord speaks of dividing the sheep from the goats and not vice versa could suggest that there are far fewer sheep compared to goats (<em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>). This would imply that the majority of those who are responsible are in the goat category. The word used for ‘goat’ here strictly means a kid, and the purpose of the division may well have been because the goats were to be killed for meat.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:33'>Mat 25:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he shall&nbsp;set</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'to stand':&nbsp;</p><p><em>The sheep on his right hand</em>-</p><p> The paradox is that seeing the Lord will be facing the people, His right hand is their left hand. Those who place themselves at His left hand from their perspective, those who condemn themselves, are thereby on His right hand, and saved. The Lord Himself was rewarded with a place on the right hand (of the Father), and He shares that reward with His people by likewise placing them on the right hand.</p><p><em>And the goats on the left</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>euo-numos</em>&nbsp;means literally the good named or good omened. The Greeks understood the left hand as being the side of good fortune. The Lord turned this idea upside down. His culture is radically different to that of the world.</p><p>Initially, it does not appear that there will be much compulsion to come to the judgment. After a meeting of the Lord in the air (<em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em>), both sheep and goats eventually appear before the judgment seat. The point has been made that when the Angels first come to call us to judgment at the second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:39'>Mat 13:39</a></em>), there will be an element of choice as to whether we immediately accept the call to go and meet Christ. “In that day” we will have the choice to go and take our goods from the house, or to go immediately with the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 17:31'>Luk 17:31</a></em>). Under the law, the trumpet sounded and Israel had to gather themselves together (<em><a href='B:40 10:4'>Num 10:4</a></em>); yet Paul says in Thessalonians that the Lord comes with a trumpet to gather His people together. If this is indeed based upon the Old Testament pattern, then there is an element of choice as to whether we gather ourselves unto Him- at least initially. Noah and Lot were invited, not forced, to leave the world. Those who respond to Christ's return "immediately" will be accepted, implying that the unworthy delay. This means that the response is optional in the first instance (<em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>). There are other indications of this:&nbsp; The most obvious is in the parable of the virgins, where the wise go out to meet their Lord immediately, whilst the foolish delay in order to spiritually prepare themselves. Our attitude in that split second is so vital. The rejected will mourn and wail, in anticipation of their future condemnation, when they see the sign of the Son of man indicating His imminent coming (<em><a href='B:470 24:30-31'>Mat 24:30-31</a></em>). And this is why there is the implication that effectively, the division between sheep and goats happens in the gathering process (<em><a href='B:470 25:33'>Mat 25:33</a></em>); our response to the gathering is our judgment. The parables invite us to see the Lord gathering the wheat to one place and the tares to another, as if the gathering is the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>); the wheat is gathered to the garner, and the chaff to the place of burning (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>). The Angel who reaps for judgment 'thrusts in' his sickle, and 'casts out' the wicked in rejection (<em><a href='B:730 14:19'>Rev 14:19</a></em>). But 'thrust in' and 'cast out' in that verse both translate the same Greek word&nbsp;<em>ballo</em>-</p><p> the implication being that the gathering-to-judgment process is in fact the separation process. Likewise the net is "cast" into the sea in order to gather people for judgment, and then the rejected are "cast" away (<em><a href='B:470 13:47-48'>Mat 13:47-48</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then</em>-</p><p> If indeed the Lord comes to judgment with the faithful with Him (in line with the allusions to the Son of Man of Daniel 7, the faithful saints, coming in judgment), then we would have a chronological problem- if the sheep here represent the responsible from all ages standing before Him. We note too that He speaks to them of "the least of these My brethren" (:40), as if His brethren are standing somehow in another group. These considerations have led some to think that the group now being judged are those who have ministered to the Lord's people during their final tribulation. The nakedness, being in prison etc. is exactly the language of persecution found in <em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>. But I think this is unnecessary, and this suggestion in turn raises problems when analysed further- for will unbelievers in the world enter eternal life and the Kingdom simply on the basis of good works? And the whole language of gathering and separation as demonstrated above is elsewhere used about the judgment of all the responsible at the judgment seat of Christ. It seems to me that there is abundant evidence for a collapse of time and space at the period around the Lord's coming. This means that such chronological issues need not concern us. Another possibility is that there are various possible chronologies of events in the last days, and there may be different scenarios for the gathering and judgment of the Lord's people.</p><p><em>The King shall say to those on his right hand: Come</em>-</p><p> The invitation to come to Him is what we respond to now, in this life, in daily situations (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em> s:w:). The judgment seat will simply be a continuation of that principle. Perhaps "<em>Come</em>” suggests a hesitancy of the faithful to enter the Kingdom. <em><a href='B:230 36:8'>Psa 36:8</a></em> says that God will "make us" partake of the blessings of the Kingdom of God. It reminds us of how the Lord Jesus said that in his Kingdom, He will "make us" sit down at a table, and He will come and serve us (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>), knowing full well that he who sits at meat is greater than he who serves (<em><a href='B:490 22:27'>Luk 22:27</a></em>). It isn't so difficult to imagine this scene: the Lord of glory wanting us to sit down to a meal, and then&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;comes and serves us. He&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;have to "make us" sit down and let ourselves be served. And perhaps the way the Lord had to 'make' the healed blind man look up and use his new sight was some kind of foretaste of this. There is even the suggestion in <em><a href='B:730 7:15'>Rev 7:15</a></em> that after the judgment process, the Lord will come down off His throne and mix with us, after the pattern of Joseph.</p><p><em>Blessed of my Father-&nbsp;</em>The Greek means literally those who are praised. The Greek&nbsp;<em>eu-logeo</em>&nbsp;is literally those who are spoken well of. And this is exactly what the Lord proceeds to do. He praises the righteous, bewildered as they appear to be, for their good works. Righteousness is imputed to them. This connects with other New Testament pictures of the righteous being praised by the Father and Son at the last day.</p><p>These words are spoken collectively: "Come,&nbsp;<em>ye</em>&nbsp;(not 'thou', singular) blessed…&nbsp;<em>ye</em>&nbsp;plural gave me meat... then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, When saw&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;thee an hungered...". Yet we know that there must be an individual judgment. These words sound as if we are all judged together, at the same time. Again, the reconciliation of this is in appreciating that the meaning of time will be collapsed. In similar vein, the rejected going off to try to get oil and then turning up later at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>) probably describes a process that occurs in the minds of the people, rather than something which occurs in real time- although it may&nbsp;<em>feel</em>&nbsp;like real time to them. The existence of these two groups at the judgment explains how the men of Nineveh and Sheba will "rise up in the judgment" and condemn the rejected Jews; if they are in the group of sheep facing the group of goats in which the faithless Jews will be. The wicked will walk naked, and the accepted believers will then see their shame (<em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). The rejected will experience "shame and everlasting contempt" at the judgment (<em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>). Shame and contempt must be in the eyes of others- i:e. the group of 'sheep'?</p><p>"My Father" suggests that the King is therefore the Lord Jesus. Yet He judges as God because God has given Him authority to do this, because He is the Son of Man (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Inherit the kingdom</em>-</p><p> 'Be heirs of'. But we are right now "heirs of the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em> s:w:). What we are now by status will be realised in a more physical sense. Note that inheriting the Kingdom parallels inheriting the earth (<em><a href='B:470 5:5'>Mat 5:5</a></em>), inheriting eternal life (<em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em>), inheriting incorruption (<em><a href='B:530 15:50'>1Co 15:50</a></em>), inheriting salvation (<em><a href='B:650 1:14'>Heb 1:14</a></em>), inheriting the promises (<em><a href='B:650 6:12'>Heb 6:12</a></em>) and "all things" (<em><a href='B:730 21:7'>Rev 21:7</a></em>). In no way could these things have been inherited in AD70. These words of Jesus at the judgment, inviting the faithful into the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>), rung in Paul's mind: <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:29'>Gal 3:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:7'>Gal 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:12'>Col 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:7'>Tit 3:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>Prepared for you</em>-</p><p> We each have a specific, unique role being prepared for us in eternity; and the process of that preparation is ongoing now, and is the reason for all our current experiences. This brief life prepares us for eternity, who and what we shall eternally be; this is why life is so intense now, even if at times it seems so repetitious. We prepare ourselves (<em><a href='B:490 12:47'>Luk 12:47</a></em> "that servant…. prepared not himself", "His wife has prepared herself", <em><a href='B:730 19:7'>Rev 19:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em> s:w:), and God works through this in preparing us. This perhaps explains the irregular dative translated "for you"- it could equally mean 'prepared&nbsp;<em>by&nbsp;</em>you'. The 'preparation' of God's people for that eternity was a major theme of John the Baptist, and it involved repentance (<em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>). The cross was a major part in that preparation (<em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em> s:w:); each of us was somehow represented in Christ then. We are now being "prepared unto good works" (<em><a href='B:620 2:21'>2Ti 2:21</a></em>)- which we shall eternally do. For the Kingdom of God will not be a passive state. We will be active in the good works for which we are now being prepared. I have made the point that the parables of Matthew 25 all address the issue of preparedness for the Lord's coming with which He concluded the Olivet prophecy in Matthew 24. He concluded it with an appeal to be "ready", the same word as "prepared" here (<em><a href='B:470 24:44'>Mat 24:44</a></em>). If we have this sense of being prepared for an eternity of service, then we will be prepared for His coming even though we don't know the day nor hour.</p><p>The parable of the pounds describes the reward of the faithful in terms of being given ten or five cities (<em><a href='B:490 19:17'>Luk 19:17</a></em>). This idea of dividing up groups of cities was surely meant to send the mind back to the way Israel in their wilderness years were each promised their own individual cities and villages, which they later inherited. The idea of inheriting "ten cities" occurs in <em><a href='B:60 15:57'>Jos 15:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:5'>Jos 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:26'>Jos 21:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 6:61'>1Ch 6:61</a></em> (all of which are in the context of the priests receiving their cities), and "five cities" in <em><a href='B:130 4:32'>1Ch 4:32</a></em>. As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. The language of inheritance (e.g. <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em>) and preparation of reward (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>) in the NT is alluding to this OT background of the land being prepared by the Angels for Israel to inherit (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em> Heb:; <em><a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 68:9-10'>Psa 68:9-10</a></em> Heb:). We must be careful not to think that our promised inheritance is&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;eternal life; it is something being personally prepared for each of us. The language of preparation seems inappropriate if our reward is only eternal life.</p><p><em>From the foundation of the world</em>-</p><p> In a literal sense, perhaps, our unique genetic structure has been under preparation from the beginning. We were intended to be who we are and to do something specific for the Lord, to be someone unique, throughout eternity. For we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (<em><a href='B:560 1:4'>Eph 1:4</a></em>), our names / personalities written from the foundation of the world (<em><a href='B:730 17:8'>Rev 17:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:35'>Mat 25:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I was hungry and you gave me to eat</em>-</p><p> The Lord was hungry (<em><a href='B:470 21:18'>Mat 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:3'>Luk 6:3</a></em>), wanting to be satiated by fruit on the fig tree, the repentance of Israel.</p><p><em>I was thirsty&nbsp;and you gave me drink</em>-</p><p> The Lord was thirsty, and satiated by the food and drink of the Samaritan woman's interest in the Gospel (<em><a href='B:500 4:13-14'>Joh 4:13-14</a></em>). She 'gave Him to drink' (<em><a href='B:500 4:7'>Joh 4:7</a></em>); the same words are used here. And He thirsted on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a></em>) and was 'given to drink'- the same words are used (<em><a href='B:480 15:36'>Mar 15:36</a></em>). Hunger, thirst, prison and nakedness are all part of the sufferings of Gospel preachers (<em><a href='B:530 4:11'>1Co 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:27'>2Co 11:27</a></em>). It may be that Matthew is making this connection because he sought to remind his converts of the need to support the itinerant preachers who were going around reciting the Gospel of Matthew at his time. Further, the spread of the Gospel worldwide is one of the preconditions for the Lord's return, according to the preceding Olivet prophecy. And the point is being made that those who do this are to be supported.</p><p>The Lord’s focus on the positive is shown by the way He quotes <em><a href='B:220 22:7'>Job 22:7</a></em> in the parable of the sheep and goats: “Thou hast not given water to the weary to drink, and thou hast withholden bread from the hungry”. These words are part of Eliphaz’s erroneous allegations against Job- for Job was a perfect man, and not guilty on these counts. Yet the Lord extracts elements of truth from those wrong words, rather than just contemptuously ignoring them. Likewise <em><a href='B:220 22:25'>Job 22:25</a></em> speaks of God being our “treasure… our precious silver” (RV). Surely the Lord had this in mind when saying that our treasure must be laid up “in heaven”, i:e. with God (for He often uses ‘Heaven’ for ‘God’). And James follows suite by approvingly quoting <em><a href='B:220 22:29'>Job 22:29</a></em> about the lifting up of the humble (<em><a href='B:660 4:6'>Jas 4:6</a></em>).</p><p><em>A stranger I was a stranger and you welcomed me</em>-</p><p> The Lord was buried in the place of "strangers" (27:7 s:w:); He was treated as a Gentile especially in His death on the cross. "Welcomed" is the same word translated "gathered" in :32. As they gathered Him, so He now gathers them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>25:36&nbsp;<em>Naked</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus was naked or at least without clothing on the cross:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And you clothed Me</em>-</p><p> As the believers clothed Him, so He will clothe them (<em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>; being clothed upon with immortality is definitely a picture of salvation). He will act spiritually to us, in terms of salvation, as we have acted materially to His brethren as they in their lives, as the body of Christ, experience various aspects of His life, sufferings and death.</p><p><em>Sick</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'weak'. "He was crucified in&nbsp;<em>weakness</em>... we also are&nbsp;<em>weak</em>&nbsp;in Him" (<em><a href='B:540 13:4'>2Co 13:4</a></em>). His crucifixion 'weakness' is manifest in all who are in Him, part of His body. Both in His life and supremely in His death, the Lord carried our weakness / sickness (<em><a href='B:470 8:17'>Mat 8:17</a></em>, quoting from the prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus in Isaiah 53). He fully shared in "our infirmities" (<em><a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a></em> s:w:) and was "compassed with infirmity / weakness" (<em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em> s:w:). Clearly the weakness / sickness of the Lord is to be found in all those in Him, and we are to minister to that as we would minister to Him personally.</p><p><em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em> is one of several passages which warn us not to make “the weak” to stumble. There are weak members amongst every group of believers, and therefore we should watch our behaviour, because it will have an effect upon whoever is weak. But this doesn't mean that&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;actually know who&nbsp;the weak ones are. Because we don't know who is especially weak we must always be careful in our behaviour,&nbsp;<em>whoever</em>&nbsp;we are with. Indeed, we have to adopt the perspective that in a sense we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;weak:&nbsp; The Greek word translated "weak" usually means one of two things: physical illness, or spiritual weakness. Sometimes these two senses are combined (e.g. when James speaks of praying for the "sick" brother, or when Jesus talks of how pleased he was that brethren had visited the "sick" brother in <em><a href='B:470 25:36'>Mat 25:36</a></em>). Paul&nbsp;often uses the word in his letters to Corinth. He says that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;weak because of our natures (<em><a href='B:530 15:43'>1Co 15:43</a></em>), and that Christ died on account of the fact that we are weak (<em><a href='B:540 13:4'>2Co 13:4</a></em> Gk:). Because of this, Paul reasons, we're all weak, because Christ died for every one of us. He therefore says that to sin against a weak brother is to sin against Christ; because Christ has associated himself with our spiritual weakness, in order to save us from it (<em><a href='B:530 8:12'>1Co 8:12</a></em>). Thus he says that when we visit a weak brother (spiritually? it's the same word), we visit&nbsp;<em>him</em>. He so closely associates himself with the weak brother. Christ on the cross carried the sins of "the weak" (i:e. all of us), and thereby left us an example of how we should behave towards the "weak". In this context, Paul says that we should likewise love our neighbour (in the ecclesia; <em><a href='B:520 15:1-4'>Rom 15:1-4</a></em>). What he seems to be saying is that we should understand that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;weak, and therefore try to help each other, in the same spirit as Christ died for the weakness of each of us. If we recognize that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;weak, we'll avoid two common mistakes: 1) Thinking that some brethren aren't weak and should therefore be followed blindly; and 2) Thinking that some believers are "weak" whilst the rest of us are "strong":&nbsp;Paul didn't want the Corinth ecclesia to think he was wagging the finger at them and implying: 'You lot are so weak, but I'm strong'. Several times he speaks of his own weakness, and he glories in the fact that although he is so (spiritually) weak, God works through him so mightily; indeed, he comes to the conclusion that God's strength is perfectly expressed through his spiritual weaknesses (<em><a href='B:540 11:30'>2Co 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:5'>2Co 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:9-10'>2Co 12:9-10</a></em>). He says that he preached to Corinth in the first place in (spiritual) "weakness" (<em><a href='B:530 2:3'>1Co 2:3</a></em>)-&nbsp; because it seems that when he first got to Corinth, he wasn't spiritually strong enough to grasp the nettle of witnessing to the city as he should have done (<em><a href='B:510 18:9-10'>Act 18:9-10</a></em>). Having admitted to Corinth that he himself was weak, he can say that whenever one of them is weak, he feels weak too; in other words he's saying that he can totally empathize (not just sympathize) with a weak brother's feelings (<em><a href='B:540 11:29'>2Co 11:29</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And you visited Me</em>-</p><p> The idea is not really to pop around to someone's house or hospital ward. The idea really is of identity, with a view to salvation. Thus God visited us in Christ to save us (<em><a href='B:490 1:68'>Luk 1:68</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:78'>Luk 1:78</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:16'>Luk 7:16</a></em> "God has visited His people"; <em><a href='B:510 15:14'>Act 15:14</a></em> God "visited the Gentiles to take out a people"; <em><a href='B:650 2:6'>Heb 2:6</a></em> "what is man that You visit him"). This is the 'visiting' in view. As He ultimately 'visits' us to save, crossing the huge distance between God and man to do so, likewise we are to 'visit' our brethren. Again, what we do materially for those in Christ is a reflection of what He spiritually does for us. This is to be the motivation; to perceive that their poverty, their imprisonment, all of which may be their fault, is a reflection of our spiritual need and poverty, as we like them miss chance after chance to pull ourselves out of our poverty, and fall down too easily into survival and coping mechanisms that bind us to our poverty. And we are to show the same compassionate care to them as the Lord does to us:&nbsp;</p><p><em>I was in prison and you came to me</em>-</p><p> Prison is a metaphor for where sin and spiritual debt leads us. We are all hopelessly in spiritual debt and therefore in the debtors' prison (<em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em>). The Gospel which saves us is of freedom for the spiritual prisoners. And we are to reflect that experience in visiting others in prison, even if it is their fault they are there, just as it's our fault that we too are imprisoned spiritually. And "prison" was understood by Peter as a fair description of the Lord's sufferings, "to prison and to death" (<em><a href='B:490 22:33'>Luk 22:33</a></em>). In His death, the Lord went to the "spirits in prison", He was with them&nbsp; / us there (<em><a href='B:670 3:19'>1Pe 3:19</a></em>). But "prison" wasn't necessarily understood as a building with "Prison" written on it. Legion was 'bound', imprisoned, with fetters (<em><a href='B:490 8:29'>Luk 8:29</a></em> s:w:); and yet still free. Likewise Paul was 'bound' or 'imprisoned' to a soldier (<em><a href='B:510 28:16'>Act 28:16</a></em> s:w:). The Lord's binding could therefore be fairly understood as an imprisonment. And He was imprisoned at least for 24 hours before His death. The wonder of all this is that those imprisoned even by the effect of their own sin are thus still fellowshipping the Lord's crucifixion sufferings; and we are to minister to them as we would have done to Christ on the cross. Would we not have rushed to provide something in response to His plea "I thirst"? Of course. But we are to do so in response to the need of His brethren. Even "the least" of them, who are suffering for their sins:&nbsp;</p><p>So we can say that hunger, thirst, being a stranger, naked, weak and imprisoned are all things which the Lord experienced during His life and especially in His death. His brethren, His body, share His sufferings. We are to minister to them as we would have done were we there beholding the sufferings of Christ on the cross. We should emerge from such ‘beholding’, as we do it at the memorial meeting, practically resolving to reflect it to His brethren. And we are the more motivated by realizing that all those situations of hunger, thirst, imprisonment, weakness and nakedness are in fact metaphors for our own spiritual poverty, which the Lord through the cross responded to, in utter grace. As He has done spiritually to us, so we are to do, spiritually and materially, to others. All those symptoms of poverty are often (although far from always) the result of mismanagement, weak motivation, unhealthy coping patterns, chronically missed chances… and yet in spiritual terms, those things are the story of our lives. In the materially poor we see exact reflections of ourselves, of our spiritual poverty and failures. As the Lord has graciously responded to us in our weakness and self-inflicted poverty, so we are to do so to His people.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:37'>Mat 25:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then the righteous shall answer him, saying: Lord-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The parable implies the day of judgment will be such a surprise. Both righteous and wicked will find that they are criticized and commended for things which surprise them. There are several indications that because of this, the rejected will begin to argue back with Christ (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em>), until eventually they realize their errors, stop speaking (<em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>) and gnash their teeth in anger against themselves (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>). This should truly be a sobering thought to us all. We must strive, really, to examine ourselves, to know ourselves, to try to see our motives and actions a little more from God's perspective; because it is His perspective, not ours, which is ultimately important; and it is this lesson which the day of judgment will ultimately teach each of us.</p><p><em>When did we see you hungry and fed you? Or thirsty and gave you drink?-</em></p><p>&nbsp;“See”,&nbsp;<em>eido</em>, means effectively ‘to know’. The Lord has just used the same word in warning that He will have to tell the foolish virgins “I know you not” (:12). Here He explains that this is in fact because they knew&nbsp;<em>Him</em>&nbsp;not, in that they didn’t recognize His brethren. To not recognize His brethren means that He will not recognize us. It becomes crucial, therefore, to recognize the Lord’s brethren- and upholding a statement of faith as a basis of brotherhood seems to be a sure way&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to do that. Such a system may work well in secular life, but in spiritual terms, we end up creating fellowship boundaries which effectively treat others as not the Lord’s brethren because we do not recognize them as&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;brethren, seeing they fail to meet some curious criteria of theology or practice.</p><p>One major characteristic of the judgment will be&nbsp;<em>surprise</em>-</p><p> for both rejected and accepted (<em><a href='B:470 25:37'>Mat 25:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>). Firstly, incomprehension (<em><a href='B:470 25:37'>Mat 25:37</a></em>) and surprised anger, then realisation of the Lord's verdict. Both sheep and goats register their surprise at their Lord's comments on various specific actions of theirs which he discusses with them- "When saw we thee…?" (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>). The judgment will be a surprise for all. The thought that at least some of our deeds will be discussed with us at the judgment should surely make some impact on our present behaviour. <em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em> implies not only that there will be a discussion with our judge, but that Jesus will point out to the rejected what they should have done to be accepted: "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee... wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank?". The rejected are to be cut in two, shown as the two faced hypocrites which they were. But the idea of cutting in two was immediately associated in the Jewish mind with making a covenant. When Abraham placed the sacrifices in two parts and the Lord passed between them, the idea was really that God would cut in two the man who broke the covenant. Hence the Jews spoke of 'cutting a covenant'. Those who have made the covenant with God but not kept it will be cut in two, as they initially agreed. God will keep His side of the covenant.</p><p>We need to observe that the goats are rejected not so much for their lack of actions, but for failing to discern Christ in the least of His brethren. Then, the rejected will finally see their good works in context. They will realize how little works really meant. The faithful already knew that- for they objected when the Lord told them all the good things they had done. The list of works in <em><a href='B:470 25:35-36'>Mat 25:35-36</a></em> include the following: giving food to the hungry, clothes to the naked, a bed to the homeless, help to the sick. Yet these are the very things which Job claims he had done, when he clears himself from all his accusers (<em><a href='B:220 31:17-20'>Job 31:17-20</a></em>). But the voice in the whirlwind soon reduced him to realize "I am vile"; all his good works became as filthy rags before the supremacy of salvation by grace alone. The connection with the parable isn't merely incidental. Surely the Lord is saying that the self-righteous in the ecclesia may seem as righteous as Job was before his conversion; but they must either in this life realize the totality of grace, or the whirlwind of judgment condemnation will reduce them to the same realization. Job seems to oscillate between believing and not believing in the resurrection (consider <em><a href='B:220 14:7-15'>Job 14:7-15</a></em>). At the end, Job confesses he has not spoken the right things; and Yahweh then says that he has only spoken that which was right. The friends likewise said some true things and some false things; and yet because they did not repent, their bad words were remembered against them. The final revealing of Yahweh in Job was some kind of judgment day for all concerned. Job, the righteous, had only his good deeds and words remembered; whereas the wicked friends had only their bad words remembered. It seems it will take a while for the penny to drop for the rejected- that they're "out", and actually never were "in". This Jesus, in whose presence they had broken bread (although note the difference between this and Jesus breaking bread with us, <em><a href='B:490 13:26'>Luk 13:26</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 26:29'>Mat 26:29</a></em>), actually doesn't know them. The Lord has to repeat the very same words twice to the rejected: "I know not whence you are" (<em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:27'>Luk 13:27</a></em>)- as if they are dumbfounded and slow to comprehend the eternal implications of His words.</p><p>The righteous gave to the poor, the sick, the hungry- without even realizing they had done it. They will confidently deny it when Jesus points it all out to them. They served with no expectation of reward; so much so that they even forgot what they did. And&nbsp;<em>every</em>&nbsp;one who is accepted at the judgment, all the sheep, will have been like that. Giving without any thought of getting anything back is a&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;for all of us who seek to truly manifest God: for this is exactly what He does and has done, minute by minute, down through the millennia of indifferent, unresponsive human history (<em><a href='B:490 6:35-36'>Luk 6:35-36</a></em>). The accepted will feel so certain of all this that they will almost argue with the Lord Jesus at the day of judgment that he hasn't made the right decision concerning them (<em><a href='B:470 25:37-40'>Mat 25:37-40</a></em>). It's only a highly convicted man who would dare do that. Thus the Father will have to comfort the faithful in the aftermath of the judgment, wiping away the tears which will&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;(see context) be in our eyes, and give us special help to realize that our sinful past has now finally been overcome (<em><a href='B:730 21:4'>Rev 21:4</a></em>). We will be like the labourers in the parable who walk away from judgment clutching their penny, thinking “I really shouldn't have this. I didn't work for a day, and this is a day's pay". Therefore if we honestly, genuinely feel that we won't be in the Kingdom, well, this is how in some ways the faithful will all feel.</p><p>There is surely an intended contrast between the accepted denying the righteous acts that the Lord reminds them of, and their telling Him how much they have gained (spiritually) by trading (<em><a href='B:470 25:37-39'>Mat 25:37-39</a></em> cp. 20,22). These quite different attributes of the accepted are recorded within the same speech of the Lord. He frames those parables as if He is getting over global lessons rather than describing the response of different people:&nbsp; Perhaps the point is that first of all, the accepted feel as if they have done no righteous acts, and feel their unworthiness so strongly that they even dare to genuinely disagree with the Lord's praise of them. But then they come to accept themselves as He sees them, and later on in the judgment dialogue, He teases out of them a realistic self-assessment of their spiritual growth. There is a similar intended contrast in the attitude of the rejected; they begin by denying the Lord's criticism of their spiritual barrenness, and later in the conversation claim that well, He is being unreasonable, looking for fruit which He can't reasonably expect. Their tone changes from a loving 'Lord, Lord…' to a more bitter, critical spirit (<em><a href='B:470 25:4'>Mat 25:4</a></em> cp. 25).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:38'>Mat 25:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when did we see you as a stranger and welcome you? Or naked and clothed you?</em>-</p><p> They were commendably unaware that they had done these things. Or perhaps the focus is upon the word "You". Their genuine surprise is because they had never realized the degree to which their actions to their brethren were done directly to their Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:39'>Mat 25:39</a></em><em>&nbsp;And when did we see you sick, or in prison and came to you?-&nbsp;</em>The parable of the sheep and goats clearly suggests that after the judgment, the worthy and unworthy will be in two distinct groups to the right and left hand side of the Lord. The group of "sheep" then enter the Kingdom all together, at the same moment. This explains how the Lord will address the faithful and unfaithful as groups (note "ye" in <em><a href='B:470 25:37'>Mat 25:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:39'>Mat 25:39</a></em>); how the men of Nineveh stand together in a group, as the men of Sodom and Gomorrah will (<em><a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:11'>Mar 6:11</a></em>). In some way, there will be a collective sense at the day of judgment, as well as an individual one. If there will be a collective sense then, before the presence of His glory... there ought to be now.</p><p>At judgment day, the Lord will commend the righteous for feeding Him etc:- and they will reply in genuine surprise, feeling that they truly have&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>done any of those things for which He commends them. The point is, their way of life was an unconscious doing of good; it is the mindset which legalistically remembers every act of righteousness which will be finally rejected:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the King</em>-</p><p> The day of judgment was an important theme with the Lord. There is an element of unreality in the way he speaks of the King as being the judge (<em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>); the implication is that our judgment will be an extremely important event; the King himself is the judge (actually, the King of heaven and earth). This indicates that the Lord wishes to put before us the picture of those who have been called to the Kingdom but reject His offer.</p><p><em>Shall answer and say to them</em>-</p><p> They answer to Him (:37), and He likewise to them.</p><p><em>Truly I say to you, inasmuch</em>-</p><p> The Greek suggests an exact correspondence. Whatever is done to the Lord’s brethren is done to Him. This is the point of the Lord’s teaching. He is not simply saying that if we do good practical works we shall be saved, and if we don’t, then we shall not be. He is saying that it is what is done or not done&nbsp;<em>to Him</em>&nbsp;which is significant. So the point of the teaching is an appeal to recognize and serve His brethren, rather than to simply do good works. The rejected of <em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em> “<em>did</em>&nbsp;many wonderful works”- and the same word is used here, “you&nbsp;<em>did it</em>&nbsp;unto one of the least of these my brothers”. It’s not so much works that are being appealed for, as recognition of the Lord in His brethren. It’s the same word used in :16 for the faithful man who ‘made’ talents for his Lord. The making of talents is therefore parallel with serving the Lord’s brethren. It’s also the word used in <em><a href='B:470 24:46'>Mat 24:46</a></em> which introduces the parables of chapter 25- the watching servant will be found ‘doing’ care for his brethren.</p><p><em>As you did it to one of these my brothers</em>-</p><p> This word may seem superfluous until we realize that ‘one of the least of these’ is an invitation to look at the group of sheep and focus upon any one of the faces. This is a unique insight into the day of judgment. We are enabled to imagine ourselves there. The Lord is inviting us to imagine the colossal importance of perceiving Him in His brethren, and treating them as Him. If only this principle were understood in church life now, the church would be a beacon of light in this world’s darkness. All rejection, spitefulness, hard speaking against other believers… would disappear. We are to treat others in Christ as if they were Him. And that is the basis of our acceptance or rejection.</p><p><em>Even the least, you did it to me-&nbsp;</em>See on :34&nbsp;<em>Then</em>. The ‘little ones’ in the Lord’s earlier teaching are believers in Him (<em><a href='B:470 10:40-42'>Mat 10:40-42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:10'>Mat 18:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:14'>Mat 18:14</a></em>). <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em> is strikingly similar: “And whoever gives one of these&nbsp;<em>little ones</em>&nbsp;even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple; truly I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward”. The least of the Lord’s brethren refer to His disciples, and not to needy humanity generally. The purpose of the parable is to continue the theme of watchfulness which began at the end of chapter 24. There the Lord taught that watchfulness and readiness for His return will be achieved by feeding the household, and here that is defined in terms of practical care for His brethren. Careful reflection on the parable surely indicates that the Lord doesn’t condemn people for not doing acts of kindness; that would be salvation by works. Rather is the basis of their condemnation whether or not they perceived the Christ in the least of the Christ’s brethren. The Lord’s point is that things were done or not done&nbsp;<em>to Him</em>. If He meant ‘If you feed the hungry, you’re a sheep; if you don’t, you’re a goat’, He would have expressed it otherwise. He’s not teaching salvation by works, but rather the crucial importance of perceiving Himself in His brethren and not denying their connection with Him. This lifts the whole issue to a far more personal and demanding level than doing a few acts of kindness to needy folks.</p><p>The ‘least’ of the Lord’s brethren are those who are spiritually weak. The “least in the Kingdom” are those who break commandments and teach others so (<em><a href='B:470 5:19'>Mat 5:19</a></em> s:w:); Paul felt “the least of the apostles” (<em><a href='B:530 15:9'>1Co 15:9</a></em> s:w:), “the least of all saints” (<em><a href='B:560 3:8'>Eph 3:8</a></em> s:w:). The parable describes those on whom the righteous expend effort as sick, hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, in prison:&nbsp;<em>every one of which</em>&nbsp;is a description used elsewhere in Scripture concerning our spiritually weak state. Therefore the parable is teaching that one of the grounds upon which we will be rejected or accepted relates to how we have treated spiritually weak brethren. The wondrous, wondrous thing is that the Lord of glory identifies himself with the spiritually&nbsp;<em>weakest</em>&nbsp;of his brethren: and structures his judgment seat around how others have behaved towards them. Yet the description of “the least” brethren exactly match the Lord’s own experience in His death- one who is imprisoned (<em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>), sick (<em><a href='B:470 27:26'>Mat 27:26</a></em>), naked (<em><a href='B:470 27:35'>Mat 27:35</a></em>), thirsty (<em><a href='B:470 26:29'>Mat 26:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:48'>Mat 27:48</a></em>), friendless like a stranger (<em><a href='B:470 26:56'>Mat 26:56</a></em>). In responding to “the least” of the Lord’s brethren, we are responding to His cross. For our brethren, in their poverty, nakedness and imprisonment, are fellowshipping the sufferings of their Lord:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>As He says "Of these", we imagine a nod towards the crowd of sheep, with an invitation to focus upon “one” of those faces. There will be a public element to the judgment process. This is why the rejected shall walk naked and have their shame seen by others (<em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). The purpose of judgment is to teach us all, to prepare us for eternity together as we behold each other’s lives revealed and perceive the same patterns of God’s amazing grace. This is why hypocrisy is pointless; we shall then be revealed for who we really are before all.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then he shall also say to them on the left hand: You who are cursed, depart from me</em>-</p><p> The same word has just been used about the foolish virgins when they were told to “Go s:w. ‘depart’” to buy more oil (:9). The rejected will be told: "Depart from me" (<em><a href='B:490 13:27'>Luk 13:27</a></em>); and yet in their lives, they will have already departed themselves. In time of temptation some&nbsp;<em>fall away&nbsp;</em>(s:w. "depart from"; <em><a href='B:490 8:13'>Luk 8:13</a></em>). Some&nbsp;<em>depart&nbsp;</em>(s:w:) from the faith (<em><a href='B:610 4:1'>1Ti 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:12'>Heb 3:12</a></em>). Demas departed (<em><a href='B:620 4:10'>2Ti 4:10</a></em>), as the rejected will depart (s:w. here in <em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>). The same word is used about how the seed sown among thorns&nbsp;<em>goes forth</em>, it departs (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>) to condemnation:&nbsp; They departed, and so He tells them to depart. Now they willingly absent themselves from the Lord, but then they will not want to depart from Him. God will gather up the nations to thresh them, but they gather themselves to Him (<em><a href='B:400 4:11-12'>Mic 4:11-12</a></em>).</p><p><em>To the perpetual fire which is prepared for the Devil and his messengers</em>– Clearly alluding to the Gehenna myth. This is a phrase taken straight from Jewish apocalyptic thinking and literature. It was the worst category of punishment conceivable in Judaism. And yet Jesus in the context is talking of the way that religious people who claim to believe in Him will not go unpunished for ignoring the needs of their poor brethren. This all too easy to commit sin... The Lord uses Judaism’s toughest language to condemn. But this doesn’t mean that He actually believed in the literal existence of either “eternal fire” nor a personal Devil. The Devil’s angels are those who ignore their needy brethren. It’s a powerful and telling juxtapositioning of ideas by the Lord Jesus. The warning that the wicked will be cast into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil (<em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>) was referring to the apocryphal fate of supposedly ‘wicked angels’ as recorded in 1 Enoch 54. The references to Tartarus and sinful angels in 2 Peter and Jude are also clear references to wrong beliefs which were common in Jewish apocryphal and pseudo-epigraphical writings. These wrong ideas- and they&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;wrong- are not corrected directly, but rather a moral lesson is drawn from the stories. This is the point of the allusion to them; but there is no explicit correction of these myths in the first instance. It is the Angels of Jesus, and not of the Devil, who punish the wicked (<em><a href='B:470 13:42-50'>Mat 13:42-50</a></em>). A wresting of Scripture to make out that the Devil is the tormentor of the wicked simply runs in straight contradiction to these plain statements of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>It is a common theme that the wicked snare themselves, falling into their own pit, 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>). Their condemnation, the nature of their punishment, will have been specifically "prepared" for them (<em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>). The bitter self-hatred and ineffable regret of the rejected will be their punishment; and in accordance with the specific, personal way they mistreated and neglected God's Truth in this life, so they will mentally torture themselves. 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>).</p>


text:
For I was hungry and you did not give me anything to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink- The ideas of being hungry, thirsty and in prison connect with the picture we have in the sermon on the mount (<a href='B:470 5:5-11'>Mt. 5:5-11</a>)- where those very categories of people are those who are blessed by the Gospel. The implication of the connection may be that their being given food, water and comfort is articulated through the body of Christ today. And those who refuse to be the channel for those things are thereby showing themselves to not be part of the body of Christ.</p>


text:
I was a stranger and you did not welcome me. Naked and you did not clothe me. Sick and in prison and you did not visit me- &quot;Welcome me&quot; translates the same Greek word used for welcoming others into salvation. It is translated &quot;assemble together&quot; in the context of church meetings (<a href='B:500 20:19'>Jn. 20:19</a>; <a href='B:510 4:31'>Acts 4:31</a>;  <a href='B:510 11:26'>11:26</a>;  <a href='B:510 14:27'>14:27</a>;  <a href='B:510 15:6'>15:6</a>, <a href='B:510 15:30'>30</a>;  <a href='B:530 5:4'>1 Cor. 5:4</a>), and specifically of gathering together to break bread ( <a href='B:510 20:71'>Acts 20:7</a>). Clothing the naked likewise has connections with accepting the otherwise spiritually unacceptable. It is all a sober warning to those inclined to &quot;not welcome&quot; some at the Lord's table.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then they shall also answer, saying: Lord-&nbsp;</em>The figures of judgment can be taken literally to an extent. However, the actual process will be slightly different for each of us. Thus for some, Christ gives his verdict immediately and then discusses it with them (<em><a href='B:470 25:33-34'>Mat 25:33-34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>). Others are apparently given the reasons for the verdict first, and then explicitly told the verdict (<em><a href='B:470 25:27'>Mat 25:27</a></em>). Others tell the Lord of their spirituality and are then told his comment (<em><a href='B:470 25:20'>Mat 25:20</a></em>). Others don't realize the spiritual growth they've achieved (<em><a href='B:470 25:37'>Mat 25:37</a></em>), others see it quite clearly (<em><a href='B:490 19:16'>Luk 19:16</a></em>). To some, Jesus speaks first; in other cases, the believer starts the dialogue (<em><a href='B:470 25:41-44'>Mat 25:41-44</a></em> cp. 11,12,24-26). Some sense their rejection coming and plead to be let in to the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 25:11-12'>Mat 25:11-12</a></em>); others complain at their Lord's apparent unfairness, as if they're sorry, but they just have to make their point to him (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>).</p><p>The Lord points out their failings, then they give an explanation of their behaviour (<em><a href='B:470 25:24'>Mat 25:24</a></em>), justifying themselves (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>). There is an intended contrast in the attitude of the rejected within the Lord's parables of judgment in Matthew 25; they begin by denying the Lord's criticism of their spiritual barrenness, and later in the conversation claim that He is being unreasonable, looking for fruit which He can't reasonably expect. Their tone changes from a loving 'Lord, Lord…' to a more bitter, critical spirit (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em> cp. 25). According to the type of Cain, he was questioned by God, answered back, and then changed his tune and begged for mercy (<em><a href='B:10 4:9'>Gen 4:9</a></em>). Adam likewise began by answering back, blaming the woman and the fact God gave her to him (<em><a href='B:10 3:12'>Gen 3:12</a></em>). So they go through three mood swings: 'Lord, Lord', assuring Him they have never omitted to serve Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>), then a more bitter feeling that He is unreasonable (<em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>), and now a desperate begging for mercy.</p><p><em>When did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to you?</em>-</p><p> This is the word commonly used about people ministering to Jesus, and the ministering women at the cross. Again the point is established that the language used about ministrations to the historical Jesus is applied to ministration to the least of His brethren. The shock of both sheep and goats reflects their shock at the degree to which their brethren really had been the very same as the Lord Jesus. The parable suggests that we shall never in this life appreciate the degree to which He perceives His brethren as Himself, and our actions to them are our actions to Him. Any exclusion or spitefulness towards them is directly felt as action against Him. The thought of not ministering unto the crucified Christ is unthinkable, and is so clearly expressed by the goats in their denial of having been guilty of this. And yet to ignore our brethren who are part of Christ, who are Him to us, is to do the same. We wish to minister to the Lord in His time of need. But He is not here personally. And yet effectively He is, insofar as His brethren are His body, and are right before our eyes.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em><em>&nbsp;Then he shall answer them, saying: Truly I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of these least, you did not do it to me</em>-</p><p> See on :40&nbsp;<em>The least</em>.</p><p>Many of those who ungraciously storm out of fellowship with the rest of the body, do so because they complain that other believers are weak, unloving, hypocrites, don't practice what they preach etc. And in many ways, their complaints are true (seeing that the Lord came to heal those who need a doctor rather than shake hands with the healthy). And again, Paul has a comment on this situation. He says that those parts of our bodies "that seem to be weaker... that we think are less honourable... the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty... with special honour" (NIV). The private parts of our bodies are the parts we are most sensitive to, although on the outside they seem weak and hidden. And so Paul reasons that the weaker parts of the ecclesial body should be treated the same. The Greek for "feeble" (<em><a href='B:530 12:21'>1Co 12:21</a></em>) is used (notably in Corinthians) to describe spiritual weakness: <em><a href='B:480 14:38'>Mar 14:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:7'>1Co 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:22'>1Co 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:14'>1Th 5:14</a></em>. And in some ways, we are all "weak" (<em><a href='B:530 1:27'>1Co 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:10'>1Co 4:10</a></em>):&nbsp;So those we perceive ("that seem to be... that we think") to be spiritually weak in their external appearance, we should be especially sensitive towards. Significantly, the “sick" (s:w. "feeble") in the parable of <em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em> are the "least" of Christ's brethren, the spiritually weakest; and at the day of judgment, the rejected are condemned because of their attitude towards these spiritually weakest of Christ's brethren. As John realized the tendency of some to think they could love God without loving His Sons,&nbsp;so Paul tackled the same problem at Corinth. He reasons that "the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee... if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if they were all one member, where were the body?" (<em><a href='B:530 12:21'>1Co 12:21</a></em>). He knew that some would want to go off on their own, and he shows that such behaviour would suggest that they alone were the whole body. He knew that some would think that they had no need of other parts of the ecclesial body; he saw that some would feel that they were so inferior to others that they had no place in the body. All these are reasons why believers push off on their own. But notice that Paul doesn't actually say 'the eye&nbsp;<em>shouldn't&nbsp;</em>say to the hand, I have no need of thee'; but rather "the eye&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;say to the hand...". Although some may say or feel this, ultimately, from God's perspective, it's simply not valid. Christian disillusion with Christianity&nbsp;mustn't lead us to quit the body. The same logic applies to those who think that the body of Christ is divided; ultimately, there is one body, and from God's perspective this is indivisible. The divisions only exist in the minds of men. Those who say that they don't need fellowship with their brethren "cannot say" this, according to Paul. If they continue on this road, ultimately they declare themselves not of the one body of Christ; although I trust there are many brethren who have done just this who may still receive God's gracious salvation. &nbsp;</p><p><em>"</em>Of these" suggests that the righteous are present and visible at the time of the verdict given to the goats. Again we see the public dimension to the judgment process.</p><p>A telling chronology is suggested by putting together a few Scriptures. The foolish virgins will knock on the door, as it were, and be told by the Lord “I know you not” (<em><a href='B:470 25:12'>Mat 25:12</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 13:27'>Luk 13:27</a></em> says that He tells the rejected&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;they have justified themselves to Him: “I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity”. <em><a href='B:470 7:22-23'>Mat 7:22-23</a></em> describes a dialogue in which the rejected justify themselves by listing their good works, and the Lord will profess unto them: “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity”. All their good works He will see as works of sin, because they were not of faith. <em><a href='B:470 25:41-45'>Mat 25:41-45</a></em> gives more information: the rejected are told “Depart from me”, but they argue back with self-justification, and then they are told that they had not shown love to the least of Christ’s brethren, and are sent away to punishment.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 25:46'>Mat 25:46</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And these shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into eternal life-&nbsp;</em>After the pattern of Cain and Adam (<em><a href='B:10 3:24'>Gen 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 4:14'>Gen 4:14</a></em>), and also the idea of the wicked being&nbsp;<em>cast&nbsp;</em>into the darkness of condemnation, it seems that the rejected will be forcibly driven away. Cain was driven out from the faces, the presence of the land of Eden, where the Lord's presence was (<em><a href='B:10 4:14'>Gen 4:14</a></em>). Presumably this driving out was done by the Angels. We are left to imagine the ultimate tragedy of Cain going forth from the presence of the Lord (<em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em> s:w. "face" <em><a href='B:470 4:14'>Mat 4:14</a></em>), and the rejected 'going away into…' (<em><a href='B:470 25:46'>Mat 25:46</a></em>). The tragedy of rejection is well reflected in the way the Lord speaks of how "great was the fall" of the poorly built house (<em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em>). We are invited to see worthy and unworthy walking away from the throne&nbsp;<em>into&nbsp;</em>different futures. The sheep will enter&nbsp;<em>into</em>&nbsp;the city (<em><a href='B:730 22:14'>Rev 22:14</a></em>),&nbsp;<em>into</em>&nbsp;the temple (<em><a href='B:730 15:8'>Rev 15:8</a></em>),<em>&nbsp;into</em>&nbsp;their rest (<em><a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a></em>),&nbsp;<em>into</em>&nbsp;the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:24'>Luk 18:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>);<em>&nbsp;into</em>&nbsp;life (<em><a href='B:480 9:45'>Mar 9:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:9'>Mat 18:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:17'>Mat 19:17</a></em>);&nbsp;<em>into&nbsp;</em>the joy of Christ (<em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em>).</p><p>The rejected going away into... (<em><a href='B:470 25:46'>Mat 25:46</a></em>) is only a reflection of the position they themselves adopted in their lives. They thought that they could flee away from the judgments of God (<em><a href='B:520 2:3'>Rom 2:3</a></em> Gk:)- and so they will flee from His judgment seat, although so, so unwillingly. The man who refuses to immediately respond to the Lord's call to service says that he must first&nbsp;<em>go away&nbsp;</em>from the Lord and bury his father (<em><a href='B:470 8:21'>Mat 8:21</a></em>); the young man&nbsp;<em>went away&nbsp;</em>in sorrow (<em><a href='B:470 19:22'>Mat 19:22</a></em>); people hear the Gospel and then&nbsp;<em>go away&nbsp;</em>to all their petty businesses of this life (<em><a href='B:470 22:5'>Mat 22:5</a></em>). Those who couldn't handle the demanding Lord&nbsp;<em>went away</em>&nbsp;from Him (<em><a href='B:500 6:66'>Joh 6:66</a></em>); and Judas&nbsp;<em>went away&nbsp;</em>of himself to hang himself (<em><a href='B:470 27:5'>Mat 27:5</a></em>). He condemned himself. These are all the same words as in <em><a href='B:470 25:46'>Mat 25:46</a></em> - those who of their own choice went away from the Lord now, although that isn't maybe how they saw it, will then go away from Him into condemnation. This point is made even within Matthew 25. The foolish virgins&nbsp;<em>went away&nbsp;</em>to buy oil- they didn't want to immediately go to their Lord (:10); the one talent man&nbsp;<em>went away</em>&nbsp;and buried his talent (:18,25). And then at judgment day they again&nbsp;<em>go away from</em>&nbsp;the Lord (:46). Their going away from the Lord is simply being confirmed by Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:1'>Mat 26:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these words, he said to his disciples-&nbsp;</em>The same rubric as in <em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em>, suggesting that this was a way of dividing up the material to assist in memorization. The earliest converts would have memorized the good news preached to them by e.g. Matthew, and then the material was written up under inspiration as 'the Gospel of Matthew' which we now have.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:2'>Mat 26:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You know</em>-</p><p> The knowledge can refer to both the subsequent clauses in the sentence. The Lord said that they knew that Passover was coming, and that He must be handed over to crucifixion. Yet the disciples did not 'know' of His crucifixion in that clearly they had shut their minds to it. And the Lord knew that. But He is still trying to get them to understand. His effort in teaching the disciples is admirable; we would likely have sought to focus solely upon personally getting through with the trauma of death over the next few days. But He perceived that His perfection involved love for His chosen to the end.</p><p><em>That after two days the Passover comes, and the Son of Man will be</em>-</p><p> A present tense, when we expect a future. The essence of the Lord's function as the Paschal lamb was lived out throughout His life. Perhaps the Lord used this unusual tense because He wanted to prepare the disciples for the fact they were going to keep the Passover a day earlier than usual; but they need not worry about that, because the essence of Passover was ongoing in the Lord's life. John the Baptist had perceived that when commenting that the Lord was "the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world" (<em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:36'>Joh 1:36</a></em>) even when it wasn't Passover time. See on :28&nbsp;<em>Is shed&nbsp;</em>and on :30&nbsp;<em>They went out</em>. Luke says "the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover". "Called the Passover" might suggest that it was only called Passover, but was not so in reality. This would connect with the theme of the feast being called a "feast of the Jews" rather than of Yahweh, and the temple becoming "your house" rather than God's.</p><p><em>Delivered up to be crucified</em>-</p><p> Literally, 'is being betrayed'. The next verse shows what was going on in justification of this statement. The Lord could have known of it through direct Divine revelation, but I prefer to think that His sensitivity was such that He perceived it of His own perception. The Greek can mean to be handed over, and also to be betrayed, with reference to Judas. The obvious double meaning indicates that the Lord did purposefully use words and ideas with more than one meaning, realizing that after His death, the other meaning would be made apparent. This means that we are quite justified in perceiving multiple meanings and intentions in inspired words, the Olivet Prophecy being a classic example, with its various possible applications. "Is betrayed" reflects a present tense in the Greek. The Lord's handing over to death, indeed His death itself, was in essence lived out throughout His life. His life was a form of ongoing death.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:3'>Mat 26:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered at the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas</em>-</p><p> The record may wish to give the impression that it was because of the Lord’s prediction of His death that the Jews assembled and arranged it. He certainly planned His death consciously, and the Jews responded to His provocations. The gathering or assembling together of the Lord’s enemies is a major theme (:57; <em><a href='B:470 27:17'>Mat 27:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:27'>Mat 27:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:62'>Mat 27:62</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:12'>Mat 28:12</a></em>); and uses the same word for the gathering together of the rejected to condemnation at the last day. Coming before Christ in His time of dying was and is a foretaste of the last judgment. The Lord Jesus causes people to gather together either for or against Him. This is the fundamental divide- not between brother and brother, but between the believer and the world, light and darkness.</p><p>The word translated “court” or “palace” is used 12 times in the New Testament, and eight of them refer to the court of the High Priest. It’s tempting, therefore, to think that the Lord may well have had this same court / palace in mind when He spoke of how an armed strong man “keeps his palace” s:w:, <em><a href='B:490 11:21'>Luk 11:21</a></em>, but the Lord Jesus through His death on the cross would overpower him, and take his goods and share them with His people. The strong man who kept the palace may have had some reference, therefore, to the Jewish High Priest; the good things of the temple were inaccessible to God’s people, until the Lord overpowered that entire system. The Lord also spoke of how He has a “fold”, the same word translated “palace” or “court”, into which He must gather His sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:1'>Joh 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em>). He had to take over the whole temple system, and replace the Jewish religious leadership with His own bad of secular men, prostitutes and hangers on.</p>


text:
<p>26:4&nbsp;<em>And they plotted together how they might seize Jesus using trickery and kill him</em>-</p><p> The Greek specifically means to jointly decide. The collective guilt of Jewry is being emphasized, because their judgment was likewise collective. The same word is used four times later in this chapter about the ‘taking hold’ of the Lord Jesus in Gethsemane (:48,50,55,57). This ‘laying on of hands’ against the Lord is likewise strongly noted by Mark (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 14:44'>Mar 14:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:46'>Mar 14:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:51'>Mar 14:51</a></em>). The sight of it was burnt into their memories. There are likewise parts and aspects of the Lord’s sufferings, and words associated with them, which are likewise burnt in the consciousness of all those who truly love Him.</p><p>"Trickery" is as AV "<em>By subtilty"</em>-</p><p> an allusion to the Lord’s Jewish opposition as the seed of the serpent at whose hands the seed of the woman was wounded (<em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>). But the word literally refers to a bait, implying some plan to deceive Him into a position in which they could arrest Him. But what were these plans? The Lord fell for no bait. Perhaps the idea was that Judas would come and kiss Him, and lead Him into some isolated ambush or compromising situation. When the Lord made it clear to Judas that He knew what Judas was up to, the plan fell apart and the soldiers simply grabbed the Lord. And they ended killing Him “on the feast day”, which was exactly what they had planned to avoid (:5).</p><p>The plan made ahead of time to kill Him was clearly typified by the brothers’ plans to kill Joseph.</p>


text:
<p>26:5&nbsp;<em>But they said: Not during the feast</em>-</p><p> But they did crucify the Lord during the feast, at the same time as the Passover lambs were being killed. Their plan went wrong- see on :4&nbsp;<em>By subtilty</em>. Try as they might to not kill Him then, the Lord wanted to die as the Passover lamb, and this happened despite the Jews&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;wanting that. The Lord had control over the time of His death, because He gave His life rather than having it taken from Him.</p><p><em>Lest a riot arise among the people</em>-</p><p> This indicates the popularity the Lord enjoyed even at that stage, and the fact He was crucified with the general goodwill of the masses is therefore an essay in the fickleness of human nature. And yet the careful plans of the leaders didn't work out- there was "a tumult" about it, the same Greek word translated "uproar" (<em><a href='B:470 27:24'>Mat 27:24</a></em>), and likewise they did end up killing Jesus "on the feast day" when it was not their intention to.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:6'>Mat 26:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper</em>-</p><p> The anointing recorded in Mark 14 is clearly the same as that here in Matthew 26. But the anointing in Luke 7 appears to have occurred in the house of a Pharisee called Simon somewhere in Galilee. The anointing recorded in John 12 is very similar, but occurred six days before the Passover and one day&nbsp;<em>before</em>&nbsp;the triumphal entry (<em><a href='B:500 12:12'>Joh 12:12</a></em>), whereas the anointing recorded here in Matthew and Mark occurred&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;that. There are other differences, too. In <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em> Mary uses "a pound of spikenard" whereas the anointing in Matthew seems to emphasize the use of spikenard as a liquid, in an alabaster flask that had to be broken to release the liquid. The spikenard was worth&nbsp;<em>more</em>&nbsp;than 300 pence (<em><a href='B:480 14:5'>Mar 14:5</a></em>), whereas that of <em><a href='B:500 12:5'>Joh 12:5</a></em> was worth 300 pence; it was used to anoint the Lord's&nbsp;<em>feet</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>), whereas that of <em><a href='B:470 26:7'>Mat 26:7</a></em> was used to anoint His&nbsp;<em>head</em>. In <em><a href='B:500 12:4'>Joh 12:4</a></em> it is Judas who complains at the apparent waste of the money, whereas in <em><a href='B:470 26:8'>Mat 26:8</a></em> it is the disciples. <em><a href='B:470 26:11-12'>Mat 26:11-12</a></em> record the Lord's word about "You will always have the poor with you" and goes on to record His explanation that the woman had done this for His burial; whereas in <em><a href='B:500 12:7-8'>Joh 12:7-8</a></em> these two sayings are the other way around. The wiping of His feet with her hair is stressed in <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>, but Matthew and Mark are silent about this. John 12 clearly identifies the woman as Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus; whereas Matthew and Mark are careful to preserve her as a nameless "woman" who "came unto Him" (<em><a href='B:470 26:7'>Mat 26:7</a></em>). I therefore have no doubt that John 12 and Matthew 26 / Mark 14 speak of two separate anointings, both in Bethany, separated from each other by four days. The anointing in Luke 7 is clearly framed as a similar incident, also in the house of a man called Simon:&nbsp;</p><p>The question, of course, is why these three anointings are described in such similar language. Higher critics immediately speak of textual dislocation and mistakes made by the writers in their chronology of events. These kinds of approaches arise from a focus upon the text before our eyes, rather than having a wider perspective on Scripture earned by years of careful Bible reading of the entire Bible text. Those who read the entire Scriptures over a period of time cannot fail to be impressed by the repetition of situations and events. The way Joseph is called out of prison to interpret a King's dream and is then exalted to rulership in a pagan land is clearly the basis for the language used about Daniel's experience in Babylon. This is not to say that text got dislocated, that Daniel was Joseph or vice versa. Rather do we perceive a single Divine mind behind the production of the Bible as we have it; and God's intention was clearly to show that circumstances repeat within and between the lives of His people. And the language He uses in recording history seeks to bring out those repetitions. This is why the lament of Jeremiah in depression is so similar to that of Job in his depression. And of course we are free to assume that Biblical characters were aware of and took inspiration from those who had gone before them. I suggest that this is what we have going on in the records of these three anointings of the Lord by despised and misunderstood women. They were inspired by each other- for the Lord comments that what the women did was to be told worldwide. This was a command, and it was surely obeyed. Mary of Bethany was inspired by the woman of Luke 7, and the anonymous woman of Matthew 26 was inspired by Mary's anointing of four days previously. Mary had given spikenard worth 300 pence; this woman used even more expensive ointment. And in this is our lesson- to be inspired by the devotion of others to their Lord. Heaven's record of our response is as it were recorded in similar language, in recognition of the inspiration provided by earlier acts of faithfulness by those we know or who have gone before us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:7'>Mat 26:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>A woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>bar-utimos</em>&nbsp;uses a term,&nbsp;<em>utimos</em>, elsewhere used about the precious, costly blood of Christ. Matthew uses it about the "price" of the Lord's blood (<em><a href='B:470 27:6'>Mat 27:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:9'>Mat 27:9</a></em>), as does Paul (<em><a href='B:530 6:20'>1Co 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:23'>1Co 7:23</a></em>) and Peter (<em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em>). The point is simple. The Lord's blood shed for us was and is the most valuable thing in existence, in the entire cosmos; and we should feel that when we take the cup which symbolizes it. And our response is to give our most valuable things, materially and otherwise, for Him.</p><p><em>On his head as he reclined at table</em>-</p><p> The woman anointed the Lord’s head in order to reflect her belief that He really was the Christ, the anointed one. She gave her life savings for this belief. It can be apparently painless to believe that Jesus is Christ, and yet the implications of accepting this simple fact can transform a life. What she did was surely rooted in her understanding of <em><a href='B:260 1:12'>Son 1:12</a></em>, where Solomon’s lover has spikenard (s:w. LXX <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>) which sends forth its smell “While the king sitteth at his table”. Clearly enough she saw Jesus right there and then as the King- even though His Kingdom was not of that world. Her love for Him, her reflection upon the Old Testament, and her perception of Him as her future Lord and King to the extent that she even then treated Him as such, so certain was her faith in His future victory and worthiness… this all motivated her to give the quintessence of her life’s work for Him. And it should for us too.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:8'>Mat 26:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:480 14:4'>Mar 14:4</a></em> adds that the indignation was within themselves, and so the words they are here recorded as saying were likely within themselves. We wonder how many other times when we read of people 'saying' something, the 'saying' was within their own minds. For self-talk is understood by the Lord as our actual words. Whether or not we hold our tongues back is not the ultimate issue. The words have been said within us. See on <em><a href='B:470 26:10'>Mat 26:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When Jesus understood</em>. If the reconstruction of events I offered in commentary on :8, we can better understand their frustration. They would have seen an identical 'waste' of wealth in the anointing of four days previously in the same village, perhaps in the same home; and they had seen it in Galilee at the incident recorded in Luke 7. And they were doing their math and calculating the total cost 'wasted'.</p><p><em>To what purpose?</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>eis tis</em>&nbsp;could equally mean 'For whom?', the implication being that the poor could have been benefitted far more than the Lord Jesus. Hence the Lord replies that the purpose of the anointing was to embalm Him ahead of time for burial. Just as the woman was inspired by the generous anointing of Mary four days previously and the Galilean prostitute of Luke 7, so the huge amount of spices purchased by Nicodemus in <em><a href='B:500 19:39'>Joh 19:39</a></em> was likely motivated in turn by her example. Critics claim that the amount of spices ("one hundred pound weight") bought was more than used in the burial of the Caesars. The woman here used a pound of spikenard, worth more than the 300 pence at which Mary's anointing liquid was valued. And in turn, Nicodemus was motivated yet more- 100 times more. She gave one pound, he gave 100 pounds' weight. This is the reason for the deja vu of our lives, of how experiences repeat between human lives- it's so that we may be inspired to greater&nbsp;service than even those who went before.</p><p><em>Is this waste</em>-</p><p> This is the same Greek word used nearly 20 times in the NT for destruction and condemnation; it is the same word used in describing Judas as "the son of&nbsp;<em>perdition</em>". The tragedy of condemnation is the waste of what could have been. This is the sadness with which God sees condemnation. We note that four days before, it had been Judas who complained about the 'waste'. His attitude had spread to the disciples. But the paradox was that he was thereby the son of waste, he was condemning himself by complaining about the waste of devotion towards the Lord Jesus. The idea could even be that they were so angry that they thought that the woman was condemning herself by what she had done, because she could have given the money to the poor. This is seen so often in religious experience- those who stand on the sidelines become so bitter at how others actively express their devotions to their Lord that they go so far as to condemn them. We think of how Michal despised David for dancing before the Lord, and was punished with barrenness; and of the Lord’s observation: “Is your eye evil, because I am good / generous?” (<em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>). The world's wealthiest individuals are often very generous to charitable causes- and yet they do so to a chorus of criticism from those who have given little or nothing to such causes.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:9'>Mat 26:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this might have been sold for much and given to the poor</em>-</p><p> The very words used by the Lord to the rich ruler, telling him to sell what he had and give to the poor (<em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>). Their idea in saying this may have been to accuse the woman of disobedience to the Lord’s teachings. We see here how deep are the feelings aroused by spiritual jealousy. This woman had made a stellar commitment to her Lord; and quite unspoken, her devotion challenged the other disciples. And so by all means they had to condemn her, and were happy to misquote the Lord’s words to achieve that. This is one simple reason why those most active and sacrificial in church life are often the most viciously attacked by their fellow disciples.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:10'>Mat 26:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Jesus perceiving it, said to them: Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a</em>-</p><p> This translation is misleading; the idea of the Greek is that the Lord perceived the situation immediately. But the fact He perceived it confirms the suggestion that the words the disciples apparently spoke were in fact spoken within their minds and not out loud- see on <em><a href='B:470 26:8'>Mat 26:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Indignation, saying</em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Good work</em>-</p><p> The Greek has the idea of beauty. The same Greek phrase rendered “a good work” is found in <em><a href='B:610 5:10'>1Ti 5:10</a></em> as something required of a mature spiritual woman, and for which she must be “reported”- clearly alluding to how this woman’s “good work” was to be told / reported worldwide. She thus became a model for other sisters to follow, in the same way as she herself had copied the examples of Mary four days previously, and the sinful woman of Luke 7. This is the intended power and purpose of good works- they serve as inspiration for others to likewise glorify the Lord. The Greek expression ‘to work a good work’ is used elsewhere regarding the Lord’s working of miracles (<em><a href='B:500 6:28'>Joh 6:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:33'>Joh 10:33</a></em>). Her response was no less significant than the working of a miracle.</p><p><em>Upon me</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>eis eme</em>&nbsp;could as well mean ‘in Me’, as if the woman’s work gave the Lord huge encouragement within Himself.</p>


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:12'>Mat 26:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For in that she poured this ointment upon my body</em>-</p><p> A different word from that used to describe how she poured the ointment on His head (:7). Perhaps her focus was upon anointing Him- but because the ointment dripped from His head onto His body, the Lord imputed to her an understanding of His upcoming death and saw it as an embalming of Him, in line with the oft repeated idea that His life was in effect His death; as He sat at the meal table, it was as if He were already dead.</p><p><em>She did it to prepare me for burial-&nbsp;</em>The RV has “to prepare me for burial”. This could be read as the Lord saying that what she did inspired Him to go forward in the path to death which He was treading. The Greek means specifically embalming. It was as if the woman perceived that the Lord was effectively the slain lamb of God even whilst He was alive. It is used only once more in the New Testament, describing the embalming of the Lord's body (<em><a href='B:500 19:40'>Joh 19:40</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:13'>Mat 26:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Truly I say to you: Wherever in the whole world this gospel is preached, what this woman has done shall also be spoken of-&nbsp;</em>Her generosity was set up as a cameo of the response to the Lord which all who believe the Gospel should make. The Gospel is not just a set of doctrines to be painlessly apprehended. It is a call to action after the pattern of this woman. The good news was to be of the Lord’s death and burial, and yet integral to that message was to be the pattern of response which was seen in her- to give our all, our most treasured and hoarded things, for His sake.</p><p>There is evident connection with the Lord's prophecy of how the Gospel would be preached in all the world (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em>). He seems to have seen the 'Gospel' that would be preached as a re-telling of His life and incidents in it, such as the woman's anointing of Him. It is significant that her anointing is mentioned in all four Gospel records. In <em><a href='B:480 14:9'>Mar 14:9</a></em> we read that wherever the gospel was to be preached, what she had done would be narrated in memory of her. So ‘preaching the Gospel’ is defined there as a narration of the events and sayings of the Lord Jesus in His ministry. The Gospel records are transcripts of the Gospel preached by e.g. Matthew. The Gospel is therefore in the Gospels. The rest is interpretation and theology, necessary and helpful, but there is no avoiding the fact that the Gospel itself is in the records of the Gospel which we have in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.</p><p>The Lord foresaw that transcripts of His work and words would indeed be made, and He envisaged how the supreme devotion of this anonymous woman would be part of that message. The language is very similar to that of <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>: "This Gospel... shall be preached&nbsp;<em>kerusso&nbsp;</em>again in all the world... and then shall the end come". Matthew may have had in view how his version of the Gospel needed to be spread into all the world.</p><p><em>As a memorial of her</em>-</p><p> The language of 'memorial' is typically used in contemporary literature about memorials to the gallant deeds of&nbsp;<em>men</em>. But the Lord was challenging such thinking by saying that the Gospel would include a memorial of an anonymous&nbsp;<em>woman</em>. And her humanly senseless pouring out of her wealth in a ten minute act of devotion to Him was none less than the bravest or noblest act of any man.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:14'>Mat 26:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests</em>-</p><p> In all the Gospel records, the decision of Judas to betray the Lord follows on from the anointing incidents. The apparent waste of money in senseless devotion obviously irked Judas. People who are obsessed with money as he was often find such things unbearable to be part of. Judas is repeatedly called "Simon's son" at this time. And the anointing took place in Simon's house (:6). It could well be that Judas was a member of the family, possibly even a brother of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. To see the family wealth 'wasted' in this way was unbearable for him. The reasons for his betrayal were surely multi-factorial, but attitudes to money played a large part. "What will you give me, and I will betray Him…?" clearly suggests a financial motive; and the records seem to give the impression that the apparent waste of money, especially if it was money he thought might be coming to him in the inheritance, was the final straw for him. After that, he went to the Jews and opened discussions about betraying the Lord. The way he threw the thirty pieces of silver down on the ground reflects his final realization of how foolish he had been. And yet the lesson is so often never learnt; men and women effectively betray their Lord for money; accumulation of wealth, development of career, take precedence over devotion to Him, and finally lead to betrayal.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:15'>Mat 26:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And said: What are you willing to give me</em>-</p><p> The financial aspect was important to Judas. He, like so many after him, was prepared to betray the Son of God purely for money. The decision of Judas to make this offer is recorded as coming straight after the record of the woman anointing the Lord's feet with the expensive ointment. Judas's heart cried out as he saw all that money wasted; he knew that the perfume could have been sold for much and the money entrusted to him as the treasurer, and therefore he would have had the opportunity to take some for himself. As I read the records, the motivation of Judas was&nbsp;<em>fundamentally</em>&nbsp;financial, whatever we may like to speculate about his other reasons. It's almost too farfetched to believe; that a man who walked in the company of the Son of God, who entered into deep spiritual conversation with him, who is even described by the Spirit of Christ as "a man mine equal, my guide and mine acquaintance" (<em><a href='B:230 55:13'>Psa 55:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 55:4'>Psa 55:4</a></em>), could steal the odd few dollars (in our terms) out of the bag of those 12 travelling men. It couldn't have been any great sum that he notched up in those three years. And yet this led Judas to betray the Lord of all grace, for a sum no more than at most a few thousand US dollars (in our terms). They valued the Son of God at 30 pieces of silver (<em><a href='B:470 27:9'>Mat 27:9</a></em>)- and&nbsp;<em>all it could buy was a field</em>. And Judas was happy with that. The way he later hurled those coins down and stalked off to hang himself suggests that he saw the essence of his failure as being tied up with that money. "The reward of iniquity" was what Peter contemptuously called it (<em><a href='B:510 1:18'>Act 1:18</a></em>).</p><p><em>If I will deliver Him to you?</em>-</p><p> The Lord had predicted this, using the very same words, concerning how He would be delivered over to the "chief priests" (<em><a href='B:470 20:18'>Mat 20:18</a></em>). The Lord had only just used the word translated "deliver" in predicting His betrayal (:2). And Judas did it. The Lord surely knew the power of self-fulfilling prophecies; to some degree He psychologically set up this situation so that this would indeed happen. For ultimately the Lord 'gave Himself', He handed Himself over the same Greek word for us (<em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:2'>Eph 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:25'>Eph 5:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:23'>1Pe 2:23</a></em>). It is not at all unbelievable that Judas would do the very thing which the Lord had predicted the betrayer would do. It is true to human experience; people do the very thing they know they should not, performing to the letter the very situations which they have been clearly warned about. Yet through all this, it must be remembered that the same word for deliver up / betray is used about how&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;'delivered up' His Son for us all (<em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>). Although Judas was without question guilty and did what he did of his own volition, God's hand was somehow in it, working through the freewill of men. And this is the great comfort to all those who suffer evil at the hands of evil men; the evil of the men and their actions doesn't mean that we have been forsaken by God, nor that His far higher hand is not in it all, working as He does for our ultimate good in the latter end:&nbsp;</p><p>We noted earlier that the very language of betrayal into the hands of the religious leaders and thence to the power of the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:470 20:18-19'>Mat 20:18-19</a></em>) was used about the experience of the faithful in the final tribulation (<em><a href='B:470 24:9-10'>Mat 24:9-10</a></em>). In the very last few days, the last generation will pass through the sufferings of the Lord Jesus, identifying with His death so that they might live with Him. This will be especially appropriate if the last generation are the only human beings to never taste of death. And even for those believers who do not live at that time, they too find that their experiences of betrayal are a part in their fellowship of their Lord's sufferings. For the same word is used in speaking of how we are all "delivered unto death for Jesus' sake" (<em><a href='B:540 4:11'>2Co 4:11</a></em>). For the sake of being in Him, identified with Him, we must all share in His sufferings and betrayal experience.</p><p><em>They paid him</em>-</p><p> They weighed Gk. the money, fulfilling <em><a href='B:450 11:12'>Zec 11:12</a></em> "They weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver". The legalism of all concerned shines through. According to <em><a href='B:480 14:11'>Mar 14:11</a></em>, this was really an advance payment. The money was perhaps weighed out because the shekels were the temple shekels, those used in the temple:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Thirty pieces</em>-</p><p> The legal price of a slave (<em><a href='B:20 21:32'>Exo 21:32</a></em>). The money intended for purchasing the temple sacrifices (see on&nbsp;<em>They covenanted</em>) was used to buy the Lord at the time when He appeared supremely "in the form of a servant".</p><p><em>Of silver</em>-</p><p> They were "the price of Christ's blood" (<em><a href='B:470 27:6'>Mat 27:6</a></em>), "the price of Christ". We are surely intended to use this identification to interpret the parable of the pieces of silver s:w. given to the Lord's servants (<em><a href='B:470 25:18'>Mat 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:27'>Mat 25:27</a></em>). He calls it "My money" s:w. "silver pieces", <em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em>. The money of Christ was the money paid to get His blood. Perhaps those to whom more silver pieces were given are those who had sinned the more, whose redemption was the more costly; or those who appreciate the price of their redemption the more.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:16'>Mat 26:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And from that time onward he sought opportunity to betray him</em>-</p><p> One with the Lord's sensitivity would easily have realized what was happening. Yet He was so far above it all; for He was going to hand Himself over, and not be handed over by anyone.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:17'>Mat 26:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where do you want us to</em>-</p><p> This is noted so often, as if the Lord was alone, presumably in prayer to the Father, and wasn't with the disciples all the time.</p><p><em>Prepare the Passover for you to eat?</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 22:8'>Luk 22:8</a></em> adds the detail that actually this was said in response to Peter and John being told to go and prepare the Passover. <em><a href='B:480 14:15'>Mar 14:15</a></em> brings out the paradox that the Lord directed them to an upper room that was already "prepared" (s:w:), and there they prepared the Passover. The Lord had taught that the festal meal was already prepared for His people (<em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em> s:w:). The Lord was surely using the language of Passover preparation in saying that He was going to the cross to prepare a place for us (<em><a href='B:500 14:1-3'>Joh 14:1-3</a></em>)- and He said that at the very time Passover was being prepared. His request that&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;prepare Passover was therefore asking for a mutuality in response from them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:18'>Mat 26:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he said: Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him</em>-</p><p> Mark and Luke add that he was a man bearing a pitcher of water (<em><a href='B:480 14:13'>Mar 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:10'>Luk 22:10</a></em>). This water was carried upstairs into the upper room, and became, as it were, the wine of the new covenant. Carrying water was woman's work, and the Lord surely arranged this special sign in order to show how at His table, there was gender equality. He was so far ahead of His time. The vague "such a man" is perhaps to conceal the identity of the householder, given that the Gospels were distributed at a time of persecution. Or perhaps it was in order to avoid the identifying of the house and turning it into some kind of shrine, or special honour being given to the householder.</p><p><em>The Teacher said</em>-</p><p> The anonymous man, unnamed perhaps for security reasons, was presumably a believer for this title to mean anything to the man. Likewise the reference to the Lord's time being at hand would've only been understandable by a disciple. The Lord wishes to assume that the man will appreciate that if the Lord's time of death was at hand, then He must first keep the Passover.</p><p><em></p><p>My time is at hand</em>-</p><p> The Lord used similar language in teaching how in the very last days of the tribulation, we will likewise know that the Lord's time is at hand (<em><a href='B:470 24:32-33'>Mat 24:32-33</a></em>). This is another one of many suggestions that we who live in the last days will go through the essence of the Lord's sufferings:&nbsp;</p><p><em>I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples</em>-</p><p> The use of&nbsp;<em>meta</em>&nbsp;carries the sense of amongst, in the midst of, and not simply 'together with'. <em><a href='B:650 2:12'>Heb 2:12</a></em> perhaps alludes to this by quoting and applying to Jesus the Old Testament passage which says "I will declare Your Name unto My brothers, in the midst of the church will I sing praise". This is quoted in the context of a sustained argument in Hebrews 2 that the Lord shared our nature. His breaking of bread with the disciples therefore was an essay in His humanity and solidarity with us- and that is the intention of the breaking of bread meeting to this day. The intended meaning is so much enhanced by correctly appreciating how the Lord shared our nature.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:19'>Mat 26:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the disciples did as Jesus directed them, and they prepared the Passover</em>-</p><p> The same rubric is used about Moses' obedience to all commanded him. Those secular men were being painted in terms of Moses, who was seen as without equal in Judaism. But the Lord often paints His secular followers in the very terms of the most stellar Old Testament heroes of Judaism.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:20'>Mat 26:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now when evening had come, he was dining with the twelve disciples-</em></p><p>&nbsp;"Dining" is "reclined". Joachim Jeremias gives a whole string of quotes from Rabbinic and historical writings that indicate that “At the time of Jesus the diners sat down" to eat. Yet the Gospel records are insistent that Jesus and the disciples&nbsp;<em>reclined</em>&nbsp;at the last supper (<em><a href='B:470 26:20'>Mat 26:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:18'>Mar 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:14'>Luk 22:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:12'>Joh 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:23'>Joh 13:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:25'>Joh 13:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:28'>Joh 13:28</a></em>). Yet at the Passover, it was apparently common to recline, because as Rabbi Levi commented “slaves eat standing, but here at the Passover meal people should recline to eat, to signify that they have passed from slavery to freedom". The breaking of bread is thus stressed in the records as being a symbol of our freedom from slavery. It should not in that sense be a worrying experience, taking us on a guilt trip. It is to celebrate the salvation and release from bondage which has truly been achieved for us in Christ our Passover.</p><p>"With the twelve" doesn't mean that only the twelve partook or were present. Matthew's record may simply be focusing upon them. There are reasons to think that there were others present too.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:21'>Mat 26:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And as they were eating, he said: Truly I say to you: One of you shall betray me</em>-</p><p> The Lord had repeatedly predicted that He would be 'betrayed' or 'handed over'. But He had not defined who would do it, indeed the form in which He had spoken of being 'handed over' was vague and didn't necessarily require that one individual would do it. We must remember that&nbsp;<em>paradidomi</em>&nbsp;means literally 'to hand over' and doesn't carry the sense of personal betrayal which the English word 'betray' is loaded with. They were there shocked when He stated that "one of&nbsp;<em>you</em>" would do this.</p>


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:23'>Mat 26:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he answered and said: He that dipped his hand with me in the dish</em>-</p><p> The past tense is important, for if the Lord was predicting a future event, then all the disciples would be looking carefully at the dish. "Dipped",&nbsp;<em>em-bapto</em>, carries the suggestion that there was liquid or water within the dish. Lamb is greasy, and there would have been dishes of water on the table in which the diners dipped their hands. The Lord had done that at the same time as Judas, and must have pressed His fingers against those of Judas. But none of the others had noticed. <em><a href='B:500 13:26'>Joh 13:26</a></em> says that "It is he to whom I gave the morsel of bread after I dipped it"- perhaps meaning that the Lord had put a crumb of bread into Judas' fingers whilst their hands touched in the bowl. Any other reading of the incident faces the obvious difficulty that if indeed the Lord publicly pointed Judas out as the betrayer, there would have been no confusion as to why he went out into the darkness. And we would expect to read of an outcry amongst the 11 against Judas; but the record instead stresses that they totally didn't suspect Judas until he was out of the room. <em><a href='B:480 14:20'>Mar 14:20</a></em> adds that the Lord said that the man was "One of the twelve" who had dipped his hand with the Lord in the dish. This suggests there were others apart from the twelve eating at the table and dipping their hands in the dish. It was not therefore a closed communion. There would have been no need for such a "large" room (<em><a href='B:490 22:12'>Luk 22:12</a></em>) if only the twelve were present.</p><p><em>The same shall betray me</em>-</p><p> The Greek word translated "betray" really means 'to hand over'. This was yet future for Judas. The 'betrayal' in the English sense of that word had already happened:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:24'>Mat 26:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Son of Man goes</em>-</p><p> The Lord's 'going' was His going to the cross. The Lord used the same word in <em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em> in describing Himself as the man who 'goes'&nbsp;<em>with joy&nbsp;</em>and sells all that He has in order to buy / redeem s:w. the field (representing the world) in order to gain for Himself the treasure (the redeemed). His 'going' to the cross was therefore done with some form of "joy". Even when the only visible representative of the treasure were that band of mixed up men and a few doubtful women. He uses the word again in telling Peter to 'go' behind Him and carry His cross (<em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>). Yet the Lord looked beyond the cross; He saw Himself as 'going' to the Father (<em><a href='B:500 7:33'>Joh 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:14'>Joh 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:21-22'>Joh 8:21-22</a></em> s:w:), in the same way as we do not only 'go' to our death, but ultimately even death itself is part of an onward journey ultimately towards God and His Kingdom. The Lord's attitude to His death was that He&nbsp;<em>knew</em>&nbsp;that He was now 'going to the Father' (<em><a href='B:500 13:3'>Joh 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:28'>Joh 14:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:5'>Joh 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:10'>Joh 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:16-17'>Joh 16:16-17</a></em> s:w:). This unique perspective upon death and suffering is only logical for those who have a clear conception of future resurrection and personal fellowship with the Father in His future Kingdom.</p><p><em>Even as it is written of Him</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em> is specific: "But the scripture must be fulfilled: He that eats my bread lifted up his heel against me". The reference to the heel naturally suggests the Gospel promise of <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>. But it seems the wrong way around- it is the seed of the woman who lifts up a bruised heel with which to crush the seed of the serpent. There is no lack of evidence that on the cross, the Lord identified totally with sinners, to the point that He felt forsaken just as sinners are forsaken. Or perhaps Judas justified his actions by deciding that Jesus was a false Messiah, the seed of the serpent, and the righteous thing to do was to crush the serpent with his heel:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed&nbsp;</em>-</p><p> The Lord typically pronounced 'Woe' upon the Jewish world and their religious leaders. He classes Judas along with them, because his actions had been inspired by them. The devil, in this context referring to the Jewish opposition to Jesus, had put the idea of betrayal into the heart of Judas (<em><a href='B:500 13:2'>Joh 13:2</a></em>). "Woe" translates&nbsp;<em>ouai</em>, an intensified form of&nbsp;<em>ou</em>, "no". Perhaps in His word choice the Lord was still desperately saying to Judas 'No No Don't do it'. He knew that He had to be betrayed, but His appeals for Judas to repent were therefore rooted in an understanding that the Bible prophecies would come true in some other way than through Judas. For otherwise, Judas would have had no real possibility of repentance, and no real choice but than to do what he did.</p><p><em>It would have been better if that man had not been born</em>-</p><p> "Better" shows how the Lord is sympathetically looking at things from the perspective of Judas. For in John 14 He reasons that His departure is good for all concerned. The Lord foresaw Judas' agony at the last day. But the Greek can bear a retranslation: 'It would be virtuous for that man if he did not conceive / gender'. In that case, there would be yet another appeal for Judas to stop dead in his heart the conception of sin. The Lord elsewhere uses words with two or more meanings in order to deliver a specific message to an individual, within a statement of general truth which appeared intended for others. The messages He sent back to the imprisoned John the Baptist are a clear example. The Lord's last ditch attempts to save Judas, rather than allow himself to be so hurt by him that He just ignored him, are a powerful encouragement to us in dealing with those who harm us and wilfully do evil:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:25'>Mat 26:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said: Is it I, Rabbi?</em>-</p><p> See on :22&nbsp;<em>Lord, is it I?</em>&nbsp;If Judas openly asked the question and was told 'Yes Judas, it's you I'm referring to', then there is no easy explanation for why no reaction from the disciples is recorded, nor any attempt by them to persuade him otherwise or limit his actions. Likewise we must give full weight to the fact that when Judas exits, they assume he has gone to buy something for the feast or to minister to the poor (<em><a href='B:500 13:27-29'>Joh 13:27-29</a></em>). This leads to the conclusion that Judas asked the Lord this quietly and received a hushed reply. John likewise leaned on the Lord's chest and asked Him quietly who it was (<em><a href='B:500 13:24-26'>Joh 13:24-26</a></em>). Is it possible that Judas also at this stage also lay on the Lord's chest, so close to Him that he could whisper to Him out of earshot of the others? It was a "large upper room", and so it may well have been possible. In this case, Judas was indeed the Lord's "familiar friend in whom I trusted", and the closeness of Judas and Jesus would explain why the disciples were completely not suspicious of Judas. If the Lord had publicly answered Judas, then surely events would not have unfolded as they did. The Lord knew exactly what Judas was planning, more by His premonition and sensitivity to Judas' feelings than by a bolt of Divine revelation. The Lord freely gave His life, it was not taken from Him by betrayal and murder. He therefore set the situation up, on one level, to happen as it did. And He didn't want to stop it happening. And yet on the other hand, He so wished for Judas' repentance on a personal level. And this is how He works with men to this day:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He said to him: You have said it</em>-</p><p> This is exactly the style the Lord adopts with Pilate in answering the question as to whether He is King of the Jews: "You said it" (<em><a href='B:470 27:11'>Mat 27:11</a></em>). He allows people to come to a point where they state the truth out of their own mouths, rather than Him putting words into their mouths. And He works likewise today.</p>


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:27'>Mat 26:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he took a cup</em>-</p><p> This was by no means easy for Him, because in Gethsemane He struggled so deeply in order to take it. Surely Matthew was aware of this and wishes us to remember it every time we break bread. He&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;take the cup- the cup we go on to read about, that was so difficult for Him to accept. Luke's record records the taking of the cup twice. This could be a reference to multiple cups of wine drunk at the Passover; or it could be that Luke simply records the incident twice. Or perhaps the Lord was simply drinking from the common table wine, and more than once drew out the symbology.</p><p><em>And gave thanks and gave it to them, saying</em>-</p><p> Here&nbsp;<em>eucharisteo</em>&nbsp;is used, but&nbsp;<em>eulogeo&nbsp;for</em>&nbsp;the 'blessing' of the bread. The difference may be in that the Lord took the bread, an accessory to the meal, and turned that which was so ordinary into something of spiritual symbolism; and His blessing of the bread was necessary for this. But&nbsp;<em>eucharisteo</em>&nbsp;includes the idea of grace,&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, and suggests more thankfulness for grace- a thought appropriate to the meaning of the Lord's blood shed for us by grace. And naturally we wonder whether the wine that was taken was one of the Passover cups, or simply some of the table wine, an accessory to the meal just as the bread was. Whilst there was a taking of four cups of wine at the Passover, this may not be the only explanation for Luke recording the taking of two of them. It could simply be that as they were eating the Passover lamb, they ate bread and drunk weak wine as part of the accompaniments which went with every Palestinian meal. And the Lord twice passed comment on the wine, that it represented His blood. This would be similar to the manner in which He chose the bread, the&nbsp;<em>artos</em>, the ordinary word for bread rather than one referring specifically to unleavened bread, as the symbol for His body- rather than the meat of the Passover lamb. He could have made use of the blood of the Passover lamb as a symbol in some way- e.g. He could have asked a servant to bring the blood of the lamb and asked the disciples to all dip their fingers in it. But instead He uses wine as a symbol of His blood. My hunch is that the wine was the ordinary table wine accompanying the meal, just as the bread was, and was not the ritually significant Passover cup. In any case, the tradition of drinking cups of wine at Passover was non-Biblical, and somehow out of keeping with the original spirit of Passover, which was to remember the haste with which the first Passover was eaten. <em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em> speaks of "the cup of blessing which&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>bless", with the emphasis on the "we". We are to do what the Lord did that night- not be mere audience figures, but actually do what He did:&nbsp;</p><p><em>All of you, drink it</em>-</p><p> The appeal for all to drink it was surely said because some were doubtful as to whether they should take it. Perhaps there were others in the room apart from the twelve. But most likely this was yet another appeal to Judas- to drink the cup of salvation and forgiveness. He gave the reason in :28- "For", or because, this was the symbol of the means for the forgiveness of sins. The Lord's attitude to Judas leaves us realizing we should never give up with the lost. Even the very worst of them. And given the Lord's eagerness that Judas break bread, we can hardly conclude that any sinner is thereby unworthy of participation at the breaking of bread. It is after all His table and not ours. This isn't to say that forms of discipline may not be required at times, but welcome at the Lord's table should never be withdrawn.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 26:28'>Mat 26:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this is My blood</em>-</p><p> Given Jewish obsession with blood and ritual uncleanness arising from contact with it, such language was surely purposefully challenging and radical, just as He had spoken of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in <em><a href='B:500 6:53'>Joh 6:53</a></em>. This made many turn away when He said it, but the Lord realized that His followers had to make a total break with Judaism. The drift of some Christian believes back towards the mentality of Judaism is totally missing the Lord's point- He was speaking in such challenging terms to make His followers realize that there was no middle path of compromise between Him and Judaism. Although He never commanded them to leave the synagogue system, and assumed they would remain in it until they were thrown out of it, all the same the Lord stated His principles in such a way that it would've been effectively impossible for His followers to remain within that system:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Of the covenant</em>-</p><p> The promises to Abraham were effectively the new covenant, even though they were given before the old covenant the law of Moses was given. The Lord's death confirmed those promises made to the Jewish fathers (<em><a href='B:520 15:8'>Rom 15:8</a></em>). But God's word is true as it stands and in that sense needs no confirmation, no guarantee of truthfulness. But in an effort to persuade us of the simple truth and reality of the promises of eternity in the Kingdom which were made to Abraham, God confirmed it through the death of His Son. This was foreseen in the horror of great darkness which Abraham experienced in Genesis 15. Abraham did nothing to confirm his side of the covenant; it was God who passed between the pieces of the slain animal, during a time of Divine darkness as there was on the cross, in order to demonstrate to Abraham and to us all how serious He was about keeping His promise. Through the death of Christ, God commended His love to us (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>), He confirmed the covenant; not that He needed to do so, nor that His love needs any more commendation to us. But He did, in order to seek to persuade us of the truth of the promises which comprise the Gospel (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>). In this sense "the promise was made sure s:w. 'confirmed' to all the seed" (<em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>); the extra element of making sure or confirming the promise was in the death of God's Son. Our hope is therefore "sure<em>&nbsp;and</em>&nbsp;confirmed AV "steadfast" (<em><a href='B:650 6:19'>Heb 6:19</a></em>). <em><a href='B:650 9:17'>Heb 9:17</a></em> puts it another way in saying that a will or legacy is only confirmed AV "of force" by the death of the one who promised the inheritance, and the death of Christ was God's way of confirming the truth of what He had promised. This same word meaning 'confirmed' is used by Peter in writing of how we have "the word of prophecy made sure / confirmed" (<em><a href='B:680 1:19'>2Pe 1:19</a></em>). The prophesied word is the word of the Gospel, the promise of the Kingdom which began in Genesis, and this has been confirmed to us, made even more sure, by the Lord's death. Peter isn't referring to prophecy in the sense of future events being predicted in the arena of world geopolitics; the prophesied word is the word of our salvation, of the Gospel- which is how Peter elsewhere uses the idea of "the word". God can save who He wishes, as, how and when He wishes. He was not somehow duty bound, left with no option, forced by an unpleasant logical bind to suffer the death of His Son. He gave His Son, according to His own plan from the beginning. But He did it that way in order to persuade us of His love and simple desire to give us the Kingdom He has promised from the beginning of His revelation to men. The Lord's blood is "of the new covenant" not in that it&nbsp;<em>is itself&nbsp;</em>the new covenant, but rather in that it is the blood associated with the confirmation of that covenant as true. And so it is understandable that the Lord should wish us to understand His blood as the blood of the new covenant, the supreme sign that it is for real, and desire us to regularly take that cup which reminds us of these things. <em><a href='B:650 6:17-18'>Heb 6:17-18</a></em> carries the same idea- that in order to demonstrate the utter certainty of the things promised to Abraham's seed, God confirmed it by an oath so that we might a strong consolation and persuasion of the certainty of the promise. The death of God's Son was not therefore unavoidable for Him; He could save us as He wishes. But He chose this most painful way in the ultimate attempt to persuade men of the reality of His Son. With this understanding we can better appreciate the tales of the old missionaries who went to pagan and illiterate tribes and reported a strange response to their message once they explained the idea of the Son of God dying on a cross to show us God's love. It must be persuasive to us too, week by week as we reflect on the blood of the covenant.</p><p>"Covenant" literally means that which is to be disposed of or distributed, and was used about the distribution of property upon decease. The Lord's parables about the Master who distributes all His wealth and possessions to His servants were surely looking forward to His death, at which He gave us all He had- and that was and is visually symbolized in the breaking of bread, the division even of His body and life blood amongst us, for us to trade with.</p><p><em>Which is poured out for many for the remission of sins</em>-</p><p> He perhaps followed this by saying "Shed for you" (<em><a href='B:490 22:20'>Luk 22:20</a></em>). This is often the way with Biblical statements- the general and global is stated, and then the scale is focused down to you personally. His blood was shed for many... but for you. However we may also have here a similar idea to that expressed in the parable of the man Christ who finds treasure us in the field of the world, and therefore gives all in order to redeem the field, in order to get us as His own (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>). Likewise His blood was shed for many, the redemption price was paid for humanity, that He might redeem us. Putting <em><a href='B:490 22:20'>Luk 22:20</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 26:28'>Mat 26:28</a></em> together, the Lord may have said: "…&nbsp; My blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins of you / for the remission of&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;sins". One wonders whether the Lord actually was pouring out the wine as He spoke the word "shed". The same word for "shed" is used of how the new wine put into old bottles "runs out". The idea may be that if we don't change, then we crucify Christ afresh. But the Lord may also have in mind that if Israel had accepted the wine of the new covenant which He preached, then the shedding of His blood could have been avoidable. The fact it could have been avoidable- for Israel didn't&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;to crucify their King- doesn't mean that God was not behind it, using it to confirm the covenant with us, nor that Christ did not of Himself give His own life. "Poured out" is ongoing, Gk. 'is being shed', another hint at the ongoing nature of His death:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>26:29&nbsp;<em>But I say to you, I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine from this time forward, until</em>-</p><p> An allusion to how the priest on duty was not to drink wine during his service. The Lord foresaw His work from then on, beginning with the cross, as an active doing of priestly work for us. This would imply that the essence of His work on the cross is the essence of His work for us today; there is a continuity between Him there and His work for us now, with elements of the same pain and passionate focus upon us and the achievement of our salvation. He is not waiting passively in Heaven for the time to return; He is actively busy for us. There is also the implication in His words that His future 'drinking' will be literal- He was holding literal wine in His hand, and He said He would not again drink it until the Kingdom. This suggests that at very least, He invites us to understand His future Messianic banquet as being in some ways a literal feast.</p><p>The Lord clearly taught the continuity between the breaking of bread and the future marriage supper by observing that He would not again drink the cup until He drinks it with us in the Kingdom. The parables of how the Gospel invites people as it were to a meal are suggesting that we should see the Kingdom as a meal, a supper, of which our memorial service is but a foretaste. We are commanded to enter the supper and take the lowest seat (<em><a href='B:490 14:10'>Luk 14:10</a></em>), strongly aware that others are present more honourable than ourselves. Those with this spirit are simply never going to dream of telling another guest 'Leave Don't partake of the meal'. But this is the spirit of those who are exclusive and who use the Lord's table as a weapon in their hands to wage their petty church wars. The very early church didn't behave like this, but instead sought to incarnate and continue the pattern of the meals of the Lord Jesus during His ministry. And this is one major reason why their unity drew such attention, and they grew. To exclude someone from the Lord’s table is to judge them as excluded from the Kingdom banquet. And those who make such judgment will themselves be rejected from it.</p><p><em>That day when I drink it anew with you</em>-</p><p> This is not 'new' in the sense of freshly made (a different word is used for that), but new in terms of quality, not time. It speaks of a new quality, a freshness, rather than something 'new' in chronological terms. The new wine represented the blood of the new covenant which was shed on the cross. It could be argued that the drinking of this new wine became possible not simply at the last day, but in this life too, in the experience of the church after the Lord's shedding of that blood on the cross.</p><p><em>In my Father's Kingdom</em>-</p><p> The reference is primarily to the literal Kingdom to be established on earth at His return (<em><a href='B:490 22:29-30'>Luk 22:29-30</a></em> goes on to speak of the disciples eating and drinking in the Kingdom as they sit with Christ on His throne judging Israel), but there is a sense in which His word is fulfilled in the breaking of bread service, where He drinks wine with us as the invisible guest. For His parables of the Kingdom all speak of the experience of God's reign / Kingship as a present experience in the lives of His people. <em><a href='B:490 22:16'>Luk 22:16</a></em> adds with reference to the bread: "Until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God". The fulfilment of Passover deliverance is finally in the last day, and yet the fulfilment of Passover is also to be seen in the breaking of bread service. Note in passing that the Lord's predilection for the term 'Kingdom of God' or 'Father's Kingdom' was perhaps to counterbalance the Jewish emphasis upon the Kingdom as being that of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;father&nbsp;<em>David</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 11:10'>Mar 11:10</a></em>). The Kingdom was God's, "<em>Yours</em>&nbsp;is the Kingdom", rather than simply and solely the re-establishment of Israel's Kingdom:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>26:30&nbsp;<em>And when they had sung a hymn</em>-</p><p> Probably the Passover hallel of Psalms 115-118. It's worth reading those Psalms imagining them on the lips of the Lord at the last supper; they are pregnant with relevance for His forthcoming death, especially the reference to "I will take the cup of salvation". <em><a href='B:650 2:12'>Heb 2:12</a></em> surely has the scene in mind, quoting "In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto You" as being proof of the Lord's absolute humanity. The fact He sung praise to&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;surely reveals a human and not Divine Christ. But doing so amongst His brethren, "the church", as one of them, is an essay in His unity with us, both in nature and experience.</p><p><em>They went out to the Mount of Olives</em>-</p><p> The Passover ritual required that nobody should go out of the house until morning (<em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em>). This is clearly teaching that the Passover deliverance had already begun, even before the Lord's blood had been shed, and would connect with the usage of present tenses concerning the Passover and shedding of the Lord's blood (see on :2,28). This sets the scene for the Lord's comment in :32 that He would go before them, and they should follow Him. He was as Moses and as the Angel which went before Israel on Passover night. The allusion to <em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em> shows that the old legislation had passed away, and in any case the type of Passover being kept by the Lord was not strictly the Mosaic one- for it's likely He was celebrating it a day earlier than stipulated. But the point perhaps was that the true Israel of God were now 'going out' from Egypt; so certain was the Lord that He would achieve deliverance that He could speak of that deliverance as already being achieved. He didn't, therefore, see His work on the cross as something which He might or might not successfully achieve- as we should, He went ahead in the certainty of ultimate success and victory.</p>


text:
<p>26:31&nbsp;<em>Then Jesus said to them: You will all fall away because of me this night</em>-</p><p> They would spiritually stumble and fall because <em><a href='B:450 13:7'>Zec 13:7</a></em> predicted this would happen. But the Lord goes on to urge them to watch and pray so that they do not succumb to temptation (:41). He saw Biblical prophecy as being open ended in fulfilment- the prophecy of spiritual failure didn't have to come true. They could resist, sin and failure is never inevitable. He spoke to them in the upper room specifically so that they would&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>be offended (<em><a href='B:500 16:1'>Joh 16:1</a></em> s:w:); the prophecy didn't have to come true in the disciples, and the Lord did His utmost to provide the potential for it not coming true for them:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For it is written: I will smite the shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad</em>-</p><p> His death was to be as that of Moses, which left the Israel of God as sheep without a shepherd (<em><a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a></em>). And yet the Lord's death would gather together the scattered s:w. people of God (<em><a href='B:500 11:52'>Joh 11:52</a></em>), His death was as a shepherd giving His life for the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:11'>Joh 10:11</a></em>). His death and resurrection was to be the means of reviving the lost faith of the disciples- when they meditated upon it. The people of Israel at the Lord's time had had no true shepherds and were therefore as scattered sheep (<em><a href='B:470 9:36'>Mat 9:36</a></em>):&nbsp; The Lord's death would therefore temporarily leave the disciples just like the rest of Israel- they would return to the mentality of Judaism, the 'satan' of the Jewish system and its thinking would tempt them and they would give in. The wolf of Judaism would scatter the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>). The disciples were therefore as sheep who scattered because of the thinking of the Jewish world around them, who saw death on a cross as the final defeat for a man; and yet were to be gathered by that very death. Peter was one of those disciples, even though he insisted that&nbsp;<em>he&nbsp;</em>would not be scattered even if others were. He surely had this in mind in appealing to other believers who were falling under the influence of Judaism: "You were as sheep going astray, but are now returned s:w. 'converted'- just as he was 'converted' to strengthen his brethren unto the Shepherd... of your souls" (<em><a href='B:670 2:25'>1Pe 2:25</a></em>). Peter was therefore appealing to others to follow his own pattern- of revival and conversion after spiritual failure. This is the basis for all powerful pastoral appeal.</p>


text:
<p>26:32&nbsp;<em>But after I am raised up</em>-</p><p> There is no equivalent of "after" in the Greek text. This is an insertion by translators in order to try to give sense to the three brief Greek words which simply say "And I rise again". The idea is that 'By My rising again, I will go before you…'. The Lord's plan was that His resurrection would re-ignite faith in His disciples, and He would go before them as a shepherd leads His sheep, into Galilee.</p><p><em>I will go ahead of you into Galilee</em>-</p><p> This is the language of the shepherd going before the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:4'>Joh 10:4</a></em>), in obedience to His voice. The Lord is saying that although they will stumble and lose faith, His resurrection will provide them with a credible word from Him which they would obey by following Him into Galilee. This is why the resurrected Lord's first instruction to the women was to "Go tell My brothers that they go into Galilee; there shall they see Me" (28:10). But it actually didn't work out like that. His meeting with them in Galilee was in fact the third time He revealed Himself to them (<em><a href='B:500 21:14'>Joh 21:14</a></em>). He appeared to them twice before that. And the picture we have of the disciples fishing in Galilee in John 21 is of them still relatively faithless, depressed and having returned to their fishing; they are hardly pictured as eagerly awaiting the Lord's promised appearance in Galilee. So it seems to me that the Lord changed His intended program with them. Their faith was so weak that He appeared to them in Jerusalem twice, whereas He had originally planned for the women to tell them His word- to go before Him into Galilee, and there He would reveal Himself to them. But in His love for them, His own desire to see them, His awareness of their weakness in faith... He appeared to them twice&nbsp;<em>before</em>&nbsp;Galilee. And even then, we sense from the fishing incident of John 21 that they were still floundering in their faith, and may well have returned to Galilee in order to return to their fishing business, rather than in obedience to His word. Why did He so wish to meet them in Galilee, rather than in Jerusalem? Their journey to Galilee would've been a test of obedience for them, for sure. But surely the Lord reflected by this choice the paramount importance He placed upon the conversion of families. He wanted to appear to them there, surely, because that was where most of them were from, and where their families were. He wanted them too to be persuaded once and for all time of the reality of His resurrection:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>26:33&nbsp;<em>But Peter answered and said to him: If they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away</em>-</p><p> Peter three separate times states that he will not fail the Lord (also in <em><a href='B:490 22:33'>Luk 22:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:37'>Joh 13:37</a></em>). Literally, 'not at any time', i:e. 'not even once'. Hence the Lord's comment that Peter would deny Him not once but three times. Yet he denied the Lord three times, and it was on the Lord's third appearance to him (<em><a href='B:500 21:14'>Joh 21:14</a></em>) that the Lord undid the three denials by His three questions concerning whether Peter really loves Him, and three times (again by a charcoal fire) re-instates Peter in the work of strengthening his brethren. These tripilisms and repetitions serve to make the record memorable, and also reflect how somehow the Lord worked through Peter's failures with some overarching plan; there was a higher hand at work through all of the failure, reflected in these tripilisms which could only have been effected by a Divine, higher hand. The Lord's question to Peter "Do you love Me more than these?" surely has reference to the other disciples, whom Peter had thought himself spiritually superior to. He was sure that even if they stumbled, he would not. And the Lord paid special attention to undoing this attitude in Peter and specifically bringing him to realize that he was no better than his brethren. Any sense of spiritual superiority over others is so obnoxious to the Lord. And He will work in our lives to remove it from us, as He did with Job, Jonah and many others. Peter continually alludes to his denials throughout his appeal for Israel's repentance in Acts 2 and throughout his pastoral letters; it is our own failures and receipt of such utter grace which serve as the basis for our credible and persuasive appeal to others to repent. He spoke in <em><a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a></em> of how the Lord Jesus is a stone of stumbling 'offence', s:w. to those who do not believe- and yet he said this fully aware that he had been one of those who stumbled over Jesus. <em><a href='B:470 21:44'>Mat 21:44</a></em> offers us to the choice- to stumble upon the stone and be broken, or for the stone to fall upon us and grind us to powder, in the figure of judgment and condemnation used in Daniel 2. We either stumble in failure upon Christ and rise up as Peter did, broken men and women, to do our best in serving Him- or that stone shall crush us in condemnation. That is the choice before us, and Peter is the parade example in this to all:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>26:34&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to him: Truly I say to you, that this night</em>-</p><p> Much of the Lord's knowledge and foreknowledge of events ahead of time can be explained in terms of His incredible sensitivity to others, His understanding of human psychology and behaviour patterns. But there are times when it seems He was given direct foreknowledge from the Father. And this seems one of them- to predict the exact number of denials that would be made that night, and to predict they would happen before the cock crew. This leads to the possibility that whenever He prefaces His words with "Truly I say unto you...", He is stating something received by direct revelation. Another example is when He uses this rubric to introduce His prediction of how Peter would die (<em><a href='B:500 21:18'>Joh 21:18</a></em>). This would be His equivalent of how the Old Testament prophets introduced their directly inspired words with the rubric "Thus says the Lord". "Truly" (AV "verily") is literally 'amen', as if the Lord Jesus is saying that He is aware of the words of His Father and in uttering them from His lips, is giving His personal agreement, stamp or 'Amen' to them.</p><p><em>Before the cock crows</em>-</p><p> There is no article in the Greek. 'Before cock crow' is the idea, before the earliest sign of morning when the first cock crew, that very night, before that night even began to come to a close:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You shall deny me three times</em>-</p><p> See on :35&nbsp;<em>Deny You</em>.</p>


text:
<p>26:35&nbsp;<em>Peter said to him: Even if I must die with you-&nbsp;</em>Gk. 'If I must die' or 'If it be necessary that I die, I will'. And yet the Lord had taught that He was going to die on the cross, and that all who would truly follow Him should likewise die with Him. When the Lord stated this in Matthew 16, Peter had earnestly sought to dissuade the Lord from that course of action because He didn't want to die with Him. Peter had a problem accepting the inevitable reality of the cross and its demand that we likewise lose our lives for Him. He considered it the most extreme possibility, rather than an obviously necessary sacrifice which is part and parcel of being a true follower of Jesus. We likewise can consider that extreme self-sacrifice is something we might possibly be called to make. But in fact if we are truly signed up to carrying the Lord's cross, it is exactly such radical self-sacrifice which is indeed required of us. The Lord said that Peter was not yet able to die for Him, he would deny Him rather than follow Him, but one day he would be strong enough, and&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;he would follow Him to the end (<em><a href='B:500 13:36-37'>Joh 13:36-37</a></em>). Peter thought he was strong enough then; for he followed (s:w:) Christ afar off, to the High Priest’s house (<em><a href='B:470 26:58'>Mat 26:58</a></em>). But in ineffable self-hatred he came to see that the Lord’s prediction was right.</p><p><em>I will not deny you-&nbsp;</em>Surely the allusion is again to 16:24, where the Lord has urged Peter to accept that he must deny&nbsp;<em>himself</em>&nbsp;and take up the Lord's cross and die with Him. But instead, because Peter didn't want to do that, he would end up denying Jesus. This is the intensity of our choice- if we will not deny ourselves, then we shall deny Jesus. The Lord had clearly taught that whoever denied Him before men would be denied by Him at the last day (10:33), and Paul repeats this (<em><a href='B:620 2:12'>2Ti 2:12</a></em>). Peter stood condemned by that denial, and yet we can be condemned in this life and change the verdict if we repent. It is this which releases such fervency into our lives if we go through the experience of condemnation but perceive that the verdict has been mercifully changed. Peter appealed to Israel to recognize that they had denied Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 3:13-14'>Act 3:13-14</a></em> "You denied Him in the presence of Pilate"); and he made that appeal a stone's throw and only a few weeks after his own denials of Jesus in the presence of all. And yet this was why his appeal was so credible, as was his later appeal to believers not to do the worst imaginable thing, namely to deny the Lord who had bought them- for that was exactly what, as everyone knew, Peter had himself done (<em><a href='B:680 2:1'>2Pe 2:1</a></em>). John speaks of denying Christ as the hallmark of the antichrist (<em><a href='B:690 2:22'>1Jn 2:22</a></em> "He that denies Jesus... is the antichrist"), and he wrote this knowing full well that Peter was the rock upon whom the early church had been built. His point, therefore, is that even those who had done that, the antichrist, could still repent as Peter had done:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Likewise said all the disciples-&nbsp;</em>AV "Likewise also". Two words are used when one would suffice, such is the emphasis upon the fact that they all said the same. Peter was the one who went furthest in seeking to live out his claim, and yet he it is whose failure is the most emphasized. And that is how it is often is amongst God's people. But it is because we are asked to identify specifically with Peter.</p>


text:
<p>26:36&nbsp;<em>Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane</em>-</p><p> The Lord often went to this garden (<em><a href='B:500 18:2'>Joh 18:2</a></em>), but the record at this point emphasizes its name, meaning 'oil press', a common metaphor for judgment. There the Lord as it were passed through His judgment, and there the disciples had their judgment- and ran away into the darkness condemned. Even though through repentance they were later saved out of that condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And he said to his disciples: Sit here</em>-</p><p> The Greek can equally mean 'stay here'. The separation between the Lord and His people, to go away and pray with His senior followers with Him, clearly was based upon Moses going up into the mountain to pray to God, taking Joshua with him, leaving Israel behind. And like Israel, the disciples failed miserably, and were met with the Lord's rebuke on His return from prayer. The Lord is clearly making the point that He now replaces Moses, and that the new Israel were comprised of those 11 mixed up men of weak faith and very limited understanding. The Greek text here has the Lord saying to the disciples: “Sit in this place&nbsp;<em>kathisate autou</em>&nbsp;until going away, I pray there”, and then He takes along with him&nbsp;<em>paralambanein</em>&nbsp;Peter. These are the very words used in the Genesis 22 LXX account of Abraham taking Isaac to ‘the cross’. Jesus is seeking to encourage Peter to see himself as Isaac, being taken to share in the cross. Now whether Peter discerned this or not, we don’t know. But the Lord gave him the potential possibility to be inspired like this. &nbsp;</p><p><em>While I go yonder and pray</em>-</p><p> Literally, 'there', as if the Lord was pointing out a location not far distant. He was seeking to help them perceive the similarity with Moses going away to pray, hence His warnings for them&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;to</em>&nbsp;give way to temptation were asking them to consciously make the effort to not be like the Israel whom Moses left behind when he went away to pray. Of course the Lord could have baldly drawn the similarities between Himself and Moses, but He acted in this way in order to provoke in them the association with Moses, and to realize that they were as Israel, tempted to fall away. And this is His style to the present day. Instead of flashing red lights and words dropping from Heaven, instead we find ourselves set up in situations which recall Biblical situations, and appeal to us to perceive ourselves within that history. That is why daily Bible reading and continual familiarity with the recorded histories of the Bible is so essential, it is all part of the Lord's way of working with us.</p>


text:
<p>26:37&nbsp;<em>And he took with him</em>-</p><p> As Moses took Joshua with him:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Peter and the two sons of Zebedee and began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed</em>-</p><p> This was the fulfilment of <em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em>, "a man of sorrows", an intensive plural, implying 'great sorrow'. The fact He 'began' to feel this suggests that the prophecy of Isaiah 53 is specifically about the Lord in His time of sufferings, rather than generally in His life. It was there, at the end, that there was no beauty that He should be desired. And yet <em><a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a></em> defines those 'sorrows' as the sorrows of our sins. His sorrow was therefore in that He felt His identification with our sins, our sorrows. And He felt that identification very intensely as He prayed. Likewise the weight He felt, in that He began to feel heavy, refers to the weight of human sin which He felt Himself carrying.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 14:33'>Mar 14:33</a></em> adds that He was “amazed”. The amazement was perhaps because He came to realize that His subconscious hopes for a deliverance, akin to Isaac’s at the last minute, were not going to come true. This element of surprise is reflected later in His desperate question “Why have You forsaken Me?”. This crisis of understanding contrasts strongly with His calm assurance and assumption that He must now die and resurrect. And yet to be tempted just as we are, He had to go through the experience of things not working out as expected, of crisis and desperate desiring to understand. For these things are what are at the root of our hardest human experiences.</p>


text:
<p>26:38&nbsp;<em>Then he said to them: My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even to death</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s psychological struggle was so intense that it was almost killing Him. Yet Peter had said that he was ready to go with the Lord even unto death (<em><a href='B:490 22:33'>Luk 22:33</a></em>). But he failed to perceive that the Lord’s death involved huge psychological suffering- and Peter opted out of that by falling asleep. To physically die was not so much the issue as sharing the psychological trauma of carrying the cross.</p><p>The fullness of the Lord's humanity is of course supremely shown in His death and His quite natural fear of that death. Perhaps on no other point do human beings show they are humans than when it comes to their reaction to and reflection upon their own death. I would go further and suggested that the thought of suicide even entered the Lord's mind. It's hard to understand His thought about throwing Himself off the top of the temple in any other way. His almost throw away comment that "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death" (<em>heos thanatou</em>) is actually a quotation from the suicidal thoughts of Jonah (<em><a href='B:390 4:9'>Jon 4:9</a></em>) and those of the Psalmist in <em><a href='B:230 42:5-6'>Psa 42:5-6</a></em>. Now of course the Lord overcame those thoughts- but their very existence is a window into the depth and reality of His humanity.</p><p><em><a href='B:650 5:7-8'>Heb 5:7-8</a></em> clearly refer to the Lord’s prayer in Gethsemane. The Lord had a quite genuine "fear of death" (<em><a href='B:650 5:8'>Heb 5:8</a></em>). This "fear of death" within the Lord Jesus provides a profound insight into His so genuine humanity. We fear death because our human life is our greatest and most personal possession... and it was just the same with the Lord Jesus. Note that when seeking here to exemplify Christ's humanity, the writer to the Hebrews chooses His fear of death in Gethsemane as the epitome of His humanity. <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em> comments that&nbsp;Christ prayed "with strong crying and tears". These words are certainly to be connected with <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>, which speaks of Christ making intercession for us now&nbsp;with "groanings which cannot be uttered". <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em> says that his groaning is so intense that it cannot be audibly uttered; the physicality of sound would not do justice to the intensity of mental striving. The point is that the same agonizing depth of prayer which the Lord achieved for us is what he now goes through as he intercedes for us with the Father.</p><p>Oscar Cullmann translates <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em>: "He was heard in his fear (anxiety)". That very human anxiety about death is reflected in the way He urges Judas to get over and done the betrayal process "quickly" (<em><a href='B:500 13:28'>Joh 13:28</a></em>); He was "straitened until it be accomplished" (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em>). He prayed to God just as we would when gripped by the fear of impending death. And He was heard. No wonder He is able therefore and thereby to comfort and save us, who lived all our lives in the same fear of death which He had (<em><a href='B:650 2:15'>Heb 2:15</a></em>). This repetition of the 'fear of death' theme in Hebrews is surely significant- the Lord Jesus had the same fear of death as we do, and He prayed in desperation to God just as we do. And because He overcame, He is able to support us when&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;in our turn pray in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;"time of need"- for He likewise had the very same "time of need" as we have, when He was in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em>). Death was "the last enemy" for the Lord Jesus just as it is for all humanity (<em><a href='B:530 15:26'>1Co 15:26</a></em>). Reflection on these things not only emphasizes the humanity of the Lord Jesus, but also indicates He had no belief whatsoever in an 'immortal soul' consciously surviving death.</p><p><em>"</em>Exceeding sorrowful" uses the same word used about the exceeding sorrow of the men of the world (Herod- <em><a href='B:480 6:26'>Mar 6:26</a></em>; the rich young man, <em><a href='B:490 18:23-24'>Luk 18:23-24</a></em>). Those who will be rich pierce themselves through with sorrows, they go through the crucifixion pains for the sake of this world (<em><a href='B:610 6:10'>1Ti 6:10</a></em>). So it's a cross either way, and it may as well be in identification with the Lord, leading unto eternal life, than unto eternal death. The same point is made in <em><a href='B:540 7:10'>2Co 7:10</a></em>, where the same word translated "sorrowful" is found- the sorrow of the world leads to death, but Godly sorrow leads to salvation. The disciples fell asleep, and yet by pure grace the record says that they slept for "sorrow" (<em><a href='B:490 22:45'>Luk 22:45</a></em>), using a related but less intense word as used here for the Lord's&nbsp;<em>exceeding</em>&nbsp;sorrow; and the Lord attributes such "sorrow" to them repeatedly at this time (<em><a href='B:500 16:6'>Joh 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:20-22'>Joh 16:20-22</a></em>). But the point is that His sorrow was of an altogether more intense and higher order than theirs, and yet by grace they are counted as having some part in His sorrow. We speak and read of our sharing in the Lord's sufferings, and yet our sufferings are nothing compared to His; yet by grace they are counted as a sharing in those sufferings.</p><p><em>Stay here</em>-</p><p> This is&nbsp;<em>meno</em>, the word the Lord has just used multiple times in the upper room discourse, translated "abide". Now He leads them out of the upper room into the real world, and gives them the concrete outworking of abiding in Him- to enter into His struggles, to watch and pray with Him, to share His intensity with the Father. And they fell asleep:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And watch with me</em>-</p><p> The Greek means to literally keep awake, but is used about watching in prayer. The fact the disciples physically fell asleep, and three times, is a clear statement of their failure. And it is used by the disciples here in their own account and preaching of the Gospel, of which the Gospel records are transcripts, as if to emphasize their own failure, and on that basis appeal to others to likewise accept the Lord's forgiveness and salvation by grace. It is the same word used repeatedly by the Lord in appealing for watchfulness in the very last days before His coming (<em><a href='B:470 24:42-43'>Mat 24:42-43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em> etc:), as if the disciples in Gethsemane were going through their judgment, their last days. Likewise the sufferings and experiences of the very last generation will give them the opportunity to uniquely identify with the Lord's crucifixion sufferings. Seeing that generation will never taste of death, this identification with His death will be necessary for them as for no other generation, and the tribulation will be designed to elicit that identification. We are therefore invited to enter into Gethsemane and not repeat the failures of the disciples- the same words are used by Paul in encouraging us all to 'pray and watch' (<em><a href='B:580 4:2'>Col 4:2</a></em>). "Let us not sleep as others, but let us watch" (<em><a href='B:590 5:6'>1Th 5:6</a></em>) could be asking us to not be as the disciples there, but rather to learn from their failure and watch. And yet the comfort of grace is that whether we watch s:w. or sleep, we shall be accepted by Him (<em><a href='B:590 5:10'>1Th 5:10</a></em>), just as the disciples were saved by grace despite their failure. Likewise we are asked to watch and keep our garment (<em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>), unlike the disciple present in Gethsemane who did not watch and fled naked having lost his garment (<em><a href='B:480 14:52'>Mar 14:52</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>26:39&nbsp;<em>And he went forward a little and</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 22:41'>Luk 22:41</a></em> “About a stone’s cast”, pointing us back to David’s conflict with Goliath as a type of the Lord’s final conflict with sin.</p><p><em>Fell on his face and prayed, saying: My Father-&nbsp;</em>Paul's description of himself on the Damascus road falling down and seeing a Heavenly vision, surrounded by men who did not understand, is framed in exactly the language of Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:510 22:7'>Act 22:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>); as if right at his conversion, Paul was brought to realize the spirit of Gethsemane. His connection with the Gethsemane spirit continued. He describes himself as "sorrowful" (<em><a href='B:540 6:10'>2Co 6:10</a></em>), just as Christ was then (<em><a href='B:470 26:37'>Mat 26:37</a></em>). His description of how he prayed the same words three times without receiving an answer (<em><a href='B:540 12:8'>2Co 12:8</a></em>) is clearly linked to Christ's experience in the garden (<em><a href='B:470 26:44'>Mat 26:44</a></em>); and note that in that context he speaks of being “buffeted” by Satan’s servants, using the very word used of the Lord being “buffeted” straight after Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:67'>Mat 26:67</a></em>).</p><p>To fall on the face is used in the Old Testament to describe men like Abraham and Moses falling on their face in the visible presence of God, e.g. before an Angel (<em><a href='B:10 17:3'>Gen 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:4'>Num 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 22:31'>Num 22:31</a></em>). Yet there was no visible manifestation of God’s presence at this time; so we are to assume that the Lord Jesus intensely perceived the Father’s presence even though there was no visible sign of it. It could be that the Angel from Heaven strengthening the Lord had already appeared, but this appears to come&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;the Lord had fallen on His face.</p><p><em>If&nbsp;it&nbsp;be possible, let this cup pass away from me</em>-</p><p> This may not simply mean 'If it's possible, may I not have to die'. The Lord could have meant: 'If&nbsp;<em>it</em>-</p><p> some unrecorded possible alternative to the cross- is&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;possible, then let&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;cup pass'- as if to say 'If option A is possible, then let the cup of option B pass from me'. But He overrode this with a desire to be submissive to the Father's preferred will- which was for us to have a part in the greatest, most surpassing salvation, which required the death of the cross. “Such&nbsp;<em>great</em>&nbsp;salvation" (<em><a href='B:650 2:3'>Heb 2:3</a></em>) might imply that a lesser salvation could have been achieved by Christ, but He achieved the greatest possible. "He is able also&nbsp;<em>to save them to the uttermost</em>&nbsp;that come unto God by him" (<em><a href='B:650 7:25'>Heb 7:25</a></em>) may be saying the same thing. Indeed, the&nbsp;<em>excellence</em>&nbsp;of our salvation in Christ is a major NT theme. It was typified by the way Esther interceded for Israel; she could have simply asked for her own life to be spared, but she asked for that of all Israel. And further, she has the courage (and we sense her reticence, how difficult it was for her) to ask the King yet another favour- that the Jews be allowed&nbsp;to slay their enemies for one more day, and also to hang Haman's sons (<em><a href='B:150 9:12'>Ezr 9:12</a></em>). She was achieving the maximum possible redemption for Israel rather than the minimum. Paul again seems to comment on this theme when he speaks of how Christ became obedient, "<em>even</em>&nbsp;to the death of the cross" (<em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em>), as if perhaps some kind of salvation could have been achieved without the death&nbsp;<em>of the cross</em>. Perhaps there was no theological necessity for Christ to die&nbsp;<em>such</em>&nbsp;a painful death; if so, doubtless this was in His mind in His agony in the garden.</p><p>The Lord had taught more than once that “with God all things are possible” (19:26; <em><a href='B:480 9:23'>Mar 9:23</a></em>), and yet He inserts here a condition: “If it be possible”. He recognized that God’s plan was possible of fulfilment by any means, and yet He recognized that there was a condition to that. This issue is not really resoluble, at least not by any intellectual process. If, or rather when, we struggle with these issues, this balance between God’s ultimate possibility and the fact there appear to be terms and conditions attached- then we are there with the Lord in Gethsemane. But we need to note that it was God who was being pushed to the limit here as well- for literally all things are indeed possible to Him, and He could have saved the world any way He wished. In His allowing of this chosen method we see the degree to which the cross was indeed His plan that He so wanted to see worked out.</p><p><em>"</em>Let this cup pass" is interpreted in <em><a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a></em> as “That the hour might pass”. He saw the cup and His “hour” of death as the same thing. The challenging thing is that He invites us to drink His cup, to share in His final hour… even when He Himself found this so hard to drink.</p><p>Paul uses the same Greek term "from me" in describing how also three times he asked for the thorn in the flesh to “depart&nbsp;<em>from me</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 12:8'>2Co 12:8</a></em>). He saw his prayers and desires as a sharing in the Lord’s struggle in Gethsemane, just as we can too.</p><p><em>Nevertheless</em>-</p><p> The saying of these brief words lasted long enough for the disciples to fall asleep. “Could you not watch with Me for one hour?” (:40) suggests not ‘even just for one hour’ but rather ‘We’ve been here an hour, and you couldn’t watch with me even for that short period of time’. So it took the Lord an hour to say the words recorded here, which can be spoken in a few seconds. We have a window here into the essence of prayer; the words can be spoken quickly, but saying with meaning can take far longer. There may well have been many minutes in between each word here. And doubtless He said the same words and repeated the ideas several times, which would explain the slight differences in wording at this point between the Gospel records.</p><p><em>Not as I will, but as You will</em>-</p><p> Trinitarians need to note that the Lord’s will was not totally the same as that of His Father.</p>


text:
<p>26:40&nbsp;<em>And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter: What- "</em>Comes… and finds" are the very words used of the Lord’s coming in judgment to ‘find’ the state of His people (21:19; 24:46 “whom his Lord when He&nbsp;<em>comes</em>&nbsp;shall&nbsp;<em>find</em>&nbsp;so doing”; <em><a href='B:490 18:8'>Luk 18:8</a></em> “When the Son of Man comes, shall He find faith…?”). And His ‘coming’ to the disciples found them asleep and unprepared. This was exactly the picture of <em><a href='B:480 13:36'>Mar 13:36</a></em> (and <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>), using the same Greek words: “Watch… lest coming suddenly, He find you sleeping”. We can be condemned in this life, as Peter was when he denied his Lord, and yet be saved out of it by repentance.</p><p><em>Could you not watch with me for one hour?</em>-</p><p> Peter later urged his converts to “be watchful” (<em><a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a></em> RV), watching unto prayer as the end approaches (<em><a href='B:670 4:7'>1Pe 4:7</a></em>), as Peter had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;been watchful in the garden and had earned the Lord’s rebuke for going to sleep praying (<em><a href='B:470 26:40-41'>Mat 26:40-41</a></em>). They were to learn from his mistake. Their watchfulness was to be because the devil was prowling around, seeking whom he could desire (<em><a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a></em>). This was exactly the case with Peter: Satan desired to have him, he should have prayed for strength but didn’t do so sufficiently (<em><a href='B:490 22:31'>Luk 22:31</a></em>). He was warning his brethren that they were in exactly the situation he had been in, a few hours before he went into that fateful High Priest’s house:&nbsp;</p><p>Paul was deeply moved by the Gethsemane record: <em><a href='B:590 5:6-7'>1Th 5:6-7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:40-41'>Mat 26:40-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:18'>Eph 6:18</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em> <em><a href='B:510 22:7'>Act 22:7</a></em>= <em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:10'>2Co 6:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:37'>Mat 26:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:8'>2Co 12:8</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:44'>Mat 26:44</a></em>; ; <em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 14:36'>Mar 14:36</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>26:41&nbsp;<em>Watch and pray</em>-</p><p> The repeated emphasis upon their lack of watching contrasts with the Lord’s stress upon the need to watch in the last days, and how lack of watching would lead to condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 24:42-43'>Mat 24:42-43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em>). Their lack of watching meant they were condemned- and yet they were redeemed by their recognition of their state, as evidenced in the Gospel records.</p><p><em>That you may not enter into</em>-</p><p> These words are addressed to Peter in the singular, and yet the “you” here is plural. The Lord is telling Peter that he is no different to the rest of the disciples, despite his assertion that even if they all denied the Lord, he would not do so. Peter’s sense of spiritual superiority was especially displeasing to the Lord.</p><p><em>Temptation-&nbsp;</em>Each statement of the apparently simple model prayer needs careful reflection. The Lord told the disciples in Gethsemane to earnestly pray the simple saying: “Pray not to fail in the test” (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em>). The prayer that they could gabble mindlessly must be prayed with intense attention to every phrase. They presumably did pray as directed, but the Lord later warns them: “Why do you sleep? Get up and pray, so that you will not enter into temptation”. He intended them to keep on praying, as He spent an hour praying the same words; and not just rattle off a few words and think we have done our praying. Just as the tribulation of the last days seems to be conditional upon our faith, so the Lord may imply that entering into the time of trial or testing was avoidable by their prayer and faith. Again we see the final time of tribulation as reflective of the Lord’s sufferings, enabling the very last generation to identify with the Lord’s death so that they might share in His resurrection.</p><p><em>The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak</em>-</p><p> The question is whether the Lord is making a general observation about human nature, or whether He is specifically criticizing them for being spiritually weak at that specific time. He could be saying that they underestimated the power of human nature, and needed to pray that they would not enter into the temptation posed by their own flesh, their humanity. This is a clear demonstration of the source of spiritual weakness- our own flesh, rather than any superhuman being. Or it could be that the Lord has in view the specific weakness of the flesh- to disown Him in the face of opposition and the risk of arrest and death.</p><p>The word "weak" is often used about spiritual weakness. Paul describes all of us as having been saved although we were weak, using the same word used about the disciples asleep in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em> “weak” = <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em> “without strength”). He saw the evident similarity between them and us, tragically indifferent in practice to the mental agony of our Lord, failing to share His intensity of striving- although we are so willing in spirit to do this. And yet, Paul implies, be better than them. Don't be weak and sleepy as they were when Christ wanted them awake (<em><a href='B:470 26:40-41'>Mat 26:40-41</a></em> = <em><a href='B:590 5:6-7'>1Th 5:6-7</a></em>). Strive for the imitation of Christ's attitude in the garden (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em> = <em><a href='B:560 6:18'>Eph 6:18</a></em>). And yet in Romans 7, a depressed but realistic Paul laments that he fails in this; his description of the losing battle he experienced within him between flesh and spirit is couched in the language of Christ's rebuke to the disciples in Gethsemane (the spirit was willing, but the flesh weak).</p>


text:
<p>26:42&nbsp;<em>Again a second time he went away and prayed, saying</em>-</p><p> This is saying the same thing twice. We are enabled to imagine the Lord again walking away from them, as if Matthew’s camera is located amongst the disciples and focused upon the rear view of the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>My Father, If-&nbsp;</em>The Lord in Gethsemane took a long time to pray the simple words: “Father, if ….". It was long enough for the disciples to fight a losing battle against drowsiness and fall fast asleep (the Greek implies). But how do you pray? With simple, staccato words and phrases like His? Or do you desperately seek for words, any words, just to make it seem you prayed, trying to be like the more mature brethren you hear praying at gatherings? Or after many years of prayer, can I ask, are you just churning out the same old phrases and ideas, with little meaning put into the words…? If the Son of God Himself prayed in such simple terms, surely we ought to likewise.</p><p><em>This cup</em>-</p><p> The use of “this…” suggests the Lord had so clearly in mind the course of events which were to follow. ‘<em>The&nbsp;</em>cup’ would have been less specific, as if He simply knew that an ordeal was ahead. But “<em>this</em>&nbsp;cup” suggests He knew what the cup was specifically, and was holding that understanding in His mind as He prayed to the Father.</p><p><em>Cannot pass, except I drink it</em>-</p><p> The same word translated “possible” in :39 “If it be possible”. Both Father and Son clearly were aware that all things are possible for the Father, and yet those who seek to do His will must accept that He will not use that possibility in a boundless sense. The contrast is between the Father’s will / desire on one hand, and His boundless potential possibility on the other. If we seek to do His will or desire, to please Him, as the Lord did, then the fact He can potentially do anything for us somehow recedes in significance. We above all wish to please Him. Therefore the fact He could save us from any pain no longer weighs so heavily with us. It is primitive indeed to complain that God could have stopped a certain painful course of events. He indeed could have done. But the issue is, whether or not we wish to do His will, to please Him, to do His work in this world. This is the significance of the Lord saying “Your will be done”.</p><p><em>Your will be done-&nbsp;</em>He had the authority to call down legions of Angels to change the course of events- implying the Father would have allowed that. All things were possible to God. The fact this possibility remained for the Lord suggests that the prayers in Gethsemane were really the Lord coming to the conclusion that He Himself wished to go ahead with the cross. It wasn’t so much that He asked for the cross to be taken away from Him, and the Father said “No”, and He meekly accepted it. Prayer functioned for Him as it often does for us- a means of dialogue with God and thereby with ourselves, the process of which in itself provides the answers to our deepest questions. The will of the Father is never presented in Scripture as immutable and some predestined code which we are to follow. Rather is God open to change in response to the cry of His beloved people. So the Lord’s conclusion “Your will be done” is not a shrugging acceptance that in this case, He couldn’t change some preordained will of God; but rather a willing desire on His own part to do the ideal wishes / will of the Father. The Lord’s statement was therefore His own conclusion, His own decision to continue in the way of the cross, even though the practical realities of what it meant were now becoming more practically apparent to Him than ever before. No wonder the Father sent an Angel to strengthen His beloved Son in this fine resolve. See on 26:54&nbsp;<em>But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?</em></p>


text:
<p>26:43&nbsp;<em>And he came again and found them sleeping</em>-</p><p> See on :40&nbsp;<em>Comes… and finds</em>.</p><p><em>For their eyes were heavy</em>-</p><p> It’s clear from all the allusions to the need for watchfulness and the moral failure associated with sleeping, that there was really no adequate excuse for their failure. And yet the record gracefully takes note of the human weakness they were facing. We should not dismiss circumstantial ethics too quickly. Whilst sin remains sin, there is every reason for thinking that God does take circumstance into account in His final judgment of human failures. The only other time the Greek word translated “heavy” occurs in the Gospels is in <em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em>, where again it is used of heaviness with sleep, and again about Peter, James and John sleeping whilst the Lord was involved in active dialogue with the Father about His forthcoming death: “Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep”. <em><a href='B:480 14:40'>Mar 14:40</a></em> adds that “They did not know what to answer Him”, and this likewise was the situation at the transfiguration (<em><a href='B:480 9:6'>Mar 9:6</a></em> s:w:). The events of the transfiguration were to prepare Peter, James and John for the events of Gethsemane; they were supposed to see the similarities, and learn. But they didn’t. Likewise circumstances repeat in our lives, as the Father seeks to teach us, hoping we shall learn from one event which is then in essence repeated later. The way the situation here repeats three times, and each time they fail and fall asleep, is another example of how circumstances repeat in the hope that we will learn.</p>


text:
<p>26:44- see on :39.</p><p><em>And he left them again and went away and prayed</em>-</p><p> The language of leaving to be with the Father and coming again to the disciples is very much the language of the Lord’s ascension and return (<em><a href='B:500 16:28'>Joh 16:28</a></em> has just recorded the Lord using this language in the Upper Room). His coming to them and finding them sleeping is therefore an enactment of the condemnation of the last day- but we can be condemned in this life, but be saved out of it by repentance.</p><p><em>A third time</em>-</p><p> The three failures of Peter to keep awake were clearly meant to portend his forthcoming triple failure. The Lord was seeking to educate him as to his own weakness. But he failed to perceive it. After each failure he would've urged himself not to fail again, and he would've gone through the same thoughts as time after time he denied his Lord later that night. We gasp with wonder at how the Lord was not so focused upon His own struggles that He had no thought for desperately trying to educate his beloved Peter. This is surely the mark of spiritual maturity- being able to never be so obsessed with our own struggles that we forget our responsibilities to our brethren. So often we reason that we must sort out our own issues before we can help others, but this kind of self-centredness would've meant that the Lord failed Himself to be the One He needed to be, both for Himself and for others.</p><p><em>Saying again the same words</em>-</p><p> If the idea was simply that He repeated again the previous words, another word would've been used:&nbsp;<em>Hautou</em>&nbsp;definitely means something like 'His own words', 'The words of Himself'. And in this we see a powerful picture of what prayer to the Father really is- praying our very own words to the Father. The intimacy of the Son with the Father is thus brought out:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>26:45&nbsp;<em>Then he came to the disciples and said to them: Sleep on now</em>-</p><p> The Lord spoke this to them whilst they were asleep, because in :46 He asks them to arise. A lesser man than the Lord would've been bitterly disappointed, full of fear that His entire mission was open to failure if the material He had so especially focused upon saving was so incredibly weak. But instead in tenderness He speaks to them as a loving parent speaks to their sleeping children. For this seems the only credible interpretation of His words- for immediately afterwards He tells them to awake:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And take your rest</em>-</p><p> Seeing the Lord proceeds to immediately awake them from sleep, He must have had some other idea in view apart from taking literal rest. Surely He had in view His earlier invitation to His followers to find rest in Him (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>); He knew that He was dying so that they might have this ultimate rest to their souls:&nbsp;</p><p><em>The hour is at hand</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'is approaching'. Perhaps the Lord noticed the approach of Judas and the soldiers. <em><a href='B:480 14:41'>Mar 14:41</a></em> has "the hour is come". 'It is approaching... it has come' would be an appropriate thing to say in soliloquy as the Lord saw the men approaching closer:&nbsp;<em>Eggizo</em>, “is at hand”, is the very word used specifically about Judas in :46: “He is at hand that betrays Me”:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners</em>-</p><p> Remember that the Greek word behind 'betrayal' means simply to be handed over. Earlier the Lord had spoken of being handed over into the hand or power of men (<em><a href='B:470 17:22'>Mat 17:22</a></em>), to the chief priests (20:18), to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:480 10:33'>Mar 10:33</a></em>). But now the Lord introduces a moral dimension- He was to be handed over into the power of sin, but would break that power by His resurrection. For the resurrection of the Lord was not simply a vindication of Himself against men, but against the power of sin. And this is what opens up the path to deliverance for all likewise under the power of sin. Surely <em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em> had this in mind when speaking of how the Lord destroyed "him that had the power of death, that is, the devil"- sin manifested in the powers of Rome and Judaism:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>26:46&nbsp;<em>Arise</em>-</p><p> See on :45.</p><p><em>Let us be going</em>-</p><p> If this were the simple sense of the Greek, another construction would’ve been used. The sense is definitely ‘Let us lead on’. Although going into the hands of sinners, the Lord was in control- for He insisted that His life was not taken from Him, but rather He gave it of Himself.</p><p><em>He that betrays me is nearby</em>-</p><p> See on :45&nbsp;<em>The hour is at hand</em>.</p>


text:
<p>26:47&nbsp;<em>And while he yet spoke</em>-</p><p> This, along with the repeated use of “Behold” or “Lo” (:45,46,47,51) encourage us to play Bible television with these events. The scene was clearly etched upon the memory of the Gospel writers. <em><a href='B:480 14:43'>Mar 14:43</a></em> puts it all in the present tense: “There comes Judas…”, to encourage us to re-live the incident.</p><p><em>Judas, one of the twelve</em>-</p><p> Emphasized in all three synoptics.</p><p><em>Came, and with him a great crowd</em>-</p><p> This was a tacit recognition of the fanatic loyalty of the eleven; Judas reckoned that they could put up enough of a fight to require this great multitude.</p><p><em>With swords and staves, from the chief priest and elders of the people</em>-</p><p> This little detail accords well with the reality of the situation. Although the Chief Priests had some authority to use the Roman guards to control difficult situations in the temple area, they surely didn’t have use of Roman soldiers to arrest a civilian in a garden at night. So these were ruffians rustled up by Judas and the Jewish leaders, which explains why they had staves as well as swords. Staves were hardly the military equipment of professional soldiers, but it fits the idea that the leaders gathered together a crowd of hoods to do this dirty work. And it was only later that the Jews handed the Lord over to Gentile power. “Staves” translates&nbsp;<em>xulon</em>, the word meaning ‘stake’ or ‘tree’ which is used about the cross. See on :48 “That is He”.</p>


text:
<p>26:48&nbsp;<em>Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying</em>-</p><p> These are the very words more commonly used together about signs being given to the Jewish world by the Lord. Judas was in every way a fake Christ, acting as the real disciple and the true Christ, when in fact he was the very opposite. This is why he as the “son of perdition” becomes the prototype of the antichrist figure in 2 Thessalonians 2. Note that ‘anti-Christ’ doesn’t mean so much one who is<em>&nbsp;against</em>&nbsp;Christ as one who mimics the real Christ but is in fact a false one and not the original, despite all appearances.</p><p><em>Whomsoever I shall kiss</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;literally means ‘to love’. I have mentioned several times the essential similarity between the betrayals of Judas and Peter that same night. When the Lord later asks Peter whether Peter has<em>&nbsp;phileo</em>&nbsp;for Him (<em><a href='B:500 21:17'>Joh 21:17</a></em>), He is as it were asking ‘Do you kiss Me, as Judas did?’. He is probing Peter to see the similarities between himself and Judas, and to recognize that he was not in fact more loyal and devoted to Jesus than any of the others as Peter had once claimed- and that included even Judas.</p><p><em>That is He. Take him</em>-</p><p> The Lord was a well known public figure, having taught openly in Jerusalem in the presence of huge crowds. The need to identify Him indicates that the crowd of hoods being used didn’t know who He was, because they were not the types to attend teaching sessions in the temple, or perhaps they weren’t locals, or maybe not even Jews. Again we find the ring of truth in how these records are written; if they were anything other than Divinely inspired, there would be all manner of lack of congruence in the details and information given.</p>


text:
<p>26:49&nbsp;<em>And immediately he came to Jesus, and said, Greetings, Rabbi; and kissed him</em>-</p><p> Most of the 74 NT occurrences of&nbsp;<em>chairo</em>, "hail", are translated "rejoice". Perhaps the Lord was reminded of His recent words about the cross being His "joy". But why did Judas address Him in this way? It could be that the crowd of armed men were still hidden, and he came alone to make this act of identification of Jesus- again suggesting that the crowd of hired hoods were unclear as to which one of the group of disciples was Jesus. This is why :50 says that after the kiss, "then came they"- Judas was alone when he first approached the Lord. Although the Lord later protests that He had been with 'them' in the temple teaching, presumably that comment was directed only at the leadership of the group. Or perhaps it was simply because in the darkness it was not clear who was who, and Judas needed to make the identification for that reason. He needed to be alone to make that identification- he would've been unable to do it if he had approached Jesus and the disciples with the crowd of men next to him.</p>


text:
<p>26:50&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to him: Friend</em>-</p><p> During the few seconds between the kiss and the appearance of the armed men. See the reconstruction suggested at :49:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Do what you came to do-&nbsp;</em>AV "Wherefore". The Greek&nbsp;<em>epi hos</em>&nbsp;doesn't simply mean 'Why?'. In this a word like&nbsp;<em>tis&nbsp;</em>would have been used. 'For what' is a reasonable translation. RV "Do that for which thou art come"- confirming a wicked man in the evil way he had chosen to take. And yet it seems to me that the Lord tried to save Judas to the last. This rhetorical question asked Judas to consider&nbsp;<em>why&nbsp;</em>he was doing this. One reason which the record gives is that he was interested in the money. He was a chronic materialist. He enquired how much he could receive for the job of betraying, and only then did he do it. The way he flung the coins down before committing suicide surely indicate how significant the money was to him. And the Lord knew that, and was asking him, even at this late moment, to consider&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;he was doing this- just for coins, pieces of metal. The Lord really was the good shepherd who searched for the lost until the very end, and sets a supreme example to us all.</p><p>'For whom' would be another possible translation of&nbsp;<em>epi hos&nbsp;</em>"Wherefore…?". But why say this, when it was obvious? The Lord clearly knew what was happening- He knew the armed men were with Judas although hidden, and that they would now appear. He also knew that at least Peter had a sword and was keen to use it. In the crucial few seconds between the identification of Jesus with the kiss and the appearance of the armed men from the trees, the Lord knew that Peter could easily have killed Judas. The Lord may have been playing for time- to preserve Judas' life. Primarily this would've been in order to give Judas the possibility of repentance; but it was also to enable the foreseen sequence of events leading to the cross to happen. This makes sense of the Lord's statement at His trial, that if His Kingdom was immediate, then His servants would fight (<em><a href='B:500 18:36'>Joh 18:36</a></em>). They wanted to fight, as Peter's rash action with his sword made clear, but the Lord disallowed them from doing this. We marvel at how conscious the Lord was on so many levels in bringing forward God's purpose, whilst allowing men the maximum possible opportunity to display faith, loyalty and repentance:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Then they came&nbsp;</em>-</p><p> See the reconstruction suggested at :49.</p><p><em>And laid hands on Jesus</em>-</p><p> The Lord uses the same expression about the sufferings of the faithful in the very last generation (<em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>), as He seeks to bring them to know the essence of His death, seeing that that generation will not taste of death but be given immortality at the judgment seat:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And took Him</em>-</p><p> Literally, they had power over Him. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em> about how the Lord overcame the 'devil' who had the 'power' of death. They had the power, apparently, externally. But the paradox was that by willingly giving Himself over to it, He had power over the 'devil' of sin, both abstractly as sin, and also in all forms of its political manifestation, in this case, the Roman and Jewish authorities.</p>


text:
<p>26:51&nbsp;<em>And one of those with Jesus</em>-</p><p> Peter.</p><p><em>Stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear</em>-</p><p> The camera, as it were, is zoomed in close upon Peter. Perhaps the detail is provided as backdrop for the Lord’s response- that whoever&nbsp;<em>takes</em>&nbsp;the sword shall perish by it (:52). Peter did indeed take the sword- but by grace was saved from the consequence. He clearly aimed to strike off the man's head, but he ducked and Peter only caught his ear.</p><p>The material from Mark is about the same as in Matthew, but Luke and John add various details. Here is Matthew’s account of the arrest in the Garden, with the details from Luke 22 and John 18 (on which see commentary) added in square brackets:</p><p>“The hour is at hand and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Arise Let us be going. He that betrays me is nearby. And while he yet spoke, Judas, one of the twelve, came; and with him a great crowd with swords and staves, from the chief priest and elders of the people. Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he. Take him. <em><a href='B:490 22:47-48'>Luk 22:47-48</a></em> He drew near to Jesus to kiss him. But Jesus said to him: Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss? And immediately he came to Jesus, and said, Greetings, Rabbi; and kissed him. And Jesus said to him: Friend, do what you came to do. Luke 22 And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said: Lord, shall we strike with the sword?. Then they came. <em><a href='B:500 18:4-9'>Joh 18:4-9</a></em>&nbsp;Jesus knowing all the things that must come upon him, went forward and said to them: Whom do you seek? They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said to them: I am he (Judas, the one who betrayed him, was standing with them). When he said to them: I am he, they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them: Whom do you seek? And they said: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered: I told you that I am he. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way- that the word might be fulfilled which he spoke: Of those whom you have given me I lost not one. then they laid hands on Jesus and took him. And one of those with Jesus John 18 Simon Peter stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear John 18 his right ear. Now the servant's name was Malchus. Then said Jesus to him: No more of this <em><a href='B:490 22:51'>Luk 22:51</a></em> Put away your sword into its place, into its sheath, John 18 for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Do you think I cannot ask my Father and He shall, even now, send me more than twelve legions of Angels? <em><a href='B:500 18:11'>Joh 18:11</a></em> The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it? <em><a href='B:490 22:51'>Luk 22:51</a></em> And he touched his ear and healed him. But how then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way? In that hour Jesus said to the mob: Have you come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me? I sat daily in the temple teaching and you did not take me. Luke 22 But this is your hour, and the power of darkness. But all this is happening so that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him and fled. Luke 22 And they seized him and led him away, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed from a distance”.</p>


text:
<p>26:52&nbsp;<em>Then said Jesus to him: Put away your sword into its place</em>-</p><p> When Peter speaks of how the Lord Jesus will ‘turn away’ sinners from their sins (<em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>), he is using the very word of how the Lord Jesus told him to “put up again” his sword (<em><a href='B:470 26:52'>Mat 26:52</a></em>), thereby turning Peter away from his sin. Whether Peter's allusion was conscious or unconscious isn't clear; we tend to use language which has recently been used to us even in other contexts, especially if we have meditated upon it and feel it personally relevant to us. Again we see that Peter's appeal to Israel to repent in Acts 2, 3 was so successful because it was shot through with reference to his own failures and experience of repentance, conversion and forgiveness. Peter’s appeal for repentance and conversion was evidently allusive to his own experience of conversion (<em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 3:19'>Act 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:35'>Act 9:35</a></em>). In this he was following the pattern of David, who sung his ‘Maschil’ (teaching) psalms after his forgiveness in order to convert sinners unto Yahweh (<em><a href='B:230 51:13'>Psa 51:13</a></em>). Like Peter, David did so with his sin ever before him, with a broken and contrite heart (<em><a href='B:230 51:3'>Psa 51:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 51:17'>Psa 51:17</a></em>). He invited them to seek forgiveness for their denial of their Lord, just as he had done. He dearly wished them to follow his pattern, and know the grace he now did. The same word used of how Judas "brought again" his pieces of silver to the Jews (<em><a href='B:470 27:3'>Mat 27:3</a></em>). This is part of a series of similarities between Judas and Peter at this time. They both in essence did the same thing, but Peter repented and trusted in the Lord's grace, whereas Judas didn't know the Lord's grace.</p><p><em>For all that take the sword</em>-</p><p> Peter was the one who had literally just put forth his hand and taken a sword (:51). So it was by grace that he didn't "perish" by the sword at this time. Again, we see how grace ran through the Lord's actions at this His greatest moment of personal stress. The same word&nbsp;<em>lambano</em>, "take", is used of how Judas had 'received' a band of men armed with swords in order to capture Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 18:3'>Joh 18:3</a></em>). Again, the similarities are being developed between Peter and Judas; both in essence made the same mistakes and committed the same sins, in this case, taking the sword. But Peter repented and trusted in the Lord's grace:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Shall perish with the sword</em>-</p><p> Not particularly in this life, but at judgment day, because "perish" is repeatedly used about final condemnation (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 5:29-30'>Mat 5:29-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:7'>Mat 22:7</a></em>). The word is specifically used of the 'perishing' of Judas (<em><a href='B:500 17:12'>Joh 17:12</a></em>, AV "lost"; <em><a href='B:470 18:9'>Mat 18:9</a></em>). Again, the warning to Peter was not to be like Judas, even though the similarities between them were great at this time:&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:500 18:11'>Joh 18:11</a></em> adds: "The cup which My Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?". If Peter had entered into the Lord's struggle in Gethsemane concerning the cup, then he wouldn't have made this mistake of attempting violent resistance. But he fell asleep, and as with us so often, failure or laziness at one point leads to failure in others later on.</p>


text:
<p>26:53&nbsp;<em>Do you think I cannot ask my Father and He shall, even now</em>-</p><p> The word "now" is all significant. Even then, the Lord could have changed the nature and sequence of events which lay ahead of Him, and this possibility was uppermost in His mind, the temptation He struggled with. This factor must be given due weight in seeking to understand His struggle in Gethsemane. It wasn't a case that He Himself didn't want to drink the cup, but the Father insisted He must, and therefore He resigned Himself to the Father's will. There was another way, indeed there were multiple ways forward. He could have called down legions of Angels. But He made the Father's will His own, He willingly agreed to do it, because He wanted to fulfil the Scriptures, to be obedient to them rather than merely bring about a neat correlation between them and events. He rose up from the final prayer in Gethsemane having committed Himself to do this, even though there were other options. So His willing giving of Himself over to death wasn't merely an iron-willed submission to the Father's will, in the spirit of 'islam' submission. Rather did He arise from the final prayer resolved to do the Father's will as His will, and this meant turning His back upon all the other possibilities before Him. This makes His decisions and death even more awesome, knowing that there could have been other legitimate ways to bring about the plan of salvation- indeed, it could be argued that God's hands were not tied, and He could forgive and save who He wished with no requirement for the cross. But the cross was powerful in order to persuade others of the need to respond to it, and therefore the Lord died as He did for our sakes, in order to persuade us. And we should therefore allow the cross its full and maximum persuasive power in our lives. See on :28&nbsp;<em>The new testament</em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Send me more than twelve legions of Angels?</em>-</p><p> But the Lord had learnt the lesson of Elisha, who could have himself seen legions of Angels but chose not to, so certain was he that they were potentially there (<em><a href='B:120 6:17'>2Ki 6:17</a></em>). "Give Me",&nbsp;<em>paristemi</em>, has a wide range of meaning, and it is used of how Peter was one of those who "stood by" the Lord in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:480 14:47'>Mar 14:47</a></em>); the Lord is saying that as Peter stood by Him with drawn sword, just one man against so many, so in fact there were legions of Angels standing by or 'given' to assist the Lord; but He was not going to make use of them. The same word is used of the officers who "stood by" Jesus and struck Him at His trial (<em><a href='B:500 18:22'>Joh 18:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:26'>Act 4:26</a></em> s:w:); the Lord must have reflected that actually there were legions of Angels standing by / given unto Him. His self-restraint in not using them is remarkable, and highlights the way in which His life was not taken from Him but He willingly gave it. The reference to "twelve" legions of Angels was perhaps therefore in contrast with the twelve disciples; even if all twelve of them had stood up to fight for the Lord's deliverance, actually He had not twelve men, but twelve&nbsp;<em>legions</em>&nbsp;of Angels at His disposal. But He was not going to use them, and so He would not make use of the twelve disciples. The use of "legions" naturally contrasts with the Roman legions who were ultimately going to be used by the Jews to destroy the Lord. Peter's letters are absolutely full of his reflections upon these incidents, and this is why he could write of how the Angels are not subject unto the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:670 3:22'>1Pe 3:22</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord Jesus could’ve called upon legions of Angels to help Him; but He chose not to (<em><a href='B:470 26:53'>Mat 26:53</a></em>); He could have taken power there and then in His ministry and declared Himself King- but He walked off to the hills instead (<em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>). In these examples we see what we could call a renunciation of power. Time and again we are called upon to decide whether we will renounce what power we have, or use it or abuse it for our own selfish ends. A parent faces this issue so often with a young child. The parent has more power; but how and for what reasons should she / he use that power? We can use ‘power’ in many ways in the trivia of daily life; but actually in most of those micro level decisions we are challenged with a choice as to what level of spirituality and unselfishness we are going to show.</p>


text:
<p>26:54&nbsp;<em>But how then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?</em>-</p><p> See on :42&nbsp;<em>Your will be done</em>. The Father was willing to allow another way- legions of Angels could have been sent to change the course of events. In this lay the intensity of the temptation, and the height of the Lord’s achievement in rising up to the highest level. Scriptural prophecy has all kinds of possible fulfilments, as we noted in discussing the Olivet prophecy. There is not only one possible fulfilment. I suggest therefore that the Lord saw the Scriptures as speaking to Him by way of personal commandment, and He knew that to fulfil them was to obey them. To be disobedient to those Scriptures would not have falsified them, because another way of fulfilment could have been found. But the Lord felt strongly the need to make the word become flesh to utter fullness and perfection.</p>


text:
<p>26:55&nbsp;<em>In that hour Jesus said to the mob</em>-</p><p> The size of the crowd of armed men is an indirect indication of the fierce loyalty of the eleven disciples to the Lord. Judas expected that they would or at least could put up major resistance.</p><p><em>Have you come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me?</em>-</p><p> The same word used about Jesus and the disciples ‘going out’ from the Upper Room to Gethsemane (:30; <em><a href='B:500 18:1'>Joh 18:1</a></em>), and Jesus ‘going forth’ to meet the crowd of armed men (<em><a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a></em>). The impression is given of a head on meeting between the forces of light and darkness.</p><p><em>I sat daily in the temple teaching and you did not take me</em>-</p><p> The Lord was addressing the leadership of the group, who had sat daily in the temple over the past week and heard Him. They knew what He looked like, He had sat&nbsp;<em>pros humas,&nbsp;</em>"with you" (AV), not so much “with you” as ‘directly facing you’, sitting down in front of them and therefore at close range. Therefore the need for Judas to identify the Lord with a kiss, to prove “that same is He”, was because the mass of armed men didn’t know who He was, and had therefore not sat in the temple. Again we see the Lord recognizing that men are only who they are, the hired thugs were no more than hired thugs acting in ignorance; but the leaders who were present were the ones He wanted to address. This is confirmed by <em><a href='B:490 22:52'>Luk 22:52</a></em> stating that “Jesus said to the chief priests and captains of the temple and elders that had come against him: Have you come as against a robber, with swords and staves?”. The priests and elders were in that large crowd, and the Lord directly addresses them. So although He addressed “the multitudes”, His message was aimed at specific individuals within the crowd. This is true of much of Scripture; perhaps those parts we personally fail to understand are speaking to a particular group in need of that message, perhaps in a previous age, and it may not be as directly intended for us as it was to them. The correspondence between the narratives is detailed and deeply credible. Uninspired writers would surely not only contradict themselves, but lack this artless congruence between each other which we find in the inspired Gospel records. <em><a href='B:490 22:53'>Luk 22:53</a></em> adds that the Lord continued to say: “But this is your hour, and the power of darkness”. The sense is surely that in broad daylight they dared not lay hold on Him- they had to do it under cover of darkness, because they were of the darkness.</p>


text:
<p>26:56&nbsp;<em>But all this is happening so that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled</em>-</p><p> This can be read as part of the Lord’s words, or the comment of Matthew. “Is happening” is translated “was done” in the AV. See on :54; the emphasis upon the fulfilment of Scripture is not merely noting a correspondence between New Testament event and Old Testament scripture. Rather I suggest is the idea that the Lord chose to be obedient to God’s word and will, to make it His own, to the highest possible extent, to the point of total personal identification with it; when by its nature, God’s prophetic word has various possibilities of fulfilments on different levels, some of which would have enabled the Lord to bypass the cross. The specific reference may be to <em><a href='B:230 31:11'>Psa 31:11</a></em>. This refers to how David's family appear to have later disowned him during Saul’s persecution, fleeing from him, as the Lord’s friends also did.</p><p>John inserts at this point that the Lord was revealed in glory and the crowd of armed men fell to the ground; He asked them to let the disciples “go their way”. And yet He had earlier lamented that their scattering from Him would be related to their lack of faith: “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written: I will smite the shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad”. This has to be compared with John’s account in <em><a href='B:500 18:4-9'>Joh 18:4-9</a></em>: “Jesus knowing all the things that must come upon him, went forward and said to them: Whom do you seek? They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said to them: I am he (Judas, the one who betrayed him, was standing with them). When he said to them: I am he, they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them: Whom do you seek? And they said: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered: I told you that I am he. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way- that the word might be fulfilled which he spoke: Of those whom you have given me I lost not one”. The scattering from the Lord was part of their falling away. And yet the Lord sets them up to flee, he apparently urges them to do so, in order that He would not spiritually lose any of them. We see here a profound principle- that there are times when it would be better to allow disciples to follow a lower principle, to even fail, to run away from the highest principle of dying with Christ; lest otherwise the height of the demand means they become lost totally. The church of my youth forbad divorce and remarriage, and yet by forcing disciples who divorced to never remarry, they ended up causing many of them to be lost to Christ’s cause. And there are multiple other examples.</p><p><em>Then all the disciples left him</em>-</p><p> Although the Lord had set up the opportunity for them to flee by stunning the armed men and telling them to allow the disciples free exit, they were still forsaking Him by doing so. And it still hurt the Lord. He simply knew their spiritual capabilities, and was giving them a lower level escape route. One size simply doesn’t fit all; He didn’t deal with them on a legalistic level of demanding obedience to a certain standard, failing which they were rejected. Neither does He work like that today. Their forsaking of Him sets the scene for His final agonized cry to the Father: “Why have&nbsp;<em>You</em>&nbsp;forsaken Me?” (<em><a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a></em>). His disciples had, the inner circle of ministering women and His own mother had walked away from the cross- and now He felt even the Father forsaking Him, despite earlier having said that “He that sent Me is with Me: the Father has not left Me alone s:w. ‘forsake’” (<em><a href='B:500 8:29'>Joh 8:29</a></em>).</p><p><em>And fled</em>-</p><p> Their action is emphasized by the usage of both words, forsake and fled. Typically the Gospel writers emphasize their own weakness and failures, all as part of their compelling appeal to others to respond to the message they themselves had been so slow to grasp.</p>


text:
<p>26:57&nbsp;<em>And they that had taken Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes-&nbsp;</em>There is great emphasis on the Lord being&nbsp;<em>led</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:2'>Mat 27:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:31'>Mat 27:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:16'>Mar 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:13'>Joh 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:28'>Joh 18:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:16'>Joh 19:16</a></em>). And notice how <em><a href='B:510 8:32'>Act 8:32</a></em> changes the quotation from Isaiah 53 to say that Christ was&nbsp;<em>led</em>&nbsp;(this isn't in the Hebrew text). His passivity is another indication that He was&nbsp;<em>giving</em>&nbsp;His life of His own volition, it wasn't being taken from Him.</p><p><em>And the elders</em>-</p><p> Sometimes a technical term for the Sanhedrin.</p><p><em>Were gathered together</em>-</p><p> This word is often used in connection with the Lord’s opponents being gathered together against Him at His death (<em><a href='B:470 26:3'>Mat 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:17'>Mat 27:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:27'>Mat 27:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:62'>Mat 27:62</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:12'>Mat 28:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:66'>Luk 22:66</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:26-27'>Act 4:26-27</a></em>); and yet it is also used of the gathering together of the faithful, especially at the breaking of bread, around the symbols of the Lord’s death (<em><a href='B:510 20:7-8'>Act 20:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:4'>1Co 5:4</a></em>). The cross becomes the essence of the division between the believers and the world; each group gather together around it. The cross and the person of the Lord Jesus therefore divide the believer from the world; and this is where the line really is, rather than between believer and believer. To make the breaking of bread service and the emblems of the crucified Jesus the means of dividing between believers is therefore extremely serious; at best, it totally fails to perceive the intention of the Lord Jesus and His death. His suffering, He there in His time of torture, is intended to be the focal point of the gathering together of the believers for Him, and likewise it becomes the focal point of the unbelieving world’s gathering together against Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>26:58&nbsp;<em>But Peter followed Him afar off</em>-</p><p> This is recorded in the same words by all three Synoptics. It impressed them all as perhaps typical of so much of their ‘following’ the Lord; it was a following, but far off from Him. His challenge to Peter had been to not just physically follow Him, but to pick up His cross and walk behind Him on His way to His cross (16:24 s:w:). Following Jesus in the shadows and avoiding identification with Him was hardly the kind of following which He intended. Yet Peter recognized this, because his appeal for repentance describes his audience as likewise “afar off” (<em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em> s:w:); he is asking them to make the conversion which he did, and he thereby considers his ‘following afar off’ as not really following at all, and being in a ‘far off from Christ’ position from which he repented and thereby ‘came near’ to Christ in conversion. The Greek words for ‘followed’ and ‘afar off’ are also used about how the few remaining disciples stood ‘afar off’ from Christ on the cross. The sense is perhaps that the Gospel writers recognized how far they were from co-crucifixion with Christ, and this sense is one we can identify with. And we are those likewise described in Ephesians as “far off” as Peter was, but are now likewise reconciled.</p><p><em>To the court of the high priest; and entered in</em>-</p><p> The same word used by the Lord in warning Peter not to "enter into" temptation (<em><a href='B:490 22:46'>Luk 22:46</a></em>). And it is used again of how Satan entered into Judas (<em><a href='B:500 13:27'>Joh 13:27</a></em>), again drawing a parallel between the path of both Peter and Judas- the difference finally being simply that Peter believed in the Lord's grace whereas Judas could not.</p><p><em>And sat with the officers</em>-</p><p> The presence of the definite article suggests that "the servants" the Greek also means "officers" are a group which has already been mentioned, and surely they are the "servants" who comprised the crowd of armed men who arrested Jesus in the Garden. The same word is used three times about them in <em><a href='B:500 18:3'>Joh 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:12'>Joh 18:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em>. The risk Peter was taking was considerable, seeing he had visibly been with the Lord in the Garden and had tried to kill one of the servants. We must give due weight to this- his devotion to his Lord was incomplete but all the same must be recognized for what it was as far as it was. So often those who aim higher than others in their spiritual devotions are those who fall the most publicly, and yet their devotion to their Lord should not be forgotten- for it is higher than the mass of other disciples.</p><p><em>To see the end</em>-</p><p> Critically, we could say that the Lord had called His men to participate in His "end", to die with Him, to carry His cross, and Peter (like us) wished merely to observe His end, rather than participate in it personally. I have thought the same about myself often in self-examination at the breaking of bread. And yet Peter's love for the Lord cannot be questioned, for it was not mere curiosity that led him to take the risk he did of sitting amongst "the servants". The only other time the Greek phrase occurs is in <em><a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a></em>, where James says we have all seen the end of the Lord the Lord Jesus?, that He is very pitiful and of tender mercy. Writing as James was in the context of an early church led by Peter, it is not impossible that he is hinting that we are all in the place of Peter, and have an experience of pity and tender mercy none less than he experienced.</p>


text:
<p>26:59&nbsp;<em>Now the chief priests and the whole council</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'the Sanhedrin'. All of them participated in desiring or requiring Gk:; AV "sought" false witness against Jesus. And yet within that group was Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews (<em><a href='B:500 3:1'>Joh 3:1</a></em> - and "all" the Jewish leaders condemned Jesus to death, 27:1); and Joseph, who is specifically called a member of the Council (<em><a href='B:480 15:43'>Mar 15:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:50'>Luk 23:50</a></em>). Perhaps this is an example of where "all" is used in Biblical languages in a general but not strictly literal sense. <em><a href='B:490 23:51'>Luk 23:51</a></em> says that Joseph had not "consented" with the Council. The Greek can mean specifically to vote, but also to simply 'agree'. Perhaps he voted against their decision; or perhaps his lack of consent was deeply internal. In any case, it seems that it was only after the Lord was pronounced dead that he 'came out' publicly in open identification with the Lord (note "after this...", <em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em>). We see here the grace of God, in not holding against those men the way that they passively went along with the decision to crucify God's Son. Their strong internal disagreement was noted. We are reminded of how not all Joseph's brothers went along with the plan to kill him, but their silence meant that the plan went ahead. We likewise should show grace to those who go along with decisions which are deeply wrong and hurtful. This is not to say that they were correct in their lack of commitment, but we may well have done the same. And we can take a lesson from the Father's gracious attitude to those who would not immediately stand up and be counted for the Lord's cause. This affects our decision making in terms of disciplining those who do things like responding to military call up, voting under duress or other things which are against the Lord's will, which are failures... and yet ultimately God may very well extend the same grace to them as He did to Joseph and Nicodemus. And He tends to use circumstances to make a person finally come out in the open about their views, because secret discipleship is an oxymoron and His desire is that we are as a city set on a hill which cannot be hid.</p><p><em>Sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death</em>-</p><p> The word is only used elsewhere in the Gospels about the way that the faithful will experience being 'put to death' in the final tribulation (10:21; <em><a href='B:480 13:12'>Mar 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:16'>Luk 21:16</a></em>). The sufferings of the tribulation will enable the last generation to identify with the sufferings of Christ, and thus to share His resurrection life.</p>


text:
<p>26:60&nbsp;<em>And they did not find any, though many false witnesses came</em>-</p><p> This is twice emphasized in this verse. Yet there were many false witnesses made. Presumably their legalistic minds insisted on giving the Lord 'a fair trial'; part of their minds were clouded by hatred and wickedness, and yet another part of their minds was set on strict legalistic obedience to God and the principles of legal integrity. In this we see the schizophrenic nature of the human mind. No matter what heights of devotion and understanding we may reach, we can never assume that we are totally with the Lord. And likewise we should not assume that others are either perfectly, totally spiritual or totally unspiritual. Sadly the human mind is capable of operating in different directions at once:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But afterwards came two</em>-</p><p> The semblance of legal integrity they were following required that at least two and preferably three witnesses made the same accusation. The legalism of the Jews is emphasized, not least in their fear of ritual defilement at Passover time (<em><a href='B:500 18:28'>Joh 18:28</a></em>). They held themselves to legal obedience and integrity, whilst committing the ultimate sin, of condemning the Son of God to a cruel death. The hatred they unleashed upon Him was done by men who were rigorously obedient to commandments; their abuse of Him would therefore have been justified by them as some form of obedience to Divine principle. And this is why religious people can be the most abusive and cruel of any- if the principles they are wedded to are wrong, and if they have not perceived grace.</p>


text:
<p>26:61&nbsp;<em>And said: This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days</em>-</p><p> They were misquoting Him, and their witness did not agree, each of the two men reported His words differently (<em><a href='B:480 14:59'>Mar 14:59</a></em>). And this lack of agreement between witnesses, "many" of them, was what had delayed proceedings to this point. But finally these evil men gave up all semblance of legal integrity- for time was running out. They thus condemned themselves even by the legal standards they were holding themselves to. The technical reason for His death sentence, therefore, was a supposed plan to destroy the temple, to commit the ultimate sacrilege. But what the Lord had said was that&nbsp;<em>they&nbsp;</em>would destroy the temple, referring to Himself, but after three days He would raise it up (<em><a href='B:500 2:19'>Joh 2:19</a></em>). It was in fact they and not Him who were guilty of the crime of destroying the temple; indeed, the literal temple was finally destroyed exactly because of them. They condemned Him for what they themselves were guilty of. Legalists are so often led by the Lord to positions wherein they condemn themselves by their own standards, words and demands. The trial of Jesus is the ultimate expose of legalism.</p>


text:
<p>26:62&nbsp;<em>And the high priest stood up and said to him</em>-</p><p> As a judge arises to give the verdict.</p><p><em>Do you answer nothing?</em>-</p><p> One reason for the Lord's silence was in order to allow them to condemn themselves- see on :61. But His self-control at His trials caused marvel amongst those who observed it, and it should to us too. For when justice and truth are so obviously not being upheld, all that is within us as humans cries out against it. Campaigns against injustice always gather mass support- it's very much a part of our human nature. But the Lord in this context said nothing. He let the unjust condemn themselves:&nbsp;</p><p><em></p><p>What is it that these testify against you?</em>-</p><p> The Greek could equally be translated 'Who are these that these testify against you?'. We wonder whether one of them was Judas, and whether the other was some other former disciple. The High Priest's point would therefore have been 'Come on, these are Your own men who are testifying You said this. And you remain silent?'. The pain of betrayal would have been intense. Surely the deal with Judas had involved his being a legal witness at the trial. But the fact his witness did not agree with the other man’s witness showed yet again that their careful plans simply didn’t work out; see on :5. The Lord Jesus freely gave His life, rather than having it taken from Him by the working out of carefully laid clever plans. Those plans failed. But He gave His life.</p>


text:
<p>26:63&nbsp;<em>But Jesus held His peace</em>-</p><p> The High Priest 'answered' to this silence. Silence is itself a statement, a word. <em><a href='B:290 57:11'>Isa 57:11</a></em> reasons with Israel that despite their sins, God had 'held His peace' in not judging them, and yet they still did not respect Him. Perhaps the Lord held His peace because all He could really speak in response was judgment against them. And He did not want to do that overmuch, He wanted to give them the maximum time for repentance before having to speak the inevitable judgment upon them. The answer He finally gives is not an answer to the accusations, but rather a pronouncement of judgment. And this is why, it seems to me, that He 'held His peace'- in order to give them the maximum opportunity to repent, and He was counting almost every second now. This desire for human repentance is a fundamental part of the Lord, as it should be part of our basic personality in Christ. This same Lord works moment by moment with us likewise, to bring us to repentance. This is His earnest desire.</p><p><em>And the high priest said to him: I bind you under oath to the living God, tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God</em>-</p><p> The technical reason for condemning Him was a supposed plot to destroy the temple building, but now the judge moves on to make another accusation, the issue which was most important to him and the Jews, but which was not of itself a criminal accusation which could be then transferred to Roman judgment with a request for a death penalty. But&nbsp;<em>contra</em>&nbsp;this there is the possibility that because Caesar declared himself to be the son of God and the anointed one, any man claiming to be that could be reported to the Romans and be condemned to death. In terms of legal procedure, their behaviour was wrong. The accusation shifted from one count to another, reflecting the clear desire of the judge to secure a condemnation regardless of procedure or witnesses. If this line of thought is correct, then it follows that confession of faith in any person as being "the Christ, the Son of God" was a criminal offence worthy of death. The crucifixion of the Lord for making this claim was therefore creating a legal precedent for the death by crucifixion of anyone else who believed there was such a person alive within the Roman empire. And the Gospels are studded with examples of confession of faith in "the Christ, the Son of God" (16:16; <em><a href='B:490 4:41'>Luk 4:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:69'>Joh 6:69</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:27'>Joh 11:27</a></em>). The whole intention of the Gospel records was to bring people to make that same profession of faith in "the Christ, the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:480 1:1'>Mar 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em>). Those parchments and the rehearsing of them would therefore have been forbidden material. In our age it may appear painless to confess faith in "the Christ, the Son of God", but it is no less radical in the separation it requires from the spirit of the societies in which we live.</p>


text:
<p>26:64&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to him: You have said it; nevertheless I say to you, from this time forward- "</em>You have said" shows how again, the Lord sought to elicit confessions from men in their own words:&nbsp;</p><p><em></p><p>You shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven</em>-</p><p> The allusion is clearly to Daniel's vision of the Son of Man coming in glory to judge the Gentile world. And the Lord is saying that those hyper religious Jews were effectively condemned Gentiles before God. But those men to whom He spoke died in their beds. Lifespans were short in first century Palestine, most males were dead by 40. Most of them wouldn't even have lived to experience the calamity of AD67-70. They will only therefore "see the Son of Man sitting..." at His return, when they are resurrected and see Him in His glory. And this will be of itself their condemnation- to see Him there enthroned in glory, and themselves not in His Kingdom. This was exactly His teaching to them in <em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>: "You shall not see Me from this time forward, until you shall say: Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord". They will then bless Him- but all too tragically late.</p><p>At His trial, the Lord warned them that He would come again as judge (<em><a href='B:470 26:64-65'>Mat 26:64-65</a></em>), as if He realized that they were living out a foretaste of the final judgment. The thief likewise understood the Lord's presence as being the presence of the judge who would finally judge him (<em><a href='B:490 23:44'>Luk 23:44</a></em>). Harry Whittaker points out that the cross divided men: there were women who followed and mourned insincerely, and the women who really followed. There were soldiers who gambled over the Lord's clothes, and one who really repented. There was a thief who repented and one who wouldn't. There were those who mocked and others who watched and believed.</p>


text:
<p>26:65&nbsp;<em>Then the high priest tore his garments, saying</em>-</p><p> Declaring the end of his priesthood, to be replaced by the Lord Jesus. The Lord was crucified for blasphemy; this was the charge on which He was found guilty at His trial by the Jews, and the basis upon which they demanded His crucifixion. The Mishnah claims that this was only possible if someone actually used the Yahweh Name:&nbsp;<em>Sanhedrin</em>&nbsp;7:5 outlines the protocol for condemning someone for this, in terms which have accurate correspondence with the Lord’s trial: “The blasphemer is not guilty until he have expressly uttered the Name... When the trial is over... the judges stand up and rend their clothes" (Quoted in F:F. Bruce,&nbsp;<em>The Spreading Flame (</em>Grand Rapids: Eerdmans<em>,&nbsp;</em>1995 ed:), p. 53). So when the Lord responded to their question as to His Messiahship by saying “I am", and went on to appropriate the Messianic words of <em><a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 110:1'>Psa 110:1</a></em> to Himself, He must have explicitly used the Yahweh Name about Himself. This is why they were so quick to accuse Him of blasphemy, and why the High Priest rent his clothes. The Lord died because He declared the Yahweh Name, unashamedly, knowing that His declaration of it would take Him to the cross. Our declaration of the essence of Yahweh, by truthfulness, forgiveness... this may cost us, although maybe not so dearly. Yet we can be inspired by the Lord’s example:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He has spoken blasphemy. What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy</em>-</p><p> Again, legal procedure, which they had tried so carefully to follow, was made a mockery of. They began with a conviction of plotting to destroy the temple buildings, then turned that into an accusation that He was a "Christ, the Son of God", a rival to Caesar; and now they jump on the charge of blasphemy, for which they gave Him the death penalty. And yet the Jews had no legal power to execute people; they had to present their case to the Roman authorities. And blasphemy was not a capital offence under Roman law. Their careful attempts to follow legal integrity broke down in pathetic collapse, and thereby they condemned themselves. The same word,&nbsp;<em>blasphemeo</em>, is then used of how the Jews "reviled" or blasphemed the Lord as He hung on the cross (27:39; <em><a href='B:490 22:65'>Luk 22:65</a></em>). They had earlier accused the Lord of blasphemy at least twice during His ministry (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:36'>Joh 10:36</a></em> s:w:). So they should have thought of that earlier in the trial, seeing they themselves were the witnesses of that supposed crime. We are left with the impression of a judge and jury increasingly desperate to find the Lord guilty, progressively throwing their integrity and legalism to the winds in their obsession to make Him guilty of death. Little wonder that Pilate later remonstrated with them that Jesus was simply not legally guilty of any capital offence. But the more he made that point to them, the more they screamed for His death:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>26:66&nbsp;<em>What is your judgement? They answered and said</em>-</p><p> No note is made of Joseph or Nicodemus speaking out against it. The mob ruled, despite all the appearances of jurisprudence, spiritual and legal integrity. And yet the record speaks so positively of those two men. Perhaps this is because the Gospel records were encouraging those who had offered a pinch of incense to Caesar, or in some other way been silent in the Roman world when they should have stood up and been counted, that God's grace was still with them- even though ultimately, providence tends to overrule circumstances so that we do have to stand up openly.</p><p><em>He is worthy of death</em>-</p><p> The Lord had earlier taught that whoever calls their brother 'Raca', worthless, would be "guilty" s:w. before "the Council", the Sanhedrin (<em><a href='B:470 5:21-22'>Mat 5:21-22</a></em>). He had in mind that the Sanhedrin of the Jews was not the ultimate court of judgment for God's people, but rather the Heavenly council of Angels, presided over by God Almighty. The Lord must surely have been aware of this as the men of that human Sanhedrin condemned and abused Him. Human committees, courts or even groups of friends and family members are not the ultimate Sanhedrin; judge us as they may, the ultimate court is in Heaven. The same word for "guilty" is found in <em><a href='B:530 11:27'>1Co 11:27</a></em>, where Paul urges us to self-examination at the Lord's table lest we be guilty of His body and blood. The allusion shows that we as baptized believers can be no better than those evil men- unless we perceive Him and His death for what they really are.</p>


text:
<p>26:67- see on :39.</p><p><em>Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists</em>-</p><p> This was done by men who just minutes beforehand had been carefully upholding some isolated principles of Divine law and general legal integrity. Their appearance of culture vanished. They only could have been so crude and cruel if they first justified it in terms of their religion; spitting and beating would have been justified by them as the punishment due to a heretic. But here we see how they were justifying their own natural anger and jealousy by taking a tiny shard of Biblical precedent- for only in <em><a href='B:50 25:2'>Deu 25:2</a></em> do we have any justification for legal beating, and once it was finished, then there was to be no other punishment. The beating was to be on his back and not on his face; and there was no talk of spitting. But the Jews took that and used it to justify spitting in the Lord’s<em>&nbsp;face</em>, beating Him with their fists and then further condemning Him to death. The only command to spit in the face of a man was if he refused to raise up children for his dead relative (<em><a href='B:50 25:9'>Deu 25:9</a></em>); but this was totally irrelevant to the Lord Jesus. He in any case was the ultimate example of a man who did build up His Father's house. There is anger in each of us, and religious people at times give full vent to that anger by justifying it as righteous anger, grabbing hold of the vague implication of some Bible verse and taking it way beyond the obvious meaning of the verse. In doing so, they are behaving no better than these the very worst of men who have ever lived, committing the worst ever crime ever committed in the cosmos. The face of Jesus shone at times with God's glory; He was the face of God to men. And they spat in that face, and beat it. The wonder was that the Lord had specifically foreseen this- He had predicted that they would spit at Him (<em><a href='B:480 10:34'>Mar 10:34</a></em>). He foresaw how they would fuel their anger against Him with their persuasion that He was a heretic:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And some slapped Him with the palms of their hands</em>-</p><p> A Semitic insult to a heretic. Again, their anger was fuelled by and excused by their religious convictions. This slapping (whilst He was blindfolded, <em><a href='B:490 22:64'>Luk 22:64</a></em>) was connected to their question: "Prophesy to us, you Christ Who is he that struck you?" (:68). Clearly they were seeking to test His claim to be the Christ. They thought that the Christ could demonstrate supernatural knowledge; and He had already demonstrated that multiple times. They clearly had in mind a section from the uninspired Psalms of Solomon, where false Messiahs were to be tested in this way. The warning to us is to never allow fragments of Scripture or our religious tradition or beloved writings to justify us in expressing our anger in this way:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>26:68&nbsp;<em>Saying: Prophesy to us, you Christ Who is he that struck you?</em>-</p><p> They had blindfolded Him, and were challenging Him to exercise the prophetic gift of discernment by saying the name of the soldier who had struck Him. We note that 'prophesy' is not to be understood solely as the prediction of future events. The fact is, the Lord did know who had struck Him. They were clearly alluding to the fact that the Jews had concluded the Lord was a false prophet and false Christ and were punishing Him as such.</p>


text:
<p>26:69</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>Matthew</td><td>Mark</td><td>Luke</td><td>John</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accusation 1</td><td>Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a maid came to him, saying: You also were with Jesus the Galilean.</td><td>And as Peter was downstairs in the courtyard, there came one of the maids of the high priest:&nbsp; And seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said: You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus</td><td>And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat among them. And a certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light of the fire and looking earnestly upon him, said: This man also was with him.</td><td>Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest; and he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest:&nbsp; But Peter was standing outside the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept watch at the door. The maid keeping watch at the door said to Peter: Are you also one of this man's disciples?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denial 1</td><td>But he denied before them all, saying: I do not know what you say.</td><td>But he denied it, saying: I neither know, nor understand what you say; and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.</td><td>But he denied it, saying: Woman, I do not know him.</td><td>He said: I am not</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accusation 2</td><td>And when he went out to the entrance, another maid saw him and said to the bystanders: This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.</td><td>And the maid saw him and began again to say to them that stood by: This is one of them</td><td>And after a little while another person saw him and said: You also are one of them.</td><td>Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals. For it was cold, and they were warming themselves; and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself... Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him: Are you also one of his disciples?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denial 2</td><td>And again he denied with an oath: I do not know the man.</td><td>But he again denied it.</td><td>But Peter said: Man, I am not.</td><td>He denied and said: I am not</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accusation 3</td><td>And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter: Of a truth you also are one of them, for your dialect makes you known.</td><td>And after a little while, again they that stood by said to Peter: Of a truth you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.</td><td>And after the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying: Of a truth, this man also was with him. For he is a Galilean.</td><td>One of the servants of the high priest, being a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said: Did I not see you in the garden with him?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denial 3</td><td>Then he began to curse and to swear: I do not know the man And immediately the cock crowed.</td><td>But he began to curse and to swear under oath: I do not know this man of whom you speak. And immediately the second time the cock crew</td><td>But Peter said: Man, I do not know what you say. And immediately, as he spoke, the cock crew.</td><td>&nbsp;Peter denied again; and immediately the cock crew.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Peter's response 1</td><td>And Peter remembered the words which Jesus had said: Before the cock crows, you shall deny me three times.</td><td>And Peter remembered what Jesus had said to him: Before the cock crows twice, you shall deny me three times.</td><td>And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord that he had said to him: Before the cock crow this day, you shall deny me three times:&nbsp;</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Peter goes out</td><td>And he went out and wept bitterly.</td><td>And as he thought upon it, he wept.</td><td>And he went out and wept bitterly.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table></p><p><p><em>Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard</em>-</p><p> But likely within earshot. "Outside" translates&nbsp;<em>exo</em>, and the idea of being 'outside' from the Lord Jesus, especially in the context of Him being in a court, is exactly the picture of the rejected- Jesus at the day of judgment, with the rejected 'outside', away from Him. The term is used of the rejected being "cast out" (5:13), the rejected 'standing without' seeking entrance with the door closed (<em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>), the Jews "thrust out" of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em>), saltless salt 'cast without' (<em><a href='B:490 14:35'>Luk 14:35</a></em>), the rejected 'cast out' (<em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). The word is used again to describe how Peter finally "went outside" into the final darkness (:75). He was living out the very picture of condemnation. We too can sin and be condemned in this life, yet the verdict can be changed. And that explains the intensity of zeal and desire in responding to such grace with all our hearts. If we do not perceive our condemnation nor the gracious change of verdict, there can be no real flame of zeal in response, no true humility, no deep seated motivation to service, forgiveness and grace to others.</p><p><em>And a maid</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'a servant girl', "one of the servant girls of the High Priest" (<em><a href='B:480 14:66'>Mar 14:66</a></em>). Her claim that "You also were with Jesus" may specifically refer to Peter's presence with Jesus in Gethsemane, for”&nbsp;the servants" of the High Priest had been there. Perhaps she was one of them. She describes Peter as being&nbsp;<em>meta&nbsp;</em>Jesus "you were with Jesus", and the same phrase&nbsp;<em>meta&nbsp;</em>Jesus is used to described the disciples being&nbsp;<em>meta&nbsp;</em>Jesus in Gethsemane (:36,51). Or since the Lord was a public figure in Jerusalem, it would be likely that Peter was known as one of those ever to be seen hanging around Him. <em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em> gives further information about her: "The maid keeping watch at the door said to Peter: Are you also one of this man's disciples? He said: I am not". The only other time we read of a servant girl who was a door keeper is in <em><a href='B:510 12:16'>Act 12:16</a></em>, where the servant girl s:w. called Rhoda was the door keeper at the home of the disciples in Jerusalem, and is thrilled when she realizes that it is Peter knocking at the door asking her to let him in. Note that "door keeper" is likely a technical term, a kind of profession. This heightens the similarity between the two characters. The similarities with the scene in <em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em> are too strong to be passed off as unintentional; for here Peter has to have the door to the courtyard opened by the servant girl, and it is at the gate that she recognizes him. Peter's failure, his denials, were the basis of his successful appeals for Israel to follow his pattern of repentance. Thousands heard him make those appeals in Jerusalem, for if a few thousand were baptized in one day, we can be sure that many others heard the message and didn't act upon it. It's highly likely that that servant girl was in the crowd, and was one who responded. I suggest that Rhoda was that servant girl, converted by Peter's failure, repentance and experience of forgiveness. She converted from serving the Jewish High Priest to serving the Heavenly High Priest, the Lord Jesus; from being one of the crowd who went out to arrest Jesus, to being one who glorified His resurrection:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Came to him-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em> says that the girl was keeping the door and let Peter through. As the door keeper she would have looked carefully at his face in the light of a torch. And then she came to him as he was sitting by the fire (Lk:), say some minutes later, as she realized who he was. This again has the ring of congruence about it, indicating how perfectly the records dovetail:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Saying: You also were with Jesus the Galilean</em>-</p><p> Another passing evidence of the Lord's utter humanity; He spoke like a Galilean and was clearly a man brought up there, and not a pre-existent Divine being that came to earth:&nbsp;</p>


