# commentaries

text:
<p>19:7&nbsp;<em>They said to him: Why then did Moses command to give&nbsp;</em>-</p><p> They had missed the point, that a concession is not a command. Their legalism required that if something was in the teaching of Moses, then this must be done. But they missed the point that there were actually levels of response within the Mosaic law. Adultery could be simply forgiven, dealt with through the trial of jealousy in Numbers 5, become the basis for divorce, or result in the woman being killed. Such a position is very hard for legalists to cope with, desiring as they do clear definition for every situation in life. Hence the Lord emphasized twice in this dialogue that divorce was a concession for their hard hearts.</p><p><em>A certificate of divorce-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Gk:&nbsp;<em>Biblion apostasion</em>, literally this could be understood as ‘A Bible / writing of apostasy’. The ‘lower level’ option of divorce for adultery was all part of a law which was “holy, just and good”, but it could so easily be misused and thus lead people into moral apostasy.</p><p><em>And to put her away</em>-</p><p> Their legalism is reflected in how they don’t simply say that Moses ‘commanded’ divorce, but rather than Moses commanded a bill of divorce and then divorce. The legal aspect was all important to them.</p>


text:
<p>19:8&nbsp;<em>He said to them: Moses for your hardness of heart allowed you to send away your wives, but from the beginning-&nbsp;</em>Moses allowed divorce for the hardness of Israel's hearts and yet Moses himself appears to have divorced his wife (<em><a href='B:20 18:2'>Exo 18:2</a></em>)- for the hardness of his heart? See <em><a href='B:50 20:14'>Deu 20:14</a></em>. This appears to be the second time in this discourse that the Lord talks about the way Moses had made a concession to their weakness- see on 19:4&nbsp;<em>Have you not read?</em></p><p><em>It was not so</em>-</p><p> Here we have another connection with the preceding argument in chapter 18 (see on :1). This time, to the statement that "it is not so" (same Greek phrase) that the Father wishes a little one to perish, and therefore we should not cause them to stumble but rather forgive and accept them. The idea is clearly that divorcing a partner, even for adultery, rather than forgiving and accepting them still within the marriage, is likely to cause that straying little one to stumble. And this is the whole context of the Lord's teaching that the higher level is not to divorce for adultery- even though He clearly accepts that as a lower level, in the same way as in chapter 18 He accepts the possibility that in the case of personal offence we can drag the offender through the synagogue disciplinary process and reject them. But the problem with that is that it's likely to cause them to stumble, and we will find it hard to do that if we accept the full import of the parable with which He concludes chapter 18. We are to perceive ourselves as the serious sinner, the colossally indebted man, who effectively has no option but to forgive all sin against him. Mark's record goes on to use this same phrase "not [to be] so" in <em><a href='B:480 10:43'>Mar 10:43</a></em>, in teaching that it is not to be so amongst us, the community of God's people, that we are in any sense superior to each other but rather should be servants to each other. Perhaps that also is relevant to this whole issue of whether we demand what is owed us from those who sin against us, even in the case of adultery within marriage:&nbsp;</p><p>In Mark's record, the Lord went on to quote from early Genesis: "But from the beginning of the creation: Male and female made He them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so that they are no more two but one flesh". It was Moses who wrote Genesis, under Divine inspiration. So the Lord was saying that actually, Moses within his own writings laid down a principle and yet also recorded a concession to weakness. This idea is so hard for the legalistic mind to accept- that within Divine law there are different levels, all is not black and white:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>19:9&nbsp;<em>And I say to you</em>-</p><p> This rubric is usually used when the Lord is replacing commands of Moses with His own higher standard. He appears to be merely repeating the Mosaic teaching- that there was an exception which permitted divorce, namely adultery, but that otherwise, divorce was not be countenanced. But in this case He would appear to have allowed Himself to have been drawn into the debate between Shammai and Hillel, and was coming down directly on the side of Shammai [divorce only for adultery]. This is not His style- the Lord engages with questions thrown at Him by lifting the issues to a different level, rather than answering them on the same level as they were given to Him. Mark's record has the Lord clearly teaching that divorce should not be countenanced for anything, and the disciples respond in amazement that it would be better not to marry rather than sign up for this (:10). Perhaps they held the common chauvinistic view that a wife was almost inevitably adulterous and would likely need to be divorced at some stage in the marriage. The Lord responds to that by saying that He accepted that not all His followers could live by what He was teaching (:11). To understand how "I say unto you" was therefore something radically new and higher than Moses' teaching, we have to therefore include Mark's record of His teaching that there should never be divorce for any reason. He mentions that there should be no divorce "except for&nbsp;<em>porneia</em>" in order to clarify in passing that Hillel's view that Moses allowed divorce for literally anything was not correct. But "I say unto you" suggests He was not merely reiterating Moses' position, but adding something new and more demanding. But we only see what that was by putting Mark's account [no divorce for any reason] together with what we have here in Matthew's. Jewish law in the first century&nbsp;<em>demanded</em>&nbsp;that a man divorce his wife for adultery, and in that sense the Lord’s principle that ideally he forgive her rather than divorce her was something radically new.</p><p><em>Whoever shall send his wife away</em>-</p><p> The Lord seems to have in view a situation where a man proactively takes the decision to send his wife away. The implication could be that if he has to send her away, then she actually wishes to remain with him. The language of sending away surely implies she was still living with him. Therefore what is in view is a situation of unforgiveness on the part of the husband, and that is the entire context of this section of teaching which began in Matthew 18. The adultery was therefore a temporary situation and didn't involve the wife moving in with another man. In such a case, this whole passage is not directly relevant. The more general idea in chapter 18 of dealing with personal sins against us is now in chapter 19 focused down to the classic personal offence, the sin against us of a partner committing adultery. And let us note that the whole passage beginning in chapter 18 is speaking of ideal standards, whilst the Lord is prepared to accept lower standards (:11). Let's remember that in 1 Corinthians 7 we are challenged that the single life of devotion to the Lord is the highest level, and marriage in itself is a concession to human weakness which most of us have made use of. And overarching all our thinking about this matter, especially in terms of our response to those who may divorce for not very solid reasons, we have the parable at the end of chapter 18. We are to see ourselves as chief of sinners, with an unpayable and huge debt to the Lord, compared to which all sin against us is of small account. We also need to remember that others' behaviour to each other is not a sin against us. The teaching here is very personal- about how we are to respond to personal sin against us, and here in chapter 19 the specific example of adultery within marriage is raised. This teaching is not really about how we should respond to the sins of others (e.g. divorce for the wrong reasons) which we observe from a distance.</p><p><em>Except for porneia and shall marry another, commits adultery</em>-</p><p> This is a more general word than&nbsp;<em>moichao</em>, the word which refers strictly to ‘adultery’ and which we find used later in this verse and e.g. in <em><a href='B:470 15:19'>Mat 15:19</a></em>. Indeed&nbsp;<em>porneia&nbsp;</em>appears to be a different category of sexual sin to “adultery” in <em><a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a></em>. Remember how this section is an expansion upon the general teaching in chapter 18 about how to respond to personal offences against us. The word in practice, therefore, refers to whatever unfaithfulness constitutes a personal offence against a marital partner. The word could, therefore, just as well refer to the use of pornography. Pushing for a strict interpretation of the word misses the point- that this teaching is in the context of personal offences and forgiving what needs to be forgiven. Any view other than this ends up having to define the word in terms of the insertion of body parts into other body parts; and yet there are a whole range of sexual, mental and emotional positions which may just as well be the&nbsp;<em>porneia</em>&nbsp;which a partner must forgive. The Lord’s use of&nbsp;<em>porneia</em>&nbsp;rather than<em>&nbsp;moichao</em>&nbsp;would appear to be a disagreement with Shammai’s school, who taught that divorce was possible strictly for&nbsp;<em>moichao</em>, adultery. In this we see again that the Lord isn’t coming down on either side of the Shammai – Hillel dispute, but rather teaching an altogether higher level.</p><p><em>And he that marries a divorced woman, commits adultery</em>-</p><p> I noted above that ‘sent away’ [NEV "divorced"] suggests the woman has committed adultery but remains living with her husband. The “whoever” here may not necessarily be global, as if to say that anyone who marries a divorced woman is an adulterer. Because clearly the Lord recognizes that adultery breaks the marriage bond and He appears to consider that once that is broken, then remarriage is possible- just as the marriage covenant between God and Israel was broken, and He entered into relationship with another wife, the Gentiles, or more exactly, the body of Christ comprised of whoever (Jew or Gentile) who believes in Christ. It needs to be seriously noted that the English word “whoever” found in many translations doesn’t translate any original Greek word in the text. The text literally reads ‘And the one marrying her who is sent away commits adultery’. That ‘one’ in view could well be the man with whom she has had the affair. This reading means that contrary to how some wish to read these words based on the mistranslation “Whoever”, the Lord is not in fact condemning second marriage. His theme is of forgiveness, and of the spiritual damage done by not forgiving. If a man will not forgive his wife for an isolated act of adultery, then he is likely to lead her towards marrying the man she sinned with and thereby falling deeper into sin. And her husband’s lack of forgiveness will have played a part in making her stumble in this way. This is how I would understand the Lord’s teaching in <em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>, that sending away a wife causes her to commit adultery. See on :10&nbsp;<em>The man</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:10'>Mat 19:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The disciples said to him: If such is the case-</em></p><p>&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:470 19:9'>Mat 19:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I say unto you</em>. But&nbsp;<em>aitia</em>, translated “case”, more commonly means an accusation, a legal case against someone. The idea is probably that if by marrying a divorcee or by remarrying after divorce a man is really going to be accused of adultery, then it is better not to marry in the sense of remarrying in the cases the Lord has just outlined. On this reading, they would not be fearful of first marriage, marriage as a concept, but rather of the kind of marriage after a marriage breakup which appears to be adulterous in the Lord’s eyes. He therefore goes straight on in :11 to assure them that although they have indeed understood Him correctly, He is talking of ideal standards and is prepared to accept lower achievements and to make concessions to human weakness in this area.</p><p><em>Of a man-&nbsp;</em>AV "The man". The presence of the article suggests that a specific man or case is in view- and this would be ‘the one’ who marries the woman whom he has had an affair with whilst still living with her first husband, whom he ‘sends away’:&nbsp;</p><p><em>With his wife, it is better not to marry-&nbsp;</em>They thought that the Lord’s policy of no remarriage in this case meant that marriage was “not good”. And yet the Genesis record clearly states that it was “not good” for a man to be unmarried. Matthew in his own [over-ruled] word choice seems to be commenting how they were out of step with the spirit of GenesIs. However, the Greek reads&nbsp;<em>sumphero&nbsp;</em>[‘profitable’, ‘good’]&nbsp;<em>ou</em>&nbsp;[not]&nbsp;<em>gameo</em>&nbsp;[‘marry’], and a better translation would be ‘It is good / profitable not to marry’. The ‘marrying’ they had in mind was surely the case of marrying a married woman with whom one had had an affair, for this is the ‘marrying’ of the immediate context in :9. The Lord has just used&nbsp;<em>sumphero</em>, “good”, in <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em> in saying that those who offend little ones would be “better” cast into the sea with a millstone around their neck. And He had used it twice earlier in saying that it is “profitable” to lose our dearest body parts and enter the Kingdom, rather than offend a little one and be rejected from it (<em><a href='B:470 5:29-30'>Mat 5:29-30</a></em>). Given the connections between this section about marriage and the earlier teaching about offending little ones in chapter 18 (see on :1), these occurrences of the same word can’t be incidental. Note too that <em><a href='B:530 7:35'>1Co 7:35</a></em> speaks of the single life as being for our “profit” [s:w:]- and Paul’s teaching there about marriage is full of allusion to the Lord’s words here in Matthew 19. The disciples could therefore be read as agreeing with their Lord- it is profitable / good not to marry- in the specific case in view, which is if a man has an affair with a married woman and then is faced with the choice of marrying her. The Lord then almost rushes on to say that in this whole area of sexual and moral failure and less than ideal marital situations, there is the possibility of following Him still even if lower level decisions have been taken and sins committed. The “eunuchs” that He now speaks about in :12 are those for whom marriage was not possible- but His point is, that for some this is simply too much to “receive”, and the implication is that He encourages people to accept the higher level (“let him receive it”) whilst accepting those who don’t.</p><p>The New Testament is full of examples of concessions to human weakness. 1 Corinthians 7 is a chapter full of this kind of thing. You could paraphrase it something like this: 'Basically, consider the option of not marrying:&nbsp;<em>But and if</em>&nbsp;you do, it's no sin. Once married, don't separate;&nbsp;<em>but and if</em>&nbsp;you do, this is allowable. If you are an elderly widow, it's best not to re-marry;&nbsp;<em>but and if&nbsp;</em>you do, OK go ahead'. The Lord Jesus recognized that these sorts of concessions to failures in married life had been made earlier; He spoke of how God through Moses had "for the hardness of your hearts" allowed divorce under the Law, although this was hardly God's original ideal in Eden (<em><a href='B:470 19:8'>Mat 19:8</a></em>). The Lord Jesus spoke the word to His listeners "as they were able to hear it" (<em><a href='B:480 4:33'>Mar 4:33</a></em>), following the same pattern. The exceptive clause, allowing divorce for adultery, is a prime example of this kind of concession. And yet the Lord speaks in Mark 10 as if there is no allowance for divorce even in this case; whilst in Matthew’s record He clearly allows it. The point is, God doesn’t advertise His concessions to human weakness (and neither should we). He leads men to attempt life on the highest level. Likewise <em><a href='B:40 6:7'>Num 6:7</a></em> speaks as if a man&nbsp;<em>couldn’t</em>&nbsp;make himself unclean and end his vow, whereas in fact there was legislation which allowed him to take this lower level. But the Father doesn’t want us to be minimalists, serving Him at the lowest level; quite to the contrary:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:11'>Mat 19:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he said to them: Not all men can receive this saying</em>-</p><p> The saying is surely that of :9 which is prefaced by: “I&nbsp;<em>say</em>&nbsp;unto you”- the saying that putting away your wife and remarrying is adulterous. To the legalistic mind, this is so hard to accept that- that a statement that certain behaviour in a given context is adulterous can actually be ignored or broken on the basis that the strength to ‘receive’ it was not given:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But they to whom it is given</em>-</p><p> The strength to obey is a gift, just as repentance (<em><a href='B:510 11:18'>Act 11:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:25'>2Ti 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em> Gk:) and other spiritual fruits are gifts; and in this case, it is not given to all. Again, this is hard for the legalist to accept. It is given to some to receive a saying of Jesus- and not to others. Our greatest obediences, therefore, can never be felt to be purely the triumph of our own strength of will. Even they are gifts of grace. Being ‘given’ the ability to ‘receive’ the Lord’s word is expressed in terms of being “able” to receive it (:12). No other teacher apart from the Lord would have been so profound as to say that what He was teaching could only be obeyed if we are ‘given’ the strength to do so. And yet the idea which follows of making ourselves eunuchs for the Kingdom indicates a huge amount of willpower and conscious effort, in order to live up to the potential made possible for us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:12'>Mat 19:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For there are eunuchs that were born so from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs that were made eunuchs by men</em>-</p><p> Perhaps the idea is that there are some people who are put into a position in which they cannot remarry due to the failures of others [cp. “of men”]. The purpose of making men eunuchs was so that they would be faithful servants of a king- and the King in our case is the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>And there are eunuchs that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake</em>-</p><p> By the literal cutting off of a body part. In this we see another connection with chapter 18, where the Lord had taught that it was better to cut off body parts in order not to offend a little one (<em><a href='B:470 18:7-9'>Mat 18:7-9</a></em>). The teaching not to divorce and remarry, to remain single if need be, was therefore not just a command with no reason behind it. The intention, according to the parallel with <em><a href='B:470 18:7-9'>Mat 18:7-9</a></em>, was in order not to make the woman concerned stumble because of your unforgiveness of her. Once we perceive this context of forgiveness and not causing to stumble, we realize that the whole teaching here is not about divorce and remarriage in a global context, but specifically as to what to do in the case that a wife commits adultery as a one-time event, whilst she remains living with her first husband. This was the context of the initial question- is it possible to forgive so unconditionally, as Jesus had just taught, even if your wife commits adultery? And the answer to that is ‘yes’. It may be in certain cases of failure that one remains single, making themselves a eunuch, but the decision will be in order not to make another little one stumble and sin. The one caused to stumble may be the first partner, or it could be the woman to whom the husband is subsequently married. This desire not to cause others to stumble, especially the partners involved, is what should be the guiding principle in all our thinking about this vexed topic.</p><p>"For the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake" is to be paralleled with the command to cut off body parts&nbsp;<em>in order to the enter the Kingdom</em>&nbsp;in <em><a href='B:470 18:7-9'>Mat 18:7-9</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He that is able to receive it, let him receive it</em>-</p><p> The Greek literally means 'to have space for'. We have here the Lord's recognition of varying spiritual capacities, and His other parables suggest the same in talking of varying amounts of spiritual wealth being given to different servants, with His expectation of differing response. And it is for this reason that our ultimate status in His Kingdom shall vary- one star differs from another in glory, one rules over five cities, another over two. Of course we are all inclined to think that we are one talent material, that this is not given to me to live by. But in this lies the crucial need for a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus within which we ask Him to reveal to us what are His hopes and expectations of us, the nature of our talents and callings:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:13'>Mat 19:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then little children were brought to him</em>-</p><p> This continues the connection with the beginning of this section in chapter 18, which began with a little child being brought to the Lord and Him making the disciples open their closed circle in order to accept the one whom they considered so far beneath them spiritually. He taught then, and teaches again here, that they were to see in the children symbols of themselves, in all their weakness and misunderstanding. In the same way as here the children are “brought” to Jesus, so we often read in the Gospels of people [including the disciples] being “brought” to Him. Their [and our] salvation depends partly upon others having brought us to Him:&nbsp;</p><p><em>So that he should lay his hands on them and pray</em>-</p><p> The Lord agrees to the request, blessing little ones for the sake of the efforts of third parties who bring them to Him (as in <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em> and so often in the work of saving and curing men). As the children ‘received’ this blessing, so the Lord urges the disciples to ‘receive’ the things of the Kingdom- for <em><a href='B:480 10:15'>Mar 10:15</a></em> records the Lord’s further comment that “whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no way enter into it”. Those children receiving His grace and blessing, all the more gracious because they received it thanks to others bringing them to it, represent each disciple who receives the grace and blessing of the Kingdom.</p><p><em>But the disciples rebuked them</em>-</p><p> Just as they had turned away the little one in chapter 18, as they sought to send away the hungry crowds, forbad John’s disciples and tried to turn away the Syro-Phoenician woman. And they did this despite the Lord’s sober warning that turning away little ones is making them stumble, and will lead to eternal rejection from God’s Kingdom. The disciples in their preaching, of which the Gospels are transcripts, were stressing how they had so failed to grasp this vital teaching:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:14'>Mat 19:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Jesus said: Let the little children come to me</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:470 18:12'>Mat 18:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Leave</em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And do not prevent them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven-&nbsp;</em>The Lord rebuked the disciples for 'forbidding' John's disciples and the little ones to come to Him (<em><a href='B:480 9:38'>Mar 9:38</a></em>); and yet He uses the same word to describe how the lawyers hindered [s:w. 'forbad'] people to enter the Kingdom. There's a very clear parallel here between the disciples and their Jewish teachers who had so influenced their thinking. But they finally got there- for Peter insisted that Gentiles should not be forbidden [s:w. 'hinder'] baptism (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>); and he uses the same word again when he says that now, he will not "withstand [s:w. 'hinder'] God in hindering people to come to Him (<em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>). The awfulness of the disciples' attitude is brought out by the use of the word in <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>, where Paul says that the way the Jews 'forbad' or hindered the preaching of the Gospel was cause for the wrath of God to come upon them "to the uppermost". And the disciples initially followed their Jewish elders in this kind of behaviour. In passing, there is a sober warning here to those who would likewise 'forbid' baptism to those who sincerely seek it, and who will not allow ‘little ones’ to the Lord’s table.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 10:15'>Mar 10:15</a></em> adds: “Whoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no way enter into it”. This is exactly how the whole section began in Matthew (<em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>). The Greek for “receive” is often used about people accepting the Gospel. The implication is that one can receive the Gospel of the Kingdom of God- and yet not enter it, because we didn’t receive it as a child. We didn’t accept that we are the ‘little ones’, accepting we know so little, and just marvelling at the special grace being shown us which we accept in awed wonder. The language of ‘entering the Kingdom’ is used both of our final entry into the Kingdom when Christ returns (<em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>), and of our current entering the Kingdom. The rich man can enter the Kingdom right now if he sheds the load of his wealth (<em><a href='B:470 19:23-24'>Mat 19:23-24</a></em>). The Scribes stopped and hindered those who were entering the Kingdom from entering, locking the door through which the Kingdom could now be entered, all because they chose not to enter themselves (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:52'>Luk 11:52</a></em>). So it’s a case of ‘Now but not yet’. We do&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>enter into God’s rest, and yet we are promised that we&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;enter that rest at Christ’s return (<em><a href='B:650 4:1-11'>Heb 4:1-11</a></em>). The Lord had warned that our righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes, or we will likewise not enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>); but that righteousness is in accepting the blessing of righteousness as a little child; for without&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;we shall not enter the kingdom. Those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>)- and that will is to be as little children and accept gifts without seeking to justify ourselves or earn them.</p><p>Mark and Luke both add that "Whoever shall not&nbsp;<em>receive</em>&nbsp;the Kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter therein" (<em><a href='B:490 18:17'>Luk 18:17</a></em>). The Greek word for "receive" is different to that used here in :12, where the Lord bids those able to "receive" the highest standard concerning remarriage to do so. But the idea is surely the same. How do we 'receive' His high standards and challenges in personal decision making? By receiving them as those children received His blessings, not arguing back, accepting whatever comes from His hand, not considering that we are in any position to do anything other than receive what He gives us. Note that the children&nbsp;<em>receiving</em>&nbsp;His blessings become, therefore, the pattern for our&nbsp;<em>receiving</em>&nbsp;His demands upon our personal living, our forgiveness even of adulterous partners, our rejection of legitimate options of remarriage [in some cases] in order to follow His higher standards. This is nothing less than profound:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:15'>Mat 19:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he laid his hands on them and departed from there</em>-</p><p> His blessing was and is mediated without physical contact. The need for physical contact in order to receive blessing was embedded in the religious mentality of the time, and is seen to this day in so many rituals and traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. The sick woman thought to herself that if she could only&nbsp;<em>touch&nbsp;</em>Jesus, she would be made whole; but He responded that He made her whole because of&nbsp;<em>her faith</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 9:21-22'>Mat 9:21-22</a></em>). He was gently correcting her mistaken understanding of the power of touch. And yet the Lord made a concession to this misunderstanding by indeed touching the children as requested.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:16'>Mat 19:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And someone came to him and said: Teacher</em>-</p><p> Mark adds that he came running to Him and kneeled before Him.</p><p><em>What good thing</em>-</p><p> The man was clearly influenced by the Jewish idea that one supreme good deed could assure the doer of salvation. This was particularly popular amongst the zealots, who considered that suicidal attacks on the Romans could assure them of salvation; the same mentality is to be found in Islamic suicide bombers today. But in His typical manner, the Lord doesn’t address the misunderstanding but rather works with it. He ends up telling the man that if he sells all he has and gives to the poor, then he will have “treasure in Heaven” (:21). This, therefore, isn’t a global command to every Christian. It was designed especially for this young man who thought that just one great act of obedience would secure salvation. The Lord went along with this by giving him such an example; but added: “And come and follow Me”, thus gently correcting the idea that one great act is enough for salvation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Shall I do</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:520 7:19'>Rom 7:19</a></em> is Paul’s allusion here, where he laments that like the young man, the good that he would do [same Greek words] he finds himself unable to do because of the sin that dwells within him. But instead of walking away from the Lord as this man did, Paul threw himself upon the Lord’s grace. This zealous young man was also understood by Peter as representative of us all; for he clearly alludes to him in <em><a href='B:670 3:10-11'>1Pe 3:10-11</a></em>: “He who would love life and see good days [cp. the young man wanting to “have eternal life”]… let him… do good” (same Greek words):&nbsp;</p><p><em>That I may have eternal life</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:480 10:17'>Mar 10:17</a></em> notes that he also asked what he must do to “inherit” eternal life, as if he considered eternity a right that he must receive if he does only one great deed. The disciples heard the Lord assuring His people that those who follow Him will “<em>have</em>&nbsp;eternal life”, enter the Kingdom, enter into life, etc. But having heard all that, Peter asked: “We have left all… what shall we&nbsp;<em>have</em>?” (<em><a href='B:470 19:27'>Mat 19:27</a></em>). The irony of it all is tragic. They’d just been promised they would “have” eternal life. But that wasn’t enough. Their focus was very much on this life; what shall we have&nbsp;<em>here and now</em>? They couldn’t see very much beyond the present, past the curvature of their earth:&nbsp; Ruth’s unnamed relative could have been her redeemer; but when he realized he would have to marry her and have children, and split up his fields into more strips so as to give those children an inheritance along with that of his existing children- he pulled out. He wouldn’t ‘mar his inheritance’. He saw ahead to his death, to the next generation. His horizon was 20 years at most. But Boaz who didn’t think like this established his spiritual inheritance eternally, and is therefore mentioned in the Lord’s genealogy. Whilst the short sighted man passed off the page of history anonymously; his name wasn’t preserved.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:17'>Mat 19:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he said to him: Why do you ask me about what is good?-&nbsp;</em>Or: "Why do you call Me good?". The Greek of the subsequent sentence may not mean that the Lord was implying ‘Only God is good- I am not good’. Translators have added a number of words to try to flesh out the meaning of the words. The sense could just as well be ‘None is as good as the one God’- and therefore, we should keep&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;commandments. In other words, the Lord is not so much saying that He Himself is not ‘good’ but rather refocusing the man’s direction away from Himself towards the Father. For the man had come running to Him asking what he should do in order to inherit or rightfully have eternal life. And the Lord is refocusing the man upon the Father and the Father’s commandments. The Lord may therefore have a rhetorical sense in His question ‘<em>why</em>&nbsp;do you call Me good?’. His sense would have been: ‘Why are you so keen to call me “good”, setting me on a level with God? Instead, focus on obeying God’s commandments and tackle your hardest challenge- to give away your wealth, and then follow Me in the itinerant life towards the cross’. The man’s overly high and unrealistic view of Jesus, as if He were God Himself, was really an excuse for his own refusal to face the challenge of living the Christian life. Every false doctrine has a psychological basis, and the idea that Jesus is God and the Trinity are no different. To accept Jesus as less than God, as totally human, is a far deeper challenge to our living than accepting Jesus as being God Himself. If Jesus was human, sharing our own flesh, in which there dwells no good thing (<em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>), and yet was able to be perfect- this lays down a huge challenge to each of us. It’s far less challenging to accept Jesus as God and therefore good and perfect by nature. This is why I suggest the Lord is probing&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;the man called Him “good”- and redirected him towards the need for keeping the commandments and living the committed life in practice. So we have here a passage of deep significance for discussions about the Trinity. The Lord cites the unity of God as meaning that He alone is ultimately ‘good’, and challenges the man who wanted to treat Him as God as to whether this was not just an excuse for not doing the hard work of following Him in practice.</p><p><em>There is only One who is good. If you would enter life</em>-</p><p> This is in response to the man’s request that to know what to do that he might&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;eternal life. He saw the eternal life as beginning at judgment day, and thought he could do one great act now in order to assure getting that life then. The Lord tells him that he must “Come follow Me” (:21)- it was a way of life rather than one great act of sacrifice that was required. And we enter into life now, in that we can begin living the kind of life we will eternally live. The man had separated the future Kingdom from present life in a way that we are all tempted to. The future begins now in this respect. The Lord Jesus is the Kingdom of God (<em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>);&nbsp;<em>He&nbsp;</em>is the salvation of God rather than anything physical (<em><a href='B:490 3:6'>Luk 3:6</a></em>). The Lord paralleled entering into the Kingdom with entering into “life” (<em><a href='B:470 19:17'>Mat 19:17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 19:23'>Mat 19:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 18:8'>Mat 18:8</a></em>). He saw being in the Kingdom as essentially being about a&nbsp;<em>life</em>&nbsp;that would be enjoyed.</p><p><em>Keep the commandments</em>-</p><p> The Lord uses&nbsp;<em>tereo</em>&nbsp;for "keep", and the young man replies that he has "kept" the commandments from his youth, using&nbsp;<em>phulasso</em>&nbsp;(:20), which more has the sense of 'preserving'. His legalistic mind prides itself on having preserved the statement of faith, as it were; he has not [as the Scribes endlessly feared] added to the commandments but has preserved the correct text. But the Lord uses a word which implies more to obey and live by the commandments. The same mentality is perceivable in the one talent man, who kept his talent in pristine condition- but didn't use it (<em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>). One problem with legalistic attitudes to statements of faith is that they can give the impression that the entire duty of man is to preserve them to the letter; when the Christian life is a call to obedience and action, rather than mere intellectual, theoretical preservation of ideas, however correct those ideas may be as theories.</p><p>The question of course is why the Lord chose to repeat the last six commandments of the ten commandments. Perhaps He perceived that they had special relevance to this rich young ruler. Harry Whittaker makes an interesting but not totally convincing case that the rich young man here was Barnabas and these commands were very relevant to him as a Levite- see&nbsp;<em>Studies in the Gospels&nbsp;</em>chapter 148.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:18'>Mat 19:18</a></em><em>&nbsp;He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness-&nbsp;</em>Paul's references to the Gospels suggests that he had carefully meditated upon the passages to which he consciously alludes. The fact and way in which he&nbsp;<em>alludes</em>&nbsp;rather than quotes verbatim reflects the fact he had thought through and absorbed the teaching of the passages rather than learning them parrot fashion. Here in <em><a href='B:470 19:18-19'>Mat 19:18-19</a></em> the Lord Jesus combines two quotations from the Law: <em><a href='B:20 20:12-16'>Exo 20:12-16</a></em> followed by <em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>. Paul, in a different context, to prove a different point, combines those same two passages, although separating them by a brief comment (<em><a href='B:520 13:9'>Rom 13:9</a></em>). This surely indicates that he had meditated upon how his Lord was using the Law, and mastered it so that he could use it himself.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:19'>Mat 19:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Honour your father and mother and, you shall love your neighbour as yourself</em>-</p><p> See on :18.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:20'>Mat 19:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The young man said to him: All these things have I observed from my youth-&nbsp;</em>The record stresses the incongruity and inappropriacy of the young man’s self-righteousness: “The&nbsp;<em>youth</em>&nbsp;answered, all these have I kept from my&nbsp;<em>youth</em>&nbsp;up”. He was young- and he says that since a young man he had kept all the commands. Now the Lord doesn’t lecture him about self-righteousness, nor does He point out that the young man is way over rating his own spirituality and obedience. Instead, the Master focuses on the positive- as if to say ‘You are zealous for perfection? Great! So, sell what you have and give to the poor. Go on, rise up to the challenge!’.</p><p><em>What do I still lack?</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em> provides the Lord’s answer: “One thing you&nbsp;<em>lack</em>&nbsp;[s:w:]”, but the “one thing” was to distribute his wealth and to follow Christ. The two things seem therefore related; it was the wealth which was stopping the following of Christ. The man had come to the Lord asking what great deed he must do to obtain eternal life, and so he was aware of his obedience to the commandments. He obviously felt that obedience to Mosaic law was not going to be the basis of eternal life, and he sensed that there was some great deed he must yet achieve. Therefore “What do I still lack?” shouldn’t be read as an arrogant statement that he lacked nothing because he had been legally obedient. Rather is it a genuine question, seeking a concrete, clear and achievable answer:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to him: If you would be perfect-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord is saying that if the man wants to serve Him on the highest level, then he should sell all and give to the poor. And the man went away from Christ because of that. Because in his pride, he considered he was serving already on the highest level. This introduction of the idea of different levels of service is seamlessly in context with the teaching about 'receiving' the Lord's high standards concerning divorce and remarriage; but the Lord had recognized that not all were able to reach them. And this incident happens in demonstration of this principle. The man could have humbled himself as a little child, and admitted he couldn't rise to that standard of selling all- and yet still begged to be allowed a place as a Christ follower. And surely the Lord would have accepted him, because there is no evidence that literally selling all we have is a global requirement for men to enter the Kingdom. Zacchaeus only have&nbsp;<em>half</em>&nbsp;of his goods away (<em><a href='B:490 19:8'>Luk 19:8</a></em>). This is, therefore, encouragement for all who feel they can't rise up to the highest standards. There is still a place for them, for all of us- for we all fail to attain them. Only our pride will turn us away because of their existence and our failure to attain them. The incident also functions as a foil for those who think they are in a position to condemn those who don't rise up to the highest level regarding divorce and remarriage- have they, with their perfect marriages, sold all they have and given to the poor? If not, then allow others likewise to live on a lower level in other areas of human life. See on :26&nbsp;<em>With God all things are possible:&nbsp;</em></p><p><em>Go sell your possessions-&nbsp;</em>We note that the Lord treated each person differently. Jesus approved Zacchaeus' distribution of only half of his possessions- whilst demanding that the rich young man give away literally all. And He never seems to have demanded that those of His followers who owned houses should sell them. &nbsp;See on :16&nbsp;<em>What good thing.</em>&nbsp;The same principle is seen in His preceding teaching about divorce and remarriage- His ideal standard is not ‘given’ to everyone, just as it is not a requirement of everyone that they sell and they have and give to the poor. The Lord taught that we receive the Lord's goods [s:w. "what you have"] on conversion to Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>). We resign all, but receive all. By giving away our earthly wealth, we directly receive wealth in Heaven. <em><a href='B:490 12:15'>Luk 12:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:33'>Luk 12:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:44'>Luk 12:44</a></em> make a sustained play on this Greek word: "A man's life doesn't consist in the abundance of the&nbsp;<em>things which he possesses</em>&nbsp;[s:w:]... sell&nbsp;<em>what you have</em>&nbsp;[s:w:] and give alms... [the Lord] will make [such a man] ruler over all&nbsp;<em>that he has</em>&nbsp;[s:w:]". Whilst the specific command to the young man to sell all he had and give it to the poor was not in one sense universal, i:e. not a command to every believer, yet the spirit of it (according to Luke 12) is indeed to be followed by us all. We must at least "forsake ['to bid farewell to'] all that [we] have [s:w:]" (<em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). The early believers did not 'say' that anything they possessed [s:w:] was their own (<em><a href='B:510 4:32'>Act 4:32</a></em>)- Luke surely intends us to connect this with his earlier record of how the Lord had taught that our attitude, at very least, must be that we do not really 'own' those things which we apparently 'have':&nbsp;</p><p>Luke adds: "One thing you lack...". The Lord was quoting from the LXX of <em><a href='B:230 23:1'>Psa 23:1</a></em>. Because the Lord [Jesus] is our shepherd, "not one thing is lacking to me". The selling and sharing of his wealth is paralleled by the Lord with following Him. The one thing that was lacking was to shed his wealth&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;follow Christ. To follow Christ, to have Him as our shepherd, is therefore no merely intellectual affair, nor is it a question of legalistic obedience to a set of principles we inherited from our youth. It requires the most painful sacrifices.</p><p><em>And give to the poor</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 18:22'>Luk 18:22</a></em> uses the word "distribute". The Lord laboured the point: 'Give, yes go out and distribute the proceeds, to the poor'. Luke again uses the word in describing how the early believers did indeed sell their possessions and 'distribute' to the poor within the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:510 4:35'>Act 4:35</a></em>).</p><p><em>And you shall have treasure in heaven, and come follow me-&nbsp;</em>Alluded to in <em><a href='B:660 1:12'>Jas 1:12</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>19:22&nbsp;<em>But when the young man heard that saying, he went away</em>-</p><p> When he understood the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, the essential intention of the Lord's teaching.</p><p><em>Sorrowful</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:480 10:22'>Mar 10:22</a></em> describes him as "sad", literally the Greek means that he became overcast, as the sky clouding over. His joy, therefore, was because he had wrongly assumed that he could do some simple dramatic act well within his comfort zone, and thus attain an assurance of salvation. But his face clouded over when he realized that he was being called outside of his comfort zone. This is an exact picture of the disillusion which clouds so many once they perceive that the call of Christ is not to a mere social club or to surface level religion:&nbsp;</p><p>"He went away" is significant because the entire section starting from chapter 18:1 is purposefully framed so that the incidents connect with each other. The Lord had welcomed the little children to come to Him, and rebuked the disciples for forbidding them. This young man- also a 'little one'- went away from the Lord. The implication is that the little children had more spirituality and devotion to Christ than this man. The exhortation to become like little children therefore meant that whatever stops us coming to Him must be jettisoned- and for this 'young one', it was his wealth:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For he was one that had great possessions</em>-</p><p> Again Luke's record of the early church alludes here, speaking of how possessions were sold and the money distributed to the poorer believers (<em><a href='B:510 2:45'>Act 2:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:1'>Act 5:1</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>19:23&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to his disciples: Truly I say to you: It is hard for a rich man</em>-</p><p> The sense is not simply that it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom, but that he shall enter with difficulty. The Lord goes on to say that such shall enter the Kingdom only by God's grace and possibility of saving those who do not rise up to the higher levels that He bids us to (:26). In what, then, is the hardness or difficulty- if God is willing to accept our living on lower levels? The difficulty is in not walking away from Christ as the young man did, because of our pride; what is hard is to be like a child, the model throughout this entire discourse, and simply accept God's grace in Christ.</p><p><em>To enter into the Kingdom of heaven</em>-</p><p> The man walked away, whereas if he had cast himself upon the Lord's grace, or better still, sold what he had and given to the poor, then he could have right then begun to enter into the Kingdom. We begin entering the Kingdom right now; we are, according to another teaching, walking on the road to the judgment, and must get right with our brother who walks on the way there with us. The parable of the camel (i:e. the rich would-be believer) being unloaded of its wealth before it enters the city (<em><a href='B:470 19:23-24'>Mat 19:23-24</a></em>) represents a rich man entering the Kingdom (the city = the Kingdom, as in <em><a href='B:730 22:14'>Rev 22:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:14'>Heb 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em>; a city can also represent believers). If he sheds his riches now, it follows he is then able in some sense to enter the Kingdom now. This mini parable is in the context of <em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>: "Sell that thou hast... and thou shalt have (now) treasures in (the Kingdom of) Heaven". This is the same idea as in <em><a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a></em>: "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child (which necessitates parting with riches etc:), the same is (now) greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven". In these few words is our highest challenge:&nbsp;</p><p>Paul had thought deeply about the parables. He doesn't just half-quote them in an offhand way. For example, Paul saw the rich man of <em><a href='B:470 19:23'>Mat 19:23</a></em> as actually one who&nbsp;<em>wanted</em>&nbsp;to be rich (= <em><a href='B:610 6:9-10'>1Ti 6:9-10</a></em>). So Paul had thought through the parable. He saw that possession of riches alone wouldn't choke a man; he saw that the Lord was using "riches" as meaning 'the desire for riches'. And because "riches" are relative and subjective, this must be right. And therefore the Spirit was able to use Paul's deductions. My point is that the Spirit&nbsp;<em>could</em>&nbsp;have used just anyone to write (e.g.) <em><a href='B:610 6:9'>1Ti 6:9</a></em>. But it was no accident that God chose to use a man with a fine knowledge and appreciation of His Son to be His pen-man.</p>


text:
<p>19:24- See on <em><a href='B:470 7:13'>Mat 7:13</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And again I say unto you-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Note the double repetition of this powerful point- that wealth makes entry into the Kingdom difficult.</p><p><em>It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God</em>-</p><p> I go with the old explanation that this is an allusion to a loaded camel needing to be unloaded of its 'wealth' so that it could squeeze through the pedestrian gate- a call to become human, to realize we are naked before God, and our wealth adds nothing to us. Mark's record uses a term for "the eye of a needle" which the Septuagint always uses for "the holes of the rocks" (e.g. <em><a href='B:70 6:2'>Jdg 6:2</a></em>; n; <em><a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 13:4'>Jer 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 16:16'>Jer 16:16</a></em>), from whence we see the idea of a hole in the rocky city walls.</p><p>In the beauty and depth of His simplicity, the Lord comprehended all this in some of the most powerful sentences of all time:&nbsp;<em>It is very hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom:&nbsp;</em>He&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;shed his riches, like the camel&nbsp;<em>had&nbsp;</em>to unload to pass through the needle gate (<em><a href='B:470 19:24'>Mat 19:24</a></em>). This is such a powerful lesson. And it's so simple. It doesn't need any great expositional gymnastics to understand it. Like me, you can probably remember a few things very vividly from your very early childhood. I remember my dear dad showing me this as a very young child, with a toy camel and a gate drawn on a piece of paper. And I saw the point, at four, five, maybe six. It is&nbsp;<em>so clear</em>. But what of our bank balances now, now we're old and brave? It's easier for a camel, the Lord said. Why? Surely because someone else unloads the camel, he (or she) has no say in it. But in the story, surely we must be the camel who unloads himself, who shakes it all off his humps, as an act of the will. And as we've seen, the spirit of all this applies to every one of us, including those without bank accounts.</p>


text:
<p>19:25&nbsp;<em>And when the disciples heard it, they were surprised, saying</em>-</p><p> A strong term. They were really so shocked that wealth made it hard to enter the Kingdom, implying they were strongly persuaded that wealth was a gift from God and a sign of His approval of a man. This of course was quite foreign to the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount and other teaching of the Lord, and Matthew uses this strong term to highlight how far they had been from understanding His most basic teachings.</p><p><em>Who then can be saved?</em>-</p><p> "Can" translates the same word the Lord uses in the next verse to say that with God, even the saving of the wealthy who don't quit their wealth is "possible"- on the basis, therefore, of His willingness to accept a lower standard of achievement to that He ideally requires. And this is in the context of His offering a lower standard to unconditional forgiveness in chapter 18 (you can not do this if your brother sins against you, and instead drag him through the synagogue disciplinary process), and His demand for forgiveness of adultery (although if you fail in this you can take the lower level and divorce your partner- if it is not 'given' to you to accept that standard).</p>


text:
<p>19:26&nbsp;<em>And Jesus looking upon them said to them: With men this is impossible, but-&nbsp;</em>The Lord maintained eye-contact with His listeners: <em><a href='B:470 19:26'>Mat 19:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:5'>Mar 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:34'>Mar 3:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:32'>Mar 5:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:33'>Mar 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:23'>Mar 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:27'>Mar 10:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:10'>Luk 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:17'>Luk 20:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:61'>Luk 22:61</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:42'>Joh 1:42</a></em>. These are all separate occurrences; the fact is really being emphasized. This paying appropriate attention with eye contact is also a good strategy for matching the silences that occur from time to time in any serious conversation:&nbsp; Most of us can tell when another is thinking by&nbsp;observing the eyes, and when they are not their eyes will tell you. The way the Lord Jesus had of lifting up His eyes was something which evidently struck the Gospel writers (<em><a href='B:490 6:20'>Luk 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:41'>Joh 11:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em> cp. the emphasis upon the eyes of the risen Lord in <em><a href='B:730 1:14'>Rev 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:18'>Rev 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:12'>Rev 19:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>With God</em>-</p><p> The status of&nbsp;<em>para&nbsp;</em>God is often applied to the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:46'>Joh 6:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:27'>Joh 16:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>). The suggestion could be that because of the status of the Lord Jesus with the Father, such gracious salvation is possible which would be impossible if men simply had to have the steel will to obey the Father’s ideal principles.</p><p><em>All things are possible</em>-</p><p> Lifted from the Septuagint of the word to Sarah about the birth of Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 18:14'>Gen 18:14</a></em>). Those Old Testament heroes were not merely stained glass figures- our own belief in salvation regardless of wealth is as dramatic as the belief of an old woman that she could have a child. The context here, however, is talking of how those who choose a lower level- in this case,&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;selling their wealth and giving to the poor- can still be saved by God’s gracious possibility. This harmonizes with the whole theme of :12, that to some is ‘given’ the possibility of living on the idea level regarding divorce and remarriage, but if that cannot be attained to, then God will still accept us. See on :21&nbsp;<em>If you will be perfect&nbsp;</em>and :25&nbsp;<em>Can be saved</em>.</p><p>There are at least two instances in the Gospels where the Lord Jesus is quarrying his language from the book of Job, and shows a certain identification of himself with Job. In <em><a href='B:470 19:23-26'>Mat 19:23-26</a></em> the Lord explains the irrelevance of riches to the spiritual good of entering the Kingdom, saying that "with God all things are possible" - without money. This is almost quoting <em><a href='B:220 42:2'>Job 42:2</a></em>, where Job comes to the conclusion that all human strength is meaningless: "I know that Thou canst do everything". It may be that Jesus is even implying that through the tribulation of his life he had come to the same conclusion as Job:&nbsp;See too <em><a href='B:470 5:27-30'>Mat 5:27-30</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>19:27&nbsp;<em>Then asked Peter, saying: We have left all</em>-</p><p> The family based structure of the first century is hard to fully empathize with from our distance. Family was all. Peter comments that the disciples had “left our own homes” (<em><a href='B:490 18:28'>Luk 18:28</a></em> RVmg:), and the parallel <em><a href='B:470 19:27'>Mat 19:27</a></em> says “left&nbsp;<em>all</em>”. Your home was your all. To have to leave it for the sake of Christ was the most fundamental thing you could do. Hence the real meaning in the first century of the Lord’s response that such converts would receive families in this life, i:e. in their relationships in the ecclesia. And yet the radical call of Christ is no less demanding and intrusive as men and women meet it today, the only difference being that the starkness of the choices is less pronounced today- but just as essentially real.</p><p>I have repeatedly mentioned that the material in chapter 19 is strongly related to that in chapter 18. The Greek here for “left / forsook all” is identical to that in <em><a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a></em>: “I&nbsp;<em>forgave&nbsp;</em>you&nbsp;<em>all</em>”. Peter had balked at the idea of ‘forgiving all’. It is easier to ‘forsake’ [s:w. ‘forgive’] all material things than to&nbsp;<em>forgive</em>&nbsp;all. This explains why the incident of the rich young man follows the teaching about the need to forgive all. He would not forsake all, just as some would not forgive all. Peter claims to have forsaken all, and yet it’s apparent that he struggled with the idea of&nbsp;<em>forgiving&nbsp;</em>all, thinking that seven times / day was more than generous enough of him. Likewise one wonders whether Peter had really forsaken all materially- he still had a wife, and apparently his fishing boats back in Galilee, to which he returned after the Lord’s resurrection.</p><p><em>And followed You</em>-</p><p> Just as Peter’s claim to have “left all” was perhaps questionable, likewise Peter seems to have under-estimated what ‘following Christ’ really meant- for the idea of carrying the cross is strongly connected with following Christ (<em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>). And Peter failed to carry that cross to the end, for he denied the Lord when the going got tough.</p><p><em>What then shall we receive as a reward?-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The emphasis is on the word "we". The Lord had taught that the rich needed to give up their wealth if they were to be saved- but God's grace was enough to make even their salvation possible if they didn't rise up to that higher level. Peter considered that he and the disciples&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;given up what wealth they had. And the Lord agrees with Peter- indeed, there would be great blessings for them in the future Kingdom.</p><p>Peter had the impression that by forsaking all and following the Lord, he would somehow benefit. He still had to learn that the carrying of the cross is not to be motivated by any desire for personal benefit, spiritual or otherwise. We live in a world in which religion, like everything else, is seen as a means toward some personal benefit. If we love the Lord, we will follow Him, wherever the life in Him leads us; purely for love of Him, and recognition that His way is the way to glorifying the Father. Peter had left all, but expected something back. For the excellency of fellowshipping the sufferings of the future Saviour, Moses gave up all the riches of Egypt. The Lord responded by saying that nobody who had left all&nbsp;<em>for His Name's sake</em>&nbsp;would go unrewarded (<em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em>). The riches, the surpassing excellence of Christ, all the things tied up in His Name, these were not appreciated at that time by Peter. They are enough, purely of themselves, to make a man count all things as dung. Later, he understood this. He told the lame man that the silver and gold which he had was the salvation possible in the Name of Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 3:6'>Act 3:6</a></em>). Peter rejoiced that he was counted worthy to suffer shame for the Name, and he preached in that Name. There is quite some emphasis on this: <em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:28'>Act 2:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:6'>Act 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:16'>Act 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:10'>Act 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:12'>Act 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:41'>Act 5:41</a></em>. Now he had learnt his mistake, or rather he realized the poverty of his understanding of the Lord. He now found the excellency of the Lord's Name an imperative of itself to witness to it. Likewise "for his name's sake they went forth" in obedience to the great preaching commission (<em><a href='B:710 1:7'>3Jn 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:3'>Rev 2:3</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to them: Truly I say to you: You who have followed me-&nbsp;</em>This is in response to Peter's claim that they had "left all and followed You" (:27). The Lord doesn't include Peter's claim that they had "left all", but rather focuses upon the 'following Me'. This may well have been because He knew that Peter had not in fact "left all" to the degree that Peter thought he had (see on :27). They hadn’t then grasped the idea of what really following involved; they hadn’t in one way or another laid down their lives with Christ. And then there is the problem of “twelve”. Judas didn’t follow to the end, and will not sit upon a throne in the Kingdom. The Lord surely means, therefore: “You who will have followed me…”. Or is that He spoke of “the twelve” as a title for the group of disciples, and what He meant was that even at that early stage He counted their desire to follow Him to the cross as if they had done it? We must see our failing, following brethren likewise. He counted His sheep as following Him (<em><a href='B:500 10:27'>Joh 10:27</a></em>) even then, although he knew they were not then strong enough to follow Him to the end (<em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em>). The risen Lord especially wanted the women to tell Peter that He was ‘going before him’ to Galilee (<em><a href='B:480 16:7'>Mar 16:7</a></em>)- with the implication that even in his weakness and dejection, He wanted Peter to still try to follow Him and re-live the cross in his life.</p><p>The Lord was so generous spirited towards His disciples. He knew that Peter would not follow Him as planned, to the cross- indeed, none of them would (<em><a href='B:500 13:36-37'>Joh 13:36-37</a></em>), but He speaks to them as if they would be successful ultimately in following Him.</p><p><em>In the regeneration</em>-</p><p> The reference is to the last day, when the Kingdom of God as it was in the form of Israel will be regenerated / restored. But the only other occurrence of the word is in speaking of baptism as “the washing of regeneration” (<em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em>). The Kingdom experience and process begins now- a thought which although common in the NT probably fails to grip us as it should. For is our own depressed and passive spiritual experience today really the Kingdom life as it could be? The Greek word literally means ‘the re-naturing’. The final and ultimate change of nature will be at the last day, but the essence of such regeneration begins now.</p><p><em>When the Son of Man</em>-</p><p> As so often, the term is here associated with the glory and judgment reigning of Jesus. This is because His glorification is on the basis of His having been so human.</p><p><em>Shall sit on the throne of his glory, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones-&nbsp;</em>The Lord foresaw the twelve&nbsp;<em>who at the time included Judas&nbsp;</em>sitting in glory upon twelve thrones. The question therefore arises as to whether or not the Lord knew Judas would betray Him, and if He did [as He says He did], then why did He apparently trust Him? Samson trusted Delilah and yet knew on another level she would betray him. This is just a common psychological condition. It helps explain why the Lord Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him (<em><a href='B:500 6:64'>Joh 6:64</a></em>), and yet how He could really trust in Judas as his own familiar friend, confide in him (<em><a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a></em>), tell him that he would sit with the other eleven on thrones in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a></em>). This was ever a serious contradiction for me, until considering the Samson: Delilah relationship in depth. A man can know something about someone on one level, but act and feel towards them in a quite different way than this knowledge requires. David likewise must have known Absalom’s deceit; but he chose not to see it, for love’s sake. “They also that seek after my life lay snares for me: and they that seek my hurt speak mischievous things [just as Absalom did in the gate]…but I, as a deaf man, heard not” (<em><a href='B:230 38:12-13'>Psa 38:12-13</a></em>). Paul surely knew how Corinth despised him, how little they knew and believed, and as he himself said, the more he loved them, the less they loved him. And yet in all honesty he could say: “As ye abound in everything, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence and in your love to us” (<em><a href='B:540 8:7'>2Co 8:7</a></em>). Yet the more abundantly he loved them, the less they loved him- not the more abundantly. Yet he saw them as loving him abundantly. One also gets the sense that the Gibeonites’ deception was somehow guessed by the elders of Israel, but against their better judgment they disregarded the tell-tale signs (<em><a href='B:60 9:7'>Jos 9:7</a></em>). Or Amasa, taking no heed to the sword in Joab’s hand- against his better judgment, surely (<em><a href='B:100 20:10'>2Sa 20:10</a></em>). This is a feature of human nature; and for me so far, the contradictions evident in the Jesus: Judas relationship and the Samson: Delilah relationship are only explicable for me by realizing this. The whole thing is an eloquent essay in the Lord's humanity and the depth of His 'in-loveness' with Judas the traitor. And this Lord is our Lord, the same yesterday and today. Our self-knowledge will be deepened by realizing that we too have this spiritual schizophrenia: it's not that we are spiritual one day and unspiritual the next. We are both flesh and spirit at the very same moment. Appreciation of this will help us cope with the more evident failures of our brethren. It doesn't necessarily mean that they must be written off as totally unspiritual and insincere because of acts and attitudes of evident unspirituality. The Spirit is still there, at the very same moment. Think of how Samson slept with a whore until midnight, and then in faith rose up and was granted the Spirit to perform a great act of Christ-like, cross-like victory over the enemies of God's people. Let’s note that when the Lord repeats this teaching at the last supper, He mentions only that the faithful will “sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (<em><a href='B:490 22:30'>Luk 22:30</a></em>). Surely He realized that ‘the twelve’ were not now all faithful.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 22:30'>Luk 22:30</a></em> speaks of the disciples sitting eating and drinking at the Lord’s table, judging the twelve tribes. The suggestion is that the seats at His table somehow turn into thrones of judgment. In this case the idea may be that being in fellowship with the King means that we are co-rulers with Him; His table of fellowship becomes the basis of judgment for the Israel who refused Him and His disciples. Or in another sense, the seats at His table merge into seats of glory and of judgment. If we are at His table now, we shall be rulers in His Kingdom.</p><p><em>Judging the twelve tribes of Israel-&nbsp;</em>There are many problems in trying to work out the chronology of events at the judgment seat. I suggest they are resolved by understanding that there will be a collapsing of time [and space too, if Einstein’s relativity theory is correct] at the day of judgment. This would explain difficulties such as how we and the disciples can come before the judgment throne of glory when we and they are seated there (<em><a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 25:31'>Mat 25:31</a></em>); and how the judgment of the world seems (from some Scriptures) to be simultaneous with the judgment of the household.</p><p>The Lord has repeatedly spoken in terms of establishing a new Israel, and so He may have in mind here the tribes of spiritual Israel. In Revelation, the disciples form the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem; the entire edifice of the Christian church was built upon men who were so weak in faith, understanding and perception. But&nbsp;<em>krino</em>&nbsp;[“judging”] can just as well mean ‘condemning’. In this case the Lord’s picture would be of the despised disciples playing a part in the judgment and condemnation of natural Israel who had rejected Christ:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em><em>&nbsp;And everyone that has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold and shall inherit eternal life-&nbsp;</em>This list of things to be forsaken recalls the language of the Levites forsaking these things in order to serve God (<em><a href='B:20 32:26-29'>Exo 32:26-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:8-10'>Deu 33:8-10</a></em>). The secular disciples again are encouraged to see themselves as the Levites of the new Israel the Lord was creating. <em><a href='B:470 19:27-30'>Mat 19:27-30</a></em> has a series of extended allusions to the fact that we are now the priesthood. The Lord speaks of how His followers will each have left mother, brother etc. to serve Him, referring to how Moses blessed Levi for forsaking these very things so as to God's service (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>). But He also spoke of how they would forsake houses and lands for His sake and the Gospel's- a reference to the way the Levites resigned their right to physical inheritance in the land for the sake of their relationship with God and the work they were called to. In the same way as Moses predicted that the Levites would be materially blessed even now as a result of their dedication (<em><a href='B:50 33:11'>Deu 33:11</a></em>), so the Lord made the same promise. And there is no Christian who has heart and soul committed themselves to the Gospel's work, either in the world or amongst their brethren, who has not lived to see the truth of this definition of priesthood.</p><p><em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em> speaks of the preacher as offering up his converts upon the altar [note how <em><a href='B:510 11:7'>Act 11:7</a></em> uses the same image of ‘offering up’ sacrifices to describe preaching]. And this connects with how Paul had earlier spoken in <em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em> of offering ourselves as living sacrifices in dedication. The aim of the preacher, therefore, is to provoke a sacrificial life in his or her converts, after the pattern of the Master whom they learn of. When we read of ‘ministering’ in the NT, we are to generally perceive an allusion to the spirit of priesthood; for it was the OT priests who were understood as “ministers”. Paul speaks of preaching God's word, both in the world and to brethren and sisters, as ministering (<em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:25'>Col 1:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:13'>1Co 9:13</a></em>). He saw himself as a minister of the Gospel "that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>). This is priestly language. Paul saw his efforts for others as preparing a sacrifice. He says that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;ministers (cp. priests) of God, stewards of the true Gospel, and should act appropriately (<em><a href='B:530 4:1'>1Co 4:1</a></em>). Others gave money to poorer brethren, and again this is described as ministering, priest-ing (<em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:10'>Heb 6:10</a></em>). Reminding brethren of basic doctrines they already know is another kind of ministering (<em><a href='B:610 4:16'>1Ti 4:16</a></em>). Indeed, Peter says that we&nbsp;<em>each</em>&nbsp;have something to minister to each other, there is some way in which we can each serve each other (<em><a href='B:670 4:10-11'>1Pe 4:10-11</a></em>). We must bear one another's burden, as the priesthood bore the burden of Israel's iniquity (<em><a href='B:40 18:1'>Num 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:23'>Num 18:23</a></em>). This is the meaning of priesthood. Paul speaks of his preaching work as offering up the Gentiles, as if he is a priest (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>)- and in the same figure, Peter is encouraged to preach to Gentiles by killing and eating animals in a peace offering (<em><a href='B:510 11:7'>Act 11:7</a></em>). The command that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel is referring back to how the priests had no material inheritance but lived off the sacrifices (<em><a href='B:40 18:11'>Num 18:11</a></em>). And for us, the honour and wonder of preaching Christ should mean that we keep a loose hold on the material things of this life. And as we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;priests, we are all preachers.</p><p>It is perhaps significant, given the theme of ‘following’ in the records of Peter, that he became well known for ‘leading about’ his wife (<em><a href='B:530 9:5'>1Co 9:5</a></em>), as if she followed him everywhere. Peter translated the principles of following Christ into domestic life. There was a time when he may well have ‘forsaken’ his wife in order to follow Christ (<em><a href='B:470 19:27-29'>Mat 19:27-29</a></em>). But further down that path of following he came to see that as he was to follow his Lord to the end, so he was to be as the self-crucifying Christ to her, and lead her in her following of him that she might follow Christ.</p><p><em>"</em>For My Name’s sake<em>"&nbsp;</em>is parallel with<em>&nbsp;</em>“The kingdom of God’s sake” (<em><a href='B:490 18:29'>Luk 18:29</a></em>) is paralleled with the sake of the Name of Christ by the account here in <em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em>. The things of the Name and the things of the Kingdom were therefore not two different things, rather were they different ways of referring to the same realities.</p><p>The Lord’s prophecy that the believer receives fathers, mothers, houses, lands etc. only has its fulfilment insofar as the ecclesia is willing to share these things and relationships with its members. But the condition of the fulfilment was&nbsp;not explicitly stated. We forsake all human relationships to follow the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 19:27-29'>Mat 19:27-29</a></em>). And He promises to compensate for this even in this life. But it depends to what extent we are willing to accept and perceive it. Through meaningful fellowship with our brethren we will find those relationships which we have given up compensated for, even if we aren’t physically close to our brethren. In reference to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt we read: “God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains” (<em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em>). To be set in a new family is paralleled with being brought out from slavery. Part of the process of our redemption is that we are set in a new ecclesial family. This must be a reference to how Israel were brought out on Passover night, where the families and lonely ones had to join together into households big enough to kill a lamb for. The implication of Psalms 68 could be that it was in these family groups that they travelled through the wilderness. The N:C:V. reads: “God is in his holy Temple. He is a father to orphans, and he defends the widows. God gives the lonely a home. He leads prisoners out with joy...". The very house / family of God becomes the house / family of the lonely. Hence the ecclesia&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the house of God (<em><a href='B:530 3:16'>1Co 3:16</a></em>). We find true family in the new family of God. By baptism we are “added together” with those others who are likewise saved in Christ (<em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em> RVmg:). We will live together eternally with the other members of this new body and community which we enter. The links between us within that new family are even stronger than those with our natural family; and hence any division amongst the family of God is the greatest tragedy. What this means in practice is that we must fellowship each other. Even if we are isolated from other believers, one can always write letters, make phone calls, invite others to visit them, attempt to meet others…</p><p><em>"</em>Inherit eternal life" are the very words of the rich young man (<em><a href='B:480 10:17'>Mar 10:17</a></em>). The answer to that man’s question was that we have to lose now, if we are to win eternally; we must forsake material things if we are to inherit the life eternal. As he was only a young man, it’s likely that his wealth had been inherited. He was being told that the greatest inheritance was of life eternal, but this didn’t come easily nor by good luck or circumstance, but in response to a lifetime of following Jesus. The things which were to be forsaken include [putting the records in Mark and Luke together with Matthew]: family, brothers, sisters, father, mother, lands, houses etc. These were all the things which the young man had received by inheritance, and to forsake association with his family, on behalf of whom he had received his wealth, would’ve been crazy and social suicide. It was as crazy as trashing a winning lottery ticket and walking away the same you were before you bought it. But this is the radical calling of those who must forsake materialism in order to inherit eternity. Therefore all seeking for material advantage in this life is surely inappropriate if in fact we are to forsake it even if it comes to us without our seeking it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:30'>Mat 19:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But many shall be last that are first, and first that are last</em>-</p><p> The context is of the Lord having taught that a rich man&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;shed his wealth in order to enter the Kingdom,&nbsp;<em>but</em>&nbsp;God’s grace is such that He is prepared to save the rich who<em>&nbsp;don’t</em>&nbsp;do that. With God this is “possible”. Chapters 18 and 19 have demonstrated the idea of living on different levels. The Lord had told the rich young man that if he “would be perfect”, then he should sell all he had and give it to the poor. In this amazing comment at the conclusion of the section, we learn that in fact “many” who are first in this life&nbsp;<em>and choose to remain first</em>&nbsp;shall still be saved, although they will be “last” in the Kingdom. The same word for “last” is used in the parable which speaks of believers having to take the “last” or ‘lowest’ place around the Lord’s table (<em><a href='B:490 14:9-10'>Luk 14:9-10</a></em>). There are and will be gradations between the Lord’s people, both now and eternally. Those who are “first” in this brief life, retaining their wealth when they should not, shall be saved by grace but will be the least in the Kingdom. Whereas those who are the least in this life, or make themselves the least, will become the first in God’s Kingdom.</p>


text:
For- The context is the end of chapter 19, about the first now being last in the eternal order of things to be established at Christ's return. The parable is therefore about the situation amongst believers in Christ. At <a href='B:470 19:1'>19:1</a> I presented a chiasmus plan, showing that this parable is to be read in the context of chapters 18 and 19 with their theme of the need to accept and not reject our brethren. That theme is to be found at the very end of the parable- insofar as the harder workers are inclined to reject their brethren who have not worked so long nor so hard. Many of the parables contain their essential point right at the end, and this parable does likewise. The end stress is upon the need for the harder working brethren to accept their weaker brethren, standing as they all do before the judgment presence of the Lord Jesus. The teaching that &quot;the last shall be first&quot; concluded chapter 19 and it concludes this parable (<a href='B:470 20:16'>20:16</a>). I suggested under <a href='B:470 19:30'>19:30</a> that the point of this is that the first in a secular sense within the community of believers will be saved only by grace and will be &quot;the last&quot; in the Kingdom. The phrase therefore talks of salvation by grace, and this is the theme of this parable too.</p><p>The context of the parable is Peter's comment: &quot;What shall we have therefore?&quot;, implying that the disciples ought to get a far greater reward than the spiritually immature rich people who refused to part with their wealth but could be saved anyway by the Lord's grace. The hard workers are thereby to be equated with the disciples and all who consider themselves spiritually superior to others- they &quot;expected that they should have received more&quot; (<a href='B:470 20:10'>20:10</a> NIV), just as Peter likewise expected more. The parable suggests the Lord wanted to specifically reward the lazy and weaker workers. For they are called first to receive their penny- when surely appropriacy would demand that the harder workers were first in line. And yet the parable had wider relevance to the situation in the first century- and today. The harder workers somehow felt unhappy with the basis of contract upon which the lazier workers had been taken on and 'saved' by being given the same penny as they. But the basis of salvation was the same- for the zealous and for the lazy, for Jew and Gentile. And that basis was grace. The weaker workers showed perhaps more faith in the Master's offer- because it would've seemed unreal that they would be given the same pay as the stronger, longer workers. But they believed it- which is why they went to do their little work.</p><p>The impression we are left with is that the Lord was and is utterly desperate for workers- He is willing to take on any &quot;little ones&quot; prepared to believe His amazing offer. And the same impression is given in the parable of the street people being urged in to the feast. All they had to do was say yes- there was an urgency to fill the house. And surely we in these last days must perceive ourselves as the 11th hour workers, then ones taken on at the very last minute. That alone adequately explains the mixed bag which comprises the body of Christ in our times, and the weak state of that body.</p><p>The kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house- AV &quot;A man&quot;. The man, the head of the house, is clearly the Lord Jesus. And the Kingdom of God is like… Him. The grace of the Lord Jesus, His manner of being and judging amongst men, is the essence of the Kingdom both now and evermore.</p><p>Perhaps we are to connect this parable to the other parable about a householder who had a vineyard (<a href='B:470 21:33'>21:33</a>- the same Greek words are used). Putting the two parables together, God worked so hard to prepare the vineyard so that maximum spiritual fruit would be brought forth. But Israel rejected His prophets and murdered His Son- even though God was confident they would &quot;reverence My Son&quot;, actually they killed Him. The wonderful vineyard was therefore given out to the Gentiles, or at least, to others, whom the owner was likewise confident would tend it and bring forth fruit for Him. But this parable indicates that actually He had a major problem getting them to come work in it- meaning that much potential fruit was lost. And the parable of <a href='B:470 21:28'>21:28</a> says that the vineyard owner's very own sons were not much help either- one refused to go, and only later went to the work; the other said he would go and work, but never did. God's hopefulness for human response, and the tragedy of our paucity of response, is thus brought out yet stronger. It may be objected that the parables appear to be chronologically out of sequence if they are indeed intended to be read together. My response would be that we have in the Gospels a highly abbreviated record of the Lord's teaching, and likely He repeated His teachings and parables many times over. Perhaps the parable of the vineyard owner was told in full [both parables put together] several times, but we have just parts of the parable recorded on two separate occasions.</p><p>Who went out- This is emphasized four times (also in <a href='B:470 20:3-6'>:3,5,6</a>). The Greek word is often used about the Lord Jesus 'going out' to men with the Gospel; it is the same word in Jn. 8:42 &quot;I proceeded forth… from God&quot; and <a href='B:500 13:3'>Jn. 13:3</a> &quot;He was come from ['went out from'] God&quot;. Rather than suggesting any personal pre-existence, this is simply a reference to the Lord during His ministry likewise 'going forth' to men and women with the Gospel, seeking to engage men in the Father's service. The call of the Gospel, therefore, is not merely to believe the Gospel- it is a call to action, to harvest fruit, to work in the vineyard.</p><p>Early in the morning- The very same Greek phrase is used about how the Lord &quot;went out early in the morning&quot; to pray about the calling of the disciples (<a href='B:480 1:35'>Mk. 1:35</a>). The language is also used about the earliest disciples 'going out' from the tomb of the risen Lord, also &quot;early in the morning&quot;, to bring word to others. The message was ultimately not just passing on information, but an invitation to actually work.</p><p>The Lord Himself was noted for rising up early and praying (<a href='B:480 1:35'>Mk. 1:35</a>). The observant Jew prayed three times / day, the first and last prayers being merely the recital of the shema. Yet Jesus spent hours in those morning and evening prayers (<a href='B:480 1:35'>Mk. 1:35</a>; <a href='B:480 6:46'>6:46</a>). <a href='B:290 50:4'>Is. 50:4</a> prophesies of the Lord Jesus that morning by morning, God awoke His ear &quot;to learn as a disciple&quot;. That last phrase is surely to signal the intended similarities between the Lord's path of growth, and that of all disciples. The next two verses go on to predict that because of this morning-by-morning teaching process, &quot;I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting&quot; (<a href='B:290:50:5-6'>Is. 50:5,6</a>). Thus we come to the cross, the life of cross carrying, as the end result of our morning reflections. It was from His own experience that the Lord could bid us take up our cross- His cross- each morning.</p><p>Have you ever had to make yourself wake up before dawn, without an alarm clock? You can only do it by having a deep internal, subconscious awareness that you must get up early. You don't sleep well, you keep waking up and wondering if it's time to get up. So to make oneself rise up early was easily understood as a figure expressing great mental effort. And God did this every day for centuries... This figure of rising up early is surely the basis for the Lord's parable in <a href='B:470 20:1'>Mt. 20:1</a>- where God is likened to a man going out early in the morning to hire labourers. It is through the ministry of His word that God does this- each morning that word calls us to labour for Him in His vineyard. Israel didn't notice the huge effort God puts into His word- that every day He rose early and taught them. We can also misunderstand Biblical inspiration to mean that God effortlessly inspired &quot;the original autographs&quot; long ago, and moved on; but actually the whole process is an ongoing and incredible outgiving of God's energy in appealing to us. And... in our mismanaged, weakly disciplined lives, is it so that we don't even make time to read His word daily? If Job could value God's word more than His regular daily food... then for us too, regular contact with His word should be part of the atmosphere of life within which we live.</p><p>To hire- <a href='B:520 4:4'>Rom. 4:4</a> uses the same word in stressing that salvation is not our &quot;hire&quot; from God, it is the gift of grace. One wonders if Paul is alluding to the parable- to make the point that salvation is a gift, and yet in another sense we each receive a response for our labour. This is in that our labours now will receive eternal recognition in the form in which we will be throughout eternity.</p><p>Labourers for his vineyard- Literally, 'toilers'. There can be no mistaking the Lord's impression here- response to His invitation is not merely intellectual assent to the truth of Bible teachings, nor is it about painless involvement in the work of His church when, how and how far convenient to us. It's an invitation to toil and really work in His enterprise. The Lord had earlier lamented that the harvest was more plenteous than the few labourers (<a href='B:470 9:37-38'>Mt. 9:37,38</a>). He had asked the disciples to pray for more labourers- and the added detail of this parable is that those labourers were still not enough, and were weak [nobody had wished to hire them] and didn't in the end do much work. In this we see how the total conversion of others is limited by the preachers; for the Lord surely implies that there are more potential converts than there are preachers to bring them in. This passage paves the way for the giving of the great commission to us all later in Matthew- to work in the vineyard in harvest time, gathering the plentiful harvest. The &quot;Go…&quot; of <a href='B:470 20:4'>:4</a> fulfils the same function. Elsewhere the Lord likens labourers to the preachers. He clearly saw a primary reason for our calling as to preach and help others to the harvest of the Kingdom. He called us in different ways to labour for and with Him in this work; not to merely passively hold various doctrinal truths in intellectual purity, or to dumbly attend church meetings of whatever sort.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:2'>Mat 20:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when he had agreed with the labourers</em>-</p><p> The Greek carries the idea of entering into a contract- the new covenant. We enter covenant relationship with the Father and Son when we are baptized. Again I must labour the point- that this agreement, this entry into Christ and His vineyard, is not merely a sign that we like the social club or that we assent to the teachings of a particular Christian denomination. It is a personal commitment between the individual and their Lord, to work for Him.</p><p>There is the suggestion in the parable of the labourers that the Lord makes some big concessions to human weakness. The Spirit in Paul points the contrast between realizing that salvation is by pure grace, and the wrong perception of salvation as a wage paid for works (e.g. Romans 6). Indeed, the whole spirit of the Bible is that we should be willing to serve for nothing. The parable of the slave preparing his Master's meal after working hard for him a whole day makes this point. And yet in the parable of the labourers, Christ&nbsp;<em>agrees</em>&nbsp;with the labourers for a penny (note his humility, cp. God reasoning with men to accept His forgiveness, <em><a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a></em>); He asks them to go to work, and then He will give them the wages (cp. salvation). He even describes their salvation as "that which is right", so much did He present the Gospel to them from the selfish level they were then on. The Lord was not ignorant of the line of argument Paul would later present regarding salvation by pure grace. Surely the parable is teaching that the Lord recognizes that in&nbsp;our spiritual immaturity at the time of our conversion, we do need the Kingdom as a carrot, as a motivator. He treats us on this low level initially, hoping we will rise up the higher level&nbsp;of grace. It is possible to witness this spiritual growth in converts, and also in the community of true believers over time; initially we are motivated by the reward of the political Kingdom, but as spiritual perception increases, we grasp Paul's gospel of pure grace. The concept of working and being rewarded decreases, and the recognition of salvation by grace&nbsp;increases, with the resultant zeal for a truer spirituality:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For a denarius a day</em>-</p><p> The implication is that the workers were intended to work for several days. But at the end of the first day comes the scene which is clearly intended to be reminiscent of the last judgment. The idea may be that the last day comes sooner than expected and is hastened by the Lord of the harvest.</p><p><em>He sent them into his vineyard</em>-</p><p> “Sent” translates&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>, meaning that all who go to work for the Lord, including the weak who work only one hour, are in fact apostles. We have a specific sense of mission, a sense of having been given a concrete and actual mission in life. That sense is rarely met in unbelievers, and the senses of mission they may have typically only last for part of their lives and become tinged with disillusion. The mission of harvesting men and women for the Kingdom never becomes like that.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he went out about the third hour and saw others</em>-</p><p> Here is an insight into how the Lord ‘foresees’ potential workers / believers, but it is over to them if they respond to the call given. Truly God and His Son are in search of man.</p><p><em>Standing idle</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>argos</em>&nbsp;definitely means ‘lazy’ and isn’t a particularly positive word to use about someone (Some young widows became&nbsp;<em>argos</em>, gossiping and interfering where they ought not because they had nothing better to do, <em><a href='B:610 5:13'>1Ti 5:13</a></em>; Cretans were rumoured to be lazy,&nbsp;<em>argos,&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:630 1:12'>Tit 1:12</a></em>). The word means literally a non-worker. These men hadn’t been hired because they were lazy. The ones the Master was so eager to use were in fact not very good workers, in fact they were non-workers. The hard workers obviously had a problem with the acceptance of these men, and their being treated on the same basis as themselves. This section thus continues the theme begun in chapter 18 and developed throughout this set of material which this parable concludes- see on <em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em>. The hard workers equate with the disciples who didn’t want to accept or forgive the “little one”, the man who would not forgive others their inadequacies and ended up condemned, the big debtor who refused to forgive others their minor debt to him. This parable finishes with the harder workers rebuked and possibly even rejected- and these lazier ones accepted. The point is that the harder workers were disciplined / rejected because of their despising of their weaker brethren.</p><p>If we insist on reading&nbsp;<em>argos</em>&nbsp;as meaning strictly those without work, then another challenging lesson is presented. All human endeavour and achievement is a standing around doing nothing- compared to the ultimate achievement of harvesting for the Lord, of working with the Lord in His work of bringing people to eternity and to ultimate existence.</p><p><em>In the marketplace</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s preceding usage of this term had been in the context of the work of preaching. He had spoken of how His disciples were like children in marketplaces appealing to others to respond to His message (<em><a href='B:470 11:16'>Mat 11:16</a></em>). But in this parable, the men in the marketplace were inactive and lazy. And yet at the end of the parable, these are the ones who are more acceptable than those who work harder but reject the lazy workers. The similar usage of “the marketplace” in these two parables suggests that whilst it is the Lord’s followers who appeal to other children, their ‘fellows’ in humanity, it is also the Lord personally who works through them to make the appeal.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:4'>Mat 20:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And to them he said: You go-&nbsp;</em>This again paves the way for the “Go…” of the great preaching commission which Matthews’s Gospel concludes with.</p><p><em>Also into the vineyard and</em>-</p><p> The hint may be that the later workers are working for their Lord on the same basis as the harder and longer workers, even if their achievements and levels of service vastly differ.</p><p><em>Whatever is right I will give you</em>-</p><p> “Right” translates&nbsp;<em>dikaios</em>, a word carrying a distinct moral sense and elsewhere translated ‘righteousness’. The idea of the gift of righteousness, that which is right, is at the heart of much of Romans (<em><a href='B:520 5:17'>Rom 5:17</a></em> specifically speaks of “the gift of righteousness”). The penny paid for a few hours work speaks of salvation, granted as an undeserved gift, and yet also somehow ‘that which is just / right’ because of the way we are counted just because we are in Christ. There was no specific promise of a penny, and yet this was judged by the Lord as ‘what was right’. Intentionally, the storyline of the parable leads us to cry out that it is&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;just to give labourers the same pay, when some work far longer and harder than others- at least 12 times longer, in some cases. But it&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;just in the new justice taught by the Lord. The point of the paradox is that human works and achievements are so irrelevant in terms of obtaining salvation, the penny. Rather like the 100 pennies owed to the man who had been forgiven a 10,000 talent debt (<em><a href='B:470 18:28'>Mat 18:28</a></em>).</p><p>Preaching is a spiritual exercise for the benefit of the preacher. We could get the impression that the labourers were called to go out into the vineyard because the Lord felt sorry for them, standing idle with no work or livelihood- rather than because He needed them. If this was His motivation, He wouldn't have called anyone at the 11th hour, neither would he have paid them all the same wages if he was only using them for his benefit. God will call His people unto Himself without us doing a thing; and yet we have a responsibility and even a commission to take Christ to the world. The fact God will call His people to Himself anyway does not exempt us from the duty of witnessing; and the process of this witnessing is so often for&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;benefit.</p><p><em>And they went their way</em>-</p><p> We explained on <em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em> how there is a whole block of material presented in a long chiasmus, and this parable is the closing part of the section which began at the start of chapter 18. It’s significant therefore that&nbsp;<em>aperchomai</em>, translated here to ‘go a way’, recurs twice in the section. The man with the colossal debt ‘went his way’ and imprisoned his slightly indebted brother (<em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em>), and the rich young man ‘went away’ sorrowful (<em><a href='B:470 19:22'>Mat 19:22</a></em>). In each case, men ‘went their way’ after having been confronted by extreme grace. The rich man in that despite not wanting to part with his wealth as requested, he could still be saved by grace; the man with the colossal debt who had it frankly forgiven. They ‘went their way’ into obscurity, unable to accept the grace offered. These weak, lazy labourers went&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;way to harvest at least a few for Christ, believing and clinging on to the Lord’s desire to use even them despite their inadequacy.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:5'>Mat 20:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Again He went out</em>-</p><p> The very same words used of how the Lord ‘again went out’ to teach the Gospel (<em><a href='B:480 2:13'>Mar 2:13</a></em>).</p><p><em>About the sixth and ninth hour and did likewise</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Peri</em>&nbsp;(“about”) used in relation to time doesn’t have to mean ‘roughly at’ that time, it could mean that throughout the sixth, ninth and eleventh hours, the Lord searched for workers. In this case we see an indication of His urgent need for workers. The harvest really is there to be brought in, all complaints that ‘nobody is interested’ are simply a reflection of a serious mismatch between the potential harvest and the approach being taken to harvesting it. Typically great effort is expended on trying to get people to sign up to a denominational position and be regular attenders at meetings- and if that fails, the feeling is that evangelism has failed because the harvest is simply not there, ‘nobody is interested’. But the clear impression from this parable and others is that the harvest is indeed there- the problem in harvesting it is with the labourers. The work of harvesting isn’t the same as doing a public relations exercise for a denomination. We may or may not succeed in getting folks to sign up for our denomination or fellowship; but the work of harvesting men and women into Christ isn’t necessarily the same thing as that. And that work is guaranteed of success.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:6'>Mat 20:6</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 22:8'>Mat 22:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>And about the eleventh hour-&nbsp;</em>The servant goes at the 11th hour and hires the men who others had refused, presumably because they didn't look strong enough for the work. And they get paid the very same wage as those who had worked all day. This element of unreality serves to highlight the (humanly) irrational zeal of the Lord for the spread of the Gospel in the last days before His return. He will take on anyone who is willing to work, no matter how feebly, no matter for how short a time; the fact they are standing there ready and willing to do their little bit is what is important to Him. A man does not usually go out between 4 and 5 p:m. looking for more labourers, with sunset approaching. He must have had an unusually great need for workers, racing against time to get the harvest in. And this is the very urgency of the Gospel, and the passion of the Lord's desire to get the harvest reaped. God could reap the harvest of the earth, requiring not help from man. But He has chosen to work through men in the preaching of the Gospel, and therefore the number of workers and their zeal reflects the amount of harvest of souls that can be reaped. The eternal destiny of others is therefore seen to depend on our extent of labour in preaching. It’s also apparent that the amount of harvest was unreally huge- hence the unusual running backwards and forwards to get more workers. One expects the manager to know the size of the harvest and hire the right number of labourers at the start of the day. But in this parable, he doesn’t. The awesome size of the potential harvest out there in this world means that&nbsp;<em>never</em>&nbsp;should we conclude that ‘nobody’s interested’. There is a&nbsp;<em>huge</em>&nbsp;harvest out there. And in passing, it can be noted that grapes have to be harvested at just the right time. If they’re left even a day too long on the vine, the sugar content becomes too high and they are no use. We can perhaps infer that the parable describes a scene on a Friday, with the Sabbath coming on when nobody can work- and yet it is&nbsp;<em>just</em>&nbsp;the right day for reaping the harvest. This makes the obvious connection in our minds- that just before the Sabbath day of the Millennium, in the last days, there is an abnormally huge harvest to be reaped. And this would connect with other Biblical teaching about a great appeal being made to all nations, just prior to the Lord’s return. The parable also yields the lesson that those men would not normally work for one hour. We are to imagine those men with families at home who needed feeding. No pay that day, no food. But they were willing to do at least something. And their generous Lord simply pitied their poverty, so he gave them a day's wage- even to the 11th hour workers. And this is the Lord who has graciously hired us. Likewise, no rich King who finds that the wedding of his son will be poorly attended would go out and invite beggars. The element of unreality is that he so wants every place filled. No human King, nor his son, would want riff raff at the wedding, just because his own class of people turned down the invitations. But the King of Heaven is unlike any human king. He wants others to share in the joy of His Son, and absolutely nobody is too low to share; and moreover, He has a compelling desire to fill those places. The implication is that the net is being spread wider and more compulsively as the days shorten unto the supper.</p><p><em>He went out and found others</em>-</p><p> This parable forms the closing section of the block of material which began at the beginning of chapter 18 and which is arranged in a chiasmus see <em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em>. The Lord’s ‘finding’ of men to do His work connects with the ‘finding’ of the lost sheep in 18:13. These men whom the Lord ‘finds’ are the lost sheep. The parallel is thus between the lost sheep, the child brought into the midst, the man who owes 100 pence, the brother who sins against us… and now, the lazy or weak labourers who are saved by grace. The point of the section is that they must be accepted- and the parable speaks of how those who have worked harder and longer will have a tendency not to do so. And that tendency may cost them their own salvation.</p><p><em>Standing, and he said to them: Why do you stand here idle all the day?</em>-</p><p> The implication is almost that they should’ve gone to work without waiting to be invited. They should’ve been motivated by the tragedy of an amazing harvest wasting. Or perhaps the question was more rhetorical. Why were they idle? Why had nobody hired them? Because they were weak, lazy, had bad reputations, been fired by other employers, were too old to work effectively… And the Lord wanted them to be fully aware of their inadequacies before He sent them to do His harvesting work. The same is seen in how the Lord made the disciples perceive their own blindness and lack of faith- and&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;gave them the great commission. This is indeed the ultimate qualification for preaching work. And that is taught by the Lord’s hand in life, not by Bible colleges or preparatory programs.</p><p>The parable of the labourers indicates that the Lord's desire for response to the Gospel will increase as the coming of the Kingdom advances. Apparently He increasingly is the Jesus who understands human weakness. There is an element of unreality in the parable; the servant goes at the 11th hour and hires the men who others had refused, presumably because they didn't look strong enough for the work. This element of unreality serves to highlight the (humanly) irrational zeal of the Lord for the spread of the Gospel in the last days before His return. The parable of the marriage supper explains why this Is. We need to enter into the sense of urgency and tragedy which there was; the marriage of the King's son was going to be delayed because the guests didn't want to come. The shame, even anger, of the King (cp. God) and the bridegroom (cp. Christ) need to be imagined; and this really is the feeling of the Father and Son whenever the Gospel is rejected. And time and again it happens, from Sunday School kids to those hundreds who every year complete Bible study courses and turn away from the call:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>20:7&nbsp;<em>They said to him: Because no one has hired us</em>-</p><p> They answered honestly, recognizing that in the urgency of harvest, nobody had hired them. Their answer implied a recognition of their weakness- through old age, mental issues, laziness, bad reputation, physical weakness or disability. But it is twice emphasized that they “stood” in the marketplace and did not&nbsp;<em>sit</em>&nbsp;there, as is common in marketplaces in the Middle Eastern harvest time sun. Their saving feature was that they were willing to work, and they recognized their weakness; and they believed that they would be given an appropriate reward by this strangely gracious employer. This is so important, and forms almost the only precondition which the Lord requires to work with men. The Lord surely knew why they had not been hired. They had been there all day- so He had surely seen them when He had gone out looking for workers earlier that day. His question to them was therefore rhetorical. He wanted to elicit from them a recognition of their weakness. We also sense that as He would have noticed them earlier in the day, He as it were was lowering the bar because He was as it were driven to do this by the chronic lack of labourers and the unexpectedly huge harvest. The same lowering of the bar just before the last day, the final end of the harvest, is seen in the parable of the street people being urged in to attend the majestic supper.</p><p>The Lord had earlier spoken of the disciples as labourers in the work of the Gospel, who were worthy of their hire (<em><a href='B:490 10:7'>Luk 10:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em> s:w:). The connection with that teaching is in that the Lord was inviting the disciples to see themselves as those who had been first hired, and was warning them that the potential harvest was so great that He was taking on other workers whom they would be tempted to despise. This is exactly the theme of the entire block of material which began with their rejection and despising of the little ones at the start of chapter 18.</p><p><em>He said to them: You go also into the vineyard-&nbsp;</em>AV adds: "And whatever is right I will give you". He imputes righteousness to His weak workers, so that payment for a day’s work becomes that which is “right” for those who have only worked one hour.</p>


text:
<p>20:8&nbsp;<em>And when evening came</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s coming is likened to the dawn in Malachi 4, here to the sunset. The day of opportunity for service ends, and yet in another sense the sun arises heralding the eternal day of God’s Kingdom.</p><p><em>The owner of the vineyard said to his steward-&nbsp;</em>AV "The Lord". The Lord of the vineyard is presumably God, and His “steward”, the duty manager, is the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>Call the labourers</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Kaleo</em>&nbsp;is used both of the calling of men and women to the Gospel in this life, and also of the final call to judgment. In responding to the call, we are actually embarking upon a journey to judgment, and therefore as the Lord elsewhere explains, it is absurd if we uphold differences with our brother on that journey. We are on our way to judgment- that should humble us and impart a sense of urgency to every moment of this journey. <em><a href='B:470 22:3'>Mat 22:3</a></em> speaks of how the Lord’s Angelic servants “call them that were bidden”. But “call” and “bidden” both translate&nbsp;<em>kaleo</em>. The called ones are further called- to judgment.</p><p><em>And pay them their wages-&nbsp;</em>At the judgment, the preacher receives&nbsp;<em>wages</em>&nbsp;for what he did (<em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>), the labourers receive&nbsp;<em>hire</em>&nbsp;(s:w. wages) for their work in the vineyard (<em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:8'>1Co 3:8</a></em>). There is a&nbsp;<em>reward</em>&nbsp;(s:w. wages) for those who rise to the level of loving the totally unresponsive (<em><a href='B:470 5:46'>Mat 5:46</a></em>), or preaching in situations quite against their natural inclination (<em><a href='B:530 9:18'>1Co 9:18</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Salvation</em>&nbsp;itself isn't given on this basis of works; but the judgment is of works in order to teach us self-knowledge. And this is why there will be a 'going through' of our deeds. In this life, we see ourselves in a dark mirror; but only when the Lord appears will we clearly see ourselves face to face. This coming to true self-knowledge will only be possible through the judgment process. There is indeed a ‘wage’ paid for Gospel work; each man shall receive “his own reward s:w. “hire” according to his labour”- but that “reward” is the fact that a man’s work ‘abides’ through the fire of the final judgment (<em><a href='B:530 3:8'>1Co 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:14'>1Co 3:14</a></em>). So whilst the hire / reward / wage is on one hand salvation, it will also be unique to each of us and directly in proportion to the success of our work with others. If they enter the Kingdom, then that will be an aspect of our eternal reward, and thus Paul can say that his eternal “crown of rejoicing” is the likes of his Thessalonian converts standing approved at the final judgment (<em><a href='B:590 2:19'>1Th 2:19</a></em>). So often, allegiance to a particular denominational way of thinking hinders believers from this work. They may read these words and find the idea somewhat strange, because they feel they have never brought anyone into the group they belong to. But the group we ultimately belong to is the body of Christ. The commission to take the Gospel to the world and baptize them is given to each of us. And so we do well to ask ourselves the question: ‘How many times have I ever asked someone if they want to be baptized, offered to baptize them, and baptized someone?’. Fear of eldership displeasure and rejection from what is little more than a church social club has hamstrung so much such witness.</p><p><em>Beginning from the last to the first-&nbsp;</em>The giving of the payment begins at the last, which is an element of unreality in the story. The message may be that this was in order to teach the longer and harder working labourers that the wage really was a penny a day for each worker. The purpose of the judgment process will be for our benefit, and one of the hardest lessons for Christ’s people is to accept that others who worked less than us are really also saved to the same extent and by the same grace as we are.</p>


text:
<p>20:9- see on 25:23.</p><p><em>And when they who were hired about the eleventh hour came</em>-</p><p> I mentioned earlier that&nbsp;<em>peri</em>&nbsp;with time clauses can mean ‘throughout’. The payment was at the twelfth hour; some had been hired at various points throughout the eleventh hour, meaning that they had worked far less than an hour. It outrages all human works-based justice to think that they received the same as those who slogged twelve hours. But this is to affront our sense of justification by works, and to demonstrate to us that salvation cannot be on the basis of works but rather on the basis of the contract / covenant which all by grace have entered into. And the parable has an even more demanding twist in its end stress, whereby those who considered this was unreasonable and felt they should be given more for their superior work are in fact rejected for thinking that. If indeed “Go your way” means they are fired from the Master’s service.</p><p><em>They each received a denarius-&nbsp;</em>No employer really pays all workers the same amount as the 11th hour worker; no creditor would really cancel debts simply because the debtors can’t afford to pay, and take nothing at all from them; no father would really give preferential treatment to a wayward son over a son who had never disobeyed him. But the point is, God acts in the very opposite way to how we do or would do. His grace to sinners makes no human sense. And He asks us through these parables of His Son to walk out against the wind and follow His example in our treatment of sinners. Our own natural sense cries out that he who works most should have the most pay; but the unreality of the parable teaches us that this principle is set aside in the way God deals with us:&nbsp;<em>Any</em>&nbsp;gift from the Father and Son is by grace alone. The elements of unreality in the parables often bring out the extent of God’s grace. The fruit farmer =God asked His worker = the Lord Jesus to cut down a barren fig tree. But this worker had such fondness for the tree, he was so unusually concerned for it, that he pleaded that it be given some more time. This reflected the Lord’s love for Israel, a love beyond all reason. Likewise, which wealthy person would ever arrange a banquet and invite the very dregs of society to it? Here is the Father’s amazing grace. Sometimes we have to fill in the details another feature of the Lord’s amazing stories in order to perceive this grace. The younger son, for example, demanded his share of the inheritance; and thus he lost his name, forfeited any claim to family membership, and openly showed that he did not wish to be part of his father’s family. And yet he was received back with such grace and longing by the Father.</p><p>This addition of&nbsp;<em>ana</em>&nbsp;“every man” is to underline that they each, every one individually, received their pay. The sense would be conveyed quite adequately without the addition of this word, but the Lord wished to remind us of how each of us will personally meet the Lord at judgment day, and we will behold each of those whom we considered the little ones, inferior workers or believers to ourselves, receiving their rewards. The public aspect to the judgment process is several times brought out- e.g. the rejected will walk naked and others will see their shame (<em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>20:10&nbsp;<em>And when the first came, they supposed</em>-</p><p> NIV “they expected”. The connection is clearly to Peter’s expectation that he and the disciples who had forsaken what they had should be rewarded more than those who had not done so (<em><a href='B:470 19:27'>Mat 19:27</a></em>). We are led by the story line to sympathize with their position- our sense of human justice cries out against such an approach, whereby the harder workers were rewarded the same as the slacker and shorter workers. But that outcry is intended. Because the point is, that we are the colossally indebted man, saved by grace; the 11th hour workers who were too weak and lazy to do much for their Lord. This parable forms an appropriate conclusion to the material which began at the start of chapter 18. The despising of the little ones by us is simply because we have failed to perceive that&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are the 10,000 talent hopeless debtor,&nbsp;<em>we are the man</em>…&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are the weak workers, etc:&nbsp;</p><p>Yet&nbsp;<em>nomizo</em>, “supposed”, is the verb of the noun&nbsp;<em>nomos</em>, the law. They believed it was their legal right to receive more than the later workers. But they had “agreed” in contract for a penny a day (:2):&nbsp; The law was not at all on their side. They only came to this new and very twisted view of their rights by observing the Lord’s grace to the weaker, shorter workers. Their eye or outlook became evil because of the Lord’s goodness. We too can come to assume that salvation is our right, failing to maintain any sense of wonder at God’s grace to us.</p><p><em>That they would receive more, but likewise each received a denarius</em>-</p><p> This again is particularly appropriate to Peter, who had to be forced to consider carefully whether he did in fact love the Lord “more” s:w. than others (<em><a href='B:500 21:15'>Joh 21:15</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when they received it, they grumbled at the master of the house, saying</em>-</p><p> The word is repeatedly used concerning Israel’s murmuring against Christ (<em><a href='B:490 5:30'>Luk 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:41'>Joh 6:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:43'>Joh 6:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:32'>Joh 7:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>). These who murmured against Christ’s grace at the last day were therefore, we can conclude, under the influence of Jewish legalism and a sense of superiority to others. The tension is between them murmuring at the very moment in which they “received it”.</p><p>Those hired into the vineyard first "supposed (on judgment day) that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house... but he answered one of them (what's the significance of this?) and said, Friend (a description of the faithful, <em><a href='B:500 15:15'>Joh 15:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:23'>Jas 2:23</a></em>), I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine Is... I will give unto this last, even as unto thee" (<em><a href='B:470 20:10-15'>Mat 20:10-15</a></em>). If the penny represents salvation, the harder workers only started questioning once they saw, to their amazement, the weaker and shorter workers receiving a penny. They received the promised reward of salvation, but couldn't understand the principles on which the Lord rewarded the weaker servants. If the hard working faithful will have a problem with this even at the judgment, how much more now?&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:12'>Mat 20:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>These last-&nbsp;</em>The Lord answers the question “Are there few that be saved?” by insisting that we personally strive to enter by the narrow door (<em><a href='B:490 13:23-24'>Luk 13:23-24</a></em>). This was the same message the Lord had taught Peter through the parable of the 1st hour labourer getting distracted by the reward of the 11th hour one. He had that tendency to look on the faults of others (<em><a href='B:470 18:21'>Mat 18:21</a></em>), to compare himself with others (<em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em> cp. 27; <em><a href='B:470 26:33'>Mat 26:33</a></em>). John’s Gospel ends with Peter yet again being distracted by the possible spiritual destiny of his brother John- ‘What about&nbsp;<em>this&nbsp;</em>man?’ was answered by the Lord with an appeal to Peter to not worry about that but instead “You- follow Me”. And so, so many tragic times we do the same. We are distracted from the quintessence of our lives, the following, to death, of the Lord, by our jealousy of others and our desire to enter into their spirituality rather than personally following. We should rather be like the weak old labourers in the parable who walk away from judgment day clutching their ‘penny’ of salvation, thinking "I really shouldn't have this. I didn't work for a day, and this… this coin… this is a day's pay”. But we will be there. You and me. For all our doubts and fears, our chronic lack of self worth, for all the inward, unspoken struggles to believe and understand, that nobody knows nor even notices. We will be there. This is grace, and this will be grace. Truly there is all joy and peace through believing these things, “that ye may abound in hope” (<em><a href='B:520 15:13'>Rom 15:13</a></em>).</p><p>Paul was ever aware of his own proneness to failure. He saw himself as tempted to be like the man in the parable who thought he should have more, because he had laboured more abundantly than the others (<em><a href='B:470 20:12'>Mat 20:12</a></em> Gk. = <em><a href='B:540 11:25'>2Co 11:25</a></em>).</p><p><em>Have spent</em>-</p><p> Clearly the harder workers believed that there was to be a direct connection between work and reward. And the purpose of the story is to debunk that idea.</p><p><em>Only one hour</em>-</p><p> The labourers had been brought into the vineyard at various times. It was the scandal of the 11th hour labourers which so stuck in the gut of the original workers. And those 11th hour workers, at least in chronological terms, are us- called in these very last days. We therefore can see ourselves as the recipients of maximum grace- for we are hardly the strongest or most functional of the generations of Christ's servants, more focused as we are on internal grievances than on the massive work of getting the amazing harvest in.</p><p><em>But you have made them</em>-</p><p> This is precisely the same word used earlier in the verse to speak of how the weaker workers had 'worked' or, literally, 'made' only one hour. By accident, almost, these complaining labourers had stumbled upon the salvation by grace and imputed righteousness which Paul spells out in Romans in so many words. The strangely gracious Lord of the harvest had 'worked them' as worthy of a day's pay; He had imputed to them the work of a whole day when they had only done a fraction of that. And still the workers didn’t get it. The story ends with them still in confusion. Some will be in the Kingdom who have big questions about the justice of God (<em><a href='B:470 20:12-13'>Mat 20:12-13</a></em> "friend"); the wise virgins, apparently selfishly, won't give any oil to the others; some will sit in the Kingdom in "shame" because they thought they were greater than other brethren (<em><a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a></em> - cp. the elder brother?); some remonstrate that a highly rewarded brother already has ten pounds, and surely doesn't need any more exaltation (<em><a href='B:490 19:25'>Luk 19:25</a></em>).</p><p><em>Equal to us-&nbsp;</em>It was on this basis that they were all made "equal" before the final judgment. The basis of their unity, therefore, should have been- and indeed&nbsp;<em>is</em>-</p><p> the fact that our salvation is by imputed righteousness. Peter surely learnt the lesson of all this when he spoke of how to the Gentiles had been&nbsp;<em>given</em>&nbsp;by God the 'like' s:w. "equal"&nbsp;<em>gift</em>&nbsp;which had been given to "us", the Jewish disciples (<em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>). In this sense the dimensions of the new Jerusalem are "equal" (<em><a href='B:730 21:16'>Rev 21:16</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Who have borne the burden of the day</em>-</p><p> The same words used for carrying the burden of the cross and of the sins and failures of others (<em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:17'>Joh 19:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:1'>Rom 15:1</a></em>). It can be no accident that here in Matthew 20 the Lord goes on to speak of His cross and the need to participate in that death through carrying the cross. Whenever we behold the cross, surely we are left with the deep impression that 'I would not have gone through with this'. But that is the burden we are to carry, and no amount of other works or attainment of standards can compensate for that. The disciples thought they could so easily carry that cross (<em><a href='B:470 20:22'>Mat 20:22</a></em> "we are able"), just as these workers were sure that they had borne the required burden and should be rewarded for it. But in the light of the cross and of the demand implicit within it to likewise suffer in the salvation of little ones, the hard workers had carried nothing:&nbsp; Their salvation too was to be on the basis of total grace:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the scorching heat</em>-</p><p> This is the language of the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:680 3:10'>2Pe 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:12'>2Pe 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:11'>Jas 1:11</a></em>). These hard workers had been through nothing- they had not been through the day of judgment, at which acceptance will be proportionate to our acceptance of other little ones.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:13'>Mat 20:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he answered and said to one of them</em>-</p><p> The personal nature of the judgment is emphasized, as we saw in :9,10 where it is twice stated that the payment was given to each individual.</p><p><em>Friend-&nbsp;</em>This term could imply that for all their blindness and unfounded sense of superiority over their brethren, these workers were still acceptable with the Lord. But the same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em> for the man who is condemned because he thinks his own clothing is good enough for the wedding, and will not take the garment of righteousness offered him; and it is also used by the Lord concerning Judas the betrayer (<em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>). These more negative associations of “friend” must be considered together with the possibility that “Go your way…” means effectively ‘You’re fired’. The idea that we are superior to our brethren because we achieved more than them is so obnoxious to the Lord that it may be the basis for the condemnation of such people. That is the undoubted implication and possibility. The structure of the parable leaves it somewhat unclear, because indeed the issue is unclear. The Lord may forgive the unforgiving, show grace to the ungracious- and save them. This would indeed be in line with His grace. But on the other hand, we are to understand that such arrogant and exclusive attitudes warrant condemnation before Him at the last day.</p><p>Note that before the Lord of the harvest,&nbsp;<em>having received&nbsp;</em>the 'penny' of salvation and Divine nature, those who thought they had worked hardest complained that those they thought had done less, were still getting a penny. They were rebuked, but they still had their penny (cp. salvation; <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>). The subsequent comment that the first shall be last might imply that they will be in the Kingdom, but in the least place. Robert Roberts wrote that he was certain that the only response of the saints once they are given Divine nature will be to break down in tears. And I agree with him. And the passion of Jesus may mean He does likewise. Being Divine doesn't mean you don't cry- in whatever way Divine beings cry. Which is why, in some ways, there are tears in Heaven as we pass through our vales of tears down here. Some will be in the Kingdom who have big questions about the justice of God even then (<em><a href='B:470 20:12-13'>Mat 20:12-13</a></em> "friend"); some will sit in the Kingdom in "shame" because they thought they were greater than other brethren (<em><a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a></em> - cp. the elder brother?)- i:e. self-imposed shame and embarrassment; some remonstrate that a highly rewarded brother already has ten pounds, and surely doesn't need any more exaltation (<em><a href='B:490 19:25'>Luk 19:25</a></em>). This all suggests that even after our acceptance at the judgment, we may be more 'human' (or whatever word I should use) than we may now imagine. More emotional, more seeking towards understanding, with a greater potential for eternal growth, than perhaps we have thought. Divine nature doesn't mean being passionless. Whichever hymn writer called the Kingdom "passionless renown" just, quite frankly, got it wrong or was trying too hard to rhyme his words. Because God&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;passionate; and we will share&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;nature.</p><p>There is even here the possible implication that some who will be accepted by the Lord who even at their acceptance at the judgment have wrong attitudes towards their brethren. Thus before the Lord of the harvest, those who thought they had worked hardest complained that those they thought had done less, were still getting a penny. They were rebuked, but they still had their penny (cp. salvation; <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>). The subsequent comment that the first shall be last might imply that they will be in the Kingdom,&nbsp;but in the least place. Likewise the brother who takes the highest place in the ecclesia will be made with shame to take the lower place (<em><a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a></em>). Or the bitter elder brother, angry at the Father's gracious enthusiasm for the worthless brother, is addressed by the Father (God) in language which is relevant to the Lord Jesus: "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine" (<em><a href='B:490 15:30'>Luk 15:30</a></em>). These sentiments are elsewhere expressed about the Lord Jesus. Is the implication that bitter elder brother is still in Christ and accepted in Him, even though his attitude to his brother is not what it should be? The least in the Kingdom will be those who break commandments&nbsp;<em>and teach men so&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:470 5:19'>Mat 5:19</a></em>); but the least in the Kingdom will be counted greater than John the Baptist was in this life (<em><a href='B:470 11:11'>Mat 11:11</a></em>). The simple message is that there will be some in the Kingdom who simply weren't very obedient in this their day of probation. Admittedly, these details are capable of other interpretations. But bear these points in&nbsp;mind, especially if you ever struggle with the apparent harshness of some Christians you may meet.</p><p><em>I do you no wrong</em>-</p><p> The grace shown by one to another can be perceived by a third party as a personal attack upon that third party. But that is just an illusion, a game of the mind- and yet it explains why there is so much anger with the Lord because of His grace to others. The hard workers felt the Lord was personally doing them wrong- when instead He was giving them exactly what He had promised and what they had hoped for.</p><p><em>Did you not agree with me for a denarius?</em>-</p><p> The question arises as to what exactly the Lord was supposed to give these men beyond a penny. Likewise, the Lord can give us no more than salvation, the penny. The fact He may give it to those we consider far beneath our level, doesn’t mean that somehow He must give us more than salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:14'>Mat 20:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Take</em>-</p><p> This is a slightly strange way of talking about a penny which the Lord had given to the worker. It might imply that the worker had thrown it down on the ground in protest. Or the sense of ‘take away’ which is in the Greek may suggest ‘Take it and go away from Me’, lending weight to the possibility that the subsequent “Go your way” is effectively a firing of the man from the Master’s service- a hint that the penalty for superior thinking concerning little ones is in fact rejection by the Lord.</p><p><em>That which is yours</em>-</p><p> Salvation will be intensely personal, it will be as it were ‘our very own’. Having been faithful in what the Lord entrusted to us in this life, we will receive at the day of judgment “that which is your very own” (<em><a href='B:490 16:12'>Luk 16:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>And go your way-&nbsp;</em>This could be interpreted as meaning ‘You’re fired’. Harry Whittaker was a great fan of this view in his&nbsp;<em>Studies in the Gospels:&nbsp;</em>Perhaps the hard working labourers were sent packing by the Lord because of their complaint at the others getting the same payment for what they considered to be inferior work to theirs. If the parable is meant to be read in this way, then it seems so sad that those hard working men (cp. brethren) were&nbsp;<em>almost</em>&nbsp;saved, but for their attitude to their brethren.</p><p><em>It is my wish to give to this last even as I gave to you</em>-</p><p> Here and in :15,&nbsp;<em>thelo</em>, “I will”, doesn’t mean ‘I want’ but rather to choose, to be disposed to. The idea connects with the conclusion in :16, that the saved are those who are “chosen”. These ideas of a sovereign undeserved gift, the will of God, Divine choice and election&nbsp;<em>elektos&nbsp;</em>is the word used for “chosen” in :16 are all found again in Romans, where Paul makes the same point more pointedly and directly: Salvation cannot be by works, but by grace. And the element of election and predestination within the final algorithm of human salvation is proof enough that works are not and cannot be of paramount importance.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own money? Or is-&nbsp;</em>This is another connection with the earlier part of the chiasmus which began in chapter 18. In this case, to the question of <em><a href='B:470 19:3'>Mat 19:3</a></em> as to whether it is “lawful” s:w. to divorce a wife for any reason. The Lord’s answer had lifted the question to higher levels, by arguing that the spirit of the law was to forgive marital failure without limit. He is expanding upon that thought here, by teaching that the spirit of ‘law’ is to accept the weak believer, the little one, the sinner, with no regard to their works but rather upon the basis of their having entered and ‘agreed’ to the covenant of grace. He imputes righteousness to His weak workers, so that payment for a day’s work becomes that which is “right” for those who have only worked one hour.</p><p><em>Your eye evil, because I am good</em>-</p><p> A figure for mean spiritedness (<em><a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 23:6'>Pro 23:6</a></em>). They should have been generous spirited, and the connection is clearly to the colossal debtor in the parable at the end of chapter 19, who should've been generous to his indebted brother. God's grace to us, the honour of having served Him so long, should mean that we are happy at the inclusion of those who appear far less than us, which is the context of this entire section of material which began in chapter 18. And the Lord’s words here are so tragically and frequently true to observation in spiritual life. The grace shown by some towards others who are clearly morally or doctrinally weaker provokes untold anger towards those who are showing the grace. This explains why otherwise nice natured believers can shake in rage, use expletives and behave with unnatural anger towards those whom they perceive as opening the circle, weakening the boundaries behind which they have hidden, by welcoming in the children, the little ones who are apparently so far beneath other believers in faith and behaviour. Their eye clouds over as evil as they behold the grace of others. There are Biblical examples of this, but the hatred towards the Lord Jesus Himself, hatred unto the death of the cross, is proof enough. And the same path was followed by men of grace such as Paul and Peter.</p><p>"Is your eye evil, because I am good" was quarried from <em><a href='B:390 4:2-4'>Jon 4:2-4</a></em>, where Jonah is also asked a similar question after his bitterness that God had allowed Nineveh to repent. We must be aware that such self-righteousness and uncomfortableness at the repentance of others is a feature of our very essential nature. The Lord Jesus overcame this aspect of His nature superbly:&nbsp;</p><p>The pureness of the grace of the Lord Jesus is hard to plumb. He knew that the extent of His grace would cause others to stumble. The element of unreality in the parable of the labourers shows this. He hired the labourers no-one else wanted, the old and weak workers, some of them only for an hour, and still gave them a day's pay. They must have walked away from the pay table with their heads spinning, scarcely daring to believe what they held in their hands- a matchless picture of the response of the faithful after learning of their acceptance at the day of judgment. But the outlook of those who&nbsp;felt their salvation (the penny) was less by grace than the others became bitter: "Is your eye evil, because I am good?". In saying this, the Lord was referring back to <em><a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a></em>, which warned Israel not to have an evil eye towards their poverty stricken brother (cp. the unwanted labourer) who asked for a loan near the time of the year of release, when all debts were cancelled. In the year of release, Israel were "to remit every private debt... and not<em>&nbsp;demand</em>&nbsp;it of thy brother" (<em><a href='B:50 15:2'>Deu 15:2</a></em> LXX). This is behind <em><a href='B:470 18:28'>Mat 18:28</a></em>, where Christ speaks of the man who demands repayment from his brother. The Lord is implying: You should live in the spirit of the year of release all the time, giving without expecting. <em><a href='B:490 6:35'>Luk 6:35</a></em> has the year of release in mind, in the idea of lending without expecting anything back. This only happened in the year of release. "Is thine eye evil, because I am good" is therefore saying that the Lord's grace towards the poverty-stricken labourer had provoked an "evil eye" in the others, they somehow felt that they were having to give to him, that they were standing to lose by his acceptance. Yet, as the Lord implies, this is a nonsense attitude. Of course we don't stand to lose anything by another's acceptance And it's possible to reason that it was those 11th hour labourers&nbsp;represent the accepted, whilst the complainers are rejected ("Go thy way" has been read by some as meaning they were fired whilst the others were taken on permanently). But with what superb accuracy does He get right inside the future mentality of many in His ecclesia How very true this parable has been time and again in the history of our community. Discussion of and practice of the idea of grace has provoked untold bitterness amongst those who live less by grace. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So the last shall be first and the first last</em>-</p><p> The entire section beginning in chapter 18 has taught that those who refuse to forgive and accept the spiritually weak- will in fact be condemned. And yet the section also speaks of the possibility that they will be saved, just as the rich are told to sell what they have and give to the poor, if they “will be perfect”- otherwise they will be condemned. But the Lord says that salvation even in that case is “possible” with God, by grace. Therefore the section concludes on the same note- on one hand hinting at the condemnation of the hardest workers because of their despising of their weaker brethren, whilst on another hand suggesting that they shall be in the Kingdom, although “last” in the Kingdom, due to their superior attitudes.</p><p><em>For many are called but few chosen</em>-</p><p> AV. This is the conclusion to the large chiasmus of material which began at <em><a href='B:470 18:1'>Mat 18:1</a></em> (see on <em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em>). The conclusion is that salvation is partly on the basis of predestination- some are simply chosen, others aren't. The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. Paul speaks of choosing and predestination in the context of seeking to persuade believers that salvation is by the gift of grace and not according to works- and he could well have been prompted to that thinking by the Lord's usage of 'choosing' here. God uses language in a relative sense in order to emphasize something. Thus we read of many being saved (<em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>), yet in another sense few will be saved (<em><a href='B:470 7:14'>Mat 7:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:23'>Luk 13:23</a></em>). Relative to the wonder of salvation, many will be saved; but numerically, the figure will be small, from the perspective of this world. See on <em><a href='B:470 11:30'>Mat 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:19'>Mat 25:19</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:17'>Mat 20:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And as Jesus was going up</em>-</p><p> This could refer to the uphill journey, but ‘going up’ was a technical term used for going up to Jerusalem, particularly to keep a feast- Passover, in this case. Mark adds: “And Jesus went before them, and they were amazed; and as they followed they were sore afraid”:&nbsp;</p><p><em>To Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> From Jericho, <em><a href='B:470 19:15'>Mat 19:15</a></em>. Hence they went “up”, uphill to Jerusalem. These small details all support the position that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses and were not created many years later by people who were not present. They were going the opposite direction of man in the parable of the Good Samaritan, who went&nbsp;<em>down</em>&nbsp;from Jerusalem to Jericho. We may be able to infer that the Lord intended us to read that man as one who was not going in the way of the cross, who was going away from Jerusalem rather than towards it- and who was still saved by the grace of the Samaritan / Jesus:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He took the twelve disciples aside</em>-</p><p> The implication is that there were others travelling with them, and the Lord wished to explain the reality of the cross to the disciples alone.</p><p><em>And on the way he said to them</em>-</p><p> It could be inferred that “the way” is the way to Jerusalem and the cross; the disciples were following Jesus in that “way” without appreciating what it really involved and where it ultimately led, and that can be true for us too.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:18'>Mat 20:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Listen, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be</em>-</p><p> This was stating the obvious, but He wanted them to perceive their part in the journey to the cross which He was making; for His path to death and resurrection was to be theirs, as it is ours too.</p><p><em>Delivered to the chief priests and scribes; and they shall</em>-</p><p> The Greek means literally ‘to hand over’; the idea of betrayal was maybe implicit, but not as explicit as in the English word ‘betrayed’. It’s the same Greek word as in :19, translated “deliver”. The word is very common on the lips of the Lord, as if He saw the moment of ‘handing over’ as the quintessence of all His sufferings- the hand over from God’s Providential protection to the powers of darkness.</p>&nbsp;</p><p><p><em>Condemn Him to death</em>-</p><p> Exactly fulfilled, using the same Greek words, in <em><a href='B:480 14:64'>Mar 14:64</a></em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:19'>Mat 20:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify; and the third day he shall be raised up-&nbsp;</em>The Lord's predictions of His sufferings are detailed. The question arises as to whether this knowledge was beamed into Him by Divine revelation, or whether He worked it all out from Old Testament anticipations and prophecies of Messiah's sufferings. All the details could indeed have been understood from the Old Testament.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:20'>Mat 20:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then…</em>-</p><p> So often, the Lord’s predictions of the cross are responded to in most unspiritual ways, as if the message really failed to penetrate. As with us today, people turned off at the message of the Lord’s death. Whenever this happens, we must enquire as to&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;we turn off; for it surely has a psychological basis. Why does out attention wander so easily when reading or hearing discussed the crucifixion passages? The psychological, subconscious reason may well be that we realize that whatever is true for the Lord is to be true for us; His death there is the pattern for our death to self today. And we would far rather not be reminded of that.</p><p><em>The mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, kneeling before him and asking a certain thing of him</em>-</p><p> The mother of James and John. We can identify her with Salome, who was likely the mother of Mary the Lord's mother (see <em><a href='B:500 19:25'>Joh 19:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:56'>Mat 27:56</a></em>). They were His cousins, and in the culture of nepotism in which they lived, it would be normal for them to have some honourable place in the future Government of their relative. But the Lord's answer was that such fleshly connections were irrelevant; there was no short cut around drinking His cup and suffering with Him. So often, having predicted His cross, the disciples become obsessed with petty issues; just as we can, right before His cross.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:21'>Mat 20:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he said to her: What do you desire?-&nbsp;</em>These are the very words the Lord goes on to use to the blind men in :32 as He left Jericho, and to the blind man He met as He approached Jericho (<em><a href='B:490 18:41'>Luk 18:41</a></em>). The similarity in the stories of the blind men He spoke to is surely for the same reason as His repetition of "What do you want?" both to them and to Salome and again to her sons. It's all to build up the impression that He is asking people to focus upon what their dominant desire really Is. And such an approach is not unknown in depth psychology today. The Lord uses the same word for "want" in asking the crippled man if he 'wanted' to be made whole (<em><a href='B:500 5:6'>Joh 5:6</a></em>). Of course he did, and the Lord knew it. So His question was to elicit in the man a sense of what his dominant desire really was. The Lord raised him up, and went on to comment that as the Father raises up people, so His Son enlivens whom&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;wants s:w:- <em><a href='B:500 5:21'>Joh 5:21</a></em>. The 'want' of the man and the 'want' of God's Son coincided, just as can happen for us all- if our dominant desires are his. Therefore later in <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em> the Lord almost comments on the incident with Salome by saying that if His words abide in us, then we shall ask what we wish s:w. "want" and it shall be done s:w. 'do'. There was no blank cheque promise, as Salome and her sons had wrongly implied. It was often His style to focus people on what they were asking for, encouraging them to verbalize and thus define their deepest desires. This is why He made as if He would go further on the way to Emmaus, why He appeared to be sleeping during the storm, and in another storm appeared to intend to walk past the disciples (<em><a href='B:480 6:48'>Mar 6:48</a></em>). All this was to elicit from His people an awareness of their need for Him. He works the same today, through providential circumstance in our lives, to make us ask ourselves what we really and essentially want. He has just spoken in detail of His sufferings, and so His question was rhetorical. 'If I am going to do all that for you- what else could you ask for?'. The wonder of salvation for us as sinners is such that we should see all our other requests in that context:&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:480 10:37'>Mar 10:37</a></em> makes it clear that the brothers themselves went on to request this, having tried to manipulate the Lord through the use of a female. Here is a classic example of where reading the entire Bible gives us a wider and fuller perspective. But a caveat needs to be sounded about such intertextuality, as it is called- the practice of interpreting a text in the light of other Bible texts. Of course, to get the wider and truer picture, this is a quite necessary and legitimate way of studying the Bible. But remember that the vast majority of believers over history have been illiterate. They heard the Gospels read to them. The text as it stands spoke to them- there are no Divinely inspired footnotes which signpost us to one of the parallel Gospels for the fuller picture. The easy use of computer-assisted analysis of the Biblical text is unique to our age, but one downside of this is that it can too easily be assumed that such endless chasing of connections with other Scripture is in fact how the text was originally designed to be read. It clearly was not. The fact the text of the entire Bible stands up to such analysis and indeed glows with glory under it- doesn't mean that this is the only nor even the intended way to receive the text. The ability to perform such detailed intertextuality just wasn't there for the illiterate; they heard the text of the Gospels as it was read, and there was a message within the text as it stands which they were intended to perceive.</p><p><em>She said to him: Command</em>-</p><p> Literally, 'say'. The same word is used in describing the Lord's response; He "answered&nbsp;<em>and said</em>&nbsp;s:w." (:22). What He gave or said was not directly what she wanted, but rather an invitation to die with Him, and to share in whatever consequences arise from that.</p><p><em>That in your kingdom-&nbsp;</em>Mk. 'In your glory'. This confirms that she had <em><a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a></em> in mind, where the Lord had promised a sitting on thrones when He sat "in the throne of His glory". The mother of James and John wanted them to have great reward in the Kingdom. The Lord’s basic answer was: ‘Take up my cross, follow my example, focused as it is on getting&nbsp;others&nbsp;to the Kingdom’ (<em><a href='B:470 20:21'>Mat 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:27-28'>Mat 20:27-28</a></em>). They were to be to others examples of selflessness. In the parable of the labourers, the hard, all day workers came expecting their pay; they were sent away, it could be, in rejection. But those whom the parable appears to commend worked having made no agreement nor mention of the reward they would receive. Thus when James and John clamoured for a reward in the Kingdom, they were told instead to go away and serve; this was what it was all about, being the minister of others, serving for nothing- not badgering the Lord for a reward in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 20:20-26'>Mat 20:20-26</a></em>).</p><p><em>These my two sons may sit, one on your right hand, and one on your left hand</em>-</p><p> She surely had in mind the Lord's recent assurance that the twelve would sit upon twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel (<em><a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a></em>). But even that wasn't enough. She wanted even more. The record leaves us gasping at her: 'What? Even that promise, and the prediction of the Lord's death for you- still not enough for you??'. This is intended to put all our requests and dominant desires in a different context. If we have been promised the Kingdom and the Lord has died for us- then what other dominant desires should we have? Surely none. For those things should be the dominant issues within us.</p><p>Mark records the brothers asking: "Master, we would that You should do for us whatsoever we shall desire"- presumably trying to tie the Lord to His words in <em><a href='B:470 18:19'>Mat 18:19</a></em> about the successful prayer of “two… who should agree as touching anything they should ask”. But of course the Lord’s context there was quite different. It was about restoring the lost to the way to the Kingdom. So often we likewise can seize hold of the Lord’s words and try to twist them to as it were manipulate God into response. This sort of thing goes on&nbsp;<em>ad nauseam</em>&nbsp;in many Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, taking Bible phrases out of context and aggressively holding God to words He never uttered in the context required of them by the audience. &nbsp;They had the focus all wrong- they wanted to be in the Kingdom "for us". Our motive for wanting to be in the Kingdom needs to be analysed. Is it for God manifestation, or mere human salvation from death that we are interested in to paraphrase a well known quote from John Thomas?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:22'>Mat 20:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Jesus answered and said: You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink</em>-</p><p> The statement that men 'know not' is usually and extensively on the Lord's lips in a negative sense. We can therefore read Him here as deeply disappointed in her. Note how the Lord uses the plural 'you'; He clearly saw that the question was being asked by the sons through their mother, and the parallel records show Him asking them directly what&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;really wanted. "We know not what we should pray for as we ought" (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>) seems to be some kind of allusion back to the mother of Zebedee's children asking Christ to get her two sons the best places in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 20:22'>Mat 20:22</a></em>). He basically replied 'You know not what you pray for', in the sense of 'you don't appreciate'. It may be that Paul in Romans 8 is saying that in our desire for the Kingdom, in our groaning for it, we don't appreciate what we ask for as we ought, yet Christ nonetheless makes powerful intercession for us to this end.</p><p><em>The cup that I am about to drink?-&nbsp;</em>The Lord's death was therefore His cup, and also His 'baptism'. He asks us to be baptized with His baptism and to regularly drink His cup in the memorial meeting. These things are easily performed, and yet they are an agreement to die His death. We too can far too easily say "I am able...", when like the disciples, we fail to perceive the horror of the cross and what is being asked of us. We therefore participate in these symbols, these metaphors, with bowed head, deeply aware of our likely failure to carry the cross to the end, but grateful for our participation in&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;cup and baptism, the One who did in fact die the death of the cross.</p><p><em>And to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?</em>-</p><p> AV. Note the present tense compared to the future tense of "the cup that I shall drink of". And yet in <em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em> He speaks of the baptism that He must still be baptized with in crucifixion. His death on the cross was in essence lived and died by Him throughout His life. This is why the prophecy of His death in Isaiah 53 is also quoted about experiences during His life. And there is an ongoing element to baptism, just as Israel were baptized "in the cloud and in the sea" as they passed through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>), and yet lived beneath the cloud throughout their wilderness journey- as if their baptism was ongoing. We likewise die and resurrect with Christ in an ongoing sense as we die to the flesh and progressively experience His new life breaking through into our mortal experience (<em><a href='B:540 4:11'>2Co 4:11</a></em>). Note too how Paul speaks of baptism in the present tense in <em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em> - we&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;buried with Him by baptism, although Paul has just said in <em><a href='B:520 6:3'>Rom 6:3</a></em> that we&nbsp;<em>were</em>&nbsp;baptized as a one-time past even. If Paul were simply referencing the point of their baptism in <em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em>, he would have said 'We&nbsp;<em>were</em>&nbsp;buried with Him'. The sense of <em><a href='B:580 2:12'>Col 2:12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em> may be similar- "By one Spirit we are all present tense baptized into one body". The whole language of baptism by the Spirit surely suggests a process rather than a one time event of immersion in water.</p><p>The Lord spoke with arresting continuous tenses of how ‘The good shepherd&nbsp;<em>is laying&nbsp;</em>down his life for the sheep... I&nbsp;<em>am laying down&nbsp;</em>my life of myself’ (<em><a href='B:500 10:11'>Joh 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>). He&nbsp;<em>would be</em>&nbsp;delivered up, but in principle He went through it in His daily life beforehand. He speaks of “the cup that I&nbsp;<em>shall</em>&nbsp;drink of, and:. . the baptism that&nbsp;<em>I am</em>&nbsp;baptized with" (<em><a href='B:470 20:22'>Mat 20:22</a></em>). This sheds light on four occasions in John’s gospel when the Lord appears to use tenses in a confusing way. He speaks of how He&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;go to die on the cross, but that in a sense “I am" there already.</p><p><em>They said to him: We are able-&nbsp;</em>The Lord surely remembered their childlike over confidence when He Himself prayed for that cup to be "able" (AV "may" s:w:) to pass from Him so that He didn't have to drink it (<em><a href='B:470 26:42'>Mat 26:42</a></em>). Yet the Lord is so generous spirited to them. He says that they will indeed be "able" to drink His cup (:23)- but the places of honour in the Kingdom were solely for the Father to give. He alludes to this in telling Peter that he was not "able" (s:w:) to follow Him to death on the cross at that time, "but you shall follow Me afterwards" (<em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em>). We would likely have told them to take more seriously the Lord's predictions of His death by crucifixion which He had just uttered, and be more realistic about their own failure to suffer and die like that. But He is so more positive and gracious.</p><p>The Lord Jesus Christ's sensitivity to our thinking that we really have borne His cross comes out here. Those men, with all their unspirituality, could quite coolly state that they wanted the highest place in the Kingdom, and could say with confidence that they could shoulder the cross of Christ. The Lord's reply was gracious and generous spirited indeed: "Ye shall indeed drink of my cup" - 'when you're a lot more spiritually mature', He could have added. We&nbsp;<em>sense</em>&nbsp;rather than are explicitly told His sensitivity to men thinking they can shoulder His cross; for He alone knows what the cross of Christ entailed and entails. And in speaking of our own sufferings, we too need to learn these lessons, and compare our sufferings against Christ's with the utmost caution, with the sensitivity to&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;feelings, recognizing that we must act as men and women who have been&nbsp;<em>counted as if</em>&nbsp;we shared His death, and not as those who have actually "resisted unto blood (in our) striving against sin". To confidently identify some of our brethren as tares is only one example of the way in which we can hurt our Lord's feelings, by acting and thinking in ways which are only appropriate for He who did actually carry the cross.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He said to them: You shall drink</em>-</p><p> Seeing even the Lord baulked at drinking that cup in Gethsemane, this is an incredibly positive comment to make. But none of us, including the twelve, die the death of the cross as Jesus did. He may have seen this as true insofar as by baptism into His death, His personal death and resurrection are counted to us, as if we have participated in it. As we reconstruct in our own minds His death, every fibre in our being cries out: 'I would not have endured that'. The wonder is that by baptism into Him, His death, that death, even the death of the cross, is counted to us. And with that we should be content, rather than seeking for grandeur in the resurrection age as the disciples were doing. When it came to actually giving the twelve His cup to drink, the Lord invited them: "You- drink all of it" (<em><a href='B:470 26:27'>Mat 26:27</a></em>). The force of&nbsp;<em>pas&nbsp;</em>there appears to refer to all of the cup, the whole cup- rather than inviting all of the disciples to drink, because it was surely axiomatic that they were to all drink it. The Lord was saying that He counted them as having fully drunk His cup- a cup which He Himself flinched to take. This is the degree to which we are in Him and counted as participating in His death by reason of our status "in Him". Another possibility is that the Lord spoke these words specifically to the twelve and envisaged that each of them would die through crucifixion- although whether they did is not historically confirmable.</p><p><em>My cup indeed</em>-</p><p> John's equivalent of this is the Lord's word that unless we drink His blood and eat His flesh, we can have no salvation (<em><a href='B:500 6:53'>Joh 6:53</a></em>). This therefore has reference to our participation in His death, and our symbolic acceptance of this in the breaking of bread. To drink the Lord's cup is parallel with partaking at the Lord's memorial table in <em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>. The breaking of bread means many things, and each time we do it we may likely focus on different aspects. But it is not easy for us, or it should not be easy for us. To drink that cup can never be done in a blasé spirit of 'Yes, we are able'. Rather with humbled hearts do we accept that our being counted as having participated in it is by grace alone. Peter was amongst those who thought he was able to drink the Lord's cup, and yet the Lord had to rebuke Peter for seeking to deter Him from drinking it- "Put up your sword... the cup which My Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?" (<em><a href='B:500 18:11'>Joh 18:11</a></em>). Peter's desire for the Lord not to drink it was psychologically rooted in his recognition that the Lord's cup was to be his cup.</p><p><em>But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand-&nbsp;</em>When the disciples foolishly sought to have what they thought were to be the favoured places at His right hand and His left, the Lord could have answered: ‘You foolish people Those on my left hand will be condemned’. But He graciously didn’t comment on their glaring error. He pushed a higher principle- that we should not seek for personal greatness, seeing that God is the judge of all (<em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>). Yet sadly, so much of our preaching has been solely concerned with pointing out the errors of others without being sensitive to what little faith and understanding they&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;have, and seeking to build on it.</p><p><em>Is not Mine to give</em>-</p><p> A profound rebuttal of the primitive and mistaken equation of Jesus with God which is found in Trinitarian theology.</p><p><em>But it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father</em>-</p><p> A specific future is being prepared for each of us in God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:9'>1Co 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em> "He has prepared for them a city"), a unique place prepared in the Kingdom for us by the Lord's death (<em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em>) and yet&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>are likewise being "prepared" (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 1:17'>Luk 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:47'>Luk 12:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:21'>2Ti 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:7'>Rev 19:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em> "His wife has&nbsp;<em>prepared</em>&nbsp;herself"). God is preparing a unique destiny and role for each of us in His Kingdom, but that preparation work is in terms of how we are being prepared in this life. Therefore all our present experiences are specifically intended to prepare us for the kind of person and role we shall eternally have. In this lies the ultimate significance and meaning to human experience if we are indeed Kingdom people. A huge amount of intense preparation is being packed into a very short space of time in this life. The lack of meaning and significance attached to even is what causes the depression which dogs each secular person, especially as they grow older. The Lord's point was that He was going to the cross to prepare places for them all in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em> s:w:). He had just predicted His death. This was where their focus was to be, rather than seeking something for themselves.</p><p>It’s often been commented that God is beyond or even outside of our kind of time. God pre this present creation may have been like that, and He of course has the capacity and possibility to be like that. But it seems to me that particularly in connection with those with whom He is in relationship, He chooses to not exercise that possibility. Instead, God Almighty throws Himself into our experience, by limiting Himself to our kind of time- with all the suspense, hope, excitement, joy, disappointment which this involves. Time and again we read of how God says He is “shaping evil against you and devising a plan” against His enemies (<em><a href='B:300 18:11'>Jer 18:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 26:3'>Jer 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 49:20'>Jer 49:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 49:30'>Jer 49:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 50:45'>Jer 50:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 2:3'>Mic 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 4:12'>Mic 4:12</a></em>). For the faithful, He says that He is making plans for them for good and not for evil, “to give you a future” (<em><a href='B:300 29:11'>Jer 29:11</a></em>). The Lord Jesus had this sort of thing in mind when He spoke of how the Kingdom will have been being&nbsp;<em>prepared&nbsp;</em>for the faithful from the beginning of the world (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>).</p><p>John the Baptist was to “prepare” the way for the Lord’s coming- evidently a process- in reflection of how God had been working a long time to “prepare” same Greek word the way for His Son’s coming (<em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:31'>Luk 2:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>). We likewise, in our preaching work in these last days, are working in tandem and in step with God. The idea of God 'preparing' implies that there is therefore a gap between the plan being made, and it being executed- hence “The Lord has both planned and done what He spoke concerning the inhabitants of Babylon” (<em><a href='B:300 51:12'>Jer 51:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:28'>Jer 4:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:17'>Lam 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 22:11'>Isa 22:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 37:26'>Isa 37:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 1:6'>Zec 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 8:14'>Zec 8:14</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:24'>Mat 20:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation concerning the two brothers</em>-</p><p> This suggests that the favour asked was asked secretly. The Lord sensed or overheard their anger, and called the group to Him (:25). The ebb and flow of the disciples to and from Jesus is noted especially in Matthew, probably another indication of their own weakness which formed such a major part of their witness. For the ideal was to abide in Him, to constantly follow Him, and not come to Him and then go from Him in squabbles and jealousies amongst ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:25'>Mat 20:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Jesus called them to himself, and said: You know</em>-</p><p> This is in response to the anger of the ten against the self-seeking manipulation of the two. He now taught them the spirit of absolute servanthood as an answer to feeling resentful against the unspirituality of our brethren. Even if they are indeed so terribly wrong and simply 'don't get it', as the two brethren clearly didn't, our response should not be anger but rather servanthood towards them. This is all to be found in the implication of the word "But...".</p><p><em>That the rulers of the Gentiles</em>-</p><p> The&nbsp;<em>archon</em>, literally, 'the first'. The Lord had just taught in the parable of the labourers that a principle of His Kingdom was that the first were to be last.</p><p><em>Lord it over them-&nbsp;</em>Gk:&nbsp;<em>katakurieuo</em>. Literally, to be&nbsp;<em>kurios</em>&nbsp;over, to be as Lord over. His idea was that if He is our&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;Lord, then there can be no lording it over others even when they are clearly unspiritual as the two brethren were at this time. This is where our belief in the Lordship of Jesus really cuts deep. For we naturally would like to think that we are superior to those who 'don't get it' about the spirit of Christ. But we are to see Him as total Lord, and ourselves as servants. Our natural anger and indignation at others' weakness is to be replaced by servanthood. And yet the body of Christ is littered with the wreckage of believers angry with others who refused to serve them but rather stormed out from them or rejected them- rather than staying to serve them, realizing that they are under the Lordship.</p><p>The style of leadership / control known in this world isn’t to be exercised by the elders of God’s flock (<em><a href='B:470 20:25-26'>Mat 20:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 5:3'>1Pe 5:3</a></em>); ecclesial organization shouldn’t reflect the structures and practices of big commercial organisations, e.g. Leadership is to be based upon spiritual attributes and the ability to change and convert the lives of others, rather than secular skills such as fund raising, computer literacy, management etc. Yet sadly many ecclesias and Christian organisations seem to confuse the difference between management skills and spiritual leadership. The two things aren’t the same. An executive director of a company may very well not be the right brother to lead an ecclesia. The Greek language is full or words containing the compounds&nbsp;<em>kata-</em></p><p>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>arch</em>-</p><p>, implying power over others, as part of a hierarchy. The leaders of the Roman world used these terms (<em><a href='B:470 20:25'>Mat 20:25</a></em>), as did the synagogue leadership. But never does scripture use these kind of words about those who are ‘elders’ in the true ecclesia. It’s a pointed omission. On the other hand, there are many&nbsp;<em>sun-</em></p><p>&nbsp;prefixes: fellow-worker, fellow-citizen, fellow-soldier, fellow-heir etc. The New Testament emphasis is certainly on what we have in common rather on the fact that in practice some are more capable of organising, or deserve especial respect for their evident spirituality and “for their work’s sake”. And the teaching of the Lord Himself was more concerned with how to follow Him than how to lead others. Likewise, there were many contemporary Greek words used to describe religious gatherings, e.g.&nbsp;<em>heorte, synodos, koinos</em>. But instead the word&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;is used, meaning a gathering together of town citizens with equal rights to discuss a matter. This is how the word was understood at that time.</p><p><em>And their great ones-&nbsp;</em>The&nbsp;<em>megas</em>, the mighty, the strong, the superior. The context is the sense of spiritual superiority felt by the ten against the spiritual weakness of the two brethren and their mother:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Exercise authority over them</em>-</p><p> They have&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>, power, control, over their inferiors. It is the Lord Jesus who is&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;Lord, and who has this&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&nbsp;uniquely over His followers and indeed the whole world (<em><a href='B:470 7:29'>Mat 7:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:24'>Mat 21:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em> etc:). For us to be indignant and superior against the unspirituality of our brethren is thus to usurp the unique role of the Lord Jesus. Quite rightly should we refer to Him as "the Lord", for this is who He must be in daily life and thought. The failure of others does give us in a human sense this&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>, this control, power and superiority- but the Lord goes on to say that it must&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;be so amongst us (:26), we are to resign this for servanthood. The Lord repeated His teaching here almost verbatim in <em><a href='B:490 22:25'>Luk 22:25</a></em> - and He states it there immediately after predicting that one of the twelve would betray Him. He did so because He did not want them to be angry and superior over even Judas- He wanted them to instead resign those feelings for servanthood.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:26'>Mat 20:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you</em>-</p><p> This is in the singular- for "let&nbsp;<em>him</em>&nbsp;be your minister". The Lord may not be intending 'If any of you wants to be the greatest, then be the servant'. He may instead be developing the theme of His absolute and unequalled Lordship by saying that&nbsp;<em>the one</em>&nbsp;who shall be great shall be the minister- and He had solely Himself in view. He knew that He was to be the greatest in the Kingdom, the one with ultimate and total&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&nbsp;(see on :25). And the path to that was through servanthood, and He invited His men to likewise participate in that servanthood:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Must be your servant</em>-</p><p> The idea may be an appeal for the disciples to allow the Lord to be their minister. This appeal had to be repeated at the last supper, when He wished to wash their feet, to be the ultimate servant, and Peter didn't want to "let Him" be his minister. So instead of thinking about what they could personally get out of the Kingdom as the two brethren, or being spiritually superior over their weaker brethren the ten, they were to instead accept the Lordship of Jesus and His ministration to them. And the form in which He was supremely a servant was in His death on the cross. And yet as so often, the Lord is speaking to Himself on one level, as well as to the disciples on another level. He is the one who to be great had to make Himself a minister of all, and yet He invites all those in Him to pass through the same process. For all that is true of Him is to be true of us. Hence He goes on to say that "Even as" He ministered, so should they (:28).</p><p>One of the commonest allusions to priesthood in the NT is the idea of ministry. Time and again, the Old Testament speaks of the priests&nbsp;<em>ministering</em>&nbsp;in the priest's office. The priests are specifically called God's ministers (<em><a href='B:290 61:6'>Isa 61:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 33:21'>Jer 33:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 45:4'>Eze 45:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 1:9'>Joe 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 1:13'>Joe 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:17'>Joe 2:17</a></em>):&nbsp; The early Christians would have heard and read many of the New Testament references to ministers and ministry as invitations to see themselves as a new priesthood. The Lord said that we should aim to be a minister, a priests, to every one of our brethren, not expecting them to minister to us, but concentrating on ministering to them (<em><a href='B:470 20:26'>Mat 20:26</a></em>). This is exactly against the grain of our nature, and also of the concept of religion we find in the world. People&nbsp;<em>expect</em>&nbsp;to have others spiritually ministering to them. They expect a priest-figure to do all their thinking for them. But our Lord said that we are each other's priests, we're not here to be ministered&nbsp;('priest-ed') to, but to minister, and give our lives in service to each other.</p><p>When James and John asked to have the senior positions, the Lord didn’t rebuke them; he just told them that the greatest would desire to be a servant (Gk:&nbsp;<em>diakonos</em>) of all (<em><a href='B:470 20:20-28'>Mat 20:20-28</a></em>). The utter degradation of the cross, and the Lord’s willing humbling of Himself to accept it, is a pattern for all who would take up His cross. The “servant of all” would make no distinctions concerning whom or how he would serve; such servanthood was a complete and unqualified act of surrender. And this is taken by the Lord as a cameo of His mindset on Calvary. In conscious allusion to this, Paul could speak of how he had become a slave of all men, that he might help some to Christ (<em><a href='B:530 9:19'>1Co 9:19</a></em>). He was a slave of the Gospel, a slave of the kind who was lower than the least of all others, i:e. a slave of all (<em><a href='B:560 3:7'>Eph 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:9'>Eph 3:9</a></em>). He didn’t preach himself, but rather preached that he was a servant to all his brethren, for the sake of the fact that he was in Christ, the servant of all (<em><a href='B:540 4:5'>2Co 4:5</a></em>). Thus he almost advertised his servant status; he preached himself as a slave. Paul wished to be perceived by his brethren and the whole world as merely a slave of Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 4:1'>1Co 4:1</a></em>). In our talking to each other, or in our writing, it does us good to analyse how many personal pronouns we use; how much we are preaching ourselves rather than Jesus Christ. Any who may appear to be leaders or organisers are serving&nbsp;<em>Him</em>, who debased Himself to that depth. There can be no room&nbsp;<em>at all</em>&nbsp;for any sense of superiority amongst us. We are servants&nbsp;<em>of all</em>, not just of those individual brothers or ecclesias whom we happen to get on well with.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:27'>Mat 20:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And whoever would be first among you</em>-</p><p> The&nbsp;<em>protos</em>&nbsp;(chief) amongst the disciples was clearly the Lord Himself. So again, the Lord may not necessarily be inviting His followers to seek greatness in the future Kingdom, but rather inviting them to focus upon His Lordship and achievement through His upcoming death. Instead He may have Himself in view- the One who is to be chief is to be the servant of the disciples, which the Lord did through His death on the cross. And it is His death there which is the context for this whole teaching, seeing He has just given a detailed prediction of it. However, the Lord's teachings often have reference to both Himself and to the disciples, and we have noted a number of times where He seems to have specific reference to Peter. For Peter was the&nbsp;<em>protos</em>, the chief disciple, according to <em><a href='B:470 10:2'>Mat 10:2</a></em> s:w:. And within the Lord's words there is the nod to Peter that he must learn the spirit of servanthood if he is to be worthy of that special calling as the leader of the pack which the Lord clearly had in mind for him. The Lord has just had a lot to say about the&nbsp;<em>protos</em>&nbsp;being last in the preceding parable of the labourers, using the word three times in <em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:10'>Mat 20:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>. He is perhaps answering the question which arises from that parable: How practically can we be the last? The answer is by serving as He served, by identifying ourselves with the "last" labourers rather than the "first" who thought they were spiritually superior over their weaker fellow labourers.</p><p>The Lord Jesus was the supreme example of spiritual ambition in daily life:&nbsp;&nbsp; When the disciples debated about who would be greatest in the Kingdom, Christ said that "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be... servant of all" (<em><a href='B:480 9:34-35'>Mar 9:34-35</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; Christ was the "servant of all" because He&nbsp;<em>desired</em>&nbsp;to be the greatest in the Kingdom:&nbsp;&nbsp; It was this ambition which motivated His endurance of the daily cross of His life: &nbsp;"Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>even as</em>&nbsp;the Son of man came... to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (<em><a href='B:470 20:27-28'>Mat 20:27-28</a></em>). He was drawing on the ideas of <em><a href='B:350 13:1'>Hos 13:1</a></em>, where Ephraim exalted himself when he humbled himself to speak to God with the trembling of a true humility. The Lord Jesus was not esteemed by men in His death (<em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em>); the same word occurs in <em><a href='B:340 4:17'>Dan 4:17</a></em>, concerning how Yahweh will exalt the&nbsp;<em>basest</em>, the least esteemed, to be King over the kingdoms of this world. That made-basest man was a reference to the Lord Jesus. He humbled Himself on the cross, that He might be exalted. Peter had his eye on this fact when he asks us to humble ourselves, after the pattern of the Lord, that we might be exalted in due time (<em><a href='B:670 5:6'>1Pe 5:6</a></em>):&nbsp; Christ desired greatness in the Kingdom, and so can we;&nbsp;for the brighter stars only reflect more glory of the Sun (<em><a href='B:530 15:41'>1Co 15:41</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This very thought alone should lift us up on the eagle wings of Spirit above whatever monotony or grief we now endure.</p><p><em>Shall be your slave-&nbsp;</em>Consider the influence of Christianity on the Greek language of humility. The Lord taught that the leaders, the great ones, in His Kingdom, would be the humble servants (<em><a href='B:470 20:27'>Mat 20:27</a></em>). Christ spoke of himself as a humble King, which would have been a contradiction in terms to the first century Greek mind. Consider the following commentary by Alan Hayward: "The ancient Greeks had no time for humility. In fact, their language didn't even have a word for it until well into the first century... the early Christians evidently had to coin a word for it. It's a clumsy, long word, made by sticking together the Greek word 'low-down' and the Greek word 'mentality'. The sudden appearance of this new word in Greek literature during the first century is generally attributed to the influence of the early church" Alan Hayward,&nbsp;<em>The Humble King</em>, 'The Bible Missionary' No:131, January 1994.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:28'>Mat 20:28</a></em><em>&nbsp;Even as the Son of Man came-&nbsp;</em>If the Lord was speaking of Himself as the One who was to be the minister so that He might be great, it is possible that verse 28 is a commentary from Matthew rather than the words of the Lord- pointing out that in fact the Lord had Himself in view in the preceding verses.</p><p><em>Not to be ministered to</em>-</p><p> Surely the Lord develops this teaching when He characterizes the rejected as insisting that they had never missed an opportunity to minister unto Him personally (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>). Putting these teachings together, perhaps the Lord means us to understand that He did not come to be personally served, but rather does He 'come' to us in the form of His needy brethren, each encounter with them is an encounter with Him. People did of course minister to the Lord in His life (<em><a href='B:470 27:55'>Mat 27:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:31'>Mar 1:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:41'>Mar 15:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:3'>Luk 8:3</a></em> s:w:), but He surely means that He didn't come&nbsp;<em>so much as to be ministered to</em>&nbsp;as to Himself minister to others. In this the exquisite beauty of His Lordship. He is indeed Lord, but He didn't come to be personally treated as Lord but rather His psychological focus was upon what He could do for others. And this is His comment upon the desire of the two brethren to have a grand place in the Kingdom "for us", they were seeking something for themselves, whereas the example of the Lord which they were to follow was of focusing upon serving, rather than having an eye upon the reward.</p><p><em>But to minister</em>-</p><p> The Lord is the same yesterday, today and forever. His focus in His life was upon serving others, and yet the word is used of how He who served at the last supper shall also 'come forth' s:w. "the Son of Man&nbsp;<em>came</em>", <em><a href='B:470 20:28'>Mat 20:28</a></em> to "minister" to His people at the future Messianic banquet (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And to give his life as a ransom for many</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>lutron</em>&nbsp;is only used in this place in the NT, although the LXX uses it for the Hebrew&nbsp;<em>pidion</em>, the ransom payment for human life (<em><a href='B:20 21:30'>Exo 21:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:49-51'>Num 3:49-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:31'>Num 35:31</a></em>). The word means literally 'to loose'. The idea may be that something a life, an eternal life was potentially prepared for the "many" which was tied up by human sin, which the Lord's death would unloose and make available. But why use this particular term in this context? The connection is clearly with the idea of being a servant, a slave of the lowest order. And what did they loose? The sandals of the guests at meals, after which they washed their feet. There is clearly a connection of thought between the Lord's teaching here and His washing of the disciples' feet at the last supper, whereby He visually fulfilled the picture of being a servant and not being ministered unto, despite Peter's objections. His unloosing of the disciples' sandals and cleansing their feet, dressed as He was on the cross, having laid aside His outer garment and being clothed only with a loincloth, was all a prefigurement of His death on the cross. He invited us all to do as He had done- to participate in His death by dying for others that they might live. And that has various fulfilments day by day, in self control, not demanding from our brother, forgiving, rebuking, caring for, teaching... telephoning, emailing, and so forth.</p>


text:
<p>20:29&nbsp;<em>And as they went out from Jericho</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;The healing of the two blind men as they left Jericho must be compared with the healing of Bartimaeus as He left Jericho (<em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>), and the healing of a blind man as He approached Jericho (<em><a href='B:490 18:35'>Luk 18:35</a></em>). These accounts are not in contradiction. One of the two blind men was Bartimaeus, and he is the one Mark focuses on. The healing of the first blind man is indeed described in the same terms as the healing of the other blind men, but the similarity of the language is in order to demonstrate how the Lord worked in the same way in different lives at slightly different times. And there are other examples of incidents repeating in Biblical history but being described in similar language. We are left with an abiding impression that what happens in our lives has been in essence repeated in other lives. And surely the healing of the first blind man inspired the others to take the same leap of faith, just as we are to be inspired by the way others have responded to the Lord's hand in their lives.</p><p><em>A great crowd followed Him</em>-</p><p> The section began with the idea of the Lord now being on His journey to death in Jerusalem, and bidding the disciples follow Him on that path. The crowd followed, but not in that deeper sense. The same term is used of the healed blind men- they too "followed Him" (:34), but the implication is that they followed Him with understanding. The parallel <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em> records that one of the men, Bartimaeus, "followed Jesus in the way". That last phrase would surely be redundant unless it was pregnant with some deeper meaning, and that meaning surely rests in the idea of following the Lord in the way of the cross which led to Golgotha.</p>


text:
<p>20:30&nbsp;<em>And two blind men who were sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em> speaks of how at least one of these blind men followed Jesus "in the way", using the same word&nbsp;<em>hodos</em>&nbsp;as used here for "the way". Their sad position, sitting maybe for years day by day&nbsp;<em>para</em>&nbsp;or by, next to "the way", was in fact putting them in a position when at the right time, they could get up and follow the Lord along that "way". See on :34&nbsp;<em>Followed Him</em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em></p><p>Lord, have mercy on us, you Son of David</em>-</p><p> These were exactly the words of the two blind men of <em><a href='B:470 9:27'>Mat 9:27</a></em>, who were likewise cured as the Lord "departed" from a town, just as here the cure happened as He departed from Jericho. The similarity and connection is obvious. From God's side, we see how He works according to pattern in the lives of people. And humanly, the blind men had somehow passed on to other blind men the truth that there was mercy / grace in the Son of David, which could be manifested in the restoration of sight. In this lies the significance of the fact that according to <em><a href='B:490 18:35'>Luk 18:35</a></em>, another blind man had very recently said exactly these words and made exactly this request as the&nbsp;Lord&nbsp;<em>approached</em>&nbsp;Jericho. Far from being as supposed by the critics a jumbling up of material by uninspired writers, we see rather the development of a theme- that blind men at various places and times approached the Lord with the same words, and made the same connection between His mercy and Him being the Son of David. They may simply have thought that as the Son of David, He had the characteristics of David- which included remarkable mercy and grace to his enemies. We also see how once a community is broken into with the Gospel, it spreads within that community, expressed in the words and concepts which that community understands, and in the style which originated with the first ones in the community who accepted the Gospel. I have seen this happen in communities of the deaf, Gypsies, HIV patients, ethnic minorities under persecution, language groups etc. And so it happened amongst the blind beggar community in Palestine. Such communities have amazing links to each other and paths of communication:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The connection between "the son of David" and "mercy" is surely rooted in the description of the promises to David as "the mercies&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;of David" (<em><a href='B:290 55:3'>Isa 55:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:34'>Act 13:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 1:8'>2Ch 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 89:49'>Psa 89:49</a></em> "The mercies which You promised unto David"; <em><a href='B:290 16:5'>Isa 16:5</a></em> "In mercy shall the throne be established... in the tent of David"). These promises were utter grace; "mercy" translates&nbsp;<em>chesed&nbsp;</em>, which is about the closest the OT comes to the NT concept of grace. David rejoiced in this&nbsp;<em>chesed&nbsp;</em>/ mercy shown to him (<em><a href='B:100 22:51'>2Sa 22:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 101:1'>Psa 101:1</a></em>). Solomon pleaded for grace on the basis of the fact that God had shown such covenant mercies to David (<em><a href='B:140 6:42'>2Ch 6:42</a></em> "Remember the mercies of David"). The mercies of David surely also refer to God's mercy, the mercy of grace, shown to David in forgiving him the sin with Bathsheba and Uriah- he begged for forgiveness on the basis of God's "tender mercies" (<em><a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a></em>). It could be argued that David's forgiveness was on account of his pleading for the mercies shown to him in the Davidic covenant to be continued to him. For in that covenant God had promised that&nbsp;<em>chesed&nbsp;</em>would not depart from David (<em><a href='B:100 7:15'>2Sa 7:15</a></em>), and David therefore begs for forgiveness on the basis that grace /&nbsp;<em>chesed&nbsp;</em>would indeed not be withdrawn from him (<em><a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a></em>). From all this, David pleaded in crisis towards the end of his life to fall into God's hands because "His mercies are great" (<em><a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a></em>). In response to the&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;"mercy", or grace shown David, he too was characterized by humanly senseless&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;to his enemies in the family of Saul (s:w. <em><a href='B:90 20:15'>1Sa 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 2:5'>2Sa 2:5</a></em> "you have shewed this kindness /&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;unto Saul"; <em><a href='B:100 3:8'>2Sa 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 9:1'>2Sa 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a></em>) and to Hanun his Ammonite enemy (<em><a href='B:100 10:2'>2Sa 10:2</a></em> "I will shew kindness /&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;unto the Hanun"). What is so impressive is that the network of blind men, from Galilee to Jericho, had figured this out, or at least part of it. They saw the connection between grace and David, and were inspired to throw themselves upon the grace of David's Messianic Son. There was in those times as there is in much of the world today a deep belief that blindness was the direct result of sin (<em><a href='B:500 9:2'>Joh 9:2</a></em>). These blind men almost certainly felt that their blindness was a result of their sin, and so they felt a moral need for forgiveness, so that the blindness would be lifted. According to <em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>, one of the blind men was called Bartimaeus, literally 'Son of the unclean'- doubtless this was what he had been dubbed by others, for no Hebrew mother would have named her son that. And they believed that Jesus could indeed cleanse them, morally forgive them, and thereby restore their sight. This would explain why they screamed Gk. "Have mercy on us". This was a moral request; they didn't simply call out for healing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:31'>Mat 20:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the crowd rebuked them</em>-</p><p> This is yet another example of where the Lord is presented as eager to accept, when men including disciples are more eager to reject. The same word has just been used in <em><a href='B:470 19:13'>Mat 19:13</a></em> for how the disciples rebuked the little ones from coming to the Lord- and were in turn rebuked. The impression is that in the disciples' exclusivity, they weren't being as they supposed more spiritual than the world around them, but rather were they being simply as that world. Soon afterwards, the Pharisees told the Lord to "rebuke" His disciples, and He replied that it was impossible for them to "hold their peace" (<em><a href='B:490 19:39-40'>Luk 19:39-40</a></em>). These are all words and phrases taken from this incident. Now it is the disciples who refuse to be quiet, and it is the Pharisees who want them to be quiet. Again the point is made that the desire to silence and exclude others is from the world, and not of Christ. The Lord's acceptance of people is consistently painted by the Gospels as being far more inclusive and extensive than that of men. The human tendency to reject and erect barriers is simply not there in Christ.</p><p><em>That they should hold their peace; but they cried out the more, saying, Lord, have mercy on us, you Son of David</em>-</p><p> This fits with my comment on <em><a href='B:470 20:21'>Mat 20:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What do you want?</em>, in that this could be seen as piquing their sense of urgency for Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Jesus stood still and called them, and said: What do you desire I do for you?</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:470 20:21'>Mat 20:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What do you want?&nbsp;</em>The Lord a way of focusing men upon their need. Thus He would have passed by the desperate disciples as they struggled in the storm, He would have gone further on the road to Emmaus, and He asked the blind men the obvious question: “What will ye that I shall do unto you?” (<em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>). He only partially cured another blind man, to focus that man’s mind on the faith that was needed for the second and final stage of the cure (<em><a href='B:480 8:23-25'>Mar 8:23-25</a></em>). He elicited from the father of the epileptic child the miserable childhood story of the boy- not that the Lord needed to know it, but to concentrate the man on his need for the Lord’s intervention (<em><a href='B:480 9:21'>Mar 9:21</a></em>). He wanted them to focus on their need: in this case, for sight. He let Peter start to sink, and only then, when Peter’s whole heart and soul were focused on the Lord, did He stretch forth His hand. The Lord deliberately delayed going to see Lazarus until he was dead and buried; to elicit within His followers the acuteness of their need. And was He&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>sleeping in the boat with the storm all around Him? Was He not waiting there for them to finally quit their human efforts and come running to Him with faith in no other (<em><a href='B:480 4:38-39'>Mar 4:38-39</a></em>)? Only when men were thus focused on their desperate need for the Lord would He answer them. The Lord further focused men’s need when he asked the lame man: “Wilt thou be made whole?” (<em><a href='B:500 5:6'>Joh 5:6</a></em>). Of course the man wanted healing. But the Lord first of all focused his desire for it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:33'>Mat 20:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They said to him: Lord, that our eyes may be opened-&nbsp;</em>The one thing&nbsp;they wanted was to see. Those healed blind men are types of us. True understanding (seeing) should be the one thing we want. "Wisdom is the&nbsp;<em>principal&nbsp;</em>thing; therefore get wisdom" <em><a href='B:240 4:7'>Pro 4:7</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 20:21'>Mat 20:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What do you want?&nbsp;</em>This was obviously a rhetorical question, and it succeeded in the intention of making the men verbalize their dominant desire. Likewise the Lord works with us to make us focus and understand what is our dominant desire- and then seeks to reposition that focus. In this section He has done that by placing all human desires and requests in the shadow of His death for us. For how could we want anything 'extra' after He has done that for us, with all it enabled.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:34'>Mat 20:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Jesus, being moved with compassion</em>-</p><p> So often we read this, indeed the Greek word is only used for the compassion of Jesus during His ministry; and it is never in itself because the object of the compassion had some great spirituality or was somehow worthy of that compassion. Rather was it basic pity, which is the idea in the Greek; pity at the human condition. It is exemplified in how the Samaritan had compassion upon the wounded man, and how the Father has compassion on the prodigal (<em><a href='B:490 10:33'>Luk 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). In this case, as explained above, the blind men did indeed have quite some spiritual insight. But that of itself didn't elicit the Lord's compassion. The Lord who is the same yesterday as today was and is simply moved by human need- and responds:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Touched their eyes</em>-</p><p> Which were likely secreting ritually unclean emissions. Again the Lord shows an eagerness to identify with human uncleanness rather than avoid it. He could, after all, have cured the men in a different manner. This was the same manner in which the Lord had cured the two blind men in <em><a href='B:470 9:29'>Mat 9:29</a></em>. The critics love to see here a confusion in reporting a singular incident twice. But it seems perfectly likely that the Lord rewarded the fact that these men had heard of the faith of the other blind men, come to share it- and therefore the Lord treated them likewise. There is a continuity and similarity in the way in which the Lord works in human lives, which is why our sufferings are designed so that we can share what we learnt from them with others who are suffering in the same way (<em><a href='B:540 1:4'>2Co 1:4</a></em>). It likewise explains the otherwise uncanny similarities which there are between the experiences of believers, both with those contemporary with us and personally known to us, and others in the past or of whom we read in the Bible:&nbsp;</p><p>If indeed there are major bloomers in the Gospels and in the Bible generally as the critics suggest regarding these incidents of healing the pairs of blind men, then naturally the question arises as to how reliable the Biblical text really is. Liberal Christians tend to argue that some is, other parts aren't. But no basis is given for deciding which parts are reliable and which are not. Nor does there seem any reason why God would inspire some parts of the Bible but not others. But the wonder is that the Bible, and the Gospels particularly, can be analysed at depth and found not to contradict but rather to dovetail seamlessly in a way in which no human piece of writing ever could. This is particularly seen in the four Gospels, and it is this seamlessness and lack of contradiction which led sceptics like Frank Morrison in&nbsp;<em>Who Moved the Stone?</em>&nbsp;to become committed believers in the bodily resurrection of Christ. In musical terms, the whole united record reads as a symphony. There is no need to remove one note from it, or a few notes here and there. The overall wonder is lost by doing so, to the point that it is a desecration of the Divine product. If there are passages which we cannot reconcile, the way of humility is surely to accept that we are still waiting for more insight and understanding- rather than arrogantly insisting that Divine inspiration somehow faltered at that point:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And immediately they received their sight and followed him</em>-</p><p> See on :30&nbsp;<em>Followed Him</em>&nbsp;and :30&nbsp;<em>Sitting by the way</em>. <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em> adds that at least one of the blind men "Followed Him&nbsp;<em>in the way</em>". But He told the man "Go&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;way" (<em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em>). The man's way was now the Lord's way, the way of the cross. There's surely a play on words here, for&nbsp;<em>akoloutheo</em>&nbsp;translated "followed" means literally 'to be in the same way with'. The Lord told the man to go&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;way, but the man followed Jesus in&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;way, the way which has been defined in :17,18 as the way to the cross. Our way is His way, not in that He dominates and subsumes our individuality beneath His own, but in that we each follow Him in our own particular and unique way. That is not to say that we each have our way in life and that journey must of itself be the right one. It's axiomatic that every man has his own path in life. As believers in Christ, our path must be&nbsp;<em>following Him</em>, and not just wandering around in life; but each one in Christ follows their Lord in their own unique path.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:1'>Mat 21:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when they drew near to Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> This suggests that Matthew was not with them at the time. I suggest he was, but in the analogy of the cameraman, he has as it were shifted his camera to Jerusalem and records the group approaching.</p><p><em>And came to Bethphage, to the mount of Olives, then Jesus</em>-</p><p> 'The house of figs'. There is likely a connection to the incident later in this section when the Lord curses the fig tree (:19). Perhaps we are to assume that He hoped for figs in Bethphage too, and was likewise disappointed. Bethphage has even been given the meaning 'House of unripe figs', which would confirm this impression (See Marcus Jastrow,&nbsp;<em>Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature</em>&nbsp;(Jerusalem: Horeb, 1903, reprint) p. 1132).</p><p><em>Sent two disciples</em>-</p><p> The question arises as to why He didn't simply take the two animals Himself. The practical answer would be that if He had gone further into Jerusalem to get them, then he would as it were have entered Jerusalem but not in the way He intended to, which was to consciously fulfil the prophecy about the humble King entering Jerusalem on a donkey. But that explanation throws the question one stage further back. Why was it specifically a donkey from that village and person which was required? Could He not have found one in Bethphage? The effort required to send two disciples ahead of Him to get the animals and then bring them back to Bethphage seems considerable, when donkeys were common enough. The answer is not clear, but it could be that there was an anonymous person who specifically wanted to give those animals to the Lord in order to fulfil that prophecy. The Lord knew this and had obviously discussed it with the owner previously, because the owner would recognize Him as "the Lord" (:3), and would provide them once he perceived the Lord wanted them. In this little incident we see therefore the extent the Lord will go to, now as well as then, in order to take up the initiative of those who love Him. If we take that initiative in service, the Lord will surely use it, and make every effort to do so.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:2'>Mat 21:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Saying to them: Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me</em>-</p><p> The Greek words translated "tied" and "loose" occur together several times, usually rendered 'bind' and 'loose'. Earlier in Matthew, the idea of binding and loosing has been used about the way that the decisions and actions of believers can have eternal consequence upon others, and our bind and loosing is to some extent reflected in and confirmed by Heaven (<em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:18'>Mat 18:18</a></em>). This conception of binding and loosing was surely intended by the Lord. Verse 4 makes clear that all this was done in order to fulfil the prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> that Messiah would come to Zion riding on a donkey and her foal. But that prophecy had to be consciously fulfilled. Whether or not the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled was therefore left to the initiative of the Lord and His followers. And it's the same in our last days- if, e.g., we choose to fulfil the prophecy that the Gospel must go into all the world before the end comes, then in that sense the actual time of Christ's coming is left in our hands. There are other Messianic associations with a donkey- Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed on a donkey (<em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:5'>Gen 22:5</a></em>); Solomon rode to his coronation on David's donkey (<em><a href='B:110 1:33-44'>1Ki 1:33-44</a></em>).</p><p>The question arises as to why both a donkey and foal were required. He surely didn't straddle both at the same time. He rode on the donkey whilst the colt followed. Perhaps this has reference to the way that the Lord's final entry into His Kingdom would be on the backs of both Jews and Gentiles; the immature foal with no rider would therefore look forward to the Gentiles. Another possibility is that "A donkey,&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;on a colt, the foal of a&nbsp;donkey" is a Semitic parallelism effectively meaning 'A donkey, actually, a foal of a donkey'. If that's the case, then the Lord rode the foal of a donkey, not yet broken in. It would've been hard to ride, probably trying to throw Him; His journey into the city would've been almost comical, because He would nearly have been thrown and would've hardly made a sedate, solemn procession. The parallel records stress that no man had ever sat upon it (<em><a href='B:480 11:2'>Mar 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:30'>Luk 19:30</a></em>). This would've spoken clearly of the difficulty of the Lord's entry to His Kingdom whilst riding on Israel. However, :2 speaks in the plural, of loosing the animals and bringing&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to the Lord. It may simply be that a donkey nursing her foal, distracted by this, was the most unmilitary, non-glorious form upon which the Lord could've entered Jerusalem. Perhaps it was a parody of how triumphal entries require a King to be on a charger pulling a chariot. The Lord had a donkey instead of a charger, and instead of a chariot being pulled by the charger, the foal was in tow behind the donkey:&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:480 11:4'>Mar 11:4</a></em> says that the donkey was tied at a gate, at "a place where two ways met<em>":&nbsp;</em>This translates the word&nbsp;<em>amphedon&nbsp;</em>which in the LXX (e.g. <em><a href='B:300 17:27'>Jer 17:27</a></em>) is used for a palace. Herod had a palace on the Mount of Olives and maybe this is what is being referenced. It could be that the donkey and foal were provided by Herod's servants, because Joanna was a disciple of Jesus who provided for Jesus from her "substance"- and she was the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (<em><a href='B:490 8:3'>Luk 8:3</a></em>). In this case, the Lord was further parodying a King's triumphant entry by riding upon Herod's donkey.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:3'>Mat 21:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And if anyone says something to you, you shall say: The Lord</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:470 21:1'>Mat 21:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Sent two disciples</em>.</p><p><em>Has need of them</em>-</p><p> God in a sense is in need of man, just as Jesus was, or allowed Himself to be:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And immediately he will send them</em>-</p><p> "Send" here translates&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>, and naturally we think of the apostles, those sent forth with the Gospel. And as so often taught by implication, the Lord is in need of man, the harvest needs workers and without them, in His wisdom, it will not be harvested. We are surely being invited to see these animals as representative of those upon whom the Lord will ride in order to enter Jerusalem in glory. But He rode upon the bucking, difficult colt which had not yet been broken in. This hampered His triumphal entry. And there was the donkey itself with nobody sitting upon it. Just as the Lord consciously tried to fulfil <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> by obtaining these animals, so the hint surely is that His final triumphal entry will be on the basis of us His people carrying Him in.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:4'>Mat 21:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now this happened so</em>-</p><p> The Gospels are highly abbreviated accounts, and yet a significant amount of time is spent explaining how the Lord obtained the donkey and foal. This is to show how consciously He tried to fulfil God's word. He consciously tried to make the word become flesh in Him, as we must (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>).</p><p><em>That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying</em>-</p><p> The use of&nbsp;<em>hina</em>&nbsp;definitely suggests action&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;there might be a specific outcome, in this case, the fulfilment of prophecy. This construction is common in the Lord’s ministry- something was done&nbsp;<em>hina</em>, in order to achieve, the fulfilment of prophecy (<em><a href='B:470 1:22'>Mat 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:15'>Mat 2:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:14'>Mat 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:5'>Mat 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:56'>Mat 26:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:35'>Mat 27:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:38'>Joh 12:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:25'>Joh 15:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:12'>Joh 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:24'>Joh 19:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:36'>Joh 19:36</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:5'>Mat 21:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Tell the daughter of Zion</em>-</p><p> A term used in the prophets for the righteous remnant within Jerusalem. The idea was that they would perceive how the Lord was fulfilling the Messianic prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>. However, the Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> says that the King comes “having salvation”- but that is omitted in this quotation. The ultimate ‘triumphal entry’ was yet to come. The Lord entered Jerusalem to obtain salvation through death on the cross, not to bring the immediate salvation from Rome which the people were so fixated upon.</p><p><em>Look, your King comes to you, meek and riding upon an ass and upon a colt the foal of an ass</em>-</p><p> Kings were supposed to enter their new capital on a charger, a war horse, beaming in proud triumph. The idea of a humble king was an oxymoron to the first century mindset. But the Lord was a King like no other- a humble king, who entered Zion not on a charger but on a donkey with a colt wandering insecurely behind them. <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> goes on to say that by doing this, He will bring deliverance from the war horse / charger: "Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he,&nbsp;<em>humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey</em>. He will&nbsp;<em>cut off the chariot&nbsp;</em>from Ephraim&nbsp;<em>and the war horse</em>&nbsp;from Jerusalem; and the&nbsp;<em>battle bow shall be cut off</em>, and he shall&nbsp;<em>command peace</em>&nbsp;to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River Euphrates to the ends of the earth". In this we see the principle of non-violent victory over violence; the King who comes riding on a donkey will thereby "cut off... the war horse" which was threatening Jerusalem. That war horse was initially a reference to Rome, from whom the Jews thought Messiah would violently deliver them. The Lord went to great efforts to fulfil this prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> - in order to demonstrate that it was by humility and non-violence that deliverance from violence would finally come. The other accounts say the Lord&nbsp;rode upon the foal of the donkey (e.g. <em><a href='B:500 12:15'>Joh 12:15</a></em>). If He sat upon this animal rather than the mother donkey, the Lord was showing how He chose to ride in the 'chariot' rather than on the donkey pulling it. But the donkey and foal were the humblest and weakest imitation possible of a charger and chariot. But this was exactly His point. The glorious victory procession came from Bethphage "and Bethany" (<em><a href='B:480 11:1'>Mar 11:1</a></em>), which can mean 'house of the poor'. It was here that the Lord sat upon the humble donkey- again reinforcing the idea that He came as a humble King.</p><p>21:6 The record emphasizes the disciples’ obedience and solidarity with the Lord, placing their personal clothes as His saddle (:7). It must’ve all seemed rather bizarre, for they too nursed hopes of an immediate salvation and Kingdom, but they were commendably willing to go along with His insistence of teaching the lesson of ‘the humble King’. <em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em> adds the information that the disciples didn’t understand at the time, nor did they see the connection with <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>: “These things his disciples did not understand at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written about him, and that they had done these things to him”. And yet they went along with it all. It is an essay in loyalty and obedience, although not in perception and faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:6'>Mat 21:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the disciples went and did as Jesus directed them</em>-</p><p> This is to note their obedience to an otherwise very strange command. They surely secretly hoped that He would achieve a dramatic Messianic salvation. And He was teaching them that that salvation was not now, and He was deconstructing the whole idea of a triumphal entry, as noted on :6. It is to their credit that they humbled themselves beneath this idea.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:7'>Mat 21:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And brought the ass and the colt and put on them their garments; and he sat thereon</em>-</p><p> Using their garments as saddles. The fact both animals were saddled was to make the point that one rider was missing. For according to the other Gospels, the Lord sat upon the colt. The mother donkey was saddled, but without a rider. This added to the strangeness of the spectacle. The missing rider was perhaps a reference to how Israel had not as a whole responded in bringing Messiah to Zion. Maybe it referred to the Gentiles who had yet to be converted. Or perhaps to the fact that Israel had rejected John the Baptist and he had been killed- and therefore there was no Elijah prophet bringing Messiah into Zion. Elijah was the great horseman of the Divine chariot (<em><a href='B:120 2:12'>2Ki 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 13:14'>2Ki 13:14</a></em>; he is called the “horsemen” plural, but this is an intensive plural for ‘the one great horseman’). Elijah was the chariot horseman, the one who was to ride on the horse which pulled the chariot in which there was Messiah this was a Rabbinic understanding of the Elijah prophet. But he was strangely absent in this acted parable. The saddle was there for him, provided by the few disciples who had responded to John / Elijah; but he wasn’t there. This absence of the Elijah prophet was surely indicative of the fact that John had not been the Elijah prophet for most of Israel- they hadn’t responded properly to his message. Therefore the true triumphant entry of Messiah was yet future. This is why the phrase “bringing salvation” is excluded from the quotation of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>. It was not so much a ‘triumphant entry’, but a&nbsp;<em>parody</em>&nbsp;of a triumphant entry.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:8'>Mat 21:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road</em>-</p><p> Paul speaks of how Israel were cut off branches because of their rejection of Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 11:17'>Rom 11:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:19'>Rom 11:19</a></em>). The crowds who accepted Him in the wrong way very soon rejected Him; so in a sense, they cut themselves off. And they did this because they misunderstood Him, expecting Him to give immediate deliverance.</p><p><em><a href='B:500 12:13'>Joh 12:13</a></em> says they were palm branches. But palms and the shout of "Hosanna" are associated with the feast of Tabernacles. And this was Passover, not Tabernacles. All the way through this brilliant visual stunt by the Lord, there was the message that He was not as they had imagined, He had come to die as the Passover Lamb, not to immediately give them the Tabernacles celebration which they wanted to see there and then.</p><p>The behaviour in this verse was exactly that associated with the triumphant entry of a victorious king. The much laboured account of the Lord’s obtaining a donkey and her foal and thus riding into the city was really a studied parody of that whole conception of Messianic victory. For Him, the victory would be to hang lifeless upon a cross. True greatness was in humility. And instead of beaming with pride, <em><a href='B:490 19:41'>Luk 19:41</a></em> adds the detail that He wept over the city, knowing how they had rejected Him. According to Harry Whittaker,&nbsp;<em>Studies in the Gospels, "</em>The rabbis had a saying: "If Israel be worthy, Messiah comes with the clouds of heaven (<em><a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a></em>); if unworthy, riding upon an ass" (<em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>)". So the entire triumphant entry was indeed a parody which sooner or later the Jews came to grasp. Hence their anger- for the whole incident declared them unworthy.</p><p>Whilst what the Lord arranged was indeed a parody of a triumphant entry, designed to highlight the importance of humility and sacrifice, He was surely conscious that He was acting out, however dimly, the prophesied future and ultimate triumphal entry of Messiah into Jerusalem and the temple, coming from the Mount of Olives (<em><a href='B:450 14:4'>Zec 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:11'>Isa 62:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:9'>Mat 21:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the crowds that went before him and that followed shouted: Hosanna to the Son of David Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord Hosanna in the highest-&nbsp;</p><p></em>Hosanna means ‘Save now’. This obsession with ‘Salvation now’ was their equivalent of today’s prosperity Gospel, which is a similarly false understanding of the Lord:&nbsp;</p><p>Matthew records here that the people cried ‘Hosanna’ at Christ’s entry into Jerusalem. Seeing that first century Israel spoke Aramaic, this is doubtless what did actually come out of their lips. But Luke says that the same group of people shouted “Glory” (<em><a href='B:490 19:38'>Luk 19:38</a></em>). Luke’s Gospel seems to be designed for the Greek speaking world, and so he uses the Greek equivalent of ‘Hosanna’, even though they did not actually say that word. The way the New Testament quotes the Old with slight changes without pointing this out is another example of how God’s word mixes interpretation with direct transmission of facts (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 32:1-2'>Psa 32:1-2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 4:6-7'>Rom 4:6-7</a></em>). God has inspired His word in order to interpret certain facts to us. This is further proof that we are not intended to insist on a strictly literal meaning to everything we read (for example, that the sun literally rises). This fact is not irrelevant to the issue of demons. The accounts of demons being cast out are framed in such a way as to show the supremacy of God’s power over the vain traditions of the first century world.</p><p>"He that comes" was a clearly Messianic title. They accepted Jesus as Messiah, but their understanding of Messiah was so wrong. They assumed He would bring ‘salvation now’, and immediate freedom from the Romans and economic hardship.</p><p>Hosanna<em>&nbsp;"</em>in the highest" suggests that because the people wanted ‘Save&nbsp;<em>now</em>’ and immediate deliverance from Rome, they assumed that God shared their view. Thus they assumed that their cry of ‘Salvation now’ was being uttered in Heaven too. This assumption that God is of course in tune with our wishes is very dangerous- the dashing of this expectation was what unleashed the fury and gross misjudgement in these people which lead to their very soon screaming for the death of God’s Son.</p><p>The other records add that the Pharisees asked the Lord to restrain His supporters. His response was "I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out". There's a strong similarity between the Aramaic and Hebrew words for "sons" and "stones"; and the Lord's 'sons' were the disciples, His spiritual children. It was the disciples who were enthusiastic for His triumphant entry- the crowds soon lost their enthusiasm.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:10'>Mat 21:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when he had arrived in Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> See on :11&nbsp;<em>The prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.</em></p><p><em>All the city was stirred, saying</em>-</p><p> This is the word for a quake or tremor, the crowd were shocked deeply- by the idea of a humble King.</p><p><em>Who is this?</em>-</p><p> The Lord was well known in Jerusalem, His miracles and previous visits had hardly gone unnoticed. The question was rather 'What kind of person is this?'. His careful effort to obtain a donkey and colt, and ride the bucking colt in imitation of a charger and chariot... had worked. It had achieved the desired effect of stunning people by the new paradigm of humility which He was exemplifying. The "daughter of Zion" (:5) was singularly unimpressed by the coming of their King. Doubtless there was a connected element of sarcasm in Pilate's question: "Shall I crucify your King?" (<em><a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a></em>). And they stated beyond question that they would rather have Caesar as their King than this humble man from Nazareth.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:11'>Mat 21:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the crowds said: This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee</em>-</p><p> I think we can conclude that this answer was not given in proud introduction of their Messiah, but rather agreeing with the sceptical question 'What kind of person is<em>&nbsp;this</em>?'. For Nazareth and Galilee were despised and hardly seen as the origin of Messiah nor of any half decent prophet. "Out of Galilee arises no prophet" was the Jewish position (<em><a href='B:500 7:52'>Joh 7:52</a></em>). It was to them an oxymoron to say that a prophet, let alone Messiah, could come from there. And Nazareth, with its Gentile connotations and a reputation for siding with the Roman occupants, was likewise despised. Nathanael struggled with the idea that Messiah could come from Nazareth: "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (<em><a href='B:500 1:46'>Joh 1:46</a></em>). We can feel the mockery in the recorded words of the girl in the courtyard concerning Peter: "This fellow was also with Jesus&nbsp;<em>of Nazareth</em>", and the subsequent comment that Peter shared the Galilean accent of Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 26:71'>Mat 26:71</a></em>). This sceptical answer to the Jerusalem crowds was given by the "multitude" that welcomed the Lord into Jerusalem. In the hour or so which His parody of a 'triumphal entry' took, their enthusiasm turned to bitter disillusion. This was not the Messiah they had expected. And their enthusiasm turned to bitter cynicism and disappointment. This is the significance of the information that they said this "When He was entered into Jerusalem" (:10). The crowd greeted Him as their Saviour King, throwing their garments in the street before Him, but as He rode the bucking colt with the dawdling, unenthusiastic donkey before Him, their views changed over that 30 to 60 minutes. <em><a href='B:490 19:41-44'>Luk 19:41-44</a></em> adds that He burst into tears of desperation and predicted that the enemies of Israel clearly He had the Romans in view would soon destroy the city and temple. This was so unpatriotic, and the exact opposite of what the crowds expected from Him: “When he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it, saying: If you had known in this day, even you, the things which belong to your peace But now they are hid from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies shall set up a barricade around you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and shall dash you to the ground, and your children within you; and they shall not leave in you one stone upon another. All this will happen because you did not perceive the time of your visitation”. The Lord implies that their rejection and destruction was precisely because they turned away from perceiving His entry into the city as their “visitation”. They didn’t think this was the “time” because they weren’t seeing immediate salvation. Or rather, they didn’t wish to see it. All they could think was that this was not their man, not at all the Messiah they had expected. Their cry of 'Save now' 'Hosanna' produced no dramatic action on His part. He just kept on riding that awkward beast, wandering probably in a zig-zag through the streets.</p>


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:13'>Mat 21:13</a></em><em>&nbsp;And he said to them-&nbsp;</em>The Lord several times quoted an OT passage which if quoted further would have made a telling point. Thus He quoted <em><a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a></em>: “My house shall be called an house of prayer”, leaving His hearers to continue: “…for&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;people”. He recited <em><a href='B:230 8:2'>Psa 8:2</a></em>: “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise”, leaving them to complete: “…that thou mightest still through their witness the enemy and the avenger”. For the Bible minded, these things ought to have taught them. There is reason to think, in the subsequent response of a Jewish minority after Pentecost, that at least some did make these connections. They made use of the spiritual potential they had been given.</p><p><em>It is written</em>-</p><p> The Lord quotes from <em><a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a></em>, but the surrounding context of the quotation is relevant to the Jewish leadership who were present and deeply critical of the Lord's actions (:15). <em><a href='B:290 56:10-11'>Isa 56:10-11</a></em> condemns Israel's elders as "blind watchmen... dumb dogs... greedy dogs which can never have enough, shepherds that cannot understand, every one looking for gain". "Dogs" was understood as a reference to the Gentiles- and the Lord is saying that they are effectively Gentiles. Significantly, <em><a href='B:290 56:6'>Isa 56:6</a></em> has spoken of "the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, and to love the name of the Lord... taking hold of His covenant". This is often how God works- for those who are sensitive to His word, the quotations given speak far more deeply. The potential for greater understanding is thereby given to those familiar with His word. This is one reason why I encourage perseverance in reading the Bible even if at the point of reading we feel we are not understanding much and simply building up a familiarity with the text. That familiarity can be a basis for later revelation to us.</p><p><em>My house</em>-</p><p> Just as the "feasts&nbsp;<em>of the Lord</em>" are described as "feasts&nbsp;<em>of the Jews</em>",&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;house becomes "<em>your</em>&nbsp;house" (<em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>). They had hijacked God's religion for their own ends, just as so many do today.</p><p><em>Shall be called</em>-</p><p> Luke uses the present tense, "<em>is</em>&nbsp;called". The Lord surely said both, His point being that prophecies of the future Kingdom are to be lived out by us in essence today:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Den of thieves</em>-</p><p> The Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 14:21'>Zec 14:21</a></em> that there will no longer be a trafficker in the Lord's house was fulfilled by the Lord's casting out the traders from the temple. Many of the Kingdom prophecies of healing were it seems consciously fulfilled in the Lord’s healings: <em><a href='B:290 35:6'>Isa 35:6</a></em> LXX the stammerer healed = <em><a href='B:480 7:32-35'>Mar 7:32-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:3'>Isa 35:3</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 2:3-12'>Mar 2:3-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:1-6'>Mar 3:1-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:8'>Isa 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 11:1'>Mar 11:1</a></em> Bartimaeus following on the Jerusalem road. This doesn’t mean that these passages will not have a glorious future fulfilment. But in the person of Jesus and in the record of His life we see the “Kingdom come nigh”, as He Himself said it did. We can so focus on the future fulfilment that we can forget that He was the Kingdom in the midst of men; the essence of our eternal future, of the coming political Kingdom of God, was and is to seen in Him. Satan fell from Heaven during His ministry ((<em><a href='B:490 10:18'>Luk 10:18</a></em>), as it will at the second coming (Revelation 12).</p><p><em>A house of prayer; but you make it a den of robbers</em>-</p><p> This invites us to see the thieves who robbed the man in the Samaritan parable as the Jewish leadership, whose priests and Levites refused to help people after the damage they themselves had caused (<em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>). The thieves "stripped him of His clothing" just as they later did to the Lord Jesus. The Lord uses the same figure of thieves for the Jewish leadership in <em><a href='B:500 10:1'>Joh 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:8'>Joh 10:8</a></em>. The Lord quotes here from <em><a href='B:300 7:11'>Jer 7:11</a></em>, which speaks of the temple being profaned by adultery and Baal worship, resulting in the Babylonian invasion. He is saying that Israel's hypocritical piety in His day was none less than Baal worship, and therefore the Gentiles would come and destroy that place.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the blind and the lame</em>-</p><p> Previously banned from the temple on the basis of <em><a href='B:100 5:8'>2Sa 5:8</a></em> LXX. Those rejected from the sacred space now came in to replace those whom the Lord had ejected from it. Clearly His view was that kids and cripples were to replace the pious religious Jews:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Came to Him in the temple and he healed them</em>-</p><p> The time scale couldn't have been more than a few hours. It presumably took Him some time to eject the Jews from the temple and to stop people carrying burdens through it. The marginalized had heard that the others had been ejected- and came to Him naturally. They would've walked or looked around with glee at the sacred space previously denied to them. Quite why the temple guard didn't arrest the Lord is a significant question. They were surely there, and the Jews would've wanted them to intervene. I suggest the Lord stopped them in their tracks by supernatural power, just as He had earlier been able to walk through the midst of those seeking to kill Him (<em><a href='B:500 8:59'>Joh 8:59</a></em>). The Lord demonstrated clearly that He could restrain the power of civil authority, guards and soldiers- if and when He wished. His submission to them in the process of arrest and crucifixion was therefore the more remarkable. It was His submission, not their power. Those same leaders and soldiers would surely have realized that He had the power to restrain them- for He had done so here in the temple, so shortly before His arrest and death. We see here an essay in how the process of His death was a result of His wilfully giving His life; it was not taken from Him, He laid it down (<em><a href='B:500 10:17-18'>Joh 10:17-18</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:15'>Mat 21:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did and the children that were crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David</em>-</p><p> Presumably they too had been cast out of the temple. This conversation likely took place after the Lord had finished in the temple:&nbsp;</p><p><em>They were moved with indignation, and said to him</em>-</p><p> Their eye was evil because He was good. The welcoming of the previously marginalized into sacred space produces a similar reaction today. If such categories are allowed to break bread, some get angry to the point of white hot hatred, which in God's eyes is murder. Their eye became evil because He was good. The same Greek word for "displeased" is used regarding how the ruler of the synagogue was indignant because the Lord had healed on the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:490 13:14'>Luk 13:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:16'>Mat 21:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do you hear what these are saying? And Jesus said to them: Yes. Did you never read</em>-</p><p> He was speaking to the educated who could read. "Never read" would've jarred with them- they spent their lives poring over the Scriptures. But we can read and yet never really read as God intends.</p><p><em>Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise?</em>-</p><p> A strange grammatical construction, the plural "babes" have a singular "mouth", so united are they in devotion to the Lord. Hence we find that the word translated "perfected" is elsewhere rendered "perfectly joined together". The quotation from <em><a href='B:230 8:2'>Psa 8:2</a></em> is from a Psalm often alluded to in the New Testament. It was first written as David reflected upon his victory over Goliath, an incident clearly typical of the Lord's victory on the cross. The young people rejoiced in David's victory and joined Him in triumphing over his enemies in praise to God for the victory. This indicates that the Lord considered His victory as in a sense already accomplished; He saw those youngsters' praise of Him and acceptance of their place in God's house as being effectively their praise for His victory over the Goliath of sin. The quotation also associates the angry, intellectually defeated Jewish leaders with the Philistines- another one in a series of suggestions that they are effectively Gentiles and no longer God's people (see on :13). Let's pause to give all this teaching its due weight- that legalism and exclusiveness are no better than Baal worship, and such orthodoxy is only a faithfulness to human tradition rather than to God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:17'>Mat 21:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he left them and went out of the city</em>-</p><p> His ‘going out of the city’ is allusive to the language of Ezekiel, in that the glory begins within the city but progressively lifts up and goes out of it.</p><p><em>To Bethany and lodged there-&nbsp;</em>This continues the radical subversion of Jewish Messianic expectations. They had expected a glorious entry into Jerusalem by Messiah, and His entering the temple in order to fulfil the hopes of Ezekiel’s temple visions- that Messiah in glory would enter the temple. Instead, the Lord enters Jerusalem on a rider-less donkey, Himself sitting awkwardly on a wayward foal, enters the temple and castigates the Jews, throwing them out of it. And now He leaves the city and goes to Bethany, “the house of the poor”. Rather like a pretender to the Presidency mounting a not very serious coup attempt, and going to spend the night in a low cost housing area, perhaps in an apartment in a run down tenement block known as ‘the house of the poor’. Or perhaps a night shelter would be the most dynamic equivalent. That is not to say that the home in Bethany was actually poor, my comment is on the meaning of ‘Bethany’ as ‘house of the poor’. The use of&nbsp;<em>eis</em>, "into", rather than a word carrying the sense of&nbsp;<em>unto</em>, serves to heighten the sense of anti-climax. He ended this parody of a triumphal entry by entering into 'the house of the poor':&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord being the psychologist&nbsp;<em>extraordinaire</em>&nbsp;that He was, it could almost seem that He was engineering a situation which would turn public opinion against Him and lead to His betrayal to the Romans. And yet on the other hand, He had made all these points multiple times in His teaching, beginning in the Sermon on the Mount. He had explained as clearly as could be that His Kingdom was not at that time a political one, rather was it about service of others and internal transformation. He had so often elevated humility above anything else. But all His teaching had been skim listened to; people had taken what they wanted from Him, and decided that He was who they wanted and needed Him to be, rather than who He said He was. And so through this parody of a triumphal entry, He was visually and very publicly explaining what He really stood for. And thereby very powerfully exposing their hopes as mere selfishness, their ideals as misplaced, their understandings as faulty. I wouldn’t say that&nbsp;He did this with the express intention of bringing about His death, but rather motivated by the hope that His one last appeal might still trigger response amongst the true “daughter of Zion”. His predictions of His death, however, indicate that He knew what would happen. A psychologist weighing up the situation as it stood at the triumphant entry, even if he didn’t know how the story would end, would likely be able to predict accurately what would’ve happened. The Jews would become deeply angry with Jesus, their hopes in Him would have turned to hatred and anger, they would desire to kill Him, and being unable to legally do so, would hand Him over to the Romans to execute. Indeed, Judas had already trodden this road one step ahead of the masses.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:18'>Mat 21:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now in the morning as he returned to the city</em>-</p><p> A hint that His final return in the morning of Zion's new day will require at least some fruit on the fig tree, the beginnings of repentance and spiritual fruit in Israel:&nbsp;</p><p><em></p><p>He became hungry</em>-</p><p> Hungry in the morning, having spent the night at Mary and Martha's home? Had Martha failed in providing food for some reason? More likely the Lord had been fasting for Israel's repentance. And His hunger spoke of His desire to see even the beginnings of spiritual fruit on the fig tree of Israel. His fast was for fruit on Israel; if He had found it, He would have eaten it and thus broken His fast:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And seeing a fig tree by the roadside, he went to it and</em>-</p><p> Symbolic of Israel (<em><a href='B:300 24:1-8'>Jer 24:1-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:16'>Hos 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 28:4'>Isa 28:4</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:290 34:2'>Isa 34:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:4'>Isa 34:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:8'>Isa 34:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 6:13'>Rev 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:6-9'>Luk 13:6-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:6'>Luk 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:6'>Luk 19:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 7:1'>Mic 7:1</a></em> RV). Israel were seen by the Lord as the tree by the roadside, whose fruit should have been for all that passed by (<em><a href='B:50 23:24'>Deu 23:24</a></em>). But because there was not even the glimmer of this kind of giving of fruit, they were condemned by the Lord.</p><p><em>Found nothing thereon</em>-</p><p> His disappointment was great because of His earlier parable about Himself and the fig tree, in which He had put these words in His own mouth: "Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it and dung it: and if it bear fruit, well; but if not, after that thou shalt cut it down". He looked over and around the tree, desperate to see at least some signs of fruit. He realized that the tree of Israel had to be cut down.</p><p><em>But leaves only</em>-</p><p> The inadequate covering for sin with which human history began in Eden.</p><p><em>And he said to it: Let there be no fruit from you</em>-</p><p> If the fruit on the fig tree represents spiritual fruit, does this suggest that now the possibility of repentance was taken away from them? It was as if judgment day had really arrived for them even in this life; for there will be no possibility of repentance then. Or it could be that the Lord was annulling the prophecies about&nbsp;<em>Israel</em>&nbsp;filling the face of the earth with fruit. His emphasis then would have been on "May no fruit grow&nbsp;<em>on you</em>". The tree of Israel was to be cut down, and the fruit was to come from the fig tree "and all the trees" of the Gentile nations. This is the connection with the Lord's later sign of the fig tree and all the trees (<em><a href='B:490 21:29'>Luk 21:29</a></em>); when spiritual fruit is seen on all of them, when the Gospel has gone into all the world, to all the trees / nations, then shall the end come (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Again-&nbsp;</em>AV "For ever", for the&nbsp;<em>aion</em>, the age. He could mean throughout the new age which was to start, for Israel are prophesied as finally blossoming and filling the face of the earth with fruit (<em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em>). Or it could be that that prophecy about Israel was conditional, and the Lord is accepting that their rejection of Him meant that it and other such prophecies were now disallowed from fulfilment in themselves by what they were going to do to Him.</p><p><em>And immediately the fig tree withered away</em>-</p><p> "From the roots", Mark adds. This meant the ground was cursed- the land of Israel. And the roots may refer to the ending of the Mosaic law. "Ephraim 'fruitful' is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit... My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations" (<em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:16-17'>Hos 9:16-17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>21:20&nbsp;<em>And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying-&nbsp;</em>Their amazement is presented in <em><a href='B:480 11:21-22'>Mar 11:21-22</a></em> as a lack of faith, calling forth from the Lord the rebuke: "Have faith in God". After all the miracles they had seen, it's pathetic that they doubted as to the Lord's ability to dry up a fig tree. Yet again, the initial Gospel writers and preachers draw attention to their own weakness of faith. Seeing that the fig tree was such a well known symbol of Israel (see on :19), the disciples may have perceived the incident as an acted parable. Their comment "How soon is the fig tree withered" (Mk:) could be seen as a criticism of how quickly the Lord had withered it. But this would in turn indicate that they had totally failed to understand His earlier teaching of how He had asked the Father for more time for Israel than He had intended to give it, and had personally done the servile work of digging and dunging it in the hope that fruit would come. Their struggle to believe what the Lord had done reflected the wider struggle they and we have to accept that humility, the humble entry rather than the triumphal one, is the way of God. They struggled to believe that the entire system of formal religious worship was being done away and replaced by kids and cripples, literally and spiritually, in the sacred space. The Lord's subsequent exhortations to faith must be seen in this context- the faith to believe this. I recall a brother once at the heart of a community of believers being disfellowshipped over a false accusation. I urged him to break bread alone. He told me that he didn't have the faith... to sit and break bread alone, with no hymns, no president, no surrounding church. We sat in a fast food joint in a London suburb and I had to lead him in the breaking of bread service- he was so used to standing there on Sunday mornings, either presiding or giving the lesson... He has often recalled that there in McDonalds, he found his faith. Faith in God and Jesus, and not in any organization or human church:&nbsp;</p><p><em>How did the fig tree immediately wither away?</em>-</p><p> The Lord had said that it would happen immediately (:19). According to the other records, the disciples made this comment the next day. They somehow doubted the Lord could work with such immediate effect. And this strange lack of faith was surely because they perceived that the fig tree represented Israel and all they had once held dear in their culture. The disciples asked how the fig tree cp. Israel withered away so quickly. The answer, of course, was in that Jesus had faith that it would. He goes on to tell them that if&nbsp;<em>they&nbsp;</em>had faith, the mountain of Zion, the hope of Israel, would be cast into the sea of nations (:20,21). The Lord Jesus is surely saying that&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>faith should not be seen as separate from&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;faith. According to the faith of the disciples, the Hope of Israel, rejected by the withered fig tree of Israel, could be spread to the Gentiles. But the spread of the Gospel world-wide was and is conditional upon our faith, modelled as it must be upon His example.</p>


text:
<p>21:21&nbsp;<em>And Jesus answered and said to them: Truly I say to you, If you have faith-&nbsp;</em>See on :20. The faith in view was faith in the Lord's new way of doing things, a religion of kids and cripples outside of organized religion.</p><p><em>And doubt not</em>-</p><p> The 'faith' was faith in the passing of the Jewish system. "Doubt not" translates&nbsp;<em>diakrino</em>&nbsp;which can better be translated to make a difference, to discriminate. It was as if the Lord was saying: 'I know you believe. But to believe in&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;will be hard. Don't make a difference, believing in some things and not others. Believe in this too':&nbsp;</p><p><em>You shall not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if you shall say to</em>-</p><p> They too were to play a part in the withering of the fig tree- by preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles.</p><p><em>This mountain</em>-</p><p> There is a clear semantic connection between the cursing of the fig tree and the moving of the mountain into the sea. The mountain in view was the temple mount. The Lord is comforting them that not only would the tree of Israel be withered, but the whole mount Zion, the most sacred space in Judaism, would be cast to the Gentiles the "sea". This kind of thing was what His parody of a triumphal entry had been all about, and His casting out of the religious Jews from the temple and replacing them with kids and cripples, those formerly excluded from the sacred space. The faith to move the temple mount to the Gentiles was the very faith which Peter was later required to have in preaching to the Gentiles represented by Cornelius:&nbsp; The Lord recognized that this paradigm shift was a matter of faith, and He urged the disciples to realize their psychological problem and accept it needed special help from God to get over. This incident obviously had huge relevance for the first century communities of believers who were baptized as a result of Matthew's Gospel; for acceptance of the end of the Jewish system and the acceptance of the Gentiles was the live issue for the early churches. <em><a href='B:480 11:25'>Mar 11:25</a></em> adds: "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses". The motivation in accepting others into fellowship, in accepting the casting of the sacred space of Mount Zion to the Gentiles, was to be from realizing their own urgent need for forgiveness and their moral frailty. Those faced with similar struggles about accepting others, or allowing previously rejected categories into Christian fellowship, need to take this advice.</p><p><em>Be taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be done</em>-</p><p> To be removed and cast into the sea was a word picture of condemnation. And yet&nbsp;<em>airo</em>, to remove or take away, surely reflects the Hebraism of 'taking away' with reference to taking away sin (s:w. <em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:5'>1Jn 3:5</a></em> "takes away the sin of the Jewish world"). This was a phrase with two possible meanings. The disciples could achieve this in that their preaching would give mount Zion both the possibility of sin being taken away if they responded and of condemnation, being cast into the sea like Gentile Babylon if they rejected their message. The same words and ideas are found in <em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em>, where Babylon is 'taken up' s:w. "removed" and cast into the sea. However, the Lord soon uses the same word in telling the Jews that the Kingdom was to be "taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of the Kingdom" (:43). This reference to fruit connects with the Lord's teaching about the fig tree which was cursed for not bearing fruit. The rejected servant was likewise to be 'taken away' in condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>), just as the flood "took them all away" (<em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>), the talent was 'taken away' from the rejected (<em><a href='B:470 25:28-29'>Mat 25:28-29</a></em>). Significantly, the Lord had used this same word for 'remove' or 'take away' in the first cleansing of the temple, when He commanded the traders to "Take these things away" (<em><a href='B:500 2:16'>Joh 2:16</a></em>); and likewise it is used about the 'taking away' of the branches of the tree of Israel (<em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em>). The Lord is telling the disciples that they too will be able to make such a removing of the unclean from the system of Judaism, and likewise cause the withering of Israel's tree. In fact it was the Romans who "took away our place and nation" (<em><a href='B:500 11:48'>Joh 11:48</a></em> s:w:) but this was on account of Israel's rejection of the disciples' preaching. In that sense, therefore, it was they who had caused the temple Mount to be taken away and cast into the sea of Gentiles. This too is the power of our preaching. We are not merely discharging a responsibility to evangelize so that we feel better, let alone doing a PR exercise for our local church or denomination. Our presentation of the message to others has eternal consequence for them- to their salvation or condemnation. Significantly, the same word is used for how on the cross, the Lord 'took away' the Mosaic Law (<em><a href='B:580 2:14'>Col 2:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>"</em>Cast into the sea" were the very words used by the Lord in describing the fate of the Jews who made the little ones stumble (<em><a href='B:480 9:42'>Mar 9:42</a></em>). The little ones had been brought into the temple to replace the Jewish religious leaders. Those leaders had previously refused to accept those little ones. Their judgment was to be cast into the sea as Babylon (<em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em> same words). But this would only happen once the disciples had preached to them after the resurrection- they were given chance after chance, despite the Lord's cursing of the fig tree with immediate effect.</p><p><em><a href='B:470 21:21'>Mat 21:21</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em>. Paul saw Abraham as being like the man in the parable who had the faith to throw mountains into the sea.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:22'>Mat 21:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And all things, whatever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive</em>-</p><p> This evidently has some context and limitations, because there is no reason to think that we literally receive whatever we ask. Even the Lord didn't. The context is the ability to change, the ability to accept paradigm shifts, to have the courage to preach; the mindset which can cope with a previous worldview coming to an end. This is exactly why people are so unwilling to change cherished beliefs and practices- because their conservatism is more powerful in their own minds than God's word. We need to accept we have this problem, and rejoice that whatever we ask for in this psychological and at times practical battle will indeed be granted to us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:23'>Mat 21:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when he had entered into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said</em>-</p><p> "Entered" is&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>&nbsp;, and is matched by the priests and elders 'coming' to Him,&nbsp;<em>proserchomai</em>. The impression is created of direct confrontation, head on:&nbsp;</p><p><em>By what authority do you do these things?</em>-</p><p> Presumably they thought they had Him caught out, because&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&nbsp;was supposedly solely with Rome. He could hardly say the Romans had given Him such authority. And yet if He said anything other than 'Rome', then He could be reported to the Roman authorities. However, their reference may have been to what we noted at <em><a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a></em> - the Lord had held back the temple guard from arresting Him and stopping His forceful overthrowing of the temple traders. This question was quite to be expected of a man who had recently used violence to overthrow tables and force men off the premises. Who had given Him such authority?&nbsp;</p><p><em>And who gave You this authority?</em>-</p><p> To this day this question is heard. People, especially religious people, find it so hard to accept that somebody can have a personal relationship with God which enables and empowers them to operate as sovereign free agents amongst mere men. This cry is especially heard from those who themselves think they have authority and seek to hold on to their petty power at all costs. It is the typical cry when someone obeys their Lord's command to baptize people, takes the initiative to extend fellowship to another etc:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:24'>Mat 21:24</a></em><em>&nbsp;And Jesus answered and said to them: I also will ask you one question, which if you tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things-&nbsp;</em>It is not necessarily wrong to avoid answering a question- although few of us could do so in the spiritually and logically flawless way the Lord did here, let alone at a moment's notice.</p><p>The AV is mistaken in translating "If you tell me, I will tell you". The sense rather is: 'If you answer this question, then in that answer you will have My telling you the answer to your question'. They finally answered in :27 that 'We cannot know' (AV again is unhelpful by offering here "We cannot tell"- the Greek words for AV "tell" are all different in this section):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:25'>Mat 21:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The baptism of John</em>-</p><p> Perhaps John's message was so centred around the appeal for baptism that "the baptism of John" is being put for 'the teaching and ministry of John'. Or maybe the Lord has in view His own baptism by John. In this case, His reasoning would be that His authority came from the fact that He had been baptized by John. Seeing John's work was from God and had Divine authority, this meant therefore that the Lord was empowered by that baptism to operate with God's authority. If that is indeed what the Lord intended, then we have another window onto the perplexing question of why the Lord was baptized by John:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Where was it from? From heaven or from men?-&nbsp;</em>Gamaliel uses the same logic in <em><a href='B:510 5:38-39'>Act 5:38-39</a></em> in urging the Jews to boil all the personal feelings and doubts down to a simple issue: Are these men and their work of God or man? This approach is helpful to us too, assailed as we are by unclarity about others. Is a man in Christ or not? Does God work through him or not? Is he of God or men? There is no middle ground here. This is what I submit concerning myself to those who doubt me, and it is the approach I seek to take with others with whom I have to engage in spiritual life. And Gamaliel rightly concluded that if something is of man and not of God, then we have little to worry about. Finally it will come to nothing. We should be concerned rather with the eternal consequence of refusing those who are clearly of God. If of God, we must accept them:&nbsp;</p><p><em></p><p>And they discussed it among themselves, saying: If we shall say, from heaven, he will say to us, why then did you not believe him?</em>-</p><p> This could imply they withdrew for discussion amongst themselves. But such a withdrawal would've been a sign of weakness. More likely we have here an insight into their own internal reasonings. In this case, the statement in :27 that "They answered... and said, We cannot tell" was uttered by each of them in turn as the Lord asked them individually.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:26'>Mat 21:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if we shall say, from men, we fear the crowd</em>-</p><p> They all considered John as a prophet, whereas the chief priests and elders did not. We see here a marked difference between the people and their religious leaders. Indeed, the leaders despised the common people: "This people who know not the Law are cursed" (<em><a href='B:500 7:49'>Joh 7:49</a></em>). And yet very soon now, the leaders would be apparently controlling the people to cry for the blood of Jesus. But this chapter so far has shown that this was not really the reason why the masses turned against Jesus. They turned against Him because of His dashing of their hopes and refusal to pander to their expectations, exemplified by His wilful parody of a triumphal entry into the city and temple. The huge gap between the elders and the masses was so great that it cannot be credible that the elders managed to manipulate them so quickly to turn 180 degrees and to reject the Jesus whom their hero John had insisted was the Messiah.</p><p><em>For all hold John as a prophet</em>-</p><p> And yet the Lord had said that “the men of this generation” held John to be demon possessed, i:e. crazy (<em><a href='B:490 7:33'>Luk 7:33</a></em>). We can on one hand feel and state respect for someone, whilst in reality not accepting them as any authority at all, and effectively considering them as if they are mad, not to be taken seriously:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:27'>Mat 21:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they answered Jesus and said: We do not know</em>-</p><p> See on :25&nbsp;<em>They reasoned with themselves&nbsp;</em>and :24&nbsp;<em>If you answer Me:&nbsp;</em>The Greek means 'We cannot&nbsp;<em>know</em>'. They had set themselves up as defenders of the Faith, whose duty it was to analyse the claims of teachers and decide whether or not they were false prophets. But now they are beaten in fair intellectual fight. They can give no answer, and yet by saying they could not judge John's claim to be a prophet, they were abdicating the very role of assessors of teachers which they claimed to have, and which they were using against the Lord.</p><p><em>He replied to them: Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things</em>-</p><p> He meant that they knew in their consciences and did not need Him to spell it out to them in words. This was again His style in His silence before His judges, and in His brief answer to Pilate: "You are saying it" (<em><a href='B:490 23:3'>Luk 23:3</a></em>). The answer was in Pilate's own words rather than the Lord's.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:28'>Mat 21:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But what do you think? A man</em>-</p><p> God.</p><p><em>Had two sons, and he came to the first, and said</em>-</p><p> In the form of John, who “came unto you” (:32- a related word is used for “come”). God was manifest in the preaching of John, just as He personally comes to men through our preaching. This accounts for the special sense of Divine presence which we have in our efforts to preach His Son and appeal to men. Paul can speak of how God Himself appeals to people through us (<em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>).</p><p><em>Son</em>-</p><p> These people were already in the family of God. They represent those to whom John the Baptist came (:32).</p><p><em>Today</em>-</p><p> The suggestion is that there is urgent work to do, presumably harvest was ripe and what was not gathered today would be lost. The refusal to work was therefore rooted in a refusal to appreciate the significance of their work. Without it, harvest would be lost, and they would all be the poorer.</p><p><em>Go and work</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s interpretation is that the “work” required was belief and repentance (:32). The work of God is indeed to&nbsp;<em>believe</em>&nbsp;in the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:29'>Joh 6:29</a></em>). This definition of ‘works’ was so different to that held by Judaism, according to which ‘works’ were physical acts of obedience to specific legal regulations. And yet clearly the Christian call is to action, to “works”, without which any profession of faith is “dead”. We are to “go trade” s:w. “go work” with the talents given us, and the man who does not so work with them will be condemned (<em><a href='B:470 25:16'>Mat 25:16</a></em>). Paul’s apparent deprecation of “works” in Romans (<em><a href='B:520 4:4-5'>Rom 4:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>) is surely to be understood with reference to “the works of the Law” of Moses (<em><a href='B:520 3:27'>Rom 3:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:32'>Rom 9:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:2'>Gal 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:5'>Gal 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:10'>Gal 3:10</a></em>), i:e. works done in obedience to that legislation in the hope of salvation upon that basis. The call is to work in response to the call. Not simply assent to theology, the specific doctrines of a Christian denomination, join a Christian social club; but work, labour, toil for Him in His service.</p><p><em>In the vineyard-&nbsp;</em>The vineyard must refer to the means of bringing forth spiritual fruit, according to the Lord's use of the vine figure in John 15. Being in the vineyard is therefore all about bringing forth the fruits of spirituality, showing forth the moral likeness of God. This is the intended “work” we are asked to do. And yet the idea of being called by God to work in His vineyard Israel was language used in Judaism for the call of the priestly class to do the work of religious specialists amongst the nation of Israel, God’s vineyard. But the parable teaches that this is God’s invitation to everyone in the new system of things which He is developing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:29'>Mat 21:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he answered and said: I will not-&nbsp;</em>Not so much a bald refusal as ‘I don’t wish to, I don’t have the desire to’.</p><p><em>But afterward he repented and went</em>-</p><p> This Greek word for "afterward" is used three times in Matthew 21 (and only 9 times elsewhere in the NT). The Jews are criticized for not repenting “after” they had seen the whores repent at John’s teaching (<em><a href='B:470 21:32'>Mat 21:32</a></em>); and “afterward” (AV “last of all”), after sending the prophets of which John was the last, God sent His Son to appeal to Israel (<em><a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a></em>). The son who initially refused to work therefore speaks of those in Israel who refused to hear the prophets and John, and yet “after” all that appeal, responded to the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>"</em>Afterward he repented" is exactly the same words in :32. Afterwards- after the Lord's ministry- they did&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>repent. The Jews who initially responded to John are therefore are the son who said he would work but never did. The same Greek word for "afterward" is also found in :37: "Last of all s:w. "afterward" He sent unto them His Son". The Lord's coming was intended to bring the disobedient son to repentance- and to go work in the vineyard:&nbsp;</p><p>He went-to work in the vineyard. The motivation of the man to labour was because he had repented and been forgiven. His motive was not simply obedience out of respect to his Father, but rather now was it gratitude for forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:30'>Mat 21:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said: I go sir</em>-</p><p> Literally, "I, Sir". The suggestion is that he was presenting himself as more obedient and respectful than his brother. And yet as so often, those who consider themselves the longer and harder workers in the vineyard, feeling superior to their weaker brothers, are in fact less than them in practice. Surely the Lord had in mind <em><a href='B:20 24:7'>Exo 24:7</a></em>: "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient".</p><p><em>But did not go</em>-</p><p> In the parable of the two sons, the Lord divides us into two groups- those who respond to a calling to ‘go’ by saying they will, but don’t go; and those who refuse to go but afterwards go. This is clearly an allusion to Jonah. But Jonah is thus made typical of each and every one of us:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:31'>Mat 21:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Which of the two did the will of his father? They replied: The first. Jesus said to them: Truly I say to you</em>-</p><p> The contrast is between doing the will of God, and simply saying in words that we will. This is the very tension which the Lord illustrates in the parable of the houses built on sand and rock. The same words for 'doing the will of the Father' are found in <em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>: "Not every one that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that&nbsp;<em>does the will of My Father</em>". Israel's response to John had been a saying of "Lord, Lord" to Jesus, a prompt response to the request to work in the vineyard- but they never went further. They did not actually repent, even though John's message had been a call to repentance. Repentance can be easily 'made' in words, but this is merely surface level. We need to examine our own repentance in the light of this caveat. Surely the Lord had this same category in view when He spoke of how "many stripes" await the one who knows his Lord's will, but doesn't do it (<em><a href='B:490 12:47'>Luk 12:47</a></em> s:w:). As ever, the Lord had Himself in mind as He spoke such demanding words. He was the Son of the Father who "did the will" and finished His "work"; who said yes straight away, and fulfilled it (<em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:7'>Heb 10:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:9'>Heb 10:9</a></em> s:w:). In all our teaching of others we must likewise never take our eyes off our own position before God:&nbsp;</p><p><em>That the tax collectors and the prostitutes</em>-</p><p> Matthew, the speaker and author of this Gospel, had been one of them, a tax collector. His appeal for others to respond to the call was therefore interlaced with his own recognition and proclamation that he was in the category of those who had initially said 'No', but afterwards repented. Doubtless the Lord was aware that His followers included tax collectors and prostitutes and He was seeking to justify them:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Go into the Kingdom of God before you</em>-</p><p> To 'go before',&nbsp;<em>proago</em>, means just that. The word has just been used of how the crowd 'went before' Him in His parody of a triumphant entry into Jerusalem (:9). It doesn't necessarily mean that they would enter the Kingdom, for as mentioned above, the Lord's teaching was that those who did not do the will of God would not enter the Kingdom at all. The idea is rather that the harlots and tax collectors would go into the Kingdom as their heralds, suggesting that their judgment at the time of the Kingdom would be on the basis that the serious sinners had repented and entered the Kingdom, but they had not. And that fact would be waiting for them as they arrived for judgment at the gates of the Kingdom. Paul may be alluding to this when he says that the sins of some men 'go before' them to judgment (<em><a href='B:610 5:24'>1Ti 5:24</a></em> s:w:). Or it could be that even at this dire moment, the Lord still entertained the hope that His persecutors and enemies would enter the Kingdom finally, even if the whores would have a better place in the Kingdom than them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:32'>Mat 21:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For John came to you</em>-</p><p> His coming to the people was as it were God's coming to them (:28,30). God was manifest in him, as He is in all preachers. We are His voice and appeal to men.</p><p><em>In the way of righteousness</em>-</p><p> The very phrase used in <em><a href='B:680 2:21'>2Pe 2:21</a></em> about the Christian Gospel. John's work had been to prepare the Lord's "way" (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:10'>Mat 11:10</a></em>), over which Messiah could have come in glory to Zion, in fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecies about this. The Lord is referencing the idea that if Israel had responded to John, then the triumphant entry into Zion which He had just parodied earlier in this chapter could really have been achieved.</p><p><em>And you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him-&nbsp;</em>This was clearly intended to address the inner thought of the audience, that “If we shall say, from heaven, he will say to us, why then did you not believe him?” (21:25). The Lord knew their thoughts- clearly, in this instance at least, not so much as from direct Divine revelation, but from His sensitivity to them and reading of their minds.</p><p>John the Baptist was a popular preacher. All Jerusalem went out to hear him. Even the hardline Orthodox were baptized by him. People liked his hard line austerity, his criticism of them. They lined up to hear it, and to confess their sins to him. But Jesus interpreted it differently. He said John’s ministry was like children wanting to play at funerals with some other children- so they started weeping, but the others still wouldn’t respond. Jesus came, piping; He wanted them to play weddings. But still they didn’t respond in true repentance (<em><a href='B:490 7:32-35'>Luk 7:32-35</a></em>). The Lord judged that Israel didn’t respond to John; indeed,&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;they had truly received him, he would have been the Elijah prophet for them (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em> RVmg:). What this teaches is that believers can respond to a tough line, to the ra-ra of an uncompromising moralizing message; and yet not&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;repent nor accept the Lordship of Jesus in their hearts. <em><a href='B:470 21:32'>Mat 21:32</a></em> states clearly that the Jews generally didn't believe John the Baptist, nor repent. And yet they flocked to him in apparent repentance and were baptized. As we all know, repentance is one of the hardest things to be thoroughly genuine about.</p><p><em>And afterwards when you saw it</em>-</p><p> The second son who had said 'Yes' but not gone to work needed to become as the first son; realizing he was no better than the first son, and likewise repenting and going to work whilst there was still time, to achieve at least something in the Father's vineyard. But it was a bridge too far for the Jewish leadership and Israel in general to make this connection- that they had to shift from their self-righteousness into the position of the whores and tax collectors.</p><p>The good example of others contributes to our experience of the upward spiral. And yet if we don't respond to them, we can be held accountable for it and slip into the downward spiral. Thus the Lord held the elders of Israel guilty because when they saw the whores and tax collectors repenting at John's preaching, "you, when you had seen it, repented not". They should have been influenced by the repentance of those people; they should've allowed repentance to be contagious. But they didn't, and so they were held guilty for that. The Lord is telling the Jews that they were even more culpable for not repenting at the preaching of John the Baptist because the publicans and sinners had done so; and they hadn't. They should've changed their minds 'repented' after they saw the publicans and sinners repent- so the Lord incisively observed and judged. The implication of that seems to me to be that we are intended to be inspired to faith and repentance by that of others. This is why the Christian life is intended to be lived in community.</p><p><em>You still did not repent-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:470 21:29'>Mat 21:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:32'>Mat 21:32</a></em> parallel 'repent and work' with 'repent and believe'. As the Lord said in <em><a href='B:500 6:29'>Joh 6:29</a></em>, the work of God is to believe- in the forgiveness of sins. The experience of repentance and forgiveness will result in an ever deeper faith, and the works of gratitude which are inseparable part of faith. The parable speaks of repenting and going to work in the Father's vineyard; as if care for our brethren, seeking their fruitfulness and that of this world after the pattern of the vineyard of Isaiah 5 is the obvious work of repentance. The Lord castigated the audiences of John the Baptist that they did not “repent, that ye might believe”. Repentance would lead to faith… and yet it is faith which leads to repentance. The two things work together to form an upward spiral of growth.</p><p><em>And believe him-&nbsp;</em>Their repentance and acceptance of the forgiveness of sins which John spoke of necessitated their belief in Christ as the lamb of God, the sacrifice for sin, of whom John also spoke. The repentance he urged them to make suggests that forgiveness was available- but his message was that that forgiveness was possible ultimately through the work of Jesus as the lamb of God who took away the sin of the world (<em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>). Paul explained this in so many words: “John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe in Him Jesus who should come after him” (<em><a href='B:510 19:4'>Act 19:4</a></em>).</p><p>AV "Repented not so that you might believe him" translates an awkward phrase in the Greek, and the translations which suggest ‘You didn’t repent and believe him’ are being too simplistic. There is definitely a causative sense implied- they did not repent&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;they believed him. To repent, to change their minds as required by John, involved believing his message, which was about Jesus as the lamb of God who took away sin and thereby gave meaning and possibility to their repentance. Here, the Lord connects repentance with belief; yet we read that in practice, people believe and are baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sin. So belief and repentance are connected. The belief in John that is spoken of here was effectively a belief in Jesus: “John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe in Him Jesus who should come after him” (<em><a href='B:510 19:4'>Act 19:4</a></em>). If we repent, change our minds and decide to respond, then immediately the issue of forgiveness is thrown up. Have I now been forgiven? Can I be? How? And this is what leads seamlessly into faith in Christ as the lamb of God to take away our sin.</p>


text:
<p>21:33&nbsp;<em>Hear another parable</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s hopefulness at their response is remarkable; He makes a continued appeal to those who in other teaching He has stated have gone too far and are even now condemned. His hopefulness for human response is outstanding and a huge encouragement for us.</p>&nbsp;<p>There are strong similarities between the Lord's parable and the song of the vineyard of <em><a href='B:290 5:1-7'>Isa 5:1-7</a></em>, especially in the LXX:</p><p>"<em>Let me sing for my well beloved a song of my beloved about His vineyard</em>&nbsp;The genre is significant; what begins as a joyful, idyllic harvest song turns into bitter disappointment and declaration of judgment<em>. My beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill&nbsp;</em>The environment was ideal<em>. He dug it up&nbsp;</em>to dig was the work of the lowest servant, but God did this<em>, gathered out its stones&nbsp;</em>the effects of the curse were ameliorated<em>, planted it with the choicest vine&nbsp;</em>"the men of Judah"<em>, built a tower in its midst, and also cut out a wine press therein. He looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes. Now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, please judge between Me and My vineyard. What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?&nbsp;</em>Absolutely all has been done to enable our fruitfulness. The Father wants fruit above all- in the Matthew 21 parable, the owner seeks the actual fruit, rather than cash payment. This element of unreality serves to show His passionate interest in fruit&nbsp;<em>Why, when I looked for it to yield grapes, did it yield wild grapes? Now I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard. I will take away its hedge, and it will be eaten up. I will break down its wall of it, and it will be trampled down&nbsp;</em>The downtreading of the temple at the hands of the Gentiles<em>:&nbsp; I will lay it a wasteland. It won’t be pruned nor hoed, but it will grow briers and thorns&nbsp;</em>The language of the curse in Eden. The land was as the Garden of Eden, but Israel sinned "as Adam"<em>. I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain on it&nbsp;</em>the language of Elijah, prototype of John the Baptist<em>. For the vineyard of Yahweh of Armies is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant: and He looked for justice, but, behold, oppression; for righteousness&nbsp;</em>the fruit required was justice and righteousness- instead, as Isaiah 5 goes on to explain, there was materialistic selfishness<em>, but, behold, a cry of distress</em>".</p><p><em>There was a man that was master of a house</em>-</p><p> Literally, the head of the family. Clearly in this parable it refers to God, but the Lord used exactly this term to refer to Himself specifically (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:1'>Mat 20:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>). It is far too simplistic to conclude 'Therefore Jesus is God'. There is too strong a weight of Biblical evidence against that position. The titles and functions of the Father are clearly applicable to the Son- and in fact the same Greek word is used about us as believers "in Christ" (<em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>).</p><p><em>Who planted a vineyard</em>-</p><p> The language of planting a vineyard and eating the fruit of it is used in <em><a href='B:530 3:6'>1Co 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:7'>1Co 9:7</a></em> about&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;work of preaching. Paul was unafraid to interpret the parable on multiple levels. We are to be fruitful; but in our work of sharing the Gospel with others we are also the planters who come seeking fruit on our converts. The suggestion could be that the owner personally did the planting and preparing. I say this because Isaiah 5, upon which the parable is based, includes this feature- of the owner doing so much personally. See on :34&nbsp;<em>The winepress</em>. All has been done so that we can produce spiritual fruit; but so often we excuse our lack of fruitfulness by blaming environment factors. The situation in our country, our town, workplace, marriage, family, health etc. And we can put huge effort into trying to change environment because we consider that we can be more fruitful for God in a different environment. But whilst passivity and fatalism are just as wrong, it must be accepted that our environment in the bigger picture has been uniquely and thoughtfully prepared by God so that we might be fruitful. For it is clear from the parable that our fruitfulness is God’s most passionate desire and intention for us. He would hardly place us in any other environment, therefore, than one ideally prepared by Him in order to enable and enhance our fruitfulness.</p><p><em>And set a hedge about it</em>-</p><p> The same word is used for the Law of Moses as the "wall of partition" (<em><a href='B:560 2:14'>Eph 2:14</a></em>). Although the vineyard was to be given to others, it was itself destroyed and dismantled by the owner; which involved the taking away of the Law of Moses. The vineyard functioned differently, on the basis of fruit being produced in the vine of Christ (John 15):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And dug a winepress</em>-</p><p> This was the place where the grapes were trodden to produce wine. It features in all record of this parable. What does it represent? Perhaps the temple, designed to be the means of producing the wine of covenant relationship with God. The targums on Isaiah 5, the song of the vineyard upon which the parable is based, interpret it as a reference to the destruction of the temple. But the Lord only elsewhere uses the term when three times using it as a symbol of God's final judgment of condemnation (<em><a href='B:730 14:19-20'>Rev 14:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:15'>Rev 19:15</a></em>). This is typical of the structure of God's plans with men. What is designed for our blessing can also be for our condemnation, just as a cup of wine is used as a symbol of both blessing and condemnation. Time and again we are left with nothing but two choices before us- of acceptance or condemnation. Israel were the vine of God's planting which produced bad fruit (<em><a href='B:300 2:21'>Jer 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:32-33'>Deu 32:32-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 10:1'>Hos 10:1</a></em>). The lack of good grapes on the vine was because of Israel's unspirituality (<em><a href='B:300 8:13'>Jer 8:13</a></em>) and allowing the wonderful vineyard to become overgrown (<em><a href='B:300 5:17'>Jer 5:17</a></em>). The reason why the workers beat and killed the servants was surely because actually they had no fruit to give them, even though the environment was perfect for good wine. The land of Israel was an environment and climate ideally suited to producing good vines (<em><a href='B:50 8:7'>Deu 8:7</a></em>). There was supposed to be joy at the gathering of the vine harvest- and that connection is frequently made in the Old Testament. Indeed, the pictures of joy and wine at harvest are the pictures of the Messianic Kingdom. It could have come- but Israel didn't produce the good grapes. Likewise, believe it or not, God has created an ideal environment for each of us to produce spiritual fruit. The song of the Vineyard in <em><a href='B:290 5:1-7'>Isa 5:1-7</a></em> is clearly the basis of the Lord's parable here, and this is the thrust of that story- that all had been done by God for the viticulture to flourish, but it didn't because of Israel's refusal to respond and to work. Isaiah 5 goes on to condemn Israel for drunkenness (<em><a href='B:290 5:11-13'>Isa 5:11-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:22'>Isa 5:22</a></em>), as if they had used the vine for their own selfishness, rather like the Jews had made the "feasts of Yahweh" the "feast of the Jews", His house had become "your house", and just as we can use the structure of God's working with men, the body of Christ, the mystical temple, as a social club for our own pleasure. God therefore withheld rain so that in any case, fruit was now impossible for Israel (<em><a href='B:290 5:6'>Isa 5:6</a></em>); and that is exactly the Lord's message in Matthew 21. The Isaiah 5 passage is in turn developed in <em><a href='B:290 27:2-6'>Isa 27:2-6</a></em>, where we find that Yahweh Himself guarded the vineyard, watered and weeded it, such was His almost obsessive interest in this project (<em><a href='B:290 27:3'>Isa 27:3</a></em>). The fruit hoped for was righteousness and justice (<em><a href='B:290 5:7'>Isa 5:7</a></em>); human injustice usually arises from passivity, going along with a group situation which hurts individuals and denies them justice. And this was the lack of fruit which led to condemnation. <em><a href='B:290 5:5'>Isa 5:5</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 80:13'>Psa 80:13</a></em> say that the judgment of the vineyard is in terms of having its walls broken down and it being destroyed; the Lord's parable doesn't deny that, but doesn't specifically mention it- rather does He focus upon fruit being produced by different workers. John 15 uses the imagery of the vine to suggest that fruit now comes from being branches within the vine of Christ- which grows with no reference to any vineyard, freestanding in the world.</p><p><em>And built a tower</em>-</p><p> It may be that the emphasis upon the tower and winepress is simply to show the degree of effort God went to so that the vineyard could produce fruit. The details of the allegory fall away compared to the supreme point- that God did all possible to provide an environment which would produce fruit.</p><p><em>And let it out to husbandmen; and went into another country</em>-</p><p> Not necessarily the ascension of the Lord Jesus. It could be a reference to God’s entry of covenant with Israel, at which "God came down on mount Sinai" (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:19'>Exo 20:19</a></em>) and then "ascended up on high" (<em><a href='B:230 68:18'>Psa 68:18</a></em>):&nbsp; The Greek specifically means to go into a foreign, i:e. Gentile, country. It is used of the prodigal son going into a far country (<em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>). Let us remember that the Son in the parable represents the Lord Jesus, the owner is clearly God. This going away is not therefore representative of the Lord's ascension to Heaven, although it appears to be used that way in <em><a href='B:470 25:14-15'>Mat 25:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em> "the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey", s:w:. This may just be the furniture of the parable, alluding to the common experience of absentee landlords. These were often characterized by being uncaring for their land; but this owner was particular careful for his project to the point of obsession. He wanted the fruit, not money. It therefore may be part of the impression given, that the owner appears to be absent and disinterested- but in reality He is passionately interested. And this is exactly the position with God, who is perceived as somehow distant and passionless about His project on earth. There may also be the hint that even before He considered giving His precious vineyard to the Gentiles, which appears at the end of the parable, He had in fact initially envisaged this, and had in some form gone to the Gentiles right from the start of His project with Israel.</p><p>Initially, the parable would've got the hearers on the side of the labourers; because it was a frequent complaint that absentee landlords abused their tenants, who worked hard just to send cash off to the landlord in another country. But the parable twists around, so that after initially identifying with this group, the people came to see that it was they who stood condemned.</p>


text:
<p>21:34&nbsp;<em>And when the harvest season drew near</em>-</p><p> A phrase used by Matthew about the drawing near of the Kingdom at Christ's time (<em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:17'>Mat 4:17</a></em>). But by the end of His ministry, the Lord was warning that false teachers would wrongly claim that "the time draws near" (<em><a href='B:490 21:8'>Luk 21:8</a></em>). Clearly He taught that the time had drawn near, but not come. He taught at the end of His ministry how He was as a man who had gone to&nbsp;a far country for a long time. This invites us to understand that with each appeal of the prophets, and of John as the last prophet, the time potentially could have come. God's purpose is thus open ended. Peter uses the same word to speak of how the end of all things is drawing near (<em><a href='B:670 4:7'>1Pe 4:7</a></em>), and Paul likewise (<em><a href='B:520 13:12'>Rom 13:12</a></em>). It could have come in AD70- but again, a great delay, until our last days. This is why setting any date for the second coming is inappropriate- for it is a case of fulfilling preconditions, rather than awaiting a day fixed on a calendar. "The season" for fruit (<em><a href='B:480 12:2'>Mar 12:2</a></em>) had indeed come, many times- all was potentially ready for it, but human failure meant there was no harvest.</p><p><em>He sent</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>&nbsp;again encourages the apostles to see themselves as the equivalent of the Old Testament 'sent ones'- the prophets.</p><p><em>His servants to the husbandmen, to get his fruit</em>-</p><p> The prophets (<em><a href='B:120 9:7'>2Ki 9:7</a></em> and often). Note that the prophets were sent from God, as the Lord Jesus was; but this doesn't imply they were in Heaven with God before their sending, and neither was the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:35'>Mat 21:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the husbandmen took his servants and beat one-&nbsp;</em>When the world reviled him, Paul saw himself as the beaten prophets Jesus had spoken about (<em><a href='B:540 11:24-25'>2Co 11:24-25</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 21:35'>Mat 21:35</a></em>):&nbsp; <em><a href='B:480 12:4'>Mar 12:4</a></em> adds that the last servant was “wounded in the head”, surely a reference to the beheading of John the Baptist and shameful treatment of his severed head.</p><p><em>And killed another and stoned another</em>-</p><p> There are few accounts of Old Testament prophets being killed or stoned. But beating, stoning and killing are Mosaic punishments for apostasy, and so the idea may be that Israel excused their lack of spiritual fruitfulness by judging as apostate the prophets who demanded this of them. This is typical- the unspiritual transfer their own anger with themselves and awareness of their own coming judgment onto others, whom they condemn as worthy of judgment and punishment.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:36'>Mat 21:36</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Again, he sent other servants more than the first, and they did the same to them</em>-</p><p> The two groups of servants is unique to Matthew’s account, and is perhaps an allusion to the Jewish distinction between the “former prophets” and the “latter prophets”.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And last of all he sent his son to them, saying: They will respect my son</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em> adds "It may be that...". The Greek&nbsp;<em>isos</em>&nbsp;is tantalizingly hard to understand. It could mean 'Perhaps'; or equally it could mean 'They will, surely'. <em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em> adds “My beloved Son”. Thus the joyful harvest song of <em><a href='B:290 5:1'>Isa 5:1</a></em>, the "song of my beloved”, becomes the tragedy of "My beloved son":&nbsp;The invitation "O inhabitants of Jerusalem… judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard" (<em><a href='B:290 5:3'>Isa 5:3</a></em>) is matched by the rhetorical question: "What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them?" (<em><a href='B:490 20:15'>Luk 20:15</a></em>). This too was addressed by the Lord to Jerusalem’s inhabitants.</p><p>We wonder of course how the Father could truly feel like this if He is omniscient. My suggestion is that He limits His omniscience in order to enter fully into our human experience; which means that His expressions of shock and disappointment are legitimate reflections of how He actually feels.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves</em>– That is, they conspired. This is quoting the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:18'>Gen 37:18</a></em>. And the allusion is also to&nbsp;<em>"When they shall see him,&nbsp;</em>there is no beauty that they should desire him" (ls. 53:2). "Shamefully handled" (<em><a href='B:480 12:4'>Mar 12:4</a></em>) is s:w. <em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em> LXX "despised".</p><p><em>This is the heir</em>-</p><p> The leaders of first century Israel initially recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 37:20'>Gen 37:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>). They saw (i:e. understood, recognized) him, but then they were made blind by Christ (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>). It was because they "saw" Jesus as the Messiah that the sin of rejecting him was counted to them (<em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>). This explains why the Roman / Italian nation was not held guilty for crucifying Christ, although they did it, whereas the Jewish nation was. And yet there is ample Biblical evidence to suggest that these same people who "saw" / recognized Jesus as the Christ were also ignorant of his Messiahship. "Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am... Ye neither know me, nor my Father... when ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he" (<em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>) were all addressed to the same group of Jews. Did they know / recognize Jesus as Messiah, or not? As they jeered at him on the cross, and asked Pilate to change the nameplate from "Jesus, King of the Jews", did they see him as their Messiah? It seems to me that they didn't. In ignorance the Jewish leaders and people crucified their Messiah (<em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em> RV). And yet they knew him for who he was, they saw him coming as the heir. I would suggest the resolution to all this is that they did recognize him first of all, but because they didn't want to accept him, their eyes were blinded, so that they honestly thought that he was an impostor, and therefore in ignorance they crucified him. And yet, it must be noted, what they did in this ignorance, they were seriously accountable for before God.</p><p><em>Come, let us kill him and take his inheritance</em>-</p><p> Their assumption therefore was that the landlord must have died, for otherwise, killing the son would not have given them the inheritance. They acted, as we can, as if God is dead; although they would never have admitted that. The apparent non-action of God can likewise lead to the wrong impression that He is effectively dead. Seizing a vineyard for personal possession reminds us of Ahab’s actions in <em><a href='B:110 21:15-16'>1Ki 21:15-16</a></em> - making Naboth a type of Christ, and associating the Jewish religious leadership with wicked Ahab. However, Ahab did repent- and one wonders whether the Lord built in this allusion in reflection of His amazing hopefulness for Israel’s repentance. The allusion to Ahab may have been born in the Lord's Bible-saturated mind by the way that <em><a href='B:290 5:6'>Isa 5:6</a></em> spoke of rain being withheld from the vineyard, as happened in Ahab and Elijah's time. The confirmation of Israel in their evil way was brought to its climax in the crucifixion of Christ. The leaders of first century Israel initially recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 37:20'>Gen 37:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>). They saw (i:e. understood, recognized) him, but then they were made blind by Christ (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>). It was because they "saw" Jesus as the Messiah that the sin of rejecting him was counted to them (<em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>). This explains why the Roman / Italian nation was not held guilty for crucifying Christ, although they did it, whereas the Jewish nation was. And yet there is ample Biblical evidence to suggest that these same people who "saw" / recognized Jesus as the Christ were also ignorant of his Messiahship. "Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am... Ye neither know me, nor my Father... when ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he" (<em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>) were all addressed to the same group of Jews. Did they know / recognize Jesus as Messiah, or not? As they jeered at him on the cross, and asked Pilate to change the nameplate from "Jesus, King of the Jews", did they see him as their Messiah? It seems to me that they didn't. In ignorance the Jewish leaders and people crucified their Messiah (<em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em> RV). And yet they knew him for who he was, they saw him coming as the heir. I would suggest the resolution to all this is that they did recognize him first of all, but because they didn't want to accept him, their eyes were blinded, so that they honestly thought that he was an impostor, and therefore in ignorance they crucified him. And yet, it must be noted, what they did in this ignorance, they were seriously accountable for before God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:39'>Mat 21:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him</em>-</p><p> Surely a reference to the Lord being crucified outside Jerusalem. In this case, the vineyard specifically speaks of Jerusalem and the temple. <em><a href='B:480 12:8'>Mar 12:8</a></em> appears in English to suggest a different order: Took, killed, cast out of the vineyard. But the Greek text doesn’t have to be read strictly chronologically. Strictly, they “took Him, killed and cast out of the vineyard”. The killed-and-cast-out need not be chronological. Or it could be that the Lord is teaching that effectively, they had killed Him before casting Him out and crucifying; the essence of the cross was ongoing in His life. That is clear enough in a number of Gospel passages.</p><p><em>"</em>Cast Him out<em>"</em>&nbsp;has obvious connection to the way in which the Lord was crucified outside the city limits of Jerusalem. But 'cast him out' is parallel with the stone being "rejected" by the builders (:42). The 'casting out' therefore speaks of religious rejection from the community. The same word is used of how the Lord was cast out of Nazareth (<em><a href='B:490 4:29'>Luk 4:29</a></em>), and how believers would be cast out from Judaism (<em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>) and the synagogue (<em><a href='B:500 9:34'>Joh 9:34</a></em>); and even from the legalistic church (<em><a href='B:710 1:10'>3Jn 1:10</a></em> "casts them out of the church"). Any who experience being cast out of the visible body of God's people are thereby fellowshipping the Lord's crucifixion sufferings. Yet sadly the experience destroys many- when it can be taken as a share in His sufferings, knowing that if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him. It is the same word used for the casting out of the rejected from the Kingdom to final condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em>); those who cast out of the vineyard, the Kingdom (:43) will themselves be cast out of the Kingdom at the last day.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:40'>Mat 21:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When therefore the owner of the vineyard shall come, what will he do to those husbandmen?</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus said this with the cry still echoing in His ears concerning Himself: "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord" (:9). He clearly has Himself in view, 'coming' in behalf of His Father. His parody of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem was really an entering of Jerusalem in judgment upon them. His entry into Jerusalem and the temple was in essence the Lord of the vineyard coming. He certainly uses the language of the Lord coming with reference to Himself (<em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:42'>Mat 24:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:46'>Mat 24:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:48'>Mat 24:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:19'>Mat 25:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They said to him: He will miserably destroy those miserable men</em>-</p><p> In the Greek, "miserable"&nbsp;<em>kakos</em>&nbsp;is related to "wicked"&nbsp;<em>kakos</em>. Those men will suffer their own wickedness. And just as the Jews said that those wicked men would be punished with their own wickedness, so out of their own mouths they were judged; in the same way as the Father had asked the Jews to "judge between Me and My vineyard", even though they were the vineyard (<em><a href='B:290 5:3'>Isa 5:3</a></em>). It would seem that the literal words of the rejected will be quoted back to them at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em> "Out of your own mouth will I judge you"; <em><a href='B:720 1:15'>Jud 1:15</a></em> "To convict all that are unGodly... of all their hard words"). This is just as David was invited to speak words of judgment on a sinner, and was told: "thou art the man". God will remember against Edom the specific words they spoke when Jerusalem fell (<em><a href='B:230 137:7'>Psa 137:7</a></em> RV). See on <em><a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a></em>.</p><p><em>And will let out the vineyard to other husbandmen-&nbsp;</em>The Lord’s judgment is different. He will&nbsp;<em>give&nbsp;</em>the vineyard to the others (:44). And yet He will come and destroy the vineyard, and the new nation He will choose will not just give Him some of the fruit, but will themselves become part of the vine, and themselves bear fruit to Him (:43; John 15).</p><p><em><a href='B:480 12:9'>Mar 12:9</a></em> records that the Lord spoke of how the owner Himself would “come and destroy the husbandmen”. This is a shocking change in tempo- the owner has appeared impotent, distant and naive, to the point that the husbandmen considered He was effectively dead:&nbsp; They reasoned that if they killed the Son, then the vineyard would be theirs. But this is exactly the nature of Divine judgment. The God who appears effectively dead, at least impotent, distant and naïve, will suddenly reveal Himself in direct judgment. We believe that now by faith, but it shall surely happen.</p><p><em>Who shall pay him the fruits in their seasons</em>-</p><p> Literally, 'times'. But for the Lord there is only one harvest. Once the fruit is ripe from the first harvest, then it will be reaped. Or it may be that God's aim is that we the husbandmen bring forth all the required fruits (of the spirit) "in their seasons". This indicates that over time, the various members of the body between them will bring forth every aspect of God's spirituality. The parable of the talents indicates how we have each individually been given something different by Christ. The parable of the pounds is along the same lines; as is the story of the Master who went away and left his servants looking after the house:&nbsp;<em>Each</em>&nbsp;of them was given his own&nbsp;<em>separate</em>&nbsp;work to do (<em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>). This accounts for the way in which each of us will be judged according to our own works- i:e. according to how far we have done those things which Christ intended us personally to do.</p>


text:
<p>21:42&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to them: Did you never read in the scriptures</em>-</p><p> They spent their whole lives reading Scripture, and Psalms 118 was a well known Passover Hallel. But we can read and yet never really read as God intends.</p><p><em>The stone which the builders rejected</em>-</p><p> The Lord would be "rejected of the elders, chief priests and scribes" (<em><a href='B:480 8:31'>Mar 8:31</a></em> s:w:); indeed, "rejected by this generation" (<em><a href='B:490 17:25'>Luk 17:25</a></em>).</p><p><em>The same was made the head of the corner</em>-</p><p> If the builders rejected this stone, the implication is that another set of builders used it in another building, which became the temple of God. This is precisely the situation with the vineyard being taken away from the Jewish tenants and another group of workers being taken on. The quotation is seamlessly in context with the parable.</p><p><em>This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes</em>-</p><p> In whose eyes would the elevation and acceptance of the stone a similar Hebrew and Aramaic word to "son" be marvellous or miraculous / praiseworthy? The quotation is from <em><a href='B:230 118:23'>Psa 118:23</a></em>. This Psalm is a dialogue between the speaker, who is in suffering and rejection and yet has hope of resurrection and glorious acceptance, and another group of people who sing or speak their response. This is why there are statements in the first person e.g. "The Lord is&nbsp;<em>my</em>&nbsp;strength…&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;will praise you", and then responses of the group: "It is marvellous in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;eyes…&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;will rejoice and be glad…&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;have blessed you... the Lord has showed&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;light". Who is this group? The Psalm opens with instruction to "The house of Aaron... Israel... them that fear the Lord" to respond to the Messiah figure in praise (<em><a href='B:230 118:2-4'>Psa 118:2-4</a></em>). The priesthood are often paralleled with all Israel, because it was God's intention that eventually all Israel should be a priestly nation. The significance of the quotation in <em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em> is that it was to be the intended response of the "house of Aaron", Israel's religious leaders, to the acceptance of the rejected stone / son of God. But it was the Lord's disciples who would make this response. They, therefore were the new "house of Aaron"- yet another hint that the Lord was creating a new Israel with another priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>21:43&nbsp;<em>Therefore say I to you: The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you</em>-</p><p> The whole vineyard system is spoken of as the Kingdom of God. The Jewish people were therefore not the Kingdom of God- because the Kingdom was taken&nbsp;<em>from</em>&nbsp;them and given to others. They had been instated as God's Kingdom at Sinai, but now, by implication, that status was being withdrawn from them.</p><p><em>And shall be given to a nation</em>-</p><p> In the singular. The various nationalities of the new group of workers are irrelevant, we are seen as one new nation, a new people.</p><p><em>Bringing forth the fruits of it</em>-</p><p> This is subtly different to 'rendering Him the fruits in their season' (:41). The new nation are no longer merely tenants, but are the vine themselves; the fruit is to be on them. And this is exactly the way the imagery of viticulture is used in John 15. Spiritual fruit is the fruit of the Kingdom. The fruits of the Spirit in terms of personality traits, characteristics etc. are the fruits which will eternally be seen in the Kingdom. They are a firstfruits, a foretaste, of the Kingdom age. In John's terms, we are living the eternal life now, the kind of life which we shall eternally live.</p>


text:
<p>21:44&nbsp;<em>And he that falls on this stone shall be broken to pieces, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust-&nbsp;</em>AV "Will grind him to powder". There is an unmistakable allusion here to the stone destroying the image, the Kingdoms of men, in <em><a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a></em>. The choice we have is to fall upon Christ and break our bones, to get up and stumble on with our natural self broken in every bone; or to be ground to powder by the Lord at his return, to share the judgments of this surrounding evil world- being&nbsp;“condemned with the world...". Yet strangely (at first sight) the figure of stumbling on the stone of Christ often describes the person who stumbles at his word,&nbsp;who rejects it (<em><a href='B:290 8:14-15'>Isa 8:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7-8'>1Pe 2:7-8</a></em>). In other words, through our spiritual failures we come to break ourselves, we become a community of broken men and women; broken in that we have broken our inner soul in conformity to God's will. As Simeon cuddled that beautiful, innocent baby Jesus, he foresaw all this: "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again (resurrection) of many in Israel... that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed" (<em><a href='B:490 2:34'>Luk 2:34</a></em>). If we are to share his resurrection, if we are to experience such newness of life in this life, we must fall upon him, really feel the cutting edge of his word. We must be broken now; or be broken and ground to powder at the judgment. See on 3:11:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>21:45&nbsp;<em>And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived</em>-</p><p> The connection with Isaiah 5 was so clear, and that song of the vineyard was a well known passage understood as the justification for the destruction of the first temple.</p><p><em>That he spoke of them</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Peri</em>&nbsp;in this construction more means 'through'. They realized that their very own words of :41 were the Lord talking to them. They had been trounced, and stood self-condemned. And so they went blindly ahead in their hurt pride and confirmed it by planning to murder the Son who had been sent to them. They should have stopped in their tracks and repented. They realized they had uttered the words of their own condemnation. The Lord Jesus had spoken to them through their own words. They were furious about it. The only options were to repent, to give in; or to go madly ahead, fuelled by the hurt pride of a moment, and do the unthinkable in murdering God's Son.</p>


text:
<p>21:46&nbsp;<em>And although they were seeking</em>-</p><p> The very language of Herod seeking to destroy God's son (<em><a href='B:470 2:13'>Mat 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:20'>Mat 2:20</a></em>). They were no better than the despised Herod:&nbsp;</p><p><em>To arrest him-&nbsp;</em>The Greek for "Lay hands on / arrest" is likewise used for what Herod did to John the Baptist (<em><a href='B:470 14:3'>Mat 14:3</a></em>). The Lord uses the same word soon afterwards to describe how His servants will likewise suffer (<em><a href='B:470 22:6'>Mat 22:6</a></em> "The remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully and killed them"). The Lord intends us to see all our sufferings as part of his. Matthew repeatedly uses the word to describe how the Jews laid hands on the Lord to arrest and kill Him (<em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:48'>Mat 26:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>They feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet</em>-</p><p> We see the fickleness of the crowd. They were soon crying for the Lord's blood.</p>


text:
<p>22:1&nbsp;<em>And Jesus answered and spoke again in parables to them, saying-&nbsp;</em>As often with the Lord's parables, He begins by setting up an expectation (in this case, of joy and fulfilment) which is then dashed by human failure, and turns very unpleasant and indeed calls forth the hardest judgments. The parable is clearly related to that of the wicked husbandmen at the end of chapter 21, and seeks to add more detail and justification for that judgment upon Israel. The feast&nbsp; can be understood as a betrothal feast, to celebrate the engagement of the Son, rather than speaking of the marriage supper of the Lamb. And yet it could also refer to this, in that this was planned and could have happened far earlier than it finally will do, just as in the previous parable, the time of fruit was ready right from the time of the sending of the first servant.</p><p>The parable is clearly quarried from <em><a href='B:430 1:7-8'>Zep 1:7-8</a></em>: "The day of the Lord is at hand; for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests. And it shall come to pass... that I will punish the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel". The context of Zephaniah is his appeal to Judah at Josiah's time (<em><a href='B:430 1:1'>Zep 1:1</a></em>), who had&nbsp;<em>appeared</em>&nbsp;to respond to Josiah's call to repent, but not in their hearts. It was exactly his "princes" who had apparently responded to his appeal for radical reformation (<em><a href='B:140 34:29-32'>2Ch 34:29-32</a></em>); but in Zephaniah 1 they are condemned as insincere. This is clearly seen by the Lord as analogous to Israel having responded to John's attempted reformation- when their hearts were far from it, and eventually they like the Judah of Josiah's day were to be judged and have their city and temple burnt by the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>22:2&nbsp;<em>The kingdom of heaven is likened to a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his son-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The parable of the marriage supper is what "the Kingdom of heaven is like". As with so many of Christ's parables, this one too is quarried from the book of Proverbs; in this case <em><a href='B:240 9:2-5'>Pro 9:2-5</a></em>, which describes how wisdom makes everything ready for her feast. The food and wine which is there represents the wisdom of God. The Kingdom of God is therefore likened to this supreme feast on the knowledge of God. The Kingdom will therefore be a feast of such things. We love God in this life, but surely we cry out for a greater understanding and appreciation of Him? Do we not cry for wisdom, and lift up our voice for understanding? If we do have this feeling, then we will be supremely motivated to strive to reach that glorious time of true knowledge.</p>


text:
<p>22:3&nbsp;<em>And sent out his servants</em>-</p><p> The parable is similar to that of the preceding parable of the wicked husbandmen. These servants are God's "servants the prophets" who in Old Testament times called Israel to repentance and the Kingdom. The term "servants" is used throughout the parable. The servants go again to Israel, and are beaten and killed (:4). Those "other servants" are perhaps the apostles in their witness to Israel after the Lord's death, whose rejection culminated in the burning up of their city of Jerusalem (:7). More "servants" are then urgently sent to bring in anyone willing to say "yes". And they refer to our witness in this age. Yet it is also the "servants" who bind and destroy the rejected (:13). These servants are all "sent",&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>. There is a clear continuity between the witness of the prophets, the apostles and ourselves. "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" in the sense that our preaching of Him is in the spirit of the Old Testament prophets (<em><a href='B:730 19:10'>Rev 19:10</a></em>). Again we are all encouraged to see ourselves as brethren of the prophets; they were not, as Judaism supposed, some separate group of white faced saints. Our witness is the equivalent of being them in the new Israel. The "servants" who bind the man in condemnation refer in other parables to the Angels. It could be that we too do this work; or it may be that we're being shown that we are not only in a continuum with the Old Testament prophets and 1st century apostles, but are likewise inline with the Angels. Hence an Angel urged the apostle John that He was one with John and also "your brethren the prophets" (<em><a href='B:730 22:9'>Rev 22:9</a></em>). We are not alone. We are in a direct line, on a continuum, with Angels, prophets and apostles, the&nbsp;<em>elohim</em>&nbsp;of the new Israel and new age created in Christ.</p><p>God's servants (the Old and New Testament prophets - <em><a href='B:730 2:20'>Rev 2:20</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:510 2:18'>Act 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:29'>Act 4:29</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:450 1:6'>Zec 1:6</a></em>) were sent by God "to call them that were bidden to the wedding:&nbsp; but they would not come" (<em><a href='B:470 22:3'>Mat 22:3</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; The Greek word for "call" being the same translated "bidden”, we have here an example of the interplay between predestination and the calling of God through the Gospel - the word of the prophets/apostles 'called them who were (already) called' in God's purpose:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This class must primarily refer to the Jews:&nbsp;&nbsp; The refusal to attend the wedding obviously equates with the Jewish rejection of Christ's work:&nbsp;&nbsp; God pleaded, "I have prepared my dinner", i:e. the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 22:2'>Mat 22:2</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This corresponds with the Kingdom 'coming nigh' to Israel through the first century preaching of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:490 10:9'>Luk 10:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:11'>Luk 10:11</a></em>) and the primary fulfilment of the Olivet prophecy in the run up to A:D. 70 (<em><a href='B:480 13:29'>Mar 13:29</a></em>).</p><p><em>To call them that were invited-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Literally, 'to call the called'. Israel and in a sense all God's people were called from the foundation of the world. The allusion may be to the way in which people were invited to banquets, gave their agreement to attend, and then a servant was sent to actually take them to the banquet. But we should be aware that the language of 'calling the called' doesn't necessarily mean that there is a list of called ones, established from the beginning of the world, and our preaching is a hit and miss affair, sometimes reaching the 'called' and sometimes not, in which case our words were wasted. 'Calling the called' could equally mean that whoever hears the call is therefore and thereby 'called'. The invitation is to "whomsoever will", and the more people we call, the more are called. The urging of men to respond with the encouragement "whomsoever will..." is hardly appropriate if some cannot respond because they were not 'called' from the beginning, were never on the list. And yet in the bigger picture, there clearly is an element of predestination involved with calling; and Paul references this in Romans as the ultimate example of grace. In the final picture, not all have heard the call. Because God's servants didn't take the call to all, and so for whatever reason, some are not called- and in that is the element of predestination. And yet the parable gives some further insight into this question. The first group of servants 'call the called', but the last group of servants after the burning of Jerusalem are urged to drag in whoever they can find. It's as if in Old Testament times, the appeal was to all within Israel, the called people. But now, all men can be called.</p><p><em>To the marriage feast</em>-</p><p> An engagement banquet, or the actual wedding? In either case, the principle is established that the Messianic banquet of the Kingdom could have come in Old Testament times; it could have come when the second set of servants the apostles made their appeal in the first century up until the burning of the city in AD70; and it will come whenever we as the servants of God in this age have finally gathered in enough potential guests. This is the same idea as in the preceding parable, where the harvest was ready, the time had 'drawn near', at the time of every appeal to Israel through the prophets. God's purpose is taught, time and again, to be open-ended and dependent upon Israel's response and our efforts in witness. For&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;the Gospel has gone to all the world,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall the end come (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>). The whole idea of a royal couple being kept waiting, in fact kept waiting for centuries and a few millennia, is shocking and tragic. We feel sorry for them, just as we in a sense feel sorry for the Father and Son. This unexpected delay in the wedding banquet is developed in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins in chapter 25. Because of it, they all fell asleep when, according to the allusions to the parable in 1 Thessalonians 5, they should have stayed awake. It was a huge tragedy and shame all round, if we put the parables together.</p><p><em>But they would not come</em>-</p><p> The same words in <em><a href='B:470 21:29'>Mat 21:29</a></em> of the son who said "I will not" work in the vineyard but repented and went to work. The Lord wished to gather Jerusalem's children under His wings to save them from the great fire of destruction coming upon them, but they "would not" (<em><a href='B:470 23:37'>Mat 23:37</a></em> s:w:). But in what practical way did they not want to come? The same words are used of how the Jews "would not" help their brother with the burden of human failure (<em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em>), or how the unforgiving debtor "would not" forgive his brother (<em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em>) and the older brother "would not" go in to the celebration banquet for the returned prodigal (<em><a href='B:490 15:28'>Luk 15:28</a></em>). They "would not come" to Jesus in repentance (<em><a href='B:500 5:40'>Joh 5:40</a></em>). Their refusal of the invitation to the Messianic banquet, to the Kingdom, was in terms of their attitude to others. Just as if we don't want a part in the church as the body of Christ, we don't want a part in Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Again</em>-</p><p> This and the use of the word "other" later in the sentence develops an impression of the King's continued effort with the guests:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited-&nbsp;</em>People are called to the Kingdom, and yet also called s:w. to repentance (<em><a href='B:470 9:13'>Mat 9:13</a></em>) and called to appear at judgment day (<em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>). When we hear the call and respond, we begin our journey towards judgment day. That day, therefore, is not just for the baptized, but for any who heard the call and began the journey. The parable and teaching of Luke 14 show that we are those called, and yet we are also those who call others (<em><a href='B:490 14:10'>Luk 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:13'>Luk 14:13</a></em>). We are to reflect the grace of how we were called by calling others. The Greek&nbsp;<em>kaleo,&nbsp;</em>"call", isn't a passive word when used in the sense of inviting persons. It's from&nbsp;<em>keleuo,&nbsp;</em>to command or urge onwards. Our calling of others, and God's calling of us, involves an urging towards response:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Look, I have made ready my dinner</em>-</p><p> The obvious unreality of the story is that the dinner sits on the table, as it were, for centuries. But this is indeed the strangeness of God's openness to us. The time has always been ready, if human response and the effort of His servants has been enough. John's mission had been to "prepare" the way for Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em> s:w:), through 'preparing' a people for Him (<em><a href='B:490 1:17'>Luk 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em> s:w:). Although it had indeed been prepared, Israel didn't want it. A unique place in God's Kingdom has been "prepared" for each of us from the foundation of the world (<em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em> "Them for whom it has been prepared of My Father"; <em><a href='B:500 14:2'>Joh 14:2</a></em> "to prepare a place for you"; <em><a href='B:530 2:9'>1Co 2:9</a></em> "the things which God has prepared for those who love Him"; <em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em> "He has prepared for them a city"; <em><a href='B:670 1:5'>1Pe 1:5</a></em> our salvation is "prepared" for us). The tragedy of the story is that such a wonderful feast had been "prepared"- the same word is found later in :4 "All things are&nbsp;<em>ready</em>" and in :8 "the wedding is&nbsp;<em>ready</em>". Perhaps this helps us understand the otherwise enigmatic words of the Lord to the Jews in <em><a href='B:500 7:6'>Joh 7:6</a></em>: "Your time is always&nbsp;<em>ready</em>" (s:w:)- the time of establishment of the Kingdom, the time of the harvest&nbsp;in the previous parable of the labourers, was always potentially prepared and ready, it just depended upon Israel's acceptance of it.</p><p><em>My oxen and My fatlings are killed</em>-</p><p> Perhaps a reference to the end of the Mosaic system, or perhaps an intensive plural referring to the one great sacrifice that had been made in the Lord Jesus. "Oxen" or bulls are specifically spoken of as the animals which prefigured the Lord's sacrifice (<em><a href='B:650 9:13'>Heb 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em> s:w:). "Killed" translates&nbsp;<em>thuo</em>, the word for sacrifice. We could also note that the Greek word translated "prepared" is used about 15 times in the Gospels for the preparation of the last Passover, which was typical of the Lord's death.</p><p><em>And all things are ready</em>-</p><p> The same word for "prepared". Absolutely all things were prepared for the Messianic banquet, it really could have come in the first century:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Come to the marriage feast</em>-</p><p> "Come" translates&nbsp;<em>deute</em>, which is a summons in the imperative. It's the same word used in "Follow Me" (<em><a href='B:470 4:19'>Mat 4:19</a></em>), "Come unto Me" (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>), "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>). The wonder of what has been prepared coupled with the tragedy of it having been refused means that the Father is eager to compel people to accept it. This intense desire of the Father is to be ours as we in our day appeal to men to "come". In no way is God somehow passive and disinterested in human response, even if His apparent silence in the face of the rejection of His Kingdom may appear that way. Behind that apparent silence is an intense desire for our response. "Come unto", using&nbsp;<em>eis</em>, really means 'Come into'. This isn't simply an offer 'for your information', it is a willing desire to compel men to enter into the Kingdom through their response to the Gospel call.</p><p>We are on our way to judgment day, and that day is rushing towards us (cp. <em><a href='B:490 14:31'>Luk 14:31</a></em>); the hearing of the Gospel is in itself a call to go forth and meet the Lord.</p><p>There are ample hints that this parable should also be given some reference to the burning up of Jerusalem in the last days:&nbsp;&nbsp; The prophetic "servants" of :4 who call Israel to repentance are matched by a singular "servant" in the similar parable in <em><a href='B:490 14:17'>Luk 14:17</a></em>:&nbsp;There can be no doubt that such differences are designed:&nbsp;'Elijah' and his latter-day school of prophets will minister the word to Israel, which would explain the use in the parables of "servant" and "servants" - the group of prophets being led by one particular prophet.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:5'>Mat 22:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But they made light of it</em>-</p><p> The note of tragedy in "But..." mustn't be missed. This is the tragedy of human rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom- the greatest things are prepared, but they are 'made light of' because the things of this life seem heavier. Israel's making light of the invitation is our warning, for <em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em> uses the same word here translated "made light": "How shall we escape, if we&nbsp;<em>neglect</em>&nbsp;such a great salvation". Paul uses the same word in urging Timothy not to "neglect" the gifts of potential service which he had been given (<em><a href='B:610 4:14'>1Ti 4:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And went their ways</em>-</p><p> Albeit masked in translation, this one Greek word&nbsp;<em>aperchomai&nbsp;</em>is related to the word&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>&nbsp;used in :3- "They would not&nbsp;<em>come</em>". Instead of going to the banquet, they went... to their various concerns. Two ways were therefore placed before them- to go the way to the banquet of the Kingdom, or go the ways of worldly cares. Although again concealed in most translations, this is the connection of thought with the unusual word&nbsp;<em>diexodos</em>&nbsp;translated "highways", literally 'the parting of the two ways', in :9. It was there, at the fork between two ways, that the appeal was to be made by the later servants:&nbsp;</p><p><em>One to his farm</em>-</p><p> Literally 'this one to his farm, this one to his trading'. We are thus invited to imagine these characters. Maybe the Lord was nodding His head towards passers by as He spoke these words. Banquets began in the evening hence the man thrown out of it was thrown out into darkness, :13, and so this apparent element of unreality makes us interpret the Lord as meaning that&nbsp;<em>in their minds</em>&nbsp;they went off to their various secular concerns. For they would hardly be going off to those things in the evening. The farmer was presumably living at his farm when the servant came to take him to the banquet, so this going to his farm must be interpreted psychologically. Time and again we must remember that John's message, which had been primarily about the Lord and the need for repentance (<em><a href='B:510 19:4'>Act 19:4</a></em>) had enjoyed amazing response. But it was all surface level response- even the baptisms. In their hearts, people made light of it and went off in their secular worries and concerns. This has biting relevance to us, who can be fully and positively engaged with the call to the Kingdom as we consider it in reading about it or listening to it preached in church. But that enthusiastic agreement with the message can so quickly and easily be displaced by the cares of this world. The Lord's parable of the sower was initially His commentary upon how the people had responded to John's message about Him and the Kingdom, but the cares of the world and other factors soon choked the growth of that seed.</p><p><em>Another to his business</em>-</p><p> Again, trading isn't done in the evening, which was when the banquet would have begun. The only other time the Lord uses this idea of trading or 'merchant-ing' in the Gospels is in speaking of the merchant man who sold up all he had in order to buy the pearl of great price, and thus quit his trading (<em><a href='B:470 13:45'>Mat 13:45</a></em>). The parable is alluding to the way in which invitations were sent out, accepted, and then a servant came to escort the invited person to the banquet. This generation had accepted the invitation in that they had accepted John's preaching. But when it came to actually entering the Kingdom, they were instead dominated by the cares of secular life. And it is exactly this, rather than any logical or intellectual difficulty in accepting the message, which is the real reason people turn down the invitation. "They made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise" would imply that there was a period of crazy addiction to materialism among Jewry between the crucifixion and A:D. 70:&nbsp;&nbsp; This is confirmed by the epistles to the Jewish believers, notably James and Peter; it also finds a counterpart in our present 'last days'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:6'>Mat 22:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>While the rest seized his servants</em>-</p><p> "Took /seized" means to lay hands on by force, and has just been used about the Jews' desire to arrest the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 21:46'>Mat 21:46</a></em> "They sought to&nbsp;<em>lay hands on</em>&nbsp;Him"). And it's used in that connection when they did finally 'take' Him to death (<em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:48'>Mat 26:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Treated them shamefully</em>-</p><p> Again, the very word used about the Lord's final sufferings: "He shall be&nbsp;<em>treated shamefully</em>" (<em><a href='B:490 18:32'>Luk 18:32</a></em>). The point is, that the Lord's final crucifixion sufferings were to be shared by His people as they took His appeal to the Jews. Paul seems to have grasped this, for he uses this same word in precisely this context: "We were&nbsp;<em>shamefully treated</em>" by the Jews when preaching the Gospel to them (<em><a href='B:590 2:2'>1Th 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:5'>Act 14:5</a></em>). Paul saw himself in the parables- just as we should. Paul describes himself as having been “shamefully entreated” when he brought the Gospel to Philippi (<em><a href='B:590 2:2'>1Th 2:2</a></em>)- using the Greek word used in <em><a href='B:470 22:6'>Mat 22:6</a></em> concerning how the messengers sent to the vineyard were “entreated spitefully”. And maybe Paul was consciously aware that the Lord Himself had spoken of how He would be “spitefully entreated” (<em><a href='B:490 18:32'>Luk 18:32</a></em>) during His final sufferings. Hence Paul could speak of filling up the measure of Christ’s sufferings through what he suffered whilst preaching Christ’s Gospel (<em><a href='B:580 1:24'>Col 1:24</a></em>).</p><p><em>And killed them</em>-</p><p> To put to death, the same word used about the Lord's crucifixion (<em><a href='B:470 16:21'>Mat 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:23'>Mat 17:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>). The killing or slaying s:w. of the Son sent to the vineyard in <em><a href='B:470 21:39'>Mat 21:39</a></em> was to be repeated in the slaying of the first century preachers of the Gospel. Even today, our sufferings for preaching the Gospel are a share in the Lord's crucifixion sufferings.</p><p>The question arises: Why the extreme treatment of the servants by those invited, and why does the King react so devastatingly in destroying their entire city? Marriages of King's sons were political statements. Often the King's son would be pronounced as heir to the throne when he got married. The guests were invited in order to test their political loyalty to the King and his son. To refuse an invitation to a King's banquet was therefore highly significant- it was tantamount to a declaration of disloyalty. Even worse was to accept it, to proclaim loyalty to him and his son, and yet in practice not follow through with that declaration of loyalty. Israel's widespread acceptance of John, whose message was largely about Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 19:4'>Act 19:4</a></em>), had been a declaration of loyalty to God and His Son. To not take it seriously in practice and to in fact turn against His Son was therefore the ultimate betrayal. This explains the King's anger, the wrath of God against Israel as a whole.</p><p>The persecution of the prophets connects with the same thing happening in Revelation 11, where the two witnesses make a similar last-minute appeal amidst great opposition:&nbsp; We have commented elsewhere how the true prophets within Jerusalem at the time of the Babylonian invasion represented the Elijah ministry - and they too were persecuted:&nbsp;&nbsp; The servants were "entreated spitefully" (<em><a href='B:470 22:6'>Mat 22:6</a></em>), as was our Lord on the cross (<em><a href='B:490 18:32'>Luk 18:32</a></em>):&nbsp;The righteous fellowship Christ's sufferings during the tribulation:&nbsp;The idea of persecuted servants occurs again in <em><a href='B:730 11:18'>Rev 11:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:2'>Rev 19:2</a></em>, both of which passages have an application to latter-day persecution.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:7'>Mat 22:7</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>When the king heard</em>-</p><p> AV. When the news came to His ears. This may be just the furniture of the parable, or it may reflect the Old Testament impression given that God has a mechanism whereby He is informed of happenings on earth, e.g. of the wickedness of Sodom or the building of the tower of Babel. That mechanism presumably involves the Angels. "When the king heard thereof" implies that as soon as Israel's rejection of Christ came to God's notice, "he sent forth his armies... and burned up their city":&nbsp;This is similar language to <em><a href='B:10 6:12'>Gen 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:21'>Gen 18:21</a></em> concerning God 'noticing' man's wickedness at the time of the flood, Babel and Sodom:&nbsp;&nbsp; The judgments with which He reacted on those occasions were typical of the second coming:&nbsp;As Babylon burnt Jerusalem with fire, so it seems certain from many other prophetic references that literal fire will be used by Israel's enemies to inflict her final punishment:&nbsp;The Arab armies will therefore be those of God and Christ, as were those of Israel's earlier Arab invaders:&nbsp;They are called 'sanctified' in <em><a href='B:360 3:9'>Joe 3:9</a></em> (A:V. mg:), i:e. 'separated unto' God's specific purpose in punishing Israel.</p><p><em>The King was angry</em>-</p><p> "Wrath s:w. upon this people" was what happened in AD70 (<em><a href='B:490 21:23'>Luk 21:23</a></em>). New Testament references to the wrath of God are often specifically about His wrath with Israel for rejecting His Kingdom and His Son. Of particular interest is <em><a href='B:560 2:3'>Eph 2:3</a></em>, where Paul writes of how he had been one of those who were "by nature the children of wrath". I suggest this refers to his being part of the generation of Jews who had rejected the Son of God; but now Paul could rejoice that God has "delivered us from the wrath to come" in AD70 (<em><a href='B:590 1:10'>1Th 1:10</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em> he specifically defines that "wrath" as God's wrath upon Israel. The fact he speaks of this as a past status which he had now come out of would make it hard to interpret this as any global statement about what it means to be human. I don't think this passage means that the wrath of God is upon every bearer of human nature. God's own Son had human nature but the wrath of God was not upon Him. God's wrath comes upon "the children of disobedience" (<em><a href='B:560 5:6'>Eph 5:6</a></em>). To be a child of wrath therefore has no reference to physical birth, but is parallel to being a child of disobedience.</p><p><em>And he sent</em>-</p><p> A reference to the common Old Testament concept of the court of Heaven, whereby God is presented as reviewing evidence and sending out His Angels, His "hosts", in response. Those Heavenly hosts have hosts of soldiers on earth which they can move and use as they wish:&nbsp;</p><p><em>His armies</em>-</p><p> The Roman armies were God's armies, just as the Babylonians had been. Josephus appealed to the Jews in Jerusalem in AD70 in these terms: "It is God, therefore, it is God Himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions" (<em>The Jewish War&nbsp;</em>6:2:1). The Romans being described as “his armies" connects with <em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em>, where they are spoken of as "the people of the prince" - Jesus. We must take the lesson that we can be strongly used by God, but this is no guarantee at all that we are His people.</p><p><em>And destroyed those murderers</em>-</p><p> Using the word for "destroy" which the Jews had just used in <em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>, saying in response to the parable of the wicked labourers that they should indeed by "destroyed". Out of their own mouths they were to be judged. The 'destruction' of the Jews for persecuting and killing the Lord Jesus and His apostles was in AD70, when their city was burned up. But the same word is that used in John when the Lord taught that those who believed in Him would not "perish" or be destroyed (<em><a href='B:500 3:15-16'>Joh 3:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:28'>Joh 10:28</a></em>). Whatever else may be referred to in this teaching, it could also have simply meant in the first context that those Jews who believed in Christ would not be destroyed in the destruction of the Jewish system in AD70. The same word is used by Peter in predicting the perishing / destruction of the Jewish 'heavens and earth' in AD70 (<em><a href='B:680 3:6'>2Pe 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>). This destruction, however, was not going to touch those who were in Christ. They would not "perish" or be destroyed. For in the terms of the parable, they were not the murderers.</p><p><em>And burnt their city</em>-</p><p> The burning of Jerusalem in AD70. The Roman soldiers who actually did this were directly moved and controlled by God to do so. Stephen used the same word when accusing the Jews of being Christ's "betrayers and murderers" (<em><a href='B:510 7:52'>Act 7:52</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; The Romans being described as “his armies" connects with <em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em>, where they are spoken of as "the people of the prince" - Jesus:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:8'>Mat 22:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then he said to his servants</em>-</p><p> We are meant to imagine how they felt. The previous servants had been at best ignored, others beaten and killed. And now... it was for them to go out with the same message? We too should not fail to see the cost involved in the work of the Gospel, for we stand in direct continuum with the persecuted prophets and preachers who have gone before us. It may even be that by following the Lord's instructions to persuade all men, bad and good, to enter the Kingdom, simply on the basis of them saying 'yes', we will suffer isolation and rejection from our own brethren. And that too would be a sharing in His crucifixion sufferings, and taking our place in the sufferings of the Gospel. The work of the Gospel, if done properly, can never ultimately be 'fun' or purely pleasurable:&nbsp;</p><p><em>The wedding is ready...</em>-</p><p> This statement seems so obvious it doesn't need to be made. But it is made in order to motivate the servants in their efforts to get at least someone somewhere to say "yes". They were being asked to do something most unusual- to just grab anyone and urge them to come in to a King's banquet without a prior invitation and agreement, as was the norm. This appeal to secular people&nbsp;<em>without</em>&nbsp;the prior invitation was so wonderful and unusual that the very unusualness of it would be hard for both preacher and listener to accept. Surely there was a catch somewhere... And so often when we present the things of the Kingdom to people, their honest response is that 'Can that really be... it sounds just too fantastic'. This is the difficulty with the level and depth of grace we are asked to believe in and share. It is so unusual and out of our experience that we find it hard to believe for real:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But they that were invited were not worthy</em>-</p><p> John's appeal had been to bring forth fruit "worthy" s:w. of repentance (<em><a href='B:490 3:8'>Luk 3:8</a></em>). They had initially agreed to this, but hadn't come up with the fruit. Paul surely had this part of the parable in mind when he turned away from preaching to the Jews and went to the Gentiles, because the Jews had "judged themselves unworthy s:w. of everlasting life" (<em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>The parable of the marriage feast&nbsp;highlights the tragedy of Jewish rejection of what could have been theirs. There will be an ever-increasingly vigorous preaching campaign by the "servants", seeing that&nbsp;“they which were bidden were not worthy" (<em><a href='B:470 22:8'>Mat 22:8</a></em>) - the Greek perhaps implying not enough numerically:&nbsp;&nbsp; As a result of this preaching, "the wedding was furnished ('filled' - numerically) with guests" (<em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This indicates that in some ways, God does work to a number. Once the required number of converts is made, then the supper can begin. Their appeal being to "the poor... maimed... halt and... blind" suggests that the marginal and desperate within society will be those who respond- and this is happening right now in the triumphant progress of preaching in our day. The servants are sent "into the highways" (<em><a href='B:470 22:9'>Mat 22:9</a></em>), one possible meaning of the Greek is 'a market square':&nbsp;&nbsp; This must be designed to recall the parable of the labourers standing idle in the market place at the 11th hour (<em><a href='B:470 20:6-7'>Mat 20:6-7</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; The very short probation of those 11th hour workers will match that of the latter-day converts. And again, it was the old and weak who nobody wanted to hire. See on <em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:9'>Mat 22:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore, go-&nbsp;</em>Leading up to “go therefore and teach all nations”.</p><p><em>To the main roads-&nbsp;</em>AV "Highways<em>":&nbsp;</em>See on :5&nbsp;<em>Went their ways:&nbsp;</em>The RV offers: "unto the partings of the highways”. The point from which He foresaw us making our appeal was a fork in the road. We are to appeal to men and women with the message that there is no third road; that it truly is a case of believe or perish. The art of preaching seems to be to bring people to perceive that they stand at a fork in their life's journey, they can take the road to the Kingdom or the road of temporary absorption in the things of this life. The point from which He foresaw us making our appeal was a fork in the road. We are to appeal to men and women with the message that there is no third road; that it truly is a case of believe or perish:&nbsp;<em>Diexodos</em>&nbsp;can also be understood as the place of crossing the city boundaries, out into the countryside- a possible hint at taking the invitation beyond Jerusalem, for the work of the Gospel was to begin in Jerusalem and spread outwards (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>).</p><p>Another possible meaning for the term is 'a market square'. This would then be designed to recall the parable of the labourers standing idle in the market place at the 11th hour (<em><a href='B:470 20:6-7'>Mat 20:6-7</a></em>):&nbsp;In the Septuagint this word&nbsp;<em>diexodos&nbsp;</em>describes "the&nbsp;<em>issues&nbsp;</em>from death" (<em><a href='B:230 68:20'>Psa 68:20</a></em>), the&nbsp;<em>waters&nbsp;</em>of death (<em><a href='B:120 2:21'>2Ki 2:21</a></em>), "<em>rivers&nbsp;</em>of water" (<em><a href='B:230 1:3'>Psa 1:3</a></em>), "<em>watersprings"</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:230 107:35'>Psa 107:35</a></em>). If this usage was in the Lord's mind and I am unsure it definitely was, then the idea would be that people were to be called from their seeking of water to seeking the water of life eternal; to exchange their secular passions and concerns for a concern about eternity.</p><p><em>And as many as</em>-</p><p> The phrase could possibly imply that there was a specific number that had to be found and invited. That certainly is the teaching of the parable overall. Therefore the more people we invite, the quicker the wedding begins. The repetition of the phrase in :10 suggests that the servants were obedient to the instruction, strange as it was- to scrap the idea of a guest list and invite people from the street, bad or good, to a royal banquet which was getting cold on the table, without any pre-invitation or agreement to attend having been given by the people:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You shall find, invite them to the marriage feast-&nbsp;</em>The Lord Jesus is described as “finding” His people- the lost sheep, lost son, the idle workers in the marketplace (<em><a href='B:470 20:6'>Mat 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:5-6'>Luk 15:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:8-9'>Luk 15:8-9</a></em>); and yet He sends us out to “find” s:w. those who are to be invited into His Kingdom, just as the disciples ‘found’ fish when they obeyed the Lord’s commission to fish (<em><a href='B:500 21:6'>Joh 21:6</a></em>). We do the Lord’s work for Him in this sense. And yet of course people “find” the narrow way themselves, they&nbsp;“find” the treasure and pearl of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 7:14'>Mat 7:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em>); but only because we have gone out and ‘found’ them. The Lord’s finding of us leads to us doing His work in finding others for Him and on His behalf. Thus Jesus “finds” Philip, and Philip’s response is to go and ‘find’ Nathanael (<em><a href='B:500 1:43'>Joh 1:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:45'>Joh 1:45</a></em>). And so it must be ours too. Just as the disciples ‘found’ fish when they obeyed the Lord’s commission to fish (<em><a href='B:500 21:6'>Joh 21:6</a></em>). We do the Lord’s work for Him in this sense:&nbsp;</p><p>It was totally scandalous that the majority of guests refused an invitation by the King (<em><a href='B:470 22:9'>Mat 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:21-23'>Luk 14:21-23</a></em>), and that whilst the dinner was cold on the table, a desperately urgent expedition was sent to get people to come in and eat it. This is the urgency of our Gospel proclamation. And no King or wealthy man would really invite riff-raff off the street into his party; yet this is the wonder of God’s grace in calling us through the Gospel. And such is the tragedy of humanity's rejection of the Gospel. To reject a royal invitation was tantamount to rejecting a royal command. It was unheard of in the time of Jesus. Yet people just don't perceive the honour of being invited by the King. Notice too how it is the King Himself who makes all the arrangements- not, as the initial hearers would have expected, a senior steward or his wife. But the King Himself. And this reflects the extraordinary involvement of God Almighty in personally inviting each of us to fellowship with Him, through the call of the Gospel. Likewise that&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the girls should fall asleep whilst awaiting the bridegroom (<em><a href='B:470 25:5'>Mat 25:5</a></em>) is unusual- they must have been a pretty lazy, switched off bunch.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And those servants went out into the highways</em>-</p><p> The same word in <em><a href='B:480 16:20'>Mar 16:20</a></em> "They&nbsp;<em>went out</em>&nbsp;and preached everywhere", just as the sower "went out" to sow, with varying response (<em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And gathered together</em>-</p><p> Just as the net in the sea of nations gathered together fish "of every kind" (<em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em> s:w:)- here they are called "both bad and good". The suggestion may be that one intention of preaching is to gather people together into one. Hence the language of gathering together. The figure of the Lord's servants gathering together His called ones is exactly the figure of the gathering to the final judgment (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>). By inviting people to Christ we are inviting them to the day of judgment. Knowledge of the Gospel thereby brings responsibility to the day of judgment. The moment we respond, we begin our journey to judgment. The Lord seems to have developed the thought of this parable in His later teaching in <em><a href='B:470 25:35'>Mat 25:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:38'>Mat 25:38</a></em>, where the same Greek word translated "gathered together" is translated 'to take in'; the Lord said that those who gathered together or took in a stranger had accepted Him, and those who refused to do so had rejected Him personally. 'Stranger' was understood to refer to a Gentile. The Lord might be saying that our gathering in of the Gentiles, the strangers, the despised, is related to our salvation; and if the early Jewish believers refused to gather in the Gentiles, then the Lord would take that as a personal rejection of Him. Those who refuse to gather in others because they consider them not to know enough or to not be appropriate material may well be under this threat of condemnation by the Lord:&nbsp;</p><p><em>All as many as they found</em>-</p><p> The specific use of the word "all" here adds nothing, surely, unless the idea is that there is a specific number who must "all" be gathered to the banquet. <em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em> says this in so many words, in talking of how the 'full number of the Gentiles' must "come in"-&nbsp;<em>ex-erchomai</em>. The same word&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>&nbsp;is used in <em><a href='B:470 22:3'>Mat 22:3</a></em> about how the invited would not "come":&nbsp;</p><p><em></p><p>Both bad and good</em>-</p><p> This is quite radical for many Christian preachers today. There was&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to be any thought about whether the persons being brought to the banquet were bad or good. The focus was upon simply persuading them to come in, to say yes to the most unusual invitation. Just as the servants of an earlier parable were told not to worry about dividing the wheat from the weeds, so here, the servants were not to worry about the impressions they had about the worthiness or sincerity of people. Their job was to persuade them to say 'yes' and to come on in. So much outreach today is tacitly concerned with what kind of person is being brought in to the community of believers. And even more concern is expressed about who exactly sits at the Lord's table. But according to this parable, the general public are to be encouraged to say "yes" to the Kingdom invitation, and come in and sit at the banquet table, the breaking of bread. Only then, once they are sitting there, does the Lord come and judge who is bad and good. The implication could possibly be that He comes to inspect us at the breaking of bread, both mystically every time we break bread, and literally in that His coming may be at the breaking of bread.</p><p><em>And the wedding was filled with guests</em>-</p><p>When the wedding is “filled with guests” as a result of the final appeal to absolutely all men, ‘all you can see / perceive’, then the wedding starts (<em><a href='B:470 22:9-10'>Mat 22:9-10</a></em> Gk:). “Filled” translates&nbsp;<em>pletho</em>, which carries the sense of being filled up. When the full number of guests are seated, when a certain number of true converts to the Kingdom feast have been made,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;the King comes in, and the wedding starts. This is what imbues our latter day witness with such a sense of urgency. Every baptism or invitation to the Kingdom could be the last. "They which were bidden were not worthy" (:8) - the Greek could imply not enough numerically:&nbsp;&nbsp; This indicates that in some ways, God does work to a number:&nbsp;&nbsp; Whilst there may be reference here to an appeal to Gentiles, the implication is that it will be to Jews in particular:&nbsp;&nbsp; The servants go "into the streets and lanes of the city" (<em><a href='B:490 14:21'>Luk 14:21</a></em>), i:e. Jerusalem:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>"</em>Guests" are literally, recliners at the table. The word is usually translated like this in its 14 occurrences in the New Testament. In a sense, the banquet had begun- even before the King entered to review the guests. Just as the Kingdom experience, crystallized and epitomized in the breaking of bread, has begun for all who respond. Although this is no guarantee of ultimate acceptance by the King. The contrast between recliners at table and servants is brought out in <em><a href='B:490 22:27'>Luk 22:27</a></em>: "For which is greater, he that reclines at table s:w. "guest", or he that serves? Is not he that reclines at table?". In the parable, we are asked to identify ourselves with the servants. Our audience are the recliners at table. In the context of preaching, of bringing people in to the banquet, we are to consider our audience greater than us and to approach them with every respect. Our witness to them, therefore, is a serving of them; not a showing off to them of our superior Bible knowledge, the superiority of our positions over theirs:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>According to Luke's version of an earlier telling of the parable with some differences, the King Himself invited beggars into His feast. This also stands out as strange... what kind of king is this? And what fortunate beggars. Immediately, we have the lesson powerfully brought home to us. And why ever would a guest refuse the wedding garment offered to him on entry to the feast (<em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>)? The element of unreality in the story makes it stand out so clearly. And yet ask people why they are not baptized, why they are refusing the righteous robes of Christ, the call of the Gospel... and it is anything from clear and obvious to them. The scandal of the parable hasn't struck them. And there's another strange element to the story. Whilst the supper is still getting cold, the King sends off a military expedition (<em><a href='B:470 22:7-8'>Mat 22:7-8</a></em>), but this is incidental to his desire to get on with the feast with his guests. Surely the message is that what is all important for the Father and Son is our response to their invitation, our desire to be at that feast, our turning up there- and the punishment of the wicked is not that significant on their agenda, even though it has to be done.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But when the king entered to see the guests</em>-</p><p> The same words used about the Lord's 'coming in' to Jerusalem and looking around the temple, in His parody of a triumphant entry (<em><a href='B:470 21:10'>Mat 21:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:12'>Mat 21:12</a></em>). This was the immediate context of this parable, and the point was that He had come to judge Israel and found them unworthy:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>He saw there</em>-</p><p> We are set up by the story line to expect that the King will question "the bad" out of the "both bad and good" which have been gathered. But instead He focuses upon the lack of a wedding garment. Banquets functioned on the basis of the guests arriving, accompanied by a servant, who then gave them a wedding garment, which they wore. This man obviously thought that his clothes were good enough, and he didn't need the wedding garment offered. This man would likely have been in what appeared to be "the good" category, the type who was well dressed and apparently appropriate for invitation to a King's banquet. It was exactly those types who will be ultimately rejected from the Kingdom banquet, because self righteousness, a refusal to be clothed in the white garment of imputed righteousness, is far worse than being an immoral street person:&nbsp;</p><p><em>A man who was not wearing a wedding-garment</em>-</p><p> Literally 'not clothed with the wedding clothing'. We are to 'put on' s:w. Christ; and "as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have&nbsp;<em>put on</em>&nbsp;Christ" (<em><a href='B:550 3:27'>Gal 3:27</a></em>). But baptism only 'works' if we believe in what it represents- our clothing with His righteousness by the imputation of righteousness to us. Clearly enough, before the coming of the King, those without a wedding garment obtained through faith and baptism are sitting in the same place as those who have one. They sit at the same table- the division is only made by the Lord’s coming.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he said to him: Friend</em>-</p><p> Another element of unreality, because a King would hardly address a street person as "Friend". But this is how close the King of the Universe feels to any who have at least responded to the call, even if they have to be rejected:&nbsp;The Lord foretells the spiritual culture which He will show even to the rejected, when He mentions how He will call the rejected "friend" (<em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>), using the same word as He used about Judas (<em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>). Vine describes it as a word meaning "comrade, companion, a term of kindly address expressing comradeship". If this is how the Lord will address those who have crucified Him afresh- surely there is hope, abundant hope, for us. The suggestion is that there are Judases amongst us, although we can't identify them (and shouldn't try), just as the disciples couldn't. The evil servant who (in Christ's eyes) beat his brethren was a hypocrite, he didn't appear to men to be like that (<em><a href='B:470 24:48-51'>Mat 24:48-51</a></em>); he was only cut asunder, revealed for who he was, at the judgment. He appeared to be an ecclesial elder who loved the flock. &nbsp;</p><p><em>How did you come&nbsp;in here without a wedding-garment?</em>-</p><p> Obviously a rhetorical question, rather like God's question to Adam: "Where are you?". The King knew. The purpose of the day of judgment is to explain to the rejected why they have been rejected- and it is this realization which is itself the punishment, for it will elicit from them weeping and gnashing of teeth in anger with themselves. <em><a href='B:720 1:12'>Jud 1:12</a></em> speaks of false believers as being spots marring the love feast. There will be such persons at the breaking of bread meetings of the believers, but this parable teaches that it is the King who reveals and removes them, at the last day. It is our duty to simply gather men and women into the Kingdom, both bad and good, just as the net gathers both bad and good fish, but they are only separated from each other when the judgment sits at the last day.</p><p>Judgment day is not only for our personal education and humbling. It is for the enlightenment of us all as a community, in that there is fair evidence that in some sense the process of judgment will be public, and all the believers will see the true characteristics of those with whom they fellowshipped in this life. Thus the unworthy will be revealed as being without a wedding garment, and the faithful will see him (for the first time) as walking naked and in shame (<em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>).</p><p><em>And he was speechless</em>-</p><p> Other pictures of the rejected describe them as having plenty to say in self-justification ("When did we see you...", <em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>, "You are a hard man", <em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em>). But in this picture, they are speechless. It's possible to put the various pictures of the judgment together and create a chronological impression of them initially knocking on the door pleading for acceptance, justifying themselves, and then being left speechless in the ultimate darkness and loneliness. Or it could be that different ones of the condemned respond in different ways, some with words, some in silence.</p><p>22:13&nbsp;<em>Servant</em>s<em>-&nbsp;</em>In the Lord's other parables, it's the Angels who carry out he condemnation of the rejected. But in this parable, the prophets, Angels, apostles and Christian preachers are all called "servants", encouraging us to see ourselves as of equal significance and meaning in God's Kingdom plan as the other servants.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then the king said to the servants: Bind him hand and foot</em>-</p><p> It is the reapers, who represent the Angels (<em><a href='B:470 13:39'>Mat 13:39</a></em>), who bind the rejected for destruction in <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>. The 'binding' suggests that the rejected will desperately want to be in the Kingdom, to the point they would even forcibly push their way in. Nobody will be indifferent at the last day; all will want more than anything to be in the Kingdom. And this should be our view now.</p><p><em>And throw him-&nbsp;</em>The Lord uses this picture three times, using the same words for 'casting out' and 'darkness' (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). The implication is that these people were within the light of the Kingdom banquet, and then are taken out of it into the darkness outside. This is why having a positive feel and sense about our presence amongst God's people is not of itself any guarantee of our final salvation; for some will be ejected from that into the darkness of condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p>The language used here for the condemnation of the rejected 'bind... take away... cast away' is also used about the Lord's final sufferings and death. He too was bound (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 27:2'>Mat 27:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:24'>Joh 18:24</a></em>; and the only other Gospel reference to being bound hand and foot is to the dead Lazarus in <em><a href='B:500 11:44'>Joh 11:44</a></em>, as the term implied 'death'). 'Taken away' translates the same Greek word used about the 'taking up' of the cross (<em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:32'>Mat 27:32</a></em>) and the cry 'Away with Him to the cross' in <em><a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a></em>. 'Cast away / out' is the same word used to describe how the wicked husbandmen killed and then 'cast out' the Son, representative of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 21:39'>Mat 21:39</a></em>); it is also used of how "the prince of this world" was to be 'cast out' at the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:500 12:31'>Joh 12:31</a></em>). Whether or not that prince refers to the Lord Jesus is an open question, however:&nbsp; The 'outer darkness' would then connect with the darkness at the crucifixion, and the "weeping" with the weeping for the death and suffering of Christ (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 16:10'>Mar 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:28'>Luk 23:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:20'>Joh 16:20</a></em>). Why this similarity between the language of the Lord's death, and that of condemnation? Surely because on the cross, the Lord was treated as if He were a condemned sinner, even though He personally never sinned. So close was His identity with sinners and their condemnation. He can identify, therefore, even with the rejected; He is not like a human judge, who hands down punishments which he has nowhere near experienced himself. The Lord carefully designed His parables and teachings; their various elements are clearly intended to dovetail with each other. It is therefore no accident that He uses the same language for His condemnation to death and the condemnation of the wicked at the last day. He consciously identified with them:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Outside into the darkness , where there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth</em>-</p><p> The rejected are described as being cast into outer darkness. This is even an Old Testament concept: "Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in the blackest darkness" (<em><a href='B:240 20:20'>Pro 20:20</a></em> RV). The rejected will be "pursued into darkness" (<em><a href='B:410 1:8'>Nah 1:8</a></em> RV). It is doubtful whether this darkness is literal, unless there will be a specific geographical location into which they are driven which is totally dark. <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em> might imply this by saying that "there", in the darkness into which the rejected are cast, there will be weeping. It perhaps more implies a depression so deep that everything loses its colour. There is no point in existence, no meaning to anything. It could be that "darkness" is to be understood as blindness, which is how it is sometimes used in Scripture. "The eyes of the wicked shall fail, and they shall have no way to flee. And their hope shall be the giving up of the spirit" (<em><a href='B:220 11:20'>Job 11:20</a></em> RV). This is all the language of the final judgment. They will seek death and hope for it, because existence in the state of condemnation is simply unbearable. But remember that outside of Christ, mankind is likewise in such an unbearable state, if only he will perceive it. He is even now in a figurative furnace of fire.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:14'>Mat 22:14</a></em> - see on&nbsp; <em><a href='B:470 24:5'>Mat 24:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>For many are called but few chosen</em>-</p><p> When the Lord said that many are called but few chosen, He was actually alluding to a well known saying from 4 <em><a href='B:150 8:3'>Ezr 8:3</a></em>: “Many have been created, but few shall be saved”. He was as it were raising the bar. It was to be a minority of those called, not just a minority of all creation, who were to be saved. In the context of the parable, the servants call many; but only relatively few are chosen, in that few chose to really accept the gift of imputed righteousness in the garment of Christ. Although only one such person is detailed in the parable, this final observation could imply that the majority of those invited will be ejected. The language of 'chosen' is maybe used to emphasize that it is our duty to call people into the banquet; it is not for us to choose who will ultimately be accepted, because that is not our work.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:15'>Mat 22:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then the Pharisees went and plotted</em>-</p><p> The Greek suggests they went away from Him and held a conference:&nbsp;They found strength in numbers; we wonder how many were individually convicted of their position.</p><p><em>How they might trap him in his talk</em>-</p><p> The same word used of how&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to be entangled in condemnation (<em><a href='B:490 21:35'>Luk 21:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:9'>Rom 11:9</a></em>). As they treated the Lord, so they were treated. Our attitude to Him is in a way our attitude to ourselves and our eternal destiny.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:16'>Mat 22:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they sent to him their disciples</em>-</p><p> The use of&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>&nbsp;"sent out" and&nbsp;<em>mathetes</em>&nbsp;"disciples" obviously recalls the use of these words concerning the Lord sending out&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>disciples. Just as the kingdoms of Babylon and Assyria are described in terms of&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;Kingdom, thus making them anti-Kingdoms of God and their leaders antiChrists, so the Jewish system of the first century was a parody of God's Kingdom as it was exemplified in the Lord and His group of followers:&nbsp;</p><p><em></p><p>Along with the Herodians</em>-</p><p> The Pharisees and Herodians were sworn enemies. Herod was anathema to the Pharisees, who saw him as a false Jew and some kind of antiChrist figure. But a theme of the Lord's judgment and death was that His enemies were united together by a common hatred of Him.</p><p><em>Saying: Teacher. We know that you are true</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 20:21'>Luk 20:21</a></em> adds that they also said at this point: "You say and teach&nbsp;<em>rightly</em>", Gk:&nbsp;<em>orthos</em>, from whence 'orthodox'. They were thereby trying to lead Him to make a right wing, conservative answer, namely, that tribute should be given to God and not Caesar. And then the Herodians could legally swoop upon Him and have Him arrested for disloyalty to the empire:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And teach the way of God in truth</em>-</p><p> John the Baptist had attempted to prepare the way or path over which God's glory in Messiah could come to Zion. The only other occurrence of "the way of God" is when we read that Apollos, who knew only John's teaching, had to have "the way of God", i:e. John's message about the way, explained more fully to him (<em><a href='B:510 18:26'>Act 18:26</a></em>). It may be that John had been so unworldly that he had not paid tribute to Caesar, or at least, he had been interpreted that way; and so now the Pharisees were commenting that if the Lord truly upheld John's teaching, then what was his answer about paying the tribute money? Because it was perceived, at very least, that John had advocated not paying it.</p><p><em>And care not for anyone</em>-</p><p> That was, in a sense, the impression which people took of Jesus. The same words and accusation about His not caring for people are to be found on the lips of the disciples, in the same words (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em> "Don't you care that we perish?"; Martha thought the Lord 'didn't care' that she was serving alone, <em><a href='B:490 10:40'>Luk 10:40</a></em>). In reality, it was the hireling who cared not for the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:13'>Joh 10:13</a></em> s:w:), and the Lord was the one who cared for them so much that He died for them. That the most caring man of all time and space could be so misunderstood, even by His closest followers, is encouragement to us when we feel so globally misunderstood. We are thereby fellowshipping part of the Lord's sufferings and existential loneliness:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For you regard not the person of men</em>-</p><p> This again was an appeal to Jewish orthodoxy, whereby the righteous Jew was supposed to be obedient to God regardless of what others thought. They were trying to lead the Lord into a position whereby He said 'No' to the question about giving the tribute money. And the Herodians were ready to pounce on Him if He did. We can reconstruct how the Pharisees and Herodians worked together in this; the Pharisees were trying to lead the Lord by a path of theology and logic to a position whereby He denied the need to pay tribute- and then Herod's supporters could pounce on Him. The verisimilitude and internal agreement of the record is again strong encouragement to accept this as the inspired word of God, recording he actual words spoken rather than giving a mere summary or imagination of them from a distance of time and space.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:17'>Mat 22:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Tell us therefore, what you think-&nbsp;</em>If all the flattering things they had said in :16 were indeed true, then what on this basis was His view of the tribute money?</p><p><em>Is it lawful</em>-</p><p> This was purposefully vague, because they didn't clarify whether they meant the law of Moses or that of Rome. This was part of the trap. If the Lord said it was lawful according to Roman law, then they could accuse Him of breaking the law of Moses. If He said it was lawful according to the Law of Moses, and therefore that law must surely be obeyed, then He was breaking the law of Rome. But the Lord majestically rises above the trap, by (as usual) taking the whole issue to a far higher level.</p><p><em>To give tribute to Caesar, or not?</em>-</p><p> The word translated "tribute" was used by the Jews for the poll tax of <em><a href='B:20 30:12-16'>Exo 30:12-16</a></em>; the argument was that this should be paid to the temple and not to Gentiles. By pushing the Lord for a yes / no answer, they thought they would force Him into an untenable position. Judas of Galilee had agitated about not paying the tribute money to the Romans (<em><a href='B:510 5:37'>Act 5:37</a></em>) and had been executed for this in around AD6, in recent memory. The Lord as always appealed to higher principle- if it has Caesar's image, then give it to him; but what has God's image, your own body, then give it to God. The giving of our entire person to God made paying an annual tax to the temple seem cheap and irrelevant.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:18'>Mat 22:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Jesus perceived their wickedness and said: Why do you test me?</em>-</p><p> The wickedness could be their hypocrisy, which the Lord goes on to comment upon. But their "wickedness" could refer to their personal sins, and because in that moment the Lord perceived those sins, He thereby perceived their hypocrisy and therefore challenged them about their hypocrisy. He may have been given that perception of their sins by some flash of Divine insight, or it could be that His supreme sensitivity to people led Him to imagine correctly the kind of stuff going on in their secret lives:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You hypocrites</em>-</p><p> In what were they hypocritical in this matter? Perhaps they quietly paid the tribute money? Or perhaps it was because in order to answer the question, the Lord made them bring the coin through the temple courts, thus breaking their own laws- see on <em><a href='B:470 22:19'>Mat 22:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Shew me... they brought:&nbsp;</em>They should've been more concerned about the huge gap between their professions and their practice, rather than focusing upon finding error in another. And so it is to this day- fault finding in others over religious matters typically hides serious hypocrisy, the concern with personal sin is transferred into concern about others' sin. Our sense we ought to be self-examining is converted into an examination of others.</p>


text:
<p>22:19&nbsp;<em>Show me the tribute money. And they brought to him a denarius</em>-</p><p> The Pharisees claimed that pagan coinage should not be brought into the temple courts. This is why the coin had to be brought to the Lord. By so doing, the Lord was purposefully provoking the Pharisees; likely the Herodians (:16) brought it, not the Pharisees. In any case, we see yet another powerful evidence that the historical records of the Gospels are true to the very smallest detail.</p><p>The tribute money had the inscription&nbsp;<em>Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus Pontifex Maximus</em>-</p><p> “Tiberius Caesar, august son of the divine Augustus, High Priest”. Pedants would’ve quickly assumed that such blasphemous language and appropriation of titles appropriate to the Lord Jesus would mean that such coinage should not be used, nor should such tribute be paid to any man on this basis. But the Lord saw a bigger picture. He was quite OK with such token behaviours, but the far bigger issue was giving to God our own bodies and lives which bear His image.</p><p>&nbsp;The coin bore an image which strict Jews considered blasphemous, denoting Tiberius as son of God, the divine Augustus. The Lord doesn’t react to this as they expected – He makes no comment upon the blasphemy. He lets it go, but insists upon a higher principle. ‘If this is what Caesar demands, well give it to him; but give what has the image of God, i:e. yourself, to God’. He didn’t say ‘Don’t touch the coins, they bear false doctrine, to pay the tax could make it appear you are going along with a blasphemous claim’. Yet some would say that we must avoid touching anything that might appear to be false or lead to a false implication our endless arguments over Bible versions and words of hymns are all proof of this. The Lord wasn’t like that. He lived life as it is and as it was, and re-focused the attention of men upon that which is essential, and away from the minutiae. Staring each of us in the face is our own body, fashioned in God’s image – and thereby the most powerful imperative, to give it over to God. Yet instead God’s people preferred to ignore this and argue over the possible implication of giving a coin to Caesar because there was a false message on it. Morally and dialectically the Lord had defeated His questioners; and yet still they would not see the bigger and altogether more vital picture which He presented them with.</p>


text:
<p>22:20&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Whose is this image and superscription?</em>-</p><p> He was setting them up for His point that whatever bears God's image and superscription is to be given to Him (:21); and that refers to our body and whole lives. We have His signature on us; perhaps the Lord had in mind by this the idea that Israel were God's covenant people, His servants bearing His marks.</p>


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


text:
<p>22:22&nbsp;<em>And when they heard it, they marvelled and left him and went away</em>-</p><p> The record is making a clear connection back to the use of the same word in the preceding parable, where the Jews "went their way" (:5) having been invited to the banquet, off to their immediate concerns. The Lord had challenged them to give themselves to God, seeing they were made in His image, and stop worrying about petty issues such as the writing on a coin. This challenge was another form of the invitation to the banquet. They perceived what He was saying- for they "marvelled". Just as the Jews heard the invitation to the banquet. But they went their way- and that way was the way to crucifying the Lord, killing the messenger of God. Going that evil way is thus paralleled with going the way of petty materialism.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 20:26'>Luk 20:26</a></em> concludes that “They could not take hold of His words before the people”. The Greek for “take hold” is elsewhere used about the Jews finally taking hold of the Lord in arrest and crucifixion. The Jews are also recorded as not being able to do this physically to Him in public, “before the people”. But Luke speaks of the Jews doing these things in relation to “His words”. This is Luke’s way of saying what John says in so many words- that the Lord Jesus was so identified with His words, which were God’s words, that He was “the word made flesh”, the living personification of His own words, in whom there was perfect congruence between His essential self and His words.</p>


text:
<p>22:23&nbsp;<em>The same day Sadducees</em>-</p><p> Surely added to give the impression of intensity. The Lord came to His death at the point of mental as well as physical exhaustion.</p><p><em>That say that there is no resurrection</em>-</p><p> The obvious response to a question from such people about the resurrection would be ‘But you don’t believe in a resurrection’. <em><a href='B:490 20:27'>Luk 20:27</a></em> says that they&nbsp;<em>antilego,</em>&nbsp;spoke against publicly, the resurrection. Mark’s record adds that they also said that “In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise…” (<em><a href='B:480 12:23'>Mar 12:23</a></em>). But the Lord was not so primitive as to point out their obvious untruth. He took their position as they stated it, and worked to demonstrate that even given that position, they were woefully ignorant of Divine truth. Long term, His approach stood a chance of working. If He had simply denounced them as liars and self-contradictory, there was no chance He would’ve ever contributed towards their possible repentance and change of heart. This approach needs to be take to heart by us. For there are large numbers of believers who seem to think that their service to God involves cruising internet forums or endlessly arguing with their neighbours in order to prove them wrong and self-contradictory about doctrinal matters. This may give a slight ego rush for a moment, but it is not in fact any real victory. For the victory we seek is not to tie another up in mental knots, but to lead them to repentance, to the Lord Jesus, and to His Kingdom. We also need to note that recently the Lord had resurrected Lazarus, with the result that He appeared to have won over many who had previously supported the Jewish leadership. They were now trying to prove that resurrection doesn’t happen. The Lord could’ve called many witnesses to the resurrection of Lazarus, but instead He takes their argument and works from it.</p><p>It has been observed that the Sadducees were generally hedonistic- and this surely was a result of their denial of the future resurrection and judgment. Their belief was that only the Torah was inspired, and it was Israel’s duty to live according to it in this life. They were a parade example of the effect of doctrine in practice.</p><p><em>Came to him, and they asked him</em>-</p><p> Over 100 times we read in the Gospels of various people coming to Jesus- His enemies, the crowds, His disciples, people in need. Each came with their various motivations, agendas and pre-understandings of Him. His invitation to ‘come to Him’ was to come&nbsp;<em>in faith</em>. The repeated repetition of the phrase ‘came to Him’ is perhaps to invite us to see ourselves likewise as amongst those who ‘come to Him’ as we read or hear the Gospel record, ensuring that we are truly coming to Him and not merely on a surface level as so many did.</p>


