# commentaries

text:
<p>16:8&nbsp;<em>And Jesus, aware of it, said: O you of little faith!&nbsp;</em>-</p><p> Note the Lord's parallel of 'little faith' with little&nbsp;understanding:&nbsp;<em>Pistis</em>, one of the NT words for 'faith', is translated in the LXX as both 'faith' (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 32:20'>Deu 32:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 12:22'>Pro 12:22</a></em>) and 'truth' (<em><a href='B:240 12:17'>Pro 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 14:22'>Pro 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 5:1'>Jer 5:1</a></em>). Indeed, another word used in the LXX is 119 times translated 'truth' and 26 times 'faith'. There&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;a connection between true knowledge of the Gospel and faith. And this faith is the basis for our works. We don't just learn the propositions of the one faith before baptism, and forget them. The triumphant spiritual life&nbsp;<em>lives them out</em>. Knowledge and faith are paralleled in John's thought (<em><a href='B:500 8:32'>Joh 8:32</a></em> cp. 14:1; and 6:69 cp. 11:27)- in stark contrast to this world's emphasis upon works rather than faith. Hence Isaiah's appeals to&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>believe</em>&nbsp;Yahweh (<em><a href='B:290 43:10'>Isa 43:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>16:9<em>&nbsp;Do you still not understand? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered-&nbsp;</em>One gets a fraction of insight into the Lord’s struggle when we read that He perceived that the disciples were worried about bread; and He laments that they do not perceive the miracle of the loaves which He had wrought (<em><a href='B:470 16:9'>Mat 16:9</a></em>). His perception, His sensitivity, is contrasted with the lack of these things in His followers. He must have therefore been so humanly alone.</p>


text:
<p>16:10&nbsp;<em>Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many baskets you took up?</em>-</p><p> It seems that in educating the twelve, the Lord designed the numbers of baskets they took up in order to be memorable by them. As they were immersed in all that broken bread, they were intended to perceive that bread was utterly no issue to the Lord. But they failed to learn that intended lesson, and the Lord was disappointed that the memory and intended lesson had not remained with them.</p>


text:
<p>16:11<em>&nbsp;How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees-&nbsp;</em>The disciples were rebuked as being "of little faith" in the matter of not&nbsp;<em>understanding</em>&nbsp;the Lord's teaching about leaven (<em><a href='B:470 16:8-11'>Mat 16:8-11</a></em>). It has been commented that the sayings of Jesus "are everywhere too subtly penetrated with theological claims and dogmatical instruction for the distinction commonly drawn between Christian "ethics" and Christian "dogma" to be other than forced or artificial". His doctrines lead to His practice. Doctrine is likened by the Lord to yeast- it is going to affect the holder of it (<em><a href='B:470 16:11-12'>Mat 16:11-12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>16:12&nbsp;<em>Then they understood</em>-</p><p> On their own admission in the Gospel records, the understanding of the disciples was pitiful. Not only did they not really listen to the Lord’s words, the words of the Only Begotten Son of God, but they retained many misconceptions from the world around them which did not accept Him. Thus they failed to see after two miracles relating to bread, that literal bread was not so significant to the Lord (<em><a href='B:480 8:19-21'>Mar 8:19-21</a></em>). It’s possible that “then they understood” doesn’t necessarily mean that finally, they got what the Lord was on about. Because on another occasion He identifies “the leaven of the Pharisees” as “hypocrisy” (<em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em>), rather than their teaching generally. So perhaps they still did not totally get the drift of the Lord’s thinking.</p><p><em>That he told them not to be careful concerning the yeast in bread but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees</em>-</p><p> The Lord's teaching to the disciples about this came directly after He had told the Jews that they would be given no sign apart from that of Jonah. I have suggested above that He foretold that the Jews would fail to perceive the meaning of His resurrection; and He feared that the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees would lead the disciples likewise to not perceive this. We see here a classic example of where wrong teaching about apparently smaller issues can lead to.</p>


text:
<p>16:13&nbsp;<em>Now when Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi</em>-</p><p> Again we get the impression that the Lord was working to educate the disciples according to some kind of program. He surely would have loved to ask them this question earlier, but He waited for some reason until they were in Caesarea Philippi. What that reason was isn't clear. Perhaps He wanted to wait until they were back in Jewish territory after their excursion into Gentile territory, the purpose of which had been to get away from the spotlight of publicity and teach the disciples. And like a good teacher, now the Lord tested their apprehension of His teaching.</p><p><em>He asked his disciples, saying</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Erotao</em>&nbsp;can mean to pray, to entreat, to ask for something- rather than to casually enquire about an opinion held. He asked the question seeking a positive answer; He was indirectly asking them to believe in Him as God's Son.</p><p><em>Whom do men say</em>-</p><p> This was to pave the way for His more significant, personal question: Whom do&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;say I am? (:15). "Say" translates&nbsp;<em>lego</em>&nbsp;which more specifically means to speak rather than 'to believe' or 'to understand'. He wanted to know the words of men’s' actual lips about Him- which again hints that the disciples were not with the Lord all the time. They were often with people when the Lord wasn't present. Psychologically, considering others' views of Christ helps us better understand where we personally stand regarding Him- indeed, this is true generally in terms of self-understanding. Hence the Lord firstly asks whom others thought Him to be, rather than simply asking the disciples whether they believed in Him as the Son of God.</p><p><em>That the Son of Man is?</em>-</p><p> This is how the Lord saw Himself. Twice in Mark, Jesus is addressed as "Messiah" but He replies by calling Himself "the Son of man" (<em><a href='B:480 8:29-31'>Mar 8:29-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:61-62'>Mar 14:61-62</a></em>). If this was His preferred self-perception, should it not be how we perceive Him? AV "That I the Son of Man am" is good translation but it remains an awkward phrase, until we perceive that the Lord is juxtaposing His humanity as "son of Man" and His Divine aspect, as the 'I am', the revelation of Yahweh in human flesh (see on :17&nbsp;<em>Simon Barjona)</em>. Often we encounter this in the New Testament, especially in John's Gospel. The most highly exalted language about the Lord is to be found nearby to other statements of His absolute and total humanity. The Lord's words here lay the ground for His question to the disciples as to whom they thought Him to be. He has led up to that question by describing Himself as "the Son of Man". This was His preferred self-perception. Peter's response: "The Son of the living God" was therefore especially gratifying to the Lord, because Peter didn't merely repeat the Lord's own phrase "the Son of Man". Peter shows that he perceived the Divine side to Jesus, despite His evident humanity. Perhaps Peter was joining in the implied dialogue set up by the Lord juxtaposing His humanity ("son of Man") and Divine side ("I... am") in the phrase "I the Son of Man am". The Lord says that He is "Son of Man", and asks the disciples whom they think He is- and Peter gives the other side of the story, by saying that He is "Son of... God". Perhaps Peter was responding to the Lord's hint at this when He asks "Whom do you say that&nbsp;<em>I am?</em>" (:15), for this could have been heard as an allusion to the Yahweh Name. We see this kind of dialogue ("banter" would not be too coarse a word) going on in the Lord's conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4. And He seeks to lead us in such dialogue, speaking personally to us through His word and life experiences, as we respond in the words of prayer and life decisions made for and to Him.</p><p>Another possibility is to translate the phrase: “Who do men say that I am? The Son of man?”. This would be tantamount to asking the disciples whether people generally believed He was Messiah. As made clear at the end of chapter 12 and throughout chapter 13, the Lord knew full well that the majority did not accept Him as that, because they had effectively rejected John's message about Him. The crowds had simply liked his hard line about sin and his invitation to recognize human sinfulness. They had not gone further in accepting the solution he had proposed, which was acceptance of Jesus as Messiah. The Lord knew full well the answer to His question, but He wanted the disciples to consider it in order to elicit from them the recognition that John's ministry had not been accepted by Israel, and that their belief in Him as Messiah left them standing with their backs to the Jewish world. Compromise with that world, intellectual or social, was impossible.</p>


text:
<p>16:14&nbsp;<em>And they said: Some say John the Baptist</em>-</p><p> Literally,&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>John the Baptist. "Some..." is simply translating&nbsp;<em>ho</em>, the definite article. "The John the Baptist" would therefore appear to be the main opinion- after that, some thought Jesus was Elijah, others thought He was another of the prophets. There was a strong belief in dead people reappearing in the form of others,&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>, a kind of reincarnation. This had been Herod's view of Jesus, that He was the resurrected John the Baptist. None of the opinions they list include the possibility that Jesus was Messiah. The disciples' answer is therefore a tacit recognition of the failure of John's ministry. He was known even at that early stage as "John the Baptist" because his baptism of so many people was what he was noted for. But that baptism, that recognition of sin, had not led people to accept Jesus as the Christ. It happens so often, that we can have a temporary conviction of sin, and even do something about it- but to fully come to Christ is a different question, and it seems that few go on to make that vital connection:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Some Elijah</em>-</p><p> John's crisis of faith in prison involved him thinking that perhaps he had only been the herald of Elijah, rather than Messiah- and that therefore perhaps Jesus was the Elijah prophet. See on <em><a href='B:470 11:3'>Mat 11:3</a></em>. And it seems some had accepted that view. This is the problem with crises of faith- others are affected by them and can easily share our opinion. In <em><a href='B:500 6:14'>Joh 6:14</a></em> we learn that after the miracle of feeding the 5000, the crowd thought that Jesus must be "that prophet which should come into the world". But by "that prophet" they likely referred to Elijah or a herald of Elijah- and not Messiah.</p><p><em>And others Jeremiah</em>-</p><p> Why was Jeremiah a popular candidate? Was the persecution of Jeremiah by the Jerusalem leadership seen as a common theme with Jesus? Or the urgency of his appeals for repentance before the day of judgment came? Or the depth of his grief for Israel?</p><p><em>Or one of the prophets</em>-</p><p> Why so much misunderstanding? Perhaps because it demands far less faith to accept Jesus as a prophet, a holy man, than as being the unique Son of God, Saviour and Messiah; it demands far less response in practice. Islam presents Jesus as a "prophet", the new age religions as a "top bloke". But to accept Him as He is demands not only more faith, but also far more response in practice.</p><p>We can note that in <em><a href='B:470 12:23'>Mat 12:23</a></em> the crowd asks: "Is not this the Son of David?". That was a Messianic title. But the answer given here shows that this suspicion that Jesus might be Messiah was just a passing thing. The miracles themselves did not persuade the crowds of the Lord's Messiahship. Pentecostals should take note of that- miracles do not necessarily produce faith.</p><p>The false notion that the Lord Jesus literally pre-existed and was then somehow incarnated, or re-incarnated, was a pagan idea that had become popular in Judaism around the time of Christ. In fact the road to the Trinity began with Justin and other 'church fathers' coming to teach that Jesus personally pre-existed- even though they initially denied that He was God Himself. The Qumran sect, some of whose followers became the first Christians, believed that the "Teacher of Righteousness" pre-existed as the former prophets and would be an incarnation of them. This explains why they thought Messiah had previously been incarnated as Moses, Elijah and the prophets. In this lies the significance of the account in <em><a href='B:470 16:14-18'>Mat 16:14-18</a></em>. Jesus enquires who the people think He is- and the disciples answer that the popular view is that Jesus of Nazareth is Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets reincarnated. But this was exactly who first century Judaism thought Messiah would be. So the crowd view was indeed that Jesus was Messiah- but "Messiah" as they understood Messiah would be. The significance of the incident lies in Peter's affirmation that Jesus, whom he accepted as Messiah, was not a re-incarnation of a pre-existent prophet but was the begotten Son of God. Note in passing that the false doctrine of pre-existence is connected to the pagan myth of incarnation and re-incarnation. If, for example, Jesus really was existing in Old Testament times, then somehow He would have had to have been re-incarnated in Mary's womb.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:15'>Mat 16:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He said to them: But who do you say that I am?</em>-</p><p> The effort required in interpreting Jesus is, it seems to me, designed by God, whose word it is which we are discussing. The intention is to make us think about Jesus, struggle with the issue of His identity and nature, in order that we should understand Him better, and thereby love and serve Him the more intently. Perhaps that is why so little is recorded of Jesus- all the speeches and actions of Jesus found in the Gospels would've occupied only three weeks or so of real time. The rest of His life, words and actions we are left to imagine, given what we do know of Him. He wants us to reflect, as He did the disciples, "Whom do&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;think I am?" (<em><a href='B:480 8:29'>Mar 8:29</a></em>). Perhaps that is why at least in Mark's Gospel there is the theme of Jesus not wanting men to be told in point blank terms that He was Messiah.</p><p>"Say",&nbsp;<em>lego</em>, means to talk out loud, and is the same word used in <em><a href='B:470 16:13'>Mat 16:13</a></em>. The Lord may have been asking whom they talked about Him as:&nbsp;<em>Lego&nbsp;</em>means specifically to talk about; the Lord chose not to use words like 'understand' or 'believe'. Maybe He is alluding to His principle that words express inner thoughts and beliefs. And so instead of asking them whom they&nbsp;<em>believed&nbsp;</em>or<em>&nbsp;thought&nbsp;</em>Him to be (although that is the essence of His question), He asks them whom they talk about Him as. Because spoken words do ultimately reflect inner faith and understanding.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:16'>Mat 16:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Simon Peter answered and said</em>-</p><p> Peter is set up as our example and pattern. The records portray him in such a way that we see so clearly the similarities between him and us. The good intentions, the flashes of zeal, the miserable failures, the essential loyalty to the Man who was better than he. The Gospels also portray Peter as the representative of the group of disciples. It is Peter who answers when the Lord asks a question of them all (<em><a href='B:480 8:29'>Mar 8:29</a></em> cp. the other accounts). The way Jesus looks upon all the disciples as He speaks to Peter makes Peter some kind of representative of them all in the Lord’s eyes (<em><a href='B:480 8:33'>Mar 8:33</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em> Peter is commended for having had the Father reveal Jesus to Him. Yet <em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em> says that the Father reveals the identity of His Son to&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;who truly come to Him. Thus Peter is representative of all who have truly perceived the Son’s identity in Jesus of Nazareth. In one Gospel, all the disciples ask a question, while in the parallel passage Peter is stated to have asked it (<em><a href='B:480 7:17'>Mar 7:17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 15:15'>Mat 15:15</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 21:20'>Mat 21:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 11:21'>Mar 11:21</a></em>). Even outsiders considered Peter to be representative of all the disciples (<em><a href='B:470 17:24'>Mat 17:24</a></em>). “Peter and those with him” is how the group is described (<em><a href='B:480 1:36'>Mar 1:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:45'>Luk 8:45</a></em> Gk:; <em><a href='B:470 9:32'>Mat 9:32</a></em>). Peter’s crucial confession that he believed that Jesus was the Son of God is repeated almost verbatim by all the disciples, sometime later (<em><a href='B:500 6:69'>Joh 6:69</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:30'>Joh 16:30</a></em>). He is truly the representative disciple:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You are the Christ</em>-</p><p> The confession of Messiahship and this incident of trying to stop the Lord dying are also juxtaposed in Mark’s Gospel, which seems to be Mark’s transcript of the Gospel account Peter usually preached [note, e.g., how Peter defines the termini of the Lord’s life in <em><a href='B:510 1:21-22'>Act 1:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:36-42'>Act 10:36-42</a></em> - just as Mark does in his gospel]:&nbsp; Surely Peter is saying that yes, he had grasped the theory that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah; but the import of Messiahship was totally lost upon him. For he had utterly failed to see the connection between Messianic kingship and suffering the death of the cross. He knew Jesus was Messiah, but strongly rejected the suggestion Messiah must suffer. And yet the Lord warmly and positively grasped hold of Peter’s positive understanding, such as it was. The Lord’s comment ‘Get behind me’ was exactly the same phrase He had earlier used to the ‘satan’ in the wilderness when the same temptation to take the Kingdom without the cross had been suggested. It could even be that Peter was the ‘satan’ of the wilderness conversations; or at least, in essence he was united with that satan. Hence the Lord told him that he was a satan. And interestingly, only Mark [aka Peter] describes the Lord as being tempted in the wilderness of<em>&nbsp;Satan</em>&nbsp;[rather than the&nbsp;<em>devil</em>]. And he records how&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;was a satan to the Lord later on. &nbsp;</p><p>Peter’s proclamation of Jesus as Messiah half way through Matthew and Mark’s records of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:480 8:29'>Mar 8:29</a></em>) is presented by them as a climax of understanding. And yet according to <em><a href='B:500 1:41'>Joh 1:41</a></em>, Andrew and Peter had known this right from the start. The implication is surely that they, as simple working men, probably illiterate, had merely repeated in awe words and phrases like “Messiah” and “Son of God” with no real sense of their import. Yet again, the Lord gently bore with their misunderstandings, and Peter of his own initiative, 18 months later, came to gleefully blurt out the same basic ideas but with now far deeper insight- although he still incorrectly perceived the Messiah as one who would not suffer but provide instant glorification. Thus the spiritual growth of the disciples is revealed.</p><p>Rarely in the Gospels does someone actually declare Jesus to be the Christ, the anointed one, Messiah. This of course was the thrust of John's teaching, denying that he was the Christ but saying that he was heralding Him. Despite all the surface level response to John, with so many baptized that he was known as "the Baptist" very soon after His death (:14), it seems that only the disciples really grasped his essential message about Jesus. See on :14. Peter had made the same confession of faith in the same words ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") some time previously, after the feeding of the 5000 (<em><a href='B:500 6:69'>Joh 6:69</a></em>). It would seem that "the Christ, the Son of God" is therefore being presented as a formula for confession of faith. Martha likewise confesses faith in Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:500 11:27'>Joh 11:27</a></em>). The connection between the words "Christ" and "Son of God" is found elsewhere. Mark's Gospel is a proclamation of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (<em><a href='B:480 1:1'>Mar 1:1</a></em>); Luke begins his Gospel predicting that Messiah would be "called... Son of God" (<em><a href='B:490 1:32'>Luk 1:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:35'>Luk 1:35</a></em>), not by being named "Son of God" by Mary (He was named 'Jesus'), but called on as Son of God by those believing in Him. Indeed it was the whole intention of John's Gospel to bring people to faith in "the Christ the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em>). Therefore the Eunuch's confession before baptism that he believed that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:510 8:37'>Act 8:37</a></em>) can be seen as a triumph of the Gospel- Philip likewise preached towards the same end as John did through his Gospel. Paul likewise preached the "Christ... is the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:510 9:20'>Act 9:20</a></em>). A 'Christ' was simply an 'anointed one', someone anointed or commissioned for a specific task- and there had been many people anointed in this way. The uniqueness about Jesus the Christ was that this Christ was the uniquely begotten Son of God. This explains why there is such a strong emphasis upon believing that Jesus was the Christ who was Son of God. And to this day, it is this uniqueness which differentiates the real Christ from a mere understanding that He was a good man who did indeed historically exist and die. The question is how much more, if anything, was required from people in terms of understanding before a person was considered to have believed 'in Christ'. The evidence of Acts and the Gospels would appear to indicate that 'belief in Christ' meant simply believing that He was Son of God and identifying with Him. The centurion (<em><a href='B:470 27:54'>Mat 27:54</a></em>), healed persons (<em><a href='B:480 3:11'>Mar 3:11</a></em>)</p><p><em>The Son of the living God</em>-</p><p> We naturally enquire as to the significance of "the&nbsp;<em>living</em>&nbsp;God". In <em><a href='B:470 22:32'>Mat 22:32</a></em> the Lord seems to connect this with resurrection; He says there that God is still the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob because He will ultimately resurrect and immortalize them, seeing He is 'not the dead God but the living God' (Gk:; see <em><a href='B:490 20:38'>Luk 20:38</a></em>). His 'living' becomes ours in that He will give us life; "living water" refers to water which gives life (<em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>), and "the living God" likewise (see another hint of resurrection by "the living God" in <em><a href='B:520 9:26'>Rom 9:26</a></em>). "The living&nbsp;<em>bread</em>" meant 'the bread which gives life', and this is paralleled by the Lord with "the living&nbsp;<em>Father</em>" who also gives life (<em><a href='B:500 6:51'>Joh 6:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:57'>Joh 6:57</a></em>). Having taught that, Peter had gone on to state that Jesus was indeed "that Christ, the son of the living God" (<em><a href='B:500 6:69'>Joh 6:69</a></em>). This would suggest to me that Peter perceived this connection with resurrection, and when here in <em><a href='B:470 16:16'>Mat 16:16</a></em> he uses the same phrase again, we may be justified in seeing within it an understanding of how the Lord would not only be resurrected but would be the source of life to others. The phrase "living God" was used in Judaism, e.g. the High Priest adjures the Lord Jesus "by the living God" (<em><a href='B:470 26:63'>Mat 26:63</a></em>)- but more in the sense that the living God sees and knows all things. Again, we note that it was John the Baptist who preached (AV "bare record") that Jesus was the Son of God (<em><a href='B:500 1:34'>Joh 1:34</a></em>). Yet after his death, it was only Peter, the disciples and a few others who accepted this- for :14 has made it clear that most people considered Jesus to be some reincarnation of a previous prophet, but not "Son of God". In commenting upon the end of Matthew 12 and the meaning of the parables about poor response to the word in Matthew 13, I suggested that the Lord recognized at that point that the Jews had been unresponsive to John apart from the circle of disciples- and He switched focus at that point onto them. See on <em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>gates of hell</em>.</p><p>Even before this the disciples on Galilee had confessed: “Of a truth thou art the Son of God!”. Peter’s confession was evidently of an altogether higher level. The titles we apply to God and Jesus come to have more meaning to us over time. But straight after his confession, he showed his complete misunderstanding of the Lord’s death, and the whole message of following Him to that same end. He was rebuked: “Thou savourest not the things of God”, straight after having been told that his understanding of Jesus’ Sonship was given to him of God. If he savoured that knowledge, he would have understood the message of the cross which his Lord so insistently preached. But he wasn’t yet at that level. He had to be told at the transfiguration: “This&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;my beloved Son… hear ye him” (<em><a href='B:470 17:5'>Mat 17:5</a></em>). It was as if the Father was emphasizing the imperative which lay in the fact that Jesus really is Son of God: if that is truly comprehended, we must hear Him. The implication is surely that Peter had almost painlessly confessed the Divine Sonship of Jesus. Perhaps the Father had in mind the way Peter, for all his acceptance of that Sonship, would later forget the Son’s words and mindlessly deny Him. Straight after this incident, Peter says that his Master pays taxes, as if this is something the Lord just had to do. But the Lord seems to rebuke Peter, by reminding him that if He is truly Son of God and Lord of all, then it is quite inappropriate for Him to have to pay such taxes; for the Father’s children are free (<em><a href='B:470 17:24-27'>Mat 17:24-27</a></em>). This evidence all indicates that there are different levels in knowing that Jesus of Nazareth is Son of God. <em><a href='B:690 5:13'>1Jn 5:13</a></em> says as much: those who believe on the name of the Son of God must come to believe (i:e. on a higher level) on the name of the Son of God. We must ask ourselves of our own degree of appreciation. For every member of the ecclesia is built up on the foundation of faith that Christ is the Son of God:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 13:11'>Mat 13:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Jesus answered and said to him: Blessed are you</em>-</p><p> The Lord is thrilled that although John's teaching about Him as Son of God had generally been ignored or rejected (see on :14), Peter had grasped it. He had earlier explained that although the preaching of the word by John had generally not brought forth a permanent response in Israel, the disciples were "blessed" because they&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;understand (<em><a href='B:470 13:16'>Mat 13:16</a></em>). The idea of being "blessed" with an understanding suggests that the understanding was a blessing given- see later in this verse on&nbsp;<em>not revealed</em>.</p><p><em>Simon Bar-Jonah</em>-</p><p> Simon, son of John. The Lord is contrasting Peter's natural origins, speaking of Peter's old name and his natural father, with Peter's high spiritual status as one of the few who perceived the Lord as being the Son of God. This juxtaposition of the natural and spiritual sides in a person is exactly what the Lord had just done with regards to Himself- see on <em><a href='B:470 16:13'>Mat 16:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Son of Man</em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For flesh and blood has not revealed it to you-&nbsp;</em>The correct understanding of the Lord was a "blessing", something given. Earlier the Lord had taught that the Father through Himself had chosen to "reveal" Himself [s:w:] to the spiritually immature disciples ("babes"), and not to the Jewish religious leaders who studied every letter of the Old Testament from dawn to dusk (<em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em>). John's equivalent of this is his record of the Lord's comment that the Jews generally did not believe because Isaiah had prophesied that the "arm of the Lord" had to be "revealed" [s:w:] to people, and it was revealed only to a few (<em><a href='B:500 12:37-38'>Joh 12:37-38</a></em>). And our spiritual birth is not of "flesh and blood" but by the sovereign will of God for us (<em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>). Paul surely has all this in mind when he writes that the things of God "are revealed unto us by His spirit" (<em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:550 3:23'>Gal 3:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:15'>Phi 3:15</a></em>). Faith in Christ therefore requires 'revelation' from God. There was an element to which the disciples, and all of us who have truly responded to the word of Christ, have chosen to do that, and this is pleasing to the Lord. But if that was where the story ended, then salvation would be a matter of human works and intellectual tenacity and correctness in interpretation. Grace would be out of the equation, and God would face off against man over an open Bible which man must correctly interpret and live by if he is to be saved. The will of the Father for human salvation, and the depth of human moral and intellectual weakness, is such that this cannot be the way to salvation. Paul in Romans starts talking about predestination and election in the context of demonstrating that salvation is by grace, and therefore such metaprinciples exist- so that human works and correctness of understanding is only&nbsp;<em>part&nbsp;</em>of the final, invisible equation which finds its sum in human salvation. And so it has to be so that there is&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;element of God revealing Truth to us, blessing us with that revelation. Hence the Lord tells Peter that it is God's grace in revelation, His 'blessing', rather than "flesh and blood" which has revealed this to Peter. And yet the Lord says this against the backdrop of having spoken about the mixture of flesh and spirit in human salvation- see on&nbsp;<em>Simon Barjona</em>&nbsp;and on <em><a href='B:470 16:13'>Mat 16:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Son of Man</em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But my Father who is in Heaven</em>-</p><p> Luke's equivalent seems to be that the Father which is in Heaven gives the Spirit to His children (<em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 11:13'>Luk 11:13</a></em>). Again, the emphasis is on God's part- our part is to request and then to be receptive and responsive.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I also say to you</em>-</p><p> The theme of :17 has been that human action, faith and response is only part of the overall picture of spiritual work and human salvation. The church is to be built- by Jesus- upon the rock of faith in Jesus as the Son of God. Again, the two aspects come together. Flesh and Spirit, Son of Man and Son of God, "flesh and blood" and Heaven.</p><p>The idea was perhaps that the Lord was going to build His church upon Peter and the confession of faith which Peter had made, but the Lord was going to be the builder and not Peter. This would instil into Peter an appropriate humility for his later work of bringing thousands to Christ so publicly.</p><p><em>You are Peter</em>-</p><p> In response to Peter's 'You are the Christ'. We note here the mutuality the Lord was seeking to build up in His dialogues with His followers, and that sense of mutuality between us and our Lord can be felt today too:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And upon this rock</em>-</p><p> The term could refer to Peter personally, as his preaching was chronologically the basis upon which the church began. Perhaps the Lord held the shoulders of Jesus and spoke those words to the disciples- that upon the rock of Peter ["rock"], the future community was to be built. But the context is of declared faith in Him as God's Son. If this confession of faith (see on :16&nbsp;<em>The Christ</em>) is the basis upon which the community was and is built, then we need to ask what else is really required as the basis for Christian faith. That confession is only a beginning- the Lord will build upon it. The Lord is surely alluding to Rabbinic teaching that Abraham was the rock upon which the community of Israel was to be built- and showing that each believer in Him as Son of God was no less than Abraham in the new Israel.</p><p><em>I will build</em>-</p><p> The idea of building upon a rock naturally recalls the Lord's parable of <em><a href='B:470 7:24-26'>Mat 7:24-26</a></em>. As so often, the Lord told that parable to Himself as well as to us; He Himself built a house upon a rock, and He therefore knows how very slow the progress Is. In that parable, the ability of the house to withstand the testing storm of judgment day depends upon the builder. We must take the step of faith, and yet the Lord builds upon that and our final passing through judgment day is partially dependent upon His building of us. And yet the metaphor of building is taken over by Paul as referring to the work that&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>do in building others up (<em><a href='B:520 14:19'>Rom 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:2'>Rom 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:4'>1Co 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:17'>1Co 14:17</a></em> Gk:). The clear implication is that our efforts for others are partially responsible for their entry into the Kingdom. I keep saying 'partially', because as we have seen throughout this chapter, the human factor works together with the Divine factor to achieve ultimate salvation for individuals. The Jewish religious leaders are likened to builders who built without a true foundation (<em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>)- and so the Lord is saying that He has taken over that job, and the leaders of the ecclesia share with Him in doing it (the 'masterbuilders', <em><a href='B:530 3:10'>1Co 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:8'>2Co 10:8</a></em>). But not only the leaders- for we each are to build each other up (<em><a href='B:520 15:2'>Rom 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:11'>1Th 5:11</a></em> s:w:). And yet it was Peter himself who speaks of how we are "built up" by the Lord (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>)- it's just that in practice He works through others, so that the church in a sense builds itself up (<em><a href='B:560 4:16'>Eph 4:16</a></em>).</p><p><em>My church</em>-</p><p> The first reference to&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;in the New Testament. The only other usage of the word in the Gospels is in <em><a href='B:470 18:17'>Mat 18:17</a></em>, where the Lord speaks of a process of telling a matter unto "the church" in the case of interpersonal disputes. The Lord implied, therefore, that He was confident that despite the failure of John's ministry, the minority who had responded and believed in Him as God's Son would provide the basis upon which He would successfully build a community of believers. Every reference to "the church" in the later New Testament needs to be understood in the context of how the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;is first introduced in the Gospels. It is a community built by the Lord Jesus personally. The Septuagint had used&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;concerning the community of Israel; the Lord's talk of building another&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;based around faith in Him was radical stuff- for the obvious objection of Judaism would have been that the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;already existed. The Lord's use of&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;in this sense was radical, and an effective rejection of the old Israel in order to build a new one- not on Abraham personally, but on faith in Him (which Abraham exemplified through his faith in the promised seed). The LXX of <em><a href='B:10 28:3'>Gen 28:3</a></em> speaks of an '<em>ekklesia'&nbsp;</em>(AV "multitude") of people' being created from Abraham's seed. And the Lord is now redefining this- as those whom He would build up into a new nation, based upon faith in His Divine Sonship.</p><p><em>And the Gates of the grave</em>-</p><p> An allusion to Rabbinic teaching that Abraham sat at the gates of hell to prevent the circumcised falling into it (mentioned by Edersheim in&nbsp;<em>Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah</em>). The Lord is saying that faith in Him is what shall save us rather than descent from Abraham. And yet the Old Testament speaks of the gates of death as being under God's control (<em><a href='B:220 38:17'>Job 38:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 38:10'>Isa 38:10</a></em>), and He can "lift me up from the gates of death" (<em><a href='B:230 9:13'>Psa 9:13</a></em>). The "gates of hell" can only not prevail against us through resurrection of the body. Peter's confession of faith was that Jesus was "Son of&nbsp;<em>the living&nbsp;</em>God", and I outlined the connections between "the living God" and the idea of resurrection under <em><a href='B:470 16:16'>Mat 16:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Son of the living God</em>. We should note that there were many wrong beliefs about "the gates of hell". The Lord doesn't specifically dismantle nor criticize them, just as He doesn't do so with the wrong idea of demon possession. Instead He places emphasis upon belief in Him and the hope of resurrection, which meant that death, and whatever "the gates of hell" were imagined to be- simply had no power over the believer in Him. His repeated 'casting out of demons' showed the same- however 'demons' were understood, the Lord's power was so great over them that they remained no credible worry for the believer in Him.</p><p>This may also be an allusion to a cavern in northern Palestine known as "the gates of hell". The Lord had just been in that area instructing the disciples- it's likely they had heard of it, or even made a tourist excursion to view it. The Lord is saying that even that much feared precipice, into which the locals threw sacrifices to ward off the powers of the underworld, had no power against faith in Him as the Son of God.</p><p><em>Shall not prevail against it</em>-</p><p> The only other time the word is used is in <em><a href='B:490 23:23'>Luk 23:23</a></em>, speaking of how the voices of the Jews "prevailed" to get Christ crucified. He must have recalled His own words here, that the gates [or gatekeepers / rulers] of the grave would not ultimately prevail against Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven-&nbsp;</em>The root word for 'key' means literally to close or shut. The Scribes "shut up" the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em> s:w:) - the job of Peter was to use the Gospel to open the way to salvation to ordinary people and those otherwise shut out by the Jewish leadership. The same word is found in <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em> where the Lord speaks of how He will shut the door to the Kingdom at judgment day to those who didn't want to be there in this life (and again in the context of final condemnation in <em><a href='B:730 20:3'>Rev 20:3</a></em>). The parable of <em><a href='B:490 11:7'>Luk 11:7</a></em> adds an interesting insight- even if in this life the door is shut [s:w:] to a person, if their way of life warrants condemnation, such is the Lord's grace that it can be opened in response to the intercession of others on behalf of that person. The key to entry or exclusion from the Kingdom was given to Peter in the sense that the Gospel of Jesus as Son of God could open the Kingdom to people, and if they hear that message and reject it, then the Kingdom is closed to them. It doesn't mean that Peter could just chose to condemn or save individuals. Rather does it show that the keys to eternity are in our hand, and we should therefore be devoting our lives to opening the doors for others to that eternal future. The keys of knowledge were given to Peter, and through his preaching they opened up the closed door of salvation to many who would not otherwise have entered (<em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>). Losing bonds is the language of bringing salvation and forgiveness (<em><a href='B:290 51:14'>Isa 51:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:16'>Luk 13:16</a></em>). And those keys are likewise in our hands too. If we introduce the Gospel of salvation to a man, the door is opened to him; if we don’t, it remains closed for him. In this sense what we bind and loose is automatically confirmed by God, in that He has delegated to us the preaching of entrance into His Kingdom:&nbsp; Because the salvation of others is in our hands, both in and outside of the ecclesia, we are held responsible for their eternal loss if we do not minister to them. “Rescue those being led away to death [if we don’t, then they will die]... if you say, “But we knew nothing about this”, does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;life [as you keep your brother’s life] know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? [at judgment day]” (<em><a href='B:240 14:11-12'>Pro 14:11-12</a></em> NIV).</p><p><em>Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven</em>-</p><p> The promise is repeated to all the disciple in <em><a href='B:470 18:18'>Mat 18:18</a></em>, disproving Roman Catholic interpretations of Peter. There is here a continuation of the idea of the Gospel as being the keys to the Kingdom. "Whatever" could equally be translated "Whoever". The idea of binding is connected in the Lord's thought with condemnation (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 12:29'>Mat 12:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>). The idea isn't that Peter arbitrarily had the power to condemn someone, and have his decision confirmed by Heaven. Rather is this almost hyperbolic language an encouragement to us as to the eternal power of the Gospel we also preach. By men rejecting it, they are bound in condemnation; by accepting it, they are loosed. Their response to the Gospel we preach is to their condemnation or salvation, and what goes on here on earth is reflected in Heaven. We can think that if we offer the Gospel to a man and he shrugs and walks on in his life, somehow the passing of time after the encounter makes it less eternally meaningful. But not so. He encountered the offer of salvation from us, and the choice of rejecting or accepting it is reflected and noted in Heaven. This is the intense significance of our witness, the eternal moment of every encounter. Another time the words for binding and loosing occur together is in the account of the disciples being sent to loose a donkey that had been tied (<em><a href='B:480 11:2-5'>Mar 11:2-5</a></em>). One wonders if the Lord intended them to perceive in that simple domestic task an acted parable of their possibilities- through unloosing that which had been bound, the way was enabled for the Lord to enter into Jerusalem. The hint might be that the witness of His people in the last days is what can enable His return and triumphant entry to Jerusalem. So very much has been delegated to us.</p><p>Binding and loosing were terms widely used amongst the Rabbis with respect to the force of their commandments and judgments having God’s agreement (even in the NT record, ‘binding’ means ‘to decree’ in <em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em>). They had the keys to the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>), and shut it up against men. Now, in the Lord’s new Israel, Peter was to have that power. An uneducated fisherman was to have the place of the learned Scribes; it would have seemed so much more appropriate if Paul took this place. James and John were to be the “sons of thunder" (<em><a href='B:480 3:17'>Mar 3:17</a></em>), another Rabbinic phrase, used of the young trainee Rabbis who stood at the left and right of the Master of the Synagogue during the Sabbath services (hence the later appeal for confirmation as to whether they would&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>stand at the Master’s right and left in His Kingdom). These uneducated men were to take the place of the learned Scribes whom they had always respected and lived in fear of... truly they were being pushed against the grain:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:20'>Mat 16:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then he ordered the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ</em>-</p><p> The Greek word is used five times in Mark, but never in the other Gospels. This has the ring of truth to it- a group of people observing one man would each be struck by different things He did, and their records would reflect that. And that's just what we see in the Gospels:&nbsp;</p><p>"Tell" translates&nbsp;<em>epo</em>, to say, and it has just been used in recording how Peter&nbsp;<em>said</em>&nbsp;that Jesus was the Christ (:16). The Lord is progressing with the revised plan of operation which He began to make public at the end of chapter 12. He was effectively giving up on the masses, and instead focusing upon the disciples as the method through which He would after His death be able to appeal to the masses. In order to not be distracted, to spent time more intensely with them, He asks them not to fuel the kind of Messianic speculation which was then rife in Palestine:&nbsp;</p><p>"That he was the Christ" is AV "Jesusthe Christ"- an unusual phrase. 'Jesus' was one of the most common names in Palestine at the time. The Lord's idea was perhaps that they were not to tell people that He, the man named with the common name 'Jesus', was in very truth the Christ. They were allow people to continue to merely see 'Jesus' rather than 'the Christ'. By the very silence of the disciples about what they firmly believed and so wanted to share, they would have been driven to discuss the Messiahship of&nbsp;Jesus&nbsp;<em>amongst</em>&nbsp;<em>themselves</em>&nbsp;and also to reflect personally within themselves about the Lord's Messiahship.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:21'>Mat 16:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>From that time</em>-</p><p> Again we see the Lord educating the disciples according to a timetable. Now He was satisfied that they were convinced of His Messiahship and Divine Sonship, He felt He could move on to teach them more about His death and resurrection. This is how we were likewise taught the components of the Gospel; but we should not think that the Lord's teaching process ends there for us. He is continuing to teach us, in accordance with how quickly we have grasped the preceding elements:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Jesus began</em>-</p><p> Matched by Peter 'beginning' to argue with the Lord (:22):&nbsp;</p><p><em>To explain to His disciples-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:480 8:32'>Mar 8:32</a></em> adds that "He spake that saying openly". But He has just given the impression in :20 that these things were private; He showed them "to His disciples". "Openly" in <em><a href='B:480 8:32'>Mar 8:32</a></em> is a poor translation; the word is elsewhere rendered 'boldly' or 'confidently'. The words He spoke about His forthcoming death and resurrection He spoke with a boldness of spirit that came only from total faith.</p><p><em>That</em>-</p><p> The sense of&nbsp;<em>hoti</em>&nbsp;in the context is definitely causative. The idea is that He showed them&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;these things must happen. He didn't just foretell the events of the passion, but explained why they must be.</p><p><em>He must</em>-</p><p> The usage of&nbsp;<em>dei</em>&nbsp;is so common in the Lord's discussion of His death.</p><p><em>Go to Jerusalem</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Eis</em>&nbsp;has more the sense of '<em>into</em>&nbsp;Jerusalem'. Perhaps He foretold the 'triumphal entry' and how so quickly, things would unlovely themselves. Such explanation was necessary, otherwise the euphoria of the triumphal entry being dashed by what then happened would've been perhaps too hard for the disciples to cope with.</p><p><em>And suffer many things-&nbsp;</em>The phrase is used elsewhere of the sick woman who had "suffered many things" at the hands of "many physicians" (<em><a href='B:480 5:26'>Mar 5:26</a></em>), and yet is used elsewhere about the Lord's 'many' sufferings at the hands of the Jewish leaders (also in <em><a href='B:480 9:12'>Mar 9:12</a></em>). Surely the Lord perceived in her someone who was sharing something of His final sufferings. All our sufferings are likewise part of His crucifixion sufferings, and if we suffer with Him, we shall also therefore experience His resurrection. That woman was therefore set up as an example of us all.</p><p>Mark and Luke (<em><a href='B:480 8:31'>Mar 8:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:22'>Luk 9:22</a></em>) add here that the Lord added that He would be "rejected" by the Scribes, elders and Priests. The same word is used about the stone of Christ being "rejected" by themselves, the builders (<em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>). The word carries the sense of legally condemning. They rejected the sinless Son of God as a condemned sinner and demanded His death. If nothing else we learn some basic psychology- that when a person touches the conscience of less spiritual people, they are likely to intensely slander the person and effectively demand their death, which in our day may be the social death of rejection:&nbsp;</p><p><em>From the elders</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Presbuteros</em>&nbsp;is specifically used of the Sanhedrin members. The Lord's predictions here are highly specific and detailed:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised</em>-</p><p> Literally, 'High Priests'. There was only supposed to be one High Priest, but the position was so lucrative and argued over that there were a group called the 'High Priests'- so far had Judaism fallen away from basic Biblical teachings, despite their zeal to keep the details.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:22'>Mat 16:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying: Be it far from you, Lord. This shall never happen to you!</em></p><p>- Peter is quoting verbatim here from <em><a href='B:290 54:10'>Isa 54:10</a></em>, which speaks (in the Septuagint) of showing mercy to oneself. "Be it far" is&nbsp;Gk. 'Be merciful to yourself' (s:w. only <em><a href='B:650 8:12'>Heb 8:12</a></em> "merciful"):&nbsp;As an illiterate fisherman, he must have meditated and meditated upon the words he heard spoken to him in the synagogue readings. Let's be aware that in the preceding verse 21, Jesus had been explaining that passages like Isaiah 53 pointed forward to Christ's suffering and resurrection. Peter is responding by quoting a verse a little further on, in the same context. If Peter understood that Jesus was the Old Testament Messiah, he surely understood, in theory at least, that the Old Testament required a suffering Messiah. For him, of all men, to discourage Jesus from fulfilling this was serious indeed; hence Christ's stiff rebuke, likening him to the satan of His wilderness temptations, in that Peter too misquoted Scripture to provide an easy way out:&nbsp;If, as we have discussed elsewhere, Mark is really Peter’s Gospel, it is surely significant that Mark especially emphasizes how Peter especially didn’t understand the need for Jesus to suffer crucifixion (<em><a href='B:480 8:17-21'>Mar 8:17-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:27-33'>Mar 8:27-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:6'>Mar 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:32'>Mar 9:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:37'>Mar 14:37</a></em>). Showing the chinks in our own armour is surely the way to be a credible warrior for the Gospel. &nbsp;</p><p>Mark's record brings out the sustained mutuality between the Lord and Peter- for Peter rebukes the Lord, and then the Lord rebukes Peter (<em><a href='B:480 8:32-33'>Mar 8:32-33</a></em>). About twenty times in the Gospels we read of the Lord rebuking or charging (s:w:); but whenever the disciples do it, they seem to rebuke the wrong person over the wrong issues. Again, the Gospel writers bring out the distance and mismatch between the disciples and their Lord:&nbsp;</p><p>"This shall not be" could suggest that Peter thought that by his own strength and use of force he could stop this happening. By saying this he not only over-estimated his own strength, but showed his naivety about the strength and nature of the opposition to the Lord. He likely still didn't appreciate how evil were the Jewish religious leaders:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Turned and said</em>-</p><p> The very same words are used in <em><a href='B:490 22:61'>Luk 22:61</a></em> where the Lord turns and&nbsp;<em>looks</em>&nbsp;upon Peter. The repetition of such visual images serves to teach how circumstances are repeated in human lives, each bearing the same Divine hallmark. The way the Lord "turned" and addressed people is recorded often in the Gospels, especially noticed by Luke (<em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:44'>Luk 7:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:55'>Luk 9:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:25'>Luk 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:61'>Luk 22:61</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:28'>Luk 23:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>). Again this is exactly what we would expect from eyewitness testimony- a certain physical characteristic or aspect of body language noticed, remembered and reflected in a write up of those memories.</p><p>The Gospel records, Luke especially, often record how the Lord turned and spoke to His followers- as if He was in the habit of walking ahead of them, with them following (<em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:44'>Luk 7:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:25'>Luk 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:28'>Luk 23:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>). As we saw above, Peter thought that following the Lord was not so hard, because he was literally following Jesus around first century Israel, and identifying himself with His cause. But he simply failed to make the connection between following and cross carrying. And we too can agree to follow the Lord without realizing that it means laying down our lives. The Lord brought Peter to face this with a jolt in <em><a href='B:470 16:22-25'>Mat 16:22-25</a></em>. Peter was following Jesus, after He had predicted His crucifixion (for Jesus “turned, and said unto Peter”). He thought he was following Jesus. But he was told: “Get thee&nbsp;<em>behind me</em>… if any man will come&nbsp;<em>after me</em>&nbsp;(s:w. ‘behind me’), let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and&nbsp;<em>follow me</em>&nbsp;(s:w:)”. The italicized words are all the same in the original. Peter didn’t want the Lord to die by crucifixion at Jerusalem, because he saw that as a follower of Jesus this required that he too must die a like death. Peter needed to get behind Jesus in reality and really follow, in the sense of following to the cross, although he was there physically behind Jesus, physically following at that time. The Lord was saying: ‘Don’t think of trying to stop me dying. I will, of course. But concentrate instead on&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;getting behind me in the sense of carrying my cross’. John’s record stresses that the key to following Jesus to the cross is to hear His word, which beckons us onwards (<em><a href='B:500 10:4'>Joh 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:27'>Joh 10:27</a></em>). All our Bible study must lead us onwards in the life of self-sacrifice. But Peter loved the Lord’s words; but, as pointed out to him at the transfiguration, he didn’t hear those words of Christ deeply. And so he missed the call to the cross. He had just stated that Jesus was Messiah; but soon afterwards he is recorded as saying that it was intrinsic within Jesus’ Messiahship that He&nbsp;<em>mustn’t</em>&nbsp;die or suffer.</p><p><em>To Peter</em>-</p><p> Mark says the Lord “rebuked” him (<em><a href='B:480 8:33'>Mar 8:33</a></em>). But the very same Greek word has occurred just prior in the narrative, when Peter has just declared Jesus to be “the Christ of God”. The Lord responded by commending Peter for his blessed insight, but the record continues: “And [Jesus] strictly charged them [s:w. “rebuked”] them, and commanded them to tell [i:e. preach to] no man that thing”, and He goes on to underline to them how He must suffer on the cross (<em><a href='B:490 9:21'>Luk 9:21</a></em>). Why did the Lord both commend and rebuke Peter for discerning that He was indeed the Christ of God? Surely because, in the context, Peter understood Messiah to be someone who would there and then bring salvation without the cross. Again we see how there was something in Peter as there is in us all which somehow revolted at the idea of real cross carrying. And it was for the same reason that the Lord “strictly charged” [s:w. rebuked] those who wanted to blaze around the news that He was Messiah- because they didn’t perceive that the Messiah must first suffer and rise again before being declared in fullness “Lord and Christ”:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Get behind Me, Satan</em>-</p><p> When He said He was going up to Jerusalem to die, Peter asked him not to. “Get behind me, Satan" was not the Lord wishing temptation to get behind him. He was telling Peter, whom He here calls ‘Satan’, to get behind Him and follow Him up there to Jerusalem, carrying His cross with Him (<em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>). Peter didn’t want the Lord to go up there, to die like that, because he knew that this meant that he too must carry the cross. Here lies the reason for our recoiling at the cross. We realize that it implies all too much for us, if this is truly what the Lord went through.</p><p>"Get" is the same word translated "Get hence [Satan]" in <em><a href='B:470 4:10'>Mat 4:10</a></em>. The temptation here was to take Peter's position and think that the Kingdom was possible without the death of the cross. And clearly the situation here is reminiscent of the wilderness temptation, which was in essence the same- to think of ways around the cross. And again, the Lord told the Satan to "get hence". In essence, this is the sum of all human temptation, hence the Lord's very clear statement in the next two verses about the absolutely unavoidable necessity of the cross. The Lord was therefore speaking to Himself when He envisaged a person wishing to "save his life", to avoid death, yet wanting to "gain the whole world". This had been exactly the temptation of <em><a href='B:470 4:8'>Mat 4:8</a></em>, to try to take "the whole world" without the death of the cross (:26). The command to 'get away behind' the Lord and follow Him is expanded upon in :24,25 to mean 'to follow to the cross'. But by the time of His death, the Lord knew that Peter just wasn't going to make it. For the Lord uses the same word translated "Get" here in <em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em> in telling Peter: "Where I am now<em>&nbsp;going</em>&nbsp;[s:w. "get"], you cannot follow Me [s:w. <em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em> "follow Me"] now". It seems it was the Lord's particular desire that Peter should die with Him on the cross - Peter's willingness to do this was therefore partly a desire to follow his Lord's intention for him, rather than the mere language of bravado. But finally He realized that Peter wasn't going to make it, at least not at that time: "But you shall follow Me eventually" (<em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em>). We can usefully meditate upon the Lord's intentions for us, and at what times He intended us to rise up to them... and how even when we fail to mature as we should, He still holds out hope that we shall eventually get there. And this is to be reflected in our patience with our likewise developing brethren.</p><p><em>"</em>Behind Me" is the same word translated "come after Me" in :24. This is a command to Peter to stop trying to dissuade Christ from the cross, but rather to get behind Him and carry that cross. Note how following behind the Lord and carrying His cross are identified in <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:23'>Luk 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>. Instead of just literally walking behind Him, the Lord is saying that real discipleship is to carry a cross behind Him.</p><p><em>You are a hindrance to me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>skandalon</em>&nbsp;literally means a trap or snare. But the Lord Jesus saw the snare and therefore didn't fall into it:&nbsp; Peter's attitude was a snare to the Lord in that it was attractive to Him- a savouring of the flesh rather than of Godly things was therefore attractive to the Lord. Some reflection on this will surely find in this a profound evidence of the Lord's utter humanity. For 'very God of very God' would no way have reasoned like this nor found the things of men an attraction over the things of God. Peter's fleshly thinking was a trap or snare to the Lord Jesus in that it was found superficially attractive by Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then said Jesus to his disciples: If anyone wants to be my follower, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me</em>-</p><p> The disciples had a psychological barrier in understanding the teaching of the cross, just as we can likewise. Often when He spoke of the cross and His sacrifice, His followers either changed the subject or turned away. They were even against the idea of crucifixion (<em><a href='B:480 8:32'>Mar 8:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:32'>Mar 9:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:35-40'>Mar 10:35-40</a></em>). They failed to see the centrality of the cross. And these reactions can characterize our response to the cross, both in terms of turning away from considering its physicalities, and also in our own cross-carrying. And yet there is a sense of inevitability about the cross. We&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;face these things. Circle all the times in John 19 words like "therefore" occur (and cp. <em><a href='B:510 2:23'>Act 2:23</a></em>). Consider how Luke records the indefatigable determination in the Lord's face during the final journey up to Jerusalem. There is the same inevitability about our cross carrying; even if we flunk it all the way through our lives, we eventually come to death. My name chiselled by some disinterested artist on a gravestone, with the radio playing in the background as he sits hunched up in his workshop.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 9:23'>Luk 9:23</a></em> adds that the Lord asked us to take up our cross&nbsp;<em>daily</em>. Having spoken of the need to take up the cross daily, the Lord Jesus employed this form of logic to encourage people to really take on board what He was suggesting: "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross…&nbsp;<em>for</em>&nbsp;whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, and the gospel's, the same shall find it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own life (AV "soul")? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (<em><a href='B:480 8:34-37'>Mar 8:34-37</a></em>). If we follow Christ, we must lose our natural life. If we don't, even if we gain the whole world, we will lose our natural life:&nbsp;<em>I must lose my life, one way or the other</em>. We need to go through life muttering that to ourselves. God asks our life, our all. If we hold it back in this life because we want to keep it for ourselves, He will take it anyway. The cross was a symbol of shame (<em><a href='B:650 12:2'>Heb 12:2</a></em> speaks of the shame of the cross). In this context verse 38 continues: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed" at the day of judgment. We either go through the shame of carrying the cross now, especially in our personal witnessing to those around us; or we will suffer the eternal shame of rejection (<em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>); our shame will then be evident to all (<em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>).</p><p>Mark, who as we have suggested elsewhere was effectively Peter writing, records three instances of where the Lord’s prediction of the cross was met by the disciples’ misunderstanding, and His subsequent efforts to teach them the real meaning of discipleship, and the paradoxes which this involves:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>&nbsp;</td><td><em><a href='B:480 8:27'>Mar 8:27</a></em> -<em><a href='B:480 9:1'>Mar 9:1</a></em></td><td><em><a href='B:480 9:30-37'>Mar 9:30-37</a></em></td><td><em><a href='B:480 10:32-34'>Mar 10:32-34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:35-45'>Mar 10:35-45</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Geographical description</td><td>8:27</td><td>9:30</td><td>10:32</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Note that the incident took place whilst they were on the road walking</td><td>8:27</td><td>9:31</td><td>10:33,34</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Misunderstanding by the disciples</td><td>8:32,33</td><td>9:32</td><td>10:35-41</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Jesus calls the disciples to Him, implying they were no longer following behind Him</td><td>8:34</td><td>9:35</td><td>10:42</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Teaching about true cross-carrying discipleship</td><td>8:34-9:1</td><td>9:33-37</td><td>10:42-45</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Paradox</td><td>Save life / lose life</td><td>First / last</td><td>Great / least</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The point is, that following Jesus in the way involves picking up and carrying His cross. But this repeatedly wasn’t understood by the disciples, and they seem to have stopped walking behind Him as they should’ve done. Be aware that Mark is a transcript of Peter’s preaching of the Gospel message; He’s surely pointing out how terribly slow he had been himself to pick up the fact that walking behind Jesus is a call to carry a cross. And of course a glance back at our own discipleship and walk behind Jesus indicates just the same with us; and perhaps we should admit that more freely in our preaching, in order to like Peter make a stronger appeal for men to follow Jesus with no misunderstanding of what this involves:&nbsp;</p><p>Luke gives more detail about this saying about carrying the cross (<em><a href='B:490 9:23-26'>Luk 9:23-26</a></em>). In the context of telling His followers to witness to Him, the Lord equates this with taking up their cross daily (<em><a href='B:490 9:23'>Luk 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</a></em>). To not bear that cross is to deny the knowledge of Him before men. To live the crucifixion life is the essential witness. Every act of grace, every evident sign of self-control, every statement of forgiveness towards misunderstanding and unrepentant men... all this is showing something of the cross. And in this, painful and difficult as it is, demanding and driving-to-the-limit as it must be, lies the essence of our being the Lord’s witnesses. To witness Christ is not to just painlessly distribute a few tracts. It is to live out the dying of the cross. Take up the cross, and follow me" is inviting us to carry Christ's cross with Him - He speaks of "the cross" rather than 'a cross'. The Greek translated "take up" is that translated 'to take away' in the context of Christ taking away our sins. Strong says that it implies "expiation" (of sins). This connection, between our taking away / up the cross, and Christ's taking away our sins, suggests that the efficacy of His cross for us depends upon our daily 'taking up the cross'. It is vital therefore that we "take up the cross" if our sins are to be taken away by Him. But our taking up of the cross is a response to the taking away / up of our sins. We all know from experience that how we start each day is important. Indeed, how we start any enterprise is crucial- hence the need for a sound understanding of the basic Gospel before we're baptized. We so often meet the phrase "rose early in the morning" in the Hebrew Bible. Strong defines the Hebrew&nbsp;<em>shawkam&nbsp;</em>translated "rose early" as essentially meaning "to incline the shoulder to a burden... literally to load up on the back of man". In this we see an evident connection with the Lord's thought about taking up the cross&nbsp;<em>daily</em>, for that surely implies we are to take it up each morning (<em><a href='B:490 9:23'>Luk 9:23</a></em>). Men and women had arisen each morning for 4000 years and inclined their shoulders to the burden of the day, loaded themselves with it onto their back. And the Lord now took humanity further, in redefining that "load", that burden, as His cross. Practically, does this not mean that we are to reflect as we come to consciousness each morning that we are to load ourselves with His cross? This thought need not necessarily lead to an image of having to burden ourselves with an impossible, awful weight. For again in allusion to this idea of loading oneself up each morning, the Lord spoke of how His burden is&nbsp;<em>light</em>! Here perhaps is one of the finest paradoxes of the spiritual life- that His cross, the life of self-sacrifice and self-giving unto the very end, is indeed heavy and demanding... yet in another sense it is "light", far lighter than the burdens of legalism which Pharisaic religion bound [and binds] upon people. <em><a href='B:490 9:23-24'>Luk 9:23-24</a></em> describes cross carrying as a rejection of saving&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;life, of making our present life as rich and fulfilled as possible; and instead concentrating on&nbsp;<em>giving up</em>&nbsp;our lives. William Barclay comments on this passage: “A man must spend his life, not hoard it... the Christian must realize that he is given life, not to keep it for himself, but to spend it for others; not to husband its flame, but to burn himself out for Christ and for men... the questions are not ‘How much can I&nbsp;<em>get</em>?’, but, ‘How much can I&nbsp;<em>give</em>?’. Not ‘What is the&nbsp;<em>safe</em>&nbsp;thing to do?’, but ‘What is the&nbsp;<em>right</em>&nbsp;thing to do?” (William Barclay,&nbsp;<em>The Gospel Of Luke (</em>Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), p. 122). The threat of <em><a href='B:490 9:23-25'>Luk 9:23-25</a></em> rung in Paul’s mind (in <em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:9'>2Co 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:8'>Phi 3:8</a></em>): If a man gains the world for Christ but does not take up the cross, or is ashamed of Christ's words and principles in this world, he will be&nbsp;<em>cast away</em>. Especially does Paul allude to these words in <em><a href='B:530 9:27'>1Co 9:27</a></em>: "Lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway". Paul recognized his temptation: to think that his zeal for preaching excused him from taking up the cross. In essence, we must all see our own likely temptations: to focus on one area of spirituality, with the hope that it will excuse us from the cross:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>16:25&nbsp;<em>For whoever would save his life</em>-</p><p> The Lord is speaking also to Himself here- see on :23&nbsp;<em>Get</em>:&nbsp;I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that it is the process of our engagement with God's word, our love of it, our integrity in considering it etc:, which is therefore more important to God than our grasping the final 'truth' of each clause in a final, Euclidean sense. By saying this I take nothing away from the fact that "the truth" is "in Jesus", that there is a wonderful personal reality of salvation for each of us in Christ, a living personal relationship with Him. My point is simply that God's intention in giving us His word is surely not to relay to us a heap of individual specific truths- for the written word isn't the best way to convey such things to simple, illiterate folk, nor indeed to computer-assisted students of our own times. Rather does He seek us to enter into&nbsp;<em>relationship</em>&nbsp;with Him and His Son, and He uses His word and its ambiguities as a way of achieving this. The Lord Jesus used language like this- consider how He uses the word&nbsp;<em>psuche</em>, life, in <em><a href='B:480 8:34-37'>Mar 8:34-37</a></em>. We are to lose our life in order to find life... and "what does a man gain by winning the whole world at the cost of his true self? What can he give to buy that self back?" (NEB). The ambiguous usage of&nbsp;<em>psuche</em>&nbsp;is surely in order to get us thinking about our relationship with Him. And thus the Lord's parables often end with questions which have open-ended, ambiguous answers, through which we reveal and develop our relationship with Jesus- e.g. "What will the owner of the vineyard do?" (<em><a href='B:480 12:9'>Mar 12:9</a></em> - kill them? be gracious to them? give them yet another chance? keep them as His people anyway?). I am not saying that correct interpretation of Scripture doesn't matter; rather am I saying that in&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;ways, in some places, in some aspects, interpreting the Lord's words is designed by Him to be open-ended rather than intended to lead us all to identical conclusions.</p><p><em>Shall lose it</em>-</p><p> Luke’s record speaks of forfeiting life or self. Jesus speaks of how a person can lose their place in the Kingdom as a person losing or forfeiting their own self; He was thereby teaching that a place in the Kingdom was possessing one’s own real self (<em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em> RV). To lose life is paralleled with the Lord to unashamedly witnessing to Him in an unbelieving world; and He calls us each one to lose our lives in this way (<em><a href='B:480 8:35'>Mar 8:35</a></em>). Being ashamed of Christ's words doesn't just apply to not speaking up for the Truth when someone invites us to a topless bar after work. It's equally true, and the punishment for it just the same, in the context of not speaking out Christ's word in the ecclesia, to our very own brethren (<em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em> = <em><a href='B:620 1:8'>2Ti 1:8</a></em>). The Lord Jesus will be ashamed of the rejected when He comes in the glory of the Father (<em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>). There is a telling juxtaposition of ideas here- shame and glory. Amidst the utter glory of the Father's throne, surrounded by Angels, the Lord will be sitting there with eyes downwards in shame as the rejected stand before Him and walk away. The Proverbs speak of how shame is to be the ultimate end of the wicked, and glory the end of the righteous. Yet it is&nbsp;<em>the rejected who</em>&nbsp;go away "into shame":&nbsp;<em>They</em>&nbsp;will be "ashamed before him at his coming". Yet the Lord will so feel for even the rejected, that He feels for them and reflects their feelings. This is no stern-faced judge chasing away those He is angry with. This is a window into the Lord's ineffable love and feelings even for those for whom it truly is too late, for whom the way to the tree of life is now barred. The way the Lord Jesus says that He will be "ashamed" of those He has to reject (<em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>) opens an interesting window into what it means to have Divine nature. It doesn't mean that we will not then know the range of emotions which we have as humans today- for we are made in God's image. To think of the Lord of Heaven and earth, on the throne of His glory, sitting or standing there "ashamed"... because of His people. And shame is really a concept relevant to the presence of others- and the others who will be present will be the Angels and ourselves. Before us, we who are ourselves&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;weak and saved by His grace alone, He will feel shame because of those He has to reject. But there's another way of looking at the Lord's 'shame'. It is the rejected who will have shame in that day (<em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>). Such is the nature of the Lord's love and empathy that He will somehow feel their shame, feel embarrassed for them as it were. Which thought in itself should banish for ever any idea that we are coming before an angry Master. The Lord of grace is the One who will be, and is, our judge. And even in His condemnation of men, His essential love shines through. His condemnation of Israel involved them wandering for years in the wilderness; but during that wandering, "in all their affliction, he was afflicted" (<em><a href='B:290 63:9'>Isa 63:9</a></em>). God shared in their feelings and suffering of rejection; just as the Lord Jesus will share in the shame of those who walk away from Him at the last day in shame. God's being with Israel during their wilderness wanderings is cited in <em><a href='B:370 2:10'>Amo 2:10</a></em> as an example of His especial love for His people.</p><p>The Lord had earlier taught in <em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em> that in the condemnation of the last day, it is God who will destroy [s:w. “lose”] life [“soul”, s:w:]. But here the Lord says that a man will lose / destroy his own life if he is ashamed of His words and seeks to gain the world for himself in this life. The point is that ultimately the condemned will have condemned themselves; the process of losing / destroying life is initiated and performed by people in this life, and the final condemnation is simply giving them what they themselves wished for. And the Lord goes further to say that whoever ‘finds his life’ will lose or destroy it (<em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em>). To find life for ourselves, to think that by obtaining [‘finding’] the world, the ideal life for ourselves, is to actually lose or destroy life. But in <em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em> the Lord teaches that men cannot take that “life” from us- only God can, at the day of judgment. He clearly doesn’t simply have mortal life in view, because this can be taken from us by men. Perhaps the idea is that for those written in the book of life, they ‘have’ eternal life, as John’s Gospel makes clear. No man can take that from us. But if we spend our lives trying to find the ideal life for ourselves in this life (the coolest place to live, high income, fulfilling career etc:), we are in fact losing or destroying that eternal life, and therefore there is such a thing as names that were once written in the book of life being erased from it. In Luke’s record, the Lord goes on to say that He had not come to destroy [s:w. ‘lose’] men’s lives, but to save (<em><a href='B:490 9:56'>Luk 9:56</a></em>). It is men who destroy / lose their own lives, they condemn themselves, rather than the Lord seeking to condemn them. The Father likewise has no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. Rather does He simply confirm their own self-destruction. John’s version of this saying about losing life is found in the context of the Lord speaking to Himself about the need to die on the cross: “He that loves his life shall lose it” (<em><a href='B:500 12:25'>Joh 12:25</a></em>). To avoid the cross is to love life- this fleeting life. Attitudes like ‘Spoil yourself!’, ‘You deserve it!’ and ‘Have a fun time- you only live life once’ are all examples of loving life rather than losing it in self-condemnation for the hope of the eternal life. <em><a href='B:490 17:33'>Luk 17:33</a></em> repeats the words, in the context of commenting upon Lot’s wife- her wistful look back to Sodom was because that was her life, the life she had loved.</p><p>The Greek text in <em><a href='B:470 16:25-26'>Mat 16:25-26</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em> can bear a re-translation and re-punctuation which quite alters the sense as found in the English translations. It shows the Lord emphasizing the evident and compelling logic of losing our lives for His sake: "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For how much a man is profited if he shall gain the whole world (in the Kingdom) and lose his own soul (now, as I asked you to do, to lose your soul for me)!... for the Son of man shall come... and then he shall reward every man according to his works", i:e. the losing of our soul is through our everyday works. <em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em> makes the same point: 'How is a man advantaged if he gain the whole world (the Kingdom) and lose himself (now)!:&nbsp;<em>or</em>&nbsp;- be cast away, be condemned at the judgment, because he tried to keep his soul, he didn't see the logic of all this!'. The point is, a man at the day of judgment will be willing to give up&nbsp;<em>everything</em>, even the whole world if he possesses it in order that he may find acceptance. But then it will be too late:&nbsp;<em>Now</em>&nbsp;is the time to resign all for the sake of that blessed acceptance.</p><p>I mentioned above that the Greek for ‘losing life’ has been used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 10:28-29'>Mat 10:28-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em> to speak of losing or destroying life in the condemnation of the last day. Perhaps the idea is that we resign not only any attempt to materially turn this life into the eternal life, our small world into God’s Kingdom- but we also condemn ourselves now, so that we shall not be condemned in the last day. Flesh must be condemned, and it is our wisdom to do it now.</p><p><em>And whoever shall lose his life for my sake</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:480 8:35'>Mar 8:35</a></em> adds: "And the Gospel's". The Lord envisaged that the preaching of the Gospel could likely involve the loss of life. For many of us today, that is not the case; and in fact it has usually not been the case for the majority of Christ's followers over time. But the idea is that we are to sacrifice life for the Gospel; be it momentary embarrassment, social death, defriending on social networks or sacrifice of career and wealth. This is the large part which "the Gospel" was envisaged as playing in the life of a believer. <em><a href='B:480 8:35-38'>Mar 8:35-38</a></em> records the Lord’s teaching here slightly differently: “For whoever would save his life shall lose it, and whoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, he shall save it! For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? For what should a man give in exchange for his life? For whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man also shall be ashamed”. The Lord Jesus paralleled "my sake and the gospel's" with "me and my words" (<em><a href='B:480 8:35'>Mar 8:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>). He Himself thus understood the Gospel to be His words:&nbsp;Preaching, in whatever form, is not glamorous. It is a sacrifice of self, a not saying and doing as we feel, a surrendering of our own rights- for the sake of others’ salvation, both in the preaching of the Gospel and in helping our brethren to salvation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Shall find it</em>-</p><p> 10:39 has made it clear that if we find our lives we shall lose them. This finding of life likely refers, therefore, to finding it in the day of judgment. However, according to John’s Gospel, the essence of the eternal life, the kind of life we can eternally live, can be lived right now in Christian experience today. So this is an element to which we who have forfeited having the Kingdom now, in all the apparent possibilities for self-fulfilment which there are today, can find the eternal life now in that we can live the Kingdom life today. Likewise if we take the Lord’s yoke upon us, we shall “find rest unto [our] lives / souls” (<em><a href='B:470 11:29'>Mat 11:29</a></em> s:w:). And the implication is that that experience begins now, having shed the heavy burdens of guilt and legalism.</p>


text:
<p>16:26&nbsp;<em>For what shall a man be profited</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a></em> records the Lord as teaching: “What&nbsp;<em>will it</em>&nbsp;[future] profit a man [i:e. at the future judgment], if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?”. <em><a href='B:480 8:36'>Mar 8:36</a></em> has: “What&nbsp;<em>does it</em>&nbsp;[right now] profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?”. Could it be that the Lord said both these things at the same time- to make His point, that the essence of judgment day is being decided right now by our decisions today? And the Lord’s next words make the same point: “What shall [at judgment day] a man give in return for his life?” (<em><a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a></em>) is matched by <em><a href='B:480 8:37'>Mar 8:37</a></em>: “What can [right now] a man give in return for his life?”. The question we will face at judgment day, the obvious issue between winning for a moment and losing eternally, or losing now and winning eternally… this is being worked out right now. The choice is ours, hour by hour, decision by decision.</p><p>The metaphor is clearly of trading: profiting, gaining, exchanging, losing. The parable of trading the talents uses the same metaphor. <em><a href='B:470 25:17'>Mat 25:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:20'>Mat 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:22'>Mat 25:22</a></em> speak of ‘gaining’ more talents- the same word used here about ‘gaining’ the world. And yet the intended paradox is that by losing materially, declining to profit and gain in the material things of this world, we shall gain eternal things. The idea of not being profited by gaining the things of this life is recorded in all the Synoptics (<em><a href='B:480 8:36'>Mar 8:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em>). John’s equivalent is to record the Lord’s teaching that the flesh can “profit” (s:w:) nothing, whereas His words are spirit and life (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>). The spiritual life, lived in response to His word, is the true profit. There can be no ultimate profit in any fleshly, worldly enterprise:&nbsp;</p><p><em>If he shall gain</em>-</p><p> See on&nbsp;<em>profit</em>. We are to ‘gain’ more talents for the Lord, not the world for ourselves (<em><a href='B:470 25:17'>Mat 25:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:20'>Mat 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:22'>Mat 25:22</a></em> s:w:). We ‘gain’ our brother (<em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>)- not for ourselves, but for the Lord; Paul wanted to ‘gain’ men by all means for Christ (<em><a href='B:530 9:19-22'>1Co 9:19-22</a></em> s:w. four times). Unspiritual husbands are to be ‘gained’ by the spiritual efforts of believing wives (<em><a href='B:670 3:1'>1Pe 3:1</a></em>). The first century believers likely memorized the Gospels, and so Paul’s repeated usage of the word ‘gain’ regarding gaining others would’ve been easily connected with the ‘gaining’ of talents in the parable, where the same word is also repeatedly used. Instead of gaining the world for ourselves, we are to gain people for Christ. Instead of careers and long hours at work to fund a cool lifestyle, we are to spend time visiting, phoning, writing, emailing, arranging things… for the gaining of individuals for Him. The contrast is between gaining&nbsp;<em>persons</em>&nbsp;for&nbsp;<em>Christ&nbsp;</em>and gaining&nbsp;<em>things&nbsp;</em>for&nbsp;<em>ourselves</em>. Paul had clearly meditated upon the Lord’s teaching here because he says that whatever things were once “gain” for him [s:w:] he now counted as&nbsp;<em>loss</em>, and even saw his death, the loss of this present life, as “gain” (<em><a href='B:570 3:7'>Phi 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:21'>Phi 1:21</a></em>). The “things” he no longer wished to “gain” refer to his life of legalistic obedience and condemnation of others (<em><a href='B:570 3:4-6'>Phi 3:4-6</a></em>). The call to no longer gain but lose is not simply an invitation to unload our wealth in monetary terms. If it were, then it would only apply to the minority of believers over time who have been wealthy. More essentially, the call is to lose whatever human advantage we have had, even spiritual power and advantage over others, in order to align ourselves with the life and death of our Lord. Paul continues the allusion to this section by saying that he has counted all such human advantage as “loss” (<em><a href='B:570 3:8'>Phi 3:8</a></em>)- the same word used in “lose his own soul / life”- in order that he might “gain” Christ. The gaining of life which the Lord spoke of is described by Paul as a gaining of Christ- for He is our life (<em><a href='B:580 3:4'>Col 3:4</a></em>). Our existence is eternally intertwined with his:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>The whole world-&nbsp;</em>An allusion to the Lord’s wilderness temptations. Yet again, He speaks largely to Himself in His teaching of others, as every true teacher does. The parallel records in Mark and Luke speak of suffering and loss in order to not be ashamed of the Lord’s words and to preach those words. The work of witness is the ‘gaining’ of people for Him. It is not incidental, therefore, that the only other reference in Matthew to&nbsp;<em>holos kosmos</em>, “the whole world” is in the context of speaking of how the Gospel is to be preached to “the whole world” (<em><a href='B:470 26:13'>Mat 26:13</a></em>). With this in mind, it may also be that the Lord is warning that a preacher may indeed gain the whole world for God in a spiritual sense- and yet be cast away himself. In this case, He was more than ever speaking to Himself, He who did die in order to gain the world. What we do for others is no replacement for personal spirituality. If this is a valid interpretation, perhaps subtly built in by the Lord into His appeal to not gain the material world for ourselves, then we must re-examine the common assumption that a person must be good and spiritual because of all the good they have done for others. That good may indeed have been done, but is no guarantee of deeply personal integrity before God:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And forfeit his life</em>-</p><p> The allusion to <em><a href='B:470 10:28-29'>Mat 10:28-29</a></em> means that no man can take life from us, but God can, at the condemnation of the last day. Therefore the “life” in view is not simply mortal life, which can be taken from us by men. Rather does it refer to our eternal life, potentially given to us from the foundation of the world in Christ. We cannot give anything for that, it is priceless. We are to accept it, but if we accept it, then we will not seek to gain the world for ourselves in a material sense in this life. Note the emphasis upon his “own” life. The eternal life which we shall eternally experience is personal to each of us. The Bible teaches personal salvation. You, and me, as the sum total of all we have experienced, we as persons… shall personally be saved. The eternal life is not therefore merely a biophysical state which can no longer die; immortality is not merely the absence of death. It is more personal than that. It is about you and me personally existing for eternity; we ourselves as persons shall be saved and eternally continue. This of course highlights the eternal importance of character development in this life; for we shall eternally be who we develop into.</p><p><em>Or what shall a man give in exchange</em>-</p><p> The Lord is perhaps envisaging how some might think to offer their wealth in order to buy eternity at the last day- verse 27 goes on to speak of the day of judgment as if this is the scene which the Lord has had in view throughout this section. Surely nobody will actually do that- at that day. But effectively, that is how so many live today, thinking that their attempts to acquire this world can somehow be compared to the riches of eternity.</p><p><em>For his life</em>-</p><p> The Greek and Hebrew words translated “soul” ["life"] have a very wide range of meaning. The idea is usually of the person, the life, often the natural life. But here we have one of a few usages where the word is used about the person and their life in the sense of the person and life which they could eternally be in God’s Kingdom. The use of “soul” here rather than “life” is perhaps because the Lord has been emphasizing personal salvation- see on&nbsp;<em>his own life</em>.</p>


text:
<p>16:27&nbsp;<em>For&nbsp;the Son of Man shall come-&nbsp;</em>There is a powerful practical result of the connection between the cross and the judgment. The Lord brings it out when He gives three reasons for denying ourselves and taking up the cross; the final and most compelling is “<em>For</em>&nbsp;(because) the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he give every man according to his works" (<em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:27'>Mat 16:27</a></em>). Take up the cross, do what is hard for you spiritually, because this is the basis upon which you will be judged- how far you took up the cross, really denied yourself. Before the cross of Christ, we know the way we ought to take. Before the judgment seat, we will know likewise. But we make the answer now.</p><p>Luke adds that the Lord will be “ashamed” of those who have been ashamed of Him in this life. If we are&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;ashamed of our Lord before men, we will be in the condemnation process (<em><a href='B:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>).</p><p><em>In the glory of his Father with his angels</em>-</p><p> The intention of this phrase may be to demonstrate that the Lord will execute judgment with the full authority of the Father. Or perhaps the language is to remind us of the awesomeness of the day of judgment, and how inappropriate it would be to stand there and think that before the light of that moral and physical glory, with all the Angels present, we could suggest giving our wealth as an exchange for our soul.</p><p><em>And then shall he repay every man according to his deeds</em>-</p><p> The Greek refers to payment, and this is how the word is usually translated in the Gospels. And this is in keeping with the metaphor used here- of trading, gaining, losing and exchanging. The payment to us is for our loss of material advantage in this life; the attitudes which led to this are therefore the “works” which shall be paid back. It could be argued that the idea of paying a reward implies that the “every man” in view here refers to the group of faithful believers. For it is those accepted into the Kingdom who shall be given payment. In one sense, the penny a day refers to salvation, which all the same requires us to resign seeking the reward of this world. Or it could be that in another sense, the nature of eternity will indeed be according to the works we have done, in that one star differs from another in glory, and the servants were rewarded with different levels of reward according to their trading on their Master’s behalf.</p><p>The ‘deeds’ of the context refer to taking up the cross, not wanting to gain the world for ourselves but seeking to gain men for Christ. These ‘works’ appear largely to be mental attitudes rather than deeds physically performed. The work of God is to believe in Christ (<em><a href='B:500 6:29'>Joh 6:29</a></em>). The outcome of the day of judgment is according to human works in the sense that it is only a confirmation of the decision and judgment about ourselves which we ourselves have decided in this life- see on <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>lose it</em>.</p>


text:
<p>16:28&nbsp;<em>Truly I say to you: There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom-</em></p><p>&nbsp; <em><a href='B:480 9:1'>Mar 9:1</a></em> records that He also said: "The Kingdom of God come with power". It is of course argued by many that the Gospel writers are merely summarizing the Lord's words in their own words. After extensive comparison of the Gospel records, I find this explanation unnecessary- because in no case of apparent contradiction do I see that the different forms of words are mutually contradictory. The Lord could easily have said something like: 'Till&nbsp;they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom (Mt:)<em>-&nbsp;</em>The Kingdom of God come with power (Mk:)'. Luke's "Till they see the Kingdom of God" (<em><a href='B:490 9:27'>Luk 9:27</a></em>) is perfectly in accordance with this- the first part of that clause ("Till they see") is from Matthew and "the Kingdom of God" is from Mark. It's statistically incredible that there is not a single case that I have come across in comparing the Gospels which is impossible to reconcile in this manner. If the Gospel writers were anything less than Divinely inspired, there would simply have to be contradiction between the accounts. I therefore see no need to assume that the writers were summarizing the Lord's words in their own words. This manner of repeating the same basic truth several times, e.g. 'Till&nbsp;they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom (Mt:)<em>-&nbsp;</em>The Kingdom of God come with power (Mk:)', is true to my human experience in preaching the Gospel in public formats to illiterate people. I tend to repeat the same basic idea in slightly different words. And this is exactly what the Lord would've been doing, and the records of His words reflect that:&nbsp;</p><p>The preceding verse 27 has clearly used the language of Christ's coming and His Kingdom in the context of the final judgment, when payment will be made to those who have 'lost' in this life that they might gain eternally. It is of course no coincidence that the synoptics each go on to record the transfiguration. But the connection with verse 27 means that the Lord surely was referring to His actual return in glory and final judgment. The language of '<em>Some</em>&nbsp;here will not taste of death' is strange if the Lord has in mind an event which would occur within the next week. Surely He meant that that generation would see His coming in glory. The transfiguration was at best a vision or foretaste of that time, the evident "glory" involved with the situation is to be connected with the "glory" that will be revealed at the Lord's second coming (:27). I note under <em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em> that the Lord may not have been even expecting the transfiguration when He spoke these words in 16:28. What are we to make of this?</p><p>One suggestion is that just as it had been possible for Israel to have been prepared by John to accept Jesus as Christ and thus enabled the King of glory to come to Zion and establish His Kingdom, so it was possible that the Kingdom of God could have been established in that generation. But Israel crucified the Son rather than giving Him the fruit of the vineyard, and even afterwards they did not repent&nbsp;<em>en masse</em>, and those who did failed to take the Gospel to the Gentile world to the extent which was then required for the Kingdom to come. "<em>Shall not</em>&nbsp;taste of death" uses the same word as in <em><a href='B:470 10:23'>Mat 10:23</a></em>: "You&nbsp;<em>shall not</em>&nbsp;have gone over the cities of Israel [in preaching the Gospel] before the Son of Man be come". But it seems that the disciples did not fulfil the preaching commission as intended, for the Lord's parables of harvest lament the paucity and weakness of the labourers, to the extent that the implication is that the harvest was largely spoilt because of this:&nbsp;</p><p>Much hinges around how we understand&nbsp;<em>heos an</em>, translated "until". "Until" suggests that one state is ended after an event happens. Did the Lord mean 'You will not die until the Kingdom comes, and then you will die'?. That reflection alone suggests we need to think more carefully about the translation of those Greek words. Did the Lord really mean that they would not die until they saw the Kingdom come, and then they would? It could be that&nbsp;<em>heos an</em>&nbsp;is capable of a conditional meaning, as if to say 'Some of you will not taste of death&nbsp;<em>heos an</em>&nbsp;the coming of the Kingdom- i:e. you need not necessarily die, until the Kingdom come'. The problem with that is that every attested usage of&nbsp;<em>heos an</em>&nbsp;means 'until'; hyper examination of a common Greek term and trying to make it mean something else, or hoping such a meaning might be legitimate, is not the way to conduct Bible study:&nbsp;</p><p>Which leads me to my preferred suggestion- that the Lord indeed was saying that some of those present would indeed taste of death after they had seen His coming in glory. In this case, those referred to would be the rejected, those who had sought to gain the world for themselves in this life, rather than losing it all now in order to gain the future Kingdom at the day of His coming. The Lord often speaks of the awful position of the condemned in the last day. They will “see” Him- and&nbsp;<em>eido&nbsp;</em>refers more to understanding and recognition than to physical seeing- but all too late, for after that, they will then die the second death. According to <em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>, those who condemned Him to death would see Him again, and say "Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord", they would accept Him as Messiah- but when? At His return, they as persons responsible to judgment will be resurrected and then in that day will wish to welcome Him as Messiah. But too late. This is the basis for the gnashing of teeth at the last day- seeing His coming and Kingdom, recognizing Him as Lord, but then having to die. <em><a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a></em> speaks of this situation- those who pierced Him will see Him at His coming in glory and bitterly weep. So the Lord is foreseeing how some would indeed be resurrected to judgment, see His Kingdom come- and then have to die "the second death":&nbsp;</p><p>However, it seems another meaning is also loaded within the words. John's Gospel speaks of how only those who are born again can "see the Kingdom of God... see life" (<em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:36'>Joh 3:36</a></em>). Later, John records how the Lord spoke of how those who keep His word shall never "see death... never taste of death" (<em><a href='B:500 8:51-52'>Joh 8:51-52</a></em>). The idea would then be that some of them would come to find spiritual life, and see the essence of the Kingdom in their lives- and the following account of the transfiguration would then be proof that this was indeed achieved in embryo by at least three of them. In this case we could also understand "the Kingdom" as a reference to the King of the Kingdom, the 'royal splendour' referring to Christ personally- and the disciples saw this in the transfiguration. The connections with John's Gospel are strong, but it would however seem strange for Matthew to start using language in such symbolic ways in the style of John. For this is generally not his style at all.</p><p>It is the "Son of man" who shall 'come'. The Lord will essentially be the same as the Gospels present Him when we see Him again. This is why Jesus even in His earthly life could be called "the Kingdom of God", so close was the link between the man who walked Palestine and the One who will come again in glory. “They see the Kingdom of God come” (<em><a href='B:480 9:1'>Mar 9:1</a></em>) is paralleled by “They see the Son of man coming” (<em><a href='B:470 16:28'>Mat 16:28</a></em>). Indeed it would seem that the references in the Synoptic Gospels to the ‘coming’ of the Kingdom are interpreted in the rest of the New Testament as referring to the personal ‘coming’ of the Lord Jesus (e.g. <em><a href='B:530 16:22'>1Co 16:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:20'>Rev 22:20</a></em>). In that very context of referring to Himself as "the Kingdom of God", the Lord speaks of His return as 'the days of the Son of man'- the human Jesus. And yet He also speaks in that context of how after His death, men will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, i:e. how He had been in His mortal life (<em><a href='B:490 17:20-26'>Luk 17:20-26</a></em>). As He was in His mortal days, so He will essentially be in the day of His final glory.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And after six days</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em> speaks of “about an eight days after”, reckoning inclusively and perhaps wishing to express the idea of ‘About a week later’:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother-&nbsp;</em>Peter is mentioned first. An over-reaction against Catholic views of Peter can lead us to under-estimate the undoubted supremacy of Peter in the early ecclesia. He was in the inner three along with James and John, and in incidents involving them he is always mentioned first, as the leader (<em><a href='B:470 17:1-2'>Mat 17:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:37'>Mat 26:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:37'>Mar 5:37</a></em>). He is the first to confess Jesus as Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 16:13-17'>Mat 16:13-17</a></em>), the first apostle to see the risen Christ (<em><a href='B:490 24:34'>Luk 24:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:5'>1Co 15:5</a></em>), the first to preach to the Gentiles. Being given the keys of the Kingdom is language which would have been understood at the time as the Lord making Peter the Chief Rabbi of His new ecclesia. The Acts record without doubt gives primacy to Peter as the leader and chief representative of Christ’s fledgling church. But, humanly speaking, he was the most unlikely choice. The one who in the eyes of the world and brotherhood should have sat a fair while on the back burner, done the honourable thing… in fact, many honourable things, in just keeping a respectful and bashful silence. And there is no lack of evidence that Peter himself would have preferred that. But no, he was commissioned by the Lord to specifically lead the church. The early church was to be built on the rock of Peter. Whether we like to read this as meaning the rock of Peter’s confession that Christ was the Son of God, or as simply meaning Peter’s work as the manifestation of Christ,&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>rock, the Acts record shows clearly that the early church was built upon the specific work of Peter.</p><p><em>And led them up a high mountain by themselves</em>-</p><p> Being led up [Gk:] a high mountain by the leader to be present at a theophany is very much the language of Moses taking Joshua and earlier another trio of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu) with him part way up Mount Sinai, and likewise experiencing a shining face (<em><a href='B:20 34:29-35'>Exo 34:29-35</a></em>) and God’s voice from a cloud (<em><a href='B:20 34:5'>Exo 34:5</a></em>). Moses returned from the Mount with shining face and the people were afraid- just as happened here (<em><a href='B:480 9:6'>Mar 9:6</a></em>). Perhaps Peter vaguely comprehended all this when he wanted to build ‘tabernacles’, because this was the task given to Moses for Israel to complete. <em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em> speaks of the&nbsp;<em>exodus&nbsp;</em>which the Lord was to make at Jerusalem- a reference to His death. It was the Passover lamb which died at the Exodus- the implication is that now God’s people were free to leave Egypt. Again, those secular fishermen were being shown (through the obvious parallel) that they were none less than Joshua in this new Israel which was being created; and after the Lord’s departure, they were to take His place and lead God’s Israel into the Kingdom:&nbsp;</p><p>The idea seems to be that just as He had taken the twelve into Gentile areas for a period of intense teaching of them, so even within the twelve He focused upon these three and wanted to spend time alone with them. He “took” them means to desire association with, to come close to. This was His intention, and one wonders whether the transfiguration was therefore unexpected for Him. Previously when He had tried to get the twelve away by themselves, there had been unexpected events which hampered that, such as the crowds following them, and even in Gentile areas the Lord seems to have been surprised by the faith and need to perform miracles which He encountered. In this case, it would be unintentional that the transfiguration is recorded as following straight after His words about His coming in His Kingdom; it wasn’t as if the Lord said those words knowing that some would witness the transfiguration. According to <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em>, the Lord’s intention was to go up the mountain “to pray”, but whilst He prayed, the transfiguration occurred. See on <em><a href='B:470 16:28'>Mat 16:28</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p>Luke mentions that the Lord took Peter, James and John, started praying and then there was a theophany; but in their human weakness they missed much of it because they fell asleep. This was exactly the situation in the Garden of Gethsemane, with the same three involved; it was as if He was seeking to train them for it. They were “heavy” with sleep (<em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em>), and the word is only used elsewhere in the Gospels to describe how the same three were “heavy” with sleep in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:43'>Mat 26:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:40'>Mar 14:40</a></em>). Even if Jesus Himself wasn’t consciously doing this, we have here an example of how the Divine hand leads us through experiences in order to prepare us for others which are to come later in similar form:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:2'>Mat 17:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he was transfigured before them-&nbsp;</em>Christ's transfiguration was a cameo of the change that should be apparent deep within us, for Paul says that&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>should likewise be transformed (<em><a href='B:520 12:2'>Rom 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> s:w:), and he uses a related word in speaking of how Christ is to be “formed” within us (<em><a href='B:550 4:19'>Gal 4:19</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Metamorphoo</em>&nbsp;means a change of&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>; not necessarily of essential nature, because we too are to be transformed in this life, and have a new&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;develop in us (<em><a href='B:550 4:19'>Gal 4:19</a></em>). But it could be that the ‘other form’ in which the Lord now appeared was in the form in which He will be in the Kingdom. The idea of a change of&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;of the Lord Jesus recurs only one other time- in the hymn concerning the Lord’s death in <em><a href='B:570 2:6-7'>Phi 2:6-7</a></em> where we read that although Had the&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;of God, He went through a seven stage progressive humiliation until He took on the&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;of a slave in the final death of the cross. One purpose of the transfiguration was for Moses and Elijah (who had both had Divinely arranged deaths or departures from ministry) to encourage the Lord concerning His upcoming death (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>). And yet He appeared as He will in the Kingdom, with shining Kingdom glory. The suffering and the glory were thereby manifested to and upon Him at the very same time, to show how inextricably linked they are. Perhaps too the point was being made that when He would hang there with the&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;of a dying and rejected slave, in Heaven’s eyes, He was in Kingdom glory. John’s equivalent of this is to record how the Lord spoke of His death as a ‘lifting up’, an idea which in Hebrew has connotations of ‘glory’. The shame of the cross was only from the world’s viewpoint, whereas from a spiritual viewpoint, His death was the very acme of spiritual glory. The blood drenched garment became in God’s eyes a glistering white raiment (<em><a href='B:490 9:29'>Luk 9:29</a></em>). This would explain why in one sense the transfiguration was a Kingdom vision, and yet it was also about the Lord’s death. Peter later reflected that he could preach with conviction about the coming of Christ because he was present at the transfiguration (<em><a href='B:680 1:16-18'>2Pe 1:16-18</a></em>). The Kingdom element of the experience cannot be divorced from the fact it was also an encouragement from Moses and Elijah concerning the cross. Note that John was also powerfully inspired by the transfiguration, opening his Gospel with an allusion to it in saying that “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). James likewise appears to reference the transfiguration when he writes of how the Lord's glory is so surpassing that there should be no jostling for human glory amongst us His people (<em><a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a></em>). The descriptions of the Lord Jesus are very similar to the language used about the scene at His resurrection- Angels in shining garments (<em><a href='B:470 28:3'>Mat 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:4'>Luk 24:4</a></em>), frightened and uncomprehending disciples (<em><a href='B:470 28:5'>Mat 28:5</a></em>). And yet the theme of the conversation was the Lord’s death (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>)- but it took place with a preview of the resurrection scene:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And his face shone</em>-</p><p> The same word used about the shining associated with the Lord's second coming (<em><a href='B:490 17:24'>Luk 17:24</a></em>). Having taught that we too should be transfigured (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> s:w:), Paul goes on to say that God has “shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>). This is transfiguration language. We are to be transformed into that same image. He there becomes the picture of what each of us in Him are evolving into.</p><p><em>As the sun</em>-</p><p> The Lord's return will be as the rising of the sun (<em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>). The same figure is used for the Kingdom age and His return in <em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em> and <em><a href='B:730 1:16'>Rev 1:16</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And his garments became white as the light</em>-</p><p> The same word used about the white clothing of the Angels at the resurrection ("white as snow", <em><a href='B:470 28:3'>Mat 28:3</a></em>, just as in <em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:5'>Mar 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:12'>Joh 20:12</a></em>). In the midst of the conversation about His upcoming death (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>), there was the encouragement of what the resurrection glory would be like. The same word is also used about the Lord's current appearance in Heavenly glory with clothes "as white as snow" (<em><a href='B:730 1:14'>Rev 1:14</a></em> - the very phrased used in <em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em>). Indeed, the description of the risen Lord in Revelation 1 has many connections with the language used about His appearance at the transfiguration. Again the idea was to show Him how He would be after His glorification, to motivate Him to go through with the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;at the cross which He must fulfil at Jerusalem:&nbsp; “As the light” is hard to understand, but the Codex Bezae reads “as the snow”, in line with <em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em>.</p><p>Mark adds that the Lord's clothing was "white as snow, such that no fuller on earth can white them" (<em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em>). The Hebrew mind would have obviously thought of the clothing of God Himself, the "ancient of days" of <em><a href='B:340 7:9'>Dan 7:9</a></em>, which is described likewise. The comment that no&nbsp;<em>man</em>&nbsp;could ever make them so white is also a hint in that direction. He was clothed with the clothing of God. This doesn't make Him God, for Revelation has many descriptions of the faithful having the same kind of clothing. Against this background, the promise of <em><a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a></em> becomes the more awesome- that even although our sins are red as crimson, yet they can become white as snow. This can only be achieved by the wearing of God's own clothing, the gift of His imputed righteousness, which Paul extensively glories in throughout Romans 1-8. <em><a href='B:730 7:14'>Rev 7:14</a></em> speaks of plunging our robes in the blood of the lamb, and them becoming white. It's all so paradoxical- that this whiteness cannot be achieved by man, no fuller on earth could do this, but by plunging [surely an allusion to baptism] into the red blood of Christ. This is the challenge of faith- to believe that the promised whiteness can be achieved through Christ. It was possible even in Isaiah's time, on the basis that God looked ahead to the work of Christ which as it were enabled Him to do this. Therefore the reference to "no fuller on earth" suggests that there is a fuller in Heaven who can do this. And <em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em> is specific that the Messiah heralded by the Elijah prophet, John the Baptist, would be like "fuller's soap" in cleansing men through the judgment of their sins. David in the depth of his sin appealed to God to 'full' him ("wash me", but s:w. 'fuller'- <em><a href='B:230 51:2'>Psa 51:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a></em>); and this was done for him, on account of the future work of Christ which the Father then held in view:&nbsp; The Lord's glistering garments are therefore available for all of us. And it is with that connection that the scene there becomes no mere spectacle to behold in awe from afar, but a real picture of our own possibility before God.</p><p>Luke adds that the disciples “saw his glory” (<em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em>). This is absolutely the language of Moses and the Old Testament heroes seeing Divine glory in theophanies, and like the disciples, hearing God’s voice (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em> Heb. – “shew” is the same word translated ‘to see’’ Isaiah- <em><a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a></em>; Ezekiel- <em><a href='B:330 1:28'>Eze 1:28</a></em>). Yet again the Lord was seeking to show those secular men that they were called to work on the level of Moses and the prophets in the new Israel which the Lord Jesus was creating out of manual labourers, prostitutes, tax collectors, swindlers and sinners. See on :5&nbsp;<em>cloud</em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:3'>Mat 17:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And there appeared before them</em>-</p><p> See on :9&nbsp;<em>the vision</em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Moses and Elijah</em>-</p><p> They appeared “in glory” (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>), as the Lord did- this is clearly a vision of the Kingdom. The Lord Jesus was the firstfruits from the dead, who opened the way to immortality. So there is no way that they were already glorified before His death and resurrection. It was a vision (:9), of the Kingdom. Just as Jesus was not then glorified Himself at that time, neither were they. They spoke of how the Lord was going to “fulfil” the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;in His death at Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>). It was Moses who could supremely explain this to the Lord, having himself slain the Passover lamb and experienced the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;made possible thereby.</p><p><em>Talking with Jesus-&nbsp;</em>The transfiguration follows straight on from the Lord’s talk about the Kingdom at the end of chapter 16. It was a foretaste of the Kingdom. Yet the Kingdom is fundamentally a&nbsp;<em>relationship</em>&nbsp;with God. Thus the foretaste of the Kingdom presented at the transfiguration was of faithful men in spiritual conversation with the glorified Lord Jesus, with His face shining as the sun as it will in the Kingdom, as the “sun of righteousness” (<em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>Luke adds that the disciples’ eyes were heavy and they fell asleep at the critical moment. But earlier, “having remained awake”, the same disciples were blessed with a vision of the Lord’s glory (<em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em> RVmg:). If they had remained awake in the garden, they would have seen the Lord being glorified by Angelic visitation. But they didn't perceive how the circumstances were repeating, and thus didn’t find the strength and inspiration which was potentially prepared for them through the similarity of circumstance:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:4'>Mat 17:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Peter said to Jesus: Lord, it is good for us to be here. If it pleases you</em>-</p><p> Throughout the Lord's ministry, Peter had a mental barrier to the idea of his Lord suffering and dying. It could be argued that his desire to build tents and remain in the mountain of transfiguration was rooted in this- Moses and Elijah had just spoken with the Lord Jesus about the path He must take to death (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>), and Peter somehow wants the Lord to stay there in the mountain (<em><a href='B:480 9:5'>Mar 9:5</a></em>). And yet Peter's later preaching has so much to say about the Lord's death. And his letters contain quotations and allusions from Isaiah's suffering servant prophecies (<em><a href='B:670 2:21'>1Pe 2:21</a></em> etc:). Further, if we accept the idea elsewhere discussed that Mark's Gospel is a transcript of Peter's preaching of the Gospel, it becomes significant that Mark's version of the Gospel likewise emphasizes Jesus as the suffering servant. Thus what Peter was once blind to, he made a special point of preaching. The content of his witness reflected his deep awareness of his past blindness- and therefore his appeal to others to 'get it' was the more powerful seeing that he himself had patently 'not got it' for some years. And it shouldn't be hard to translate his example into our daily experience, speaking of our weaknesses and former blindnesses rather than coming over as the self-congratulatory religious guy.</p><p>It is also possible to understand Peter’s suggestion simply as the kind of inappropriate thing a man would say who wants to make a response to spirituality, but doesn’t know how to. He wanted to do something material and physical- he simply didn’t know what to say (<em><a href='B:480 9:6'>Mar 9:6</a></em>). The response was the voice from Heaven telling Peter to&nbsp;<em>hear</em>&nbsp;Jesus, to respond to His word, rather than run around doing inappropriate works just because we feel we have to&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;something.</p><p><em>I will make here three tabernacles- one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah-&nbsp;</em>See on <em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em>. It may have taken much of the day to climb the mountain, and Peter was maybe thinking of where they were going to sleep for the night. Or was did he also have in mind a celebration of the feast of Tabernacles at that time? Later, Peter came to see his death as a taking down of a tent (<em><a href='B:680 1:13'>2Pe 1:13</a></em>), using the same word for the tabernacle he had wanted to build for his Lord at the transfiguration. Then, he had wanted the tent to be set up so that the time of the Lord’s departure wouldn’t come; so that the Lord would stay with them there, with Moses and Elijah, in what must have seemed like the Kingdom of God. Again, Peter didn’t want the cross, neither for his Lord nor for himself. But by the time he wrote 2 Peter, he had learnt his lesson; he saw that his tent must be taken down. The vision of the glory of the Lord Jesus, the words of His coming death and future Kingdom, these were quite enough. There had been no need of the tent on the mountain, and now he saw there was no need for the tent of his body either. We are all the same. Our death will literally be a death with the Lord, in that our resurrection will be after the pattern of His (<em><a href='B:520 6:5'>Rom 6:5</a></em>). Peter learnt this lesson from the transfiguration because he describes his coming death as his&nbsp;<em>exodus&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:680 1:15'>2Pe 1:15</a></em>), just as Moses and Elijah had spoken then of the Lord’s coming death (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>17:5- see on <em><a href='B:470 16:16'>Mat 16:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>While he was yet speaking, a bright cloud</em>-</p><p> Moses had previously entered the cloud of glory, seen God’s glory and heard God’s voice- on the top of a mountain. Moses’ ascent into the mountain and into the very cloud of Divine glory was understood in Judaism as the very zenith of human spiritual achievement of all time, coming so close to the very personal presence of God, never to be repeated amongst men. And now, three fishermen were having the very same experience. No wonder they feared as they themselves entered into that cloud (<em><a href='B:490 9:34'>Luk 9:34</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, saying: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased</em>-</p><p> This was literally the word of God, and yet it was actually a string of three quotations from God’s word in the Old Testament: “You are My Son” (<em><a href='B:230 2:7'>Psa 2:7</a></em>), “In whom My soul delights” (<em><a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a></em>), “Hear Him” (<em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em>). It must have been a profound evidence of the Bible’s Divine inspiration. The very voice of God repeating His own words as found in the Law, Psalms and Prophets- the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Hear Him-&nbsp;</em>This was intended to take the mind back to <em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em>, where it was written that Messiah would be ‘heard’ by the faithful. But Peter fell down paralyzed with fear; he didn’t really hear the son of God then. Yet in <em><a href='B:510 3:22'>Act 3:22</a></em>, Peter quotes <em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em> and asks his hearers to obey the passage by hearing Jesus, through his preaching of Him. He was asking his audience to do what he himself hadn’t done. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:6'>Mat 17:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face and were terrified</em>-</p><p> The strong similarity with Moses (see on :5&nbsp;<em>cloud</em>) was such that they felt utterly unworthy, which is what falling on the face is commonly associated with in the Old Testament (Abraham, <em><a href='B:10 17:3'>Gen 17:3</a></em>; Joseph’s brothers, <em><a href='B:10 50:18'>Gen 50:18</a></em>; Moses, <em><a href='B:40 16:4'>Num 16:4</a></em>; Balaam, <em><a href='B:40 22:31'>Num 22:31</a></em>; Joshua, <em><a href='B:60 7:6'>Jos 7:6</a></em>; Ruth, <em><a href='B:80 2:10'>Rth 2:10</a></em>; Nebuchadnezzar, <em><a href='B:340 2:46'>Dan 2:46</a></em>). Their fear is similar to Israel’s when confronted with the sight of a similar theophany on a mountain. They felt, as we all do at times, that all this was beyond them. The Lord’s comfort of them was not simply reassuring them that they were not going to be consumed by the vision, but more so encouraging them that they really could rise up to the height of the calling to be as Moses. Paul grasped the point when he invites us&nbsp;<em>each one</em>&nbsp;to see ourselves as Moses, beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ, “we each with unveiled face” (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RV). Each of us are as Moses, not just the church leadership, but each one of us who has entered a personal relationship with Christ and seen God’s glory in His face.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:7'>Mat 17:7</a></em><em>&nbsp;And Jesus came and touched them, and said: Arise and be not afraid-&nbsp;</em>This is intentionally similar to the experience of Daniel in Daniel 10, with the Lord Jesus lifting up the disciples, who were feeling unworthy as Daniel did. Again, the disciples were being taught that in the new Israel, there are no heroes set in stained glass that are high above our possible reach. We are the heroes. Just as Daniel felt unworthy, so did the disciples- the connection made the point that the heroes of Judaism were also weak and felt their sinfulness, and on this basis the disciples were encouraged to be like them and rise up to their spirit:&nbsp;</p><p>Their fear was not simply of the majesty of the moment, but more fundamentally their fear of being called to be as Moses- see on :6. A massive 23 times we find the Greek phrase translated “Fear not” on the lips of the Lord Jesus. His consistent, persistent reassurance of His faltering followers, whose fear is often because of their own moral inadequacy, is significant indeed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:8'>Mat 17:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And lifting up their eyes, they saw</em>-</p><p> ‘Lifted up’,&nbsp;<em>epairo</em>, is surely intended to resonate with&nbsp;<em>egeiro</em>&nbsp;[“arise” / ‘get up’] of :7. The picture is given of the Lord bending down and touching them, as if they are children, and urging them to rise up. Instead, they just raise up their eyes, and see only Jesus. We really are invited to play ‘Bible television’ here. The scene is so imaginable. And again, the Gospel writers and speakers were emphasizing the weakness of even the three leading disciples. Peter spoke inappropriately, offering to make booths when instead God wanted him to ‘hear’ His Son; their fear is likened to the fear of unspiritual Israel at the theophany on Sinai; they are scared to get up in obedience to Jesus’ touch, raising their large childlike eyes to Him instead… Indeed the record of the transfiguration really stresses the disciples’ weakness, exhibited in the face of the Kingdom glory of their Lord and the earnest encouragement of Him by more spiritual men to go through with the cross- whilst they slept.</p><p><em>No one, save Jesus only</em>-</p><p> In the Greek as well as in translation, this is really labouring the point. The “save / only”,&nbsp;<em>monos</em>, is redundant- they saw ‘nobody except Jesus’ is a statement which needs no further qualification, indeed grammatically it almost&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;be given further qualification, and reads awkwardly because of the&nbsp;<em>monos</em>, “only”, that is added. But the word “only” is added to emphasize that their focus was solely upon Him. That was the purpose of the event, and it had been achieved. Christ centeredness is the ultimate, final and total issue of our experience of Him, the Law and the prophets. The transfiguration ends with this total focus&nbsp;<em>monos</em>&nbsp;upon Christ; this was the practical effect of the theophany. John’s Gospel doesn’t record the transfiguration, but as so often, it is indeed alluded to. For John’s Gospel is full of references to seeing glory, to hearing the Son. It’s as if John presents Jesus to us a constant theophany, not one that three of the best disciples go up a mountain to see for a short period, but one which is continually before each of us, and which according to Paul’s allusions to it, draws us into its very process. For we too are transfigured as we like the disciples behold the Lord’s transfiguration (<em><a href='B:520 12:2'>Rom 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:9'>Mat 17:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying: Tell the vision to no one, until the Son of Man be risen from the dead</em>-</p><p> Whilst this literally means ‘the thing seen’, the transfiguration was indeed a vision. Seeing that Christ is the firstfruits from the dead and that there is no conscious survival of death, it follows that at best Moses and Elijah were resurrected especially for the occasion. But they “appeared in glory” (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>), as if they were in the Kingdom. The Greek translated “appeared” has the strong sense of ‘being seen / observed’. This is how they were seen- another hint at a vision. When the event finished, <em><a href='B:490 9:36'>Luk 9:36</a></em> says that Jesus was “found alone”- but that is a poor translation of&nbsp;<em>heurisko</em>. He was seen, perceived alone- again hinting that the entire experience was a vision rather than occurring in reality. The way that “Suddenly, when they had looked round about” they saw only Jesus, finding Moses and Elijah had disappeared (<em><a href='B:480 9:8'>Mar 9:8</a></em>) would also hint at a visionary experience. Note that there is no suggestion that Moses and Elijah went off anywhere, let alone ‘returned’ to Heaven. The vision of them simply abruptly ended. They saw nobody “except Jesus only with themselves” or “they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus” (<em><a href='B:480 9:8'>Mar 9:8</a></em>) would suggest that they were as it were looking at themselves from outside of themselves- again, ideas appropriate to a visionary experience rather than an actual personal encounter. And this is how the incident with Moses and Elijah began, for “there&nbsp;<em>appeared unto them</em>&nbsp;Moses and Elijah talking with Him” (:3). It was an appearance&nbsp;<em>unto them</em>, a vision which ended when they saw themselves from outside themselves and realized they were actually alone with Jesus. The language of ‘appearance’ used throughout the records of the transfiguration would also suggest that the incident with Moses and Elijah was an appearance&nbsp;<em>to them</em>, in their eyes and perception, rather than necessarily in reality.</p><p><em>"</em>To no one" maybe connects with the fact that they saw “no man” except Jesus (:8); and so they are asked to tell the vision to “no man” until after the Lord’s resurrection. It could be that the Lord wanted them to retain their focus upon Him by not telling others but instead meditating personally upon what they had seen. The vision had been of the Lord’s resurrection glory- we noted above the similarities in language to the shining garments of the Angels at the resurrection scene. The Lord didn’t want people to think that He had already attained that glory without the cross. Even though in prospect He had that glory, He was insistent that no impression be given that He could attain it without passing through the cross. This was particularly important for Peter to appreciate, who several times entertained a hope that glory was possible for the Lord without the cross.</p><p>The Synoptics each record the transfiguration. But did John? He saw it, and here he was commanded to tell it to others after the resurrection. It would be almost impossible for his Gospel record to not mention it. I have suggested that he actually begins his Gospel with the recollection of how he had seen the Lord’s glory at the transfiguration (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> “we beheld His glory”), and that the whole Gospel presents Jesus in “glory” and being “beheld” or ‘seen’ in that glory.</p><p>Mark adds (<em><a href='B:480 9:10'>Mar 9:10</a></em>) that “they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean”. This comment indicates how secular they were; for the idea of bodily resurrection was well known within Judaism- the Pharisees believed that the dead would rise, although the Sadducees denied it. But the disciples were clearly unfamiliar with the idea, because they simply hadn’t been seriously religious people. The word for ‘questioning’ is used 10 times in the NT and always in a negative sense, mainly of the unbelieving Jews questioning the things of Christ. Thus it is used twice later in Mark 9 (<em><a href='B:480 9:14'>Mar 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:16'>Mar 9:16</a></em>) about the Jews questioning about Jesus. Such questioning is so often an excuse for lack of faith, pressing for over-definition of everything as an excuse for disbelief. Instead of focusing on the glory of Jesus, they got distracted (wilfully) by semantics, words and meanings.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:10'>Mat 17:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And his disciples asked him: Why do the scribes say-&nbsp;</em>The disciples were evidently still under the influence of Judaism and the religious world around them, and this background died hard for them. “Why say the scribes…?”, they reasoned, implying that their view was of at least equal if not greater weight when compared with that of the Lord Jesus [as they also did in <em><a href='B:470 17:9-10'>Mat 17:9-10</a></em>]. He had to specifically warn them against the Scribes in <em><a href='B:490 20:45-46'>Luk 20:45-46</a></em>; He had to specifically tell them not to address the Rabbis as ‘father’ (<em><a href='B:470 23:8-9'>Mat 23:8-9</a></em>), implying they had too much respect for them. The way the disciples speak of the Scribes as if they have such a valid theological position reflects their upbringing and respect for the ruling elite of the synagogue (<em><a href='B:470 17:10'>Mat 17:10</a></em>), with whom the Lord was at such total variance. They were concerned that the Pharisees had been offended by the Lord’s words (<em><a href='B:470 15:12'>Mat 15:12</a></em>). We again see here how the disciples were out of step with the Lord’s thinking, pursuing their own mental agenda, and not doing that they had just been told- to ‘hear Him’. For the Lord has just told them very seriously (“charged them”) to not say anything about this experience until He was resurrected. But instead they are grappling with another issue- if this Jesus was really Messiah, well why hadn’t Elijah come first, as the Scribes taught? Clearly we see them pursuing a line of thought which precluded their attention to what the Lord was so earnestly seeking to tell them.</p><p><em>That Elijah must first come</em>-</p><p> This provides another insight into the shallowness of their understanding. The transfiguration had persuaded them, at least for the moment, that Jesus was Messiah. But they were confused as to why the Elijah prophet hadn’t come first. John the Baptist, whom they had followed and believed, had clearly cast himself in the role of Elijah. But it seems that they hadn’t really grasped the significance of John’s ministry at all.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:11'>Mat 17:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he answered and said: Elijah indeed comes</em>-</p><p> There can be no doubt that 'Elijah' will come in some form:&nbsp; "I will send you Elijah the prophet before the&nbsp;<em>coming&nbsp;</em>of the great and dreadful day of the Lord... lest I&nbsp;<em>come</em>&nbsp;and smite the earth" (<em><a href='B:460 4:5-6'>Mal 4:5-6</a></em>). The coming of the Lord must therefore be preceded by Elijah's work. His mission will be to direct Israel's attention to God's Word, "lest I come and smite the earth with a curse" (<em><a href='B:460 4:4'>Mal 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This was evidently not totally fulfilled by John the Baptist, seeing that the land was smitten after A:D. 70 due to Israel's failure to repent:&nbsp;"Lest I come..." is clearly referring to God's manifestation in Christ's second coming - it is associated with the arising of "the sun of righteousness" (<em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; Whilst John fulfilled the role of the Elijah prophet to those who truly repented (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em>), he emphatically denied that he was 'Elijah' (<em><a href='B:500 1:21'>Joh 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:23'>Joh 1:23</a></em>):&nbsp;This can only mean that the Elijah prophet is yet to come:&nbsp;&nbsp; Our Lord silences all doubt about this:&nbsp; "Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things" (<em><a href='B:470 17:11'>Mat 17:11</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; Elijah's work will be to turn the hearts of Israel back to the patriarchs in repentance (<em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:110 18:37'>1Ki 18:37</a></em>), so that Christ comes to an Israel who have turned away from unGodliness (<em><a href='B:290 59:20'>Isa 59:20</a></em>). John being a mini-Elijah prophet, it is to be expected that the broad features of his ministry will be repeated in the work of the final Elijah prophet. John was called "the Baptist", so evident was his emphasis on water baptism. Indeed, the name 'John' and the image of water baptism are hard to separate. There is fair reason to think that 'Elijah' will also literally baptize. "That (Christ) should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water" (<em><a href='B:500 1:31'>Joh 1:31</a></em>) seems to make baptism a pre-requisite for accepting Christ. Indeed, Jewish theology expects baptism to be associated with the coming of Messiah and the Elijah prophet. Therefore the Jews asked John: "Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias" (<em><a href='B:500 1:25'>Joh 1:25</a></em>).</p><p><em>And shall restore all things</em>-</p><p> The restoration of the Kingdom is ultimately Messiah’s work (<em><a href='B:510 1:9-11'>Act 1:9-11</a></em>). The restoring referred to here would therefore mean spiritual restoration. Mark’s account of John’s activities clearly alludes to the Malachi passages about the Elijah prophet, and the descriptions of Elijah’s clothing, appearance and diet are clearly intended to help us identify him with a prophet like Elijah. The LXX in <em><a href='B:460 4:5'>Mal 4:5</a></em> speaks of how the prophet will&nbsp;<em>restore</em>&nbsp;the hearts of the fathers to the children. This confirms that the restoration to be achieved by the Elijah prophet is largely spiritual, psychological and internal. The more physical restoration of the Kingdom on earth is Messiah’s work. But the Lord is placing Elijah’s work in the future- because Israel had failed to respond to it. And yet what are we to make of the repeated descriptions in the Gospels of “all” Israel going out to John and repenting? My suggestion is that they were eager for a Messiah to come and save them from the Romans; John appeared looking like and alluding to Elijah, and so they were eager to accept him as an Elijah prophet, knowing that this heralded Messiah. They ‘repented’ because there was a clear connection made in Judaism between Jewish repentance, and the Elijah prophet and Messiah’s coming. Thus: “Israel will fulfil the great repentance when the Elijah of blessed memory comes” (Pirqe R. Eliezer 43 [25a]); and many other examples are quoted by Walter Wink (Walter Wink,&nbsp;<em>John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C:U:P. 2006) p. 3). The Qumran documents even claim that the faithful would go out into the wilderness to the Elijah prophet and separate themselves from the unholy in Israel (1 QS <em><a href='B:470 8:12-16'>Mat 8:12-16</a></em>) (More examples are given in Carl Kazmierski,&nbsp;<em>John the Baptist: Prophet and Evangelist&nbsp;</em>(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999) p. 26). Hence the intended sarcasm of the idea that in fact “all” Israel went out to the wilderness to John! Therefore their repentance was as it were self-induced and merely symbolic, because they believed it was part of a sequence of events which would lead to Messiah’s coming and liberation from Rome. This would be a classic example of surface level spirituality and response to God’s word, when in fact the response was motivated by selfish and unspiritual motives. No wonder John appealed to them to&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;repent. The Lord says that Elijah comes “first”,&nbsp;<em>proton</em>, above all, most importantly, to achieve this restoration- the implication being that the fact John’s ministry had failed to bring “all” Israel to this position, meant that there must therefore be another Elijah ministry which would succeed before Messiah could come in glory. And this would indeed “restore” the&nbsp;<em>hearts</em>&nbsp;of Israel, as <em><a href='B:460 4:5'>Mal 4:5</a></em> LXX requires.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:12'>Mat 17:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I say unto you, that Elijah came already and they knew him not, but did to him-&nbsp;</em>Christ accused the Jews of rejecting John the Baptist (<em><a href='B:470 17:12'>Mat 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:32-35'>Luk 7:32-35</a></em>), and on other occasions He commented on the fact that they had accepted his teaching, with the result that spiritually their house was swept and garnished (<em><a href='B:470 12:44'>Mat 12:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:35'>Joh 5:35</a></em>). We can conclude from this that their&nbsp;<em>appearance</em>&nbsp;of accepting John’s message was spoken of by Jesus as if they had accepted it. Likewise Christ called the Jews both children of hell (<em><a href='B:470 23:15'>Mat 23:15</a></em>) and children of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>); the latter was how they perceived themselves. The things “done” to John surely include his death for the Lord goes on to say that He will “likewise suffer of them”, “of this generation” (<em><a href='B:490 17:25'>Luk 17:25</a></em>). But it was the despised Herod who had John murdered. And yet Jesus here says that that generation had done that to John- despite the fact that he remained, it seems, immensely popular amongst that generation. Again the Lord is stressing that all the apparent response to John had not been sincere- the Jews who had seemingly responded to him were in fact as bad as apostate Herod and it was effectively&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;who had killed him. Naturally such language begged the response that no, it was Herod and his courtiers who killed John, not the mass of people. But the Lord is saying that effectively, it was that generation who had locked John up and killed him.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 9:12'>Mar 9:12</a></em> adds more detail to the Lord’s words: “Elijah indeed comes first and restores all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man, that he should suffer many things and be set at nothing?”. His question was (as so often with Him) in answer and response to their unexpressed question- that surely Elijah is to have a successful ministry and then the Messiah would begin His Kingdom in glory. The Lord was asking them the question about the prophesied sufferings and rejection of Messiah in order to answer the question He could see in their minds. So often “He answered and said…” something, when no question was verbalized. But He perceived the question in the minds of His audience, such was His sensitivity. Only a week or so ago He had told them how messiah must “suffer many things” (<em><a href='B:470 16:21'>Mat 16:21</a></em>) and now he uses the same phrase again- although it seems they had forgotten or not appreciated what He had then told them.</p><p><em>Whatever they would</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:480 9:12'>Mar 9:12</a></em> adds: “As it is written of him”. There seems no specific prophecy stating that the Elijah prophet would be unsuccessful, unless one really reads between the lines of Malachi’s prophecy about the Elijah prophet. More likely is that the “him” refers to the historical Elijah. All that was written of&nbsp;<em>him</em>&nbsp;had come true of John the Baptist, in that the alliance between Ahab and the manipulative Jezebel which led to Elijah’s persecution was mirrored in that between Herod and the equally manipulative Herodias, which led to John’s demise.</p><p><em>Likewise shall the Son of Man suffer by their hands</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:480 9:12'>Mar 9:12</a></em> extends this in saying that He would likewise “suffer many things and be set at nought”. Significantly, the same Greek word is used in <em><a href='B:490 23:11'>Luk 23:11</a></em> to describe how Herod “set at nought” Jesus at His trial; and it was the same Herod who had John the Baptist murdered.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:13'>Mat 17:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then understood the disciples that he spoke to them of John the Baptist</em>-</p><p> Towards the end of Matthew 12 and throughout chapter 13, the Lord had explained at length how Israel&nbsp;<em>en masse</em>&nbsp;had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;"understood" (the same word is used) about John, but the disciples&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;understood (<em><a href='B:470 13:13-15'>Mat 13:13-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>). He then solemnly asked the disciples whether they had "understood" (s:w:; <em><a href='B:470 13:51'>Mat 13:51</a></em>), and they assured Him that they had. They are presented as children, saying they understand when they don't. The Lord commended them for understanding when the masses didn't. But this understanding was imputed to them by Him. On one hand we see His simple and pure love for them, counting them as understanding what they didn't; on the other, we see how His hope that they would understand paid off, for they did finally. And this is the practical outworking of imputed righteousness and the status that is counted to us "in Christ"- we are to live out that status in practice, and the Lord works patiently with us to ensure that we do. And likewise in our pastoral work with others; faith and love and hope in others are at times rewarded, although not always.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:14'>Mat 17:14</a></em><em>&nbsp;And when they came to the crowd, a man came up to him and knelt before him, saying-&nbsp;</em>This meeting with the crowd occurred the day after the transfiguration (<em><a href='B:490 9:37'>Luk 9:37</a></em>)- presumably they slept up the mountain for the night. The transfiguration record is replete with references to the theophany on Sinai. Moses' return from the mount was to a faithless people of God, and the same is found here, in that the disciples had been unable to perform a healing which they had potentially been given the power to do.</p><p>Note how the three accounts dovetail so nicely: Jesus and the three with Him moved towards the crowd (Mt:), Jesus having noticed them from a distance (Mk:), and the crowd came towards them (Lk:). And as Jesus came (<em>erchomai</em>) towards the crowd, there came out of the crowd towards Him (<em>pros-erchomai</em>) the man who wanted a healing for his son (Mt:). Mark records that the people ran towards Jesus when they saw Him (<em><a href='B:480 9:15'>Mar 9:15</a></em> - presumably His face was shining after the encounter, after the pattern of Moses), which explains why Luke says that the man had to ‘cry out’ from out of the crowd (<em><a href='B:490 9:38'>Luk 9:38</a></em> - Gk. ‘to holler’, to get attention amidst the rush of all the others towards Jesus) and that Jesus firstly asked the Scribes what they were questioning His disciples about. We really can powerfully reconstruct the scene by putting the three different viewpoints together. Matthew focuses upon the man who came to Jesus wanting healing for his son. The best analogy is to cameramen. Matthew focuses close up upon one man; Mark is taking a broader view of the crowd as a whole, and therefore picks up the brief question to the Scribes first of all- they made no answer that is recorded, and the Lord’s answer to whatever questions they were asking was given in the healing miracle. That there are no actual contradictions of fact or chronology is to me a profound internal evidence of an inspired record, with a common Divine hand behind all the authors. If these were three uninspired men writing their recollections some time after the event, or uninspired people writing down what had been passed down to them as originating with those men, then for sure there would be contradictions. Because misremembering of detail is just part of our human condition, and the supposed lengthy process of oral tradition would inevitably have meant there was further corruption and unclarity added. The lack of contradiction in the accounts and the way they complement each other so perfectly has to me the hallmark of the Divine. Even witnesses who agree together to lie in court and rehearse their stories many times over- still end up contradicting each other. But that is not the case with the Gospels.</p><p>Mark adds: “All the crowd, when they saw Him, were greatly amazed; and running to Him saluted Him” (<em><a href='B:480 9:15'>Mar 9:15</a></em>). They ran up to Him- and He add Peter, James and John with Him. This sentence in Greek is intentionally similar to the account of <em><a href='B:510 3:11'>Act 3:11</a></em>, where again “All the people [cp. “all the crowd”] ran [s:w. “running to Him”] together unto them… greatly wondering [s:w. “greatly amazed”]. The response of the crowd to Peter and John in <em><a href='B:510 3:11'>Act 3:11</a></em> could not possibly have been contrived by them. Their experience at the return from the transfiguration was to prepare them for their own later witness, when without the physical presence of Jesus, they were Him to the world. And the same kind of carefully, sensitively planned education of us is ongoing now. Not only do situations occur and then repeat in essence later in our lives, but what we go through in this life will only have understood meaning in the Kingdom, when we shall put into eternal practice what we are learning now. But for now, there is an inevitable difficulty in attaching meaning to event, because we cannot foresee the billion situations in our eternities where we will put into practice what we are now learning.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:15'>Mat 17:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Lord, have mercy</em>-</p><p> This is a phrase commonly used by those who besought the Lord for a miracle. But later in the New Testament, the word is used almost exclusively concerning the Lord's spiritual grace and mercy specifically in providing salvation. We are left wondering, therefore, whether each of those who requested such "mercy" were not thinking solely of physical healing, although that was obviously very much in their minds, but also had a sense of their need for spiritual healing, forgiveness and salvation. And this was what led to their requests for healing being positively received by the Lord. For presumably there were many requests for healing which were not met, seeing that the majority of the Lord's miracles were done in three small villages (see on <em><a href='B:470 11:20'>Mat 11:20</a></em>).</p><p><em>On my son</em>-</p><p> His only child (Lk:).</p><p><em>For he is epileptic and suffers terribly-&nbsp;</em>Literally, "Lunatic<em>"</em>. Literally it means one who is “moon struck”. It was once believed that if a person went out walking at night when there was a clear moon, they could get struck by the moon and become mentally ill. We use that word “lunatic” today to describe someone who is ill, but it does not mean that we believe mental illness is caused by the moon. If our words were written down and re-read in 2,000 years’ time, people might think we believed that the moon caused illness; but they'd be wrong because we are just using the language of our day, as the Lord Jesus did 2,000 years ago. The New Testament likewise reflects this association between the moon and mental illness. "They brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, and those which were lunatick, and paralytics; and He healed them" (<em><a href='B:470 4:24'>Mat 4:24</a></em> A:V:). The repetition of the word "and..." gives the impression that every kind of illness- physical and mental, understood and not understood- was healed by the Lord Jesus. "Lunatick" translates the Greek&nbsp;<em>seleniazomai</em>-</p><p> "to be moon struck", derived from the noun&nbsp;<em>selene</em>, the moon. It's not true that some mental illnesses come from being moon-struck. But the idea is used, without correction- just as the idea of 'demon possession' is in the preceding phrase.</p><p><em>For often he falls into the fire and often into the water</em>-</p><p> Descriptions of the rejected as gnashing teeth, cast into fire and water, wallowing helpless... is all the language of the demoniac (<em><a href='B:480 9:18-22'>Mar 9:18-22</a></em>). This connection shows at least two things: that there will be a madness in the rejected, the tragic aimlessness of the demented. And secondly, that because the demoniac was cured, it is possible for a man whose behaviour leads to his condemnation&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>to still repent, before it's too late. And yet although the rejected may appear demented, they may well not feel like this. They will gnash their teeth with anger, not least against themselves. Being cast into fire or water were both figures of condemnation. The young man felt he was worthy of condemnation- hence conviction of the Lord's saving mercy would have been enough to cure him of the deep sense of unworthiness which he had.</p>


text:
<p>17:16&nbsp;<em>So I brought him to your disciples-</em></p><p>&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 9:40'>Luk 9:40</a></em> adds that he "besought" them, he begged them, to heal the child. According to Mark, when the father of the dumb child brought him to the disciples, he tells Jesus that “I brought unto thee my son”, but the disciples couldn’t cure him (<em><a href='B:480 9:17'>Mar 9:17</a></em> RV); he perceived Jesus as His followers, just as folk do today. The Lord had earlier given them power over “unclean spirits” (<em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>)- but still they couldn’t heal him. The power given to them was therefore potential power, but it was no guarantee that they would actually do the works. Alternatively, we could conclude that that power was only given to them temporarily. Or, that there is a difference between the twelve, and the more general “disciples” / followers of Jesus. However it would have been strange indeed if the man had not brought his son to the group of the twelve in the hope of healing. And it is the disciples, presumably the twelve, who then come to the Lord and ask why they could not perform the cure (:19).</p><p><em>But they could not cure him</em>-</p><p> They had no&nbsp;<em>dunamai&nbsp;</em>(possibility); <em><a href='B:480 9:18'>Mar 9:18</a></em> uses a different word- according to Mark, the man said that they “could not” using&nbsp;<em>ischuo&nbsp;</em>(more carrying the sense of physical power). The man therefore bewailed at least twice that the disciples couldn’t help; and he asks the Lord Jesus to help “if You can” (<em><a href='B:480 9:22'>Mar 9:22</a></em> -&nbsp;<em>dunamai</em>). They did have the possibility; but they lacked the faith to actualize it (<em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:19-20'>Luk 10:19-20</a></em> “I give unto you power… over all the power of the enemy… the spirits are subject unto you”). We too have been given potentials which require faith to exploit, and our failures to do so leave people with the impression that the Lord Himself is limited- for, like the disciples, we are His representatives in this world, and people coming to us are effectively coming to Him.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 9:23'>Mar 9:23</a></em> adds that the father of the child was asked whether he could believe [i:e:, that Jesus could cast out the demon]. The man replied that yes, although his faith was weak, he believed [that Jesus could cast out the demon]. His faith was focused on by Jesus, rather than his wrong beliefs. Faith above all was what the Lord was focusing on&nbsp;<em>in the first instance</em>. Mark also adds the detail that the Lord “asked his father: How long has this been happening to him? And he said: From a child. And often it has cast him both into the fire and into the waters to destroy him; but if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us. And Jesus said to him: Rather, if you can! All things are possible to him that believes. Immediately the father of the child cried out, and said: I believe! Help my disbelief!”. It is a feature of our nature that we can believe and yet disbelieve at the same time. We frequently commit the horror of limiting God in our attitude to prayer. All too often we see ourselves in the man who believed and yet still had unbelief: "If thou (Jesus) canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us. Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible" (<em><a href='B:480 9:22-23'>Mar 9:22-23</a></em>). The man thought that Christ's power to help was limited: 'If you can do anything to help, well, please do'. The Lord Jesus turned things right round: 'If you can believe, anything's possible' - in other words, God can&nbsp;do anything, but His ability to directly respond to some particular need is limited by our faith, not by any intrinsic lack of ability within Himself. The man hadn't thought about this. He saw God as sometimes able to help a bit; Christ turned the man's words round to show that God's power is infinite, limited only by our faith. The word "believe" in <em><a href='B:480 9:23'>Mar 9:23</a></em> is omitted from many texts. Thus we could paraphrase: “Regarding that " If you can..." which you said- as regards that, well, all things are possible”. This is&nbsp;the view of F:B. Meyer and Marvin Vincent. The RV reads: “And Jesus said unto him, If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth”. It is clear enough that God at times limits His power. He&nbsp;<em>could</em>&nbsp;save everybody, indeed He wishes to do this, yet He allows human freewill to be genuine and meaningful, to the extent that not all will be saved. Israel in the wilderness “limited the Holy One of Israel". He was left by Israel as a mighty man powerless to save. The Greek word&nbsp;<em>dunatos</em>&nbsp;translated 16 times "mighty" is also 13 times translated "possible". God's might is His possibility. But our freewill can limit that might. All things are possible to God, and therefore all things are possible to the believer- but if the believer has no faith, then, those possibilities of God will not occur (<em><a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:23'>Mar 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:27'>Mar 10:27</a></em>). And so I have no problem with a God who limits His omniscience.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:17'>Mat 17:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Jesus answered and said: O faithless and perverse generation! How long shall I be with you? How long must I tolerate you?</em>-</p><p> An example of the Lord’s perhaps unconscious usage of His Father’s words is to be found in this exasperated comment:&nbsp; Of course the Lord would have spoken those words and expressed those ideas in Aramaic- but the similarity is striking with His Father’s Hebrew words of <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation…?”. As a son comes out with phrases and word usages which ‘Could be his father speaking!’, so the Lord Jesus did the same thing. What I am saying is that the Lord was not merely quoting or alluding to the Father’s Old Testament words, in the way that, say, Paul or Peter did. As the Father’s Son, He was speaking in the same way as His Father, no doubt saturated with the written record of the Father’s words, but all the same, there were those similarities of wording and underlying thinking which are only seen between fathers and sons. And His words of <em><a href='B:470 17:17'>Mat 17:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em> seem to me to be an example of this. It was the disciples who were faithless (:20). In chapters 12 and 13, the Lord had drawn a clear difference between the disciples, and the unbelieving surrounding generation. It seems that He now despaired of whether that distinction was valid; He sees them, in the heat of that moment of bitter disappointment, as no better than the masses who did not believe. The "faithless" will be condemned (<em><a href='B:490 12:46'>Luk 12:46</a></em> "his portion with the unbelievers", s:w:), and this is the term used about the world generally (<em><a href='B:530 6:6'>1Co 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:12'>1Co 7:12</a></em>); or as the Lord puts it, this "generation". And yet the Lord uses it here about the disciples and again in <em><a href='B:500 20:27'>Joh 20:27</a></em>. The very phrase "perverse generation" is used by Paul about the unbelieving world (<em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em>). To use this term about the disciples is therefore significant; the Lord really felt that His faith and hope that they were different from the Jewish world had been misplaced. After His encounter with Elijah and Moses, he doubtless expected more of God's people.</p><p>This fits in with a Biblical theme- of people being confronted with acute spiritual temptation immediately after a highly spiritual experience. And this is true to life- so often, merely hours after a highly intense spiritual experience [e.g. at a breaking of bread meeting] we find ourselves assailed by temptation and spiritual depression. It's not that we are encountered by a physical person called 'Satan' immediately after our spiritual 'high'; rather it is a feature of human nature that the closer we come to God, the stronger is the tidal backwash of&nbsp;<em>internal</em>&nbsp;temptation immediately afterwards. Consider some examples:</p><p>- Noah walks off the ark, a superb triumph of faith, into a cleansed and pristine world, with the rainbow arch of God's grace above him- and gets dead drunk (<em><a href='B:10 9:21-24'>Gen 9:21-24</a></em>).-</p><p> Moses renounced greatness, stood up for God's people and then left Egypt by faith, "not fearing the wrath of the king" (<em><a href='B:650 11:27'>Heb 11:27</a></em>); and yet ended up fleeing in fear from Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 2:14-15'>Exo 2:14-15</a></em>).-</p><p> Moses returned from the awesome meeting with God on Sinai and gave in to a flash of anger, during which he smashed the tables of the covenant- a covenant which had also been made with him personally.-</p><p> Israel were ecstatic with joy and confidence in God as they stood on the other side of the Red Sea- but very soon afterwards they were giving in to temptation in the wilderness, accusing God of intending to kill them and being careless for them.</p><p> Judas went from the spiritual height of being present at the first "breaking of bread" meeting with the Lord Jesus, just prior to His death, directly into temptation from "the Devil" and then went out into the darkness of that night (<em><a href='B:490 22:3'>Luk 22:3</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p> Soon after his spiritual triumph on Carmel, Elijah is to be found suicidal and bitter with God, and considering that the other faithful in Israel are in fact also apostate (<em><a href='B:110 19:4-11'>1Ki 19:4-11</a></em>).</p><p> Samson's life was full of giving in to spiritual temptation immediately after he had been empowered by God to do some great miracle.</p><p> Immediately after having been saved by God's grace from a huge invasion (2 Samuel 11), David sins with Bathsheba and murders Uriah (2 Samuel 12).-</p><p> After the wonder of having a terminal illness delayed by 15 years in response to prayer, Hezekiah gives in to the temptation to be proud and selfish in the events of Isaiah 39.-</p><p> Soon after the wonder of the miracles of the loaves and fishes, the disciples hardened their heart to it and accused Jesus of not caring for them (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:52'>Mar 6:52</a></em>).-</p><p> Paul straight after his wonderful vision of "the third heaven" finds himself struggling with a "thorn in the flesh", a term I have elsewhere suggested may refer to a spiritual weakness or temptation (<em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em>).-</p><p> After the wonder of baptism and the confirming voice from Heaven, Jesus was immediately assaulted by major temptation in the wilderness.</p><p>This is surely the most graphic and intense expression of frustration in the entire recorded history of the Lord Jesus. His frustration was with how His disciples were not living up to their potential, and how faithless they were. And we daily exhibit the same terribly disappointing characteristics. But&nbsp;<em>how long</em>&nbsp;may not necessarily be a cry of exasperation- although it could be that. There can also be the sense of 'Until when?', and the time in view was the Lord's death. John's Gospel records the Lord several times speaking of how His hour or time had not yet come, and how He agonized until it did. That end point was clearly the moment when He cried from the cross "It is finished".</p><p>When Jesus returned from the Mount of Transfiguration, He found that the disciples had failed to do a cure because of their lack of faith. He describes them as [part of] a “faithless generation” again indicating how the disciples were all too influenced by Judaism, the “generation” or world around them. The disciples and Judaism / the Jewish world are paralleled in <em><a href='B:500 7:3-4'>Joh 7:3-4</a></em>: “Let your disciples see your work… show yourself to the world”.</p><p><em>Bring him here to me</em>-</p><p> The man had brought [s:w. "bring"] his son to the disciples, they couldn't heal him, and so the Lord asks for the child to be brought to Him personally. And yet He had taught that in their witness, the disciples were Him to this world. Coming to them was coming to Him. But He despaired that in this case, there was now a difference between them and Him. They were unable to manifest Him as they should because of their lack of faith. And there are times when our status as 'brethren in Christ' likewise fails, and we fail to be Him to this world and He has to intervene and reveal Himself more directly to men.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 9:19'>Mar 9:19</a></em> records how He asked for the son to be brought&nbsp;<em>pros</em>&nbsp;Me, literally, 'here with Me'; but this is the same term used in the Lord's lament: "How long shall I be with [<em>pros</em>] you?". The Lord's physical presence was required for this miracle- the son must be "here" (Mt:), "with Me" (Mk:). But the Lord was making the point that He would not always be literally with them, and then such cures would have to be done by the disciples without His physical presence. And it seems He despaired as to whether they were ready for this.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:18'>Mat 17:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Jesus rebuked him; and the demon went out of him</em>-</p><p> There are a number of parallels between the language used of ‘casting out’ demons, and that used about healings. Jesus “rebuked” demons in <em><a href='B:480 9:25'>Mar 9:25</a></em>, and yet He “rebuked” a fever (<em><a href='B:490 4:39'>Luk 4:39</a></em>) and the wind (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>). Demons are spoken of as having “departed” (<em><a href='B:470 17:18'>Mat 17:18</a></em>), yet we read of leprosy ‘departing’ (<em><a href='B:480 1:42'>Mar 1:42</a></em>) and diseases ‘departing’ after cure (<em><a href='B:510 19:12'>Act 19:12</a></em>). I’d go so far as to say that every case of a person being spoken of as demon possessed has its equivalent in diseases which we can identify today – e.g. epilepsy, schizophrenia. The peoples of the first century, and their predecessors, believed that demons and the Satan monster were somehow associated with water- that was why, they figured, the water mysteriously kept moving, and at times blew up into storms. When we read of God 'rebuking' the waters and making them calm or do what He wished (<em><a href='B:230 18:16'>Psa 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 104:7'>Psa 104:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:9'>Psa 106:9</a></em>), we're effectively being told that Yahweh of Israel is so infinitely superior to those supposed demons and sea monsters that for God's people, they have no effective existence. The Lord Jesus taught the same lesson when He 'rebuked' the sea and wind during the storm on the lake (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>). The same Greek word is used to described how He 'rebuked' demons (<em><a href='B:470 17:18'>Mat 17:18</a></em> etc:). I have no doubt that the Lord Jesus didn't believe there was a Loch Ness-type monster lurking in Galilee which He had to rebuke in order to save the disciples from the storm; and likewise He spoke of 'rebuking' demons as a similar way of teaching others that&nbsp;<em>whatever</em>&nbsp;ideas they had about demons, He was greater and was in a position to 'rebuke' them. Likewise He assured His men that they had the power to tread on snakes, scorpions, and all their enemies (<em><a href='B:490 10:17-20'>Luk 10:17-20</a></em>). The image of a victorious god trampling his foes and snakes underfoot was well established in the surrounding cultures, and had entered Judaism. The Lord is teaching those fearful men that OK, if that's your perception of things, well, in your terms, you have ultimate victory through working 'in My name'. It must be noted that the man had previously described the boy’s condition as being due to how “A spirit seizes him… and it&nbsp;<em>departs</em>&nbsp;from him with great difficulty” (<em><a href='B:490 9:39'>Luk 9:39</a></em>). The condition was intermittent (consistent with viewing the condition as epilepsy rather than actual, literal manipulation by a spirit or demon). Trying various remedies, probably including beating him, the condition ‘departed’. The Lord’s cure is described in the same terms, with the implication that it was total and permanent, rather than partial and temporary, as their ‘healings’ were. The Lord said that the ‘spirit’ would never again enter the boy (<em><a href='B:480 9:25'>Mar 9:25</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the boy was cured from that moment</em>-</p><p> The immediate effect of the Lord's healings contrasted sharply with those of faith healers, both then and now.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 9:27'>Mar 9:27</a></em> adds that the Lord touched him and lifted him up- exactly what He had done to the terrified disciples on the mount of transfiguration (<em><a href='B:470 17:7'>Mat 17:7</a></em> s:w:). By doing so, it was made apparent that the disciples (even the three best of them) needed healing themselves rather than being in a position to perform the miracles, as the Lord had hoped they could; and as indeed they could.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:19'>Mat 17:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then came the disciples to Jesus privately, and said</em>-</p><p> In a house (Mk:):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Why could we not cast it out?</em>-</p><p> They were surprised at their inability, which suggests they had performed such cures before and had faith that they could do miracles. The Lord's explanation in the next verse that they had no faith ("unbelief",&nbsp;<em>a-pisteo</em>, no faith) would therefore have been hard for them to initially accept. His idea was that we either believe or do not believe, and often what seems to us as faith, even if it is admittedly small faith, is ultimately not faith. John's Gospel even more clearly presents faith as something one either has or doesn't have. And yet in reality there are gradations of faith, and the Bible recognizes this. The Lord's next comment that "<em>If&nbsp;</em>you [really, as you think] have faith as a grain of mustard seed..." was therefore speaking to their assumption that although their faith was small, they did actually believe. Again we see how the Lord sees to the inner, unexpressed thoughts and positions of His audiences, and addresses them. This presentation of faith as an absolute, a black or white position (and John's Gospel stresses this even more), is a huge challenge to examine our faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Because of your little faith-&nbsp;</em>See on :19&nbsp;<em>Why could we not</em>. “Ye of little faith” (<em><a href='B:490 12:22'>Luk 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:28'>Luk 12:28</a></em>); they had “no faith” (<em><a href='B:480 4:40'>Mar 4:40</a></em>). “Where is your faith?” (<em><a href='B:490 8:25'>Luk 8:25</a></em>). They asked for their faith to be increased (<em><a href='B:490 17:5'>Luk 17:5</a></em>). Luke records that the Centurion had more faith than the disciples (<em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>). The Gospel writers were very self-critical regarding their own faith in the message they were now preaching. They openly admit that they didn’t have enough faith to cure the sick boy. Jesus told them this: it was “because of your little faith…if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove…” (<em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em> RV). Think carefully what is going on here. They had not even faith as a tiny grain of mustard seed; they didn’t have the faith to cure the boy. But Jesus says they did have “little faith”. He recognized what insignificant faith they did have. He was so sensitive to the amount of faith in someone, even if it was insignificant in the final analysIs. We likewise need to be able to positively and eagerly discern faith in those we preach to and seek to spiritually develop. In a similar kind of way, God was disappointed that His people had not only been disobedient to&nbsp;<em>Him,</em>&nbsp;but they had not even been obedient to their conquerors (<em><a href='B:330 5:7'>Eze 5:7</a></em>). He so values obedience, and had an attitude that sought to see if they would show it to at least someone, even if they had rejected&nbsp;<em>Him</em>.</p><p><em>&nbsp;For truly I say to you: If you have faith as small as a mustard seed</em>-</p><p> This calls for obvious connection to the Lord's earlier likening of the Gospel of the Kingdom to a grain of mustard seed which then grows into a great tree (<em><a href='B:470 13:31'>Mat 13:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:19'>Luk 13:19</a></em>). The Lord then had been explaining that although the disciples' faith was small, and His plans for the Kingdom had tiny, almost invisible beginnings in that group of disciples, yet they would grow into the Kingdom. But now, in the heat of this disappointed moment, the Lord feels that the disciples don't even have such beginnings. In this frustration and deep disappointment we have yet another window into the Lord's utter humanity.</p><p><em>You shall say to this mountain-&nbsp;</em>Just a very small amount of real faith during this life will enable us to move "this mountain", perhaps referring to Mount Zion. The idea of Mount Zion being moved sends the mind to <em><a href='B:450 14:4-5'>Zec 14:4-5</a></em>, describing how Mount Zion will be moved at the Lord's return; and also to <em><a href='B:230 125:1'>Psa 125:1</a></em>, which speaks of how they who trust in the Lord are like Mount Zion, which cannot be removed; and yet Christ said we&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;remove it by prayer. The point of these allusions is surely to show that real faith will bring about the coming of the Kingdom, which is a totally super-human achievement; the unshakeableness of Mount Zion is likened to the solidity of true faith. The Lord's point seems to be that if we truly believe, then the coming of the Kingdom will be brought about by our faith; the outcome of our faith in this life will be seen in the Kingdom. But what our faith will achieve in the Kingdom will be hugely out of proportion to what it really is now. But there is another way to read <em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>:&nbsp; "If ye have (now) faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall (in the Kingdom) say to this mountain (of Zion), Remove hence..."; as if in the Kingdom we will be control of the physical world as the Lord was even in His mortality. In this case, His commanding of the sea and waves will be shared by us in the Kingdom; not just sea and waves, but mountains too (<em><a href='B:470 8:27'>Mat 8:27</a></em>).</p><p>But the Lord spoke these words at the foot of the mount of transfiguration, and the more comfortable interpretation would be to think of Him saying these words with a nod towards the mountain from which He had just come down. Real faith would enable that Kingdom experience to be replicated anywhere. The vision of the Kingdom which had been seen there could be moved anywhere- by faith. There was maybe another gentle encouragement for them to think in terms of God’s Kingdom as not being geographically limited, but capable of removal to the Gentiles, if they had faith. The Lord uses similar words after cursing the fig tree, symbolic of Israel and God’s ultimate destruction of her: “If you have faith and doubt not, you shall not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if you shall say to this mountain: Be taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be done” (<em><a href='B:470 21:21'>Mat 21:21</a></em>). In that passage, the mountain is almost certainly a reference to Mount Zion. The sea was symbolic of the Gentile world, and so the Lord would be developing His teaching which began here at the mount of transfiguration- the things of the Kingdom, centred as they then were in the mountains of Israel, could be moved to the Gentile world by faith.</p><p><em>Move from here to there, and it will move</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:230 46:2'>Psa 46:2</a></em> was perhaps in the Lord’s mind: “Therefore we won’t be afraid though the earth shakes, though the mountains are moved into the heart of the seas”. In this case, the Lord would be suggesting that if we have real faith, we will not fear the results of that faith. We will not fear mountains being cast into the sea; and it is fear which holds us back from faith, we unconsciously fear the answer we apparently seek in prayer.</p><p><em>Nothing shall be impossible for you-&nbsp;</em>With&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;nothing is impossible (<em><a href='B:490 1:37'>Luk 1:37</a></em> - the only other occurrence of the word in the NT), but here nothing is impossible&nbsp;<em>unto us</em>. God’s possibility is our possibility; and this is what the Lord was teaching the man who thought that it all depended upon the Lord’s possibility alone. There are other instances where the extent and nature of the Lord's healing seems to have been limited by the faith of the recipient (<em><a href='B:470 8:13'>Mat 8:13</a></em> "as... so"; <em><a href='B:470 9:29'>Mat 9:29</a></em> "according to"; <em><a href='B:470 12:22'>Mat 12:22</a></em> "inasmuch").</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:21'>Mat 17:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But this kind</em>-</p><p> This kind of demon? In this case, the Lord is again using their wrong ideas (in this case, about some demons being stronger than others) without really believing them, talking to them in terms which they understood.</p><p><em>Will not go out-&nbsp;</em>Angels are of course active in answering our prayer, obeying the commanding voice of God Himself in Heaven- answers to prayer "go… out" by prayer and fasting (<em><a href='B:470 17:21'>Mat 17:21</a></em>). The answer to prayer is therefore likened to a 'going out'- of the&nbsp;Angel and command from the throne of grace? This language of 'going out' is frequently used in the Old Testament&nbsp;about&nbsp;the&nbsp;going&nbsp;forth&nbsp;of the cherubim Angels. See <em><a href='B:290 37:36'>Isa 37:36</a></em> for another example.</p><p><em>Except by prayer and fasting</em>-</p><p> Which evidently, the disciples should have done but had not. The Lord wasn’t naive, although He was so positive. He told the disciples quite frankly here that they were full of “unbelief”, and couldn’t do miracles which He expected them to because they didn’t pray and fast (:19-21). And yet when quizzed by the Pharisees as to why His disciples didn’t fast, He said it was because they were so happy to be with Him, the bridegroom (<em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em>). Here surely He was seeing the best in them. They come over as confused, mixed up men who wanted the Kingdom there and then and were frustrated at the Lord’s inaction in establishing it. But He saw that they recognized Him as the bridegroom, as Messiah, and He exalted in this, and saw their lack of fasting as partly due to the deep-down joy which He knew they had. Perhaps they tried to do this miracle without even praying about it (<em><a href='B:480 9:29'>Mar 9:29</a></em>). Or maybe they prayed only on a surface level, and it was not counted as real prayer. Only intense prayer could send forth this kind of answer from God; He does not act on emotional grounds, just because He feels sorry for somebody. It needs to be noted that initially the man's child was not cured because the disciples didn't have the faith to do it. This teaches that God's activity for others is partly dependent on the prayers of a third party. These words are applied to us all in <em><a href='B:530 7:5'>1Co 7:5</a></em>, the only other place in the NT where they occur together; we are to give ourselves to prayer and fasting in domestic married life with the passion and intensity required to perform a miracle.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:22'>Mat 17:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And while they stayed in Galilee, Jesus said to them</em>-</p><p> Luke adds that the curing of the young man led to wonder and amazement at His healing power, but He wished the disciples to realize that the crowds would all the same turn against Him: “But while all were marvelling at all the things which He did, He said to His disciples: Let these words sink into your ears. For the Son of Man shall be delivered up into the hands of men” (<em><a href='B:490 9:43-44'>Luk 9:43-44</a></em>). The note that He reminded them about His passion whilst they were still in Galilee is another hint at the Lord’s structured approach to training the twelve. Before they went back to Jerusalem, He wanted them to be aware well ahead of time that He was going to His death. Mark adds that He didn’t want people to know of His presence because He was teaching the disciples about His death. Once again we encounter the theme of the Lord intensely focusing upon His disciples rather than upon the masses of Israel. It could be argued that He could have healed far more people had He not had this policy; but His long term intention was to create a solid body of followers who would bring His message to the world after His death. And we must likewise achieve a balance between good deeds for the world, and the need for strengthening the body of believers.</p><p><em>The Son of Man shall be delivered up into the hands of men</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:480 9:31'>Mar 9:31</a></em> puts this in the present tense- He&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;betrayed / delivered [s:w:]. The Lord likely said both- He shall be betrayed, [in fact] He is being betrayed / delivered. This is the sense recorded in John, of “the time comes but now is” (<em><a href='B:500 4:23'>Joh 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em>). He knew that the essence of the delivering over to the Jews /&nbsp;Romans was happening right then, although the final delivering / handing over was when in Gethsemane He said that “the hour is come… the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners” (<em><a href='B:480 14:41'>Mar 14:41</a></em>). The word for ‘betrayed’ means literally to be handed over or delivered, and so the Lord’s statement wouldn’t have necessarily implied to them that there was to be a betrayal from amongst their own number.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:23'>Mat 17:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised up</em>-</p><p> Clearly the rising again was at a specific moment, “the third day”. This is proof enough that the Bible intends us to see the Lord’s rising again as bodily resurrection and not some spiritual reincarnation over a period of time.</p><p><em>And they were greatly distressed</em>-</p><p> Luke notes that the saying about the cross was “hidden” from them (<em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>). And yet in prayer to the Father, He rejoices that these things are not hidden from them (<em><a href='B:490 10:21'>Luk 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>). This gives insight into the Lord’s present mediation for us in prayer- speaking of us as far better than we are. The message of Christ crucified was “hid” from them (<em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:34'>Luk 18:34</a></em>)- and Paul surely alludes to this when he says that this message is hid by the veil of Judaism from those who are lost (<em><a href='B:540 4:3'>2Co 4:3</a></em>). Luke adds that straight afterwards, “there arose a dispute among them, which of them was the greatest” (<em><a href='B:490 9:46'>Luk 9:46</a></em>). Time and again we see this in the Gospels- when the Lord speaks of His upcoming death, the disciples change the subject. This explains our own problem with mind wandering at the breaking of bread or in the study or even reading of the crucifixion accounts. This difficulty on focusing upon Him there is likely because His death requires our death and suffering, and subconsciously we realize that- and would rather not.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:24'>Mat 17:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when they arrived in Capernaum, they that collected the tribute money</em>-</p><p> Matthew was also from Capernaum (<em><a href='B:470 9:9'>Mat 9:9</a></em>), so these were his one time colleagues. Josephus says that the temple tax was payable in March, a month before Passover. This would suggest that Matthew is now recording incidents in the final month of the Lord's life:&nbsp;The half shekel (as RV) of the temple tax (<em><a href='B:20 30:11-16'>Exo 30:11-16</a></em>). This had to be paid in the old coinage of Israel, and the money changers in the temple converted Roman money into this coinage at a large profit. It was their tables which the Lord overthrew:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Came to Peter and said: Does not your teacher pay the tribute money?</em>-</p><p> Even outsiders considered Peter to be representative of all the disciples (<em><a href='B:470 17:24'>Mat 17:24</a></em>). “Peter and those with him” is how the group is described (<em><a href='B:480 1:36'>Mar 1:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:45'>Luk 8:45</a></em> Gk:; <em><a href='B:470 9:32'>Mat 9:32</a></em>). Peter’s crucial confession that he believed that Jesus was the Son of God is repeated almost verbatim by all the disciples, some time later (<em><a href='B:500 6:69'>Joh 6:69</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:30'>Joh 16:30</a></em>). He is portrayed as the representative disciple. It is Peter who answers when the Lord asks a question of them all (<em><a href='B:480 8:29'>Mar 8:29</a></em> cp. the other accounts). The way Jesus looks upon all the disciples as He speaks to Peter makes Peter some kind of representative of them all in the Lord’s eyes (<em><a href='B:480 8:33'>Mar 8:33</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em> Peter is commended for having had the Father reveal Jesus to Him. Yet <em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em> says that the Father reveals the identity of His Son to&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;who truly come to Him. Thus Peter is representative of all who have truly perceived the Son’s identity in Jesus of Nazareth. In one Gospel, all the disciples ask a question, while in the parallel passage Peter is stated to have asked it (<em><a href='B:480 7:17'>Mar 7:17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 15:15'>Mat 15:15</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 21:20'>Mat 21:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 11:21'>Mar 11:21</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:25'>Mat 17:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He said: Yes</em>-</p><p> The question naturally arises as to why, then, the Lord miraculously provided a coin to pay the temple tax if He had already paid it; and why that coin only paid for Jesus and Peter, and not for the other disciples. Another question is why this tax had to be paid in Capernaum (:24) and not in Jerusalem or the home towns of the disciples. My suggestion is that the payment of that tax at that time and place was unnecessary, but the Lord did so in the spirit of His teaching about offering to go two miles when asked to go one; or offering the undergarment to him who asks your cloke. In commenting upon those teachings, I made the point that such offers restored the balance of power to the abused and took it away from the abusers, who would feel awkward accepting the offer. And we are therefore left to wonder as to whether the coin was really accepted by the questioners. It would've seemed a chronic waste of money to the unspiritual, but the Lord works on a higher level than the pragmatic and utilitarian:&nbsp;</p><p>The Pharisees taught that one could only worship in the temple if the temple tax had been paid (Jostein Adna,&nbsp;<em>The Formation of the Early Church</em>, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) p. 27). The Lord could have engaged with that wrong view in direct confrontation. But He didn’t. In His gracious way, He once again went along with misunderstandings by paying what was required, and yet His example and teaching demonstrated that service to God was totally independent of such human demands. The children of God who are “free” from such taxes could be understood as all Israel, and more specifically, the new Israel, comprised of God’s own Son and His disciples:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first of all, saying</em>-</p><p> The Greek word for "first of all" really means ‘to anticipate’. Again we see the Lord’s sensitivity in knowing what is in human nature. So often we read that He “answered and said…” when there had been no stated question. That acute sensitivity to human thinking and situations remains with Him to this day, and should be a great comfort to us at the day of judgment:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Simon. What do you think? The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? From their own children, or from strangers?</em>-</p><p> There was a double meaning here, for there is in Semitic languages 'the plural of majesty', whereby the plural can be used to speak of one great thing. The great king of the earth was God. His children are therefore free from the demands of men; but the Lord goes on to teach that we should all the same submit to those demands in order not to make them stumble. Another approach is invited by the possibility that the phrase “kings of the earth” has been consciously lifted from <em><a href='B:230 2:2'>Psa 2:2</a></em> LXX, which speaks of how “The kings of the earth… and the rulers… take counsel / were gathered together against Yahweh and His Christ”. One of the many applications of this verse is to the rulership of the earth / land of Israel collaborating in the crucifixion of Christ and later of His disciples (<em><a href='B:510 4:26'>Act 4:26</a></em>; note how He speaks of “the rulers&nbsp;<em>of the Gentiles</em>” in <em><a href='B:470 20:25'>Mat 20:25</a></em>). There are indirect applications of <em><a href='B:230 2:2'>Psa 2:2</a></em> to the Jewish leadership in <em><a href='B:470 22:34'>Mat 22:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:3-4'>Mat 26:3-4</a></em>. The priesthood of the time has been described as “A priestly aristocracy”; therefore the language of kingship was not inappropriate to them. Josephus speaks of the priesthood as this: “The constitution became an aristocracy, and the High Priests were entrusted with the leadership of the nation” (<em>Antiquities of the Jews</em>, <em><a href='B:470 20:10'>Mat 20:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:5'>Mat 20:5</a></em>). So it could well be that these rulers which the Lord was focusing on were the Jewish religious rulers and priests of the day, and their children were free from the temple tax. Yet the Lord argues that the disciples are likewise free from it- because they were the new priesthood.</p><p>Again we note the high status the Lord argues for His followers- the children of kings, and in this case, the King of all the earth:&nbsp;The implication was that the Jews who paid the temple tax, considering it as the highest sign of their membership in God’s people (as it was a voluntary tax), were in fact thereby showing that they were strangers, Gentiles, and not His true children:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:26'>Mat 17:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when he said ‘From strangers’, Jesus said to him: Therefore the children are free-&nbsp;</em>Barnes summarizes the argument: “Kings do not tax their own sons. This tribute-money is taken up for the temple service; that is, the service of my Father. I, therefore, being the Son of God, for whom this is taken up, cannot be lawfully required to pay this tribute”. Peter later asks his sheep: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man… unto governors…&nbsp;<em>as free</em>… honour all men” (<em><a href='B:670 2:13-17'>1Pe 2:13-17</a></em>). This is all evident allusion to the way he had once felt that as free in Christ and in Israel, he didn’t need to submit to men and pay taxes. But the Lord had gently rebuked him, and provided the coin to pay for them both (<em><a href='B:470 17:25-27'>Mat 17:25-27</a></em>). The Gospels records would have been well known amongst the early believers; there is a tradition that at least the Gospel of Mark was learnt by heart as part of instruction for baptism. Peter’s readers would have known of the incident, and now, here he is telling them to learn the lesson he had had to learn. The Lord seems to make a concession to the inability of the surrounding world to understand Him, when He tells Peter that as God's people, they are free from the requirement to pay taxes to the present world. But "lest we should offend them", we should pay them (<em><a href='B:470 17:27'>Mat 17:27</a></em>). As the Lord spoke to men according to their level of ability to comprehend Him (<em><a href='B:480 4:33'>Mar 4:33</a></em>; and consider how He used the language of demons), so should we.</p><p>The statement that His followers were “free” from paying the temple tax was effectively a statement that the Lord’s greatness as “one greater than the temple” (<em><a href='B:470 12:6'>Mat 12:6</a></em>) meant that He was at liberty to therefore abrogate the teaching of Torah- for <em><a href='B:20 30:13-14'>Exo 30:13-14</a></em> did indeed stipulate a temple tax. His overturning of the tables of the moneychangers, who enabled the payment of the temple tax in practice (<em><a href='B:470 21:12-17'>Mat 21:12-17</a></em>) was likewise effectively stating that the temple tax law was not binding on His followers. The Lord taught that the tax should be paid so as not to offend the potential Christian faith of the Jews, rather than because it was a question of obedience to Divine law- because that law was ended.</p><p>Another consideration is that the Lord is alluding to the Jewish idea that the priests themselves were exempted from the temple tax (<em>Sheqalim</em>&nbsp;1:8)- because He considered His followers the new priesthood. He had used the same argument in justifying why the disciples could grind corn on the Sabbath- they were, He implied, like the priests who could even eat the showbread on the Sabbath.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:27'>Mat 17:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>However, not to give offence to them</em>-</p><p> This sets the scene for the Lord's sober teaching about the eternal danger of offending others (i:e. making them to spiritually stumble) in <em><a href='B:470 18:6-9'>Mat 18:6-9</a></em>. His own example was of supreme effort not to offend others. He likewise carefully explained to His disciples the likely sequence of events surrounding His death "so that you should not be offended" (<em><a href='B:500 16:1'>Joh 16:1</a></em>). But He also knew that they would be offended because of those things (<em><a href='B:470 26:31'>Mat 26:31</a></em>). But so sensitive was He to the tragedy of others stumbling that He as it were laboured against His own foreknowledge, so that others would not be offended in Him. We are without doubt to take His example to ourselves, and go to any lengths to ensure that others do not stumble, especially because of us. The Lord specifically focused upon Peter, in order to teach him the extent we should go to in order not to offend others; because He had recently rebuked Peter for being a cause of stumbling to Him (<em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>). Not to offend others was a major plank of the Lord's teaching- it was the epitome of the kind of iniquity which would exclude from His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>), and literally any length must be gone to in order not to offend (cutting out own eyes, hands etc:; <em><a href='B:470 5:29-30'>Mat 5:29-30</a></em>). Paul speaks of divisions and offences which are contrary to the doctrine learnt by the early Christians (<em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em>). That "doctrine" or teaching would've been the Gospels themselves; and these teachings about not offending others were therefore up front as first principles in the early church. We do well to note that Paul brackets together divisions and offences; spiritual stumbling so often comes from division, and those who cause division thereby make others stumble. This is so true to observed reality amongst us- people spiritually stumble because of their exposure to divisions.</p><p>As the Son of God, walking freely in His Father’s house, Jesus didn’t have to pay the temple tax (<em><a href='B:470 17:26-27'>Mat 17:26-27</a></em>). He could have insisted that He didn’t need to pay it, He could have stood up for what was right and true. But doing this can often be selfish, a defence of self rather than a seeking for the Father’s glory. And so He told Peter that “lest we should offend them”, He would pay it. He was so hopeful for their salvation one day that He was worried about offending these wretched men, who weren’t fit to breathe the same air that He did. We would have given up with them; but He worried about offending what potential faith they might have. The Lord spoke of not making the Orthodox Jews stumble by not paying the tribute; yet He goes on to say that one must beware lest we make the little ones who believe, to stumble (<em><a href='B:470 17:27'>Mat 17:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>). Is it not that He saw in Orthodox Jewry the beginnings of faith… a faith which was to come to fruition when a great company of priests were later obedient to the faith in Him? None of us would have had that sensitivity, that hopefulness, that seeking spirit. It is truly a challenge to us. In those last six months, the Scribes and Pharisees repeatedly tried to trick the Lord. But He took the time to answer their questions, seeking to lead them to understanding and repentance- and His denunciations of them were probably softly and imploringly spoken, still seeking for the inevitability of future judgment to lead them to repentance. As the Son of God, walking freely in His Father’s house, Jesus didn’t have to pay the temple tax (<em><a href='B:470 17:26-27'>Mat 17:26-27</a></em>). He could have insisted that He didn’t need to pay it, He could have stood up for what was right and true. But doing this can often be selfish, a defence of self rather than a seeking for the Father’s glory. And so He told Peter that “lest we should offend them”, He would pay it. He was so hopeful for their salvation one day that He was worried about offending these wretched men, who weren’t fit to breathe the same air that He did. We would have given up with them; but He worried about offending what potential faith they might have. Even at the end of His ministry, He still sought to convert them. He reasoned with them, using carefully prepared Old Testament allusions in the hope they would understand them, when we would almost certainly either have given up, or would just be gritting our teeth, trying to be patient with them because we didn’t want to sin…but He was full of a genuine, unpretended desire for their salvation. See on <em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em>.</p><p>Acting as He would act is really the whole key to not giving offence / causing others to stumble. He above all valued the human person to an extent no other human being has ever reached. When asked to pay the temple tax, which apparently few people paid in Galilee at that time, the Lord did so “lest we should offend them”- even though, as He explained to Peter, He was exempted from it, as the Son in His Father’s house (<em><a href='B:470 17:27'>Mat 17:27</a></em>). He could have appealed to higher principle. But the Lord was worried that somehow He might make these apparently mercenary, conscience-less legalists to stumble in their potential faith. We would likely have given up with them as not worth it. But the Lord saw the potential for faith within them. And only a few verses later we are reading Him warning that those who offend the little ones who believe in Him will be hurled to destruction (<em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>). Could it not be that the Lord saw in those hard hearted, hateful legalists in the ecclesia of His day…little ones who potentially would believe in Him? And His positive, hopeful view of them paid off. For a year or so later those types were being baptized, along with a great company of priests. People change. Remember this, and given that fact, try to hope for the best, as your Lord does with you. People&nbsp;<em>can&nbsp;</em>change, and they&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;change, even those whom at present you just can’t abide in the brotherhood.</p><p><em>Go to the sea, cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find</em>-</p><p> Peter still carried his fishing tackle round with him in his pack, apparently. He had a strong attraction to fishing, almost making us wonder whether “Do you love Me more than these?” was a reference to the haul of fish lying there when the Lord spoke those words. His claim in <em><a href='B:480 10:28'>Mar 10:28</a></em> to have “left all” wasn’t really totally true. He evidently had in mind how he had left his nets and walked away, following Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 1:18'>Mar 1:18</a></em>). Then he thought he was following Jesus in the way the Lord demanded. For some time later, the Lord “entered into one of the ships, which was (i:e. still, at that time) Simon’s…” (<em><a href='B:490 5:1'>Luk 5:1</a></em>). Peter had been fishing all night in <em><a href='B:500 21:3'>Joh 21:3</a></em> - strange, for a man who had so dramatically left his nets to respond to the Lord’s call. But after the miraculous catch of fishes, Peter “forsook all, and followed him”. Note that Mark’s [Peter’s] Gospel omits many incidents, but also uses the device of repetition to stress what the writer considers significant. Thus in <em><a href='B:480 1:16'>Mar 1:16</a></em> Peter tells us twice that he&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;a fisherman [cp. 14:68]. By the time of Luke 18 and the conversation with the rich young man, Peter was confident he had forsaken all. But “I go a fishing” (<em><a href='B:500 21:3'>Joh 21:3</a></em>) would suggest that even this forsaking of all had not been so dramatic. The boats were still there. The Lord had taught that following Him meant not just leaving behind for a moment, but selling up and giving the money to the poor. This Peter had not done. But he assumed that because he was physically following Jesus, well therefore what the Lord demanded of the rich young man, he had as good as done; for that young man wouldn’t follow Jesus, but Peter would. It is easy to understand how Peter reasoned- for the fact we are&nbsp;apparent followers of the Lord in a world which chooses to reject Him, can lead to an assumption that we must of course be following just as He asks of us.</p><p><em>A coin. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself</em>-</p><p> A&nbsp;<em>stater</em>, a shekel (RV)- enough to pay two half shekel taxes, for Peter and Himself (see on :24).</p><p>The whole incident of fishing for the coin in order to provide the temple tax is somewhat strange at first blush- until we realize that it is in fact a further commentary upon the prediction of the Lord’s death which He has just made in the immediately preceding verses. The temple tax was Biblically described as “the atonement money” (<em><a href='B:20 30:16'>Exo 30:16</a></em>), “a ransom for his soul” (<em><a href='B:20 30:12'>Exo 30:12</a></em>), and this led the Jews to claim that all who paid it therefore were represented in the sacrifices offered on the temple altar. It’s therefore logical that this incident follows straight on from the Lord’s prediction of His death on the cross. The Mishnah made the connection clearly when commenting upon the temple tax: “R. Eleazar (the Amora) further said: a man would pay his Shekel and thus obtain atonement” (<em>Baba Bathra</em>&nbsp;9a). The coin He provided was to be given “for Me and you”, the&nbsp;<em>anti</em>&nbsp;(translated “for”) suggesting that the coin was&nbsp;<em>instead of&nbsp;</em>or&nbsp;<em>representative of</em>&nbsp;‘Me and you’. At least theoretically, the temple tax was used to buy the animals which were sacrificed- and so the Lord would be teaching that He provided the atonement money, the ransom, because He was the animal sacrificed. And He provided for both Himself and Peter, representative of all the disciples at this moment (see on :24), in that His sacrifice was the basis of His own redemption insofar as He too was human. If Matthew indeed is bringing out a more figurative aspect of the story, this would explain the rather strange way the questioners are recorded as asking “Does your Master&nbsp;<em>teleo</em>&nbsp;tribute?” (:24):&nbsp;<em>Teleo</em>&nbsp;means to fulfil; and this is how the word is usually used in the New Testament. There were more obvious words which could have been used to express the simple idea of ‘payment’. The usage of the word surely hints at the Lord Jesus not just paying but fulfilling the type of the temple tax. It’s noteworthy that here in Matthew 17 we have the second prediction of the Lord’s sufferings and death. The first prediction was also followed by an allusion to the temple tax- the Lord speaks there of what a man could give “in exchange [s:w. ‘ransom’] for his soul” (<em><a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a></em>)- the very phrase used in the LXX of <em><a href='B:20 30:12'>Exo 30:12</a></em>, which speaks of the temple tax as “a ransom for his soul”. And in that same context in Matthew 16, the Lord speaks of His resurrection as being predicted in “the sign of the prophet Jonah”, whereby salvation was in the mouth of the fish. And that theme is here continued. The third prediction of the passion is likewise followed by the statement that the Lord’s death was “a ransom for many” (<em><a href='B:470 20:28'>Mat 20:28</a></em>)- yet another allusion to the temple tax of <em><a href='B:20 30:12'>Exo 30:12</a></em>. The initial question was whether the Lord paid the temple tax. As so often, He answers the question with a meta principle which places the issues so far higher than the original question. He was providing the actual atonement money, ransom and sacrifice which the temple tax prefigured. He&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;those things. To ask Him to pay a coin to a corrupt religious leader was so irrelevant and inappropriate. And yet having made the point, in His grace and condescension to human weakness, He still pays the coin in concern that otherwise, the potential faith of those legalists might be somehow hindered.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:1'>Mat 18:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>At that time</em>-</p><p> At the end of chapter 17, the Lord has spoken of His death. According to the parallel records, the disciples had been arguing amongst themselves as to who was or would be the greatest amongst them in the Kingdom. This detail is omitted in Matthew because he seems to want to emphasize how in the light of the Lord's prediction of His death, the disciples still argued about petty things and were divided amongst themselves because of their own pride. In the shadow of the cross. Again we see how self-critical were the Gospel preachers and writers- for the Gospels are transcripts of how they usually preached the Gospel message.</p><p><em>The disciples came to Jesus, saying</em>-</p><p> Their arguments and divisions had been carefully conducted by them outside of His earshot, just as we can wrongly assume that our own church politics are somehow not in His presence. The Lord knew their discussions, for He asked them what they had been arguing about, and they refused to say (<em><a href='B:480 9:33-34'>Mar 9:33-34</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 9:46-47'>Luk 9:46-47</a></em> makes clear His perception: "There arose a reasoning (Gk:&nbsp;<em>dialogismos</em>) among them, which of them was greatest. And Jesus perceiving the thought (Gk:&nbsp;<em>dialogismos</em>) of their heart...". In any case, they gave the game away by asking who was greatest in the Kingdom. Luke is bringing home the point that the discussion amongst them also took place within their hearts; the thoughts of jealousy gave direct birth to the words spoken:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Who then is greatest in the Kingdom of heaven</em>-</p><p> The present tense suggests that they had accepted the Lord's frequent teaching in the parables of the Kingdom that the rulership, the dominion of God is in essence now amongst His followers. They wanted to know which of them He considered the greatest. We could possibly infer that there was a perception that one of them, presumably Peter, was perceived by the Lord as the greatest. And they disagreed with that judgment. The Lord had indeed spoken of "the least in the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 11:1'>Mat 11:1</a></em>), which suggests He did indeed see some element of gradation amongst His followers. Without doubt, Peter, James and John formed an inner three whom the Lord appeared to have especial hopes for, and out of them, Peter was the one the Lord seemed to have especial hopes for, and it had just recently been demonstrated in <em><a href='B:470 17:24'>Mat 17:24</a></em> that Peter was perceived even by outsiders as the leader of the pack. The Lord's response was that whoever became as the little child "is greatest in the Kingdom" (:4)- again, using the present tense, as if He saw the essence of His Kingdom as already existing in the form of the disciples. And yet He seems to suggest that their focus should be upon&nbsp;<em>entering</em>&nbsp;the Kingdom (:3) rather than being the greatest in it. The suggestion was that He doubted whether they had yet entered that community as they should have done; they had yet to be "converted" (:3). But at other times, He is so positive about them, especially when justifying and defending them to the unbelieving world around them. This is typical of love. Love is not blind, the weaknesses of the beloved are noted and commented upon, and yet the object of love is still seen as wonderful and spoken positively of to others. The whole Biblical teaching of justification and imputed righteousness is really just the logical outflow of the love of God and His Son for us:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord had repeatedly implied that He would be the greatest in the Kingdom, because He humbled Himself the most. When the disciples asked Him “Who is the greatest in the Kingdom?” (<em><a href='B:470 18:1'>Mat 18:1</a></em>), they therefore reflected a complete lack of appreciation of&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;greatness. The disciples' immaturity and squabbling amongst themselves had led them to forget the superlative greatness of the One who stood and sat and walked amongst them. And conversely, they had failed to allow His surpassing greatness to make all discussion about which of them was the greatest absolutely irrelevant. Thus their perception of His greatness, the extent of it, and the nature of it, only grew&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;His death.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 9:35'>Mar 9:35</a></em> adds that before the Lord called the child to Him, He made the comment that "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all". The Lord Himself on the cross was the ultimate "servant of all", and therefore was the first of all. This may explain the Lord's comment that the last shall be first and the first last (<em><a href='B:470 19:30'>Mat 19:30</a></em>)- He may have intended us to read in an ellipsis to the effect that he who&nbsp;<em>wants to be&nbsp;</em>first shall be last, and he who&nbsp;<em>wants to be&nbsp;</em>last shall be first. There was to be a glorying in being the last, the servant of all- exemplified in the Lord's washing of the disciples' feet.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:2'>Mat 18:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he called to himself</em>-</p><p> Just as the Lord is often described as calling the disciples. The idea is that those called, which included the disciples, should be as little children.</p><p><em>A little child-&nbsp;</em>The disciples are framed as doing exactly the opposite soon afterwards, when they forbad the little children [s:w:] to come to Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 19:13'>Mat 19:13</a></em>)- whereas the Lord actually invited them to Him. Again we note how the Gospel writers present the disciples as so often out of step with their Lord.</p><p><em>And set him</em>-</p><p> The Greek means to stand, not to sit- this is how it is usually translated. <em><a href='B:480 9:35-36'>Mar 9:35-36</a></em> says that the Lord&nbsp;<em>sat</em>&nbsp;but He&nbsp;<em>stood</em>&nbsp;the child in their midst. But&nbsp;<em>histemi</em>, often translated "set" in <em><a href='B:470 18:2'>Mat 18:2</a></em>, has the strong connotation of standing up or setting someone up in a position. "The midst" suggests the disciples were in a closed circle, and the Lord stood the child within the circle. If you call an onlooking child into the midst of a group of unknown adults, they will typically not want to come. We see the powerful attraction of the Lord to children in that this child came, although likely with much nervousness, wanting to come to Jesus, but not into that closed circle of men- just as so many today. Almost certainly the child came to the Lord and He held the child close to Himself; for He goes on to urge the disciples to "receive" such little ones, implying they were reluctant to have the child amongst them. That closeness to the Lord was what was being set up as an example. The scene is portrayed graphically if we put the Gospel records together- the Lord&nbsp;<em>sat</em>&nbsp;with the men in a circle around Him, He calls the child to Him, stands him up "by Him" (<em>para</em>&nbsp;Him means close by Him, <em><a href='B:490 9:47'>Luk 9:47</a></em>) and then 'takes' him, cuddling the child to Himself "in His arms" (<em><a href='B:480 9:36'>Mar 9:36</a></em>)- whilst He is sitting down. The natural response of the child who had been stood would be to want to sit down, holding on to Jesus, and not to stand above those men with their attention focused upon him. This natural desire to come down, to humble self, is what is being memorialized by the Lord as the pattern for all who wish to enter His Kingdom. Perhaps we can imagine the scene even further- the child would've wanted to come to Jesus personally, but the circle of disciples with their apparent superiority and judgmentalism would've been offputting. But still the child came, and the Lord in Luke's record urges the disciples to allow the child to join the circle and "receive" him. This scenario is seen so often in the body of Christ in our days. In the early church, there soon developed a problem about 'receiving' others, not least children, women and Gentiles- and the Gospel records through this incident show how seriously wrong the disciples were not to do so. Luke's record goes on to record the incident with John's disciples where the Lord's disciples didn't want to "receive" them- implying they did not immediately grasp the teaching themselves.</p><p><em>In the midst of them</em>-</p><p> This phrase is used several times about the Lord Jesus Himself standing in the midst of His followers (<em><a href='B:490 24:36'>Luk 24:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:26'>Joh 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:9'>Joh 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:19'>Joh 20:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:26'>Joh 20:26</a></em>). The supreme "child" was the Lord Jesus. This connection between Him and that child was it seems perceived by Peter later, when he uses the same word to describe the Lord Jesus as God's "holy child" (<em><a href='B:510 4:27'>Act 4:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>). If as suggested the Lord held the child to Himself, the identification would have been visually powerful and the image would've remained with the disciples. The Lord Himself clinches the connection by saying that whoever becomes as that child will be the greatest in the Kingdom- and He clearly was and is the greatest in the Kingdom (:4). <em><a href='B:490 9:48'>Luk 9:48</a></em> makes the connection beyond doubt in recording that the Lord then said that "Whosoever shall receive this child... receives Me". His subsequent comment there that "For he that is least among you all, the same is great" is surely a reference to Himself, rather than urging them to be the least so that they might be the greatest. The Lord's answer as to who was greatest in the Kingdom was therefore to indirectly point out that He is the greatest, and we should simply seek to be like Him, using the little child as a template to that end. The antidote to division, therefore, is to be focused upon Christ and to seek to simply enter the Kingdom- the things of the Kingdom and of the Name (<em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>).</p><p>The Lord took a child and set him in the midst of those rough fishermen and tax collectors. He said that they must become like that child; and further, they must receive that child as a representative of Himself, and thereby, of God Himself. In&nbsp;probable allusion to this, Paul teaches that in malice we should be children, but in understanding: men (<em><a href='B:530 14:20'>1Co 14:20</a></em>). The child in the midst of men, wide eyed, simple and sincere amidst men full of cynicism and human wisdom and self-righteousness and the gruffness of the flesh... This was a symbol of every true believer, of the Lord Himself, and of Almighty God, as they were and as they are in the midst of a world and even a brotherhood that, like the disciples, so often stares on uncomprehending. The aptness was not in the child’s humility [if indeed a child can be humble], but in the purity of the innocence and sincerity and unassuming directness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 13:15-16'>Mat 13:15-16</a></em>.</p><p><em>And said: Truly I say to you, except you turn and become as little children, you shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven</em>-</p><p> This is all sober language, repeated quite soon afterwards (<em><a href='B:480 10:15'>Mar 10:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:17'>Luk 18:17</a></em>), indicating the degree to which the Lord saw the salvation of the disciples as being in doubt unless they were going to humble themselves, and quit their pride and the divisions which come from it.</p><p>There are levels of conversion, as exemplified in the life of Peter who was not totally 'converted' until he devoted himself to strengthening his brethren after his encounter with the Lord after the resurrection. The same Greek words for "become as" are used for the need to become as their Lord and Master (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>). The focus was to be upon becoming as Christ, rather than seeking greatness amongst themselves. The idea of 'becoming' suggests a process- to become as Him was to be the thrust of Christian life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Whoever therefore shall humble himself</em>-</p><p> This is the very language of the Lord Jesus on the cross; the hymn of Philippians 2 speaks of seven stages in the Lord's self-humiliation until He finally died "the death of the cross" (<em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em>), and then the hymn speaks of seven stages of exaltation. This is yet another indication that the little child, the one who would be greatest in the Kingdom, was to be seen as representative of the Lord personally. The disciples had initially followed John the Baptist, and his message had been that men must be "brought low" (s:w. 'humble self'; <em><a href='B:490 3:5'>Luk 3:5</a></em>). And yet they had clearly not grasped this, even though in chapters 12 and 13 the Lord seems to rejoice that they had responded to John in spirit and truth, unlike Israel generally. Such was His grace and positive feelings about His beloved. To humble oneself suggests conscious effort, and yet it is almost impossible to make ourselves more humble by our own act of the will, or by some self-instigated internal intellectual process. Paul speaks of how&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;humbled him (<em><a href='B:540 12:21'>2Co 12:21</a></em>), and Peter speaks of humbling ourselves "under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you" (<em><a href='B:670 5:6'>1Pe 5:6</a></em>). He is willing to humble those who wish to be humbled, and so the essence of self-humiliation is surely to appreciate that God is seeking to humble us, and to cooperate with this, allowing His mighty hand to humble us, rather than resisting the process. We need to daily carry this in mind- that today, God seeks to continue His process of humbling us, so that He might exalt us in His time.</p><p>So how, then, can we ‘humble ourselves’? When Israel was a child... she was humble, as we should be after our spiritual rebirth at baptism. It is evidently not something natural; for it is a fruit of the spirit we must develop. It isn’t a natural timidity or nervousness or shyness. By realising our own sinfulness, we will realise our condemnation, and thereby be ‘brought down’. For we are condemned for our behaviour, but saved out of that condemnation. The exact, vast debt is reckoned up- before we are forgiven (Matthew 18). We have been invited through the Gospel to sit down in the Kingdom: “But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (<em><a href='B:490 14:10-11'>Luk 14:10-11</a></em>). Humbling ourselves is therefore sitting down in the&nbsp;<em>lowest</em>&nbsp;place- not just a low place. Strictly, the Greek means ‘the farthest’ away from the Lord Jesus, who sits at the head of the table. Like Paul we must somehow get that deep and genuine apprehension that we are “chief of sinners”- and sit in the&nbsp;<em>lowest, farthest</em>&nbsp;place. This would mean that we ‘each esteemed our brother better than ourselves to be’, not in any naïve, meaningless way; not seeing strengths where they simply don’t exist; but seeing him [or her] that way simply in comparison to our own lowness. Seeing others as higher than ourselves is a sure remedy for every case of ecclesial friction and division. So often pride develops from a worry about what others will think of us, a desire to be seen as acceptable and not unusual. It leads to a hyper-sensitivity regarding what others may be implying about us [I am verily guilty of this]. The humbled mind will not see things in these terms:&nbsp;<em>If only we would each, personally, learn this lesson, or at least grasp the truth and beauty and power of it</em>. The publican was so worried about his own position before God that he paid no attention, so we sense, to the hypocritical brother next to him: “The publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner… this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for … he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (<em><a href='B:490 18:13-14'>Luk 18:13-14</a></em>). That sin-conscious man is an essay in self-humbling. This is why David sometimes parallels “the meek” and the repentant sinner (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 25:8-9'>Psa 25:8-9</a></em>).</p><p>It seems to me that so often in His teaching, the Lord was speaking to and about Himself. We understand from <em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em> that on the cross, the Lord "humbled himself". He used just those words in speaking of how the greatest in the Kingdom, the one who would be the most highly exalted (and He surely had Himself in view) was the one who would be the most servile in this life. His references to&nbsp;<em>becoming</em>&nbsp;as a servant He therefore spoke partly as exhortation to Himself (<em><a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:12'>Mat 23:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:11'>Luk 14:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:14'>Luk 18:14</a></em>). The <em><a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a></em> reference speaks of humbling oneself in terms of being converted and becoming like a little child. This was lived out by the Lord in His life and ultimately in His acceptance of the death of the cross. Yet this is what "conversion" is essentially about. In the same way as the Lord Jesus Himself had to be "converted" even at the very end of His life, to accept the awfulness of the crucifixion with an almost child-like simplicity (in some ways- e.g. His silence when surrounded by evil accusers, just like "the child in the midst"), so we too will pass through stages of 'conversion'. Note in passing that the same idea of the humble being exalted is used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:490 18:14'>Luk 18:14</a></em> with reference to how the humble man recognizes His own sinfulness. Whilst the Lord was sinless, perhaps part of His humiliation and taking on a servant-form involved His acceptance of the full horror of sin, and His willingness to bear it for our sakes.</p><p>Whilst humility isn't a natural characteristic of children, we are asked to take as it were a snapshot of that child in that situation, looking at the ground, pining away inside himself. The Lord said that the child had "humbled himself" (<em><a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a></em>)- showing that He didn't see children as naturally humble. But as he stood (or sat, <em><a href='B:470 18:2'>Mat 18:2</a></em> Gk:) in the middle of the circle, the impishness and immature self-assertion was driven out, and in a moment the child was humbled. That child in that situation, the Lord said, represented the true disciple; and it represented Himself, the Lord of glory. It seems to me that the Lord was standing next to the child, identifying Himself with it, in the middle of the circle of disciples:&nbsp;<em>In the very same context, a few verses later</em>&nbsp;the Lord spoke of how He was&nbsp;<em>in the midst</em>&nbsp;of the disciples (<em><a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a></em>). There is no doubt He saw that humbled child as the symbol of Himself, possibly implying that He Himself had been progressively humbled, from one level to another. Yet in <em><a href='B:490 9:48'>Luk 9:48</a></em>, the Lord goes further: the child represents not only the believers and their Lord, but also&nbsp;<em>the Father</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 18:5'>Mat 18:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:48'>Luk 9:48</a></em>). The humble surroundings of the Lord's birth, the way the exalted Lord of life and glory appeared from the tomb dressed like a working man (whilst the Angels, far inferior, had shining white garments), the way during His life He spoke in such a way that reflected His lack of formal education (<em><a href='B:500 7:15'>Joh 7:15</a></em>)- all this shows a humble, super-human Father. And His Son was and is the same. Indeed, <em><a href='B:490 2:12'>Luk 2:12</a></em> RV (cp. <em><a href='B:290 7:11'>Isa 7:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a></em>)&nbsp;says that&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;sign would be that the Son of God would be laid in a cattle trough; this was to be the extraordinary indication that God Himself was involved in this wonderful birth.</p><p><em>As this little child</em>-</p><p> In&nbsp;<em>Against Celsus&nbsp;</em>3:55, Origen defends Christianity against the allegation that it requires men to leave the world of men and go mix with women and children in “the washerwoman’s shop”- presumably a house church Celsus knew. Lucian of Samosata even mocked Christianity as being largely comprised of children and “old hags called widows”. Marcus Cornelius Fronto likewise mocked the way “children” [and by that term he would’ve referred to teenagers too] participated in the breaking of bread [<em>Octavius&nbsp;</em>8-9]. The teaching of the Lord Jesus was attractive to children / young people. They like women were treated as of little worth; the Greco-Roman world considered that children had to be taught, and couldn’t teach a man anything. But the Lord Jesus repeatedly set children up as examples of discipleship (<em><a href='B:480 9:36-37'>Mar 9:36-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:47-48'>Luk 9:47-48</a></em>; as <em><a href='B:650 12:5-9'>Heb 12:5-9</a></em>). So we can understand the appeal of early Christianity to young people, teenagers, especially girls. O:M. Bakke has written a fascinating study entitled&nbsp;<em>When Children Became People</em>. The thesis is that the teaching of Christianity gave disenfranchised people an identity and meaning as persons- women and slaves are obvious examples- but this also applied to children / young people. They too were disregarded as people in Mediterranean society; and yet in Christ they were given their value as people. In the house church setting, we can imagine how this happened. Celsus mocks how teenage boys go to Christian house churches to be taught by women- reflecting how attractive Christianity was for young people. Solomon’s words: "I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in”, i:e. to rule God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:110 3:9'>1Ki 3:9</a></em>) are alluded to in <em><a href='B:470 18:3-4'>Mat 18:3-4</a></em>; become a child so you can rule the Kingdom; Christ was the greatest child as he will be the greatest ruler. This sets Solomon up as our example in this respect.</p><p><em>The same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven</em>-</p><p> Elsewhere the Lord taught that he who humbled himself would be "exalted" (<em><a href='B:470 23:12'>Mat 23:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:11'>Luk 14:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:14'>Luk 18:14</a></em>), a word which is used both about His 'lifting up' on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em> and His ascension to Heaven (<em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:8'>Eph 4:8</a></em>), with all the subsequent 'exaltation'. Again, we sense that He has Himself in mind here- He who made Himself the lowest, was to be lifted up both on the cross and to Heaven. Paul makes a telling allusion to this idea in saying that he has humbled himself, not so that&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;would be exalted, but so that the weak brethren in Corinth might be (<em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>). When Peter later preached that Jesus was 'the exalted one' (<em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>) he perceived finally what the Lord was driving at here- that&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;was the greatest, the most exalted one, because He had humbled himself the most. And therefore all argument about seniority or greatness amongst the body of Christ was therefore irrelevant and deeply inappropriate.</p><p>On at least four separate occasions, the Lord taught that he who&nbsp;<em>exalts</em>&nbsp;himself will be&nbsp;<em>abased</em>, and he who&nbsp;<em>humbles&nbsp;</em>[s:w. abases] himself will be exalted (<em><a href='B:470 23:12'>Mat 23:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:11'>Luk 14:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:14'>Luk 18:14</a></em>). This was clearly a major theme in His exposition of the Gospel of the Kingdom; this is what will happen when that Kingdom is established at His return. He paralleled conversion with humbling oneself (<em><a href='B:470 18:3-4'>Mat 18:3-4</a></em>). The humble will be exalted, and the exalted humbled. Because this will happen, we must&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;humble ourselves, so that then we might be exalted. The majority of references to humility in Scripture refer to humbling<em>&nbsp;oneself</em>; humility, hard as it is to define, is something consciously done, as an act of the will. Yet the Father confirms us in our efforts. The Lord&nbsp;<em>humbled himself</em>&nbsp;to die on the cross (Philippians 2), and yet the cross<em>&nbsp;humbled him</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:510 8:33'>Act 8:33</a></em>). If we don’t humble&nbsp;<em>ourselves</em>&nbsp;now, then God will do this to us through the process of condemnation at the judgment. In this lies the insistent logic of humility. It was the logic Israel failed to comprehend... "When Israel was a child...". It is prophesied of those who will be condemned: “Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty [as Moses did in this life]. The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day. For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low” (<em><a href='B:290 2:10-12'>Isa 2:10-12</a></em>). “And the mean man shall be brought down, and the mighty man shall be humbled, and the eyes of the lofty shall be humbled: But the Lord of hosts shall be exalted in judgment” (<em><a href='B:290 5:15-16'>Isa 5:15-16</a></em>). There are many similar passages; the theme of ‘bringing down’ pride is a major one in the first half of Isaiah (<em><a href='B:290 2:17'>Isa 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 13:11'>Isa 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 25:5'>Isa 25:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 25:12'>Isa 25:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 29:4'>Isa 29:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 32:19'>Isa 32:19</a></em>). They pave the way for the announcement that in man’s response to the Gospel of Christ, “Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain” (<em><a href='B:290 40:4'>Isa 40:4</a></em>). By the hills of human pride being brought down, and the giving of confidence to those so low in the valleys of hopelessness and lack of self respect, there is a levelling of all those who respond to Christ. But more than this; in this lifting up of the hopeless and bringing down of the proud, there is a foretaste of what will happen in the future day of judgment. In essence, “we make the answer now” by whether or not we bring down our pride, or whether we summon the faith in God’s grace and imputed righteousness to believe that we, who are nothing, are lifted up in His sight. “Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted: But the rich, in that he is made low” (<em><a href='B:660 1:9-10'>Jas 1:9-10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>18:5&nbsp;<em>And whoever shall receive one such little child in my name receives me</em>-</p><p> To not offend others we must “receive” them (<em><a href='B:470 18:5'>Mat 18:5</a></em>). It is written of Jesus that when crowds of materialistic, fascinated people followed Him, “He received them, and spake unto them of the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:490 9:11'>Luk 9:11</a></em>). He didn’t just turn round and read them a lecture about the Kingdom. “He&nbsp;<em>received&nbsp;</em>them”. Presumably Luke means to reflect how he perceived something in the Lord’s body language that was receiving of that crowd of peasants- whom we would likely have written off as just dumb groupies with no more than surface level interest. And we too must receive one another, even as the Lord has received us (<em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>)- and this includes receiving him who is even weak in the faith (<em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>). We should be looking for every reason to receive and fellowship our brethren, rather than reasons not to.</p><p>The disciples would've had to open their closed circle to allow the child to enter. As the child settled down in the arms of the Lord Jesus, he was effectively added to the circle of disciples. Children were counted as non-persons in first century society, along with women, serious sinners, the mentally ill and lepers. The Lord is powerfully teaching that our attitude to such persons is our attitude to Him and therefore to God (Mk:, Lk:). The challenge comes down to many of us too, who come from closed table communities. The Lord foresaw that to form a tight circle around Him was the natural response of those who followed Him, but He is saying that unless we open that circle, we are in danger of actually not having received Him at all. Our not receiving of such persons is going to make them stumble ("offend them"), and this warrants eternal condemnation. The Lord had bidden the disciples 'humble themselves', and now they are given an opportunity to do so- by 'receiving' amongst themselves, as one of them, into their circle, a little child. Opening our circle and accepting amongst us those who do not share (at least, at this time) our level of faith, understanding or even culture- this is indeed a humbling experience. All that is in us cries out to keep them excluded, and to keep our circle tightly closed against them. But the argument for a closed circle, or a closed table, is ultimately one which originates in pride and a refusal to humble self:&nbsp;</p><p><em></p><p></em>The little child was to be identified with the Lord Jesus personally. See on <em><a href='B:470 18:2'>Mat 18:2</a></em>. To not receive the little ones is to not receive Jesus personally. The issue is of eternal importance, as the next verse emphasizes. We cannot simply go along with such rejections and refusal to receive others just because it is the policy of a church or fellowship to which we have belonged or grown up in. Social death and rejection by our brethren is nothing compared to the painful rejection at the last day which the Lord speaks of:&nbsp;</p><p>Mark inserts at this point the question about a man casting out demons although 'not following us' (<em><a href='B:480 9:38-42'>Mar 9:38-42</a></em>). The Lord rebukes them for this and goes on to warn them about not offending little ones. In Matthew, that warning follows straight on from the teaching about the need to receive little ones- as if refusing to receive them is what makes them stumble. The case raised by the disciples, as it were in protest at His teaching about receiving little ones, was presumably one of John's disciples. Although they had a different spiritual culture, history and even doctrinal understanding, the Lord had earlier likened both His and John's disciples to children in the marketplace working in parallel, presenting the same message in different ways. They were admittedly immature in some ways and in parts of their doctrinal understanding, but the Lord is teaching that this is what made John's disciples "little ones", and they must still be accepted. The Lord warns twice in that section in <em><a href='B:480 9:38-42'>Mar 9:38-42</a></em>: "Forbid him not". This is the same as saying 'Receive him, do not forbid him from entering your circle'. It is the same word which the Lord will go on to use in <em><a href='B:470 19:14'>Mat 19:14</a></em> about not forbidding another group of "little children". The Jewish world was to be condemned exactly because they hindered or forbad [s:w:] men to enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 11:52'>Luk 11:52</a></em> - see on 18:7&nbsp;<em>Woe to the world</em>). Peter surely alludes to the Lord's teaching when reasoning: "Who can forbid water" that Gentiles be baptized (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>). Refusing baptism to those not considered good, ready or mature enough is surely a way of forbidding and not receiving little ones.</p>


text:
<p>18:6&nbsp;<em>But whoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe in me to stumble</em>-</p><p> Why the warning against offence, causing to stumble, in this context? The context so far in this chapter has been about the need for humility and not dividing against each other in jostling for seniority in the community of believers. <em><a href='B:490 9:48'>Luk 9:48</a></em> says that the Lord went further and urged the disciples to receive such children. Surely the connection is in the fact that refusing to receive little ones and divisions amongst believers are what cause little ones to stumble, hence Paul brackets together "divisions and offences" (<em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em>). This is the sin of division- it causes little ones to stumble, and that is so true to observed experience in the body of Christ. Refusing to receive little ones and divisions over this matter have caused so many of the little ones to go away from Christ. <em><a href='B:490 17:1-2'>Luk 17:1-2</a></em> repeats the teaching about not offending little ones, and the Lord goes on to teach about the need for unlimited forgiveness of others. Not forgiving is a form of not receiving others, and this too can lead the person to stumble from the way:&nbsp;</p><p>The implication may be 'Even just one'. If 'just' one person is rejected by us, then we have not received Christ and condemnation awaits us. Each encounter we have with people is therefore of eternal moment and significance. We cannot hide behind any sense that 'generally' we are innocent on this matter; if just one is rejected by us, then the Lord's terrible picture of condemnation must loom large before our eyes. Of course we can in this life repent and seek to put things right with one we previously rejected. But for the rest of our days we need to live in quiet humility realizing that we should have been rejected, that we caused a little one to stumble from the way, and our salvation truly is by grace.</p><p>By "little ones<em>&nbsp;who believe in me</em>" the Lord was clarifying that He was not so much talking about the spiritual acceptance of children as the acceptance of believers in Him whom His disciples might consider spiritually immature or inappropriate for acceptance into their closed circle. This may well have reference to John’s disciples, whom the disciples were slow to accept, both in the Lord’s ministry and probably also in the early years of the church. In the parallel records, He saw those who “follow not us” as being “on our part”, not losing their reward, as being the little ones who believed in Him; and He saw wisdom as being justified by<em>&nbsp;all</em>&nbsp;her children, be they His personal disciples or those of John (<em><a href='B:480 9:38-41'>Mar 9:38-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:35'>Luk 7:35</a></em>). John’s men had a wrong attitude to fellowship- they should have ‘followed with’ the disciples of Jesus; and it would seem their doctrinal understanding of the Holy Spirit was lacking, although not wrong (<em><a href='B:510 19:1-5'>Act 19:1-5</a></em>). Indeed, they are called there “disciples”, a term synonymous with all believers in Luke’s writing. And the Lord too spoke in such an inclusive way towards them. No wonder His disciples had and have such difficulty grasping His inclusiveness and breadth of desire to fellowship and save.</p><p><em>It would be better for him that a great millstone should be hung about his neck and that he should be drowned in the depths of the sea-&nbsp;</em>The very language of Babylon's judgments at the last day. The believer who makes another to stumble by not receiving them is therefore no better than Babylon, the archenemy of God and His true people. And <em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em> speaks of how&nbsp;<em>Babylon</em>&nbsp;shall be cast into the sea as a millstone- such 'believers' will at the last day face Babylon's judgments, they will be "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>), sent back into it from the judgment seat of Christ to share the world's fate. Even though externally they had been so separate from the world, so separate that the refused to receive the "little ones". But this attitude is in fact a worldly attitude; by having it, we are showing that we are of the world.</p><p>A nice picture of the Lord's perception of the disciples is found in the way He said that the little boy who came to Him, responding to His call (<em><a href='B:470 18:2'>Mat 18:2</a></em>) represented the "little ones" who believed in Him (<em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>). 'Little ones' is a title of the disciples in <em><a href='B:450 13:7'>Zec 13:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:5'>Joh 21:5</a></em>; and it is disciples not literal children who have Angels in Heaven (<em><a href='B:470 18:10'>Mat 18:10</a></em>). The context in <em><a href='B:470 18:11-12'>Mat 18:11-12</a></em> speaks of the spiritually weak, implying the 'little ones' were spiritually little as well. Christ's talking to them while he knew they were asleep in Gethsemane and the gentle "sleep on now”, spoken to them whilst they were asleep (<em><a href='B:480 14:41-42'>Mar 14:41-42</a></em>), sounds as if He was consciously treating them as children- especially fitting, given their spiritually low state then. His father-like care for them is seen also in His promise in <em><a href='B:500 14:18'>Joh 14:18</a></em> RVmg. that He would not leave them “orphans”, but He would come to them. The disciples were not orphans- because they had a true and real Father-figure, in the Lord Jesus. But the disciples were the Lord's children. John records in his Gospel only once how Jesus described His disciples at the Passover meal as “My little children” (<em><a href='B:500 13:33'>Joh 13:33</a></em>). The Lord Jesus was acting as the father of the family, instructing his children as to meaning of the Passover. But the same phrase occurs seven times in 1 John. He had dwelt upon that phrase of the Lord’s, and it clearly came to mean so much to him. Our child-father relationship with the Lord Jesus likewise needs sustained meditation. In this sense, the Lord Jesus was manifesting the Father, and thus leading the disciples to the Father through Him:&nbsp;</p><p>Drowning in the depth of the sea was a common figure for the condemnation of the wicked. And yet <em><a href='B:400 7:19'>Mic 7:19</a></em> had spoken of how the sins of the faithful in Judah would be cast into the depths of the sea and drowned like the Egyptians at the Red Sea. And yet individual condemnation is spoken of with the same metaphor. The meaning is surely that our sins will be condemned, and thus forgiven; but if we are not identified with our sins, then we shall not be. In this lies a strong basis for understanding Paul’s introspection of Romans 7 - clearly he recognizes his sins, but doesn’t identify himself personally with them:&nbsp;</p><p>We rather than the Lord are the ones who in essence have demanded our condemnation; His judgment is merely reflecting our own choice. The idea of self-condemnation is perhaps behind the Lord's teaching in <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>. If we offend one of His little ones, "it is profitable for [us] that a great millstone should be hanged around [our] neck, and that [we] should be sunk in the depth of the sea" (RV). This is the language of Babylon's future condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em>). But how can such a condemnation be "profitable" for us? Remember that James teaches that in some things, we all offend someone (<em><a href='B:660 3:2'>Jas 3:2</a></em>). Maybe the Lord is saying: 'When you offend others, as you all do at times, then you're deserving of condemnation at the last day. But condemn yourselves for it, now, in this life; that will be profitable for you, and then you need not be condemned at the last day'. It's a sober thought, that deserves introspection. We all offend others- let's give James' words their full weight. And instead of going down the road of 'Yeah but it was after all&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;fault they allowed themselves to be offended…', let's just allow these Bible passages their obvious meaning. Our poor attitude to others at times shouts for our condemnation. And we need to recognize that, resolving to live life ever more sensitive to our colossal impact upon others.</p>


text:
<p>18:7&nbsp;<em>Woe to the world... the man</em>-</p><p> CEV: "The world is in for trouble because of the way it causes people to sin". The&nbsp;<em>kosmos</em>&nbsp;in mind was surely the Jewish world [the word usually has this primary meaning in John's Gospel]. In this case "Woe to that man" would then be specifically addressed to the disciples; they were to take the warning to themselves each one, which is why the next verse speaks of the need for 'you' singular to do absolutely everything to avoid causing another to stumble. The Jewish religious system caused men to stumble, as the Lord often pointed out. Bu there would be an especial woe to the individuals who caused the stumbling, because for doing this they will be liable to personal condemnation. The Jewish world, the system, was to face the "Woe" of Divine judgment specifically because it made men stumble spiritually. That's what these words of Jesus seem to be saying, and His criticisms of that system recorded elsewhere would accord with that view- the 'Woes' He pronounces on the Jewish system in Matthew 23 particularly focus on the damage that system did to people, and the barrier it became between God and man.</p><p><em>Because of temptations to stumble! For it is necessary that the temptations occur, but woe to that man through whom the temptation comes!-&nbsp;</em>The Lord continues His theme of giving offence to others when He says: “It must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! [The Lord must have said this after such careful introspection, knowing that He was the rock of offence to many, and that Jewry were to be ‘offended’ by Him]:&nbsp;<em>Wherefore</em>&nbsp;if thy hand or thy foot&nbsp;<em>makes you a cause of stumbling</em>&nbsp;[i:e. to others], cut them off…” or else you will be condemned (<em><a href='B:470 18:7'>Mat 18:7</a></em> Gk:). This is how important it is to search our lives and see what may cause others offence. And, in His relentless way, the Lord continues: “See that ye despise not one of these little ones” (<em><a href='B:470 18:10'>Mat 18:10</a></em>), the little ones He has Himself just been so careful not to offend, by paying up His taxes. We offend people by ‘despising’ them. And, on and on and on, Jesus incisively takes His teaching further- in the parable of the shepherd who seeks the lost sheep.</p><p>To&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;seek others’ salvation is to despise them. We may not think we are despiteful people. But effectively, in His eyes, we are…if we neglect to actively seek for their salvation until we find it. To not offend others is thus made parallel to seeking their salvation. And the shepherd seeking the lost sheep matches the man who plucks out his eye and cuts off his hand lest they offend others. So you see the parallels throughout Matthew 18 :</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>Lest we offend them</td><td>Pay the temple tax, go fishing, make the effort</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lest we offend others and are cast into condemnation</td><td>Pluck out our eye, cut off our hands and feet</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lest we offend the little ones and are cast into the sea</td><td>Receive the little ones as if they are Christ, see the Christ in them</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Don’t despise others</td><td>Go out looking for the lost sheep with unlimited effort</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lest we are cast “to the tormentors”</td><td>Give unlimited forgiveness to your brother, try to “gain your brother”</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The self-willed effort we must make to not offend our brother is quite something. Just imagine looking at yourself in the mirror, wedging your finger nails under your eye socket, and pulling out your eye. This is the conscious effort we must make not to offend, and thereby to save. It’s really quite something. Note that the parallels tabled above show that to not offend is to save. If we seek above all the salvation of others, then we will not offend them. We will, quite simply,&nbsp;<em>care for them</em>&nbsp;as the Lord cares for us.</p>


text:
<p>18:8&nbsp;<em>And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble</em>-</p><p> Cause you to stumble. The context has spoken of not offending the little ones, and of the terrible condemnation awaiting those who cause others to stumble. There are two legitimate meanings of the words here. The idea could be ‘If these things cause you to stumble others’; or, ‘If these things cause you yourself to stumble’. But the ambiguity is surely intentional. If we make others to stumble then we have made ourselves stumble, for if we make others stumble out of the way to the Kingdom, then we shall not be there ourselves. The point is clear- we are to go to absolutely any length, paying any personal cost, in order not to cause stumbling to a little one.</p><p><em>Cut it off</em>-</p><p> I suggest the Lord is parodying the orthodox Jewish idea of cutting off members of the community in order to preserve the rest of the body of believers- an idea equally common today amongst some in the new Israel. The Lord is saying that in order to avoid personal condemnation, we are to cut off our own limbs if necessary- in order to avoid causing a little one to stumble. The cost of not causing the little ones to stumble is therefore very personal; because communities, both secular and religious, tend to cause little ones to stumble by their policies, it follows that individuals will pay a high price for stepping out of line by insisting that we will not cause them to stumble. The preceding verse has explained how “the world”, the Jewish religious system of the Lord’s time, the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;of the day, lead others to stumble, and that individuals must take personal responsibility for this. In the same way as the whole system was destroyed in AD70, so personal condemnation at the last day awaits the individuals who make others stumble:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And throw it away</em>-</p><p> The Greek for “cut off” here is that translated ‘hew down’ in speaking of condemnation at the last day in <em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:9'>Luk 13:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:22'>Rom 11:22</a></em>. The idea of ‘casting’ ["throw it"] is used about the casting of the rejected into condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:29'>Mat 5:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em> and often). This is the language of latter day condemnation- and yet the Lord says that this is what we must do to those parts of our bodies which cause us to make little ones stumble. I believe that we have here the idea which <em><a href='B:660 3:2'>Jas 3:2</a></em> is articulating more directly: “In many things we offend all”. We are warned that if we offend / make others stumble, then we shall be condemned. James says that we all make others stumble in some way (and honest self-examination will reveal that to us). So, we all should be condemned. But we must recognize and confess wherein we have done this, and condemn those parts of our lives which have done that- and cast them from us.</p><p><em>&nbsp;It is better for you to enter into life maimed or lame, rather than having two hands or two feet to be thrown into the perpetual fire</em>-</p><p> The lame, blind and maimed were those not acceptable for service in God’s tabernacle (<em><a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:21'>Deu 15:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 5:8'>2Sa 5:8</a></em>). The Lord surely has this in mind. He seems to be saying that to avoid offending little ones, it is better to be unacceptable for priestly service now, and yet therefore enter God's Kingdom. The implication, therefore, is that by&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;being seen as fit for priestly service, we avoid offending little ones. The only interpretation which makes sense of this to me is that the Lord foresaw that by fellowshipping the little ones, we may well be excluded from public priestly service in the house of God in this life, because those running the show generally exclude those who think in terms of an open table. But that is a cheap price to pay for entering the Kingdom. And we will be miserable excluded from His Kingdom if we make others stumble by acting in such a way as merely keeps us in with the religious powers that be, that keeps us fit&nbsp;<em>in their sight&nbsp;</em>for service. And this again is absolutely true to observation in the body of Christ. Those who are inclusive of little ones tend to be sidelined from public service by those who are decision makers within the ecclesia. But that is a cheap price for entrance to the Kingdom:&nbsp;</p><p>It's better to limp into the Kingdom than be rejected for self-righteousness. Surely there is an invitation here to see the limping Jacob, walking away from the encounter with the Angel, as our role model. The personality we will be in the Kingdom will reflect the struggles we have personally endured in this life. Relationships in the Kingdom of God will reflect these. Thus those who had consciously chosen to be eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom are comforted that in the Kingdom they will be given a name and place in God's temple better than of children in this life (<em><a href='B:290 56:5'>Isa 56:5</a></em>). All the faithful will be given a name and place in the temple; so what especial consolation was this to those eunuchs? Surely the point is that the name (personality) they will then have will gloriously reflect the self-sacrifice and personal Biblical understanding which they went through in this life. This alone proves that the reward will be individual. The Lord's picture of men entering the Kingdom without limbs is surely making the same point (<em><a href='B:480 9:47'>Mar 9:47</a></em>); the result of our self-sacrifice in this life will be reflected by the personality we have in the Kingdom. And there is evidence that the Man we follow will still bear in His body, throughout eternity, the marks of the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:450 13:6'>Zec 13:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>18:9&nbsp;<em>And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away</em>-</p><p> The idea has been pushed that this refers to sexual lust. But that is not the context here. The context is of our offending others, and how we should be willing to pay any price, no matter how awful for us, so that we do not do that. I suggested above that the allusion is to how the blind, maimed and lame could not enter the priesthood for public service. The Lord is saying that it is better to be out of public service in the community of believers, if it means upholding policies which make little ones stumble. In the&nbsp;<em>kosmos</em>&nbsp;or the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;of His day, it was necessary to separate oneself personally from the damage to others which the system was doing. It’s better to enter into the Kingdom not having had the honour of public priestly service in the community in this life, rather than to have that public honour and yet cause others to stumble, meaning we shall not enter the Kingdom. The idea of entering the Kingdom without an eye or limping doesn’t necessarily mean that we shall eternally be like that. I suggest it means that we enter the Kingdom having not had those things in this life, and not having therefore had a public ministry. The Lord was speaking to the 12 disciples at this point, some of whom, Matthew (Levi) especially, could have had a priestly career. Or He could be making the point that they were not going to be able to ever be priests in the old system because of their inclusiveness- but they would be shepherds of the&nbsp;<em>new</em>&nbsp;Israel He was forming, as He goes on to explain in :12-14.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 9:43-47'>Mar 9:43-47</a></em> spells out the details of the condemnation in laboured detail- if our eye offends, or causes us to offend others, then cut it off, for it is better to be without an eye in this life than to be condemned in Gehenna, where the worm and fire are 'eternal'. And this is repeated concerning the hand and foot. We read of eye, hand and foot together in only one other context- of "eye for eye... hand for hand, foot for foot" being the punishment for damaging a 'little one' within the womb of a woman (<em><a href='B:20 21:24'>Exo 21:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:21'>Deu 19:21</a></em>). Nowhere else in Scripture do these three words occur together. By not receiving a little one, despising them and thus causing them to stumble, we are doing the equivalent of the Old Covenant sin of beating up a pregnant woman and causing handicap to the 'little one' within her. It could be that the Lord is saying that we can be responsible for damaging those who have not yet come to spiritual birth, to the point that if they are born, then they will be born with serious defects which are our fault. And such defects will have been the result of not receiving them, even in their immature state. Thus the table practice of the Lord was to accept people at His table at whatever stage of their spiritual growth or journey, even those not as yet born again, not yet converted, not yet repentant... in order to try to bring them to that point:&nbsp;</p><p><em>It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna-&nbsp;</em>The Lord bid us cut off the hand or foot that offends, and thus enter into life halt…blind, rather than be condemned in Gehenna (<em><a href='B:470 18:8-9'>Mat 18:8-9</a></em>). It sounds as if ‘entering into life’ means entering into the Kingdom; and so it can do, for this clause is set as the antithesis for being condemned at the last day. Yet it is hard to imagine us entering the Kingdom somehow maimed, and in any case then we will not need to be without what causes temptation. The figure rings more true to our lives today; if we cut off our flesh&nbsp;<em>now</em>, we will live the rest of our mortal days somehow lacking what we could have had. In this case, we enter into life right now, insofar as we cut off the opportunities of the flesh. Jesus told another man that if he would enter into life, he must keep the commandments (<em><a href='B:470 19:17'>Mat 19:17</a></em>). Insofar as he kept those commands, he would right now enter into life. We are entering into life, eternal life, right now!</p><p>The Lord Jesus spoke several times of taking up the cross and following Him. This is the life you have committed yourself to by baptism; you have at least tried to take up the cross. The full horror and shock of what He was saying doubtless registered more powerfully with the first century believers than with us. They would have seen men in the agony of approaching death carrying their crosses and then being nailed to them. And the Lord Jesus asked men to do this to themselves. Our takings up of the cross will result in damage- the plucked out eye, the cut off foot. And notice that the Lord says that we will enter lame into the eternal life, or enter the Kingdom with just one eye (<em><a href='B:480 9:45-47'>Mar 9:45-47</a></em>). Surely this means that the effects of our self-sacrifice in this life will in fact be eternally evident in the life which is to come. The idea of&nbsp;<em>taking up&nbsp;</em>the cross suggests a conscious, decided willingness to take on board the life of self-crucifixion. Taking up the cross is therefore not just a passive acceptance of the trials of life. There's a radical in each of us, even if the years have mellowed it. The way to express it is surely through radical devotion to the Father's cause. On one hand, Jesus spoke to men as they were able to hear it, not as He was able to expound it. Yet on the other, He gave His radicalism free reign. The Sabbath miracles seem to have purposefully provoked the Jews. When He encouraged His men to rub the corn heads and eat them like peanuts as they walked through a field one Sabbath, He knew full well this was going to provoke confrontation. And he said what was anathema to the Jews: "The Law was made for man and not man for the Law". Where there is human need, the law can bend. This was a startling concept for a Jew. Jesus described the essence of His Kingdom as mustard seed, which was basically a weed. It was like a woman putting leaven [both symbols of impurity] into flour. Surely the Lord was trying to show that His message was not so Heavenly that it was unrelated to earthly life. It was real and relevant to the ordinary dirty business of life. The woman who have everything she had was noted by the Lord as His ideal devotee. He taught that it was preferable to rid oneself of an eye or a limb and to sacrifice sex if that is for us the price of entry into the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:480 9:45-47'>Mar 9:45-47</a></em>). The parable of the man who built bigger barns taught that in some senses we should in His service like there's no tomorrow. He expected His followers to respond immediately, to pay the price today rather than tomorrow, with no delay or procrastination. There is an emphasis in His teaching on immediacy of response, single-mindedness and unrestrained giving. This is radical stuff for 21st century people in the grip of manic materialism. &nbsp;</p><p>Gehenna was the ravine south of Jerusalem where ‘little ones’ had been sacrificed to Moloch (<em><a href='B:300 7:31'>Jer 7:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 10:5-6'>Jer 10:5-6</a></em>). So there is an appropriacy in this particular picture of condemnation. Those who stop others entering God’s Kingdom and lead them to condemnation will share the same condemnation; what they did to others will be done to them.</p>


text:
<p>18:10&nbsp;<em>See you do not despise one of these little ones</em>-</p><p> Paul uses the same word in one of his many allusions to the Gospels in <em><a href='B:530 11:22'>1Co 11:22</a></em>, where he warns that exclusive attitudes at the breaking of bread, even having ‘another table’ to ones despised brethren, was in fact despising the entire church of Christ. Our attitude to the little ones is our attitude to Him and thereby to the entire church or body of Christ. Elsewhere, the Lord uses this word for "despise" as counterpoint to loving; the opposite of loving is to despise (<em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:13'>Luk 16:13</a></em>). He is forcing us to perceive that we either love little ones by accepting them, or we despise them. We of course would prefer to argue for some third way, whereby we are conveniently indifferent to some and accept others whom we consider on our moral and spiritual level. But those whom we do not love and accept, we effectively despise. That is the Lord's understanding. The Lord had warned His followers to “despise not” the ‘little ones’ (<em><a href='B:470 18:10'>Mat 18:10</a></em>). Paul picks up this phrase in <em><a href='B:610 6:2'>1Ti 6:2</a></em> in warning servants not to despise their masters who were brethren; the implication that they were to treat those wealthy but perhaps not very spiritually mature masters as ‘little ones’, with all the patience this would require.</p><p><em>For I say to you, that in heaven their angels do always see the presence of my Father who is in heaven</em>-</p><p> The Greek could equally mean that they fully behold the face of the Father. The idea seems to be that the “little ones” are in fellowship with God, they are indeed represented in Heaven, they are ‘before God’, in His presence. And we should therefore not reject anyone who has relationship with God and in a spiritual sense is in His presence. This is the essence of John’s teaching- that we cannot claim to have fellowship with the Father unless we fellowship His children, and if we do not fellowship His children, then we thereby break our relationship with the Father. It is seriously wrong, therefore, to admit on one hand that individuals are in fellowship with the Father, and yet refuse them fellowship.</p><p>The guardian Angels of Christ's "little ones", "do always behold the face of My Father in Heaven". There seem two options here:-</p><p> The Angels may be physically present with us on earth but also maintain a presence in the 'court of Heaven', perhaps by means of another Angel there:&nbsp;-</p><p> A more likely explanation lies in the meaning of the word "behold" - 'to look to, be aware of, perceive, take heed'. Although physically present with us, the Angels are intensely aware of the face of God which they behold when assembled in the court of Heaven awaiting God's words of command. The "little ones" in the context are the spiritually weak- does this have something to do with their Angels being physically absent from them in Heaven?</p>


text:
<p>18:11&nbsp;<em>For the Son of Man came to save</em>-</p><p> In the context, the point is that if&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;mission was to fellowship with and thereby save "the lost", then it should be ours. His method of saving the lost was to have table fellowship with them in order to try to lead them to repentance and salvation. All that is true of Him is to be true of us- we have the same mission and should use the same methods. And refusing to open our closed circle to the little ones is going right against that method.</p><p><em>Those which were lost-&nbsp;</em>The Lord Himself was evidently very conscious of the inclusiveness of both male and female in His redemptive work. He came to save that [both male and female] which was lost (<em><a href='B:470 18:11'>Mat 18:11</a></em>). He asked His people to follow Him in His cross carrying, and then told them to follow a<em>&nbsp;man&nbsp;</em>bearing a pitcher of water (doing woman’s work)- probably a slave bearing water for the purification rites of Passover. In asking this He was requesting us to see in that man a symbol of Himself in His time of self-sacrifice. Yet the Lord saw Himself as a slave, a man doing woman’s work, as the seed of the woman…surely the Lord had worked out in advance this wonderful blend of the genders in the figure He chose to represent Him. He spoke of leaving one’s sister for His sake as being a sacrifice, whereas the contemporary culture would rarely have felt that way about a female relative. Jesus not only spoke to women publicly, but is even recorded as allowing a Gentile woman to change His mind (<em><a href='B:470 15:22'>Mat 15:22</a></em>). This was unthinkable and shocking to contemporary society.</p><p>The sentence begins with “For…”, connecting the “lost” with the “little ones”. Following through the theme of this section, the lost, the little ones, the despised ones, will be won back and not stumbled by receiving them in table fellowship. This is the going out to seek the lost. The Lord’s parables describe those He will save as the son who refused to go to work, but later went, sheepishly aware of his failure; the sheep that went away, i:e. those Christ came to save (<em><a href='B:470 18:11'>Mat 18:11</a></em>) (a symbol of us all, <em><a href='B:470 18:12'>Mat 18:12</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a></em>);&nbsp;the lost coin; the son who went away and sowed his wild oats, and then returned with his tail between his legs. Christ expects that we will fail, as grievously as those parables indicate. Yet we have somehow come to think that they refer either to our follies before baptism, or to those within our community who publicly disgrace themselves. Yet they describe&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the faithful. But is there that sense of contrition in us, really? Aren't we more like the elder brother, or the son who said "I go, Sir, but went not" (<em><a href='B:470 21:30'>Mat 21:30</a></em>)? &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>18:12&nbsp;<em>What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray</em>-</p><p> Of course we must use our freewill and repent, but the Lord in the parables of the lost coin and sheep likens us to things which&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;repent and are not repentant, and yet all the same are brought back by the Lord's endless searching and pastoral care. By all means compare this with Peter's comment that the Lord's exaltation was in order to give&nbsp;<em>repentance</em>, not just forgiveness, to God's people (<em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:18'>Act 11:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:620 2:25'>2Ti 2:25</a></em>). This is the extent of His atonement for men; not only to enable forgiveness, but to show His matchless grace yet further in even granting&nbsp;<em>repentance</em>&nbsp;to men. In the light of this it remains open to question how much credit we can personally take for our repentance. Not all lost sinners will come back, but the Lord speaks as if He will search always, in every case,&nbsp;<em>until</em>&nbsp;they do. These hyperboles are all to teach the vast extent of His desire to win back the lost. In the light of this, who are we to start questioning whether or not a brother has actually repented, if he says he has and shows this to some extent?</p><p><em>Does he not…?</em>-</p><p> The answer is, No, he doesn't. This is the element of unreality in this parable. It seems there are such elements in all the parables, and they are there to signpost us to the essential point of the parable. The Lord’s parables all feature an element of unreality, which flags attention to His essential point. The shepherd who left the 99 and went after the lost one was an unusual shepherd. Common sense tells us that one should think of the good of the majority, not max out on the minority. We invest effort and resources in ways which will benefit the maximum number of people. But the Lord turned all that on its head. The heart that bleeds cannot disregard the minority, however small or stupid or irritating it or they may be. For people matter, and the heart that bleeds will bleed for every single one.</p><p><em>Leave the ninety nine</em>-</p><p> This may appear irresponsible. But it is in line with the Lord's grotesque language of cutting off body parts in order to avoid offending little ones. It's hyperbole to make a point- that the one little one or lost one is to have our maximum attention. I suggested above that the loss of body parts was an allusion to rendering themselves unfit for priestly service under the Old Covenant system. The Lord may be continuing the idea. Focusing on the little ones, the lost, may well lead to our being judged unfit for wider shepherding roles by those who are the power brokers within the human side of God's people on earth. But so be it. Lose that kudos, those roles. Focus on saving the lost. For that is what the Lord did, and thanks to that, we have been found and saved.</p><p>The idea of "leave" is ‘to send away’, and four times in this chapter alone is translated ‘forgive’ (<em><a href='B:470 18:21'>Mat 18:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:35'>Mat 18:35</a></em>). The same word is then found in <em><a href='B:470 19:14'>Mat 19:14</a></em>, where the disciples again forbid little ones and refuse to ‘receive’ them, and the Lord tells the disciples to ‘suffer’ those little ones to come to Him. The use of the word suggests that the disciples needed to ‘forgive’ their immaturity. The whole section is very thematic and it therefore seems unlikely that the repeated usage of this word is insignificant. Maybe the Lord is hinting that we should not waste energy on unforgiveness, but rather forgive even 99 sheep, and seek by all means to rescue / save / receive / not cause to stumble the one. It’s as if unforgiveness towards others may lead the “one” to stumble. And that is indeed true to observed experience, because those who stumble are often full of stories from church life of where they encountered unforgiving attitudes towards others. The parable seems to be saying that if someone has been offended by the exclusion they experienced from the majority, then we are to forgive the majority and all the same do all we can to regain the lost. The closed circle of disciples who turned away the children from Jesus thus become the 99 sheep; the focus must be upon winning back those who have become lost. The parable teaches this in itself, because a sheep will only leave the flock if there has been some incident or situation between the flock and that sheep which mean that the flock has rejected or excommunicated it. For sheep do not just wander off alone from the flock and get lost. They tend to stay together by nature.</p><p><em>On the mountains-&nbsp;</em>The Old Testament is clear that the sheep of God's people were lost on the mountains because of poor shepherding (<em><a href='B:140 18:16'>2Ch 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 50:6'>Jer 50:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 34:6'>Eze 34:6</a></em>). The language of 'going astray' fits this picture, because the Greek word essentially means 'to be deceived' and is used in the context of the Jewish religious leaders deceiving ordinary Jewish people in the first century (<em><a href='B:470 24:4'>Mat 24:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:7'>Gal 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:26'>1Jn 2:26</a></em>). The mission of the disciples was to take over the role of the shepherds; they were resigning from the chance of being shepherds under the Old Covenant, disqualifying themselves from priestly service by cutting off their limbs, leaving the shepherding of the 99- but thereby becoming the shepherds of the New Covenant.</p><p>We all have the desire to keep our faith to ourselves, to hold onto it personally on our own little island... and it was this attitude which the Lord so repeatedly and trenchantly criticized. And in his demanding way, he implied that a failure in this would cost us the Kingdom. He more than any other must have known the desire for a desert island spiritual life; but instead he left the 99 righteous and went up into the mountains (i:e. he prayed intensely, after the pattern of Moses for Israel?), in order to find the lost sheep (<em><a href='B:470 18:12'>Mat 18:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>And go in search of the one that went astray?-&nbsp;</em>We are all such sheep who have gone astray (<em><a href='B:670 2:25'>1Pe 2:25</a></em> s:w:). We are to replicate what the Lord did for us, in seeking the lost. But it is only if we perceive the degree to which we really were "astray" that we will be motivated to use His methods to likewise save others. This is especially difficult to achieve for those raised in believing homes, who were schooled into Christ from an early age:&nbsp; The lost sheep who leaves the fold and goes off is based on <em><a href='B:230 119:176'>Psa 119:176</a></em>: "I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments". The lost sheep that is found therefore has the attitude of recognizing it is lost, that it is still the servant of the shepherd although isolated from him, and still has not forgotten the things of God's word. The picture in <em><a href='B:230 119:176'>Psa 119:176</a></em> is strange indeed: a lost sheep asking the shepherd to come and find him. It's as if the sheep talks to himself, feeling the shepherd can't and won't hear, feeling that he's just too far away. And this is&nbsp;<em>exactly, exactly&nbsp;</em>the position of all those who leave the faith and return: they don't forget the doctrines of the Truth, in their hearts they feel too far away, but they wish somehow something could happen to get them back. This explains the type of sheep one is dealing with in the parable, and why the parable isn't true of all who go astray.</p>


text:
<p>18:13&nbsp;<em>And if he finds it</em>-</p><p> Although in other parables the Lord is presented as searching&nbsp;<em>until&nbsp;</em>He finds the lost sheep, there is the possibility that He will not find it. Such is the huge power the Father has given human freewill.</p><p><em>Truly I say to you, he rejoices over it</em>-</p><p> The same word used for the man of <em><a href='B:490 15:5'>Luk 15:5</a></em> rejoicing in finding his lost sheep, and the Father’s rejoicing at the return of the prodigal (<em><a href='B:490 15:32'>Luk 15:32</a></em>). The time of rejoicing is at the day of judgment, when sower and reaper shall “rejoice together” when the fruit is gathered unto life eternal (<em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em> s:w:). The rejoicing is when the sheep is ‘found’, and whilst that can happen in a sense in this life, the ultimate ‘finding’ of the sheep is surely at the final change of nature when Christ returns. Our joy at the day of judgment will not simply be because of our own personal salvation, but because of how others are receiving that great salvation, in part thanks to the efforts we made for them in this life. Paul’s “crown of rejoicing” would be to see his converts accepted in that day (<em><a href='B:590 2:19'>1Th 2:19</a></em>).</p><p><em>More than over the ninety-nine that never went astray</em>-</p><p> We could read this as meaning ‘who did not&nbsp;<em>think</em>&nbsp;they went astray’, seeing that all the Lord’s sheep go astray. In this case, the reference might be to the majority of Israel; the Lord was saying that His disciples were to go searching for the little ones, the children, the women, lepers, whores and gamblers, and forgive or not worry about the masses of Israel who didn’t consider they needed repentance. Or this could simply be the element of unreality in the story- the 99 simply function as part of the furniture of the parable, to focus our attention upon the proactive effort we should be making to win back the lost. And this huge effort stands in contrast to the negative attitude of the disciples in not ‘receiving’ the little ones.</p>


text:
<p>18:14&nbsp;<em>So it is not the wish</em>-</p><p> It is not the Father’s&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;that little ones should “perish” (see too <em><a href='B:500 6:39'>Joh 6:39</a></em> s:w:), but :13 has made it clear that the finding of the lost is conditional: “<em>If so be</em>&nbsp;that he find it”. Such is the huge power delegated to us, the extent of human freewill- that it can even stop the will of God being fulfilled. Because we have a choice as to whether we do His will or not:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Of your Father who is in heaven-&nbsp;</em>RVmg:: “It is not a thing willed before your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish” seems to refer to the guardian Angels who represent the “little ones” before the court of Heaven. Every situation in which we reject the little ones is played out in the court of Heaven. This section began with the disciples thinking that their internal politics could somehow be hidden from the Lord (see on :1 and :2). They cannot be. The situations, discussions, rejections, formulations of policies, inward thoughts… are all played out before the throne of God in Heaven.</p><p><em>That one of these little ones</em>-</p><p> This serves to show that the lost sheep are the same as the little ones.</p><p><em>Should perish-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Son of God came to “save that which is&nbsp;<em>lost</em>” (:11- s:w. “perish”). His mission was indeed the doing of God’s will- that little ones should not “perish” or be “lost”. But it’s possible that they will be- because we can make them stumble, make them perish, even though it is the will of the Father and Son that they do not perish. The Lord gave His life so that they would not be lost / perish (<em><a href='B:500 3:15-16'>Joh 3:15-16</a></em> s:w:). But we can fight against the intention of the cross by making them stumble and thereby perish. The same word is used for how we can make a believer stumble and they thereby “perish”: “Don’t destroy [s:w. “perish”] with your [attitude to] food him for whom Christ died” (<em><a href='B:520 14:15'>Rom 14:15</a></em>). By doing so we are making the cross of Christ of no power for that person. Exactly the same is said in <em><a href='B:530 8:11'>1Co 8:11</a></em>, and I think <em><a href='B:700 1:8'>2Jn 1:8</a></em> has the same idea: “Look to yourselves, that we don’t make to perish [s:w:] those things we worked for”- and those things were surely the converts which John’s community had converted and built up.</p>


text:
<p>18:15&nbsp;<em>And-&nbsp;</em>AV "Moreover". Thus the previous theme is continued. Having spoken of such radical inclusiveness, the Lord foresees and tackles the obvious objection- that there may be cases where a believer has sinned against us, and that, surely, would be a reason for exclusion from the circle of disciples. But of course that would be illogical- if we are to be open to the little ones coming into the circle, then once they are within it, it would make no sense to then throw them out of it because they sinned against us. And the Lord now spells that out clearly.</p><p><em>If your brother sins against you-&nbsp;</em>Luke’s record adds: "<em>Take heed to yourselves</em>; if your brother trespass... forgive him" (<em><a href='B:490 17:3'>Luk 17:3</a></em>). This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>, where Paul says we should&nbsp;<em>take heed</em>&nbsp;of the likelihood of false teachers. Surely what he's saying is 'Yes, take heed to forgive your brother personal offences, take heed because you'll be tempted&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>to forgive him; but have the same level of watchfulness for false teaching'. On another level, “take heed” suggests that in the case of personal offence, the tendency may be not to actually talk to your brother about it, nor to consciously forgive him in your heart. And it is these undealt with issues which create so much damage, both to us and to others. The purpose of the process outlined here is&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;<em>just</em>&nbsp;for the sake of the brother who has erred, it isn't just a polite protocol to follow; it is for&nbsp;<em>our sake too</em>, who have seen the weakness of our brother:&nbsp;<em>Unless</em>&nbsp;we talk frankly to him about it, between us&nbsp;<em>alone</em>, then we will end up hating him in our heart (even though it may not feel like that) and we will gossip about him. The frank raising of the issue with our brother is associated with loving our neighbour as ourselves. This is actually the opposite to what we would think; we would imagine that it would be more 'loving' to say nothing to our brother. But in this case, we will inevitably gossip about him and be bitter against him. The practice of true love will result in an open community in which we can frankly discuss with each other the issues which concern us, with love and not hatred in our hearts. This is the teaching of <em><a href='B:30 19:16-18'>Lev 19:16-18</a></em>. No wonder the Proverbs expand upon it so much. And no wonder the Lord appropriated it as a ground rule for His ecclesia- there must be no gossip in the church:&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>.</p><p>“Trespass” is the same word translated “sin” in <em><a href='B:470 18:21'>Mat 18:21</a></em> where Peter alludes back to these words and asks how many times his brother can “sin” [s:w. “trespass”] against him and be forgiven. The Lord’s answer is basically ‘An unlimited number of times’, which indicates that Peter is to forgive without analysing the integrity of the supposed repentance. Luke’s record in <em><a href='B:490 17:3-4'>Luk 17:3-4</a></em> could suggest (if read in isolation from the context) that the sinning brother should only be forgiven if he repents. But the way the Lord clarifies this to Peter effectively offers a far higher level of response to the brother’s sin. If he is to be forgiven multiple times for the same sin, even the same day, and if the genuineness of his repentance is irrelevant- then in practice the Lord is teaching to forgive without requiring repentance. The lower level is to forgive only upon repentance; but the only problem with that is that as we behave in this matter, so we shall be dealt with by the Lord. In the Lord’s prayer we are taught to ask for forgiveness&nbsp;<em>as&nbsp;</em>we forgive others. It’s therefore important for us to be as generous as possible in forgiveness. As so often in spiritual life, taking the lower and easier path (in this case, forgiving only if we receive repentance first) creates a far harder situation for us- in this context, only being forgiven ourselves if we consciously repent of absolutely every sin. Not for us, therefore, could be David’s prayer to be forgiven for his “secret faults” (<em><a href='B:230 19:12'>Psa 19:12</a></em>), those that were secret or hidden from himself.</p><p>This whole section about ‘taking matters up’ with our brother and forgiving upon repentance (<em><a href='B:490 17:3-4'>Luk 17:3-4</a></em>) seems out of step with the spirit of the material which precedes it (about doing absolutely anything to receive our weak brother), and with that which follows it (the teaching about unconditional forgiveness regardless of repentance). I suggest it is purposefully out of step with it, and is in fact an allusion to and parody of synagogue disciplinary rules; it is certainly alluding to the procedure for disciple mentioned in the Qumran documents as being practiced in the Qumran community (1 QS [Rule of the Community] 5:24-26; CD [The Damascus Document] 7:2; 9:8). The synagogues had a disciplinary sanction of&nbsp;<em>Niddui</em>, casting out with no further association, and it would seem clear that the Lord is alluding to this when He speaks of making the disciplined brother as a Gentile and publican. There is evidence that later Christian excommunication was called “the judgment of the Jew”, so clear was the Judaistic basis for the later Christian practice of excommunication (Lawrence Frizzell, ‘Excommunication’, in E. Kessler and N. Wenborn,&nbsp;<em>A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C:U:P:, 2005) p. 152; see too G. Forkman,&nbsp;<em>The Limits of the Religious Community. Expulsion from the Religious Community within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism and within Primitive Christianity</em>&nbsp;(Lund: Gleerup, 1972)). This kind of parody of the language and practices of Judaism is common on the Lord’s lips, and I have mentioned such cases throughout this exposition. This would explain the way that He goes on to assume there is some kind of established meeting with a congregation, witnesses etc. Admittedly He uses the word&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>, often translated “church”, instead of synagogue, but the synagogue was the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;for the very first disciples (we note how the early ecclesia is called a “synagogue” in <em><a href='B:660 2:2'>Jas 2:2</a></em>, and early Christian writers like Ignatius and Hermas likewise call the church a “synagogue”). When recounting Old Testament history and quoting from the Old Testament, Josephus at least nine times replaces the LXX&nbsp;<em>sunagoge</em>&nbsp;with&nbsp;<em>ekklesia&nbsp;</em>(F:J:A:Hort,&nbsp;<em>The Christian Ecclesia</em>&nbsp;(London: Macmillan, 1898) p. 7):&nbsp;<em>Ekklesia&nbsp;</em>as a word doesn’t have any religious connotation. And strictly speaking, the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia&nbsp;</em>was not so much the body of believers or synagogue as the called-together assembly of the members at a specific time and place, which in the synagogue context ratified disciplinary decisions. The word developed into meaning ‘the church’ generally in the later New Testament, but initially it meant a specific local gathering of called individuals at one place and time, and had no universal sense to it. There was no established Christian congregation at the time the Lord was speaking, and yet He speaks as if such a system was well known by the disciples. Hort comments on the use of&nbsp;<em>ekklesia&nbsp;</em>in <em><a href='B:470 18:17'>Mat 18:17</a></em>: “The actual precept is hardly intelligible if the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;meant is not the Jewish community, apparently the Jewish local community, to which the injured person and the offender both belonged” (Hort,&nbsp;<em>ibid.</em>, p. 10). To therefore follow this section to the letter in&nbsp;<em>church</em>&nbsp;life today may be totally missing the point, and acting as the synagogue did- rather than as did the ever forgiving Lord of unconditional ‘receiving’ of little ones, sinners, the lost etc. This is only a suggestion- my notes on the passage don’t always assume that this is the only interpretation.</p><p><em>Go show him his fault</em>-</p><p> The Greek word carries the sense of convicting a person, persuading them; it carries with it the hope of success. It’s not a case of merely telling a person that we have noticed their faults, it is an attempt to convict a person of them with a view to their positively changing. The Lord uses the word later when He comments that He does this in love and hope of reformation: “As many as I love I rebuke [s:w. ‘tell a fault’ here] and chasten; be zealous therefore, and repent” (<em><a href='B:730 3:19'>Rev 3:19</a></em>).</p><p><em>Between you and him alone</em>-</p><p> This is so difficult! We would far rather notice the fault and tell others about it. This teaching is likely one of the most disobeyed principles of the Lord. The sense of being alone together is supported by the command to “<em>go&nbsp;</em>and tell him his fault… alone”. The command to “go” and tell him he fault would seem a mere literary flourish until we perceive that&nbsp;<em>hupago</em>&nbsp;means not simply ‘to go’, but to go away, to depart. We are to depart from the time and place of realization of the offence against us, and then&nbsp;<em>alone</em>&nbsp;with the brother, attempt to convict him of a better way.</p><p><em>If he hears you, you have gained your brother-&nbsp;</em>The question arises as to whether the gaining / regaining of the brother is to us personally, or to God. It&nbsp;<em>could&nbsp;</em>mean that personal regaining of relationship is in view. But the word translated ‘gain’ is elsewhere used about gaining or regaining a person&nbsp;<em>to God</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:530 9:19-22'>1Co 9:19-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:1'>1Pe 3:1</a></em>), and the word is repeatedly used in the parable of the talents, whereby the servants ‘gain’ more talents&nbsp;<em>for their Master</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 25:17'>Mat 25:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:20'>Mat 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:22'>Mat 25:22</a></em>). In practice, this surely refers to gaining&nbsp;<em>people</em>&nbsp;for Him. The two are of course related, because to gain a brother for the Lord is to gain a brother for ourselves.</p><p>Here the Lord says of a sinful brother: “If your brother sins… go and point out the fault… if he listens to you, you have [re]gained your brother”. But in <em><a href='B:490 17:3'>Luk 17:3</a></em>, He says: “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him”. This would parallel the brother’s ‘repentance’ with him ‘listening’ to you. Seeing repentance is a state of the heart, and we simply can’t know the hearts of others, it seems to me practically impossible to judge the level of another’s repentance. The Greek and Hebrew words translated ‘repentance’ strictly mean a change of mind, and not necessarily any works / actions. God in this sense can ‘repent’. It seems to me that we have to recognize a changed state of heart in our repentant brother, without demanding ‘works’.</p>


text:
<p>18:16<em>&nbsp;But if he does not hear you, take with you one or two others, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established-&nbsp;</em>The principles of <em><a href='B:470 18:16-17'>Mat 18:16-17</a></em> concerning dealing with personal offences are applied by Paul to dealing with moral and doctrinal problems at Corinth (= <em><a href='B:540 13:1'>2Co 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:4-5'>1Co 5:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:9'>1Co 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:1-6'>1Co 6:1-6</a></em>). The context is indeed of personal offences, but as with all Scripture, we are not using it out of context if we extract the principles and apply them in different contexts.</p><p>The “two or three witnesses” were required in order to execute someone under the Mosaic law (<em><a href='B:50 17:6'>Deu 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:15'>Deu 19:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:28'>Heb 10:28</a></em>); having ‘witnesses’ was very important to the Jews in the way they operated their judicial thinking (<em><a href='B:470 26:65'>Mat 26:65</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 6:13'>Act 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:58'>Act 7:58</a></em>). Surely the Lord didn’t intend His new Israel to as it were re-enact the death penalty by excluding someone from the community if they personally offended you, didn’t repent and therefore were unforgiven by you? That would be absolutely in conflict with His teaching which surrounds this section. This kind of legalistic, judgmental approach, and the need to establish “every word”, seems so out of step with the radical grace, acceptance, patience, forgiveness without repentance and non-judgmental of the preceding and subsequent teachings of Jesus. The sharp difference in tone confirms me in thinking that the Lord here is not merely speaking tongue in cheek, but is parodying synagogue disciplinary procedures, as suggested on 18:15.</p>


text:
<p>18:17&nbsp;<em>And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church</em>-</p><p> I have suggested in commentary on :15 and :16 that the allusion is to the synagogue methods of discipline, rather than to the church of Christ which had not then been established. There is no hint that this procedure was intended for application in the future, after the church was established. Greek tenses are specific, and this could have easily been conveyed. But it isn’t; indeed, the whole procedure is spoken of as if it were already in existence and was what those offended by their brother could do right away.</p><p><em>And if he refuses to hear the church also, let him be to you-</em></p><p>&nbsp;It seems that we have here a case of the Lord offering a concession to human weakness, to live His Truth on different levels. For the parable of the lost sheep shows Christ never giving up; but then there is the teaching of :15-18 concerning us trying to gain the brother that has offended us (<em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:240 18:19'>Pro 18:19</a></em>), resulting in finally throwing him out of the church if we fail to reach an understanding with him. The teaching here seems to be that it is legitimate in such a case of personal offence to give up with the brother and separate from him. But the preceding parable shows Christ saying that He never gives up. And then in :22 Christ tells Peter (“I say unto&nbsp;<em>thee</em>", singular) never to stop forgiving his brother in a case of personal offence, up to 70 times seven. My summary of all this is that the ideal standard is never to give up in trying to regain our brother; but it is possible to live on the level of 'taking up' every issue with him, and eventually parting from him. 'But', the Lord continued, 'For you Peter, I expect a higher level; constant forgiveness of your brother, all day long!':&nbsp;</p><p>If your brother sins against you, you can go to him, then get the church involved, and then, the Lord says to the person sinned against, let him be unto “thee” as a Gentile / publican. About the only advantage from the KJV is the way 'thee' signifies a 'you singular' as opposed to 'ye / you' which in KJV English meant 'you plural'. Modern English no longer makes a distinction. So, let such a person be unto&nbsp;<em>thee</em>-</p><p> you singular, not your ecclesia- as a Gentile and Publican. And what was Jesus' attitude to them? To mix with them, eat with them in table fellowship, and try to win them. Clearly this is talking about personal relationships, not ecclesial disfellowship.</p><p><em>As the Gentile and the tax collectors-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord’s attitude to Gentiles was so different to that of religious Jews. He ate with them, thereby sharing religious fellowship; spoke positively of them, healed them and looked forward to the way that His death would end the spiritual status difference between Jew and Gentile; and therefore the Lord acted as if it were effectively ended anyway. The intention of ‘being as a Gentile’ was surely that it meant ‘Have nothing to do with him’. But the Lord&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;have much to do with Gentiles, and by implication He did not think that the Jewish religious attitude to them was correct. Surely He is alluding here to Jewish ‘disfellowship’ practices, speaking tongue in cheek. For are we to really imagine Him now teaching that we are to only forgive our brother if he repents, and if we feel he has done wrong to us, drag him through a whole procedure of meetings and then declare him ‘a Gentile’, one not to be associated with? Surely not.</p><p>Matthew, the human author of this Gospel, had been a "tax collector" (<em><a href='B:470 10:3'>Mat 10:3</a></em>). The Lord did not ignore publicans as the religious Jews did; He had shocked the Jews by eating / fellowshipping with publicans (<em><a href='B:470 9:10-11'>Mat 9:10-11</a></em>). So the command to treat someone whom you won’t forgive because they haven’t repented (<em><a href='B:490 17:3-4'>Luk 17:3-4</a></em>) as if they are a publican makes little sense if this is what Jesus is personally commanding us. Because He had taught by example that we should share religious fellowship with publicans, and He looked forward to sharing eternity with them (<em><a href='B:470 21:31-32'>Mat 21:31-32</a></em>)! It seems therefore almost certain that He is simply re-stating the well known procedures for disfellowshipping someone from the synagogue. The Lord is surely teaching that unless we practice radical acceptance and forgiveness of others, then we will end up disfellowshipping the little ones rather than receiving them. It would be fair enough to conclude the translation of each verse in <em><a href='B:470 18:15-17'>Mat 18:15-17</a></em> with a question mark- as if to say, ‘Is this&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;how you want to carry on, endlessly taking up issues with your brethren, initiating procedures against them and then refusing to receive them at your meetings?’. The sense here in :17 would then be ‘If he won’t hear your witnesses- what, tell it to the church? And if he doesn’t hear the church- make him to you as a Gentile and publican?’.</p><p>How we treat each other should be a reflection of how God treats us. We can make concessions for each other’s weaknesses, accepting that some will live on higher levels than others; or we can demand a rigid standard of spirituality from them. I would venture to say that neither of these attitudes are&nbsp;<em>morally</em>&nbsp;wrong in themselves; it's just that as we judge, so we will be judged. For some time I have struggled with Matthew 18. It's a chapter all about forgiveness, of forgiving until 70 times 7, of never giving up our search for the lost sheep;&nbsp;<em>of being soft as shy children in dealing with each other&nbsp;</em>(a matchless, powerful analogy if ever there was one). But wedged in the middle of the chapter is this passage which says that if your brother personally offends you, go to him and ensure that he sorts it out; and if he doesn't, take someone else with you, then tell the other believers about him, and throw him out of the church. This always seemed to me rather out of context in that chapter. But there must be a point behind the paradox presented here. Perhaps it's something along these lines: 'If your brother offends you, you are quite justified in 'taking it up' with him, demanding he acknowledge his wrong, and eventually expelling him from the church. But- why not just forgive him, without demanding an apology from him?'.</p>


text:
<p>18:18&nbsp;<em>Truly I say to you: Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever things you shall release on earth shall be released in heaven-&nbsp;</em>‘Binding’ is associated with the binding of the rejected in condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>). The idea of binding and loosing occurs here in the context of warning us not to be too hasty to cast a brother out of the ecclesia. The earlier context of this section is of not causing others to stumble. It doesn’t mean that any ecclesial decision has God’s automatic sanction. But because salvation is related to remaining in the Christ body, the Lord may be saying: ‘By unnecessarily expelling someone from association with My people, not ‘receiving’ them, you are endangering their salvation. I won’t necessarily come to their rescue; I have delegated the keeping of that brother to you. You are your brother’s keeper. If you throw them out, they will probably lose their salvation. What you do on earth in these decisions is not necessarily overridden by Heaven. The eternal saving of a man is delegated to his brethren, and therefore you also have the possibility of causing him to stumble from salvation’. The implication of this is surely that we should only cast out of the ecclesia those who openly and beyond doubt have placed themselves outside of God’s salvation- and we cannot judge whether they have or not. And the Lord surely meant us to compare this against His command not to judge. He is surely saying in this passage: ‘You can argue it out with your brother, and eventually get the ecclesia to disfellowship him. But by this you’ll be saying that he is out of the way of salvation, and what you do may well drive him to condemnation; for it’s a hard and unlikely way to the Kingdom without your brethren. And you know that you mustn’t condemn him. So better just forgive him, 490 times / day, unconditionally’. Paul takes this idea seriously when he says that if he forgives anybody, he does it “in the person of Christ”, and so, by extension, the church at Corinth did too, seeing they were partakers in that same one body of His (<em><a href='B:540 2:10'>2Co 2:10</a></em>).</p><p>Another approach is suggested by the consideration that the Greek words for binding and loosing, along with their derivative words, are often used in the NT for binding in prison, and loosing from prison’s bonds. In this case, as in <em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>, the Lord may simply have the idea that through the power of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>) and through forgiving and receiving sinners (here in chapter 18), we have the power to loose people. The “keys of the Kingdom” are in our hands. And if we don’t do that, then we effectively bind them. And God [“Heaven”] will not as it were come rushing in to change things. He has given us genuine freewill, which means that our decisions with regard to others have significances which He doesn’t necessarily mitigate. For otherwise, human behaviour would lose meaning and ultimate significance.</p><p>We should note that here the language of “the keys of the Kingdom” used in <em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em> to Peter specifically is now repeated to all the disciples. It is not so that Peter was given some unique power which the others were not.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:19'>Mat 18:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Again I say to you, that if two of you</em>-</p><p> Surely to be connected with the “two or three witnesses” of :16, and the “two or three” of :20- see note there. The idea may be that in your decisions about how far to go in ‘receiving’ a little one, you will be confirmed in that decision by Heaven. Or the sense may be that seeing the little ones should be ‘received’ without limit, if the group of you making the decision pray for strength to do that, then it will be granted.</p><p><em>Shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask</em>-</p><p> The Bible nowhere offers such a blank cheque assurance that literally whatever we ask for we shall receive. Always there is a specific context to such assurances that prayer will definitely be answered and requests given. That specific context here is concerning not offending others, efforts in winning them back and receiving them. We note that this is foreseen as a collective activity, involving more than you- because decisions regarding fellowship involve at least two or three.</p><p><em>It shall be done for them by-&nbsp;</em>An allusion to the saying of ‘Amen’, so be it, may it be done. Your ‘Amen’ will in this case surely come true. Some of the assurances that prayer will surely be answered are in the context of praying for others. "If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them" is in the context of concerned brethren trying to win back a weak brother. Likewise "If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us... if any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death" (<em><a href='B:690 5:14-16'>1Jn 5:14-16</a></em>). Again in a forgiveness context, Solomon asked that God would hear Israel "in all that they call unto thee for" (<em><a href='B:110 8:52'>1Ki 8:52</a></em>).</p><p><em>My Father who is in Heaven-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The whole section emphasizes how God in Heaven is intensely involved with what we are doing on earth with regard to these decisions about excluding or including others (see :10,14,18,20).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>For where two or three-&nbsp;</em>This obviously connects with the two or three witnesses just mentioned in :16. There the Lord had said that if you won’t unconditionally forgive your brother, then before two or three witnesses you can disfellowship him. I suggested that this was said tongue in cheek, for the Lord’s intention in the surrounding context is that we should unconditionally forgive. But if we choose not to, then we can take this lower level of responding to sin against us. But He warns that we take this decision with Him in the midst of us, very much present. He has made this point in other language when reminding us that the representative Angels of the sinner are in God’s presence in the court of Heaven, and what we do, how we decide, is being played out in the very presence of God. This saying about His presence in the mist of the “two or three” is saying the same thing. This evidently alludes to a Rabbinic saying preserved in the Mishnah (<em>Aboth&nbsp;</em>3:2) that “If two sit together and study Torah [the first five books of Moses], the Divine presence [<em>shekinah</em>] rests between them”. The Lord was likening Himself (His ‘Name’) to the Torah, the Old Testament word of God; and His presence would be felt if that Law was studied as it ought to be. Surely the hint is that if we agree together to show grace and acceptance to a little one, then this is the outcome of the true study of Torah. But whatever decision we come to regarding issues of forgiveness, acceptance and exclusion of others, we must accept the Lord’s laboured and sober warnings that we are taking them in the very presence of the Father and Son. And we must recall how this whole section begins in <em><a href='B:470 18:1-2'>Mat 18:1-2</a></em> with the disciples thinking that their strivings against each other were somehow hid from their Lord- when He knew exactly what the thoughts of their hearts were about these things.</p><p>The personal presence of Jesus amongst us when gathered may suggest that He is especially manifested / revealed in the gathered together groups of believers, in a special and far different way to which an isolated believer reading a Bible may know the presence of Jesus. All this must especially be true of the breaking of bread- the only other time in the New Testament we meet the three Greek words translated “I am in the midst” is in <em><a href='B:490 22:27'>Luk 22:27</a></em>, where the Lord comments how He is in the midst of the disciples at the first breaking of bread. Of course, mere church attendance doesn’t mean we perceive Christ there, in the midst of us; we perceive Him there insofar as we perceive the spirit of Christ in our brethren. The context is of two or three being gathered together in united prayer and receiving the answer. Receiving the gift of answered prayer is paralleled with the personal presence of Jesus in their midst. Answered prayer is part of His presence with us. “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" surely promises a special closeness of Christ when we are physically gathered together. All those who have made real effort to gather together for the memorial meeting will know the truth of this. Our community increasingly features many in semi-isolation; this promise of special spiritual blessing in meeting together is something which they can and surely&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;know the truth of. The close fellowship which was engendered by the Passover feast, as Israel huddled together in family units around the slain lamb, the focus of their love and gratitude to God, explains why Israel were repeatedly warned not to share that meal with those not in covenant with God. However this cannot mean that the presence of Christ is&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;available if two or three physically gather together, and that He does not tabernacle in the individual. We could also read the clause as meaning that if two or three gather in His Name, this is because of Him being in their midst; i:e. unity, gathering together, is only possible around the person and presence of Christ.</p><p><em>Are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them</em>-</p><p> Literally, ‘synagogued’. I have suggested above that the Lord is parodying the process of synagogue discipline, and teaching that His followers should not follow that but rather unconditionally accept the little ones. By doing so, they would no longer in practice be able to be part of the synagogue structure, which was based around excluding rather than including. I would read the Lord here as yet once again teaching that He is establishing a new Israel; the new synagogues would be comprised of twos and threes of secular but sincere believers earnestly praying together that the lost might be found, for forgiveness for those who have sinned against them without repentance.</p>


text:
<p>18:21&nbsp;<em>Then Peter came and said to him: Lord-&nbsp;</em>Peter asked: “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?”. Jesus responds with a parable in which a man who calls his king “Lord” is himself forgiven, but refuses to forgive another man. Surely that parable was specifically for Peter, the one who delighted to know Jesus as Lord. He was warned through the parable that calling Him ‘Lord’ wasn’t enough. An appreciation of Him as Lord of his life would mean quite naturally that he had a spirit of frank forgiveness for his brother, not carefully measuring it out, but rather reflecting his Lord’s forgiveness of him. If Jesus is really Lord, then everything which He does and all that He shows becomes an imperative for us to follow.</p><p><em>How often-&nbsp;</em>Jesus replies, 70 x 7. i:e. to an unlimited extent, even when the repentance is obviously insincere. It's as if He's saying that yes you can go through the procedure of sorting it out with your brother and rejecting him from your personal company. But, the higher level, is to simply forgive him. It's like adultery under the Law. There were several options for the husband. Do a trial of jealousy and make her infertile. Stone her. Divorce her. Or, just forgive her. We surely all ought to be aiming for the higher level. Those who quote Matthew 18 as a reason for withdrawal are in my view living on a lower spiritual level than those who forgive 70 x 7. But the gracious Lord doubtless shall accept them too in the last day.</p><p><em>Shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?</em>-</p><p> The Lord's comment that "If your brother shall trespass against you" (:15- see notes there) is picked up here by Peter. The Lord's reply was that Peter should forgive his brother to an unlimited extent, each and every day. It seems to me that the Lord was saying that the 'one-two-out' attitude which He had just described was very much the lower level of response, the way of the Jewish synagogues; He wished His followers to take the higher level, of unconditional forgiveness. Indeed, the whole passage where He speaks about going to see your brother and then telling the church is wedged in between His teachings about grace and forgiveness. It's so out of place that one wonders whether He wasn't saying it very tongue in cheek, in allusion to the synagogue discipline methods. At the very least, He seems to intend the contrast between His surrounding words and those about 'one-two-out' to sink in, to the point that we realize, as He told Peter, that there is indeed a higher way:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Until seven times</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 17:4'>Luk 17:4</a></em> adds “in a day”. Perhaps Peter had in mind how Jacob bowed seven times to Esau and was forgiven (<em><a href='B:10 33:3'>Gen 33:3</a></em>), or perhaps he had wondered whether the sprinkling of blood seven times in the Mosaic rituals spoke of forgiveness of a maximum of seven sins in one day, as some Rabbis taught (<em><a href='B:30 4:6'>Lev 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:17'>Lev 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:11'>Lev 8:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:7'>Lev 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:51'>Lev 14:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:14'>Lev 16:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:19'>Lev 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:4'>Num 19:4</a></em>). Or perhaps <em><a href='B:240 24:16'>Pro 24:16</a></em> was another source for his thinking- “a just man falls seven times and rises up again”. The Lord’s answer was that we need to forgive far more than seven times because we too sin far more than seven times / day- which is the function of the hopelessly indebted servant in the following parable. Peter’s phrase “<em>until&nbsp;</em>seven times” is strangely lifted right out of <em><a href='B:340 4:23'>Dan 4:23</a></em>, where Nebuchadnezzar was to be punished “until seven times” passed over him. Peter often alludes to Old Testament scripture in his recorded speech; he was very Bible-minded. He may have been suggesting ‘Even if someone’s as bad as Gentile Nebuchadnezzar, we should still forgive them, I suppose, but that surely is the limit’. But the Lord’s subsequent comment about 70 sevens is from the prophecy of Daniel 9 regarding the far longer “times” which were to pass over Israel for their sin. So His comeback on Peter’s clever allusion was: ‘No, Peter. Don’t forgive people “till seven times”, as much as God did Gentile king Nebuchadnezzar- but as much as God forgave&nbsp;<em>Israel</em>, which was an infinite amount, 70 times, more than that!’. Such level of dialogue with Peter would’ve been perfectly possible and normal, for he really knew and loved the Old Testament and was quite the amateur Bible student- see ‘Peter: Bible Student’ in my&nbsp;<em>Peter and Paul</em>&nbsp;(Sydney: Aletheia, 2008). See on <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Forgave him the debt</em>.</p>


text:
<p>18:22- see on :15.</p><p><em>Jesus said to him: I do not say to you until seven times, but until seventy times seven-&nbsp;</em>The Lord's command to forgive 490 times per day (<em><a href='B:490 17:4-5'>Luk 17:4-5</a></em>)&nbsp;is surely teaching that we have no ability to judge the sincerity of repentance; all we can do is forgive. Seven being the number of completeness, we are surely to understand this saying as not so much 490 times, but an infinite number of times.</p>


text:
<p>18:23&nbsp;<em>Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened</em>-</p><p> This "therefore" is crucial. Because we must forgive 490 times / day regardless, therefore, of the sincerity of repentance,&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;the Kingdom of God [i:e. the behaviour of those who claim to be under the domain of God’s Kingship] is like the forgiveness of the King of that Kingdom. How was it that he had a servant who was so hopelessly in debt? 10,000 talents can be seen not as a literal number but as meaning ‘a huge, infinite amount’. How did the position arise? Because the King had repeatedly forgiven him debts without demanding repayment, and had given in to requests for yet more debt. This is the connection between the parable and the fact we have to forgive 490 times / day. It’s because we too repeatedly sin each and every day. How many times do you catch yourself each day muttering or thinking a brief prayer for forgiveness of some failure? If it’s not 490 times, then that’s because you’re not sensitive enough to human failure and Divine standards. And how really sincere is our repentance each time? Do we not find ourselves asking for the same basic sins to be forgiven, hour by hour, day by day? If we have been forgiven so much, then we simply&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;accept the little ones and forgive them, regardless of their repentance.</p><p><em>To a certain King</em>-</p><p> Gk. ‘an&nbsp;<em>anthropos</em>&nbsp;King’, a human king. This strange phrase emphasizes how the King in view here, the Lord Jesus, was and is only exalted to Kingship because of His humanity. He is judge&nbsp;<em>because He is</em>&nbsp;the “son of man”. In the issues and feelings regarding forgiveness and acceptance, the Lord Jesus fully understands our humanity.</p><p><em>Who would make a reckoning with his servants</em>-</p><p> The word is only used again in <em><a href='B:470 25:19'>Mat 25:19</a></em> about the last judgment. And yet the parable seems to speak as if the last judgment is only at the end of the story, after the forgiven servant has had time to grab his fellow servant, demand the debt, get him into prison, and the other servants have gone to inform their Lord, who then punishes him with “torment”. There is an intended confusion here- because the essence of judgment day is going on now, and we ‘make the answer now’ every time we are confronted by a little one needing acceptance into our closed circle, every time we are sinned against, every time a sheep goes astray. This is seamlessly in the spirit of the earlier part of this block of teaching, where the Lord has spoken of those who offend the little one by not accepting and not forgiving as being sure of future damnation, and has urged us to cut off any parts of our lives which have stumbled others and cast them from us, as a symbol of self-condemnation now, so that we are not condemned in the final judgment.</p><p>The Lord spoke of how when we sin, He 'takes account' of us and forgives us- and we are to respond by being frankly forgiving to those in our debt (<em><a href='B:470 18:23-24'>Mat 18:23-24</a></em>). But the Lord uses the very same words and imagery in speaking of how at His return, He will "take account" of His servants and utter an unchangeable verdict upon them (<em><a href='B:470 25:19'>Mat 25:19</a></em>). The connection of thought is surely to indicate that in our repeated experience of sin, coming before the throne of grace, receiving the judgment of condemnation, seeing it changed and responding by showing grace, we are living out the essence of the meeting with God which is yet to come. This is how God uses our experience of sin, repentance and forgiveness. The whole process is in order to give us an insight into the future judgment. The reality is that in those experiences of today, we can change the verdict. But in the last day it will be too late.</p><p><em>"</em>Reckoning<em>"&nbsp;</em>is a&nbsp;<em>logos</em>. He asks us even in this life [see on&nbsp;<em>Take account</em>] to share our inner motives and core feelings / ideas with Him, the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of our lives. Especially in this area of rejection of others and unforgiveness of them. The king (Jesus) makes a reckoning with His servants right now, and it is for us to be influenced by the gracious accounting He shows towards us, and then in this life reflect an appropriate grace to our brother (<em><a href='B:470 18:23'>Mat 18:23</a></em> RV). The reckoning is going on right now, indeed in a sense it occurred on the cross.</p>


text:
<p>18:24&nbsp;<em>And when he had begun to reckon</em>-</p><p> See on :23&nbsp;<em>take account</em>. These words were spoken to Peter, and he seems to have later grasped their meaning when he wrote of how judgment is now beginning at the household of God, the church, “us” (<em><a href='B:670 4:17'>1Pe 4:17</a></em> - the same Greek word for ‘beginning’ is used). Every time we engage with those who sin against us, each moment we remember them and the associated situations, we stand at the day of judgment making our own answer according to how we think and feel towards them. It is a very personal question. We simply cannot exclude them just because the circle of disciples around us [with which this section began] are hard set against those persons. We are to be as the Lord, and break the circle, putting the child in the midst. In a sense the judgment process has already begun; <em><a href='B:470 18:24'>Mat 18:24</a></em> says that the Lord has "begun to reckon" now, and so now&nbsp;we must urgently forgive one another. He is watching our attitude to each other here and now. <em><a href='B:470 18:33'>Mat 18:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:35'>Mat 18:35</a></em> teach that the attitude we have towards our brother deep in our heart will be revealed and discussed with us at the judgment.</p><p><em>One was brought to Him</em>-</p><p> The same word used about the little ones being brought unto Jesus and being rejected by the disciples (19:13). The word is so often used of how people were brought unto Jesus.</p><p><em>Who owed him</em>-</p><p> The Greek is also translated ‘a sinner’, so clear is the connection between debt and sin. The Lord is clearly alluding to His own model prayer, where He taught that we are to ask for forgiveness “as we forgive our debtors” (s:w. ‘one which owed’, <em><a href='B:470 6:12'>Mat 6:12</a></em>). It seems that although the disciples presumably obediently prayed that prayer, the reality of the implications wasn’t felt by them.</p><p><em>Ten thousand talents</em>&nbsp;- One hundred million denarii (<em><a href='B:470 18:23'>Mat 18:23</a></em>). This was a monstrous, unimaginable sum- in 4BC, the whole of Galilee and Peraea paid only 200 talents per year in taxes, one fiftieth of the amount. The annual income of Herod the Great is estimated at only 900 talents (New Jerome Bible Commentary). The Lord was using shock tactics to show how great is man's debt to God... and to throw into strong relief the sharp contrast with the way the fellow servant has such a trivial debt. The story is plain. The sins we perceive others have committed against us should be as nothing compared to the huge debt we feel personally before God. This explains why the acceptable man in another parable prays with his hands on his breast- when every Palestinian Jew would have expected a story about a man praying to feature him with uplifted hands, as was the custom. The unusual element to the story brought out the extent of the man's contrition. Indeed, the total acquittal of the indebted man, with no further penalty at all, would have caught the early hearers by surprise. The man, they imagined, would have walked off surprised by joy, ecstatic, thankful, relieved. And yet he goes and does something totally unexpected and illogical- he grabs another man and demands he pay up his debts. The unexpected twist of the story of course brings out the madness of any unforgiveness on our part, and the awful nature of human ingratitude for forgiveness- just as in the two carpenters parable.</p><p>The hopelessly indebted slave had the whole debt reckoned up with him and&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;the Lord wrote it off (<em><a href='B:470 18:24-25'>Mat 18:24-25</a></em>). This was surely for the benefit of the servant. The servant hopelessly, desperately in debt to his Lord is a picture of the believer's debt to God (<em><a href='B:470 18:25'>Mat 18:25</a></em>). The Lord didn't say 'Well, don't worry about it, I've got plenty, just forget it'. He reckoned up the exact debt, calculated it with the servant progressively panic stricken as the full figure registered: and "his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made":&nbsp; Only&nbsp;<em>then</em>-</p><p> and this is a crucial feature of the story- "the servant therefore fell down, and besought him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all". This was of course a nonsense; he had no way of paying it. But in his desperation, at the very and utter limits of human feeling, he fain would pay it all. And only then, "the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him". This is not to say that the Lord is a hard man. But His frank forgiveness is not lightly given. Remember that God is elsewhere described as the magistrate who is to be feared, "lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite" (<em><a href='B:490 12:58'>Luk 12:58</a></em>). And yet again, the Lord is not a hard man. In the context of our spiritual bankruptcy, "He constantly lendeth to thee" (<em><a href='B:220 11:6'>Job 11:6</a></em> Heb:); and yet He demands our deep recognition that He deserves and in a sense should be given it all back. This will be our attitude, if we appreciate that indeed sin is serious.</p><p>There are degrees of sin- in God’s sight. But this parable teaches that for us, our perception is to be that the colossal extent of our sin is such that we should be eager to forgive anyone anything, because whatever they have done is so small compared to&nbsp;<em>what we perceive</em>&nbsp;that&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;have done. The difficulty is that it may actually be that in God’s judgment, some have sinned less than us- and we get a strong hint at the nature of that judgment in the Bible. But&nbsp;<em>from our perspective</em>&nbsp;we are to feel that our sin is so much hugely greater than anything anyone else has done. Paul was a great example of this, progressing over time as he wrote his letters from considering himself “least of the apostles” to being “less than the least of all saints” to finally being “chief of sinners”.</p>


text:
<p>18:25&nbsp;<em>And since he could not pay</em>-</p><p> Neither of the indebted servants in the parable could pay. It’s an urban myth to think or assume that in cases of sin against us, the sinner can put it right. He cannot. The only way forward is unconditional forgiveness on our part, which must be granted knowing that the person cannot put anything right. This is a window onto the issue of whether or not we should forgive only if the person repents. The parable is at pains to demonstrate that personal debt cannot be repayed- all that can be done is to write it off. Even if letters of regret are written in total sincerity and with absolute meaning behind every word, they can never repay the debt. All we can do is to forgive, and therefore the person’s repentance to us is in that sense irrelevant:&nbsp;</p><p>It could be argued that the man truly wanted to pay the debt, but was unable. This should be our feelings about our sins. The man was forgiven his debt due to his&nbsp;<em>desire</em>&nbsp;to repay it, even though in fact he couldn't repay it. Sin can, in a sense, never be put right, it can only be covered over. And the man was expected to reflect his experience of forgiveness in how he dealt with his brother:&nbsp; Our fellowship of failure should be bound close together by our common experience of God's forgiveness. What we owe to God can never be repaid. Realizing this affects how we define what is repentance. Just one sin brings eternal death; after sinning, we cannot go back and re-live those minutes, hours, days or years when it was committed. All we can do is trust in God's grace and believe that God will negate the just results of that sin. Because we are forgiven debts which we can never repay, we are asked to liberally forgive our brethren for their far smaller debts. It appeared that the man who owed a small amount was better able to repay it than he who owed much. But the&nbsp;<em>ability</em>&nbsp;of our brethren to repay the debt of their sin is not something we should consider. Surely this is what the parable teaches. The&nbsp;<em>ability</em>&nbsp;of people to repent is something we should not&nbsp;<em>consider</em>. God does not consider&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;ability to repay Him- for we are utterly unable to do so.</p><p>A case can be made that the man did in fact have some of the money, because he had stolen it [rather than borrowed it] from the King, and had at least some of it stashed away- see on <em><a href='B:470 18:34'>Mat 18:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The tormentors.</em></p><p><em>His master ordered that he be sold</em>-</p><p> This King is clearly angry and hurt at the extent of the debt; but he also has a heart of compassion (:27). According to the story line, he really intended the servant to be sold to another master. He didn’t want anything to do with this man any more. But then he changed. Without this detail about the King’s anger, we would be left with the impression that he is a soft hearted type who didn’t take the personal loss, betrayal and pain with any real personal suffering. But the Heavenly King, God Himself, does indeed have these feelings, and it is this reality which gives backdrop and meaning to His frequent movement with compassion in subsequently forgiving us. His forgiveness of sin, just like ours, doesn’t mean that He is indifferent to sin. This is therefore a recognition by the Lord that forgiveness isn’t instant nor automatic, but that like God, we will legitimately feel hurt and anger before moving on to forgiveness.</p><p><em>With his wife and children-&nbsp;</em>The Lord spoke this in the first instance to Peter personally, in answer to his question. Peter had a wife (<em><a href='B:530 9:5'>1Co 9:5</a></em>) and at least one child (<em><a href='B:670 5:13'>1Pe 5:13</a></em>). Likewise the way the servant “fell down” before the King (:26) is just as Peter had recently done before Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 17:6'>Mat 17:6</a></em> s:w:).</p><p><em>And all that he had</em>-</p><p> But he “had” [s:w:] nothing to pay with, “he had not to pay” [AV]. What he did have was not even the right currency with which to repay what he owed. Even if he and his family were sold to be someone else’s slaves, the amount received would be tiny compared to the huge debt. We are maybe intended to imagine that it was reflection on this fact which led the King to simply show compassion. We cannot repay our debt to God, even if we give our bodies and very being to Him. All we can do is hope for His grace, and so it is with our forgiveness of others.</p><p><em>And payment to be made-&nbsp;</em>The idea is of repayment, putting things right. The powerful point of this parable is that when someone sins against us, they&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;put it right, they cannot repay. We must forgive without that- which meshes well with the impression we get from this entire section that we are to accept, receive and forgive the little ones in an absolutely open manner without demanding repentance or them restoring a situation. So much forgiveness and reconciliation fails to happen in practice because of this assumption that the one who has done wrong must somehow put it right. Even if e.g. a stolen item is restored, the damage done in other ways by the theft cannot be put right. Except by our forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>18:26&nbsp;<em>The servant therefore fell on his knees, saying</em>-</p><p> This is precisely what the second servant does to the forgiven servant (:29 s:w:; he also asks for “patience” just as the first servant did). Our situation before God is exactly mirrored by the situation of others before us who have sinned. The Lord’s prayer had made this point, in asking that we be forgiven&nbsp;<em>as&nbsp;</em>we forgive others. Forgiving them, therefore, becomes of utterly crucial importance in our personal salvation. Nothing else we may do or be can compensate for unforgiveness, rejection of little ones, and the subsequent causing them to stumble which this causes. See on :25&nbsp;<em>His wife and children</em>.</p><p><em>Fell down and worshipped-</em></p><p>&nbsp;AV. The two words often occur together. The basis of real worship is thereby defined for us as being a deep conviction of the depth of our sin. Such worship isn’t therefore something that can just be turned on or turned off. True worship has very deep roots, in deep conviction of personal debt and a core desire to somehow beseech God’s grace.</p><p><em>Lord, have patience with me-&nbsp;</em>See on :26&nbsp;<em>Fell down</em>. The servants both ask for “patience”, and yet the story invites us to see how irrelevant is that request- no amount of time can repay such a huge debt. Even although the servant therefore doesn’t throw himself on the King’s grace to the extent he ought to have done, and still entertains the absurd idea that he can actually somehow repay the debt- the King shows grace. Again, the attitude of those ‘little ones’ we engage with will be far from ideal, they miscalculate their debt just as the servant genuinely thought he could “pay all”, they fail to appreciate the damage done, the hurt caused, believing that they can put right what clearly they never can. But the King’s forgiveness of that servant is our pattern for forgiving those indebted to us by their sins and poor behaviour. Yet again we see the hint that forgiveness based upon repentance and restoration is not what is needed at all. Sin cannot in that sense ever be restored or put right by the sinner, but only by the grace of the one sinned against.</p><p><em>And I will pay you all that I owe-&nbsp;</em>The servant is presented as insincere, to those who meditate a bit upon the information given. His falling down at the feet of the King was not sincere, surely; for instead of admitting his fault and begging for grace, he claims that with time, “patience”, he can actually repay it. No amount of work could repay his debt. The huge sum which he ‘owed’ the King was so large that we are invited to imagine that the debt had arisen more by theft than by being lent that huge amount. For why would he, a servant, need to borrow such a huge amount? We are led to expect a confession of theft from the King- but there is none. Likewise the huge sum of debt is an element of unreality in the story that attracts our attention. The King typically would have killed such a person- but this unusual King doesn’t do that. He offers him a way out apart from death- and still the man isn’t grateful, he doesn’t even want to do a period in bonded slavery for his sins. Within the context of Israel, a slave could only be held for seven years. And “in the seventh year he shall go out a free person, without debt” (<em><a href='B:20 21:2'>Exo 21:2</a></em>). In the seventh year, all debt was to be forgiven (<em><a href='B:50 15:1-3'>Deu 15:1-3</a></em>). So this gracious King was willing to actually forgive the debt and give the man a path to total freedom. But he didn’t want even that- he wanted time so that he could pay the debt. He clearly had no real conception of the extent of his debt. And he even implies that the problem is with the King not being patient enough- as if to say ‘If only you were patient, I can pay all this back’.</p>


text:
<p>18:27&nbsp;<em>And the lord of that servant, being moved with compassion-&nbsp;</em>The Lord forgave the sinner exactly because he could not put it right. Bearing in mind the insincerity of the man’s words and claims even after being called to account, it is clear that the King’s pity was not because of the man’s genuineness. It was rather pity at the sad state of the man, pity at his pride, at his pathetic wriggling on the hook. The King’s pity and forgiveness is set up as the pattern for ours- and this, therefore, must be shown not only to those who appear sincere in their repentance, but to those like this servant, who appear patently insincere, repeating the same sin 490 times each day:&nbsp; The King had pity, realizing that power in this case was solely in His hands. And so it is with our interactions with those who sin against us. We have total power. They are unable to put anything right ultimately. Because they have done what they have done, just as we have done what we have done.</p><p><em>Released him</em>-</p><p> This is hard to interpret because&nbsp;<em>apoluo</em>&nbsp;can have such a wide range of meaning. It can mean to simply send away. Or it could mean that the man had already been bound as a convicted criminal- in which case, the 10,000 talent debt was due to theft, which is likely what the initial hearers would’ve assumed anyway.</p><p><em>And forgave him</em>-</p><p> The same word translated “forgive” occurs in <em><a href='B:470 19:14'>Mat 19:14</a></em>, where the Lord rebukes the disciples for forbidding the little ones to come to Him, and tells them to “Suffer [s:w. “forgive” through the idea of leaving alone] the children”. The suggestion is that despite all this emphasis on receiving little ones, the disciples failed to do so still. This shouldn’t be hard for us to imagine, because the church is full of those who know these principles in theory but fail to apply them, turning away so many little ones week by week. The king forgave his servant; but in the parable of <em><a href='B:490 16:7'>Luk 16:7</a></em>, it seems that the king’s servants also have the power to forgive others what they owe to their lord. Our forgiveness of others is therefore recognized in Heaven, although that is not to say that if we will not forgive a person, therefore God will not. The connection between our forgiveness and God’s forgiveness (in the context of this section’s teaching about offence) may be that if we don’t forgive people, they often stumble out of the way of relationship with God and thereby God doesn’t forgive them. Whereas if we forgive them and accept them, they often remain in a relationship with God whereby their sins are forgiven by Him.</p><p>I mentioned under <em><a href='B:470 18:26'>Mat 18:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I will pay you all</em>&nbsp;that the King was alluding to the seventh year release for slaves. But this King, despite the insincerity of this servant, simply proclaims the forgiveness and release there and then. This is how King Jesus operates- He makes the seventh year of release the ongoing status in which He lives with men and women. And this is to be our pattern, not waiting until the seventh year, not demanding a passage of time or partial restoration before we forgive, but doing so immediately without attention to issues of sincerity of repentance. The King’s example in immediately offering the spirit of the seventh year release is surely saying that we should forgive and accept without demanding any passage of time. Observation of ecclesial life suggests that in the end, members are forgiven about anything, but it just takes time. But if forgiveness is going to be granted, why not grant it immediately… The release from slavery and debt in the seventh year was on the basis that Israel had been released from slavery in Egypt by grace (<em><a href='B:300 34:13-14'>Jer 34:13-14</a></em>; Deuteronomy 15; Deuteronomy 12-15), an exodus which speaks of our baptism into Christ (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). If we have been released, we are to thus release others. They were to “let go” their indebted slave brother (<em><a href='B:50 15:12'>Deu 15:12</a></em> Heb:) just as Israel were “let go” from Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 5:1'>Exo 5:1</a></em>). They were to send away the released slave “not empty handed” but with gifts (<em><a href='B:50 15:13'>Deu 15:13</a></em>)- exactly as Israel left Egypt&nbsp;<em>not empty handed</em>&nbsp;but with the gold and gifts of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 3:21-22'>Exo 3:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:35-36'>Exo 12:35-36</a></em>).</p><p>I noted at <em><a href='B:470 18:21'>Mat 18:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Seven times</em>&nbsp;that Peter’s initial question about forgiving “until seven times” was a quotation from <em><a href='B:340 4:23'>Dan 4:23</a></em> about the seven times or years punishment upon Nebuchadnezzar. It could be the Lord is alluding to this in saying that the spirit of the seventh year or ‘time’ should be lived out all the time; they were not to wait “until seven times” or years to forgive. And the release from debt must be given no matter how insincere the debtor, and no matter how huge the debt. And immediately. The Lord’s language of loosing and forgiving debt and His allusion to the seventh year release is therefore radical and far reaching. If we are to show His forgiveness, then we have no option but to be absolutely open and inclusive of all. According to <em><a href='B:300 34:17-22'>Jer 34:17-22</a></em>, Judah’s captivity in Babylon was solely because they had rejected the need for granting release to their brethren; for that they were condemned.</p><p><em>The debt</em>-</p><p> An unusual Greek word is used here to express debt:&nbsp;<em>Daneion&nbsp;</em>occurs only here in the New Testament. It seems to mean a gift as well as a debt; there were other standard words for “debt” which the record could have used, but did not. Perhaps the strange word choice is to teach us that whatever we think we have borrowed or even stolen from the Lord cannot really ever be repayed- it is effectively made a gift to us. In our forgiveness of others, we must remember that they can never repay, and so our forgiveness of them is not on the basis that they have repayed something, but on the basis that we consider their theft from us to be a gift from us to them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:28'>Mat 18:28</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>But that servant went out and found one of his fellow-servants, who owed him a hundred denarii</em>-</p><p> "Went out" is the language of condemnation at the last day. By being unforgiving to our brother, we are condemning ourselves. And this has been the Lord’s message earlier in this section- for those who make their brother to stumble by not accepting and forgiving him, they have an awful condemnation awaiting them. "Went out" is the language of Judas going out (<em><a href='B:500 13:30'>Joh 13:30</a></em>), Cain '"went out" (<em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em>), as did Zedekiah in the judgment of Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:300 39:4'>Jer 39:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 52:7'>Jer 52:7</a></em>). Esau went out from the land of Canaan into Edom, slinking away from the face of his brother Jacob, sensing his righteousness and his own carnality (<em><a href='B:10 36:2-8'>Gen 36:2-8</a></em>). Even in this life, those who leave the ecclesia 'go out' after the pattern of Judas, condemning themselves in advance of the judgment by their attitude to the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:690 2:19'>1Jn 2:19</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 15:24'>Act 15:24</a></em>). The unrighteous flee from God now, as they will then (<em><a href='B:350 7:13'>Hos 7:13</a></em>). Yet Peter in this life "went out" from the Lord (<em><a href='B:480 14:68'>Mar 14:68</a></em>) and then some minutes later further "went out and wept bitterly" (<em><a href='B:490 22:62'>Luk 22:62</a></em>), living out the very figure of rejection at the judgment-&nbsp; and yet was able to repent and come back. In this life we can be judged, condemned, weep…but still repent of it and thereby change our eternal destiny. But at the final judgment: it will be just too late. That 'judgment' will be a detailed statement of the outcome of the ongoing investigative judgment which is going on right now.</p><p>He remained in the service of his master, even though the master / King had considered selling him into slavery to another man. But this King retained such a bad and insincere servant- again, setting up the pattern for our unlimited acceptance of others and not rejecting them. The staggering number of unrealities in this parable is in order to direct us towards the need for radical acceptance of others and open forgiveness without repentance- things which are indeed unreal for us in their demands. And yet without this, can we be forgiven? Faced with the teaching here, I end up asking God for what apparently I cannot or should not ask- forgiveness for my unforgiveness. And strength to indeed forgive, quicker and more fully.</p><p><em>And he laid hold on him</em>-</p><p> The Greek is several times used to mean ‘arrested’. The first servant had the power to arrest and “cast into prison” (:30). We assume therefore that the first servant was a senior one, hence his ability to borrow or steal 10,000 talents. And still he has retained his position!</p><p><em>And took him by the throat</em>-</p><p> The Greek means to choke or strangle, it is only elsewhere used about the choking to death of the Gadarene pigs in the sea, representative as they were of condemnation of the unclean at the last day (<em><a href='B:480 5:13'>Mar 5:13</a></em>). He was not only demanding repayment but almost killed the man in order to extort a promise of repayment. All our sympathies are directed by the story to be against this first servant- but he was the one who the Lord who knows all was so forgiving and acceptant towards. And that is set up as our example.</p><p><em>Saying: Pay what you owe</em>-</p><p> There was indeed a debt. We are to forgive the person who ‘repents’ 490 times / day for the same sin. Clearly enough, their repentance wasn’t sincere. Yet we are still to show forgiveness without waiting for repentance. The parable of <em><a href='B:470 18:28-30'>Mat 18:28-30</a></em> implies that forgiveness involves us not requiring of our brother that which we could legitimately demand of him. That surely is saying that we are to forgive our brother without demanding full repentance in terms of 'putting things right'. We are to follow God's example of frankly writing off the debt. This parable of the debtors splits the responsible into two categories; those who forgive their brother, and those who demand that their erring brother pays up what he owes, even though he can't possibly do so. All of us who walk away from our annoying, spiritually weak brethren (as we perceive them) are playing with our salvation. The day of judgment will be a day of surprises for all of us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:29'>Mat 18:29</a></em><em>&nbsp;So his fellow-servant fell down and begged him, saying: Have patience with me and I will pay you-&nbsp;</em>The words and actions of the second servant are exactly those of the first servant before the King. We are to see ourselves as the first servant- and he was not very sincere, nor did he appreciate the enormity of what he had done. But we are presented as being him, up to the point where he imprisons his fellow servant. The difference between him and us is that we are to forgive our indebted brother. But our repentances and pleadings for mercy are likewise less than totally sincere- the ease with which we repeat sin is surely proof enough of that. And we are not, therefore, to refuse forgiveness to our brother because we sense his repentance is insincere:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he refused</em>-</p><p> The first servant wouldn’t show patience to the second servant, even though he had asked the King for “patience” with himself. He didn’t believe that the second servant would repay the money given time. And yet he puts him in prison, from where likewise the second servant will have no possibility of repaying the debt. He has no sensible option than to write off the debt. Just as forgiveness with or without repentance is not ultimately an option for us. The request for patience was exactly what he had made to the King. The King dismissed it as unreal and untrue; the King didn’t say ‘OK, well, in six months’ time, then’. He just forgave him. The first servant was being brought to realize how he had made the King feel. The very similarity with his own position surely beckoned him towards a similarly gracious response. But he would not. The awfulness of the situation becomes even worse if we consider that he was delivered to the torturers in order to repay the money because he [presumably] did in fact have much of the money, but had stashed it away in secret locations; see on :34&nbsp;<em>The tormentors</em>.</p><p><em>And had him cast into prison</em>-</p><p> See on :28&nbsp;<em>Laid hands on</em>. He was a senior servant who still had the power to do this. The King expressed his anger in a more Biblical way- the first servant was to be sold as a slave labourer so that at least some of the debt would be repaid, and then in the seventh year he would go free and the debt cancelled. But that servant now puts the other servant&nbsp;<em>in prison</em>. The Law of Moses never envisioned any kind of prison system, even though there were prisons in the surrounding cultures. Rather was correction to be effected more quickly and at the hands of those who had been offended or wronged. In prison, the man had absolutely no chance of repaying the debt, and so to imprison until he should repay the debt is oxymoronic. And obviously so, especially to the initial audience. They knew that those in prison had to be provided for by their families, and so the truth was actually the opposite- imprisoning the man would increase debt, not reduce it. But this is what we do by not forgiving people- we put them in a position where they are a spiritual liability to others, and we assign them to a place where they can never get right with us. Because the earlier section in this block of teaching has demonstrated that to not forgive or to exclude is to cause another to stumble. Not forgiving damages the unforgiven person- that’s the point. It puts them in a place where they cannot escape- it makes them stumble, or as in this parable, it imprisons them. This is a powerful picture of the damage caused by unforgiveness.</p><p><em>Until he should pay that which was due-&nbsp;</em>Another possible twist to the story is that the first servant believed that the second servant had family members or friends who were capable of paying the debt; by throwing him into prison, he was thereby putting pressure on the family to pay the debt. This kind of thing often happens with forgiveness; granting forgiveness or acceptance is made possible only if third parties respond. Typically the argument is ‘We will only accept you if you reconcile with X or Y’. The King, by contrast, dealt directly with the offender in offering a way forward- and finally abandoned any attempt at partial and negotiated solutions, and just gave frank and total forgiveness:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:31'>Mat 18:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When his fellow servants saw what had taken place</em>-</p><p> There is a similarity with the workers who notice the weeds sown amongst the wheat and who then go and tell their Lord, rather than taking affairs into their own hands.</p><p><em>They were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place-&nbsp;</em>What are we to do when brethren... refuse to speak to us or others, divide families, cause others to stumble; and all the other long list, the endless sentence, which we could now write or come out with? How are we to feel, how are we to cope with it? When the fellow believers saw the unreasonable attitude of a brother against another, they were "vehemently distressed" (AV "very sorry" doesn't do justice to the Greek)- not about themselves, but about the situation and the punishment of their fellow servant. Matthew uses the same Greek words to describe how distressed the disciples were to learn that there was a betrayer amongst them (<em><a href='B:470 26:22'>Mat 26:22</a></em>). That extent of distress can destroy men and women. So "they came and told their Lord all that was done". They didn't just "tell Him". They went and told Him. We are invited to imagine the process of coming before the Lord's Heavenly presence in prayer, like Hezekiah spreading Sennacherib's letter before the Lord. The parable suggests there was no response from the Lord to the grieving servants. He called the offender to Him, asked for an account, and punished him. This speaks of how we shall be called to account at the Lord's return. But until then, there's silence from the Lord. But that silence is to develop our faith and perspective in the day of judgment. If there were bolts of fire from Heaven in response to our prayers, there would be no faith required, no longing for the Lord's return, no trust in His ultimate justice. The Greek translated "told" means 'to declare thoroughly'. Tell the Lord every detail of what happened, how you feel; what colour shirt he was wearing, exactly how she looked at you. Just as children artlessly retell every detail of a hurtful event. When they saw "what was done", they came and declared thoroughly to their Lord "what was done" (<em><a href='B:470 18:31'>Mat 18:31</a></em>). The double repetition of the phrase suggests we should indeed tell all the details to Him; but not more, and stripped of our interpretation of them. Prayer isn’t to be merely a list of requests; it’s a pouring out of ourselves and our situation before God, as David taught us in his Psalms. And in this sense one rises from their knees healed and able to cope. The believers of the parable told their Lord of the ungrateful behaviour of their brother (<em><a href='B:470 18:31'>Mat 18:31</a></em>)- they brought the situation before Him, without asking specifically for something to be done.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then his Lord summoned him and said to him: You wicked servant; because you pleaded with me</em>-</p><p> What is the function of the detail about the fellow servants informing their Lord, and His response being to call the wicked servant and punish him? The calling to account and ‘eternal punishment’ is surely allegorical of the second coming of Christ and the final judgment. The impression is surely that He is encouraged in doing this by His servants coming to Him and sharing with Him their hurt at the way His servants are being treated- both within the household as well as outside of it.</p><p><em>I forgave you-&nbsp;</em>The Lord was absolutely sure that He would be victorious on the cross; His parables speak of our responsibilities and blessings on account of what He knew He would achieve for us. Thus the Master in the parable is able to remonstrate with the unforgiving servant: "I forgave you all that debt". The Lord's assumption was that He would attain our forgiveness on account of successfully enduring the cross. Yet He triumphed through His faith; although He was all too aware of the human possibility of failure, He believed He wouldn't fail, He made use of the constant encouragement of the word to this end. He described Himself as the Lord of the servants, and also as the King (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 18:23'>Mat 18:23</a></em> cp. 31- there are other similar parables)- even before His cross. He had such confidence that He would be crowned as a result of His future cross. The tenses in Greek can be used very exactly (unlike Hebrew); it was quite within the ability of the Lord to build into His parables the concept of future Kingship. He could have implied 'When I'm King, I'll judge like this'. But instead He saw Himself as already having overcome. "Be of good cheer, I have (already) overcome the world... now I go my way to him that sent me (bypassing the cross in His words) ... I have glorified thee... I have finished the work thou gavest me to do" (<em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:5'>Joh 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>); these are only a few samples of the Lord's remarkable confidence that He would overcome. This confidence is reflected in the parables. He was practising His own preaching concerning believing that we have already received what we ask for. No doubt His words recorded in John 15-17 and the parables which reflected this confidence came back to Him as He struggled to quell His crisis of doubt in Gethsemane.</p><p><em>All that debt</em>-</p><p> The hint could be that the exact amount was still clearly in the King’s mind. God forgives sin but He doesn’t literally forget it in the sense of as it were deleting it all from memory cells. It is ‘forgotten’ in the metaphorical sense of not being held against us. Peter was the one initially addressed here, and he uses the ideas in his later letter, when he criticizes some of his converts for having forgotten that they were purged from their old sins, and notes that therefore they were without motivation in living the Christian life (<em><a href='B:680 1:9'>2Pe 1:9</a></em>).</p><p><em>Because you desired me</em>-</p><p> AV. Actually, as noted at :26, the wicked servant didn’t actually desire forgiveness of the debt. He asked instead for time, “patience”, so that he could repay everything he owed. The pity of the Master was more because of the man’s lostness and how little he appreciated his own position. However, the Master kindly and sensitively read through the man’s request for ‘time to repay’ to the desire of the man’s heart- that the debt be written off in total. And he did so. The Father and Son likewise perceive the spirit behind our prayers, and see through the surface level word choice which we make. This of itself is a great comfort to those who fear that they ‘are not good at praying’. Because it is our inner spirit rather than our word choice which is the essence of prayer.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:33'>Mat 18:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow-servant</em>-</p><p> This doesn’t give the force of&nbsp;<em>dei</em>, which is the imperative, ‘must’. The idea isn’t that he&nbsp;<em>ought</em>&nbsp;to have been compassionate, but that he was obligated to be, he ‘must’ be like that. This is exactly the teaching of the earlier part of the chapter- condemnation awaits us&nbsp;<em>unless</em>&nbsp;we are forgiving and acceptant of others.</p><p><em>Even as I had mercy on you?-&nbsp;</em>The Lord’s compassion is clearly intended to be ours, who are to live and move and feel “in Him”. The Lord of the servant “<em>was moved with compassion&nbsp;</em>and forgave him”- the very words used about the Lord being “moved with compassion” for the spiritual and human needs of the Galilean Jews He lived amongst in His life. But the point of the parable was: “…shouldest not thou also have had compassion…?” (<em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:33'>Mat 18:33</a></em>). If we have seen and known His compassion, ought we not also to show that compassion in the same way as He did and does? His compassion must be ours. The Samaritan of <em><a href='B:490 10:33'>Luk 10:33</a></em> was clearly intended to be interpreted as the Lord Jesus. He “had compassion” on the dying man of humanity, not counting the personal cost and risk; and then the Lord bids us each to go and do likewise. Our ‘doing likewise’ will issue in us too sensing the tragedy of those who have not heard, of those without a shepherd, of those who have fallen out of the way. We will be like the Father who was likewise moved with compassion for his wayward son (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). The crowds of unknowing people who stream before us each day, the sad fact that we are so outnumbered in this world, that those you live and work with are dying in ignorance of the wonderful eternity that&nbsp;<em>could be</em>&nbsp;for them… that they live their lives in the darkness of selfishness, as existence rather than real life, without the light of the knowledge of the glory of God as it is in the face of Jesus Christ… all these things will powerfully&nbsp;<em>move us</em>&nbsp;to witness after the pattern of our Lord.</p><p><em>"</em>Even as" is the very teaching of the Lord’s prayer, wherein we daily ask for forgiveness&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;we have forgiven others, in accordance with our attitude to them. This is the very meaning of those who sin against us in life- their function is really to provide us with practice for forgiveness and thereby a basis for our own forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:34'>Mat 18:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And his lord was angry</em>-</p><p> The wrath of God here stands in sharp contrast to the amazing grace He has just shown to the indebted man. His anger was not that the man had stolen such a colossal sum from him [see on<em>&nbsp;The tormentors</em>], not admitted it, not appreciated the depth and gravity of the theft, not repented… but rather that despite that, the man would not forgive another. The purpose of the parable in its end thrust [which is so significant in nearly all the parables] is that unforgiveness of others is the ultimate and worst sin, far worse than anything else, including lack of repentance for our own sins.</p><p><em>And delivered him to the jailors</em>-</p><p> In the Lord’s frank forgiveness of the heavily indebted man, there was no mention of any conditions. But when that same man refused to forgive his debtor, he was brought back into court, the debt was re-instated and he was eternally imprisoned until he paid every bit of it. The frank forgiveness of the debt, the ‘release’ from it, was actually conditional on him being forgiving to others subsequently. But that condition wasn’t mentioned:&nbsp;</p><p>In the furniture of the parable, the tormentors may refer to the prison keepers. But the same word is used in <em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:10'>Rev 20:10</a></em> about the tormenting in fire of the beast and his supporters at the last day. Clearly the point is that self-righteous unforgiveness of the little ones, the obviously immature and even insincere, will lead to the same condemnation as the very worst of the world. The same point was made by the Lord talking about offenders of little ones having a millstone put around their neck and cast into the sea- the very punishment of Babylon.</p><p>"Jailers" can also be rendered "tormentors". Another option is that the man needed torturing- and that is the essential force of the Greek word used- because clearly his huge debt was a result of theft, and he did actually have the money stashed away somewhere. Hence the need for torturing to get him to confess where it was hidden. This would mean that his claim not to have anything at all to pay back was simply a false plea, a fake repentance. Which would be a function within the story exactly relevant to the context, which is that we should forgive others without limit, regardless of the sincerity of their repentance; and realize that so much of our own repentance is hardly that genuine either, resulting as it has done in the huge debt which we personally owe to God; a debt so great we are to perceive it as far more serious than anything anyone has done to us. If this interpretation of the torturers is valid, and it is hard to interpret it any other way really, then this throws into an even worse perspective the man’s demand for the 100 denarii from his fellow servant. He already had considerable wealth stashed away… Remember that this unpleasant, insincerely repentant man is our representative right up to the point where he encounters his fellow servant who is in his debt. All his insincere representations about his debt, his complete failure to appreciate the extent and gravity of what he had done- these are all typical of our shallow repentances. And this serves to remind us not to refuse forgiveness to others because we consider their repentance somehow insincere. We also reflect that the King surely knew that the servant had stolen the money- it was such a huge sum. But He chose not to ‘take the matter up’; He didn’t make that specific allegation. And this lends weight to my suggestion that the earlier language of ‘taking up a matter’ with a brother who has wronged us is not a command for us to do so, but is rather a parody of Jewish and legalistic thinking.</p><p>There are of course those who misuse this verse to support their view of literal torture at the last day. But remember that this is a parable, and that every other entity in the parable has a fairly obvious interpretation. The torturers likewise must represent someone or something, rather than be the only element of the parable which is taken literally. That they represent something is clear, but what- is not so clear. In Matthew’s pictures of judgment, the Angels have a major part to play in punishing the wicked (<em><a href='B:470 13:41-42'>Mat 13:41-42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:49-50'>Mat 13:49-50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>). So perhaps they refer to how Angelically-ministered punishment will bring the wicked to some state of self-knowledge and confession, although tragically all too late.</p><p><em>Until he should pay</em>-</p><p> The teaching is surely not that through the experience of torment, the man somehow could earn the 10,000 talents. Then he would finally be free and justified before God, as if through some kind of Roman Catholic purgatory. Rather I suggest the Lord is demonstrating His principle of judging people from their own mouths and according to their own words (<em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em> - the context is likewise of a “wicked servant”). The servant had claimed to be able to “pay all” if given time (:29). Now, that untruth is being quoted back to him.</p><p><em>All that was due-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The same Greek word is used elsewhere in this chapter only with regard to how the wicked servant perceived the debt of his brother- he uses the word in saying “Pay me what you&nbsp;<em>owe me</em>&nbsp;[‘what is&nbsp;<em>due</em>&nbsp;to me’]” (:28), and demanding the man “Pay the debt”, ‘that which was due’ (:30). Again the words and attitudes of the wicked servant are being quoted back to him, and he is being treated as he treated his brother.</p><p>The big debtor was rejected because he wouldn't&nbsp;forgive his brother. The Lord says that He will make such a person pay all the debt. There is a connection here with an earlier parable, where He spoke of how unless a man agrees with his adversary quickly, the adversary will drag him to court and jail until he pays all that is due (<em><a href='B:470 5:26'>Mat 5:26</a></em>). The adversary of the parable, therefore, is the Lord Himself. He is the aggressive invader marching against us with an invincible army (<em><a href='B:490 14:31'>Luk 14:31</a></em>), with whom we must make peace by total surrender. Putting the Lord's teaching in context, He is showing Himself to be very harsh and demanding on the unforgiving believer, but very soft and almost unacceptably gracious to those who show forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:35'>Mat 18:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you</em>-</p><p> The unpleasant wicked servant is therefore symbolic of us each one- at least up until our meeting with our fellow servant, after our own experience of forgiveness. And the wicked servant up until that point is not presented positively, but rather as insincere in his repentance, and totally miscalculating the extent of his own sin.</p><p><em>If you do not forgive your brother</em>-</p><p> The same ideas are repeated, relentlessly. This most sober warning applies to each one of us, not to some of us. None are exempt, none are in a position where this problem of forgiveness doesn’t apply to them. It applies to each of us. If we consider that we do not struggle with the issue of forgiveness, then it seems to me that we are not in touch with ourselves.</p><p><em>From your heart</em>-</p><p> By adding this detail, the Lord seems to recognize that forgiveness (like all spiritual characteristics) can appear to have been achieved on the surface, when it has not been achieved in the heart.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The same phrase is used in <em><a href='B:470 26:1'>Mat 26:1</a></em>, as if Matthew sensed how the Lord was teaching them in a very structured way, delivering content and then moving on to somewhere or something else as soon as it had been delivered.</p><p><em>He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea on the other side of the Jordan</em>-</p><p> The significance is that this was the beginning of His journey to Jerusalem and death. The teaching throughout Matthew 18 is profound, He teaches the need for absolute and unconditional forgiveness and perception that our sins are the colossal 10,000 talent debt, making all sin and failure against us thereby seem minimal. And if we ‘don’t get it’, then condemnation awaits us at the last day. And on that note, He finishes the instruction of the twelve and begins His journey to die at Jerusalem. The departure coming straight after His most challenging and profound teaching serves to highlight the importance of it, as if this is the crescendo of His message to His followers.</p><p>There is a clearly intended chiasmus developed in this part of Matthew, and whilst chiasmus is a typical way of simply ordering material, it also helps us with interpretation. According to the following pattern, the section about divorce [D1 in the outline below] is to be paralleled with the Lord’s teaching about not despising little ones and not dividing the body of Christ by unforgiveness [D in the outline]. The body of Christ is Divinely joined together and to refuse to accept its members is to do despite to God’s most holy intentions. The teaching against divorce is therefore addressing the same principles. It’s a cruel paradox that so many have been so intolerant of divorce based upon this section that they have broken the principles concerning it which are the basis of the parallel section in <em><a href='B:470 18:10-14'>Mat 18:10-14</a></em> about unity and not despising little ones. So what is wrong with divorce is therefore what is wrong with the behaviour criticized in <em><a href='B:470 18:10-14'>Mat 18:10-14</a></em> - a despising of others and refusing to view their significance in God’s sight, because of our own self-righteousness and self-obsession; a lack of forgiveness and failing to perceive the significance of human relationships before God. Thus to divorce your partner becomes parallel with not accepting your brother / the “little ones’.</p><p>“A. <em><a href='B:470 17:24-27'>Mat 17:24-27</a></em>: Giving freely; money; sacrifice</p><p>Challenge</p><p>“Parable” (Who should pay taxes anyway?)</p><p>B. <em><a href='B:470 18:1-7'>Mat 18:1-7</a></em>: Little children are the essence of the kingdom of heaven</p><p>C. <em><a href='B:470 18:8-9'>Mat 18:8-9</a></em>: Sacrifice of the body for the sake of the kingdom</p><p>D. <em><a href='B:470 18:10-14'>Mat 18:10-14</a></em>: Do not despise what God values</p><p>Parable (Lost sheep)</p><p>E. <em><a href='B:470 18:15-17'>Mat 18:15-17</a></em>: What to do when a brother sins</p><p>F. <em><a href='B:470 18:18-20'>Mat 18:18-20</a></em>: Agreement between heaven and earth</p><p>E1. <em><a href='B:470 18:21-35'>Mat 18:21-35</a></em>: What to do when a brother sins</p><p>Parable (Unforgiving servant)</p><p>D1. <em><a href='B:470 19:1-9'>Mat 19:1-9</a></em>: Do not separate what God has joined</p><p>C1. <em><a href='B:470 19:10-12'>Mat 19:10-12</a></em>: Sacrifice of the body for the kingdom of heaven</p><p>B1. <em><a href='B:470 19:13-15'>Mat 19:13-15</a></em>: Little children are the essence of the kingdom of heaven</p><p>A1. <em><a href='B:470 19:16'>Mat 19:16</a></em> to <em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>: Giving freely; money; sacrifice”.</p>


text:
<p>19:2&nbsp;<em>And great crowds followed him; and he healed them there-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The emphasis is upon the location of these mass healings- “there”, in Judea “beyond Jordan” (:1), a semi-Gentile area. The suggestion grows stronger and stronger that the future of His work is with the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>19:3&nbsp;<em>And Pharisees came up to him</em>-</p><p> Presumably “there”, beyond Jordan. They had maybe heard that He was there because of the rumours of great miracles, and yet they made the effort to go to Him there with their legalistic questions. Their petty legalism contrasts sharply with the wonder of His teaching and extent of His miracles. They tagged along with the crowds, for they “also” came unto Him.</p><p><em>And tested him, by asking</em>-</p><p> Another hint that the source of ‘testing’ in the wilderness which returned to the Lord later in His ministry was from the Jewish satan / adversary.</p><p><em>Is it lawful to divorce one's wife</em>-</p><p> According to the chiasmic structure of this section [see above], this teaching about divorce is parallel with the Lord’s teaching about not despising little ones but rather unconditionally forgiving them (see notes on chapter 18). It cannot therefore be accidental that there is a word play in the usage of the word&nbsp;<em>apoluo</em>, to “put away”, because the word is also used concerning forgiveness, the sending away of the sin of another, and releasing them from debt to us. The word has just been used in <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>, where the gracious Lord “loosed” the wicked servant from his huge debt without repentance. And so the question here is whether a man could put away / forgive / release his wife “for every cause”. In a sense, the man was indeed to release / forgive his wife for every cause, for everything. But of course the Pharisees had in view the sense of sending away in divorce, and not forgiveness. The Lord surely means them to understand that they should send her away- in forgiveness.</p><p><em>For any cause?</em>-</p><p> The standard interpretation is that the Pharisees were seeking to draw the Lord into taking a position behind&nbsp;either the school of Hillel (that a man might divorce his wife for any reason) or that of Shammai (divorce was allowable only for unfaithfulness). The Hillel school had justified Herod Antipas recent marriage on this basis, and he was likely to crack down on anyone teaching otherwise- this was obviously one reason they sought to lead the Lord into this whole minefield. But if so, the question arises as to why they should raise this issue with Him so apparently ‘out of the blue’. If the question was simply as to which rabbinic school the Lord supported on this issue, then it would seem that He quite clearly came down on the side of Shammai- ‘for unfaithfulness’ (:9). But whenever the Lord was given such questions, He always avoided giving such direct answers but rather elevated the issues to a much higher and yet more essential level. I suggest that what they found so shocking was His teaching about unconditional forgiveness regardless of the sincerity of repentance, and so they came to Him with the case of adultery in marriage- where surely, so they thought, there could be no forgiveness for adultery and in fact Moses commanded that a man divorce his wife in this case. Whichever rabbinic school the Lord supported, He would surely have to admit that there were some sins which could not just be forgiven but must be acted upon in terms of divorce and exclusion from the marriage. Their use of&nbsp;<em>apoluo</em>, to “put away”, was therefore a conscious allusion to the Lord’s usage of the word in <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>, where the gracious Lord “loosed” [s:w:] the wicked servant from his huge debt without repentance. So I would read the Pharisees here as implying: ‘You claim a man must forgive his brother anything without checking out his repentance; but OK, can a man really forgive his&nbsp;<em>wife</em>&nbsp;“every cause”? And Moses surely did sanction divorce for some reasons, whether you go with Hillel [‘every or any cause’] or Shammai [for adultery]”. In terms of connection with the Lord’s previous teaching, the Lord had taught that if someone sins against you, i:e. a personal offence, then you can drag them through the synagogue discipline system [“tell it to the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>/ assembled meeting”]- although the higher level was unconditional forgiveness. For many listeners and readers, that teaching begs the very same question: “OK, so far so good, Jesus… but really, literally, for every cause, in every case…?”. The Pharisees are asking this question, assuming that they have the Lord trapped because Moses teaches divorce for some things. Of course, Moses doesn’t ‘teach divorce’- there was a higher level. If your wife sinned against you, you could do as Hosea did, and simply forgive her, rather than making use of Mosaic concessions. Hence the Lord’s answer is basically that any verses in the Law which might appear to teach divorce are in fact concessions to human weakness and not the ideal standard.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:4'>Mat 19:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he answered and said: Have you not read-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord is addressing the literate Pharisees, rather than the illiterate crowds who&nbsp;<em>heard</em>&nbsp;rather than&nbsp;<em>read</em>. His implication is that He wondered whether they had even read the opening passages of the Torah, which describe the creation of Adam and Eve. They had of course read them, but the Lord’s implication is one which echoes down to us today- we can read, many times, and yet not really read as God intends, and not grasp the most essential meaning of the text. So many times the Lord uses this challenge- ‘Have you not / never read?’ (in Matthew alone: <em><a href='B:470 12:3'>Mat 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:5'>Mat 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:16'>Mat 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:31'>Mat 22:31</a></em>). This perhaps is one of our greatest temptations in this over-literate age- to read, but not really read.</p><p>The parallel <em><a href='B:480 10:3'>Mar 10:3</a></em> records the Lord asking “What did Moses command you?”. We note He doesn’t say ‘command&nbsp;<em>us</em>’, not because He considered Himself above the Mosaic law, but maybe because the law was a bond of covenant between God and Israel, and He saw Himself as the mediator of a new and different covenant. His point was that Moses had written this command to “you” the hardhearted, those so hard and spiritually dry that they needed such concessions from God (<em><a href='B:480 10:5'>Mar 10:5</a></em>)- but the Lord wasn’t in that category. The two questions are connected to each other- ‘Have you not read?’ is followed by a request for them to quote what they had read [“What did Moses command you?”]. This highlights the Lord’s point that one can know the text of Scripture and be able to quote it and even sensibly discuss it- without having&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;read it for ourselves in the sense of grasping the personal message and implication for ourselves:&nbsp;</p><p>In Mark, the Lord begins His reply by pointing out that Moses’ teaching about divorce was “for the hardness of your heart”, and was a concession to their weakness not found in God’s original intention “at the beginning”. Their legalistic mindset considered that if Moses stated something, then it was a command to be obeyed. But the Lord tried to demonstrate there were different levels accepted by God- rather as He had taught in chapter 18 that in the case of personal sin, we can drag the person through the synagogue discipline process, or apply the higher level of forgiveness without qualification and condition. And He repeats that here- seeking to get them to see that the higher level was to stay together and remain in with the process of unity between persons that God wishes to operate; and the lower level would be to make use of Moses’ concessions to human hardness. Assuming a literal record of the Lord’s words here, <em><a href='B:470 19:8'>Mat 19:8</a></em> repeats the point that Moses allowed divorce “for the hardness of your heart”; the idea of Moses having granted a concession was significant to the Lord. Because His theme here as in chapter 18 was that there are different levels upon which we can live before God, and thus had it ever been.</p><p><em>That He who made them from the beginning made them male and female</em>-</p><p> The whole nature of creation was so that there would be a process of division, separation and then uniting together to produce fruit. The processes of separation and unity were inbuilt to creation, but we are to allow them to operate in the way that God intends- not needlessly separating and not uniting in wrong ways at the wrong times. Various views of evolution are disallowed for those who believe the Lord's words here- that male and female were created by God in the beginning.</p>


text:
<p>19:5&nbsp;<em>And said: For this cause shall a man</em>-</p><p> Although a different original word is used, the idea is clearly the same as in the original question in :3, about whether it was lawful to divorce “for every cause”.</p><p><em>Leave-&nbsp;</em>The Hebrew and Greek words for “divorce” mean literally to go or send away from. And this is the same idea which the Lord now uses (although a different original word) in saying that because of how God created humanity, a man will leave or go away from [the same idea as ‘divorce’] his parents and cleave to his wife. The Lord is surely saying that the process of leaving / separating and cleaving to another is natural and intended by God- but it must be done within the bounds of His intentions.</p><p><em>His father and mother and shall cleave to his wife</em>-</p><p> Translated in <em><a href='B:560 5:31'>Eph 5:31</a></em> as “shall be joined to his wife”. The reference in my opinion is not to the wedding nor to the sexual act so much as to a process of being joined together, parallel with ‘becoming one flesh’, which is conducted by God in response to a man and woman wishing to come together. This involves His work on the minds of the couple and through orchestrated circumstance in their lives which results in their coming together as one. But the process is ongoing. This is surely a parade example of where God is able and eager to work on the minds of people directly. There could be no falser impression than that an indifferent God faces off against man over an open Bible, leaving it over to us how far we wish to be obedient. He is actively seeking to work in the very inward parts of the minds of His people, by His Spirit, in order to bring us together with Him and each other. The reason why sex before marriage or casual sex is wrong is that this is a physical coming together without the spiritual bonding or joining process which God has promised to perform in the lives of His people. The existence of this bonding process is another reason why marriage to unbelievers is not appropriate- because it will be hard for God to work on the heart of a person who has closed their heart to Him.</p><p><em>And the two shall become one flesh?</em>&nbsp;- “<em>Shall be</em>&nbsp;one flesh” (AV) is a future tense. The process of unifying works towards a final unity between persons called “one flesh”. It’s hard to say what point is in view here- a point where a married couple are “one flesh” presumably speaks of the consummation of marriage in sexual intercourse. Clearly the whole implication here is that two people cleave to each other whilst at the same time leaving their parental background or family of origin, and during that process there is a psychological process of confirmation going on from God, binding them together; and this then comes to term in “one flesh”. This intended process rules out casual sex, just as it rules out individuals remaining psychologically bonded to their parents or family of origin. The false teaching regarding sexual matters argued that sleeping with a prostitute was OK so long as it was understood that the sexual act made two into flesh (<em><a href='B:530 6:16'>1Co 6:16</a></em>); but this of course was just attaching a Bible verse to a situation in order to justify what people wanted to do. In sleeping with a prostitute, two do not become one in the Biblical sense because there has not been the spiritual process of God joining the couple. And that is what is wrong with it.</p>


text:
<p>19:6&nbsp;<em>So they are no more two but one flesh</em>-</p><p> This appears to be a status, referring to marriage rather than solely to the sexual act. Because it is paralleled with “what God has joined together” and is not to be sundered:&nbsp;</p><p><em>What therefore God has joined together-&nbsp;</em>As a couple "cleave" to one another, so they become one flesh (<em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em>). But this becoming one flesh is interpreted by the Lord Jesus as meaning that God actively joins the couple together; as<em>&nbsp;they</em>&nbsp;cleave to each other in the process of their relationship, so&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;joins them together. Clearly the Lord understood <em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em> as speaking of the process of marriage, rather than simply the ceremony of a wedding. In passing, note that the Hebrew idea of two becoming one had already been used in Genesis- the morning and evening, the day and night, were fused by God into one day (<em><a href='B:10 1:5'>Gen 1:5</a></em> - the same Hebrew phrase is used). Similarly we read of the waters becoming, or being made one, by God (<em><a href='B:10 1:9'>Gen 1:9</a></em>). It's as if the immense power of God in creation is unleashed in His bonding of man and wife together. To put that asunder is to fight against the very creative power of God.</p><p><em>Let not</em>-</p><p> Because by sundering relationships, we are pitting ourselves against the intentions and processes of God’s Spirit and His actions amongst men. But of course we can indeed put asunder what God joined. He does not force His ways and processes upon people. The parallel [see on :1] is with how we can refuse acceptance to the ‘little ones’ by despising and not forgiving them. God’s processes intend to create unity between His people as well as between marriage partners; but we can choose to disallow the effect of His work, both in our own lives and those of others. By rejecting people, the Lord had taught in the previous section of the chiasmus, we make them stumble and damage the “little ones”. And those same principles apply in marriage- the little ones are made to stumble, and the rejection of a marriage partner often leads them into sin, i:e. they are made to stumble. This I think is the sense of <em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>, that divorcing a partner causes her to commit adultery- i:e. we will lead her to a sinful life.</p><p><em>Man separate</em>-</p><p> The same Greek word is used in <em><a href='B:530 7:10-11'>1Co 7:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:15'>1Co 7:15</a></em> of how Paul allows for a wife to “depart” or ‘sunder’ from her husband. Clearly, therefore, the Lord is presenting here an ideal state. But that presentation doesn’t mean that God will not tolerate lower levels of living before Him. Man can put asunder what God has joined not simply in our own marriage. It can just as much be done by parents seeking to keep their children within the sphere of the family of origin, not letting go; by pressurizing one side of a marriage to adopt a position against their partner, etc. Especially is this true of those who demand that a believing husband or wife not have fellowship with their believing partner because of theological or ‘fellowship’ differences.</p>


