# commentaries

text:
<p><em>But he that hears and does not do is like a man that built a house upon the earth without a foundation, against which the stream broke- and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great</em>-</p><p> The Jews who rejected the Lord Jesus are described as builders in <em><a href='B:480 12:10'>Mar 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:48'>Luk 11:48</a></em> - and to unwise builders in <em><a href='B:490 14:28'>Luk 14:28</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p>he Lord spoke of the rejected at the judgment as being like a house against which "the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell". Floods (of the ungodly), winds (whirlwinds), smiting, a falling house- this is all language taken from Job's experiences. He went through all this&nbsp;<em>now</em>, just as each righteous man must come to condemn himself in self-examination&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;so that he won't be condemned then. Flesh must be condemned, each man must come to know his own desperation. And if he won't do this, the judgment process at the last day will teach it him.</p><p>The collapse of time around the events of the judgment would explain this equation between the gathering and the judgment. The wicked will "immediately" feel that the house of their pseudo-spirituality has totally collapsed, as soon as the rain of judgment comes down (<em><a href='B:490 6:49'>Luk 6:49</a></em>). The 'rain' will be a symbol of blessing for the righteous, and of judgment for the wicked. Likewise the cup of wine is another double symbol- of blessing, and of condemnation. Yet we know that there will be a <em>process</em> of condemnation- they will argue back with their Lord, expecting a reward for their good works… but underneath, "immediately" from their first knowledge of the Lord's return, there will be this sense of total collapse within them. The judgment passages which speak of the rejected apparently confidently demanding a place in the Kingdom in reward for their good works must be read with this fact as background.</p><p>The man who hears and does not appears to be building- he has the sensation of going some place in his spiritual life. He <em>did</em> dig a foundation- in sand, where it is easy to dig. But the Lord said that he built “without a foundation” (<em><a href='B:490 6:49'>Luk 6:49</a></em>). Are we <em>really</em> hearing and doing- or just going through the motion of it, experiencing the sensation of appearing to do it?</p><p>In the parable, the flood which came was like the day of judgment. This fits in exactly with the way Christ used the figure of the flood to describe His second coming in Matthew 24. Peter does the same in 2 Peter 3. The beating of the stream upon the house on a rock is a truly apposite figure for the day of judgment. It certainly implies a process of judgment, in which the unworthy will experience a gradual collapse of their spirituality. For the man with the firm foundation, the flood of the parable would have been a worrying experience. Would the house stand up to it? In many of the parables, we can profitably speculate as to likely details of the story. The wise man would have remembered his hard work on the foundation, not with any sense of pride or self- gratitude. But he would nevertheless have been aware of it. Our real spiritual effort will be so valuable in that day. Only then will we realize the extent of the fact that there can be no short cut to true spiritual development. A man cannot be crowned, unless he strive lawfully:&nbsp; The Lord's parable was no doubt partly based on <em><a href='B:290 28:17'>Isa 28:17</a></em>, which speaks of the day of judgment being like hail which "shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters (which) shall overflow". The spiritual house of the foolish builder was a lie, effectively; an appearance of real development which deceived men. For externally, men cannot know anything about the different foundations of houses built side by side. We are left to imagine the details of the parable. The foolish man would have run outside and watched his house being beaten down and washed away. He would have thought of trying to do something to stop the destruction, but then given up, realizing it was too late. The foolish girls saw that "our oil <em>is</em> running out" (Gk:). The unworthy will have that terrible sense of their opportunity and spirituality ebbing away from them. The impression is given in the parable that the two houses were next door to each other; again confirming our feeling that this parable is about different attitudes to the word within the ecclesia:&nbsp;</p><p>Condemnation will be tragic- the ruin is "great". Not only for those individuals, but for the Father and Son and all of us who view it. These are the final words of the Sermon. The Lord ends on the note of the possibility of condemnation, despite His many positive, upbeat and encouraging words about the certainty of salvation. The tragedy of the future we might miss is simply so great that the Lord felt He had to say this. It isn't mere negative psychology. The eternal reality of the issues before us are such that we can do nothing else but let the Lord's concern and earnestness ring in our ears.</p>


text:
<p><em>After he had ended all his sayings in the ears of the people, he entered into Capernaum</em>-</p><p> The Lord was based in Capernaum and returned there after the public work of teaching the sermon on the plain and healing. The language of 'ending sayings' and the stress that the people heard what He said is somewhat solemn, as if the Sermon was a manifesto of the Kingdom which they had heard and were now responsible to.</p>


text:
<p><em>And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear to him, was sick and at the point of death</em>-</p><p> It is tempting to think that this is the same incident as recorded in <em><a href='B:470 8:5-13'>Mat 8:5-13</a></em>. But the differences are such that they preclude this. In Matthew, the centurion and the Lord are in direct contact, and not through mediators and messengers. The healing is from a distance, a Gentile centurion is involved, his sick servant is healed, the Lord is willing to enter the Gentile's house but each Centurion says that this is not necessary as they believe in the Lord's power to heal. So there were two centurions in the Capernaum area who both had sick servants whom the Lord healed. The similarity of wording between the two is understandable; one of the incidents happened first, and the second Centurion was inspired to faith and humility by the words and attitude of the first one. This is how faith spreads today too; a person sees in practice the words and faith of a person similar in position to themselves- and they are encouraged to do as that person has done.</p><p>The next pericope in Luke concerns the widow's son at Nain, and this also is not recorded elsewhere apart from in Luke. Indeed, most of Luke 7 is material unique to Luke. This strengthens the suggestion that this is not the same centurion as in Matthew 8 but is more unique material. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, pleading with him to come and heal his servant</em>-</p><p> It was common to approach another for favours through intermediaries whom it was thought wouldbe impressive to the one being besought. The centurion clearly had faith in the Lord and yet failed to perceive the chasmic differences between Him and "the elders of the Jews"- the very class who rejected and crucified Him. So we can assume that the man's understanding of the Lord's message was minimal. And yet on the other hand, we must give due weight to his own later explanation as to why he sent the elders to the Lord- he says it was because he felt unworthy to talk directly with the Lord (:7). The man's faith progressed- from inviting the Lord into his house, to then realizing that such a visit was not necessary as the Lord had power to heal from a distance (:6). The qualities of humility and faith in this man are clearly set up as exemplary for all Gentile believers. For the aim of Luke's Gospel was to bring Gentiles to faith, and so this man becomes a parade example. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they, when they came to Jesus, pleaded earnestly, saying: He is worthy to have you do this for him</em>-</p><p> The man protested that he was <em>not</em> worthy (:6), perhaps in conscious allusion to their words. The synagogue elders considered the man "worthy" by his works (:5), whereas the Lord saw him as "worthy" by his faith in the Lord's grace. The situation is set up as a cameo of the entire argument of Romans 1-8. </p>


text:
<p><em>For he loves our nation and he built our synagogue</em>-</p><p> As noted on :4, they considered worthiness to come from generosity and loyalty to all things Jewish. But the point of the account is that it was his faith in the Lord Jesus, rather than these things, which was counted as significant. Theophilus, "lover of God", was the immediate audience for this Gospel; and his given name could suggest he too was a proselyte. Luke is perhaps trying to get him to identify with this centurion who likewise was a God lover, and whose example inspired the centurion in Matthew 8 to a similar faith. Luke was hoping that Theophilus would be likewise inspired. It was of course unusual for a Roman centurion to be a Jewish proselyte. The man must have taken issues of faith very seriously, and so his amazing faith in the Lord as Messiah is quite credible:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him: Lord, trouble not yourself. For I am not worthy that you should come under my roof</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:500 4:53'>Joh 4:53</a></em>. He was aware that Jews were not supposed to ‘come to' or under the roof of a Gentile (<em><a href='B:510 10:28'>Act 10:28</a></em>). He was therefore aware that the purpose of God at that time was for Jews rather than Gentiles- his understanding was quite deep. See on <em><a href='B:470 8:9'>Mat 8:9</a></em>. But the Lord was quite willing to go under the roof a Gentile; that is the significance of the Lord's response that He would come to the sick servant. The man's faith and humility progressed; for the Lord was now near his house, and he may as well let Him enter. But he clearly felt unworthy to have the Lord in his home and even to directly talk with the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore I did not even think myself worthy to come to you. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed</em>-</p><p> His faith was absolute- the servant would be surely healed at the Lord's word. The messengers sent to beg the Lord to assist were not therefore sent in order to as it were persuade the Lord to assist by their fine oratory and arguments. That is maybe how they perceived themselves, and how others perceived it; but the simple truth was that the man felt unworthy to even talk with the Lord. His faith in Him as Son of God was therefore so deep. </p>


text:
<p><em>For I also am a man under authority, having under myself soldiers; and I say to one: Go! And he goes. And to another: Come! And he comes. And to my servant: Do this. And he does it</em>-</p><p> Like any good teacher, the Lord repeated His lessons. The disciples heard His commendation of the Centurion, who believed that just as he had men under his control, so Jesus had the whole cosmos under His control (<em><a href='B:490 7:8-10'>Luk 7:8-10</a></em>); and they learnt that lesson again as they sat awestruck in the boat soon afterwards: "What manner of man is this! For he commands even the winds and water, and they obey him" (<em><a href='B:490 8:25'>Luk 8:25</a></em>). Clearly the centurion understood that the Lord was of immense power in His own right; He was surely appreciative that the Lord was God's Son, able to function for Him and with His power. He had thought through the issues. Perhaps He had heard the Lord's preaching in the Capernaum synagogue, which he had built. He felt a level of identification with the Lord; for he reasons that just as he has a servant whom he can command, so he wishes the Lord to treat <em>his</em> servant as <em>His</em> servant. He was inviting the Lord to take his own place as Lord and master of his family, and to have him as one of His soldiers, to come and go at His command, and to have his servant healed. The language of 'going' at the Lord's word of command is used elsewhere about casting out of demons. Maybe the centurion thought that the servant was demon possessed, and wanted the Lord to tell the demons to 'go'. In which case we can perceive that misunderstandings, even erroneous ones, having our science and language wrong, will not hinder relationship with the Lord if we have faith in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him- </em>He admired him [Gk:]. Here we see the humility of the Lord Jesus, that despite His own peerless perfection, He could admire the faith of a man who as a centurion was yet far from His own level of spirituality. Despite His peerless faith, the Lord Jesus marvelled at the extent of other's faith; the Gospels stress how sensitive He was to the faith of others (<em><a href='B:470 9:2'>Mat 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:29'>Mat 9:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:28'>Mat 15:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:34'>Mar 5:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:50'>Luk 7:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:48'>Luk 8:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:19'>Luk 17:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:42'>Luk 18:42</a></em>). Yet measured by His standards, they probably hardly knew what faith was. “No, not in Israel" suggests the Lord thought that Israel’s faith was something&nbsp;<em>very</em>&nbsp;high; when their rejection of Him was the cruellest tragedy in their history. The Lord marvelled at the man's faith, and also at the extent of unbelief in others (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 6:6'>Mar 6:6</a></em>). Given the Lord's tiredness, mental and physical exhaustion, demanding program, extreme loneliness etc:, the fact He had the emotional energy to marvel is an essay in His extreme sensitivity, and how He let neither His spiritual mission nor His external circumstances stop Him from having such sensitivity regarding the spiritual state of others. In this we see a deep challenge to ourselves.</p><p><em>And turned and said to the crowd that followed him- </em>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 7:50'>Luk 7:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:25'>Luk 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:28'>Luk 23:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>). Peter thought that following the Lord was not so hard, because he was literally following Jesus around first century Israel, and identifying himself with His cause. But he simply failed to make the connection between following and cross carrying. And we too can agree to follow the Lord without realizing that it means laying down our lives. &nbsp;</p><p><em>I say to you, I have not found so great a faith, not even in Israel</em>-</p><p> The Lord was and is actively searching for faith in people. He is the man looking to find a great treasure (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>), seeking to find a pearl of great price (<em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em>), finding a lost sheep or coin (<em><a href='B:470 18:13'>Mat 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:4-9'>Luk 15:4-9</a></em>), finding weak and rejected workers to work for Him in His work (<em><a href='B:470 20:6'>Mat 20:6</a></em>), wanting to find spiritual fruit on the fig tree (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>), finding willing guests for His own wedding (<em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>)- any who believe in Him. As He meets so many disappointments, imagine His joy at finding&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;faith, incomplete and at times misplaced as it Is. Surely in all this work of seeking and finding just a few He was living out His own command to seek, because we will find (<em><a href='B:490 11:10'>Luk 11:10</a></em>). He seems to allude to the idea in telling the disciples to fish on the right side of their boat, and they would find (<em><a href='B:500 21:6'>Joh 21:6</a></em>). The incident is replete with symbolism- the message surely is that we will find converts for the Lord, if we seek for them as the Lord did. We in our turn are searching to find the Lord (<em><a href='B:510 17:27'>Act 17:27</a></em>); and He is seeking to find us. Hence the flash moment when the searching God and His Son meet searching man in conversion to Christ. Ultimately we are 'found' at the Lord's return (<em><a href='B:570 3:9'>Phi 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:18'>2Ti 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:14'>2Pe 3:14</a></em>), but we are also 'found' by Him at the point of first faith in this life.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant healed</em>-</p><p> These 'sent ones' were converted; the apostles were intended to be challenged by the conversion of these other 'sent ones', just as we are intended to take lessons from the folks amongst whom we live in this world. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass soon afterwards, that he went to a city called Nain, and his disciples and a great crowd went with him</em>-</p><p> Perhaps He had some other reason for going to Nain; or maybe He went there to attend the funeral because the woman and her son were relatives. The crowd would likely have been nagging Him all the way to perform healings. His economy of miracle is remarkable. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now when he came near to the gate of the city, there was carried out one that was dead, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and many people of the city were with her</em>-</p><p> Luke's attention to women and the marginalized continues. This woman had no husband and now no son; she was without males in her life and thereby marginalized and despised. But the Lord comes to her, and becomes the ultimate saviour male in her life. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said to her: Weep not</em>-</p><p> We are given the impression that the Lord's plans of action were sometimes spontaneous. Realizing how she was now bereft of males in her life, He felt compassion for her and intervened. And yet if we enquire why He decided to take a journey to Nain, we conclude that it was specifically to attend this funeral and transform it. "Weep not" is itself an invitation to faith in Him. Otherwise, it is a most inappropriate thing to say to a mother as she buries her son. She could only stop crying if she believed that the Lord could radically change the situation. And He could.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he came near and touched the coffin; and the bearers stood still. And he said: Young man, I say to you, arise</em>-</p><p> The Lord spoke to the corpse of the widow’s dead son as if it were already restored to life; see on <em><a href='B:480 5:41'>Mar 5:41</a></em>. The ouching of the coffin was all significant, for it made the Lord ritually unclean. And yet He touched it when in His own mind having proclaimed the man alive; there was therefore no defilement from a dead body because in fact the body was not dead. The Lord surely knew the kind of casuistic discussion of the legalism of the situation which would be provoked. And He was seeking to teach through the miracle that legalistic defilement is no issue to Him because He can transform defiling situations. He taught the same by touching lepers and sick people who were probably also ritually unclean. But He touched them at the point of healing, raising the legalistic question as to whether He had in fact touched the defiled, seeing that He spoke of dead and unclean things as if they had already come clean and alive to Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he that was dead sat up and began to speak. And he gave him to his mother</em>-</p><p> The idea of giving the man over to his mother would again imply physical contact between the Lord and the once dead man; and surely the mother embraced her son. The new life given by the Lord meant that concepts of defilement were changed; and it was this fear of defilement which had stymied the development of true spirituality within Judaism, just as it is does within legalistic Christianity today. "Sat up" is literally to be sat up, suggesting the Lord lifting up the revived man to a sitting position. The Greek is only used in one other place, again by Luke, when Peter raises Tabitha and she sits up (<em><a href='B:510 9:40'>Act 9:40</a></em>). This continues Luke's theme that the Lord's work and style of operation was continued in the ministry of His body of believers. Their work, as ours, was as if He was still on earth, present through them on account of the presence of His Spirit in the Comforter. And their whole style of working was therefore reflective of his. </p>


text:
<p><em>And fear took hold of all, and they glorified God, saying: A great prophet has arisen among us, and God has visited His people!</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:480 1:2'>Mar 1:2</a></em>. Juxtaposition of the Lord’s humanity and His exaltation is found all through Bible teaching about His death. He touched the coffin- so that the crowd would have gasped at how unclean Jesus was, and how He had identified Himself with the unclean to the point of Himself appearing unclean. It was surely shock that made the pallbearers stop in their tracks. But then the Lord raised the dead man- and the people perceived His greatness, convinced that in the person of Jesus “God has visited His people”. His humanity and yet His greatness, His Divine side if you like, were artlessly juxtaposed together. Hence prophetic visions of the exalted Jesus in Daniel call Him “the Son of man”. But again we notice another juxtaposition- of fear along with glorifying God. Why should they be fearful that God had visited them in His Son? The same idea has been used in <em><a href='B:490 1:68'>Luk 1:68</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:78'>Luk 1:78</a></em> of how 'God visiting' is parallel with 'God redeeming' from sin. Why fear redemption and salvation? The only reason for such fear would be because they sensed that this visitation from God required their repentance and exposed their sin. The Gentiles were "visited" (s:w:) in order to take out a people for His Name (<em><a href='B:510 15:14'>Act 15:14</a></em>). The visitation of God in His Son required that people respond, and thereby become "His people". And this demanded too much for many in Israel. </p>


text:
<p><em>And this report about him went throughout all Judea and all the surrounding region</em>-</p><p> The <em>logos</em> "went out"- similar language as used in John's gospel. It hardly refers to any personal pre-existence of the Lord. It seems that it was the spreading of this "report" which reached some of John's disciples (:18). The report in view could be of the resurrection in Nain, or that of :16- the idea that the Lord was indeed the promised Messiah or "prophet". </p>


text:
<p><em>And the disciples of John told him of all these things</em>-</p><p> They heard the "report" that Jesus of Nazareth was "the prophet" (:16) and that the time of Messianic visitation had come. As noted on :19, the "report" may have been that the Lord was not so much Messiah as the Elijah prophet. This would make John's enquiry of :19 not so much a lack of faith but more of genuine confusion as to the Lord's prophetic identity. </p>


text:
<p><em>And John calling to himself two of his disciples, sent them to Jesus, asking: Are you he that comes, or look we for another?</em>-</p><p> Even John the Baptist, whose teaching had prepared most of the twelve to accept Jesus, seems to have not been altogether clear about what we might consider fundamental things. He speaks of Jesus as “the one to come”, a commonly understood description of the Elijah prophet, based on the phrase being used about him in <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em> - and not of Messiah Himself. Thus John the Baptist anticipated that this “one to come”, his cousin Jesus, would be a refining fire (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>)- which is exactly Malachi’s language about the Elijah prophet (<em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 4:1'>Mal 4:1</a></em>). This would explain why John the Baptist had apparent ‘doubts’ whilst in prison as to whether Jesus really was the Messiah. And it would also explain why the disciples expected Jesus to act like Elijah in <em><a href='B:490 9:52-56'>Luk 9:52-56</a></em>. It was not until the baptism of Jesus that John the Baptist came to understand Jesus as the “one to come”; so the preparatory work which he had done with the disciples must have had what we would call a flimsy doctrinal basis. When Jesus called them to follow Him, and they so quickly obeyed, it is often assumed that John the Baptist had prepared them for this. But that preparation must at best have been very shallow and incomplete, given John’s own admission that he did not recognize Jesus for who He was until His baptism. Why, however, was John’s misunderstanding recorded in the Gospel records? Or the misunderstanding of his father Zacharias, that John was in fact the promised Messiah, “the prophet”, the one would bring forgiveness of sins and freedom from the Romans (<em><a href='B:490 1:71-79'>Luk 1:71-79</a></em>)? Perhaps for the same reason as the language of demons is used, especially to describe the miracles at the beginning of the Lord’s ministry. He didn’t correct this. But over time it became evident that the sheer power of the Son of God meant that in practice, demons didn’t exist. Likewise, as the ministry of Jesus unfolds to us in the Gospel records, it becomes apparent that He was Son of God, the Messiah- and not merely anElijah prophet:&nbsp;</p><p>And yet for all this, it could simply be that John had a crisis of faith in prison. It can’t be insignificant that John sends two disciples out just after the Lord had sent out&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;disciples two by two in Matthew 10. Surely this is a literary device to set up John in negative contrast to the Lord at this time; John sent out his pair of disciples in response to his crisis of faith. He knew Jesus was to do mighty works- but he had heard of them only by report. Those he sent out had already heard and seen the Lord’s miracles (<em><a href='B:470 11:4'>Mat 11:4</a></em>), and yet John sends them to Jesus to ask if He is Messiah. It all reads rather negatively about John. It could even be that he died at a low point in his faith, and yet the Lord’s positive comment about Him surely suggests that He saw John as being ultimately saved. The records of the Kings of Israel and Judah, along with various passages in Ezekiel 18, place great emphasis upon how a man&nbsp;<em>finishes</em>&nbsp;his spiritual journey, and yet there are also Biblical examples of faithful men dying at low ebb spiritually; this will not necessarily exclude from the Kingdom, and John the Baptist may be another example.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the men came to him, they said: John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask: Are you he that comes, or do we look for another?</em>-</p><p> The emphasis may be on the word “you”. The coming one was a well-known term for Messiah, based upon <em><a href='B:230 118:26'>Psa 118:26</a></em>. Despite John’s clearly stated belief that Jesus was the promised bridegroom, the lamb of God and Son of God (<em><a href='B:500 1:29-34'>Joh 1:29-34</a></em>), it seems things had not gone according to the prophetic program John had imagined- and he now had doubts about Jesus. For a man claiming (at least implicitly) to be Messiah, it would’ve been an unnecessary question to ask Him ‘Are you Messiah?’. It could be inferred that John still believed in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, but had begun to wonder if He was only the&nbsp;<em>herald</em>&nbsp;of “another” whom they should be looking for in order to establish the Kingdom. It could be that John’s understanding of himself as the Elijah prophet had led him to expect that all Israel would repent, and then Messiah Himself would come and establish His Kingdom immediately. For this is indeed how the prophecies of Isaiah 40 and Malachi 4 could be read. Perhaps John was full of such self-doubt that he wondered if he really had been the Elijah prophet, and was thinking that maybe he had just heralded the Elijah prophet, Jesus, who was in turn to herald “He that should come”. This is the problem with holding a dogmatic view of prophetic sequences- when they prove wrong, either because our interpretation was faulty or because human lack of response means they are to come true in another way than ideally planned, then often peoples’ faith in Christ Himself is damaged. If we have an open ended view of prophecy, whereby we understand it to state possibilities which may have other ways of fulfilment than what is ideally intended, then such crises don’t arise. “Look we for another?” doesn’t sound as if John was simply asking for a sign, in the spirit of Gideon. He had major questions about the whole prophetic program, sensing that something had changed; the word for “another” is also translated “altered” (<em><a href='B:490 9:29'>Luk 9:29</a></em>). In this sense, his question may not necessarily reflect a crisis of faith in Jesus personally, but rather an earnest desire to know the new details of the revised prophetic program.</p>


text:
<p><em>In that hour he cured many of diseases and illnesses and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight</em>-</p><p> Again we are being shown that the Lord's miracles were for a teaching purpose; in this case, to give a lesson to John's disciples and to John himself, proving beyond cavil that the Lord was Messiah, Son of God, and not simply a prophet. The Lord did heal from genuine feelings of compassion, as seen at Nain; and yet Luke seems to always stress that this was far from the only reason. Here His miracles were done in order to intentionally fulfilling prophecies in Isaiah, and then asking John to accept that (see on :22).</p>


text:
<p><em>And he answered and said to them: Go and tell John the things which you have seen and heard. The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:7'>Luk 15:7</a></em>. They had already told him once- the same word is used for how they initially had told John these things (:18). There is definitely the sense that John needed to work through the implications of what he was hearing, rather than having some specific explanation from the Lord. The request that John ‘hear’ these reports more carefully begs connection with the Lord’s frequent comment that the Jews heard but did not really hear (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 13:13-17'>Mat 13:13-17</a></em>). John’s lack of understanding appears to be in some sense culpable and at best disappointing to the Lord. The Lord is seeking to assure John that if he just thinks about the evidence, it’s clear that Jesus is indeed Messiah, and as John had earlier preached- Son and lamb of God, who saves His people from their sins. He seems to be saying that that was so wonderful and fundamental, that the rearrangement of the prophetic timetable is in a sense irrelevant compared to that. Whether or not the timing or chronology of events surrounding the Kingdom comes true as we expect, or whether or not we discern how God has re-planned the fulfilment of prophecy- is all irrelevant compared to the wonder of knowing Jesus as the Christ and personal Saviour.</p><p>The teaching of Jesus included frequent quotations from and allusions to the Old Testament. When we go back and read around the contexts of the passages He quoted, it becomes apparent that He very often omits to quote the negative, judgmental, or conditional aspects of the blessings which He quotes. Consider the way He quotes <em><a href='B:290 29:18'>Isa 29:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:5-6'>Isa 35:5-6</a></em> and <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em> in the parallel record in <em><a href='B:470 11:5-6'>Mat 11:5-6</a></em>. These are all talking about Messianic blessings. But they are embedded amidst warnings of judgment and the conditionality of God’s grace. Likewise Luke records how Jesus read from <em><a href='B:290 61:1-2'>Isa 61:1-2</a></em>, but He stopped at the very point where Isaiah’s message turns from promise to threat. None of this takes away from the terrible reality that future failure is a real possibility, even tomorrow. We can throw it all away. We may do. We have the possibility. And some do. There is an eternity ahead which we may miss. And each one who enters the Kingdom will, humanly speaking, have come pretty close to losing it at various points in his or her mortallife. But the Lord’s positivity is a powerful example.</p><p><em>The poor have the good news preached to them</em>-</p><p> This was as remarkable and significant as the previous miraculous signs, of the blind seeing etc. There was a deep impression that religion was for the middle class or wealthy. Teachers didn’t bother preaching to the poor because there was no possibility of financial support coming from them. Yet the Lord opened His manifesto in the Sermon on the Mount by saying that His message was especially intended for “the poor” (<em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em> s:w:). In many Christian circles, the same is true today. Churches need money (or, they think they do), and so their focus is not on taking the Gospel to the poor but rather to the potential tithers. The disciples were amazed that the rich wouldn’t be saved (<em><a href='B:470 19:24-25'>Mat 19:24-25</a></em>), so deeply ingrained was this idea that spirituality and wealth were somehow supposed to go together. The Lord was teaching the opposite. There’s no doubt that the Gospel is designed for the poor; and that if one were to bring “the poor”&nbsp;<em>en masse</em>&nbsp;into many churches / ecclesias today, the existing membership would up and go somewhere else. The Spirit was clearly upon the Lord Jesus exactly&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;He preached the Gospel to the poor (<em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>). Our preaching attitude to “the poor” is a reflection of our spirituality. “The poor” in the immediate context were the disciples, for the Lord had just looked upon them in love and commented: “Blessed are you poor” (<em><a href='B:490 6:20'>Luk 6:20</a></em>). In the response of “the poor” to Him, the Lord saw a Divine confirmation of His ministry. And it is the same with us. Our ministry is to take the Gospel to the unbelieving poor, and not to get middle class Christian religionists to shift churches and allegiance to our group. <em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em> is clear that God chooses the poor&nbsp;<em>more than&nbsp;</em>the rich to be heirs of His Kingdom; so in this case, our preaching focus should be specifically towards them.</p><p>The same passage alluded to in <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em> promised freedom and good news to the imprisoned- which was where John was at the time, according to Matthew 11. The Lord was encouraging him in a hidden kind of way that He was aware of where John was, and there would be ultimate freedom from that prison in the Kingdom.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And when the messengers of John had departed, he began to say to the crowds concerning John: What did you go out into the wilderness to see?- </em>The crowds whom the Lord was addressing were therefore eager listeners of John, even perhaps in a sense his disciples. We see her the fulfilment of John’s commission- to prepare&nbsp;<em>in the wilderness</em>&nbsp;a smooth way for the coming of the Messianic King of glory. But the crowds didn’t respond, and Messiahdidn’t come in His glorious Kingdom. I suggested on <em><a href='B:470 10:11'>Mat 10:11</a></em> that the mission of the disciples was initially to those who had responded to John the Baptist’s teaching; and now whilst they were away on their preaching tour doing such follow up work, the Lord was doing the same, addressing a crowd who had also responded to John enough to trek out into the wilderness to hear him.</p><p><em>A reed shaken with the wind?</em></p><p>- See on :41. The reference is probably to the reeds growing in the Jordan where John baptized. Just as the people didn’t go there to look at the reeds but at John as God’s prophet, so the Lord is hinting that they should not look on John’s weakness but upon who he essentially was. When John the Baptist had this crisis of faith, the Lord spoke of John to the multitude as if he was a strong believer, no reed shaken in the wind of doubt. And yet He didn’t just paper over John’s doubts and forget them, pretending He hadn’t seen. The message He returned to John encouraged him to look back to the Isaiah prophecies of Messiah, and to remember especially the way that the weak, doubting ones would be made strong. The Lord evidently sought to strengthen the weak John by this allusion. The language of being&nbsp;<em>shaken</em>&nbsp;by&nbsp;<em>wind</em> is used elsewhere by the Lord in describing the process of condemnation at the last day (both Greek words are found in <em><a href='B:470 7:25'>Mat 7:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em>). The Lord’s idea may therefore be: ‘Sure, John is wavering at this very moment. But when you saw him in the wilderness, he wasn’t; and in God’s eyes, even now, he’s not shaking in the wind, he’s not going to be condemned at the day of judgment- even though, as you’ve just heard, he has his doubts and weaknesses’. Perhaps the Lord had John in mind when He soon afterwards spoke of how He would not condemn even a broken reed (s:w:- <em><a href='B:470 12:20'>Mat 12:20</a></em>), but rather still use it as a channel for the oil of the Spirit. The whole situation with John is helpful in coping with others who clearly are passing through times of trial which is resulting in their faith wavering. Think positively of who they were, have been, and still essentially are…</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>I say to you, among those that are born of women- there is none greater than John- </em>The Lord Jesus was Himself the greatest of all born of women (<em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em>), but in His humility He adds no rider to the effect 'John was the greatest of all born of women, Myself excepted, of course'. How we love Him for His humility.</p><p><em>Yet he that is but little in the kingdom of God is greater than he</em>-</p><p> The little ones were the disciples, according to what the Lord had recently said in <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em> (s:w:). He was urging them, yet again, to see their exalted status and to get over Judaism's attitude that the prophets were icons to whom the rank and file of God's people should never pretend. The Lord is using hyperbole here to make the point- that His immature 'little ones' were going to be far greater than even John, the greatest prophet. Or He could be implying that there will be some element of rank in God’s future Kingdom- ruling over different numbers of cities, one star differing from another in glory. And the least in that age will be far greater than John was&nbsp;<em>in this life</em>. And yet Jesus was proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom in the sense of the breaking in of God’s principles in the lives of men. He could mean that John was the greatest under the old system, but the least of those within the new system were greater than John. Oscar Cullmann made a case for translating&nbsp;<em>mikroteros</em>&nbsp;here as “the youngest”, with reference to the Lord being younger than John the Baptist and yet greater than him (see <em><a href='B:500 3:30'>Joh 3:30</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God's justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John</em>-</p><p> "Acknowledge" is the word for "justify". They justified God, rather than justifying themselves as the impenitent Jewish leaders did (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 16:15'>Luk 16:15</a></em>). God is justified by our recognition of sin (s:w. <em><a href='B:520 3:4'>Rom 3:4</a></em>). Achan likewise was asked to give glory to God by repenting (<em><a href='B:60 7:19'>Jos 7:19</a></em>), as are Israel (<em><a href='B:300 13:16'>Jer 13:16</a></em>). And in mutual response, God justifies us through imputing righteousness to us in the process of forgiveness (<em><a href='B:520 8:33'>Rom 8:33</a></em>). So this comment that they acknowledged God's justice, or justified God, is stating that they repented. They had already been baptized by John, but that baptism was unto repentance; see on <em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>. He baptized in order to lead to repentance, not to as it were set the seal upon a suitably cleaned up life. And in these cases, they did now repent as hoped for. But what was it which they heard which provoked this? Perhaps it was realizing that John their baptizer was also imperfect in faith and understanding, and yet was being comforted that despite his crisis of faith in prison, the Father loved and accepted him. And this inspired those he had baptized to repent further. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized by him</em>-</p><p> Some had been baptized by him, so the reference is to the Pharisees and lawyers in the crowd at that time. God will fulfil His purpose for us- if we align ourselves with it, and thus see in everything that happens in our lives <em>His</em> will being forwarded. We can choose to not align ourselves with His will. The Pharisees rejected the purpose of God against themselves by not being baptized by John (<em><a href='B:490 7:30'>Luk 7:30</a></em> ESV). His will is not that we should sit around doing Sudoku, watching movies, bantering on the internet, trying to get as much money as possible to finance our nice meals, expensive coffees and designer clothes. His will, as expressed in His very Name, is that He ‘will be’ grace, love, care, justice, salvation, righteousness, all over the world and to every man and woman. If these things are our focus, our mission, our purpose, our passion, our underlying heartthrob, if <em>His</em> will is behind <em>our</em> will… then everything somehow comes together for us in a dynamic and fulfilling existence, both in this world and in the life eternal.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the Lord said: Unto whom shall I liken the men of this generation, and to what are they like?</em>-</p><p> The Lord several times spoke of that entire generation as sinful and unresponsive to the Gospel. Yet the context here is talking of John the Baptist’s work. This therefore was a tacit recognition that John’s ministry had been unsuccessful in terms of converting all Israel, and therefore clearly&nbsp;there was to bea change in the prophetic program. As noted earlier in commentary on this chapter, it was this change in the prophetic program which was worrying John, even though unnecessarily in terms of his own salvation:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>They are like children that sit in the marketplace and call to each other, who say: We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 21:32'>Mat 21:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:4'>Mar 1:4</a></em>. The Lord's enthusiasm for Israel's response to the Gospel comes out again when the grace of Jesus likens Himself to a street kid in the market who really wanted to get a game going with the other kids. He offered to play funerals with them (through His appeal through John the Baptist), but they refused. He then offered to play weddings (through His Gospel of grace, joy and peace), but still they refused (<em><a href='B:490 7:32'>Luk 7:32</a></em>). By all means connect this with another market place parable, where Christ (the servant) comes there to try to recruit labourers, on almost unbelievably good rates. </p><p>John’s ministry was like children wanting to play funerals, and taking the initiative by beginning with mock weeping- but not getting any response. The Lord’s ministry was as children wanting to play weddings, piping to the other children, who would not respond by dancing. Note that in <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em> the Lord has likened His preachers to little children. Children were considered non-persons in society, and yet the Lord uses children in this parable as representative of His preachers. We note that although He likened them to children, He had to sternly warn them that they still needed to be converted and become&nbsp;<em>as</em> children (<em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>). We see Him so often imputing status to His followers which they had not in reality attained. This is to help us appreciate how He can impute righteousness to we who are not righteous. The parable of preaching here pictures children appealing to children. The commonality between us and our audience is very attractive and persuasive. We are humans reaching out to humans, indeed, children to children; the children called out (cp. calling out the Gospel) to “their&nbsp;<em>fellows</em>”:&nbsp;</p><p>The marketplace was the town square. he Lord uses the same word in the parable of <em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>, where the call of the Gospel comes to men who are standing idle in the market place (s:w:). The picture is perhaps of society getting on with its existence, but the weak labourers and the children being left to one side, excluded from standard adult social and economic life. And it is to these that the call of the Gospel comes, in the midst of human busyness:&nbsp;</p><p>The Old Testament as well as the New is written in such a way as to encourage memorization, although this is often masked by the translation. There are several devices commonly used to assist in this. Not least is alliteration, i:e. similarly sounding syllables. "We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced (<em>orchee-sasthe</em>); we have mourned unto you and ye have not lamented (<em>ekop-sasthe</em>)" (<em><a href='B:470 11:17'>Mat 11:17</a></em>) could be dynamically rendered: 'We piped for you, and you never&nbsp;stept; we dirged for you, and you never&nbsp;wept". We note that the Lord parallels the work of the children John’s ‘children’ or disciples, and his. Although both of them were somewhat negative about each other, the Lord saw both groups of children as doing the same work, despite a different culture and even doctrinal emphasIs. The division in the town square was between the children begging the others to respond, and the children of this world who didn’t want to, in the midst of those who didn’t even have ears to hear and were just getting on with their worldly business and never ‘heard’ the invitation from either group of children.</p><p>The Lord was speaking this whilst the disciples were away on their preaching tour. He could say that just as John’s preparation of the way had not been responded to on the level of the whole “generation” or society, neither had His more upbeat and joyful invitation been accepted. Note that the call of the Gospel is a call to engage with the preacher, to dance in response to the tune piped. Community and fellowship are all part of response to the Gospel; it’s not about delivering truths to an individual who then accepts them and has no further relationship with the preacher. This is why the father-son analogy is used for preaching and conversion later in the NT. There is the implication too that the initial preacher continues to call the tune, to direct the dancing of the convert, even after initial acceptance of the invitation.</p>


text:
<p><em>For John the Baptist came eating no bread nor drinking wine, and you say: He has a demon</em>-</p><p> The Gospels give the impression that there was mass response to John’s preaching, but according to the Lord’s reasoning here, He felt that “this generation”, society as a whole, had rejected John’s message and slandered him as in league with demons. Exactly the same was said about the ministry of Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 8:48'>Joh 8:48</a></em> uses the same term about Jesus- “He has a demon”). Surface level interest in the message, even applauding it and making a great effort to go out into the desert to hear it preached, was and is not the same as responding in real repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>The Son of Man comes eating and drinking, and you say: Behold a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 11:19'>Mat 11:19</a></em>. The Lord was accused of being a drunkard, a glutton, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners (<em><a href='B:470 11:19'>Mat 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:34'>Luk 7:34</a></em>). This is all language reminiscent of the commands for the parents to slay the 'rebellious son' of <em><a href='B:50 21:18-21'>Deu 21:18-21</a></em>. It's conceivable that one of the reasons why His death was demanded was because of this. Hence His relatives sought to take Him away out of public sight. It's also been claimed that the Jews' complaint that Jesus 'made Himself equal to the Father' (<em><a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a></em>) is alluding to a rabbinic expression which speaks of the 'rebelliousson' of Deuteronomy 21 as being a son who makes himself equal to his father. The shame of being Jesus' mother eventually wore off upon Mary, or so it seems to me. Just as the shame of standing up for Christian principles can wear us down, too. In passing, note that the prodigal son is likewise cast in the role of the 'rebellious son' who should be killed; the correspondence suggests that the Lord Jesus can identify with sinners like the prodigal because He was treated<em>&nbsp;</em><em>as if </em>He were a sinner, a rebellious son; even though He was not in actuality.</p><p>The criticisms of the Lord here were all related to His drinking, eating and table company. Jesus showed by His fellowship with “the poor in spirit” that He meant what He said. He, as God’s Son, extended His Father’s fellowship to them in the here and now of this life. Luke seems to have been especially perceptive of the fact that Jesus often accepted invitations to eat with those whom others despised (<em><a href='B:490 5:29'>Luk 5:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:36'>Luk 7:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:38'>Luk 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:37'>Luk 11:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:1'>Luk 14:1</a></em>). In 1st century Palestine, to eat with someone was a religious act:&nbsp; The host blessed and broke the bread and then broke off a piece for each guest, thus binding together all present. This was why the many sects of Judaism carefully limited their table fellowship (notably the Pharisees and Essenes). Thus it was the Lord’s desire to share table fellowship with the very lowest (apparently) within the community of God that brought Him such criticism (<em><a href='B:470 11:19'>Mat 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:16'>Mar 2:16</a></em>). His teaching also made it plain that He saw table fellowship with Him at a meal as a type of the future Messianic banquet, to be enjoyed in His Kingdom at His return, when redeemed sinners will again sit and eat with Him (<em><a href='B:490 22:29-30'>Luk 22:29-30</a></em>). To accept the gift of the bread of life at the breaking of bread is to symbolize our acceptance of the life that is in Him. If we believe what we are doing at the memorial meeting, we are showing our acceptance of the fact that we will be there, and that what we are doing in our humble breakings of bread is in fact a true foretaste of the Kingdom experience which awaits us.</p><p>The Lord was ‘fond’ [<em>philos</em>] of sinners; He liked them and their company. In this we see His greatness, for most spiritual people admit to finding the company of the unspiritual somewhat of a burden. But the Lord’s spirituality was beyond that. Truly He is the sinners’ friend:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>But wisdom is justified of all her children</em>-</p><p> This could simply mean that both His and John's disciples would be justified in the end, despite their differences. </p><p>Appreciating the inter-relation between 'doctrine' and practice will result in our seeing through the fallacy that because someone's deeds are good, therefore it doesn't matter too much about their doctrine. The spiritual fruit which God seeks is that which is brought forth by the seed of His word, the Gospel. To&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;understand the basic Gospel with one's heart is to bring forth fruit, to be converted. True wisdom is justified by the works she brings forth (<em><a href='B:470 11:19'>Mat 11:19</a></em>). This is why true conversion involves understanding and perceiving, and not merely hearing doctrinal truth (<em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em>). Yet the counter argument would be that there are people who know God’s truth who behave poorly, and there are those who know little of it who act well. This is why the Lord speaks of “wisdom”, not “truth”; for wisdom is God’s truth applied in practice:&nbsp;</p><p>On another level, we see here the Lord’s response to slander, both of Himself and John. Wisdom is justified of her children- in the end. The “children” are those of Himself and John, who have just featured in His parable of the preachers, His children, meeting lack of response in the town square. Even if there is lack of response to the invitation, the Lord was confident that both His ‘children’ (the “little ones” of <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em>) and John’s would be the justification of the truth and wisdom which they were teaching. This is all a comfort to those undergoing slander. In the end, if we are on the side of wisdom, we shall be justified.</p>


text:
<p><em>And one of the Pharisees requested him to eat with him. And he entered into the Pharisee's house and sat down to the meal</em>-</p><p> As noted on :34, to eat together and to enter into a house was a sign of religious acceptance. Perhaps it was done simply to try to catch the Lord out by the presence of the sinful woman. Or maybe the Pharisee had a genuine interest.</p>


text:
<p><em>And a woman who was in the city, a sinner, when she knew that he was dining in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment</em>-</p><p> The three anointings of Luke 7, Matthew 26 and John 12 are similar but different. Here the scene is in Galilee; but it inspired Mary to do something similar in John 12 in Bethany, which in turn encouraged an anonymous woman in Matthew 26 to do the same kind of thing near Jerusalem. Self sacrifice and devotion are examples which spread. This is the reason for fellowship in practice- to be inspired and encouraged together by human examples of responses to the same Lord. "A sinner" with no reference to any change could suggest that she was right at that moment still working as a prostitute.</p>


text:
<p><em>And standing behind at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment</em>-</p><p> The weeping was presumably for her sins, so ashamed that she stood behind Him, not facing His face. She believed that He was the Christ, the anointed one. And that understanding was not cheap nor painless for her; it motivated her to anoint the anointed one, the Christ, with her most valuable possession. Our belief in the most basic principles of the Lord and truths about Him should require likewise. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now when the Pharisee that had invited him saw it, he spoke within himself, saying: This man, if he were a prophet, would have perceived who and what manner of woman this is that touches him, that she is a sinner</em>-</p><p> We note that the thoughts of a man within himself as he sat in his lounge any centuries ago... are recorded for us to this day. God notices all thoughts. When the woman touched the Lord, people reasoned that Jesus wasn’t Messiah because He appeared not to know that He was being touched by a sinner. Yet this incident prepared the Lord for the time when He would be smitten and demanded to prophesy who smote Him, if He was the Christ (<em><a href='B:490 22:64'>Luk 22:64</a></em>). At that moment, perhaps He thought back to this incident, realizing it had been a living out of the spirit of the cross, and it prepared Him for the final agony. &nbsp;</p><p>The Lord's response to Simon was not self-justification, but rather an enquiry as to how much Simon loved the Lord in response to the forgiveness of <em>his</em> sins (<em><a href='B:490 7:39-48'>Luk 7:39-48</a></em>). And when the Pharisees criticized the disciples for mixing with sinners, the Lord's response was to appeal to them <em>personally</em> to repent (<em><a href='B:490 5:30-32'>Luk 5:30-32</a></em>). And He went further in justifying His disciples, by answering another criticism of them by the Jews with the comment that unless they changed, they would be like old bottles broken by His new wine. <em>They</em> personally had to change- and they needed to focus upon that rather than criticizing others for their possible guilt by association.</p><p>Knowing the Lord Jesus as a person will excite real passion and feeling in response. Our reactions to the tragedy of the way He was rejected, and is rejected and mocked to this day, will be like those of the woman who was a sinner whom Luke records in Luke 7. The Lord was invited to the home of a Pharisee, who clearly had only invited Him to insult and mock Him. For the Pharisee hadn't kissed Him, nor arranged for His feet to be washed- things which simply <em>have </em>to be done to an invited guest. And so that woman becomes passionate. She feels anger and hurt for the insult and rejection made against Jesus. She does what Simon the Pharisee didn't do- kissing Him, washing His feet. Having no towel to dry His feet, she let down her hair to use as a towel- and a woman could be divorced for letting down her hair in front of men. She touches the Lord's body- something deeply despised, for the Greek and Hebrew idea of 'touching' has sexual overtones (<em><a href='B:10 20:6'>Gen 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 6:29'>Pro 6:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:1'>1Co 7:1</a></em>), the Greek word 'to touch' also meaning 'to light a fire'. The ointment she carried between her breasts denoted her as a prostitute- but she breaks it open and pours it on the Lord in repentance. Her attitude was surely: 'Yeah I'm a whore, you all know that. And yes, you're all gonna misunderstand me and think I am just madly coming on at this Jesus. OK, misunderstand me as you will, I don't care, I truly love Him as my Saviour, and there, I'm pouring out my ointment, I'm through with this broadway life, I'm repenting, in the abandon of freedom from sin I now feel, I'm giving myself wholly to Him and His cause, mock me, be shocked and disgusted in your middle-class way all you like, but this is for real'. And this, it seems to me, is the response of everyone who truly comes to the Lord Jesus as a person, and feels for Him as a real person whom we have met in a real, valid encounter. The Lord responded to that woman by doing something which may not seem a big deal to us, but which was radical in first century culture. He criticized strongly the hospitality of His host. This just wasn't done, and still isn't. He was angry- because despite the woman's sincerity, they still labelled her as a 'sinner' (<em><a href='B:490 7:39'>Luk 7:39</a></em>). He rebuked Simon through the parable of the two debtors, who owed 500 pence and 50 pence. As that woman went away "in peace", with her Lord passionately behind her and on her side, defending her to the world, so we too walk away from our encounters with Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answering said to him: Simon, I have something to say to you. And he said: Teacher, speak</em>-</p><p> Like David, the Lord Jesus saw through peoples’ actions to the self-talk behind it. He observed the body language of the Pharisee, despising the repentant woman; <em><a href='B:490 7:39'>Luk 7:39</a></em> records that the man “said within himself... ‘She is a sinner!’”, but “Jesus <em>answering</em> said to him..." (<em><a href='B:490 7:40'>Luk 7:40</a></em>). The Lord perceived the man’s self-talk, and responded to it. For Him, the Pharisee’s unspoken words were loud and clear, and Jesus acted as if He was in a conversation with the man. He correctly read the man’s silent disapproval as actually saying something, and responded to it as if in conversation. Of course we could argue that the Lord was empowered by a flash of Holy Spirit illumination to be able to read the Pharisee’s mind; but it seems to me altogether more likely that it was His own sensitivity, His own perception of the other’s self-talk, that enabled Him to know what was being silently said within the man’s mind.</p><p>The parables of Luke 7, 14 were told during a meal- perhaps many of the others were, too. The Lord would have been a brilliant conversationalist, drawing out unexpected challenges and lessons from what appeared to be everyday facts. The implications of the parables are not pleasant- they would have soured some of His table conversations if they were properly perceived. And likewise with us as we read them in this age; these stories are indeed profoundly disturbing if understood properly and allowed to take their effect upon us. Yet for all their challenge, the parables of Jesus reveal how deeply familiar He was with human life in all its daily issues and complexities. He artlessly revealed how He had meditated deeply upon the issues involved in farming, the problem of weeds, how much poor men were paid for a day’s work, the desperation of the beggar Lazarus, problems faced by builders when laying foundations… He was and is truly sensitive and understanding of the everyday issues of our lives, and yet draws out of them something deeply challenging and radical. In this was and is His surpassing, magnetic brilliance. But the unanswered questions in the parables aren't all there is to them.</p>


text:
<p><em>A certain lender had two debtors. The one owed five hundred denarii and the other fifty</em>-</p><p> The Lord saw the hypocritical Pharisee Simon as being a man forgiven fifty pence, who therefore loved Him (<em><a href='B:490 7:41'>Luk 7:41</a></em>). This shows the generous way in which the Lord reads people. In the same chapter, the Lord recognised that John the Baptist had suffered a crisis of faith. But He tells the crowd that John wasn’t a reed shaken with the wind, an unstable believer (<em><a href='B:490 7:24'>Luk 7:24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 7:2'>Isa 7:2</a></em>), but the greatest of God’s servants; He overlooked the temporary failure, and judged the overall spirit of John. </p>


text:
<p><em>When they had nothing with which to pay, he forgave them both. Which of them therefore will love him most?</em></p><p>- See on :47. The forgiveness was granted <em>when</em> they had nothing to pay. Spiritually, having nothing to pay means a person is at rock bottom. They recognize that they cannot pay back, cannot turn the clock back, cannot make things right again. All they can do is to throw themselves upon God's grace. This is the idea of :29. The desperate sinners justified God in repentance. We wonder if this prostitute was one of the group mentioned there. </p>


text:
<p><em>Simon answered and said: He, I suppose, to whom he forgave the most. And he said to him: You have rightly judged</em>-</p><p> There is a direct connection between amount of forgiveness and love for the Lord. And yet volume of forgiveness is also a matter of perception. Those who perceive the enormous extent of their sins and receipt of forgiveness are those who will love the Lord more. The woman's utter abandon towards the Lord was therefore because of this. Simon's minimalistic approach to the Lord was because he had little sense of personal debt to the Lord. The Lord's implication to Simon that he ought to have been more generous in entertaining the Lord is therefore another way of saying that he needed to repent the more and perceive the size of his debt. </p>


text:
<p><em>And turning to the woman, he said to Simon: Saw you this woman? I entered into your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wetted my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair</em>-</p><p> It was rude to speak to a man without looking at them, let alone with back turned to the person and looking at a woman. The Lord is purposefully snubbing Simon and demonstrating the huge respect He had for this prostitute. The Lord saw Simon the proud Pharisee as having been forgiven a little, and as loving Him a little (<em><a href='B:490 7:44-48'>Luk 7:44-48</a></em>). This isn’t how we would have seen that man. This is surely something more than generosity of spirit, even though the Lord certainly had this. His attitude reflects a hopefulness for Simon, an earnest desire for his salvation that only saw and imagined the best.</p>


text:
<p><em>You gave me no kiss, but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss my feet</em>-</p><p> The Lord saw a connection between the way the sinful woman kissed Him much, and the way she “loved much” (<em><a href='B:490 7:45'>Luk 7:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:47'>Luk 7:47</a></em> RVmg:). He then told a parable about her and Simon the Pharisee. His point was that they both owed Him money and He had forgiven the debt, but He was looking for an appropriate response from them. Yet there is no evidence that Simon had repented before receiving that forgiveness. </p>


text:
<p><em>My head with oil you did not anoint, but she has anointed my feet with ointment</em>-</p><p> The Lord makes a clear allusion to Psalms 23 in saying that<em> she</em> had anointed His head with oil, and His feet with ointment. There, it is <em>God </em>who is said to have anointed David's head, and prepared a feast in the presence of his enemies (<em><a href='B:230 23:5'>Psa 23:5</a></em>). The historical background for this Psalm is when David fled from Absalom, and God manifested in Barzillai prepared an unexpected feast for him, just the other side of the valley from where his enemies were. Perhaps&nbsp;Barzillai also anointed David's head with oil at the time. It seems the Lord saw God as now manifest in a woman- He, through her, anointed His head with oil. And she did it at a time when the Lord was sitting at a great feast. It could logically follow that it was likewise she who had prepared the feast for Him, explaining her presence in the home. And if, as we have suggested, Simon the Pharisee was her brother or father or relative, then this would make sense. The whole thing surely has the ring of truth about it. Thus the Lord saw God as personally manifested through a sex worker. This should quieten all our doubts as to whether God really could be manifested through such as us. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>Therefore I say to you, that her sins, which are many, are forgiven (for she loved much). But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little</em>-</p><p> Paul seems to have seen this woman as one of his patterns when he speaks of how he laboured more abundantly than anyone, because of the depth of grace he had known (<em><a href='B:610 1:14-15'>1Ti 1:14-15</a></em>)- for she “loved much” because she had been forgiven much (<em><a href='B:490 7:47'>Luk 7:47</a></em>). In passing, was the Lord’s comment “she loved much” an indication that He thereby knew how much she had sinned, without having the knowledge beamed into Him, because He observed how much she now loved Him? In the parable which the Lord told comparing Simon and the woman, He made the comment that it was only “When they [realized that] they had nothing wherewith to pay” (<em><a href='B:490 7:42'>Luk 7:42</a></em> RV) that they were forgiven. He perceived how Mary had come to that point, at His feet, weeping, of knowing that she had nothing to pay. And Paul, and us, must reach that point if we are to find the motivation to “love much” in response. &nbsp;</p><p>He who is forgiven much, the same will love much (<em><a href='B:490 7:41-50'>Luk 7:41-50</a></em>). The purpose of the Lord's mini-parable was not that the druggies, the hookers, the murderers will love Christ more than you or me. It was to teach that according to a man's <em>perception</em> of his sin, so he will love his Lord. All too often we serve Him because we have a conscience that we should do so; and yet the service He requires is service, even the senseless service of that forgiven woman with her precious ointment, simply because we <em>love</em> Him. And that overwhelming, overflowing <em>love</em> will only come from a true sense of our desperation. By knowing our desperation, we will know the Lord, we will know the grace and fathomless mercy which is so essentially <em>Him</em>: "Ye shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have wrought with you... not according to your wicked ways" (<em><a href='B:330 20:43-44'>Eze 20:43-44</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to her: Your sins are forgiven</em>-</p><p> This was not so much a pronouncement of forgiveness in response to repentance; rather is it a reminder to her that her sins really had been forgiven, an encouragement to her to believe that which was already true.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they that sat at food with him began to say within themselves: Who is this that even forgives sins?</em>-</p><p> They <em>began</em> to say within themselves. But, presumably, they didn’t verbalize it, when they easily could have done. Why not? Was it not that the anointing was an unspoken testimony that indeed, Jesus had forgiven her sins? &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to the woman: Your faith has saved you. Go into peace</em>-</p><p> Her faith is specifically her faith in forgiveness (:48) and the "peace" in view is therefore peace with God. This is what comes from faith (<em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em> s:w:). The woman therefore becomes representative of every believer. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass soon afterwards, that he went about through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom of God; and companying with him were the twelve- </em>The Synoptic Gospels use the same words for the activities of both the Lord Jesus and the disciples in respect of preaching, teaching, healing etc. Theirs was a shared ministry. Thus the Lord is recorded as “<em>showing</em> the glad tidings of the Kingdom”, but in the same context He asks&nbsp;a new convert to go home “and <em>shew</em> how great things God has done” (:39), as if he were to continue the ‘showing’ of Jesus.</p><p>The Lord taught them how to preach by having them accompany Him as He went about preaching. We can too easily assume that the purpose of the Bible, or the teaching of Jesus, the doctrine of Christ, is merely and solely to impart information. We can underestimate the degree to which the immediate intention of doctrine, of Jesus, was the transformation of human life. Many of us have been educated in an environment where the aim of teaching is to bring people to know things that have no practical effect upon their lives; yet this is most decidedly not how we should approach the words of the Gospel. Our model of learning has been 'from jug to mug', i:e. there is the assumption that the teacher simply pours out their knowledge into the student's passive mental space. And then the student is tested as to the degree of retention of that knowledge. But as disciples, students, of the Lord Jesus, we are about something different. If the Lord were scheduled to give a class in one of our ecclesial halls, my sense is we would turn up with our video cameras, tape recorders, note books, pens and pencils. But when in reality He delivered the 'sermon on the mount', His listeners simply beheld a life lived, the reflection of His words in practice, "the word made flesh". He both preached <em>and </em>shewed the Gospel- in His life as well as His doctrinal teaching. And so it should be with our teaching of others. </p>


text:
<p><em>And certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary that was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out</em>-</p><p> Mary Magdalene was perhaps named after the town of Magdala. But named Magdalene may mean the Lord gave her that Name just as He gave names to His other disciples. The name derives from the Hebrew&nbsp;<em>migdol</em>, ‘tower’:&nbsp; So the repeated description of her as the Magdalene could be implying: Mary the tower- Magdalene. Just as the shaky Simon was described as ‘the rock’, Simon-the-rock, so the shady Mary was surnamed ‘Mary-the-tower’. It was common for Jewish rabbis to give their followers names, and it seems the Lord did this too- but the names He gave reflected the potential which He saw in His men and women. And the name He gives us likewise is a reflection of the potential we can live up to. &nbsp; </p><p>Mary Magdalene is the most frequently named person in the passion narratives. Clearly the Gospel writers, under inspiration, perceived her as the central figure amongst those who were witnesses of it all. In doing so they turned on its head the prevailing idea that the witness of a woman was worthless. They saw her as the main witness. The Gospel writers clearly see Mary Magdalene as of prime importance amongst the women who followed the Lord. Luke twice places her first in his lists of the ministering women (<em><a href='B:490 8:2'>Luk 8:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:10'>Luk 24:10</a></em>). Matthew likewise focuses on how she was at Calvary, at the burial and at the empty tomb (<em><a href='B:470 27:56'>Mat 27:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:61'>Mat 27:61</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:1'>Mat 28:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:9'>Mat 28:9</a></em>). She clearly captured the attention of the gospel writers. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, who ministered to them out of their means</em>-</p><p> It is worth noting, though, that the NT does reflect the fact that a number of wealthy individuals came to the Truth too; and that these were bound together in fellowship with the poor. There were wealthy women amongst the earliest followers of Jesus; and James and John came from a family who owned their own fishing boat and could employ servants (<em><a href='B:480 1:19-20'>Mar 1:19-20</a></em>). Zacchaeus was wealthy- and note that he wasn't commanded to divest himself&nbsp;of all that wealth (<em><a href='B:490 19:1-10'>Luk 19:1-10</a></em>). Consider the Philippi ecclesia- the wealthy lady from Lydia, the homeless slave girl, the middle class, respectable jailer, and the slaves of his and Lydia’s household. There was nowhere else in the ancient world that all these classes could come together in such unity. Paul himself was not poor- “to be a citizen of Tarsus one had to pass the means test of owning property worth at least 500 drachmae”. He was thought wealthy enough to be able to give a bribe (<em><a href='B:510 24:26'>Act 24:26</a></em>). He assured Philemon that he personally would meet any debts arising from the situation with Onesimus. Consider the other wealthy converts: the Proconsul of Cyprus (<em><a href='B:510 13:12'>Act 13:12</a></em>), Lydia, Jason who was wealthy enough to put down security for Paul assisted by prominent women (<em><a href='B:510 17:4'>Act 17:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:9'>Act 17:9</a></em>), Greek women of high standing at Berea (<em><a href='B:510 17:12'>Act 17:12</a></em>), Dionysius and Damaris in Athens (<em><a href='B:510 17:16-34'>Act 17:16-34</a></em>), Crispus the ruler of the Corinth synagogue (<em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:530 1:14'>1Co 1:14</a></em>), Erastus the city treasurer (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>). Marta Sordi quotes evidence for there being Christians amongst the Roman aristocracy even during the first half of the first century. These few wealthy converts would have bonded together with the mass of poor and slaves who had also come to Christ. It was a unique unity.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when a great crowd came together, and they of every city had come to him, he spoke by a parable</em>-</p><p> "Came /&nbsp;gathered together" is the Greek&nbsp;<em>sunago&nbsp;</em>from whence 'synagogue'. The idea is that there in the open air, on the sea shore, and&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;in a building, was the synagogue- with the Lord as rabbi, sitting in a fishing boat to teach whilst the audience&nbsp;<em>stood</em>&nbsp;instead of sitting (as they did in a Jewish synagogue, <em><a href='B:660 2:2-3'>Jas 2:2-3</a></em>). The whole scene is a radical inversion of orthodox Jewish values and culture. The true synagogue was now in the open air, and beyond the imagination, frames and culture of orthodox religion.</p><p>The Gospel records give more information about the day on which the Lord told the sower parable than concerning almost any other in His ministry, with the exception of the crucifixion (compare <em><a href='B:470 12:22'>Mat 12:22</a></em> to <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:27'>Luk 11:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:10'>Mar 4:10</a></em>). Various types of people heard His words; the immediate context is that great crowds were gathered to Him. The parable of the differing types of ground which were for the most part unresponsive to the seed therefore refer to the various reception given to the Lord's sowing when He first "went forth to sow" in His ministry.</p><p>The unusually large crowd were attracted to the Lord for various reasons, not least the hope of miracles. And He now tells them a parable to the effect that out of all those who encounter His word, only a minority would truly respond. Perhaps this parable is recorded out of all His teachings, because time proved it so true to that mass of humanity who heard Him preaching.</p>


text:
<p><em>The sower went to sow his seed- </em>The Lord’s teaching in <em><a href='B:470 12:43'>Mat 12:43</a></em> that the Jews had not responded to John the Baptist lays the basis for the parable of the sower, which was told the same day- the seed initially experienced some growth, but then the 'evil one', the Jewish system, stunted that growth. Who is the sower? The preacher, or the Lord Jesus? Some Greek texts read “<em>a&nbsp;</em>sower” (followed by the AV), others “<em>the</em>&nbsp;sower” (cp. the Diaglott). Perhaps the Lord said both: ‘A sower, the sower, went out…’. Surely the sower is the Lord Jesus, but in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;work of witness we are&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;witnesses. For we represent Him to the world. This is why “the Spirit (the Lord the Spirit, Jesus) and the bride (the ecclesia) say, Come”; ours is a united witness with Him.</p><p>"Went" is the word used several times of the Lord 'going forth' to teach, and four times He uses it about His 'going forth' to hire workers for His harvest (<em><a href='B:470 20:1'>Mat 20:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:5-6'>Mat 20:5-6</a></em>). The 'sowing' of the word was therefore not merely a placing of ideas and theology in the minds of men, but in practice it was (and is) a call to go out and work, to harvest others for the Kingdom. The Lord 'came forth' in order to preach (<em><a href='B:480 1:38'>Mar 1:38</a></em> s:w. "... that I may preach there... for&nbsp;<em>therefore came I forth</em>"). Note that He didn't 'come forth' from Heaven as a pre-existent person; rather Matthew begins his Gospel by using the word about how the Lord 'came forth' from Bethlehem, His birthplace (<em><a href='B:470 2:6'>Mat 2:6</a></em>). John's Gospel records the Lord as saying that He 'came forth' from God (<em><a href='B:500 16:28'>Joh 16:28</a></em> etc:), but this was in a spiritual sense; this is John's spiritual equivalent of Matthew's statement that He came forth from Bethlehem.</p><p><em>And as he sowed- </em>The condemned man in the parable of <em><a href='B:470 25:24-26'>Mat 25:24-26</a></em> complained that the Lord expected to reap where He had not sown. But the parable of the sower makes it clear that the Lord sows, even fanatically, everywhere. We perhaps would've reminded the man of the Lord's parable and His unceasing work of sowing, and reasoned 'That's not true!'. But this isn't the Lord's style. He takes people where they are and uses their own words and reasonings as if they are true- and shows by an altogether higher level of reasoning that they are not true. This explains His approach to the issue of demons. Matthew doesn't record that the Lord made a big issue about the seed- Luke's account records this: "A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed..." (<em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em>). This appears to state the obvious- a sower sows seed. But "his seed" can also mean 'the seed of Him'. There is an obvious connection with the great Messianic promises to the Jewish fathers about their "seed". The seed is God's word, but it is also effectively 'Jesus'. For He personally is the essence of the Gospel message. This parable of the types of ground is explaining to the disciples why the majority of Israel were failing to accept Him, and thus had rejected the ministry and message of John.</p><p><em>Some fell by the way side, and it was trodden under foot, and the birds of the air devoured it</em>-</p><p> The reason for the way side growth being so short lived was that the seed was "trodden down". This is a Biblical idiom for disdain and contempt (<em><a href='B:70 5:21'>Jdg 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:19'>Isa 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 18:7'>Isa 18:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 28:3'>Isa 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 7:10'>Mic 7:10</a></em>). A half-hearted response to the word, is effectively to tread it down in contempt. Yet such is the word's power that even a partial response to it results in some growth- although in the final analysis, even this is unacceptable.</p><p>Our witness must fundamentally be Christ-centred. The same Greek words are used about treading underfoot the seed of the Gospel, and treading underfoot the Son of God (<em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em>). Our knowledge of Him and living in Him are the essence of our witness. He is essentially our witness. </p><p>The fowls taking away the unfruitful plant is the first of a number of connections with the true vine parable of John 15, where the ideas of Divine husbandry, fruitfulness due to the word and purging recur. In <em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em> the fruitless branch is taken away by God; in the sower parable, the birds remove the fruitless plant. The conclusion is that God sends 'birds' of various kinds to remove the spiritual deadwood from His ecclesia. It is in this sense that false teaching (e.g. the Judaist "birds" of the first century) is allowed by God. Thus <em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em> literally translated speaks of "birds of Heaven".</p><p>The Greek&nbsp;<em>hodos</em>&nbsp;means simply 'the way'. It is the very word used about John the Baptist seeking to prepare the way for the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>). If Israel had responded as envisaged in the Isaiah 40 passage which speaks of this, then the way or road would have been prepared and the glory of Yahweh would have travelled over it to establish God's visible Kingdom in Jerusalem. On one hand, the fact the sower sowed even on the 'way' is an element of unreality in the parable which simply points to the extreme enthusiasm of this sower, casting the seed onto all types of human personality, including those who appear hopeless cases. The seed of God's word would have made the rough way smooth for the King of glory to ride over to Zion. But instead the seed was despised and even condemned, trampled underfoot- an idiom meaning it was despised and even condemned. And then the birds came and took it away altogether. The way was not prepared by response to the seed because of the Jewish leadership stopping others responding. We note the usage of the same word to describe how some despised individuals sitting in 'the way' were in fact persuaded to respond to the Kingdom invitation (<em><a href='B:470 22:9-10'>Mat 22:9-10</a></em>); Bartimaeus was likewise sitting in the way [s:w:] and responded, following Jesus "in the way" (<em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em>). The 'way [side]' could have responded to the seed- but it didn't. Because men came and trampled it under foot, and the birds came and took it away. It wasn't as if there was no chance at all that it could have responded:&nbsp;</p><p>First of all, the seed was "trodden down" before the birds came. The impression is given of something, someone or a group of people hindering the growth of the seed- and that is a theme explaining the failure of the seed to grow in the other cases of 'bad ground'. The Lord has in mind the damage done to the growth of the word in the hearts of first century Israel by a group of people- and those people were the Jewish religious leaders. On a wider level, it's true that in practice it is the attitudes and pressures from others, conscious and unconscious, which stops people today from responding to God's word beyond an initial interest. Birds were symbolically understood in Judaism as the Gentiles- and the Lord is applying the symbol to the very religious leaders of Judaism, whom He saw as Gentiles in that they were consciously trying to stop people responding to the seed of God's word of Christ. And yet His later parable in the same chapter speaks of the birds coming and dwelling in the branches of His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 13:32'>Mat 13:32</a></em>). I see in this His hope, even His fantasy, that His worst opponents would come into His Kingdom. And some did- for some Pharisees did later repent and were baptized, even Saul. And this is a great example to us, of wishing the very best, the Kingdom, for even the worst.</p><p>The picture of fowls coming down to take away the seed is firmly rooted in a host of Old Testament passages which speak of fowls descending on apostate Israel (<em><a href='B:290 18:6'>Isa 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:33'>Jer 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 15:3'>Jer 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 16:4'>Jer 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 19:7'>Jer 19:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 34:20'>Jer 34:20</a></em>). These birds taking away the seed are interpreted as "the wicked one" (the Biblical devil) 'catching away' the word. There must be a thought connection here with Jesus' comment that from him who would not understand the sower parable "shall be&nbsp;<em>taken away</em>&nbsp;even that he hath" (<em><a href='B:470 13:12'>Mat 13:12</a></em>). Those who would not make the mental effort to grapple with Christ's parable had what understanding they did have snatched away by the Jewish devil. "The wicked one" responsible for this easily connects with "the devil" of the parable of the tares which follows; this parable has frequently been interpreted with reference to Jewish false teachers of the first century. "The wicked one... catches away" the seed/word, as the Jewish wolf "catches" the sheep (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>). This association of the first century Jewish system with the wolf/ wild beast/ devil/ wicked one is probably continued by some of the beasts of Revelation having a similar Jewish application in the first century.</p><p>literally translated speaks of "birds of Heaven". The fowls taking away the unfruitful seed is the first of a number of connections with the true vine parable of John 15, where the ideas of Divine husbandry and fruitfulness due to the word recur. In <em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em> the fruitless branch is taken away by God; in the sower parable, the birds remove the fruitless plant. The conclusion is that God sends 'birds' of various kinds to remove the spiritual deadwood from His ecclesia. It is in this sense that false teaching (e.g. the Judaist "fowls" of the first century) is allowed by God. parable of the sower connects the Devil with the fowls which take away the Word from potential converts, stopping their spiritual growth. This would aptly fit the Judaizers who were leading the young ecclesias away from the word, and the Jews who “shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men... neither do you suffer them that are entering (young converts) to go in” (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>). The Devil takes away the word of the Kingdom, “lest they should believe and be saved” (<em><a href='B:490 8:12'>Luk 8:12</a></em>).</p><p>The seed was "devoured"; the same word is used of how the Pharisees "devour[ed] widows houses" (<em><a href='B:470 23:14'>Mat 23:14</a></em>) and of how the Judaist fifth column within the fledgling church 'devoured' some (<em><a href='B:550 5:15'>Gal 5:15</a></em>). The sober fact is that we can be barriers to the response of others to the word of Jesus, the word which is&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;seed- Jesus. One lesson we can take from the parable is that spiritual growth involves resisting other influences in order to respond to the Lord Jesus personally through His word.</p>


text:
<p><em>And other fell on the rock- </em>The Greek&nbsp;<em>petrodes</em>&nbsp;is a form of&nbsp;<em>petra</em>. The Lord had taught that the wise man who heard and did His sayings developed his spiritual house upon a&nbsp;<em>petra</em>, a rock (<em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em>). And of course Peter was the&nbsp;<em>petra&nbsp;</em>upon which the church would be built (<em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>). So again we see that it was not impossible for the seed on the rock to prosper. The problem was that some who began their growth upon rocks stopped growing because of persecution and tribulation- which in the first instance was from the Jews.</p><p><em>And as soon as it grew- </em>Matthew- "immediately it grew". There is nothing wrong with this, indeed this is as response to the word should be; and the Gospels often note the immediacy of response. When you perceive an opportunity to do the Lord's service,&nbsp;<em>respond immediately</em>. See it as another opportunity for "redeeming the time". This is a major Biblical theme. Israel were not to delay in offering their firstfruits to God (<em><a href='B:20 22:29'>Exo 22:29</a></em>), lest their intentions weren't translated into practice. The disciples&nbsp;<em>immediately</em>&nbsp;left the ship, simply put their nets down and followed (<em><a href='B:470 4:20'>Mat 4:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:22'>Mat 4:22</a></em>); Matthew left his opened books and queue of clients in the tax office and walked out never to return (<em><a href='B:490 5:17-18'>Luk 5:17-18</a></em> implies). There is a marked theme in the NT of men and women hearing the Gospel and&nbsp;<em>immediately</em>&nbsp;responding by accepting baptism. In this spirit Cornelius immediately sent for Peter (<em><a href='B:510 10:33'>Act 10:33</a></em>), and the Philippian jailer was immediately baptized, even though there were many other things to think about that night (<em><a href='B:510 16:33'>Act 16:33</a></em>). Joseph was twice told in dreams to “arise” and take the child Jesus to another country:&nbsp; Both times he “arose” in the morning and just did it, leaving all he had, responding immediately (<em><a href='B:470 2:13-14'>Mat 2:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:20-21'>Mat 2:20-21</a></em>). Paul and Luke immediately went to preach in Macedonia after seeing the inviting vision (<em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em>); Paul "straightway" preached Christ after receiving his vision of preaching commission (<em><a href='B:510 9:20'>Act 9:20</a></em>). Indeed, the records of the Lord's ministry are shot through (in Mark especially) with words like "immediately", "straightway", "forthwith", "as soon as...". He was a man of immediate response, Yahweh's servant&nbsp;<em>par excellence</em>. He dismissed the man who would fain follow Him after he had buried his father, i:e. who wanted to wait some years until his father’s death and then set out in earnest on the Christian life. The Lord’s point was that we must immediately respond to the call to live and preach Him, with none of the delay and hesitancy to total commitment which masquerades as careful planning. Note how the Lord told another parable in which He characterized those not worthy of Him as those who thought they had valid reason to delay their response to the call (<em><a href='B:490 14:16-20'>Luk 14:16-20</a></em>). They didn't turn Him down, they just thought He would understand if they delayed. But He is a demanding Lord, in some ways. What He seeks is an immediacy of response. If we have this in the daily calls to service in this life, we will likewise respond immediately to the knowledge that 'He's back' (<em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>, cp. the wise virgins going immediately, whilst the others delayed). And whether we respond immediately or not will be the litmus test as to whether our life's spirituality was worth anything or not. All this is not to say that we should rush off in hot-headed enthusiasm, crushing the work and systematic efforts of other brethren and committees under foot. But when we see the need, when we catch the vision of service, let's not hesitate in our response, dilly dallying until we are left with simply a host of good intentions swimming around in our brain cells. Instead, let's appreciate that one aspect of the seed in good soil was that there was an&nbsp;<em>immediacy of response&nbsp;</em>to the word, a joyful and speedy 'springing up' in response (<em><a href='B:480 4:5'>Mar 4:5</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>It withered away, because it had no moisture</em>-</p><p> Because it had no depth (<em><a href='B:470 13:6'>Mat 13:6</a></em>). John perhaps explains the 'depth' in his account of the woman at the well. The salvation in Christ was brought from the 'deep' [s:w:] well (<em><a href='B:500 4:11'>Joh 4:11</a></em>). This connects the ideas of depth and moisture. These people had only a surface level interest and did not really grasp the deep reality of the Lord and His work; just as some can apparently respond to the Bible, and yet not really engage in relationship with the Lord Jesus.</p><p>The same word for "withered" is used by the Lord about how Israel were the fig tree who had once had promise of fruit (in their initial response to John) but was now withered (<em><a href='B:470 21:19-20'>Mat 21:19-20</a></em>). Those who initially accept Christ but do not abide in Him are likewise "withered" (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). John's emphasis upon 'abiding' in Christ likely has reference to the need to accept John's message about Christ and abide in it, rather than wandering off and back to Judaism. Both James and Peter seem to allude to this point of the parable in their teaching that the word of God stands forever, whereas flesh withers away (<em><a href='B:660 1:11'>Jas 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:24'>1Pe 1:24</a></em>). As we will note on <em><a href='B:490 13:22'>Luk 13:22</a></em>, the seed is to become the person. Those who do not wither are those who have the seed within them, the power of eternal life which endures. "Because they had no root, they withered away" (<em><a href='B:470 13:6'>Mat 13:6</a></em>) is alluded to in <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> concerning the branches of the vine withering as a result of God's word not abiding in them. The connection between the plants of the sower parable and the branches of the vine is further evidence that the sower parable mainly concerns the response to the word of those&nbsp;<em>within</em>&nbsp;the ecclesia.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And other fell into the good ground, and grew, and brought forth fruit a hundredfold- </em>The next parable in Matthew is clearly related to this parable of the sower. There, the same word is used for the "good seed", the "children of the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>). The ground refers to the hearts of people; but in the parable of the good seed, the seed itself is paralleled with the person. The word had become flesh in them, as it was in the Lord Himself (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). John the Baptist had preached about the need to be a "good" plant bearing good fruit, or else face condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>, and repeated by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 7:17-19'>Mat 7:17-19</a></em>). The appeal was for the audience to be as John intended, to follow where his teaching led. They had initially accepted that teaching but had failed to follow where it led. And this was to be their condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:480 4:8'>Mar 4:8</a></em> adds the significant detail that it was the&nbsp;<em>fruit</em>&nbsp;that the plant yielded which "sprung up and increased". The picture is of a plant bringing forth seeds which themselves germinate into separate plants and bear fruit. This can be interpreted in at least two ways:&nbsp;</p><p>1) True spiritual development in our lives is a cumulative upward spiral; successfully developing spiritual fruit leads to developing yet more.</p><p>2) The new plants which come out of our fruit refer to our converts, both from the world and those within the ecclesia whom we help to yield spiritual fruit. There is another link here with the parable of the vine bearing fruit: "I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should&nbsp;<em>go</em>&nbsp;and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain"(<em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). This connects with Christ's command to them to&nbsp;<em>go</em>&nbsp;into the world preaching the Gospel and thereby making converts. In this sense our spiritual fruiting is partly through our bringing others to glorify God through the development of a God-like character. It is in this context of using the word for preaching and personal spiritual development that we receive the glorious encouragement "that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he (will) give it you" (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). Every believer who truly strives to bring forth fruit to God's glory, both in preaching to others and in personal character development, will find this promise constantly true.</p><p>God works like this because He is prepared to accept that different people will make something different of His Truth. The parable of the sower shows this in that the "good ground" brings forth 30, 60 or 100 fold. Some believers respond three times as actively to the Gospel as others; yet they will all be accepted at the end. I see a connection between this parable and the Lord's words to the rich, righteous young man: '"If you will be&nbsp;<em>perfect</em>..." sell what you've got; and then you'll receive&nbsp;<em>100 fold</em>&nbsp;in this life, and eternal life in the Kingdom' (<em><a href='B:470 19:12'>Mat 19:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>). Presumably, that man at that time was (say) in the 30 or 60 fold category. The Lord wanted him in the 100 fold category. But if that man didn't sell all that he had, it doesn't necessarily mean that Christ would have rejected him ultimately. In this context, He says: " Many that are first (in this life) will be last (least- in the Kingdom); and the last shall be first" (<em><a href='B:470 19:30'>Mat 19:30</a></em>). Those who don't sell all that they have will be in the Kingdom, but least in it. The poor of his world, rich in faith, will be great in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em>). We need to ask ourselves whether we really accept the parable of the sower; whether we are strong enough to let another brother be weak, to accept that even if he's in the 30 fold category, he's still acceptable to his Lord, just living on a different level. Indeed, it isn't for us to go very deeply at all into how exactly the Lord sees others; because we can't know. The point to note is that God wants us to rise up the levels of commitment. Paul was persuaded that the Romans were “full of goodness, filled with all knowledge”, but he prayed they would be filled yet further (<em><a href='B:520 15:13-14'>Rom 15:13-14</a></em>).</p><p>Growth was in fact possible on each type of ground, and the New Testament contains examples of where this happened. I suggest that in fact there are only three types of ground- the way side, the rocky and the thorny. These three types of ground would then match the three types of good ground- which gave 30,60 and 100 fold increase. Putting the gospel records together, the Lord's description of the good ground contains elements of the initially good response from the three bad types of ground. The good ground represents a good state of mind- for the ground is clearly to be understood as the heart of those receiving the word. This category therefore refers to those on the three other types of ground who&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;respond to the end, who overcame the pressures upon them not to respond further. This also removes the moral problem which is otherwise presented- in that it would appear that the seed of the word is spread, but the good ground people can do nothing else but respond, and the bad ground people can do nothing but not ultimately respond because of who they are by nature and where they are situated in life. The good ground category had to 'keep the word' (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>)- they didn't let men tread it underfoot nor birds take it away. Given their position in life, even by the wayside, they still responded by keeping the word. There was an element of choice and human effort required- rather than some categories being inevitably unable to keep the word because of their location in life and surrounding influences upon them. In this we see huge encouragement in our cluttered lives today, subject as they are to negative spiritual influences which at times seem too strong to resist. And we are further encouraged in our own sowing of the seed- nobody is incapable of response, from the deepest room in a strict Moslem family to sharing a one room apartment in Europe surrounded by materialistic, unGodly people.</p><p>Jeremias claims that a yield of tenfold was considered good in first century Palestine (Joachim Jeremias,&nbsp;<em>The Parables of Jesus</em>&nbsp;(New York: Scribner’s, 1972) p. 150). Even if that is somewhat conservative, the point is that the seed on good ground yielded amazingly. This element of unreality speaks of how each person in the ‘good ground’ category will experience growth and blessing out of proportion to their tiny spiritual beginnings. The parable of the mustard seed makes the same point. Amazing harvests is the language of the Messianic Kingdom, both Biblically and in Judaism. The beginning of the Kingdom experience is in our response to God’s word in this life. The one hundred fold response is huge- but then so is the loss. It’s as if the Lord is trying to encourage the disciples after the conclusions drawn about the general failure of the ministry of John- and therefore the Lord’s also. His point is that despite all the failure,&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;will respond, and their response and blessing will be so huge that this more than counterbalances all the failure of others. If we can bring one person towards eternity, this is so wonderful that all the rejection of our message is worthwhile:&nbsp;</p><p>In Palestine, sowing precedes ploughing. The sower sows on the path which the villagers have beaten over the stubble, since he intends to plough up the path with the rest of the field. He sows amongst thorns because they too will be ploughed in. And it has been suggested that the rocky ground was land with underlying limestone which barely shows above the surface. Even if some preaching work appears not to bear fruit, this shouldn't discourage us from the essentially outgoing spirit we should have in spreading the word far and wide. Many of the parables have an element of unreality about them, designed to focus our attention on a vital aspect of teaching. The sower parable has 75% of the seed sowed on bad ground, due to the almost fanatic way the sower throws the seed so far and wide, evidently without too much attention to whether it lands on responsive soil or not. His emphasis was clearly on broadcasting the seed far and wide. We should desire to see the spread of God’s ways, His Truth, His will, the knowledge of the real Christ, to as many as possible:&nbsp;</p><p>The word / seed which fell into good ground produced fruit. This connects with <em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>, which says that the branches of the vine bring forth fruit through the word abiding in them. Likewise the good ground keeps the word and continually brings forth fruit (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). It is common for us to learn something from the word, apply it for a few days, and then forget it. Yet surely the implication is that if our hearts are truly open to the word, it will have permanent effects upon us, if the word abides in us. For this reason it is necessary to pray at least daily for our minds to be good ground for the word, and to retain what we already comprehend. Those on the good ground who hear and understand in <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em> are described as those who hear and keep the word (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>). True understanding of the word's teaching is therefore related to an ongoing practical application of it. We may read a human book and understandit at the moment of reading; understanding God's word is quite a different concept. Truly understanding it means keeping it in our heart and therefore in our lives. The seed fell on good ground, "sprang up, and bare fruit"; indeed, it kept on bearing fruit (<em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). The plant being sown was therefore a repeating crop. True response to the word will lead to wave after wave of spiritual progression. Again, we see that the sower parable is describing an ongoing response to the word- it keeps on being sown by the believer keeping the word, and fruit is continuously brought forth.</p><p><em>As he said these things, he cried: He that has ears to hear, let him hear</em>-</p><p> The Lord so wanted their response. The very muscles of the Lords face, His body language, would have reflected an earnest, <em>burning</em> care and compassion. The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost; He put His whole personality into the task. And we beseech men “in the face of Christ" (<em><a href='B:540 2:10'>2Co 2:10</a></em> RV). We are to be <em>His</em> face to this world and to our brethren. With raised eyebrows, lines showing in our forehead, one eye half closed… our body language should reflect the depth of our concern for others. Having spoken of how our attitudes to God's word will elicit from Him varying responses, the Lord <em>cried</em>, loudly, "he that has ears to hear, <em>let him hear</em>" (<em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em>). There is then the sickening anti-climax of :9, where the disciples ask Him whatever His parable meant:&nbsp; One senses a moment of silence in which the Lord composed Himself and camouflaged the pain of His disappointment; and then His essential hopefulness returns in :10: "Unto you it is given (potentially, anyway) to know (understand) the mysteries (parables) of the Kingdom of God".</p><p>There is a fine point of translation in <em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em> which needs to be appreciated: “<em>As</em> he said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” (ASV and Greek). It seems that the Lord was ‘throwing out’ this challenge several times, as He spoke the parable. As the sower sows seed, so the Lord was challenging His hearers to decide what type of ground they were, as they heard the parable. </p>


text:
<p><em>And his disciples asked him what this parable meant</em>-</p><p> The disciples' response would have been a cutting anti-climax for the Lord after his impassioned plea of :8. According to Matthew, this was His first parable, and it marked the Lord's turning away from Israel and focus upon the disciples. They were taken aback by His changed method of teaching, probably noticing that the eagerly listening multitudes had not properly understood it, overhearing all kinds of wild guesses at what the Lord was maybe driving at:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest the parables remain as parables; so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand</em>-</p><p> The things which God has prepared for those who love Him, things which the natural eye has not seen but&nbsp; which are revealed unto us by the Spirit, relate to our redemption in Christ, rather than the wonders of the future political Kingdom (because <em><a href='B:470 13:11'>Mat 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 2:9-10'>1Co 2:9-10</a></em>). The context of 1 Corinthians 2 and the allusions to Isaiah there demand the same interpretation.</p><p>Here we see the element of predestination- understanding is “given”. Paul in Romans speaks of such predestination as the supreme evidence of our salvation by grace. One example of the Lord Jesus' emphasis on our salvation being through grace rather than our works is found in the way the parables teach that our acceptance is to some degree dependent on our predestination. Thus the parable of the types of ground suggests that we are good or bad ground at the time the seed is first sown; the fish are good or bad at the time they first enter the net; the wise virgins take the oil with them from the start of their vigil. I would suggest that this is not just part of the story. It was evidently within the Lord's ability to construct stories which featured the idea of bad seed or fish etc. changing to good, and vice versa. But He didn't; indeed, His emphasis seems to have been on the idea of predestination. This isn't to decry the effort for spirituality which we must make; but His stress of the predestination factor is surely to remind us of the degree to which our calling and salvation is by pure grace. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>They the supposed disciples, learners, of the Lord Jesus had been as dumb as the crowd; but by grace alone the Lord had privately explained the parables to them. And our understanding of true Bible teaching is likewise a gift of grace, when we are every bit as obtuse as the people in darkness who surround us. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now the parable is this. The seed is the word of God- </em>The word of the Gospel of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>). The parable gives the impression that the ground was in a certain condition when the seed was first sown; there seems no hint at the possibility of changing the ground, although we will see later that there is a sense in which this is possible. The stony ground, for example, is in that state as soon as the seed lands upon it. It seems the Lord is showing us how God looks down upon the preaching of the Gospel to various people, seeing that He speaks about things which are future as if they are already (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). He knows the type of ground which each of us will ultimately be. Therefore, as far as God is concerned, we are good ground, or whatever, at the time of our first encounter with the Gospel, even if we are initially stony or thistle-filled.</p><p>The seed is the word; but "the word" doesn't necessarily mean the whole Bible (although the whole Bible is of course inspired). The phrase specifically means the word of the power of the Gospel, by which we were ushered into spiritual being. And <em>this </em>is what brings forth fruit, through our 'patient' and continued response to it. We were born again, "not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God... and this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you" (<em><a href='B:670 1:23'>1Pe 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:25'>1Pe 1:25</a></em>). Time and again the New Testament uses "the word of God" or "the word of the Lord (Jesus)" as shorthand for the preaching of the basic Gospel. <em>This</em> is the seed, this is the source of new life, this is what can lead to new character and behaviour in us. James speaks of being "doers of the word" (<em><a href='B:490 1:22'>Luk 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:25'>Luk 1:25</a></em>), using the same word as in the parable of the sower, there translated 'to bring forth fruit'. Note that "the word of God" in the NT often refers specifically to the Gospel. James foresaw the possibility of hearing the word of the Gospel but not doing it, not bringing forth what those basic doctrines imply. He foresees how we can admire it as a vain man seeing his reflection in a mirror. We are not to be "forgetful hearers" of the word of the basics, the "implanted word" (<em><a href='B:490 1:21'>Luk 1:21</a></em> RV- another reference to the sower parable). We aren't to learn the Gospel and then forget those doctrines. We are to be doers of them.</p>


text:
Those by the way side are they that have heard; then comes the Devil- The parable of the sower connects the Devil with the fowls which take away the Word from potential converts, stopping their spiritual growth. This would aptly fit the Judaizers who were leading the young ecclesias away from the word, and the Jews who &quot;shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men... neither suffer ye them that are entering (young converts) to go in&quot; (<a href='B:470 23:13'>Mt. 23:13</a>). The Devil takes away the word of the Kingdom, &quot;lest they should believe and be saved&quot; (<a href='B:490 8:12'>Lk. 8:12</a>).</p><p>The entire context of the parable and the preceding chapter in Matthew is that it was the Jewish world system which hindered people from further responding to the seed / word about Jesus which they had first heard from John the Baptist. As I showed at length in The Real Devil, the Jewish system is frequently described as the 'satan' or adversary of the early church. By 'the wicked one', the Lord's audience would've understood 'satan'; and the Lord is redefining their view of 'satan' as being not so much the Gentiles or some cosmic being, as their own religious elders and system.</p><p>And takes away- The same word for &quot;takes away&quot; had recently been used by the Lord in <a href='B:470 11:12'>Mt. 11:12</a> about how the violent take away the Kingdom. I suggested in the commentary there that this is possible to understand as referring to the Jewish leaders stopping people entering the Kingdom of Jesus. In this case, &quot;the wicked one&quot; is again identified as the Jews. The word is also used about the wolf 'catching away' the sheep (<a href='B:500 10:12'>Jn. 10:12</a>)- and in the same passage in John 10, it is the wolf who kills Jesus in His mortal combat with him in order to save the rest of the sheep. Clearly the wolf there refers to the Jewish leaders who ravaged the flock, indeed John 10 is full of reference to Ezekiel 34, which speaks of Israel's priesthood as responsible for the scattering of the sheep. <a href='B:470 13:19'>Mt. 13:19</a> describes the evil one taking away the word out of our heart. However can we resist that evil one? Paul had his eye on this question in <a href='B:600 3:1-3'>2 Thess. 3:1,3</a>, where he speaks of the word being with them, and also of the  Lord keeping them from the evil one. Paul knew that the Lord (Jesus) will help us in keeping the word in our hearts, if we allow him to; he saw that the power of God is greater than our low nature. </p><p>The word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved- Clearly the types of ground represent types of heart or mind. In addition to the elements of unreality in the parables, there are other features which shout out for our attention. Often details are omitted which we would expect to see merely as part of the story. For example, the parable of the ten girls says nothing at all about the bride; the bridegroom alone is focused upon, along with the bridesmaids. Where's the bride in the story? Surely the point is that in the story, the bridesmaids are treated as the bride; this is the wonder of the whole thing, that we as mere bridesmaids are in fact the bride herself. Another example would be the way in which the sower's presence is not really explained. No reference is made to the importance of rain or ploughing in making the seed grow. The preacher is unimportant; we are mere voices, as was John the Baptist. But it is the type of ground we are which is so all important; and the type of ground refers to the type of heart we have (<a href='B:470 13:19'>Mt. 13:19</a>). The state of the human heart is what is so crucial. Yet another example is in the way that there is no explanation for exactly why the tenants of the vineyard so hate the owner and kill His Son. This teaches of the irrational hatred the Jews had towards the Father and Son. And why would the owner send His Son, when so clearly the other servants had been abused? Why not just use force against them? Here again we see reflected the inevitable grace of the Father in sending the Son to be the Saviour of the Jewish world. </p>


text:
<p><em>And those on the rock are they who, when they have heard, receive the word with joy- </em>Belief and joy are therefore paralleled. The later references to our joy&nbsp;<em>remaining</em>&nbsp;unto the end of our spiritual path surely allude here (<em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:22'>Joh 16:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:24'>Act 20:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a></em>). Note how in <em><a href='B:500 16:22'>Joh 16:22</a></em> the joy of the disciples could be taken from them by those who took Christ from them; another hint that the persecution which choked the joy came from the Jews, who were those who took Christ from them. Joy and faith are linked many times in the New Testament; we must ask whether we really have the joy which is the proof of real faith.</p><p><em>But these have no root, they for a while believe, but in time of temptation fall away</em>-</p><p> It is quite possible that our Lord's sad prophecy of the disciples being offended because of having to identify with his sufferings looked back to this parable, concerning those who impulsively respond to the word in joy, but are offended because they have no deep root (<em><a href='B:480 4:17'>Mar 4:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 14:27'>Mar 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:31'>Mat 26:31</a></em>). The fact that the disciples became good ground after this encourages us that we can change the type of ground which we are on initially receiving the seed.</p>


text:
<p><em>And that which fell among the thorns, these are those that have heard- </em>One of the ineffable sadnesses of Paul's life must have been to see his converts falling away. Yet he seems to have comforted himself by seeing their defection in terms of the sower parable. Many a missionary has been brought close to that parable for the same reason. It supplies an explanation, an answer, a comfort, as 'Friends one by one depart (some we saw as pillars to our own faith, those we thought would always be there) / Lonely and sad our heart'. Thus Paul saw Demas as a seed among thorns (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em> = <em><a href='B:620 4:10'>2Ti 4:10</a></em>); he saw Elymas as a weed (<em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>); and he pleads with the Romans not to slip into the weed category (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em> Gk. = <em><a href='B:520 14:13'>Rom 14:13</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>Thorns were symbolic of false teachers in the Old Testament ecclesia (<em><a href='B:330 2:6'>Eze 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 33:12-14'>Isa 33:12-14</a></em>). It is a repeated theme that thorns are devoured by fire (<em><a href='B:20 22:6'>Exo 22:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 118:12'>Psa 118:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 7:6'>Ecc 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 10:17'>Isa 10:17</a></em>), looking ahead to the destruction of all false elements of the ecclesia. The thorns easily equate with the tares of the next parable, which represent false teachers (primarily the Judaist infiltrators of the first century ecclesia). It would seem from this that some members of the ecclesia are never right with God, but exist purely for the spiritual trial of others; although it cannot be over-emphasized that it is quite wrong to attempt to label individuals as this 'thorn' element. Thus Jesus pointed out that grapes (the true Israel) and thorns can be apparently similar (<em><a href='B:470 7:16'>Mat 7:16</a></em>), but "Ye shall know them by their&nbsp;<em>fruits</em>". The thorns of the sower parable and those they influenced were "unfruitful". However, seeing that "the thorns sprang up&nbsp;<em>with it</em>" (<em><a href='B:490 8:7'>Luk 8:7</a></em>), there was some genuine spiritual growth, matched by the appearance of this among the thorns too. <em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em> likewise speaks of the thorns as believers who grew up within the ecclesia. This indicates the dual-mindedness of those who only partially commit themselves to the word; knowledge like this should play an active part in our self-examination. Because the thorns outwardly look like true believers, having an outward appearance of spiritual growth even more zealous and strong than that of the plants which they choke, it is impossible to personally identify the "thorns"; but there can be no doubt that, according to the parable, they&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;be present among the ecclesia. The seed "fell&nbsp;<em>among</em>&nbsp;thorns" (<em><a href='B:470 13:7'>Mat 13:7</a></em>), showing that this thorn category were already within the ecclesia when the person who was to be choked was converted. We have shown that Biblically the thorns are false teachers; yet Jesus interprets them as "the care (Gk. 'divisions'- the double mindedness of serving two masters) of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches" (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em>). The conclusion to be drawn is that the false teachers are responsible for the new convert being choked by these things. <em><a href='B:480 4:19'>Mar 4:19</a></em> says that these lusts enter into the convert's heart. Therefore the thorns must influence the person's thinking, so that he follows after these things until "he becometh unfruitful". The Greek for "choked" is from a root meaning 'association, companionship'. Marshall's Interlinear renders the Greek text of <em><a href='B:490 8:7'>Luk 8:7</a></em> in keeping with this idea: "Growing up with the thorns choked it". Thus it is through close association with the thorn element already in the ecclesia, that the new convert who enters it is corrupted. We each have to ask 'What type of ground are we as an ecclesia? Do&nbsp;<em>I&nbsp;</em>have thorn elements to me…?'</p><p><em>But as they go on their way, they are choked- </em>Paul had thought deeply about the parables. He doesn't just half-quote them in an offhand way. For example, <em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em> says that riches choke a man's response to the word. <em><a href='B:610 6:9'>1Ti 6:9</a></em> warns that those who&nbsp;<em>want to be rich</em>&nbsp;are choked by their&nbsp;<em>desire&nbsp;</em>for riches. Likewise Paul saw the rich man of <em><a href='B:470 19:23'>Mat 19:23</a></em> as actually one who&nbsp;<em>wanted</em>&nbsp;to be rich (= <em><a href='B:610 6:9-10'>1Ti 6:9-10</a></em>). So Paul had thought through the parable. He saw that possession of riches alone wouldn't choke a man; he saw that the Lord was using "riches" as meaning 'the desire for riches'. And because "riches" are relative and subjective, this must be right. And therefore the Spirit was able to use Paul's deductions. My point is that the Spirit&nbsp;<em>could</em>&nbsp;have used just anyone to write (e.g.) <em><a href='B:610 6:9'>1Ti 6:9</a></em>. But it was no accident that God chose to use a man with a fine knowledge and appreciation of His Son to be His pen-man.</p><p><em>With cares and riches and the pleasures of life- </em>In our age as never before, given more possibilities and knowledge of possible futures and what could go wrong, we have as never before the temptation to be full of such care. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:490 21:34'>Luk 21:34</a></em> about the "cares" which will be a feature of the last days- both of AD70 and today. But in the first instance, the 'world' in view was the Jewish world. There are not a few Bible passages which confirm this view of materialism, as&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;besetting temptation of every human soul, and which confirm that therefore our attitude to materialism,&nbsp;serving God or mammon, is the litmus test of our spirituality. The parable of the sower teaches that for those who begin well in the Truth, who don't fall away immediately or get discouraged by persecution, "the deceitfulness of riches... the cares and pleasures of this life" will be their temptation. I would have expected the Lord to either speak in more general terms about the flesh, or to reel off a list of common vices. But instead He focuses on the desire for wealth as the real problem:&nbsp; The love of wealth is the root of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;evil behaviour (<em><a href='B:610 6:10'>1Ti 6:10</a></em>). And I would go further, and suggest that so many of the excuses we hear which relateto "I haven't got time" (for reading, preaching, meeting, writing…) are related to this desire for material improvement. The desire for advancement takes an iron grip on a man's soul. As we move through life, our thinking is concerned with prices, with possibilities, with schemings... what&nbsp;<em>ought</em>&nbsp;to be the surpassingly dominating aspect of our life, the Son of God and His Truth, takes a poor second place. The connection between the desire for riches and the devil (our nature) is powerful. The devil is a deceiver. And 'riches' is also a deceiver (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em>). That we know for sure. The desire for material things, for the false security of bank balances, the excuse that we are allowing ourselves to be so preoccupied for the sake of our families, the idea that we are only human beings and so God will let us be dominated by these worries... all this is the deception of the flesh. God&nbsp;<em>does</em>&nbsp;remember that we are dust, and yes, of course we&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;provide for our own, some thought (but not&nbsp;<em>anxious</em>&nbsp;thought) must be given to tomorrow (<em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>). But these facts must never make us push God's Truth into&nbsp;<em>second</em>&nbsp;place. The lilies of the field are fed and dressed by God without anxiously worrying about it. Israel on their wilderness journey were miraculously provided with food&nbsp;<em>and clothing,</em>&nbsp;surely to prefigure God's basic material care of His spiritual Israel of later years. David, all his life long, never saw the seed of the righteous begging bread (<em><a href='B:230 37:25'>Psa 37:25</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And bring no fruit to maturity</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 15:31'>Luk 15:31</a></em>. The word becoming unfruitful in <em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em> is matched by it yielding "no fruit" (<em><a href='B:480 4:7'>Mar 4:7</a></em>) and no fruit being perfected in <em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>. The conclusion from this is that spiritual fruit which is developed but does not remain is not really fruit at all. There is the constant temptation for us to recognize just a bit of apparent 'growth' within us, and feel satisfied with it- rather than taking on board the concept of the word having a fullness of effect upon every part of our lives. Given the lesson of the thorns, there is no doubt that one must watch their friends even within the ecclesia. "Thorns and snares are in the way of the forward: he that doth keep (the Hebrew for "keep" is often used in Proverbs about keeping the word) his soul shall be far from them" (<em><a href='B:240 22:5'>Pro 22:5</a></em>). The language of thorns must connect with the curse upon Eden; the ecclesia, the paradise of God, must always have its thorns in order to spiritually exercise Adam, the spiritual gardener. As our brother's keeper, we need to be aware that after conversion, a whole gamut of new temptations face the convert. <em>After</em> he has heard the word, he is choked with the cares, riches and pleasures (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>). Yet these things existed before he heard the word; the point is that they became new temptations after his response to the word. A concerted effort to understand, with Biblical guidance, the pressures upon new converts might help save a few more of the many which are being lost.</p><p>The parable of the sower can be interpreted as fulfilling every time we hear the word sown in us. Thus some seed is "choked with cares" (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>)- exactly the same words used about Martha being "cumbered" with her domestic duties so that she didn't hear the Lord's word at that time (<em><a href='B:490 10:40'>Luk 10:40</a></em>). We bring various attitudes of mind- stony, receptive, cumbered etc:- to the word each time we hear it. And it is our attitude to it which determines our response to it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And that in the good ground are those with an honest and good heart, who having heard the word, hold it fast and bring forth fruit with patience</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 10:37'>Luk 10:37</a></em>. Paul tells the Hebrews and Romans to have the patient, fruit-bearing characteristics of the good ground (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 2:7'>Rom 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:36'>Heb 10:36</a></em>). The word/ seed which fell into good ground produced fruit. Thus connects with <em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>, which says that the branches of the vine bring forth fruit through the word abiding in them. Likewise the good ground keeps the word and continually brings forth fruit. It is common for us to learn something from the word, apply it for a few days, and then forget it. Yet surely the implication is that if our hearts are truly open to the word, it will have permanent effects upon us, if the word abides in us. For this reason it is necessary to pray at least daily for our minds to be good ground for the word, and to retain what we already comprehend. Those on the good ground who hear and understand in <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em> are described as those who hear and keep the word (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>). True understanding of the word's teaching is therefore related to an ongoing practical application of it. We may read a human book and understand it at the moment of reading; understanding God's word is quite a different concept. Truly understanding it means keeping it in our heart and therefore in our lives. The seed fell on good ground, "sprang up, and bare fruit"; indeed, it kept on bearing fruit (<em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). The plant being sown was therefore a repeating crop. True response to the word will lead to wave after wave of spiritual progression. Again, we see that the sower parable is describing an ongoing response to the word- it keeps on being sown by the believer keeping the word, and fruit is continuously brought forth. </p><p>The good ground “accepts” (<em><a href='B:480 4:20'>Mar 4:20</a></em>), “holds fast” (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>) the word. In our present culture of anti-intellectualism, it can be overlooked that any real acceptance of a message, let alone holding onto it, must require a degree of ‘understanding’. We can hear the Bible explained and at that point&nbsp;<em>understand</em>&nbsp;intellectually. But this is something different to real understanding; for if we truly apprehend the message, we will receive it deep within us and keep that understanding ever present in our subsequent actions. The background of the parable is that it was given the same day as the Lord’s lament over the lack of response to John’s message and therefore His own ministry (<em><a href='B:470 13:1'>Mat 13:1</a></em>). The very fact there is good ground, and three different types of it matching the three different types of failure, is therefore an encouragement to the disciples (and all) that God’s word doesn’t ‘return void’ but does ultimately achieve an end in some lives. Indeed it has even been suggested that the parable of the sower is a kind of&nbsp;<em>midrash</em>&nbsp;or interpretation of the Isaiah 55 passage about the word going forth and not returning void. Ultimately, despite rejection, setbacks and only a minority responding- the work of the Kingdom will succeed. That is one aspect of the parable:&nbsp;</p><p>The parable of the sower concluded by lamenting that the Lord’s general Jewish audience did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;understand, and He spoke the parables knowing they wouldn’t understand and would be confirmed in this. And He stressed that a feature of the good ground is that His message is understood. In this context, the Lord commends the disciples because they saw and heard, in the sense of understanding (<em><a href='B:470 13:13'>Mat 13:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:15-16'>Mat 13:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>). Yet so evidently they didn’t understand. And yet the Lord was so thrilled with the fact they understood a very little that He counted them as the good ground that understood.</p>&nbsp;<p>Many of the Lord’s parables had some oblique reference to Himself. The parable of the sower speaks of the type of ground which gave one hundred fold yield- and surely the Lord was thinking of Himself in this. And yet the whole point of the parable is that all who receive the Lord’s word have the possibility of responding in this way. Or take the related parable of the mustard seed [=God’s word of the Gospel] which grows up into a huge tree under which all the birds can find refuge (<em><a href='B:480 4:31-32'>Mar 4:31-32</a></em>). This image is replete with allusion to Old Testament pictures of God’s future Kingdom, and the growth of Messiah from a small twig into a great tree (<em><a href='B:330 17:22'>Eze 17:22</a></em>). Here we see the power of the basic Gospel message- truly responded to, it can enable us to have a share in the very heights to which the Lord Jesus is exalted.</p><p>The parable of the sower leaves us begging the question: ‘So how can we be good ground?’. Mark’s record goes straight on to record that the Lord right then said that a candle is lit so as to publicly give light and not to be hidden (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>). He is speaking of how our conversion is to witness to others. But He says this in the context of being good ground. To respond to the word ourselves, our light must be spreading to all. The only way for the candle of our faith to burn is for it to be out in the open air. Hidden under the bucket of embarrassment or shyness or an inconsistent life, it will go out. We will lose our faith if we don’t in some sense witness to it. Witnessing is in that sense for our benefit. When the disciples ask how ever they can accomplish the standards which the Lord set them, He replied by saying that a city set on a hill cannot be hid (<em><a href='B:470 5:14'>Mat 5:14</a></em>). He meant that the open exhibition of the Truth by us will help us in the life of personal obedience to Him. We must give forth the light, not keep it under a bucket, because "there is nothing hid which shall not be manifested; neither was anything kept secret, but that it should come abroad" (<em><a href='B:480 4:21-22'>Mar 4:21-22</a></em>). In other words, the very reason why God has hidden the things of His word from the world and some aspects of them from our brethren, is so that we can reveal them to them. &nbsp;The ecclesias, groups of believers, are lampstands (<em><a href='B:730 2:5'>Rev 2:5</a></em> cp:&nbsp; <em><a href='B:230 18:28'>Psa 18:28</a></em>). We must give forth the light, not keep it under a bucket, letting laziness (under a bed) or worldly care (a bushel) distract us; because "there is nothing hid which shall not be manifested; neither was anything kept secret, but that it should come abroad" (<em><a href='B:480 4:21-22'>Mar 4:21-22</a></em>).</p><p>Luke goes on to record the Lord’s teaching about a candle. Burning brightly before others is therefore the way to be good ground:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Nobody, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a vessel, or puts it under a bed; but puts it on a stand, so that they that enter may see the light</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 6:47'>Luk 6:47</a></em>. We are compared to a candle that is lit (cp. our baptism) <em>so that</em> it may give light to others (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em>); the woman (the Lord Jesus) lights a candle (He uses believers) to find his lost coin (through our efforts) (<em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>; this must be seen in the context of the other two references in Luke to lighting a candle). If we don't give light (God's word, <em><a href='B:230 119:105'>Psa 119:105</a></em>) to others, we are a candle under a bucket, and therefore we will lose our faith, the flame will go out. So it's hard not to conclude that if we don't naturally give the light to others, we don't believe. The very nature of a lit candle is that it gives light; <em>all</em> candles do this, not just some. The Lord wants to use us as His candle, and He will arrange situations in life to enable this.</p>


text:
<p><em>For nothing is hid, that shall not be revealed; nor anything secret, that shall not be known and come to light</em>-</p><p> Nothing is done secretly that will not then come to the light- and therefore we should come to the light right now, living life in God’s light and before His judgment (<em><a href='B:500 3:20-21'>Joh 3:20-21</a></em>). This not only means we should not sin ‘in secret’, but more positively, we should feel and realize His constant affirmation of us for thoughts and actions which are invisible to others or for which we do not receive any thank.</p><p>The Lord taught that either the 'devil' will "take away" the word from the rejected, or He will "take away" what He has given them at the last day (<em><a href='B:490 8:12'>Luk 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:17'>Luk 8:17</a></em>). In this sense, the word "abiding" in us is a foretaste of the day of judgment- if we don't let it abide, and the 'devil' of the world or our own humanity takes it away from us, then effectively such people are living out the condemnation process even in this life. </p>


text:
<p><em>Take heed therefore how you hear. For whoever has, to him shall be given- </em>This is a clear statement of the upward spiral which we can experience. What we 'have' in our commitment to His word will be added to. The faithful do not get the blessing solely by their own effort and application to God's word, but through the gift /grace of God. The context requires we understand this as 'having' the ability to hear the Lord's words and practically 'understand' them (<em><a href='B:470 13:9'>Mat 13:9</a></em>). Mark speaks of what a man has, whereas <em><a href='B:490 8:18'>Luk 8:18</a></em> AV mg. more precisely speaks of what a man&nbsp;<em>thinks</em>&nbsp;he has. Matthew's record adds to "shall be given" the idea of 'given in abundance'. This Greek word for "abundance" is used about the 'abundance' which characterizes the life of the believer. But the 'abundance' is not of material things, but of understanding of and thereby relationship with the Lord.</p><p><em>And whoever has not, from him shall be taken away even that which he thinks he has</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em>. </p><p>The language is difficult, but makes good sense if we understand ‘what a man has’ as referring to what that generation had due to responding to John’s preaching; but because they had not followed where it led, they were left with nothing. The ideas are similar to the parable the Lord had just given of the demon being thrown out of the house of Israel by John the Baptist, but then returning. The language is arrestingly and purposefully strange. How can a man who has nothing have what he has taken away from him? All is clearer once we accept the initial context as being the Lord's commentary upon Israel's initial response to John the Baptist, and subsequent rejection of his ministry insofar as they rejected Jesus as Messiah. What they had once had- an initial response to the word sown- was now being taken away from them. This likewise explains the language of the next verse- that it was by the process of seeing and hearing that they became blind and deaf. It was their initial seeing and hearing of John's message which had made them now totally blind and deaf- because they had not responded to it.</p><p>In the sower context, those who appear to have been committed to the word but have now fallen away (the seed on the rocks, wayside and amongst thorns) will find that their time of apparent commitment to it was nothing; they have nothing if they did not endure to the end, and what they appeared to have will be taken away from them.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And it was told him: Your mother and your relatives stand outside, desiring to see you</em>-</p><p> Note how in <em><a href='B:480 3:32'>Mar 3:32</a></em> we read that “your mother and your brothers are outside looking [seeking] for you", and in <em><a href='B:480 1:37'>Mar 1:37</a></em> the same word occurred: “all men seek for you"; and also in <em><a href='B:490 2:45'>Luk 2:45</a></em>, of how Mary looked for Jesus. The similarity is such that the intention may be to show us how Mary had been influenced by the world's perception of Him. And we too can be influenced by the world’s light hearted view of the Lord of glory. It’s so easy to allow their patterns of language use to lead us into blaspheming, taking His Name in vain, seeing His religion as just a hobby, a social activity…&nbsp; In passing, it was not that the Lord was insensitive or discounted her. It is in <em><a href='B:470 12:46'>Mat 12:46</a></em> that Mary wanted to speak with Him, and presumably she did- but then He goes to His home town, back to where she had come from (<em><a href='B:470 13:54'>Mat 13:54</a></em>), as if He did in fact pay her attention. See on <em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>But he answered and said to them: My mother and my relatives are these that hear the word of God and do it</em>-</p><p> This refers back to His recent parable of the good seed that “did” the word which they heard (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). But surely that group of fascinated, surface-interested onlookers didn’t all come into the good seed category, who held the word to the end, all their lives? He was so positive about others’ faith. It has been observed that “in a kinship-oriented society like Israel, it must have been startling for people to hear of a bond that was even deeper than that of the natural family”. And so it is in many parts of the world today.</p><p>The parallel records speak of hearing and doing the will of God; Luke has "the word of God". We can too easily assume that every reference to "the word of God" is to the book known as the Bible. The Bible is indeed "the word of God", but the idea is used in other ways within Biblical language; and here it seems to mean the will or intention of God. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now it came to pass on one of those days that he boarded a boat, he and his disciples, and he said to them: Let us go over to the other side of the lake. And they cast off</em>-</p><p> So often we encounter the Lord's desire for solitude, avoiding crowds and pressure to perform mass healings. His regular crossings of the lake were largely to avoid these situations. The constant outpouring of energy from Him accounts for the complete exhaustion of :23. In these things we see the Lord's utter humanity.</p>


text:
<p><em>But as they sailed, he fell asleep; and there came down a storm of wind on the lake, and they were filling with water; and were in danger for their lives</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em> uses a word for "storm" which is also translated "earthquake". The waves from the earthquake "covered" or 'hid' [s:w:] the ship. Given the intensity of the situation it seems unlikely the Lord was really "asleep". Here we have a picture of the apparent silence of God. He appeared to be asleep, He remained with eyes closed, lying there as the boat was hidden beneath the waves. But He did this surely to pique the intensity of faith and urgency of appeal in their prayer to Him for salvation. And the apparent silence of the Lord in our lives is ultimately to try to achieve the same effect:&nbsp;</p>&nbsp;<p>The Greek for "sleep" could also stand the translation 'lying down to rest'. But how could He appear to be resting or asleep in such a situation? I suggest He did this to elicit their desire for Him. Likewise He made as if He would walk by them during another storm, and acted as if He would go on further on the walk to Emmaus. It was all in order to elicit their urgent desire for Him. And so it is with His apparent silence to us; that silence or lack of immediate response is in order to heighten our final sense of His grace and action. We see it in how He delayed going to Lazarus; it is the principle of <em><a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a></em>: "Therefore Yahweh will wait, that He may be gracious to you; and therefore He will be exalted, that He may have mercy on you, for Yahweh is a God of justice. Blessed are all those who wait for Him".</p>


text:
<p><em>And they came to him and woke him, saying- </em>Literally, to raise up. It seemed He didn't want to do anything- until they imposed upon Him with all their energy and intensity of focus upon Him and Him alone as their Saviour. And the whole situation was raised up to that end.</p><p><em>Master, master, we perish! And he awoke, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water; and they ceased, and there was a calm</em>-</p><p> The same Greek words for 'save' and 'perish' also occur together in <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>, where the Lord teaches that if we seek to save our lives in this world then we will perish. He could thereby be making a criticism of the disciples' plea to be saved from perishing; His sense would then have been 'You should have an even greater, focused intensity upon your need to be saved spiritually and not to perish eternally'. Again the two words occur together in <em><a href='B:470 18:11'>Mat 18:11</a></em>, where the Lord says that He came to save those who are perishing- and again, He has in view spiritual, ultimate salvation. The perishing disciples on the lake, in need of saving, are therefore being set up as a picture of the intensity of desire we should have for forgiveness and salvation. The way essential intention is understood as prayer is perhaps reflected in the way Matthew records that the disciples prayed during the storm on the lake: "Lord, save us, we are perishing!" (<em><a href='B:470 8:25'>Mat 8:25</a></em>). Mark records that their actual words were "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?" (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>). Perhaps this was read by Matthew's inspiration as prayer. An alternative would be that they firstly said the words recorded by Mark, and then those by Matthew- in which case we could perhaps notice the difference between "Teacher!" and "Lord!", as if the higher they perceived the greatness of the Lord Jesus, the more moved they were to prayer.</p><p>Mark records that they actually said:&nbsp;“Don't you care that we perish?” (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>). His whole life and death were because He&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;so care that they would not perish (<em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>). It’s so reminiscent of a child’s total, if temporary, misunderstanding and lack of appreciation of the parent’s love and self-sacrifice.</p><p>The Greek for "rebuked" can mean just this, but it is also translated 'to solemnly charge'. There are times in the Gospels where the sovereign authority of Jesus as Lord simply shines through. He did His work with a minimum of such displays of authority. Yet there are enough of them to make us appreciate how He could so easily have 'come down from the cross'; such incidents of sovereign authority in His ministry simply pave the way for us to appreciate the degree of self-control and wilful sacrifice and suffering which He achieved on the cross. 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’.</p><p>Mark records that the Lord commanded the waves “Peace, be still”. His authoritative "Peace, be still" (<em><a href='B:480 4:39'>Mar 4:39</a></em>) was probably primarily addressed to the Angels controlling the natural elements. The reference to Angels 'ministering' to Him after the temptations suggests their inferiority. Thus He could summon twelve legions of Angels at the time of His greatest passion- maybe He remembered this incident and it was a temptation to Him to use this power over Angels at the crucifixion.</p><p>All three of the Synoptics use the same phrase for "a great calm" (<em><a href='B:480 4:39'>Mar 4:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:24'>Luk 8:24</a></em>). It would've been a profound experience. The whole experience looks ahead to the calm of God's Kingdom being brought about by intense latter day prayer during a tribulation so intense that unless it were shortened, the faithful would die. When the Lord calmed the raging sea into a still calmness, He was consciously replicating what happened when Jonah was cast into the sea. He said plainly that He understood Jonah’s willing submission to this as a type of His coming death. Therefore He saw the stilled sea as a symbol of the peace His sacrifice would achieve. And yet even during His ministry, He brought that calmness about; for in principle, His sacrifice was ongoing throughout His life. His blood is a symbol both of His cross and of the life He lived.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Where is your faith?</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 7:8'>Luk 7:8</a></em>. They so often feared (<em><a href='B:490 8:25'>Luk 8:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:34'>Luk 9:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:40'>Mar 4:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:50'>Mar 6:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:32'>Mar 10:32</a></em>); despite the Lord repeatedly telling them not to be afraid (<em><a href='B:490 12:4'>Luk 12:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>). The Gospel writers use their records to bring out their own fickleness. After having been awed by the Lord’s stilling of the storm, they are soon almost mocking Him for asking who had touched Him, when hundreds of the jostling crowd had touched Him (<em><a href='B:490 8:25'>Luk 8:25</a></em> cp. 45). </p><p>The question as to&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;they had little faith echoes to us. Why is it that faith is so hard for us? The track record of the Father and Son as rewarding faith is clear and without question. This&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;question drives each individual into personal introspection, reviewing our history, past and present influences upon us, the nature of our personality:&nbsp;<em>Why</em>&nbsp;do we not believe very strongly... ? The records of the Lord’s words to the disciples in the sinking ship are significantly different within the Gospel records. Luke’s record has Him upbraiding them: “Where is your faith?”, as if He thought they had none. Matthew and Mark have Him commenting: “O you of&nbsp;<em>little</em>&nbsp;faith...". Putting them together, perhaps He said and implied something like: ‘O you of little faith, you who think you have a little faith, in my view you have no&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;faith. Come on, where is your&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;faith, not the little bit which&nbsp;<em>you&nbsp;</em>think you have…?’ (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 4:40'>Mar 4:40</a></em>). The Greek for “little” faith is also translated ‘almost’; as if the Lord is saying that they almost had faith, but in reality, had nothing. The Lord spoke of how just a little piece of real faith, like a grain of mustard seed, could result in so much (<em><a href='B:480 11:12-13'>Mar 11:12-13</a></em>)- as if He recognized that there was pseudo-faith, and the real thing:&nbsp;<em>Oligopistos&nbsp;</em>("little faith") is used five times by Matthew (<em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:8'>Mat 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>); it never occurs in Mark and only once in Luke. Perhaps Matthew's Gospel record was written to challenge those whose faith was small, and he encourages them that the disciples likewise started with "little faith":&nbsp;</p><p>It seems to me that all the Lord's servants are taught by increments, progressively, being given tests as to the degree to which they have grasped what the Lord has sought to teach them previously. And the Lord Jesus used a similar structured approach with the training of the twelve disciples. When the Lord commented “Have you not yet faith?” (<em><a href='B:480 4:40'>Mar 4:40</a></em> RV) it becomes immediately apparent that He was working with the twelve according to some program of spiritual development, and He was frustrated with their lack of response to it and slow progress. He surely has a similar program in place, and makes similar patient efforts, with each one of us. It is apparent to any reader of the Greek text of the Gospels that Jesus almost always left the verb “believe” without an object (e.g. <em><a href='B:480 4:40'>Mar 4:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:34'>Mar 5:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:36'>Mar 5:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:23'>Mar 9:23</a></em>). The question naturally arose: ‘Believe&nbsp;<em>in what or whom</em>?’. And seeing the speaker of the words, the answer was there before their eyes:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And being afraid they marvelled, saying to each other-</em></p><p> A word so often used about the response of people to miracles. The Lord had marvelled at another's faith, and now men marvel at His faith. A very positive mutuality is suggested here between the Lord and His followers.</p><p><em>Who then is this- </em>What&nbsp;<em>sort</em>&nbsp;of man is this (Gk:&nbsp;<em>potapos</em>), they asked themselves. They felt very much their own humanity (hence they are called "the men" at this time), and their awe was because they sensed that Jesus too was a man. Accepting the humanity of the Lord Jesus is relatively easy on one level, as a matter of theology, exposition or logic. But then comes the far harder part- the awe at the fact that One who was like me could actually do so much and be so much. And this can lead to our feeling a kind of gap between Him and us, although we know He shared the same nature, this in a sense means that we feel the spiritual distance between Him and us very keenly. In later spiritual maturity, Peter seems to have reflected upon this gap and realized that it was bridgeable- for he uses a similar word in saying that because of God's grace, "what manner of persons (<em>potapous</em>) ought we to be...". Just as Jesus was human and yet different from unbelieving men, so that same element of difference can be seen in us. The whole consideration is an essay in His humanity and representation of us as humans.</p><p>"What manner of&nbsp;<em>man</em>&nbsp;is this?" was maybe said on perceiving that His actions were in fulfilment of the prophecy that&nbsp;<em>Yahweh&nbsp;</em>would still the waves of the sea. And in the context of stilling another storm, He comments: "Fear not, it is I" - not 'it's&nbsp;<em>me</em>'. He was surely suggesting they connect Him with the essence of the Yahweh Name, I am that I am. But the connection was only for those who would truly meditate and connect things together. As our Moslem friends have correctly pointed out many times, Jesus Himself never in so many words claimed to be Messiah. When others said this about Him, He replies by describing Himself as the "son of man". Indeed, this was His preferred self-image. He was intensely conscious of His humanity, His solidarity with us, and it was as if He directed us who later have believed to image Him first and foremost as a&nbsp;<em>man of our nature</em>. Of course, He was and is so much more than that. But because we are human, we have to image ourselves around a perfect human- Jesus, the real and full humanity as God intended. Here those who believe Jesus was God Himself place themselves at a distinct disadvantage- our understanding that Jesus did indeed come "in the flesh" ought to be a tremendous inspiration to us to be like Him. The power and compulsion of His life and example are surely diminished by relating to Him as God Himself.</p><p><em>That he commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him?</em>-</p><p> The disciples spoke of the wind and sea as if they were conscious entities, able to be obedient to the word of Jesus. The same word is used to describe the marvel of the people that "even the unclean spirits... obey Him" (<em><a href='B:480 1:27'>Mar 1:27</a></em>). Just as wind and sea are not actually living entities, so unclean spirits likewise don't actually exist. But the disciples clearly had the idea in their head. Yet the scale of the Lord's power over such entities in fact showed their effective non-existence in practice.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they arrived in the region of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee</em>-</p><p> The "Girgashites" of <em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em>, some of the original inhabitants of Canaan who had never been cast out of the land as intended by God. These men stopped anyone passing along the way or road. The point may be that those whom Israel should've 'cast out' to secure their inheritance of the Kingdom were finally cast out by Christ. This lays the basis for the language of 'casting out' the demons into the lake.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had arrived upon the land, there met him a certain man out of the city, who had demons-</em></p><p>  For a detailed study on this incident, see my discussion of it in The Real Devil. See too commentary on Matthew 8 and Mark 5. There are many incidents where evidently the disciples were with Jesus, yet the focus of the record is entirely upon Him, so awed were they by the magnitude of His personality, and so selfless were they (<a href='B:490 8:27'>Lk. 8:27</a>; <a href='B:490 10:38-41'>10:38-41</a>; <a href='B:500 11:15'>Jn. 11:15</a>,<a href='B:500 11:20-57'>20-57</a>). They are appealing for others to believe on the basis that they are recounting the story of how they heard Jesus, and eventually, very slowly and falteringly, had also come to believe.</p><p>We are not reading here about literal spirits. See on <a href='B:480 5:7'>Mk. 5:7</a>. But when we meet a similar situation in <a href='B:510 8:7'>Acts 8:7</a> of unclean spirits crying out, the Eastern (Aramaic) text reads: &quot;Many who were mentally afflicted cried out&quot;. This is because, according to George Lamsa, &quot;&quot;Unclean spirits&quot; is an Aramaic term used to describe lunatics&quot; (George Lamsa, New Testament Commentary (Philadelphia: A.J. Holman, 1945) pp. 57,58). It should be noted that Lamsa was a native Aramaic speaker with a fine understanding of Aramaic terms. He grew up in a remote part of Kurdistan which had maintained the Aramaic language almost unchanged since the time of Jesus. It's significant that Lamsa's extensive writings indicate that he failed to see in the teachings of Jesus and Paul any support for the popular conception of the devil and demons- he insisted that the Semitic and Aramaic terms used by them have been misunderstood by Western readers and misused in order to lend support for their conceptions of a personal Devil and demons.</p><p> And for a long time he had worn no clothes and abode not in any house, but in the tombs- A fairly detailed case can be made that the man Legion was to be understood as representative of Judah in captivity, suffering for their sins, who despite initially opposing Christ (Legion ran up to Jesus just as he had 'run upon' people in aggressive fits earlier), could still repent as Legion did, be healed of their sins and be His witnesses to the world. This fits in with the whole theme which the Lord had- that the restoration of Israel's fortunes would not be by violent opposition to the Legions of Rome but by repentance and spiritual witness to the world. The point is, Israel were bound in fetters and beaten by the Gentiles because of their sins, which they were culpable of, for which they had responsibility and from which they could repent; rather than because they had been taken over by powerful demons against their will. Here then are reasons for understanding Legion as representative of Judah under Gentile oppression: </p><p>- Israel were &quot;A people... which remain among the tombs, and lodge in the monuments&quot; (<a href='B:290 65:3-4'>Is. 65:3-4</a>).</p><p>- Legion was always &quot;in the mountains&quot;- the &quot;high places&quot; where Israel sinned (<a href='B:290 65:7'>Is. 65:7</a>; <a href='B:350 4:13'>Hos. 4:13</a>).</p><p>- The man's name, Legion, suggests he was under the ownership of Rome. The miracle occurred in Gentile territory, suggesting Judah in the Gentile dominated world. </p><p>- 'What is your name?' is the same question asked of Jacob</p><p>- Legion's comment that 'we are many' is identical to the words of <a href='B:330 343:24'>Ez. 33:24</a> about Israel: &quot;Son of man, they that inhabit those wastes of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one, and he inherited the land: but we are many; the land is given us for inheritance. Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land?&quot;.</p><p>- Legion had often been bound with fetters and chains (<a href='B:480 5:3-4'>Mk 5:3,4</a>)- just as God's people had so often been taken into captivity in &quot;fetters and chains&quot; (<a href='B:140 33:11'>2 Chron. 33:11</a>; <a href='B:140 36:6'>36:6</a>, <a href='B:120 24:7'>2 Kings 24:7</a>).</p><p>- When the sick man asks that the unclean spirits not be sent &quot;out of the country&quot; (<a href='B:480 5:10'>Mk. 5:10</a>), I take this as his resisting the healing. But he later repents and asks for them to be sent into the herd of pigs. This recalls a prophecy about the restoration of Judah in <a href='B:450 13:2'>Zech. 13:2</a>: &quot;And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land&quot;.</p><p>- The herd of pigs being &quot;destroyed&quot; in the water recalls the Egyptians being &quot;destroyed&quot; in the Red Sea when Israel were delivered from Gentile power before. The Gadarene Gentiles &quot;were afraid&quot;, just as the Gentile world was at the time of the Exodus (<a href='B:20 15:4'>Ex. 15:14</a>). The curing of Legion is termed &quot;great things&quot; (<a href='B:480 5:19'>Mk. 5:19</a>); and Israel's exodus from Gentile power and the destruction of the Egyptians is likewise called &quot;great things&quot; (<a href='B:230 106:21'>Ps. 106:21</a>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said: What have I to do with you, Jesus, you Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me</em>-</p><p> </p><p>He was one of the few who joined the dots and saw that the Lord was God's Son; yet he feared condemnation, which is what "torment" spoke of. It was his mental illness which was largely responsible for that paranoia about condemnation; and the Lord healed him of it. </p><p>A comparison of the records indicates that the voice of the individual man is paralleled with that of the 'demons' (see on :2)- the man was called Legion, because he believed and spoke as if he were inhabited by hundreds of 'demons': </p><p>"Torment <em>me</em> not" (<em><a href='B:480 5:7'>Mar 5:7</a></em>) = “Are you come to torment <em>us</em>?” (<em><a href='B:470 8:29'>Mat 8:29</a></em>). </p><p>“<em>He</em> [singular] besought him” (<em><a href='B:480 5:9'>Mar 5:9</a></em>) = "<em>the demons</em> besought him"(<em><a href='B:480 5:12'>Mar 5:12</a></em>) </p><p>The man's own words explain his self-perception: "<em>My</em> name [singular] is Legion: for <em>we</em> are many (<em><a href='B:480 5:9'>Mar 5:9</a></em>)". This is classic schizophrenic behaviour and language. Thus <em><a href='B:490 8:30'>Luk 8:30</a></em> explains that Legion spoke as he did because [he thought that] many demons had entered into him.</p><p>Another case of 'proving too much' arises from reflection upon the fact that the 'demon possessed' Legion clearly recognized Jesus as the Son of God (<em><a href='B:480 5:7'>Mar 5:7</a></em>); Mark seems to emphasize that demon possessed' people perceived Jesus as God's Son (<em><a href='B:480 1:24'>Mar 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:34'>Mar 1:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:11'>Mar 3:11</a></em>). Yet Mark and the other Gospel writers likewise emphasize the slowness or refusal of many other groups in the Gospels to arrive at the same perception. And so we are forced to deal with the question: Since when do 'demons' bring people to accept Jesus as God's Son? Surely, according to the classical schema of understanding them, they and the Devil supposedly behind them are leading people to unbelief rather than to belief? But once we accept the language of 'demon possession' as referring to mental illness without requiring the actual physical existence of demons, then everything falls into place. For it's so often the case that the mentally ill have a very fine and accurate perception of spiritual things. And we see a clear pattern developed in the Gospels: the poor, the marginalized, women, slaves, the mentally ill ['demon possessed'], the disenfranchised, the lepers, the prostitutes, are the ones who perceive Jesus as God's Son and believe in Him. </p><p>The man's fear of condemnation ["torment"] was triggered or restimulated by the command to the 'unclean spirit' to come out of the man. Legion assumed that he personally was going to be condemned if the "unclean spirit" was condemned which he supposed was within him. But the Lord was seeking to help the man see a difference between himself personally, and his mental illness, the "spirit" or mind within him which was paranoid about condemnation. And so the Lord went along with the man's self-perception, and in terms the man understood, showed beyond doubt that that spirit of fear had been cast out. Perhaps John reflects on this incident when he writes that perfect love casts out fear, because fear is associated with "torment" (<em><a href='B:690 4:18'>1Jn 4:18</a></em>), which is just what the man was obsessed with fearing (<em><a href='B:480 5:7'>Mar 5:7</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>For he was commanding the unclean spirit to come out from the man. For oftentimes it had seized him, and he was kept under guard and bound with chains and fetters; and breaking the chains apart, he was driven by the demon into the desert</em>-</p><p> Legion believed he was demon possessed. But the Lord didn’t correct him regarding this before healing him; indeed, one assumes the man probably had some faith for the miracle to be performed (<em><a href='B:470 13:58'>Mat 13:58</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 8:29'>Luk 8:29</a></em> says that Legion “was driven of the demon into the wilderness”, in the same way as the Lord had been driven into the wilderness <em>by the spirit</em> (<em><a href='B:480 1:12'>Mar 1:12</a></em>) and yet overcame the ‘devil’ in whatever form at this time. The man was surely intended to reflect on these more subtle things and see that whatever he had once believed in was immaterial and irrelevant compared to the Spirit power of the Lord. And yet the Lord ‘went along’ with his request for the demons he thought were within him to be cast into ‘the deep’, thoroughly rooted as it was in misunderstanding of demons and sinners being thrown into the abyss. This was in keeping with the kind of healing styles people were used to at the time – e.g. Josephus records how Eleazar cast demons out of people and placed a cup of water nearby, which was then [supposedly] tipped over by the demons as they left the sick person [<em>Antiquities of the Jews</em> 8:46–48]. It seems to me that the Lord ‘went along with’ that kind of need for reassurance, and so He made the pigs stampede over the cliff to symbolize to the healed man how his disease had really left him.</p><p>He had "often" been restrained, in efforts to cure him. He therefore needed some assurance that the cure from the Lord Jesus was going to be permanent, and the rushing of the pigs over the cliff to their permanent destruction would have been a reminder of that.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus asked him: What is your name?- </em>The Lord focused the man's attention upon the man's beliefs about himself- by asking him "What is your name?", to which he replies "Legion! For we are many!". Thus the man was brought to realize on later reflection that the pig stampede was a miracle by the Lord, and a judgment against illegal keeping of unclean animals- rather than an action performed by the demons he thought inhabited him. The idea of transference of disease from one to another was a common Semitic perception, and it’s an idea used by God. And thus God went along with the peoples' idea of disease transference, and the result is recorded in terms of demons [which was how they understood illness] going from one person to another. Likewise the leprosy of Naaman clave to Gehazi (<em><a href='B:120 5:27'>2Ki 5:27</a></em>). God threatened to make the diseases of the inhabitants of Canaan and Egypt to cleave to Israel if they were disobedient (<em><a href='B:50 28:21'>Deu 28:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:60'>Deu 28:60</a></em>). Here too, God is accommodating the ideas of disease transference which people had at the time. </p><p><em>And he said: Legion. For many demons had entered into him</em>-</p><p> Legion could be seen as representative of Israel in their weakness. Mark records how Jesus asked the man his name- as if He wished the man to reflect upon who he thought he was. He replied: "Legion". And of course the word "legion" referred to a division of Roman soldiers, usually five or six thousand. The man felt possessed by Roman legions. Through the incident with the pigs, Jesus helped him understand that He alone had the power to rid the man, and all Israel, of the Roman legions. The observation has been made that the incidents of 'driving out demons' nearly all occur in "militarized zones", areas where the Roman army was highly visible and resented (Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw<em>, Jesus for President (</em>Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008) p. 115). The man wished the "demons" he imagined to be possessing him to be identified with the pigs. And Jesus empowered that desire. The ‘band’ of pigs is described using the same original word as used for a group of military cadets. And the pig was the mascot of Rome’s Tenth Fretensis Legion which was stationed nearby; indeed, "pigs" were used as symbols for Romans in non-Roman literature of the time (Warren Carter, <em>Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations</em> (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001) p. 71; Warren Carter,<em>Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading</em> (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000) pp. 212,213). William Harwood comes to the same conclusion: "Jerusalem had been occupied by the Roman Tenth Legion [X Fretensis], whose emblem was a pig. Mark's reference to about two thousand pigs, the size of the occupying Legion, combined with his blatant designation of the evil beings as Legion, left no doubt in Jewish minds that the pigs in the fable represented the army of occupation. Mark's fable in effect promised that the messiah, when he returned, would drive the Romans into the sea as he had earlier driven their four-legged surrogates" (William Harwood, <em>Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus</em> (New York: Prometheus Books, 1990) p. 48). The claim has been made by Joachim Jeremias that the Aramaic word for "soldiers" was in fact translated "Legion" (The same point is made in Gerd Theissen, <em>Sociology of Earliest Palestinian Christianity</em> (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1978) pp. 101,102). Jesus elsewhere taught that through faith in Him, "this mountain" could be cast into the sea (<em><a href='B:470 21:21'>Mat 21:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:23'>Mar 11:23</a></em>). Seeing that mountains are symbolic in Scripture of empires, it could be that He was referring to how the empire contemporary with Him as He spoke those words, the Roman empire, could be cast into the sea through faith in Him. The acted parable of the Legion of pigs running into the sea was surely teaching the same thing. In passing, I note the apparent discrepancy between the fact that a Roman Legion contained five or six thousand people and yet there were two thousand pigs drowned. I found the comment on an internet forum, by an unbeliever, that "the governor of Judaea only had 2000 legionaries at his disposal". I have searched Josephus and other sources for confirmation of this, but can't find any. If it were to be found, it would be marvellous confirmation of the thesis I'm presenting here- that the pigs were to be understood as representative of the Roman Legions, who in their turn were responsible for the man's mental illness. In any case, there is evidence to believe that there were Roman troops stationed in Gadara, and the pigs were likely being kept in order to provide food for them (Michael Willett Newheart, <em>"My name is Legion": The Story and Soul of the Gerasene Demoniac</em> (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004) p. 14). "Pigs for the pigs" would've been the common quip about that herd of swine. </p><p>There is a strange flip of the tail in all this. Josephus records how the Romans massacred many Jewish rebels in Gadara, the very place of the Legion miracle, in AD69: "Vespasian sent Placidus with 500 horse and 3000 foot to pursue those who had fled from Gadara... Placidus, relying on his cavalry and emboldened by his previous success, pursued the Gadarenes, killing all whom he overtook, as far as the Jordan. Having driven the whole multitude up to the river, where they were blocked by the stream, which being swollen by the rain was unfordable, he drew up his troops in line opposite them. Necessity goaded them to battle, flight being impossible... Fifteen thousand perished by the enemy's hands, while the number of those who were driven to fling themselves into the Jordan was incalculable; about two thousand two hundred were captured..." (<em>Wars of the Jews, </em>Book 4, Chapter 7). This is all very similar to the picture of the [Roman] legions being driven into the water, as Jesus had implied would happen. Perhaps we are to understand that what was made potentially possible for the Jews by the work of Jesus was in fact turned around against them- they suffered the very punishment and judgment which was potentially prepared for Rome, because they refused their Messiah. This is possibly why the destruction of Rome / Babylon predicted in the Apocalypse is described in terms of Jerusalem's destruction in the Old Testament. The judgment intended for Babylon / Rome actually came upon Jerusalem and the Jews.</p><p>I suggest that the man's mental illness was related to the possession of his country by the Roman Legions. Perhaps he found huge power within himself to smash the chains with which he was restrained because he imagined them as symbolizing the Roman grip upon his soul and his country. In this case, his self-mutilation, gashing himself with stones (<em><a href='B:480 5:5'>Mar 5:5</a></em>), would've been from a desire to kill the Legions within him, the 'demons' of Rome whom he perceived as having possessed him. He saw himself as representative of his people; Walter Wink sees the man's gashing himself with stones as a result of how he had "internalized [Judah's] captivity and the utter futility of resistance" (Walter Wink, <em>Unmasking the Powers</em> (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) Vol. 2 p. 46). So often the mentally ill internalize their abusers; they act and speak as if their abusers are actually them, within them. This is why the abused so often end up abusing others; it's why Israel treat some Palestinians in a way strangely similar to how they were treated at the hands of the Nazis; and it's why Jesus urges us to pray for those who persecute us, to the end we might place a psychological distance between them and us, be ourselves, and not become like them. Jesus recognized this long before modern psychiatry did; hence he asks the sick man his name, "Legion". The man's reply really says it all- as if to say 'I am my abusers. I have internalized them'. Hence one commentator writes of how Legion "carries his persecutors inside him in the classic mode of the victim who internalizes his tormentors" (Robert G. Hammerton-Kelley, <em>The Gospel and the Sacred: Poetics of Violence in Mark</em> (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1994) p. 93). </p><p>Frantz Fanon was a psychiatrist who analysed the psychological damage done to those living under repressive regimes. Taking case studies from the French colonization of Martinique and Algeria, Fanon demonstrated that many darker skinned local people came to see themselves as second rate and dirty, and that when these darker skinned natives interacted with the white colonizers, they often experienced a tension between who they really were, and who they had to act as in secular life with the white masters. One of his books says it all in its title: <em>Black Skin, White Masks</em>. Having listed the various types of mental illness and multiple personality disorders which he attributed to French colonialism, Fanon concluded that there was brought about "this disintegrating of personality, this splitting and dissolution... in the organism of the colonized world" (Frantz Fanon, <em>The Wretched of the Earth</em> (New York: Grove Press, 1963) p. 57. See too his <em>Black Skin, White Masks</em> (New York: Grove Press, 1967)). Similar observations have been made, in a white-on-white context, about the psychological damage done by the Soviet occupation to the ethnic Baltic population, perhaps explaining why the tiny countries of Latvia and Lithuania have some of the highest suicide and mental illness rates in the world. The point is, however exaggerated these studies may be in some areas, there is indeed huge psychological damage caused by occupying, colonial powers; and this was the case in first century Palestine, and I submit that Legion with his multiple personalities was an example of mental illness caused by such a scenario. Paul Hollenbach likewise interprets the case of Legion, commenting in that context that "mental illness can be seen as a socially acceptable form of oblique protest against, or escape from, oppressions... his very madness permitted him to do what he could not do as sane, namely express his total hostility to the Romans; he did this by identifying the Roman legions with demons. His possession was thus at once both the result of oppression and an expression of his resistance to it" (Paul Hollenbach, "Jesus, Demoniacs and Public Authorities", <em>Journal of the American Academy of Religion, </em>Vol. 99 (1981) p. 575). Richard Horsley takes the idea further: "The demon possession of the manically violent man among the Gerasenes can be understood as a combination of the effect of Roman imperial violence, a displaced protest against it" (Richard Horsley, <em>Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark's Gospel</em> (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) p. 145). By asking the sick man for his name, the Lord Jesus was surely seeking to help the man clarify the fact that his real issue was with Rome, and the man actually need not fear supposed 'demons'. This refocusing upon the real problem is a common feature of how the Bible deals with the whole subject of Satan and demons, as we've often seen in the course of this book. Horsley is right on target in his conclusion: "The casting out and naming of "Legion" is a demystification of demons and demon possession. It is now evident to Jesus' followers and to the hearers of Mark's story that the struggle is really against the rulers, the Romans" (<em>Ibid </em>p. 147). Newheart writes in very similar terms: "Jesus... demystified the demons, showing that the real culprit was Rome" (Newheart, <em>op cit</em> p. 84).</p>


text:
<p><em>And they begged him that he would not command them to depart into the abyss</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:510 16:16'>Act 16:16</a></em>. This is the man's fear of condemnation, noted on :28. Note that the sick man is paralleled with the demons. "<em>He</em> begged him earnestly not to send <em>them</em> out of the country" (<em><a href='B:480 5:10'>Mar 5:10</a></em>) parallels "he", the man, with "them", the demons. And the parallel record speaks as if it were the demons who did the begging: "<em>They </em>begged him not to order them to go into the abyss" (<em><a href='B:490 8:31'>Luk 8:31</a></em>). This is significant in that the record doesn't suggest that demons were manipulating the man to speak and be mad; rather are they made parallel with the man himself. This indicates, on the level of linguistics at least, that the language of "demons" is being used as a synonym for the mentally ill man. There's another example of this, in <em><a href='B:480 3:11'>Mar 3:11</a></em>: "Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, “You are the Son of God!". Who fell down on their knees and who shouted? The mentally disturbed people. But they are called "unclean spirits". <em><a href='B:660 2:19'>Jas 2:19</a></em> likewise: "The demons believe and tremble". This is surely an allusion to the trembling of those <em>people </em>whom Jesus cured, and 'belief' is appropriate to persons not [supposed] eternally damned agents of Satan. Clearly James is putting "demons" for 'mentally disturbed people who believed and were cured'. And thus we can better understand why in <em><a href='B:480 5:8'>Mar 5:8</a></em> Jesus addresses Himself not to these supposed spirits; but to the man himself: "Jesus said to <em>him, </em>Come out of the man, you unclean spirit". He doesn't say to the<em> unclean spirit</em> "Come out of the man". Jesus addresses Himself to "the man". The demons / unclean spirits never actually say anything in the records; it's always the man himself who speaks. Josephus records that when the first century Rabbis cast out demons [as they supposed], they first had to ask for the name of the demon. The Lord Jesus doesn't do this; He asks the man for <em>his</em> personal name. The difference is instructive- the Lord wasn't speaking to demons, He was speaking to the mentally sick man, and going along with the man's belief that he had demons within him. The 'demons' plead with Jesus not to torment them, and back this up by invoking God. 'They' believed in God and honoured Him to the point of believing He was the ultimate authenticator of oaths. 'They' hardly fit the classical idea that demons are anti-God and in conflict with Him. Clearly enough, when we read of demons and spirits in this passage we are not reading of the actual existence of 'demons' as they are classically understood, but simply of the mentally ill man himself. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now there was there a herd of many swine feeding on the mountain- </em><em><a href='B:470 8:30'>Mat 8:30</a></em> <em>"</em>Now there was afar off from them a herd of many pigs feeding". The term is used about those 'far off' from Christ, the unsaved (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:21'>Act 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:13'>Eph 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:17'>Eph 2:17</a></em>). The man saw himself as far from Christ, with nothing in common between them (<em><a href='B:470 8:29'>Mat 8:29</a></em>). His response was to say that OK, let's get the condemnation over and done with- and you yourselves shall be saved. See on :8 for the man's paranoia about condemnation, although he believed in the Lord as God's Son and worshipped Him as such. This is very much the kind of teaching which John's Gospel records as being specifically on the Lord's lips.</p><p><em>And they begged him that he would give them leave to enter into them. And he gave them permission</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 8:31'>Mat 8:31</a></em> adds: <em>"</em>And the demons begged him, saying: If you cast us out". The word is used about 'casting out' to condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>). Legion was obsessed with the thought of condemnation at the last day, being 'tormented' at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 8:28'>Mat 8:28</a></em>), being 'far off' from Christ and His salvation (see on <em><a href='B:470 8:30'>Mat 8:30</a></em>), 'going away' into condemnation (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 25:46'>Mat 25:46</a></em>), plunged into the sea of condemnation (see on <em><a href='B:470 8:32'>Mat 8:32</a></em>). He correctly perceived that meeting Jesus in this life was in effect a meeting of Him in judgment, for even then, even now, He is the judge of all. The Lord was assuring Legion that his fear of condemnation was well and truly 'cast out'; His destruction of the pigs was an acted parable of final condemnation at the last day; and this addressed the man's paranoia about condemnation noted on :8. John's Gospel doesn't record this incident but as so often, he records the essential teaching in spiritual terms. In John's terms, we need have no fear of future condemnation, for we have received it now, and have passed from judgment to life and salvation. Legion had a fine understanding of the Lord Jesus. He realized that meeting Him was meeting his judge. And he asked that the pigs bear his condemnation. And the Lord agrees- which meant that once Legion had as it were received his condemnation, he had passed from death into life:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And the demons came out from the man, and entered into the swine, and the herd rushed down the hill into the lake and weredrowned</em>-</p><p> Why did the pigs run over the cliff, and why did the Lord Jesus agree to the man's request for this? Because mental illness features intermittent episodes, it's understandable that the Lord sought to comfort those cured that the change He had brought was permanent. Thus the Lord tells the 'spirit' assumed to be tormenting the mentally afflicted child: "I command you, come out of him, <em>and enter no more</em> into him" (<em><a href='B:480 9:25'>Mar 9:25</a></em>). It's in the same vein that He drove the pigs into the lake as a sign that Legion's cure was permanent. I suggest that it was a kind of visual <em>aide memoire</em>, of the kind often used in the Bible to impress a point upon illiterate people. I suggest that's why in the ritual of the Day of Atonement, the scapegoat ran off into the wilderness bearing Israel's sins. As the bobbing animal was watched by thousands of eyes, thousands of minds would've reflected that their sins were being cast out. And the same principle was in the curing of the schizophrenic Legion- the pigs were made to run into the lake by the Lord Jesus, not because they were actually possessed by demons in reality, but as an <em>aide memoire</em> to the cured Legion that his illness, all his perceived personalities, were now no more. Mental illness is typically intermittent. Legion had met Jesus, for he recognized Him afar off, and knew that He was God's Son (<em><a href='B:480 5:6'>Mar 5:6</a></em>); indeed, one assumes the man probably had some faith for the miracle to be performed (<em><a href='B:470 13:58'>Mat 13:58</a></em>). He comes to meet Jesus "from out of the city" (<em><a href='B:490 8:27'>Luk 8:27</a></em>) and yet <em><a href='B:470 8:28'>Mat 8:28</a></em> speaks of him living in the tombs outside the city. He pleads with the Lord not to torment him (<em><a href='B:480 5:7'>Mar 5:7</a></em>)- full of memories of how the local folk had tied him up and beaten him to try to exorcise the demons. Probably Legion's greatest fear was that he would relapse into madness again; that the cure which he believed Jesus could offer him might not be permanent. And so the Lord agreed to the man's request that the demons he perceived as within him should be permanently cast out; and the sight of the herd of pigs running over the cliff to permanent death below, with the awful sound this would've made, would have remained an abiding memory for the man. Note how the 'demon possessed' man in <em><a href='B:480 1:23'>Mar 1:23</a></em> sits in the synagogue and then suddenly screams out (<em><a href='B:480 1:23'>Mar 1:23</a></em>)- showing he was likewise afflicted by intermittent fits. </p><p>The madness may have been an infection in the brain of the trichina parasite, commonly found infecting the muscles of pigs - and transmissible to humans in undercooked pork:&nbsp; The infected man would likely have been&nbsp;forced by poverty to eat this kind of food, and likely associated his "problem"&nbsp;with it because of&nbsp;the prohibition of pork&nbsp;under the Mosaic Law:&nbsp; This approach is confirmed by medical observations such as the following:</p><p>“Neurocysticercosis is the most common parasitic disease in the world which affects the central nervous system… A 25 year old, illiterate married Hindu male… presented with a three month history of gradual change in behavior in the form of irrelevant talk … On mental status examination, he was well oriented to time, place and person, cooperative, communicative and responded well to questions asked… Delusions of persecution and reference were present… he accepted the illness but attributed the cause to evil spirits… histopathology report of subcutaneous nodule confirmed the diagnosis of cysticercosis cellulosae…. Significant improvement in psychiatric symptoms was also observed following albendazole (an anti-parasitic drug) therapy. Delusions of persecution and delusions of reference were not found on mental status examination. Insight also improved; instead of attributing the illness to evil spirits, the patient accepted having a physical illness." (“Neurocysticercosis Presenting as Schizophrenia: A Case Report”, B. Bhatia, S. Mishra, A:S. Srivastava, <em>Indian Journal of Psychiatry</em> 1994, Vol. 36(4), pp. 187-189).</p><p>The&nbsp;desire to see the disease return to the&nbsp;herds of swine probably stemmed from a need to know that his affliction had been cured in a rather permanent sort of way. And the Lord went along with this. The idea of transference of disease from one to another was a common Semitic perception, and it’s an idea used by God. And thus God went along with the peoples' idea of disease transference, and the result is recorded in terms of demons [which was how they understood illness] going from one person to another. Likewise the leprosy of Naaman clave to Gehazi (<em><a href='B:120 5:27'>2Ki 5:27</a></em>). God threatened to make the diseases of the inhabitants of Canaan and Egypt to cleave to Israel if they were disobedient (<em><a href='B:50 28:21'>Deu 28:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:60'>Deu 28:60</a></em>). Here too, as with Legion, there is Divine accommodation to the ideas of disease transference which people had at the time. </p><p>Death in the sea was seen as condemnation; the same figure is used of Babylon's final condemnation:&nbsp;The Legion incident "proves too much" if we are to insist on reading it on a strictly literal level. Do demons drown? Presumably, no. And yet the story as it stands requires us to believe that demons drown- if we are talking about literal 'demons' here. Clearly, Legion was mentally ill. We therefore have to face the hard question: Was that mental illness caused by demons, or, as I am suggesting, is the language of demon possession merely being used to describe mental illness? If indeed mental illness is caused by demons, the observations of T:S. Huxley are about right: "The belief in demons and demoniacal possession is a mere survival of a once universal superstition, its persistence pretty much in the inverse ratio of the general instruction, intelligence, and sound judgment of the population among whom it prevails. Demonology gave rise through the special influence of Christian ecclesiastics, to the most horrible persecutions and judicial murders of thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women, and children... If the story is true, the medieval theory of the invisible world may be and probably is, quite correct; and the witchfinders, from Sprenger to Hopkins and Mather, are much-maligned men… For the question of the existence of demons and of possession by them, though it lies strictly within the province of science, is also of the deepest moral and religious significance. If physical and mental disorders are caused by demons, Gregory of Tours and his contemporaries rightly considered that relics and exorcists were more useful than doctors; the gravest questions arise as to the legal and moral responsibilities of persons inspired by demoniacal impulses; and our whole conception of the universe and of our relations to it becomes totally different from what it would be on the contrary hypothesis” (T. S. Huxley, <em>Science and Christian Tradition</em> (New York: Appleton, 1899) p. 225).</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the herdsmen saw what had happened, they fled and reported it in the nearby town and in the countryside</em>-</p><p> "What had happened" was the cure of Legion; they came to investigate, and saw the cured man. As Jews they were not supposed to be keeping pigs; they realized they could say little against the Lord's action, for what they had been doing was illegal. It would have taken some time for the news to spread to "the city and in the country"; so we can assume the Lord sat with the cured Legion for some time, even days, teaching him further.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they went out to see what had happened,and they came to Jesus and found the man, from whom the demons had left, sitting, clothed and in his right mind, at the feet of Jesus; and they were afraid</em>-</p><p> </p><p>When Legion was cured of his 'demons', we read of him as now "clothed and in his right mind". His 'demon possession' therefore referred to a sick state of mind; and the 'casting out' of those demons to the healing of his mental state. People thought that Jesus was mad and said this must be because He had a demon- “He has a demon, and is mad” (<em><a href='B:500 10:20'>Joh 10:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:19-20'>Joh 7:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:52'>Joh 8:52</a></em>). They therefore believed that demons caused madness. </p><p>The "fear" of the people was perhaps related to their bad conscience about keeping pigs. The parable of the prodigal son associated Jewish pig keepers with those who needed to repent, and for whom the Father was eagerly waiting to welcome back home. Those people were in the same position as Legion; being now aware of the Lord's Divine power, but fearing condemnation. They actually needed the same basic healing which the Lord had given Legion in curing him of his complex about condemnation. Indeed the case of Legion speaks to so many believers today, who believe in and even&nbsp;worship the Lord as Son of God, but who are obsessed with a fear of final condemnation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they that saw it told them how he that was possessed with demons had been healed</em>-</p><p> Apart from the loss of their pigs, what had happened was good news. Fear of condemnation, to the point of paranoia, really could be cured by the Lord Jesus; the demons of doubt and fear really could be cast out, and the miracle of the destruction of the pigs was dramatic visual evidence of this. But when faced with this, the people feared and didn't want that good news.</p>


text:
<p><em>And all the people of the region of the Gerasenes asked him to depart from them, for they were seized with great fear. So he got into a boat and returned</em>-</p><p> "Begged" is the very same word used about the demons / mentally ill men 'beseeching' Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 8:31'>Mat 8:31</a></em>. As the mentally ill men besought Jesus to send away the demons, so the city dwellers besought Jesus to also 'go away'. As the keepers of the pigs "went their way" (<em><a href='B:470 8:33'>Mat 8:33</a></em>), so the same word is used of the demons 'going away' into the pigs (<em><a href='B:470 8:31-32'>Mat 8:31-32</a></em>). As the city dwellers 'came out' to meet Jesus, so the mentally ill men 'came out' of the tombs to meet Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 8:28'>Mat 8:28</a></em>) and the demons 'came out' of them (<em><a href='B:470 8:32'>Mat 8:32</a></em>). Perhaps the idea is that those unbelievers were spiritually in the same position as the despised mentally ill men whom they had excluded from their society. And the story ends with the mentally ill saved, and the townspeople asking Jesus to depart from them, which will be the exact position of the rejected at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:27'>Luk 13:27</a></em>). It is they who are condemned, by their own wish; the mentally ill men asked for the pigs to bear their condemnation, which they felt worthy of- and thus were saved:&nbsp; </p><p>Consider how the believers were assembled praying for Peter's release, and then when he turns up on the doorstep, they tell the servant girl that she's mad to think Peter was there. Or how the Lord Jesus did such wonderful miracles- and people asked him to go away. We too have this element within us. We would rather salvation and forgiveness were 'harder' to attain. The popularity of Catholic and Orthodox rituals is proof enough of this. It always touches me to read in the Gospels how the Lord Jesus cured wide eyed spastic children, crippled, wheezing young women, and sent them (and their loved ones) away with a joy and sparkle this world has never known. But the people asked Him to go away, and eventually did Him to death. A voice came from Heaven, validating Him as the Son of God; those who heard it involuntarily fell to the ground. But the people didn't really believe, and plotted to kill him (<em><a href='B:500 12:37'>Joh 12:37</a></em>). They turned round and bayed for His blood, and nailed Him to death. He cured poor Legion; and the people told the Lord to go away. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But the man from whom the demons had left pleaded with him that he might be with him; but he sent him away, saying</em>-</p><p> Motivations for involvement in evangelistic work vary. This man was separated from his family and society, for he had been violent and abusive to them. It would have been far more convenient for him to just leave them and join the peripatetic ministry of the Lord Jesus. But the Lord realized that the healing of relationships was a fundamental outcome of acceptance of the Gospel; and He wished this process to at least be given a chance in this case. And so He established a principle which many have struggled to accept: ministry to family and local society is even more important than joining in mobile missionary work.</p>


text:
<p><em>Return to your family, and declare what great things God has done for you- </em>We must "do" the Lord's will (<em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>), but the Lord also 'does' for us by His grace ("mercy"); our 'doing' is in response to His 'doing' for us. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:500 4:1'>Joh 4:1</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em>) of how the Lord 'did' or "made" disciples. That was the end point in view; the "great things" done were not just the cure, but the making of a disciple. Mary’s praise that “He has done to me great things” is surely behind her Son’s words in <em><a href='B:490 8:39'>Luk 8:39</a></em>, where He bids a man go home "and shew how great things God has done unto you". </p><p><em>And he went his way, publishing throughout the whole city how great were the things Jesus had done for him</em>-</p><p> This public preaching in the city and all the Decapolis (Mark says) rather than to his family could be read as disobedience. The Gospels are transcripts of the twelve disciples’ own preaching and obedience to the Lord’s commission for them to go into all the world and tell the news of what they had seen and heard of Him. Yet there is a theme in the Gospels, consciously included by the writers and speakers, of men being disobedient to the preaching commission which the Lord gave them. When some were told to say nothing, they went and told many others (<em><a href='B:480 7:36'>Mar 7:36</a></em>). And as Acts makes clear, the disciples themselves were disobedient, initially, to the commission to go tell the Gentiles the good news of their salvation. Legion’s disobedience is especially instructive for us:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>Mar 519</td><td><em><a href='B:480 5:20'>Mar 5:20</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Go to your&nbsp;<em>house</em></td><td>He goes to the<em>&nbsp;</em><em>ten cities&nbsp;</em>[Decapolis]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>unto your&nbsp;<em>friends </em>[relatives]</td><td>He goes to&nbsp;<em>strangers</em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>tell&nbsp;</em>them [<em><a href='B:490 8:39'>Luk 8:39</a></em> “<em>show</em>&nbsp;them”- by personal demonstration to individuals]</td><td>He “<em>publishes</em>”</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>how great things</td><td>how great things</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the&nbsp;<em>Lord [i:e. God]</em>&nbsp;has done for you</td><td><em>Jesus&nbsp;</em>had done for him</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>and how he had mercy on you.</td><td>[ignored]</td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;<p>The record of the commission given him and his obedience to it are clearly intended to be compared. The man went to strange cities, indeed he organized a whole preaching tour of ten cities- rather than going home and telling his immediate friends / family. And how true this is of us. It’s so much easier to embark upon a campaign to strangers, to do ‘mission work’, to ‘publish’ the Gospel loudly, rather than&nbsp;<em>tell</em>&nbsp;and<em> show</em>&nbsp;it to our immediate personal contacts. And we notice too how he omits to tell others of the Lord’s merciful grace to him personally. Rather does he speak only of the material, the literality of the healing. And he tells others what Jesus had done for him, rather than take the Lord Jesus’ invitation to perceive the bigger picture in all this- that this was the hand of God. One wonders whether the disciples were commenting upon their own sense of inadequacy in their initial personal witness. The Lord told the cured demoniac to go back to his friends (<em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em>) and family (<em><a href='B:490 8:39'>Luk 8:39</a></em>) and witness to them. Clearly enough, the man didn’t have any friends- for he had a history of violence and lived alone, many having tried unsuccessfully to bind him due to the grievous harm he must have inflicted upon many. Yet the man went out and preached to the whole area (<em><a href='B:480 5:20'>Mar 5:20</a></em>). Was this just rank disobedience to what His Saviour Lord had just told him? Perhaps, due to unrestrained enthusiasm. But more likely is that the man now considered the whole world around him to be his family and friends, and therefore he witnessed to them. His care for others in desiring to witness to them flowed quite naturally from his experience of conversion at the Lord’s hands.</p><p>There are some things in Scripture which are recorded in such a way as to promote meditation, and therefore they will always be ambiguous in terms of the actual interpretation which is sustainable. We can't <em>always</em> say "This word means X, this phrase means Y, therefore this verse means interpretation Z; and if you don't agree with that, you don't really accept the Bible". Because it is possible to say that about the interpretation of basic doctrine doesn't mean that we can adopt this attitude to the interpretation of every Bible passage. The record of the crucifixion is a good example of this. Or consider how it is recorded that some of those healed by the Lord <em>didn't</em> afterwards do what He said: one preached to his whole city rather than to his family (<em><a href='B:490 8:39'>Luk 8:39</a></em>); another didn't obey the Lord's plea to not tell anyone else (<em><a href='B:480 1:45'>Mar 1:45</a></em>). How are we to read these responses? Rank disobedience? Misguided zeal? Zeal in doing over and above what they were asked? You may have your ideas, and it is right that we should meditate upon these things and discuss them. But I suggest that ultimately they are left 'hanging' for the very purpose of promoting meditation and personal application, rather than being statements which shout for an obvious interpretation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Jesus returned, the crowd welcomed him. For they were all waiting for him</em>-</p><p> Theapparent disobedience to the command to focus upon his family was still worked with by the Lord (see on :39). The testimony of this healed man must have been so powerful. </p>


text:
<p><em>And there came a man named Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue- </em>The Orthodox Jewish opposition claimed that none of the rulers [i:e. rulers of the synagogues] had believed on Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 7:48'>Joh 7:48</a></em>), and yet <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em> notes that "Among the chief rulers also many believed on Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be cast out of the synagogue". Jairus clearly was one such ruler, and yet he didn't confess Jesus for fear of consequence and disfellowship. Remember that Jairus had come to Jesus whilst He had been teaching John's disciples the need to totally accept His new wine and not compromise with Judaism and the Pharisees who were standing with them. But whilst He was teaching that, Jairus had been clamouring for Jesus to come and heal his daughter. He rather missed the essential spiritual point because he was distracted by his human need. The Lord's sermon on the mount taught that we are a city set on a hill which cannot be hid, and that if we seek to hide our light under a bucket, then we will lose the light altogether. The omission of Jairus' name in Matthew leads me to fear that perhaps Jairus drifted away from faith, although his great faith at this particular moment in time is recorded positively.</p><p><em>And he fell down at Jesus' feet and begged him to come into his house</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>proskuneo</em>&nbsp;is not used (as some Trinitarians wrongly claim) exclusively of worship of God. It is used in the LXX, classical Greek and in the later New Testament for worship of men- e.g. Cornelius worshipped Peter (<em><a href='B:510 10:25'>Act 10:25</a></em>), men will worship faithful Christians (<em><a href='B:730 3:9'>Rev 3:9</a></em>), the beast is worshipped (<em><a href='B:730 13:4'>Rev 13:4</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>Jairus begged the Lord to enter his house; this was seen as necessary for any healing. The contrast is with the Centurion who asked the Lord not to enter his home, but just to say the word. </p>


text:
<p><em>For he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age; and she was dying. But as he went, the crowds crushed him</em>-</p><p>See on <em><a href='B:490 15:31'>Luk 15:31</a></em>. The Lord’s rush to heal her was interrupted by a woman, whom He addressed [unusually] as “daughter”. She had been sick for 12 years. And she was healed because of her faith. To the unspiritual man, this would have been nothing but an irritating interruption, to be sworn about under the breath. But to the spiritual man, there was ample encouragement here for faith; for another beloved daughter lay sick, and she was 12 years old, and she likewise could be healed by faith... The Lord’s question: “Who touched me?” was therefore also a rhetorical device to spur faith in Jairus and his family. Who? Another “daughter”, 12 years afflicted... It is only by our spiritual laziness in not providing that freewill input, that desire to understand, that crying for the knowledge of God which is in His word (<em><a href='B:240 2:3-5'>Pro 2:3-5</a></em>), that this marvellous equation will fail. What greater motivation could each of us want in inspiring us to a total commitment to the word, rising early and staying up late to find that knowledge of God to overcome the sin which we hate? If we can only continue to desire to make the effort, to bruise the flesh more through that glorious word of God, then this spiral of growth will catch us up with ever increasing speed.</p>


text:
<p><em>And a woman who had suffered from chronic bleeding for twelve years, who had spent all her livelihood upon doctors and could not be healed by any</em>-</p><p> Exactly how old the child was. Clearly the hand of providence had been at work in both these lives according to some defined sense of timing. She has spent her livelihood not just on trying to get better, but on attempting to get out of a state of permanent ritual uncleanness. </p><p>This is another similarity with Legion, who had suffered from many failed attempts to cure his conditions. Getting 'worse and worse' is the picture of all people outside of Christ, and specifically of the spiritual state of Israel at the time (<em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:45'>Mat 12:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:20'>2Pe 2:20</a></em>). The Mosaic system of Judaism could not "better" humanity (s:w. <em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:25'>Rom 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:2'>Gal 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:2'>Heb 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:9'>Heb 13:9</a></em>), just as she was not "bettered" (<em><a href='B:480 5:26'>Mar 5:26</a></em>). Perhaps the implication is that the woman represented Israel, who like Asa had trusted in physicians rather than the Lord (<em><a href='B:140 16:12'>2Ch 16:12</a></em>). Job's 'friends' had many Judaist characteristics and reasoned in the same way as orthodox Judaism; and they were "physicians of no value" (<em><a href='B:220 13:4'>Job 13:4</a></em>). The woman was bankrupt and desperate. This was how all were under the Law; the only answer was to throw themselves upon the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p><em>Came behind him- </em>The scene is being developed from <em><a href='B:470 9:19'>Mat 9:19</a></em>, where the Lord and the disciples are following the rushing man; and now we 'see' the woman coming behind Jesus, as if she in this sense was also one of the disciples who followed behind Him.</p><p><em>And touched the border of his garment; and immediately her bleeding stopped</em>-</p><p> It was by the unclean touching the clean that she was cleansed; whereas in Mosaic ritual, the clean is always made unclean by touching the unclean. The Lord radically reversed all the fears of guilt by association. </p><p>Her example inspired the many others who later sought to do this in <em><a href='B:470 14:36'>Mat 14:36</a></em>. It has been suggested that the hem of the garment referred to the blue band which was to be worn by Jews to remind them of their commitment to obedience to God. In this case she would have been seeking to associate herselfwith the righteousness of Christ and be healed / saved [the same Greek word is used] thereby. In essence, this is what faith and baptism into Christ is all about. But the simpler reading is that she thought that if she associated herself even with the Lord's periphery, she would thereby be saved / healed. Given Jewish phobia about blood and the fact that any touching her would have been ritually unclean, she surely disguised her condition. And yet she didn't consider that her uncleanness could make the Lord unclean. Her view of His righteousness was correct- it can be shared with us, but our uncleanness cannot negate His purity. She was driven to this insight by her desperation, just as Job's desperation led him to understand doctrinal truths that were beyond his time and place.</p><p>The Lord allowed this interruption when the man was so earnest that the Lord would haste to his home. The Lord, and the hand of providence, wanted to teach the man that how long a person has been dead is no barrier to resurrection; his faith needed to be developed further. And it fits in with the apparent silence of the Lord, always to develop the intensity of our desire for Him and our focus upon Him. Jesus focused on the essential whilst still being human enough to be involved in the irrelevancies which cloud the lives of all other men. Just glancing through a few random chapters from the Gospels reveals this tremendous sense of focus which He had, and His refusal to be distracted by self-justification. In all of the following examples I suspect we would have become caught up with justifying ourselves and answering the distractions to the point that our initial aim was paralyzed:&nbsp;</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>Focus</td><td>Distraction</td><td>Resumed Focus</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The sick woman touches His clothes, and He turns around to see her. He wants to talk to her.</td><td>The disciples tell Him that this is unreasonable, as a huge crowd is pressing on to Him</td><td>"He looked round about [again] to see her that had done this thing" (<em><a href='B:480 5:30-32'>Mar 5:30-32</a></em>). He talks to her.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He says that the dead girl is only sleeping; for He wants to raise her.</td><td>"They laughed Him to scorn"</td><td>"But..." He put them all out of the house and raised her (<em><a href='B:480 5:40-41'>Mar 5:40-41</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He was moved with compassion for the crowds, and wants to feed them and teach them more.</td><td>The disciples tell Him to send the people away as it was getting late</td><td>He tells the disciples to feed them so that they can stay and hear more (<em><a href='B:480 6:35-37'>Mar 6:35-37</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Again He has compassion&nbsp;on the hunger of the crowd</td><td>The disciples mock His plan to feed them</td><td>He feeds them (<em><a href='B:480 8:3-6'>Mar 8:3-6</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He explains how He must die</td><td>Peter rebukes Him</td><td>He repeats His message, telling them that they too must follow the way of the cross (<em><a href='B:480 8:31-34'>Mar 8:31-34</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said: Who is it that touched me?- </em>This was a rhetorical question, designed to give the woman the opportunity to come out for the Lord before all. The Lord knew; for the woman felt she was no hidden from His eyes. She apparently "denied" along with all the others present. But the Lord was pushing her as He pushes us- to not have some secret flirtation with Him which exists just within our own brain cells, but to come out for Him before men, to His glory.</p><p><em>And when all denied, Peter and they that were with him said: Master, the crowds press upon you and crush you</em>-</p><p> The gospels are transcripts of how the disciples spoke the gospel message. And yet they are shot through with thee disciples' recognition of their own weakness, and thereby their message was the more appealing and convicting to their hearers. Here, they paint themselves as foolish and inappropriate; they record their mocking of the Lord in the same section in which they record the scorning of the Lord by unbelievers at the home of Jairus.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Jesus said: Someone did touch me. For I perceived power going out from me</em>-</p><p> This gives an insight into the huge outflow of energy from the Lord when He healed people. As noted on <em><a href='B:480 5:29'>Mar 5:29</a></em>, His healing of people was on account of His total identification with them; and each healing was a living out in essence of the cross even during His life. The Lord of course knew the woman had touched Him; but He didn't want her to just have a secret faith. He wanted her to 'come out'; and He engineers circumstance in our lives likewise, so that we have to become a city that is set on a hill. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him, declared in the presence of all the people for what reason she touched him, and how she was healed immediately</em>-</p><p> As noted on :45, the Lord purposefully pushed her towards making a public statement for Him. We are a city set on a hill and likewise "cannot be hid". We see another connection with Legion, who feared condemnation and yet also fell before the Lord in worship. The Lord knew her history; but "the truth" to be told forth is a personal confession of our hopeless spiritual history, and the Lord's saving by grace. Yet she had initially "denied" the Lord's activity for her (:45). Perhaps this is included, as are Peter's denials, as comfort for those who under persecution did deny their Lord. He was still open tofellowship with them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to her: Daughter- </em>Perhaps the Lord was using the term in the Hebraic sense of 'descendant', seeing her as a daughter of Abraham because of her faith in Him.</p><p><em>Your faith has made you whole. Go in peace</em>-</p><p> The&nbsp;<em>faith</em>&nbsp;of the sick woman is commended by the Lord- when it was due to her&nbsp;<em>understanding</em>&nbsp;of the significance of the&nbsp;<em>hem</em>&nbsp;of the Lord's robe that she had touched Him. She had perceived the connection with the High Priest's hem; perhaps too she had added Job's comment about our touching but the hem of God's garment into the equation. And certainly she perceived that the sun of righteousness of Malachi 4 had healing in his hems / wings of his garment.</p><p>The Centurion’s servant was healed for the sake of <em>his</em> faith; Jairus’ daughter was healed because of <em>his</em> faith (<em><a href='B:480 5:36'>Mar 5:36</a></em>). Hence the Lord told them to believe and stop wavering, so that she would be made whole, or “saved” (<em><a href='B:490 8:50'>Luk 8:50</a></em>). This comes straight after the Lord’s commendation of the woman with “an issue of blood”: “Your faith has made you whole [or, saved]” (<em><a href='B:490 8:48'>Luk 8:48</a></em>). It’s as if the two healings are similar in their result- being made whole, or saved- and both required faith. But the woman’s own personal faith which led to her healing is paralleled with the faith of the family of the girl who was resurrected. </p>


text:
<p><em>While he yet spoke, there came one from the house of the ruler of the synagogue, saying: Your daughter is dead. Do not trouble the Teacher</em>-</p><p> We naturally ask: <em>who</em> was this “one” who came with this message? In the Gospels, it is often the disciples who term Jesus “the Master”. The implication is that it was they who thought that Jesus wouldn’t have the power to raise the dead, perhaps connecting with their own studied lack of faith in His resurrection later. This again contrasts with messengers from the house of the Centurion asking the Lord not to come, but just to say the word for the curing.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Jesus hearing it, responded: Fear not. Only believe, and she shall be made whole</em>-</p><p> Do not fear <em>but </em>believe shows the power of fear- it is fear which stops faith, fear is the opposite of faith. If we know the love that casts out fear, then a whole new style of relationships becomes possible. In so many relationships there is a balance of power which is more realistically a balance of fear- a fear of losing, of being made to look small, a fighting back with self-affirmation against the fear of being subsumed by the other. Be it parents and kids, teachers and students, pastor and flock, so often both sides fear the other. Yet if we are truly affirmed in Christ, no longer seeking victory because we have found victory in Him, His victories become ours… then our whole positioning in relationships becomes so different. For example, our fear of rejection becomes less significant if we believe firmly in our acceptance in the eyes of the Lord, the only one whose judgment has ultimate value. If we can say with Paul that for us the judgment of others has very little value, because we only have one judge… then we will no longer worrying about acting in such a way as to impress others. No longer will it be so important to not express our inner thoughts about people or situations for fear of not using the constant ‘nicespeak’ which results in judgment from others unless it’s used. There will be a congruence between what we feel and think within us, and what we actually show. And thus we will avoid the dysfunction which is so apparent in so many, as they forever struggle to control their outward expressions, hiding their real self, with the real self and the external self struggling against each other in a painful dis-ease.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he came to the house, he did not permit anyone to enter with him- </em>We see here the Lord's amazing force of personality when He wished to use it, just as He walked through the crowd in Nazareth who wished to throw Him off the cliff. He sent away the inquisitive crowd, just as He sent away the crowd after the miraculous feeding. He used the same power in commanding the mourners to leave the home.</p><p>The Greek phrase for "came into" is used so often in the Synoptics. Just in Matthew 9, Jesus came into His own city (<em><a href='B:470 9:1'>Mat 9:1</a></em>), came into the ruler's house (<em><a href='B:490 9:23'>Luk 9:23</a></em>) and came into a house (<em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em>). Consider the other usages of the phrase in Matthew alone: He came into Israel (<em><a href='B:470 2:21'>Mat 2:21</a></em>), came into Nazareth (<em><a href='B:470 2:23'>Mat 2:23</a></em>), came into Capernaum (<em><a href='B:470 4:13'>Mat 4:13</a></em>), came into Peter's house (<em><a href='B:470 8:14'>Mat 8:14</a></em>), came into the land of the Gergesenes (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>); came into a synagogue (<em><a href='B:470 12:9'>Mat 12:9</a></em>), came into a house (<em><a href='B:470 13:36'>Mat 13:36</a></em>), came into His own region (<em><a href='B:470 13:54'>Mat 13:54</a></em>), came into the land of Gennesaret (<em><a href='B:470 14:34'>Mat 14:34</a></em>), came into Magdala (<em><a href='B:470 15:39'>Mat 15:39</a></em>), came into Caesarea (<em><a href='B:470 16:13'>Mat 16:13</a></em>, came into Capernaum (<em><a href='B:470 17:24'>Mat 17:24</a></em>), came into the borders of Judea (<em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em>), came into Bethphage (<em><a href='B:470 21:1'>Mat 21:1</a></em>), came into the temple (<em><a href='B:470 21:23'>Mat 21:23</a></em>), came into Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:36'>Mat 26:36</a></em>), came into the place called Golgotha (<em><a href='B:470 27:33'>Mat 27:33</a></em>). Mark and Luke record even other cases of His 'coming into' various towns, areas and situations. It is a huge emphasIs. John's Gospel uses the term, but frequently in the more abstract sense of the Lord Jesus 'coming into' the (Jewish) world. The prologue uses the Greek phrase three times alone in describing how Jesus 'came into' the world and into "His own" (<em><a href='B:500 1:7'>Joh 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:9'>Joh 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:11'>Joh 1:11</a></em>). He was the light and prophet that "came into the world" (<em><a href='B:500 3:19'>Joh 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:14'>Joh 6:14</a></em>). John's references to the Lord Jesus coming "into the world" (<em><a href='B:500 12:46'>Joh 12:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:28'>Joh 16:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:37'>Joh 18:37</a></em>) are therefore not to be read as implying that He literally came down out of Heaven into the world; but rather they are John's more abstract equivalent of the Synoptics' direct and repeated statements that the Lord came into the Jewish world of His day, into human situations. His sending of us out "into" the world is therefore inviting us to go forth and enter into our world and its various situations just as He did. We are to replicate His ministry in our world and situations.</p><p><em>Except Peter, John and James, and the father and mother of the girl</em>-</p><p> Luke records how Peter, James, John and the parents of the dead girl entered the house where she was <em>alone</em>; and then "they" laughed Jesus to scorn when He proclaimed she was merely asleep (<em><a href='B:490 8:51'>Luk 8:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:53'>Luk 8:53</a></em>). It's psychologically unlikely that the distraught, desperately hopeful parents would've ridiculed Jesus like this at that time. The reference is surely to the three disciples doing this. This is a profound recognition of the disciples' weakness- there, alone with Jesus and the distraught parents, they mocked Jesus' ability to resurrect the girl. And they have the profound humility to tell the world about that in their record of the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em>All were weeping and bewailing her, but he said: Weep not. For she is not dead but sleeps</em>-</p><p> The Angel repeated the same words to the women at the Lord's grave, as did the Lord to Mary: "Why do you weep?" (<em><a href='B:500 20:13'>Joh 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>). Surely those women were close to the Lord at this time. The Lord used the same word choice before and after His resurrection, showing the continuity of personality between how we are now in the flesh, and how we shall eternally be. Salvation is personal, and how we are now is of critical importance eternally.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they laughed at him with scorn, knowing that she was dead</em>-</p><p> This is recorded in all three of the Synoptics (<em><a href='B:480 5:40'>Mar 5:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:53'>Luk 8:53</a></em>). It made a deep impression upon them all. The Greek could suggest (although not necessarily) that there was a process of derision here which left the Lord looking somehow scorned ("to scorn"). Perhaps He blushed, or looked at the ground- for He was after all human. Clearly these people were just the hired mourners and flute players. There was an element of anger in their derision because clearly money and payment were at issue if they were to just be sent away. </p>


text:
<p><em>But he, taking her by the hand, called, saying: Little girl, arise</em>-</p><p> The whole scene of putting mourners out of the house, taking her by the hand and raising her up was followed exactly by Peter in raising Tabitha. The Lord's style, language and even body language became the pattern for those who had been with Him, and it must be the same for us. The Gospels are written in such a way, that through the power of inspiration we can as it were be there with the disciples likewise watching Jesus and learning of His Spirit.</p><p>Mark adds that the Lord said: "Talitha cumi, which is, My child, I say to you, Get up" (<em><a href='B:480 5:41'>Mar 5:41</a></em>). "Get up" there isn't from the '<em>anastasis</em>' group of words which are used about the 'rising up' of dead people in resurrection. It's&nbsp;<em>egeiro</em>, which more literally means 'to get up'. 'Honey, it's time to get up now' was what the Lord was saying- not 'I command you to resurrect'. He had raised her, given her life, and He knew that. In fact, He'd done it a while beforehand. For He told the mourners: "The girl isn't dead, she's only sleeping" (:24; <em><a href='B:480 5:39'>Mar 5:39</a></em>). He raised her even before going into the room- and He knew that. And so when He finally saw her, He took her hand and gently asked her to get up out of bed. His gentleness, His faith, His calmness, His certainty that the Father heard Him- are all wondrous.</p>


text:
<p><em>And her spirit returned and she rose up immediately, and he commanded that something be given her to eat</em>-</p><p> The way the Lord healed people reflects His sensitivity- He commanded food to be brought for a girl who had been dead and was therefore hungry.</p>


text:
<p><em>And her parents were amazed, but he ordered them to tell no one what had been done</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 9:44'>Luk 9:44</a></em>. The Lord Jesus, in His ministry, had forbidden the extroverts from publicly preaching about Him, as they naturally wanted to (e.g. <em><a href='B:480 8:26'>Mar 8:26</a></em>). To keep silent was an act of the will for them, something against the grain. It is hard to find any other explanation for why He told Jairus not to tell anyone that He had raised his daughter- for it would have been obvious, surely. For they knew she had died (:53). By contrast those who would naturally have preferred to stay quiet were told to go and preach (e.g. <em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em>). Perhaps Paul was in this category. The parallel between the Lord’s words and works is brought out in <em><a href='B:490 9:43-44'>Luk 9:43-44</a></em>: “They wondered at all things which Jesus&nbsp;<em>did</em>…He said…let these&nbsp;<em>sayings</em>&nbsp;sink down into your ears”. There are no distinct ‘sayings’ of Jesus in this context; He wanted them to see that His works were His words. There was perfect congruence between what He said and what He did. Perhaps this was why He told the parents of the girl whom He resurrected to tell nobody what was done, even though it was so obvious; He wanted His self-evident works to speak for themselves, without the need for human words. For His works were essentially His message:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And he called the twelve together- </em>Implying they were not always with Him. But there seems an intended contrast between calling them to Him, and then sending them forth (:2). They were with Him when they were away from Him. It is simply so, that when we witness, the words we speak are in effect the words of Jesus. Our words are his. This is how close we are to Him. And this is why our deportment and manner of life, which is the essential witness, must be in Him. For He is articulated to the world through us. And it explains the paradox of the parallel record in <em><a href='B:480 3:14'>Mar 3:14</a></em>, whereby Jesus chose men that they should “be with Him and that He might send them forth to preach”. As they went out to witness, they were with Him, just as He is with us in our witness, to the end of the world [both geographically and in time]. And this solves another Marcan paradox, in <em><a href='B:480 4:10'>Mar 4:10</a></em>: “When He was alone, they that were about Him with the twelve asked Him…”. Was He alone, or not? Mark speaks as if when the Lord was away from the crowd and with His true followers, He was “alone”- for He counted them as one body with Him. This was why the Lord told Mary, when she so desperately wanted to be personally with Him, to go and preach to His brethren (<em><a href='B:500 20:18'>Joh 20:18</a></em>), just as He had told some of those whom He had healed- for going and preaching Him was in effect being with Him.</p><p><em>And gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases</em>-</p><p> Every kind of sickness and disease was to be engaged with by them because they were to be the re-incarnation of Jesus' personal ministry, His body to the world. See on <em><a href='B:470 9:35'>Mat 9:35</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick</em>-</p><p> The emphasis was upon preaching the Kingdom. The healings were secondary to that, and were to exemplify the things of the Kingdom. The noun for "heal" is found once, in <em><a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a></em>, where in the context of describing the Lord Jesus He is called "a servant". The acts of healing were done in a servant-like way. This contrasts sharply with the pride associated with many Pentecostal healers. Whatever good we do others, dramatic or not so dramatic, is to be done as an incarnation of the supreme Servant of all, the Lord Jesus. For it is His ministry which we are performing, not ultimately our own.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money. Neither have two coats</em>-</p><p> Luke is picking out the picture of Israel as they were on Passover night, as an illustration of how His disciples should be on their preaching mission:&nbsp;His next words for them in :4 about staying until you move on appear to be stating the obvious, unless they allude to Israel remaining at whatever place they reached until the fire and cloud moved them on:&nbsp;It must be remembered that God intended Israel to be a missionary nation, teaching the surrounding world of His ways by their example of obedience to His law:&nbsp;As Israel left Egypt with the gold and jewels of Egypt, so, Jesus implied, the disciples were to carry the precious things of the Gospel. "Nor money"- Mt. <em>"</em>Nor brass for your purses"- Even small coins were not to be considered necessary for the missionary work to finally succeed.</p><p><em>Was seeking to see who Jesus was; but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small of stature</em>-</p><p> The fact nobody made way for him is a tacit reflection of how his wealth had not bought him respect. As he was seeking Jesus, so the Lord was seeking him (:10). We see here the mutuality which there is between us and the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>And into whatever house you enter, there stay and from there depart</em>-</p><p> This appears to be stating the obvious, unless they allude to Israel remaining at whatever place they reached until the fire and cloud moved them on; see on :3. It must be remembered that God intended Israel to be a missionary nation, teaching the surrounding world of His ways by their example of obedience to His law:&nbsp;As Israel left Egypt with the gold and jewels of Egypt, so, the Lord implied, the disciples were to carry the precious things of the Gospel. In practice, this command was in order to develop relationships in families which would lead to the development of house churches, which was the Lord's preferred vision for His church, at least in the first century. &nbsp;</p>&nbsp;<p>The Lord at least twice stressed to His disciples that they were not to go preaching from house to house, but rather focus upon one house in a village and make that the centre of their work (<em><a href='B:490 9:4'>Luk 9:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:7'>Luk 10:7</a></em>). Clearly His intention was that they built up house groups rather than scattered converts. Perhaps this was alluded to by Paul when he criticized sisters who went spreading gossip “from house to house” (<em><a href='B:610 5:13'>1Ti 5:13</a></em>). He surely had house churches in mind.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as many as do not welcome you, when you depart from that city, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony against them</em>-</p><p> The disciples were to shake off the dust of their feet against unbelieving Israel (<em><a href='B:470 10:14'>Mat 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:11'>Mar 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:51'>Act 13:51</a></em>), in allusion to the Rabbinic teaching that the dust of Gentile lands caused defilement. Israel who rejected the Gospel were thus to be treated as Gentiles. Time and again the prophets describe the judgments to fall upon Israel in the same terms as they speak of the condemnations of the surrounding nations (e.g. Jer 503; <em><a href='B:300 50:13'>Jer 50:13</a></em>). The message was clear: rejected Israel would be treated as Gentiles. Thus Joel describes the locust invasion of Israel in the language of locusts covering the face of Egypt (<em><a href='B:360 2:2'>Joe 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:20'>Joe 2:20</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 10:14-15'>Exo 10:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 10:19'>Exo 10:19</a></em>). Israel’s hardness of heart is explicitly likened to that of Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:90 6:6'>1Sa 6:6</a></em>); as the Egyptians were drowned, so would Israel be (<em><a href='B:370 9:5-8'>Amo 9:5-8</a></em>). As Pharaoh’s heart was plagued (<em><a href='B:20 9:14'>Exo 9:14</a></em>), so was Israel’s (<em><a href='B:110 8:38'>1Ki 8:38</a></em>); as Egypt was a reed, so were Israel (<em><a href='B:110 14:15'>1Ki 14:15</a></em>). As Pharaoh-hophra was given into the hand of his enemies, so would Israel be (<em><a href='B:300 44:30'>Jer 44:30</a></em>). Even if we are separated from this world externally, we can still act in a worldly way, and share the world's condemnation by being finally "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And they departed and went throughout the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere</em>-</p><p> They were obedient to the emphasis commanded them in :2; to preach firstly, and heal. The focus upon villages rather than towns and big cities like Sepphoris is notable. We get the impression the Lord by all means sought to avoid controversy and conflict. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now Herod the tetrarch- </em>Literally, ‘one of a fourth’; a reference to how after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, the kingdom was divided amongst four others.</p><p><em>Heard of all that was done- </em>The Lord had recently used the same word in saying that unbelievers "By hearing shall hear and shall not understand" (<em><a href='B:470 13:14'>Mat 13:14</a></em>). The connection may be to demonstrate that pagan Herod was no better than the unbelieving Jewish religious leaders. Even in the Old Testament, unbelieving Israel are often described in terms of the Gentile world. We can also note that the Gospels were designed for memorization, and such word plays are common in order to assist committing them to memory. The Gospels likewise should be the lifeblood of all serious Christian living and thinking in this age of electronic memory.</p><p><em>And he was very worried, because of what was said by some, that John had risen from the dead</em>-</p><p> The people thought that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected (<em><a href='B:480 6:14'>Mar 6:14</a></em>). Perhaps this was because they looked somehow similar, as cousins?&nbsp;The idea of bodily resurrection was around in the first century, but very often in the sense of a dead person not really dying but returning&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>&nbsp;in another form. This was widely believed about Nero- and there are allusions to the legend of Nero&nbsp;<em>redivivus&nbsp;</em>in Revelation (they are deconstructed there as being untrue- the ultimate resurrection was of the Lord Jesus, not Nero). Herod's words show that a 'resurrected' person was expected to do great miracles as proof of their resurrection. The Lord's resurrection was likewise accompanied by "mighty works"- but not by Him personally, but by the community of believers. This accommodation to contemporary views of resurrection was therefore a way of demonstrating that the believers doing the miracles after the Lord's resurrection were being presented to society as Jesus&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>; as if they truly were the body of Jesus revived. Which of course they were, and we are. Paul uses the same Greek word translated "show forth themselves" to describe how the Lord Jesus worked through both Peter and himself through the doing of miracles (<em><a href='B:550 2:8'>Gal 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:5'>Gal 3:5</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And by some, that Elijah had appeared, and by others, that one of the old prophets had arisen</em>-</p><p> As made explicit in Matthew 12, 13, the crowds did not accept the essential message of John- but they fiercely defended him as a prophet, speaking God’s word. Acceptance of an inspired word is one thing, but to grasp the essence of the Lord Jesus is quite another. By assuming the Lord was Elijah rather than Messiah, we see how they had missed the whole point of John's teaching; for he had been the Elijah prophet, heralding Messiah. And yet John had such popularity that Herod had been unable to murder him because of his mass support (<em><a href='B:470 14:5'>Mat 14:5</a></em>). The image of John was popular, John as religion; but his essential message went unheeded. And so it can be with us today; the image and religion of Christianity may be appealing to us to the point we identify with it. But the essential message of the Christ who should&nbsp; be at the core of it can be totally ignored or not even grasped. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Herod said: John I beheaded, but who is this, about whom I hear such things? And he sought to see him</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:480 6:16'>Mar 6:16</a></em> says that therefore Herod concluded this was John resurrected. Having killed John, Herod's conscience was haunted by him, and he was eager to see John alive again. He regretted murdering him; his subconscious desire was that John would somehow overcome that death and revive. And so he became convinced of the idea that John had reincarnated as Jesus. This explains why people can be so utterly convinced of after death experiences, reincarnation, ghosts, appearances of the dead etc. Such apparent experiences are a reflection of their own deep subconscious desire to see the dead again, to make death somehow not death. This is where the clear Biblical definition of death as unconsciousness is so challenging.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the apostles, when they had returned,declared to him what things they had done. And he took them and withdrew to a city called Bethsaida</em>-</p><p> The Lord wanted to follow up with them about their experiences whilst preaching, and to develop their skills further. He wanted to be alone with them on their return from the assignment. But He is apparently frustrated by the crowds turning up (:11); indeed, this happens several times in the Gospels. It is all a deep insight into the depth of His humanity, with things not working out always as planned. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the crowds knew it, and they followed him; and he welcomed them, and spoke to them of the kingdom of God, and those that had need of healing he cured</em>-</p><p> Possibly implying that some posed as being sick, and yet the Lord could discern whose need was genuine. How hard His life must have been, in that hard land. And how hard it <em>is</em> for Him, in this hard world.</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 <em>received </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><em><a href='B:470 13:54-58'>Mat 13:54-58</a></em> records how the Lord taught in the synagogue but didn’t get a good response, nor did He do many miracles there because of their unbelief. But now He leaves, and the people flock after Him. This may be understandable just in terms of basic psychology- when a wonderful offer is not taken up but appears to be receding, people then desperately grab onto it. Perhaps that’s why the Lord seems well disposed to these people- healing and feeding them. But we also get the impression that the Lord was not constantly available for teaching and healing. I have previously remarked that the intensity of some of the days which the Gospels record was surely not repeated every day of His ministry. It seems He spent most of His time training the twelve and only occasionally made public appearances to teach and heal.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the day began to wear away; and the twelve came and said to him- </em>The implication is that they weren’t standing by Him, but rather watching cynically from a distance. Which explains their harsh attitude to the crowds. After all, they too had been followers of John the Baptist, they too wanted to get away on their own to mourn the news of His death. They probably felt the Lord should’ve sent away the multitudes from the start. It’s not hard to sense that the record paints the disciples negatively at this time. But who wrote this record? The Gospels are transcripts of how the disciples preached the Gospel. Despite the process of inspiration, the disciples in their recounting of the Gospel repeatedly mentioned their own weakness, and thereby would’ve come over as all the more credible to their audience. And in this we see a fine pattern for our own witness.</p><p><em>Send the crowd away- </em>Twice they wanted to turn away those who wished to come to Jesus, and whom He wished to accept (<em><a href='B:470 14:15'>Mat 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:23'>Mat 15:23</a></em>). As with the two miracles of bread, the second incident was giving them the opportunity to learn the lesson from the first incident- and yet they failed. Likewise they “forbad” John’s disciples just as they wrongly “forbad” the little children to come to Him (<em><a href='B:490 9:50'>Luk 9:50</a></em>). They ask the Lord to send the multitude away, whereas He had taught by word and example, that whoever came to Him He would not turn away (<em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>). Mark and Matthew present themselves, the disciples, as seriously out of step with their Lord at this time. And surely the communities which they were establishing were likewise tempted to ‘send away’ or deny fellowship to those whom the Lord would have them fellowship.</p><p><em>That they may go into the villages and countryside and lodge and get provisions. For we are here in a deserted place</em>-</p><p> Seeing most of the people were poor, and were likely subsistence farmers, it is most unlikely they had money to buy food. And 5000 men plus women and children would’ve meant a crowd of 10,000 at least- the few shops in those tiny hamlets would’ve been totally unable to provide for them. Here again we see the insensitivity of the disciples being related in the narrative which they themselves told after the resurrection. The apparently redundant “buy&nbsp;<em>themselves</em>” (Mk:) may suggest the disciples’ bitterness and resentment at the apparent expectation of the crowd that the Lord was to provide food for them. The only other time we meet the phrase is when the wise virgins tell the foolish to go and ‘buy for themselves’, and refuse to give their oil to them. Perhaps the Lord built that phrase into the parable because the disciples had earlier used it- and by His provision, He had effectively rebuked them for doing so:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But he said to them: You give them something to eat- </em>According to <em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>, the Lord also asked: “From whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?”. Even if money was no issue, the village shops simply had nowhere near the amount of food required. So in “You give them…”, the stress was not only on the word “you”. Perhaps it was more so on the word and concept of “give”, standing as it does in contrast to the disciples’ unrealistic and harsh expectation that these poor people go to a village and&nbsp;<em>buy</em>&nbsp;food. Surely the Lord ad in mind <em><a href='B:290 55:1-2'>Isa 55:1-2</a></em>: “Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food”. He intended the disciples to see the connection and to figure that He would even provide them with free food, because they were seeking His word. We are confirmed in this idea by the way that He appealed to the crowd in the same discourse: “Labour not for the food which perishes” (<em><a href='B:500 6:27'>Joh 6:27</a></em>), which is surely an allusion to <em><a href='B:290 55:2'>Isa 55:2</a></em>. Perhaps the disciples got the point- perhaps not. Often the Lord sets us up with situations in which we are intended to have our minds sent back to a Biblical verse or precedent as encouragement and guidance for us in our decisions. Whether or not we grasp it is a matter partly of our familiarity with the text of Scripture, but more significantly, our openness to this kind of spiritual prompting, and the idea of God’s word being part of a living, two-way dialogue between Him and ourselves.</p><p>The Lord told the disciples to feed the crowd, when they had nothing to give them (<em><a href='B:480 6:37'>Mar 6:37</a></em>). He was actually quoting from <em><a href='B:120 4:42'>2Ki 4:42</a></em>, where the man of God told his servant to do the same. He gave what bread he had to the people, and miraculously it fed them. The disciples don't seem to have seen the point; otherwise, they would have realized that if they went ahead in faith, another such miracle would likely be wrought. But it seems that God almost over-ruled them to make the response of the faithless servant of <em><a href='B:120 4:43'>2Ki 4:43</a></em>: "Shall we... give them to eat?" (<em><a href='B:480 6:37'>Mar 6:37</a></em>). They were almost 'made' to do this to make them later see the similarity with the 2 Kings 4 incident. If they had been more spiritually aware at the time, the Lord's quotation would have been a fillip for their faith.</p><p>When the Lord calmly bid them feed the huge crowd with just a few loaves&nbsp;(“How many loaves have you? Go and see” (<em><a href='B:480 6:38'>Mar 6:38</a></em>)), we are left to imagine those men, almost paralysed and certainly gob smacked by the extent of the demand, awkwardly going away to count their few loaves. He could be seen as a demanding Lord. The Lord Jesus said many "hard sayings" which dissuaded people from seriously following Him. He kept speaking about a condemned criminal's last walk to his cross, and telling people they had to do this. He told them, amidst wondrous stories of flowers and birds, to rip out their eyes, cut off their limbs- and if they didn't, He didn't think they were serious and would put a stone round their neck and hurl them into the sea (<em><a href='B:480 9:42-48'>Mar 9:42-48</a></em>). He healed a leper, and then spoke sternly to Him (<em><a href='B:480 1:43'>Mar 1:43</a></em> AV mg:).</p><p>It makes a good exercise to re-read the Gospels looking out for cases of where the Lord urged the disciples to not look at Him as somehow separate from themselves, an automatic Saviour from sin and problems. Thus when it was apparent that the huge, hungry crowd needed feeding, the Lord asked the disciples where “<em>we</em>” could get food from to feed them (<em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>). In all the accounts of the miraculous feedings, we see the disciples assuming that Jesus would solve the situation- and they appear even irritated and offended when He implies that this is&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;joint problem, and&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;must tackle this seemingly impossible task with<em> their</em>&nbsp;faith. The mentality of the disciples at that time is that of so many Trinitarians- who assume that ‘Jesus is the answer’ in such a form that they are exempt from seeing His humanity as a challenge for them to live likewise.</p><p>The disciples, in John’s record, complain: “From whence shall&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;find bread in the wilderness?”. The record of the disciples' murmuring in John 6 reflects how influenced they were by the Jews around them. "The Jews then murmured at him", and the Lord rebukes them: "Murmur not among yourselves". But then we read of how "Jesus knew in himself that his disciples were murmuring" (<em><a href='B:500 6:40'>Joh 6:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:43'>Joh 6:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:61'>Joh 6:61</a></em>). And again, remember that these gospel records were written by the repentant disciples, and they were using the example of their own weakness in order to appeal to others. The disciples appeared to share Judaism's idea that Moses never sinned. When the Lord challenges them to find food for the crowd in the desert, they quote Moses' hasty words: "Whence shall I have flesh to give unto all this people?"; and note Moses almost mocks God by saying that all the fish of the sea wouldn't be enough to feed the people (<em><a href='B:40 11:13'>Num 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:22'>Num 11:22</a></em>). Faced with the same need for bread and fish, the disciples justified their lack of faith by quoting Moses, apparently unwilling to accept that Moses' words at that time were not of faith. The way everything worked out, they doubtless learnt that Moses, like them, was of imperfect faith and spirituality.</p><p><em>And they said: We have no more than five loaves and two fishes, unless we go and buy food for all these people</em>-</p><p> </p><p><em><a href='B:500 6:9'>Joh 6:9</a></em> says that they said: “There is a lad here, which has five barley loaves and two small fishes”. The boy out of the crowd gave the bread to the disciples- for now, the bread is no longer ‘his’, but belongs to ‘the disciples’. Then they gave it to Jesus. He then gives it back to the disciples, and they give it back to the crowd, including to the boy. We see in this cycling around of the bread an eloquent picture of the Lord’s humanity. What little the crowd of humanity had was taken by the Lord and transformed by Him into what could save them; and in this sense, the bread was ‘sent down’ from Heaven, in John’s terms, even though it was a recycling of the peoples’ own bread.</p><p>The very human perspective of the disciples is almost predictably brought out by their response to the Lord’s question to them about where to get bread to feed the hungry crowd. “Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient” was Philip’s response (oh 6:7). Andrew’s comment that they had five loaves and two fishes surely carried the undertone that ‘…and that’s not even enough for us, let alone them- we’re starving too, you know!’. The disciples wanted the crowd sent away, to those who sold food, so that they might buy for themselves (<em><a href='B:470 14:15'>Mat 14:15</a></em>). As the Lord’s extended commentary upon their reactions throughout John 6 indicates, these responses were human and selfish. And yet- and here is a fine insight into His grace and positive thinking about His men- He puts their very words and attitudes into the mouth of the wise virgins at the very moment of their acceptance at the day of judgment: “The wise answered [the foolish virgins] saying, Not so, lest there be not enough [s:w. “not sufficient”, <em><a href='B:500 6:7'>Joh 6:7</a></em>] for us and you; but got ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves” (<em><a href='B:470 25:9'>Mat 25:9</a></em>). Clearly the Lord framed that parable in the very words, terms and attitudes of His selfish disciples. He counted even their weakness as positive, and thus showed His desire to accept them in the last day in spite of it. Another reading of the connection would be that the Lord foresaw how even in the final moment of acceptance into His Kingdom, right on the very eve of judgment day, His people would still be as hopelessly limited in outlook and spiritually self-centred as the disciples were that day with the multitude. Whatever way we want to read this undoubted connection of ideas, we have a window into a grace so amazing it almost literally takes our breath away.</p><p>The Lord told the disciples to feed the crowd, when they had nothing to give them. He was actually quoting from <em><a href='B:120 4:42'>2Ki 4:42</a></em>, where the man of God told his servant to do the same. He gave what bread he had to the people, and miraculously it fed them. The disciples don't seem to have seen the point; otherwise, they would have realized that if they went ahead in faith, another such miracle would likely be wrought. We too are given Divine nudges towards seeing Biblical precedents for our situations; but we may not always grasp them. Familiarity with the Bible text through regular re-reading is a great help here. But it seems that God almost over-ruled them to make the response of the faithless servant of <em><a href='B:120 4:43'>2Ki 4:43</a></em>: "Shall we... give them to eat?". They were almost 'made' to do this to make them later see the similarity with the 2 Kings 4 incident. If they had been more spiritually aware at the time, the Lord's quotation would have been a fillip for their faith.</p><p>If a labourer worked for a denarius a day during harvest season, we can conclude that their figure of 200 denarii was a year's wages for a working man. Like us so often, they focused on the size of the problem rather than on the Lord's ability to move absolutely any mountain.</p>


text:
<p><em>For they were about five thousand men- </em>It is tempting to try to work out some significance in the figures here and in the feeding of the 4000 recorded later. Five loaves and two fishes fed 5000 with 12 baskets taken up; seven loaves and a few fishes fed 4000 with seven baskets taken up. With the food distributed each time by 12 disciples. One observation would be that the total number of loaves used was 12, which was the number of loaves required for the showbread (<em><a href='B:30 24:5'>Lev 24:5</a></em>). The loaves in totality represent the Lord Jesus, the bread of God’s presence in Israel, offered to all and sundry- not just to the priests. The Lord had made the same point in reminding Israel that David and his men had eaten the showbread- the things considered exclusively for the religious elite were now open to all, women and kids and Gentiles included. The very same Greek phrase “about five thousand men” occurs in <em><a href='B:510 4:4'>Act 4:4</a></em>, to describe the total number of converts made by the disciples in the very early days of the church. Surely there must be some connection here. As the disciples moved amongst the crowds, each of them repeatedly breaking the bread of Christ to the multitudes, they were being trained towards the day when they would move amongst other multitudes preaching Christ and baptizing people into Him. It would seem that there were two major incidents when the disciples preached and performed mass baptisms; the 3000 in <em><a href='B:510 2:41'>Act 2:41</a></em>, and then either 2000 or 5000 (depending how one reads the Greek) in <em><a href='B:510 4:4'>Act 4:4</a></em>. These days of mass baptisms were probably never repeated in the history of the early church; and so the two feeding miracles were to prepare them for those two later incidents. In our yearning to attach meaning to event, we too can be encouraged that what we currently cannot understand is likely preparation for some potential future calling for us at some point in the future.</p><p><em>And he said to his disciples: Make them sit down in groups, about fifty in each</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; "In groups" is a technical term for how in the Roman empire, large groups sat at groups of three tables forming three sides of a square, with divans or couches on which they reclined as they ate. The open end of the square was entered by the servants who waited on the guests. But there no tables nor couches. They were bidden imagine them. For this was set up as a banquet; with the Lord as host. It was a foretaste of the Messianic banquet. And all and any present were invited to recline and eat. So the people sat down as it were in table-companies but without tables, in companies of a hundred and others of fifty (Mk:), waited upon by the disciples. Who you ate with had religious meaning in their society; it was a sign of religious fellowship. And here the Lord opened His table to any who wished to hear His word, be they clean, unclean, Jew, Gentile, women or children. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they did so, and made them all sit down</em>-</p><p> Vine comments: "Lit:, like beds in a garden. The former adverb, by companies, describes the arrangement; this the color. The red, blue, and yellow clothing of the poorest orientals makes an Eastern crowd full of color; a fact which would appeal to Peter's eye, suggesting the appearance of flower-beds in a garden". If this were the case, then the allusion would be to the encampment of Israel in <em><a href='B:40 24:6'>Num 24:6</a></em>: "As valleys they are spread forth, as gardens by the riverside, as aloes which Yahweh has planted, as cedar trees beside the waters". Equally if the allusion is instead to military groups or companies, the idea is that this apparently random group of peasants, with all their shady biographies and legal uncleanness and lack of understanding, were the new Israel the Lord was forming; the new "hosts" of Yahweh of Hosts.</p><p>The 'making' to sit down could suggest nervousness within the crowd as to whatever was being done with them. The wonder of being provided for at the Lord's table is indeed hard to grasp.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven- </em>This detail not only suggests the close fellowship enjoyed between the Father and Son, to the extent that the Lord could pray with open eyes looking up to Heaven, knowing there was no barrier between Him and God. But we also as it were have the camera zoomed in upon the Lord, yet another indication that we have in the Gospels an eye witness account. Likewise the Lord's way of looking up was noticed in <em><a href='B:490 19:5'>Luk 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:1'>Luk 21:1</a></em>:&nbsp;And the Comforter passages promise us that we can share His relationship with the Father, through the gift of the Spirit:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>He blessed them and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd</em>-</p><p> The aorist followed by the imperfect in "broke and gave" suggests He broke the bread once, and went on giving it out as a continuous act. This speaks of the Lord's one time death, and His continuous giving out of that to His people. The miracle of multiplication therefore happened at the moment of breaking the bread and His giving it out. This is indeed the work of the Spirit in our lives. </p><p>Clearly the record is structured to show how the Lord worked through them. In giving the bread of life to the world, the Lord usually works through some kind of human mechanism rather than as it were parachuting His word and salvation directly to a person. There was no word from the Lord that He had performed the miracle of multiplication- the disciples had to go forth in faith and start distributing the bread and fish. Presumably He broke the five loaves into 12 parts, and the two fish likewise. The disciples, each holding a small piece of bread and fish in their hands, in turn went to the crowds and broke it further- and never ran out. It was indeed a sign of their faith that they participated, risking looking foolish as they first began. This is indeed an accurate picture of our fears as we go out into this world with the Lord's salvation.</p><p>Time and again, it becomes apparent that the Lord especially designed incidents in His men’s experience which they would learn from, and later be able to put to use when similar experiences occurred after He had ascended. This was essential to the training of the twelve disciples. Thus He made&nbsp;<em>them&nbsp;</em>distribute the food to the multitude (<em><a href='B:500 6:11'>Joh 6:11</a></em>); yet after His ascension, we meet the same Greek word in <em><a href='B:510 4:35'>Act 4:35</a></em>, describing how they were to distribute welfare to the multitude of the Lord’s followers:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And they ate and were all filled- </em>"All" ate; and eating together at a banquet was a sign of religious fellowship. There were for sure some there who were Gentiles, unclean, or simply curious. They were "filled", perhaps alluding to <em><a href='B:50 8:10'>Deu 8:10</a></em>, “you shall eat and be full”. The blessings of an obedient Israel were counted to this random crowd. By grace. They were "filled" superabundantly. The Lord's generosity is wonderful.</p><p><em>And there was taken up of the leftovers twelve baskets</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:560 1:8'>Eph 1:8</a></em> talks of how God has lavished or&nbsp;abounded&nbsp;His grace upon us. The same word is used about the Lord not only made miraculous loaves and fishes, but there was so much that&nbsp;abounded (“leftovers”) that it filled twelve baskets, another implication that here were assembled the new Israel. The word for "baskets" here is a different word to that used in the feeding of the 4000 in <em><a href='B:470 15:37'>Mat 15:37</a></em>. This here&nbsp;is the smaller basket, used for carrying ritually clean food when in Gentile areas. The Lord imparted a sense of ritual holiness to the otherwise random and unclean.</p><p>Why did the Lord do that, and why make the disciples pick up all those crumbs? Surely to give them an object lesson in how God delights in abounding to us. He didn’t just give the people food; He abounded to them. The record of each of the feeding miracles, in each of the Gospels, uses this word translated “remained” in commenting about the fragments that were left over- although the real meaning is ‘to abound’. Each of the Gospel writers was therefore deeply impressed by the fact that the Lord not only provided food- but such an abundance. All this sets the background for Paul’s use of the very same word to describe how God’s grace has “abounded” to us in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 3:7'>Rom 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:15'>Rom 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:8'>Eph 1:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as he was praying alone, that his disciples joined him; and he asked them, saying- 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>Who do the crowds say that I am?</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? (:20). "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>


text:
<p><em>And they answering said: 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>But others Elijah- </em>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. 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, that one of the old prophets hasrisen</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>And he said to them: But who do you say that I am? And Peter answering said: The Christ of God</em>-</p><p> Why did He ask this? Surely, with His sensitivity and insight into people and society, He knew full well the various theories that first Century Palestine entertained about Him. It seems to me that He asked this question for the disciples’ sake; He wanted them to reflect upon the wide range of wrong theories which there were concerning His identification. And this led on to His next question: “But who do you say that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God”. Surely the Lord Jesus knew what they thought of Him, without needing to ask them. Philip and Nathanael had earlier revealed that they considered Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah and “the Son of God” (<em><a href='B:500 1:45'>Joh 1:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:49'>Joh 1:49</a></em>). So, why did the Lord ask this question? Again, it was surely to focus His disciples upon the reality of the fact that despite all the various wrong theories, they actually knew the truth about Him. But the Lord then goes on to His essential point: “Tell no man that thing; saying, The Son of man must suffer many things…and be slain, and be raised…If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me… For what is a man advantaged if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?” (<em><a href='B:490 9:21-25'>Luk 9:21-25</a></em>). The Lord told the disciples to “Tell no man” by saying that “The Son of man must suffer…”. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he ordered and commanded them to tell this to no one</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;“Tell no man…” is almost hyperbole; surely He means ‘For now, focus more on the fact of my forthcoming death and your response to it, than telling others. If you gain the whole world for me in your preaching but lose your own salvation, what are you advantaged?’. After His resurrection they were to tell others; as the great commission made plain. And there is a powerful message to us all here, especially to those who concern themselves with large amounts of preaching. We should not be so caught up in listing the errors of others that we fail to appreciate the huge personal import of the truth that we do surely know. Indeed, the Lord sought to focus His men upon the Truth they knew by asking them firstly to consider all the wrong theories about Him. He then went on to bring home to them the radical, transforming impact of that Truth if it is properly believed and acted upon. Luke seems to draw attention to this theme again in <em><a href='B:490 10:20'>Luk 10:20</a></em>, where the disciples return from a successful preaching mission to be told to focus their elation instead upon the reality of their own personal salvation: “Rejoice not [i:e. not so much] that the spirits are subject unto you: but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven”. We are not to turn a blind eye to others' misunderstandings; the tragedy of the errors of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc. should not pass us by. But neither are we to remain obsessed with them. We are to be led by such reflection to rejoice in the basic truth of Jesus which we have been blessed with.</p>


text:
<p><em>Saying: The Son of Man must- </em>The usage of&nbsp;<em>dei </em>["must"]is so common in the Lord's discussion of His death.</p><p><em>Suffer many things- </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><em>And be rejected- </em>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;&nbsp;</p><p><em>By the elders- Presbuteros</em>&nbsp;is specifically used of the Sanhedrin members. The Lord's predictions here are highly specific and detailed.</p><p><em>And chief priests and scribes and be killed, and the third day be raised up</em>-</p><p> Literally, 'High Priests'. There was only supposed to be one High Priest, but the positionwas 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>And he said to all: If anyone would follow me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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 <em>shawkam </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 <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 <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.</p>


text:
<p><em>For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever shall lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 9:23-24'>Luk 9:23-24</a></em> describes cross carrying as a rejection of saving <em>our</em> life, of making our present life as rich and fulfilled as possible; and instead concentrating on <em>giving up</em> 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 <em>get</em>?’, but, ‘How much can I <em>give</em>?’. Not ‘What is the <em>safe</em> thing to do?’, but ‘What is the <em>right</em> thing to do?”. </p>


text:
<p><em>For what does it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but lose or forfeit his life?</em>-</p><p> This threat 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 <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><p>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).</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)!: <em>or</em> - 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 oint is, a man at the day of judgment will be willing to give up <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. <em>Now</em> is the time to resign all for the sake of that blessed acceptance.</p>


text:
<p><em>For whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his own glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:730 19:10'>Rev 19:10</a></em>. If we are <em>now</em> 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>&nbsp;<p>See on <em><a href='B:520 1:16'>Rom 1:16</a></em>. Being ashamed of the Lord'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:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</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. 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 <em>the rejected who</em> go away "into shame". <em>They</em> 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.</p><p>The way the Lord Jesus says that He will be "ashamed" of those He has to reject 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 <em>so</em> 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>


text:
<p><em>But I tell you a truth: There are some that stand here, who shall in no way taste death, until they see the kingdom of God</em>-</p><p> 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><p><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 differentwords. 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 26 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 26 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 (:26). 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. 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>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass about eight days after these sayings, that he took with him Peter, John and James and went up into the mountain to pray</em>-</p><p> 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 showsclearly that the early church was built upon the specific work of Peter.</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;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he was praying- </em>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;He 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><p><em>The appearance of his face was altered- </em>Mt. "His face shone as the sun". 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. 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;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And his garment became white and dazzling</em>-</p><p> The same description 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; </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 ofHis 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>


text:
<p><em>And talking with him were two men, who were 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 (<em><a href='B:470 17:9'>Mat 17:9</a></em>), 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>The transfiguration follows straight on from the Lord’s talk about the Kingdom. 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>


text:
<p><em>Who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:680 1:15'>2Pe 1:15</a></em>. "In glory" suggests they were presented as it were already in the Kingdom, and from that kingdom perspective they talked with the Lord about His upcoming short term sufferings. We too must try to see our sharings in the cross as being in the context of the Kingdom. "Departure" is <em>eksodos</em>-</p><p> Moses and Elijah had each experienced death at their exodus. And yet the Lord's exodus was all the more meaningful because it would enable the final delivery of God's people from the slavery of sin and death.</p>&nbsp;<p>They appeared “in glory”, 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 (<em><a href='B:470 17:9'>Mat 17:9</a></em>), 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. 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>


text:
<p><em>Now Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep, but when they were fully awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him</em>-</p><p> “Saw his glory” 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.</p><p>The disciples’ eyes were heavy in Gethsemane 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>And it came to pass, as they were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus: Master, it is good for us to be here! Let us make three booths, one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah-</em></p><p> Throughout the Lord's ministry, Peter had a mental barrierto 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, 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 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;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Not knowing what he said</em>-</p><p> It is 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. 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>


text:
<p><em>And while he said these things, there came a cloud that overshadowed them; and they were fearful as they entered into the 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:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: This is My Son, My chosen. Hear him</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;"Hear Him<em>"</em> 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>And when the voice came, Jesus was found alone- </em>He was the word made flesh. The law and the prophets were fulfilled in Him, and so the voice of God as it were made Elijah and Moses to exit. Matthew says: "No one, save Jesus only". 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;cannot&nbsp;be given further qualification, and reads awkwardly because of the&nbsp;monos, “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;monos&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 hearingthe 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><p><em>And they kept quiet and told no one in those days any of the things which they had seen</em>-</p><p> <em>"</em>To no one" maybe connects with the fact that they saw “no man” except Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 9:8'>Mar 9:8</a></em>); 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>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, the next day, when they had come down from the mountain, a great crowd met him</em>-</p><p> 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>And a man from the crowd cried, saying: Teacher, I beg you to look upon my son; for he is my only child</em>-</p><p> Having only one child was unusual; perhaps the mother had died. </p>


text:
<p><em>And a spirit seizes him, and he suddenly cries out- </em>The spirit and the person are parallel here; the person's behaviour was understood to be that of the supposed spirit. They failed to examine the behaviour or symptoms of a person as just that, instead they sought to explain it with reference to their theories of spirits.</p><p><em>It convulses him so that he foams at the mouth; and it departs from him with great difficulty, bruising him</em>-</p><p> Matthew and Mark speak of gnashing teeth and jumping into fire and water. Descriptions of the rejected come to mind as gnashing teeth, cast into fire and water, wallowing helpless... Likewise hitting himself was a sign of self-hatred, believing he was guilty of the beatings which were associated with the idea of condemnation (<em><a href='B:490 12:47-48'>Luk 12:47-48</a></em>). The child was obsessed with fear of condemnation, just as we noted Legion had been. His problem was therefore psychologically rooted, and the language of demons is simply the language of the day to describe his actions and theirapparent cure. 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 (Mt:) 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><em>And I begged your disciples to cast it out- </em>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 (<em><a href='B:470 17:19'>Mat 17:19</a></em>).</p><p><em>But they could not</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>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answered and said: O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you and put up with you?-</em></p><p> 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… shew yourself to the world”:&nbsp; See on <em><a href='B:500 7:33'>Joh 7:33</a></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. In Matthew 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 spiritualdepression. 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>&nbsp;<p><em>Bring your son here</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>


text:
<p><em>And as he was coming, the demon dashed him down and convulsed him. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the boy, and gave him back to his father</em>-</p><p> As noted above, the young man was obsessed with fear of condemnation. When he realized he was in the presence of the Lord, his condition therefore worsened considerably; he felt he really had arrived at judgment day, and wanted to destroy himself. Again we note that the underlying problem with him was psychological and spiritual, rather than being literally attacked by a demon. </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 snakesunderfoot 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>


text:
<p><em>And they were all astonished at the majesty of God. But while all were marvelling at all the things which he did, he said to his disciples</em>-</p><p> Momentary faith and devotion to the Lord is worth little. No matter how impressive it might appear to others at the time, it is our long run commitment to the Lord which matters. The Lord knew that these same people would be involved in His betrayal and death (:44); they who for the moment were marvelling at His miracle, correctly perceiving that it exemplified the majesty or rulership of God in His Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p><em>Let these words sink into your ears. For the Son of Man shall be delivered up into the hands of men</em>-</p><p> He said that He would be, in the future, delivered up (<em><a href='B:490 9:44'>Luk 9:44</a></em>); but the parallel <em><a href='B:480 9:31'>Mar 9:31</a></em> records Him saying: "I <em>am</em> delivered up". And <em><a href='B:490 24:7'>Luk 24:7</a></em> says that at this time, He told them that He <em>must be</em> delivered up. It is possible that He said all three things in one sentence, such was His emphasis: "I must be delivered up, I will be delivered up, in fact I am now being delivered up". He saw the future experience of the cross as being fulfilled in His daily experience of life.</p><p>The parallel between the Lord’s words and works is brought out in <em><a href='B:490 9:43-44'>Luk 9:43-44</a></em>: “They wondered at all things which Jesus <em>did</em>…He said…let these <em>sayings</em> sink down into your ears”. There are no distinct ‘sayings’ of Jesus in this context; He wanted them to see that His works were His words. There was perfect congruence between what He said and what He did. Perhaps this was why He told the parents of the girl whom He resurrected “to tell no man what was done” (<em><a href='B:490 8:56'>Luk 8:56</a></em>), even though it was so obvious; He wanted His self-evident works to speak for themselves, without the need for human words. For His works were essentially His message. See on <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>But they did not understand this saying, and it was hidden from them so that they did not perceive it, and they were afraid to ask Him about this saying</em>-</p><p> They were rebuked later for being so slow to understand. A refusal to understand has a psychological basis. They didn't want to understand the predictions of His death because it meant death with Him, in essence if not in practice. So they would rather it just were not true. In response, God "hid" the understanding from them. We are confirmed in whichever way we wish to go in.</p><p>The Lord’s teaching about the cross was “hid from them” (<em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>), much to the Lord’s distress. And yet in prayer to the Father, He rejoices that these things are not hid 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 is a picture of 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>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And there arose a dispute among them, which of them was the greatest</em>-</p><p> Straight after the Lord's descriptions of His death, so often there are arose petty argument and jealousies. Just as happens with us, in the shadow of His cross which we meet to remember. His greatness there is to be so perceived that none of us will be at all interested in being "the greatest". The power of the cross is likewise lost on the hearts of many because of their obsession with petty argument. Perhaps the Lord's clear choice of Peter as the leader was unpopular with them because of his impetuous ways and lack of leadership finesse. Or maybe they meant (as AV) who was to be the greatest after their Lord had died.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when Jesus saw the reasoning of their heart, he took a little child and set him by his side</em>-</p><p> 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:490 19:13'>Luk 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>The Greek for "set" 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 off-putting. 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>


text:
<p><em>And said to them: Whoever shall receive this little child in my name receives me, and whoever shall receive me, receives Him that sent me. For he that is least among you all, the same is great</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>The little child was to be identified with the Lord Jesus personally. 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>). 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><em>And John answered and said: Master, we saw onecasting out demons in your name and we forbade him, because he follows not with us</em>-</p><p> Luke inserts at this point the question about a man casting out demons although 'not following us'. 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></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:470 18:7'>Mat 18:7</a></em>&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><em>But Jesus said to him: Forbid not- </em>The preceding section has sternly warned against forbidding the little ones, and now we have a worked example. The little ones in view were John's disciples; although seeing "John did no miracle" we wonder whether the miracle claimed was legitimate. But the Lord is not only gentle, He seeks to accept even such misunderstanding and misguided ones. For He alludes without doubt to <em><a href='B:40 11:28-29'>Num 11:28-29</a></em>: "Joshua… answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Are you envious for my sake? Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them". He considered this misguided miracle worker in John's group as all the same one of God's new Israel. As noted earlier, the disciples tended to "forbid" those whom the Lord wished to accept. And that same tension is seen time and again with the way closed, denominational mindsets seek to exclude and "forbid" others who differ and are immature. But the allusion to Numbers 11 seems to be saying that all in whom the Spirit is working should be accepted; and the litmus test is whether they shall "speak evil of me". If they do not, then they are not against Him but for, despite their misunderstanding. An alternative reading however is "Shall not lightly speak evil of me" (as AV). In this case, the Lord is comforting His sceptical disciples that if such a person does is in fact against Him, then this is no light matter and will be dealt with by the Lord's judgment; but not by theirs. This incident is surely alluded to by Paul when he warns against some who claimed to possess the Spirit who 'call Jesus accursed' (<em><a href='B:530 12:3'>1Co 12:3</a></em>). There were such, and it was their attitude to the Lord Jesus personally which proclaimed them against Him. What people think of Christ is the critical issue when it comes to deciding whether a person is for or against Him; and that is obvious really, but the natural tendency to "forbid" those who interpret differently to ourselves is strong:&nbsp; </p><p><em>For he that is not against you is for you</em>-</p><p> If a person is not against the Lord personally (<em><a href='B:480 9:39'>Mar 9:39</a></em>), then he is not against "us", the body of Christ. And so even if that person will not mix with us, from God's wider point of view he is "for us", "on our part". Here on earth, sectors of the Lord's body are against each other. But from the Lord's perspective, those who are not against Him are on His part. But speaking evil of the Lord personally is parallel here with being against <em>us</em>. And here we have a worrying implication. Attitudes to those in Christ are attitudes to Him. To be "against" any of them is to be against Him. </p><p>And so the Lord's attitude to John’s disciples is very telling. 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>all</em> 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>


text:
<p><em>Now it came to pass, when the time had come for him to be received up, that he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> The record alludes to the way Hazael set his face to go up against Jerusalem in judgment (<em><a href='B:120 12:17'>2Ki 12:17</a></em>). The Lord's death was effectively Israel's judgment. He set His face to go to Jerusalem, and the final sacrifice which would be there. He hardened His face like a rock (<em><a href='B:290 50:7'>Isa 50:7</a></em>); and yet the wicked similarly harden their faces like a rock to go in the way of the flesh (<em><a href='B:300 5:3'>Jer 5:3</a></em>). We are hardened in our path, one way or the other. Jeremiah had his face hardened in response to his own hardening of face (<em><a href='B:300 1:17'>Jer 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 5:3'>Jer 5:3</a></em>), and the wicked in Israel likewise were hardened (<em><a href='B:300 3:3'>Jer 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:30'>Jer 4:30</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And sent messengers before his face; and they went and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him</em>-</p><p> The idea of messages sent before the face to prepare the way is absolutely the language uses about John's preparation for the Lord. The context here (see on :49,50) is of the Lord seeking to accept the disciples of John. So in order to promote unity between His disciples and those of John, the Lord speaks of His preachers as if they too are preparing His way before His face.</p>


text:
<p><em>But they did not receive him, because his face was set for the journey to Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> To be truly inclusive is hard. The Lord wanted to show His acceptance of the Samaritans, perhaps building on the converts made from the conversion of the woman at the well in John 4. But the mere fact He was going up to Jerusalem at a feast time was enough for them to not receive Him; when He had just been teaching about His radical acceptance of all. For all His grace, they treated the Lord with a guilt by association mentality, quite oblivious that He was going to Jerusalem to die there for them, at the hands of the Jews whom they despised.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said: Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?</em>-</p><p> Time and again, the Lord responded to requests for <em>Him</em> to do something by reminding the requesters of <em>their</em> responsibilities- e.g. 'Bring fire down on these guys! You have the Spirit, go on, do it, you surely can!' was responded to with a reminder that <em>you</em> don't appreciate what Spirit <em>you </em>have (<em><a href='B:490 9:54-55'>Luk 9:54-55</a></em>). 'Send the people away... No, <em>you</em> feed them' (<em><a href='B:490 9:12-13'>Luk 9:12-13</a></em>). 'Save us from this storm, Jesus, you miracle man!... Where is <em>your</em> faith?' (<em><a href='B:490 8:24-25'>Luk 8:24-25</a></em>). Elijah is presented both here and in the Old Testament record as judgmental and lacking grace and love. He is presented as all head and no heart for people. He was used by God and had a heart for God himself, and the Spirit worked through him... but he was far from God in other ways and in need of rebuke.</p>


text:
<p><em>But he turned and rebuked them, saying: You know what kind of Spirit you have</em>-</p><p> The incident in&nbsp; <em><a href='B:120 1:10'>2Ki 1:10</a></em> of calling fire down from Heaven is specifically rebuked by the Lord Jesus as not being of <em>His </em>Spirit. And He rebukes His followers for assuming that their natural prejudice against others can be justified by an appeal to Elijah’s example. The Lord’s comment that He had not come to <em>destroy </em>men’s <em>lives</em> but to <em>save</em> them (<em><a href='B:490 9:56'>Luk 9:56</a></em>) must surely be connected with what He has just said: Whosoever will <em>save</em> his<em> life </em>shall <em>lose</em> [s:w. <em>destroy</em>] it and vice versa (<em><a href='B:490 9:24-25'>Luk 9:24-25</a></em>). The three words <em>save, life, lose / destroy </em>are all the same. There is surely a connection of thought here. But what is the Lord saying through it? The disciples like Elijah would have had their prayers heard- the fire of destruction could have come. But the Lord says that they don’t know the type of spirit they are of. His Spirit is one of saving and not destruction. Men destroy <em>themselves </em>by seeking to save themselves without Him. This is why the Lord could say that He Himself judged / condemned no man- each rejected man will have condemned himself. The same point is actually made within the Elijah story too. In <em><a href='B:110 18:28'>1Ki 18:28</a></em> the prophets of Baal worshipped <em>after their manner</em>-</p><p> a Hebrew word normally translated 296 times “judgment”; they judged / condemned themselves, rather than needing Elijah to do so. And the word translated “cut” essentially means to gather. They gathered themselves together to condemnation and poured out their own blood. “Knives and lancets” is a phrase normally translated “swords and spears”. They lived out judgment upon themselves rather than Elijah needing to condemn them:&nbsp; Elijah like the disciples thought that he was the judge on God’s behalf, and that he was justified in calling down fire, evocative as that was of the way God Himself judges sinners. But Jesus puts it all another way- our focus, if we have His spirit, should be on saving people by getting them to destroy / lose their own fleshly lives through following Him. <em><a href='B:500 12:25-26'>Joh 12:25-26</a></em> makes the same point- he who loves his life <em>loses / destroys</em> it, but he who picks up the cross and follows Jesus will <em>save</em> it. Our absolute focus must be on the salvation of others through helping them condemn / destroy / lose themselves for the Lord’s sake; and we achieve this by following Jesus in the life of the cross, not by destroying others ourselves. The Lord came to save not destroy; to save the lost / destroyed (<em><a href='B:490 6:9'>Luk 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a></em> - the same words are used; note how this theme s developed specifically by Luke). But He did this through getting people to destroy their lives. And He begged- and begs- His followers to have His spirit / attitude in all this. And His point was that Elijah didn’t have His Spirit. Note that God worked with Elijah- He heard his prayers. Elijah like the disciples had the Spirit, the power that God was willing to let them have; and yet the Spirit of Jesus is more than raw power. And so it could be said of us, that we so often know not what manner of spirit we are of. We may be correctly reflecting the judgment of God, we may have Biblical justification for the hard line we adopt; but this doesn’t mean that we fully have the spirit of Christ. Yet as with Elijah, the fact our prayers are heard, that Scripture appears to back us, can make us blind to such&nbsp;major insufficiencies in our spirituality. We have a choice in how we respond to others’ weakness; there are different levels of response. If thy brother sin against thee, the Lord said- we can ultimately take others with us and then treat him as a Gentile or tax collector. But He continues- if our brother sin against us, we should forgive to an unlimited extent. This is the higher level of response to your brother’s weakness. Elijah and the disciples took the first of those options, as many of us do; but in doing so we so easily forget what manner of spirit we are of; for we are to be of the spirit of Christ, not Elijah. And His attitude / spirit was most definitely to save rather than to destroy, to share table fellowship rather than disassociate... See on <em><a href='B:490 12:49-54'>Luk 12:49-54</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they went to another village</em>-</p><p> Rather than to the Samaritan village as originally planned. Clearly the Lord's original plan had to be changed because of obstacles to it created by the Samaritans allowing their prejudices to derail potential evangelism; and the Lord is like this so often. He set up great potentials, but allows others to destroy them. In this sense His purpose is open rather than predictive and prescriptive.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as they were going along the road, someone said to him: I will follow you wherever you go</em>-</p><p> The question implies that it would only be possible to do this with the Lord's agreement. The Lord was on His way to Jerusalem and death on the cross; He knew that nobody could follow Him literally wherever He went. We note His gentleness; He doesn't say that, rather does He simply warn of the hardship of the way; and that His fate would be that of all who followed Him. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to him: The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head</em>-</p><p> When the Lord spoke of the Son of man having nowhere to lay His head, He surely had His mind upon how His dear mother had told Him that when He was born, there was no place to lay Him, and His dear head had to be laid in an animal’s feeding trough. &nbsp;</p><p>The Lord used language which challenged people. He could be seen as a demanding Lord. The Lord Jesus said many "hard sayings" which dissuaded people from seriously following Him. He kept speaking about a condemned criminal's last walk to his cross, and telling people they had to do this. He told them, amidst wondrous stories of flowers and birds, to rip out their eyes, cut off their limbs- and if they didn't, He didn't think they were serious and would put a stone round their neck and hurl them into the sea (<em><a href='B:480 9:42-48'>Mar 9:42-48</a></em>). He healed a leper, and then spoke sternly to him (<em><a href='B:480 1:43'>Mar 1:43</a></em> AV mg:). All three synoptics record how He summarily ordered His weary disciples to feed a crowd numbering thousands in a desert, when they had no food (<em><a href='B:470 14:16'>Mat 14:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:37'>Mar 6:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:13'>Luk 9:13</a></em>). He criticizes the man who earnestly wished to follow Him, but first had to attend his father's funeral. "Let the dead bury their dead" (<em><a href='B:470 8:22'>Mat 8:22</a></em>) was a shocking, even coarse figure to use- 'let the dead bodies drag one more dead body into their grave'. And then He went on to speak and show His matchless, endless love. He expressed Himself to the Jews in ways which were almost provocative (consider His Sabbath day miracles, and invitation to drink His blood). He intended to shake them. He seems to have used hyperbole in order to make the point concerning the high standard of commitment He expects. Thus He spoke of cutting off the limbs that offend. He told those who were interested in following Him that He had nowhere to lay His head (<em><a href='B:490 9:58'>Luk 9:58</a></em>). That may have been true that night, but the ministering women surely saw to it that this was not the case with Him most nights.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to another: Follow me. But he said: Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father</em>-</p><p> Following Christ, which is to carry His cross, is paralleled by Him with preaching His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 9:59-60'>Luk 9:59-60</a></em>). To live out the essence of the cross, in daily self-control, unconditional kindness and forgiveness, patience with those who provoke us… this is the real witness (<em><a href='B:490 9:23-26'>Luk 9:23-26</a></em>). If we don’t preach, we aren’t following Him. And if we do follow Him, it’s axiomatic that we therefore preach Him. “From henceforth you shall catch men. And... they forsook all, and followed him” (<em><a href='B:490 5:10-11'>Luk 5:10-11</a></em>) definitely parallels preaching with&nbsp;following the Lord. Following after Him is the way to be fishers of men (<em><a href='B:480 1:17'>Mar 1:17</a></em>), and yet following Jesus is so often understood by Him as a call to carrying the cross. A focus on Him and the life of His cross leads to a catching of men for Him in a quite natural way.</p><p>The man was on the way to his father’s funeral and yet the Lord expected him to immediately follow Him, and quit going to the funeral as he intended (<em><a href='B:490 9:59'>Luk 9:59</a></em>). And He criticized the man for not doing this. Another who wanted to first “bid farewell” to his family was likewise criticized (<em><a href='B:490 9:61'>Luk 9:61</a></em>). Even Elisha bid farewell to his family before following Elijah, and Elijah allowed him to do this (<em><a href='B:110 19:20'>1Ki 19:20</a></em>)- but the Lord Jesus was more demanding. He described the disciples as a “perverse generation” because they didn’t have enough faith to work a miracle (<em><a href='B:490 9:41'>Luk 9:41</a></em>). His demands and standards were and are very high; and we should never allow the extent of His grace to blind us to this fact, nor to assume that He is not serious about those demands.</p><p>The man who wanted to first attend his father'sfuneral was told that this wasn't good enough; although Abraham and Joseph did this. The man who wanted to go and say farewell to his family was told the same; although Elisha did this (<em><a href='B:490 9:60-61'>Luk 9:60-61</a></em>). The Lord is surely saying that the commitment of such Old Testament giants was to be less than what He expected of those for whom He was to give His all. It isn't that He won't <em>save </em>a man who (in the parable) puts his father's funeral before the Lord's demands. But He expects the <em>ultimate</em> level of commitment from us. Likewise His Father had asked Abraham to offer his dearest: Isaac. This is the Father and Son with whom we have to do. His parables of Matthew 25 make the point that the rejected will be surprised at how hard He turns out to be: they didn't expect Him to judge sins of omission so seriously. Likewise the man who held on to his talent of the Truth seemed surprised when the Lord said that He expected more. The foolish virgins were likewise shocked to be told that actually they didn't know their Lord at all. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But he said to him: Leave the dead to bury their own dead, but you go and publish the kingdom of God</em>-</p><p> This would have been more shocking to first century ears than it is even to ours. For to bury his father was the most elemental duty of a Jewish son- “in Jewish custom it came before other fundamental religious responsibilities like reciting the Shema”. And the urgency about the preacher was to elicit a like urgency in the response of their hearers.</p><p>The principle of Nazariteship (explained in Numbers 6) encouraged the average Israelite, regardless of his tribe, to in some way aspire to the High Priesthood. He could grow his hair long to imitate the High Priestly mitre, and he could chose to have the same commands concerning defilement by the dead and eating vine-products apply to him, as applied to the High Priest. The Lord applied this to all His followers, when He told the man who wished to bury his father to <em>not</em> do so, but engage instead in His work (<em><a href='B:490 9:59-60'>Luk 9:59-60</a></em>). This would have sent the Jewish mind back to <em><a href='B:30 21:1-11'>Lev 21:1-11</a></em>, where the High Priest could not be distracted from his service even by the death of his father.</p>


text:
<p><em>And another also said: I will follow you Lord, but first permit me to bid farewell to them that are at my house</em>-</p><p> The urgency of the call to preach is taught by the way that the Lord called men to go preaching at the most inconvenient times for them- such as when they were in the midst of casting a net into the sea to catch fish during their workaday lives, or whilst Matthew was counting coins at his tax table. The Lord even insisted that a man not fulfil his most basic Jewish duty to bury his father- but rather go and preach the Gospel <em>immediately</em>. The poignancy of all this becomes the deeper when we realize that in first century Palestine, burial took place on the day of death. The son had just that day lost his father, and was willing to miss the traditional six days of mourning to go preach for the Lord. But no, the Lord wanted him to go <em>there and then, immediately.</em> No delay for anything was possible in the light of the knife-edge urgency of sharing Christ with others.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Jesus said to him: No one, having put his hand to the plough and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God</em>-</p><p> It is amazing that with the clear command echoing in his ears, "neither stay in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed" (<em><a href='B:10 19:17'>Gen 19:17</a></em>), Lot could ask leave to live in Zoar, a small city of the plain, and not go to the mountain. He clearly failed to appreciate the reality and seriousness of the Angel's coming- and this will certainly be a temptation to us in that moment when the typology of Lot is fulfilled in us. The only way to guard against this is by consciously living our lives now in awareness of the fact that now we have been called to leave the world and its ways, and therefore our whole life now should have the spirit which we will have when we leave this world when the Angel comes. This is confirmed by an oblique allusion which our Lord makes here to this Angelic command "Look not behind you", when He says that any who like Lot's wife "look back" are not "fit for the Kingdom of God". The context shows that starting to plough represents the start of our new life in response to the Gospel call- but the allusion to the Angel's words to Lot show that we should live our whole lives in response to that call as if we are on the way to the judgment, having been called away by the Angel.</p><p>The Lord spoke of following Him as being like a man ploughing by keeping his eye constantly and unswervingly on an end point- and that point is Him as a person. The account of Peter starting to drown exemplifies all this- when he took his gaze off the Lord personally, in order to notice how the wind was so strongly blowing some object [perhaps back on the boat], then his walk to Jesus started to come to an end (<em><a href='B:470 14:30'>Mat 14:30</a></em>). </p><p>All the Gospels present the crucifixion and resurrection as the climax of their presentation of the Gospel. Luke’s record is studded with references to the Lord’s progress on that final journey up to Jerusalem; events took place “as they went in the way" (<em><a href='B:490 9:57-62'>Luk 9:57-62</a></em>), as if they were incidental to the main aim of the record, which was to describe the final coming of the Lord to Jerusalem and death (<em><a href='B:490 13:22'>Luk 13:22</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two by two ahead of him into every city and place, where he was about to go</em>-</p><p> According to some texts, Luke records that the Lord sent out 72 preachers. The Jews understood that there were 72 nations in the world, based on the LXX of Genesis 10. Surely Luke’s point is that they went only to the Jews, thus highlighting the gap between the disciples’ understanding at the time, and the Lord’s further reaching intention of a mission to the Gentiles.</p><p>The Lord sent out the 70 “before his face into every city to where he himself would come”. They were heralds of His presence; and He goes on in this context to tell them that they were “<em>as</em> lambs among wolves”- i:e. they were like Him, <em>the</em> lamb- and that therefore “he that rejecteth you rejecteth me” (<em><a href='B:490 10:1'>Luk 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:3'>Luk 10:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:16'>Luk 10:16</a></em> RV). Yet significantly, having told the 70 to proclaim His face to the cities where He would come, we find the comment: “Therefore said he unto them, The harvest trulyis great, but the labourers are few [i:e. only 70]: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways…” (:2). Could this not mean that He would have travelled more extensively around Israel in His ministry than He did, but He was limited in the places He witnessed in by whether there were enough heralds to go there in advance and prepare the way? The dearth of workers meant that places He otherwise would have visited, He didn’t- for it seems that He had a policy of only Himself working in areas where His men had broken the ground. And is there not some worrying relevance of all this for our work in <em>this</em> day, in <em>this</em> hard land…? </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: The harvest indeed is plenteous, but the labourers are few. Therefore pray to the Lord of the harvest, that He send out labourers into His harvest</em>-</p><p> The Lord had to comment that the harvest was great, but the labourers [i:e. the disciples] were few or weak [Gk:]. And yet He delegated so much to them- authority, the power of miracles, the Gospel itself (<em><a href='B:490 9:1-6'>Luk 9:1-6</a></em>), despite their weakness, and despite the fact much harvest was spoilt or not harvested by their weakness. They were His representatives to the world (:16)- and yet they still didn’t know how to pray (<em><a href='B:490 11:1'>Luk 11:1</a></em>). We marvel at the way the Lord used them, and yet we end up realizing with a similar amazement that the same Lord has entrusted His Gospel to us, with all our weakness and dysfunction.</p><p>The Hebrew writer asked his brethren to pray for him “that I may be restored to you the sooner” (<em><a href='B:650 13:19'>Heb 13:19</a></em>). The amount of prayer seems significant. The Lord Himself seems to have asked the disciples to add their prayers to His in asking the Father to send forth more labourers into the over-ripe, unharvested fields (<em><a href='B:490 10:2'>Luk 10:2</a></em>), which, by implication, He alone couldn’t satisfactorily gather. Volume of prayer is significant, although this is not to say that 'just' one prayer of faith is ineffective.</p>


text:
<p><em>Go your way. See, I send you forth as lambs in the midst of wolves</em>-</p><p> As He was the lamb of God sent forth for the salvation of men, so those in Him are sent forth with that same Gospel, as lambs. This was the language of the Jewish teachers about the role of Israel in the world; but the Lord is implying that His preachers are the new Israel, and the Jewish world is as the unbelieving Gentile world. Judah is spoken of as “One sheep attempting to survive among seventy wolves” (<em>Esther Rabbah</em> <em><a href='B:490 10:11'>Luk 10:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Carry no purse, no wallet, no shoes; and greet no one on the way</em>-</p><p> As we read the preaching of Jesus, one cannot but be impressed by the gravity of His message. He never spoke of His message, of His person and His Kingdom, in a take-it-or-leave-it way, as though it didn’t matter how His hearers responded. And we ought to preach as He preached. He realized that how His hearers responded would determine the structure of their whole lives and what their eternal destiny would be. He urged His preachers to exchange no greetings on the road as they pressed on to take His Gospel to others. This would have been seen as most unusual and even offensive in first century Palestine. The people would have had their attention arrested by this- these preachers of the man from Nazareth had an urgency about them, a sense of utmost priority in the work they were about. They were to be known as men in an urgent hurry. They were to go on their preaching mission without pausing to greet others, such was their haste (cp. <em><a href='B:120 4:29'>2Ki 4:29</a></em>). The Greek word translated ‘greet’ also carries the idea of joining together with others. People rarely travelled alone unless they were in great haste, but rather moved in caravans. But for the Lord’s messengers, there was to be no loss of time. Every minute was to be precious. In a world full of time wasting distractions, information we don’t need to know… this is all so necessary. No wonder that when those men finally came to themselves, realized their calling, and hurled themselves in joy at this world after the Lord’s ascension… they preached repentance, immediate conversion and quick baptism, right up front.</p><p>To not carry spare shoes is an allusion to God's miraculous provision for Israel in the wilderness. The preaching of the Gospel is a fundamental part of our wilderness journey. We are on a mission, a journey; and part of that mission is sharing the message with others.</p>


