# commentaries

text:
<p>2:3&nbsp;<em>And they came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them</em>-</p><p> The Greek for "carried" means literally to be taken up or away, and reflects the Hebrew term used for the bearing away of sin. And :5 confirms this association by stating that it was through the faith of the four friends that the man's sins were forgiven. This is the huge horizon of potential which there is for us in our efforts for others- we can even play a role in the Lord forgiving them their sins. This lifts the concept of pastoral work far beyond mere doing of good works. See on <em><a href='B:480 7:32-35'>Mar 7:32-35</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>2:4&nbsp;<em>And when they could not come near to him for the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was; and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed whereon the paralyzed man lay</em>-</p><p> This was all done in faith, and by doing this the Lord saw their faith (:5). "Bed" is Gk. a table or a couch. They had grabbed whatever could serve as a stretcher.</p>


text:
<p>2:5&nbsp;<em>And Jesus seeing their faith, said to the paralyzed man-&nbsp;</em>This is emphasized in all the accounts of this incident. Because of the faith of third parties, the sins of this man were forgiven. James speaks of the same possibility (<em><a href='B:660 5:15'>Jas 5:15</a></em> - the same Greek words for "sins" and "forgiven" are used there). Here we have a principle which can totally affect the course and hourly practice of our lives. In some cases, the sins of others can be forgiven because of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;faith. Job understood that when he offered for his sons after their wild parties. Of course there are invisible limits to the principle, but many of those with whom we have to do in church life are surely within those limits. Quite simply, the salvation of others depends to some extent and in some cases- upon our faith and prayers, and effort to get them to Jesus. This imparts huge and eternal significance to our lives, lived and prayed for others. The same Greek words for "sins" and "forgiven" are used again in the enigmatic <em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em>: "Whose soever sins you forgive, they are forgiven them". I suspect this is John's version of the great commission to preach the Gospel of forgiveness to others- the idea being that if we bring them to Jesus, then thanks to our efforts for them, they will be forgiven. And if we are slack to do this, then God may not always find another way, and their sins remain unforgiven. Prayer really does change things. God is willing to do things in the life of a third party (even forgive them) for the sake of the prayers and efforts of others. That man was healed for the sake of the faith of others. The widow woman’s son was resurrected because God heard Elijah’s faithful prayer (<em><a href='B:110 17:22'>1Ki 17:22</a></em>). Prayer really does change things. God is willing to do things in the life of a third party (even forgive them) for the sake of the prayers and efforts of others:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Son, your sins are forgiven</em>-</p><p> The Lord emphasized this first, and then went on to heal him physically. It's common for the sick and their carers to focus almost exclusively upon their need for healing, whereas the most essential human need is for forgiveness. So the Lord stressed the forgiveness first, and the healing secondly. Clearly there was a link in this case between sin and illness. It could be argued that the two things are connected as they both arise from the curse in Eden. But I would suggest that it's likely that in this case, the connection between the man's paralysis and his sin was more direct. We too often shrug at those in such situations and consider that 'it's their fault'. So it may be, but if a man digs a hole and falls into it, he's still in the hole. And we have all done this, and the Gospel was designed for us exactly because we have done that. There is an inevitable connection between this incident and <em><a href='B:290 33:24'>Isa 33:24</a></em>, where we read of the restored Zion that "the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity". The Lord is implying here as elsewhere that the prophecies of the restored Zion were to be fulfilled in the lives of individuals who had come to Him, and not in the literal glorification and exaltation of Jerusalem over the Roman occupiers.</p>


text:
<p>2:6&nbsp;<em>But some of the scribes sitting there questioned in their hearts</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em> "said within themselves".</p><p>Consider the huge emphasis of the New Testament upon 'thinking / talking within oneself', especially within the Gospels. The same Greek phrase is used repeatedly:-</p><p> "Think not to say within yourselves" (<em><a href='B:470 3:9'>Mat 3:9</a></em>)-</p><p> "The scribes said within themselves" (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>)-</p><p> "She said within herself" (<em><a href='B:470 9:21'>Mat 9:21</a></em>)-</p><p> The believer who fails to grow spiritually has no root "within himself" (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>)-</p><p> "They reasoned within themselves... Why do you reason within yourselves..." (<em><a href='B:470 16:7-8'>Mat 16:7-8</a></em>)-</p><p> "The husbandmen... said within themselves" (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>)-</p><p> The disciples "disputed within themselves" (<em><a href='B:480 9:33'>Mar 9:33</a></em>)-</p><p> Have salt "within yourselves" (<em><a href='B:480 9:50'>Mar 9:50</a></em>)-</p><p> The Pharisee "spake within himself" (<em><a href='B:490 7:39'>Luk 7:39</a></em>)-</p><p> The guests "began to say within themselves" (<em><a href='B:490 7:49'>Luk 7:49</a></em>)-</p><p> The rich fool "thought within himself, saying..." (<em><a href='B:490 12:17'>Luk 12:17</a></em>)-</p><p> "The steward said within himself" (<em><a href='B:490 16:3'>Luk 16:3</a></em>)-</p><p> The unjust judge "said within himself" (<em><a href='B:490 18:4'>Luk 18:4</a></em>)-</p><p> Peter "doubted in himself" (<em><a href='B:510 10:17'>Act 10:17</a></em>)-</p><p> Jews who heard the Gospel "reasoned within themselves" (<em><a href='B:510 28:29'>Act 28:29</a></em> Gk:)-</p><p> Israel "through the lusts of their own hearts... dishonoured their bodies within themselves" (<em><a href='B:520 1:24'>Rom 1:24</a></em>)-</p><p> "Within yourselves... you have a better and enduring substance" (<em><a href='B:650 10:34'>Heb 10:34</a></em>)-</p><p> "Partial within yourselves, judges of evil thoughts" (<em><a href='B:660 2:4'>Jas 2:4</a></em>).</p><p>There are many other Bible verses which likewise speak of the internal state of a person and the significance of our self-talk- these are just examples of one Greek phrase. It is logical therefore to expect that the great adversary or 'satan' to be internal thinking, how we think and speak within ourselves. And properly understood, this is indeed what 'satan' in the Bible sometimes refers to.</p>


text:
<p>2:7&nbsp;<em>Why does this man speak so? He blasphemes. Who can forgive sins but one- God</em>-</p><p> The Jews got caught up on the issue of whether Christ's forgiveness of others made Him God or not- just as some folk do today. His response was to refocus them on the fact that He wanted&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;to<em>&nbsp;know</em>&nbsp;that He had real power to forgive&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;sins (<em><a href='B:490 5:24'>Luk 5:24</a></em>). I spend a lot of time arguing against the trinity and the 'Jesus = God' mentality. But the essence is, do we&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;on a personal level that the Lord Jesus really has the power to forgive&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;sins?</p><p>We should deeply note at this point that the thoughts of men in their hearts are known to the Father and Son, and have been recorded publicly here in these records for many centuries.</p>


text:
<p>2:8<em>&nbsp;And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit what they questioned within themselves, said to them: Why do you question these things in your hearts?</em>-</p><p> Perhaps we're helped to understand the ability of the mind / spirit of the Lord Jesus to connect with that of human beings by <em><a href='B:480 2:8'>Mar 2:8</a></em>: "Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, "Why are you thinking such things in your hearts?" (NET Bible). The spirit / mind of Jesus was at one with the spirit / mind of those men. Such was His sensitivity. I don't think it was a gift of Holy Spirit knowledge so much as His sensitivity to the minds of men... and yet <em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em> calls Jesus "The Spirit" as a title, saying that He bears witness with our spirit / mind, in His intercession to the Father. So <em><a href='B:480 2:8'>Mar 2:8</a></em> gives us as it were an insight into how He&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;operates too... He's the same today as yesterday. He's at one with our mind / spirit, and also with the mind / Spirit of the Father. Thus is He such a matchless mediator.</p>


text:
<p>2:9<em>&nbsp;Which one is easier to say to the paralyzed man?-&nbsp;</em>Gk. 'less work'. The Lord meant 'Which is easier&nbsp;for Me'. There were plenty of claims to heal people; but to forgive sins was of a different order altogether. But the Lord is saying that for Him, they are one and the same; and that His healing was performed in this case on the basis of having forgiven the man his sin. Not only could He forgive sin, but in this case He could remove the consequence of it. For the Lord healed the man&nbsp;<em>so that&nbsp;</em>they would realize that He had power to forgive sins (:10).</p><p><em>Your sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, pick up your bed and walk-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The same words used by Peter when he tells the lame man to 'arise and walk' (<em><a href='B:510 3:6'>Act 3:6</a></em>). Peter consciously or unconsciously replicated his Lord in doing healing miracles. The very body language and word choice of the Lord were so impressed upon him that they became the pattern for&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;ministry; and the same should be true of us. The paralyzed man of <em><a href='B:500 5:8'>Joh 5:8</a></em> was likewise told to arise, take up his bed and walk- using the same words used here about the paralyzed man. Clearly the Lord Jesus worked with people according to some pattern. And we can discern similar hallmarks of His work as we get to know each other within the body of Christ today, perceiving as we exchange stories and testimonies that the Lord in essence works in similar ways between human lives today.</p><p>The disciples observed as Jesus made a lame man&nbsp;<em>arise</em>, take up his bed, and follow Him (<em><a href='B:490 5:25'>Luk 5:25</a></em>). But in <em><a href='B:510 9:34'>Act 9:34</a></em>, we find Peter doing just the same to Aeneas, even taking him by the hand as he had seen Jesus do to Jairus’ daughter. What Peter had seen and learnt of the Lord Jesus, he was now called to do. Not for nothing did he tell Aeneas that “Jesus Christ maketh thee whole”, thereby recognizing the connection between him and his Lord.</p>


text:
<p>2:10&nbsp;<em>But so you may know</em>-</p><p> He cured the man sick of a palsy that the onlooking, cynical Scribes&nbsp;<em>might know</em>&nbsp;that He had power to forgive sins. He didn’t&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;reward the faith of the man’s friends; His motive for the miracle was to seek to teach those Scribes. Our tendency surely would have been to ignore them, to be angry that in the face of grace they could be so legalistic and petty and so far, far from God... and get on and heal the sick man who believed. But the Lord’s picture of human salvation was far wider and more inclusive and more hopeful than that.</p><p>The reason for the healing miracle was to teach that He could forgive sins. This is why I suggest that in this man's case, his paralysis was a direct and publicly known result of his sin. Perhaps he had been alcoholic, or become paralyzed in an accident whilst stealing something. In this case his friends are to be commended for so wanting his healing, because many would have shrugged him off as someone who was suffering justly. The link between his illness and his sin was so clear that to heal him was seen as effectively forgiving him&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;removing the consequence of his sin. David, Moses and others often asked for the consequences of sin to be removed and at times received this. The palsied man was healed by the Lord in order to&nbsp;<em>teach others</em>&nbsp;that Jesus had the power to forgive sins. Job was a “perfect” man before the afflictions started; and he is presented as a ‘perfect’ man at the end. The purpose of his trials was not only to develop him, but also in order to teach the friends and we readers some lessons. The purpose of our trials too may not only be for our benefit, but for that of others. If we suffer anything, it is so that we might help others (<em><a href='B:540 1:4'>2Co 1:4</a></em>).</p><p><em>That the Son of Man</em>-</p><p> The humanity of Jesus was the very basis upon which He could and can forgive human sin. This is why 9:8 records that the crowds praised God for having given such power&nbsp;<em>unto men</em>. He understood Himself as rightful judge of humanity exactly because He was "son of man" (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>)- because every time we sin, He as a man would've chosen differently, He is therefore able to be our judge. And likewise, exactly because He was a "son of man", "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (<em><a href='B:480 2:10'>Mar 2:10</a></em>). If it is indeed true that "'Son of Man' represents the highest conceivable declaration of exaltation in Judaism", then we can understand the play on words the Lord was making- for the term 'son of man' can also without doubt just mean 'humanity generally'. Exactly because He was human, and yet perfect, He was so exalted.</p><p>He understood Himself as rightful judge of humanity exactly because He was "son of man" (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>)- because every time we sin, He as a man would've chosen differently, He is therefore able to be our judge. And likewise, exactly because He was a "son of man", "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins". If it is indeed true that "'Son of Man' represents the highest conceivable declaration of exaltation in Judaism", then we can understand the play on words the Lord was making- for the term 'son of man' can also without doubt just mean 'humanity generally'. Exactly because He was human, and yet perfect, He was so exalted.</p><p><em>Has authority on earth to forgive sins</em>-</p><p> He had that power during His mortal life, and yet after His resurrection "<em>all</em>&nbsp;power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth" (<em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em>). His power to save and forgive is therefore even greater. Perhaps the contrast was that He had the power of forgiveness delegated to Him in specific cases during His ministry, but after the resurrection He had power in His own right to forgive, not on the basis of delegated power but power / authority in His own Name; even though that exalted position was of course given Him by God the Father.</p><p><em>He said to the paralyzed man</em>-</p><p> As if He turned from the Jews to the paralyzed man. It could be that the healing was really for the benefit of the hard hearted scribes- the Lord was going to all this trouble to try to persuade them of His authority as God's Son. We would likely have given up with them, but the way the Lord kept on trying with the orthodox Jews of His day is an essay in perseverance in witnessing. And amazingly, it paid off- in that a number of priests and Pharisees were baptized after His resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>2:11&nbsp;<em>I say to you Arise, pick up your bed and go to your house</em>-</p><p> The same word is used for taking up the cross (<em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>), and the Greek for "bed" is also translated a table or couch. He was to pick up a piece of wood and go his way. He was given a simple task of obedience immediately after meeting with Jesus, and we can see that pattern repeated in how the Lord works with people today.</p><p>The Lord was sensitive to the situation of those He healed or converted. Just as He commanded the resurrected girl to be given something to eat, so He realized the pressure that would be on the healed man- and so He told him to go home immediately and thus avoid the limelight.</p>


text:
<p>2:12&nbsp;<em>And he arose and immediately picked up the bed, and went out in full view of them all. They were all amazed and glorified God, saying: We have never seen anything like this before</em>-</p><p> The immediacy of the cure, especially in response to the faith of third parties, was utterly unknown amongst those who had seen too many fake healers attempting to heal illness. "In full view of them all" is another hint that the miracle was for teaching purposes; the Lord was surrounded by people eager for healing, and instead He taught them.</p>


text:
<p>2:13&nbsp;<em>And he went out again by the sea side; and all the crowd went to him and he taught them</em>-</p><p> The imperfect tenses mean they kept on coming to Him, and He kept on teaching them. The interest in miracles had given way to interest in His teaching, just as the Lord had intended. His location by the lake side was perhaps in order to require some effort by the people to come to Him; and there were no houses large enough to hold the crowds coming to Him anyway.</p>


text:
<p>2:14&nbsp;<em>And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:470 9:9'>Mat 9:9</a></em> calls him Matthew. Matthew’s preaching of the Gospel makes reference to himself as if he had no personal awareness of himself as he recounted his part in the Gospel events. Whilst personal testimony has a role, the Gospel is about Jesus and therefore "we preach not ourselves" but Christ as Lord and Saviour. If the focus is upon us rather than Him, then we are failing dismally. The humility of the Gospel writers when they refer to themselves is highly instructive. There is reason to believe that Matthew was himself a converted Scribe, who had perhaps turned away from it to being a tax collector; the way he has access to various versions of Scripture and quotes them as having been fulfilled in a way reminiscent of the Jewish commentaries (compare <em><a href='B:470 4:12-17'>Mat 4:12-17</a></em> with <em><a href='B:480 1:14-15'>Mar 1:14-15</a></em>) suggests this. Matthew's other name was Levi, strengthening the possibility he was once a Levitical scribe; for the scribes were drawn from the priests and Levites. The point is that in this case Matthew would be referring to himself when he writes: “Every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old” (<em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em>). Yet he does so in a beautifully oblique and selfless manner. The Scribes have just been mentioned in the previous incident, which apparently took place within sight of Matthew's desk (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>).</p><p><em>Sitting at the tax office-&nbsp;</em>It's hard to grasp the degree to which tax collectors were despised and distrusted. We may at times think that we need to show our best front personally when preaching the Gospel, to display our credentials, in order to persuade others of our message. Matthew thought otherwise. He was quite open about who he had been when he was called. Human credentials do not ultimately persuade men and women of Christ- a degree in theology, knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, academic status, a stable career, an externally spotless family history. Rather do the Gospels show us that it is those from questionable backgrounds who are chosen by the Lord as His most effective messengers. The content of the message ultimately far outweighs the credibility of the messenger. And the same is seen today in the preaching of the Gospel:&nbsp;</p><p>It was whilst he was at work that he was called, just as the other disciples were called exactly whilst they were about their fishing business, and like Matthew, left all and "followed" the Lord. This is when the call of Christ comes to us- in the very midst of secular life, rather than resting at home looking at a screen.</p><p><em>And he said to him: Follow me-&nbsp;</em>The Greek means to share the same road with. And the road or way of Jesus led to Jerusalem, to the death of the cross, and then to life eternal. The word is used about 80 times in the Gospels. The call was to follow Jesus; the crowds followed, the disciples followed, but often the Lord tries to teach them the difference between merely externally following Him on the same public road, and following Him as He intends; which is to carry a cross and follow Him to Golgotha. We who follow Him in our life situations today are in essence continuing the following of Him which began in those early days in Galilee. But we likewise are challenged as to whether our following is mere membership of a denomination, or a personal following of Him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And he arose and followed him</em>-</p><p> Exactly as he had just observed the paralyzed man obediently arise and go where the Lord told him (another example of Mark highlighting immediate response to the Lord's call). As the man was laying on the 'bed', so Matthew was sitting 'on' the receipt of custom, the elevated chair and desk (<em>epi</em>, translated "at", is better translated in this context "on").</p><p>The Lord valued persons for who they were, and this had radical results in practice. And yet He spoke with "authority" in the eyes of the people. What gave Him this? Surely it was His lifestyle, who He was, the way there was no gap between His words and who He was. The word of the Gospel, the message, was made flesh in Him. There was a perfect congruence between His theory and His practice. The repeated amazement which people expressed at the Lord's teaching may not only refer to the actual content of His material; but more at the way in which He expressed it, the unique way in which word was made flesh in Him. The way the Lord could ask men to follow Him, and they arose and followed (<em><a href='B:480 2:14'>Mar 2:14</a></em>), is surely testimony to the absolute, direct and unaccountable authority of Jesus. It was surely His very ordinariness which made Him so compelling. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:15&nbsp;<em>And it came to pass, that as he was dining in Levi's house-&nbsp;</em>Matthew's account is vague about whose house it was; he just says "the house" in his record. We note Matthew's humility in his recounting of the Gospel, that he leaves the identity of the house vague. He had no desire to boast that he had once hosted Jesus within his private home. Humility and self-abnegation must really be the lead characteristics of all tellers of the Gospel.</p><p><em>Many tax collectors and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples. For there were many, and they followed him</em>-</p><p> Clearly the associates of Matthew. They came and sat down with Jesus whilst He was eating. And He accepted them, even though to eat with a person was seen as a religious act of fellowship. The Lord's open table was and is scandalous to the religiously minded. <em><a href='B:490 5:30'>Luk 5:30</a></em> RVmg. describes how publicans and sinners had Pharisees and Scribes among them as they all sat at the same table gathered around Jesus. There was something in His person and teaching which welded people together:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:16&nbsp;<em>And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples: How is it that he eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?</em>-</p><p> To break your bread with someone, to eat together, was a religious act in Palestinian Jewish society. The Lord broke His bread with sinners in order to bring them to repentance; not because He considered they had cleared some kind of bar of moral and doctrinal acceptability. His table was open, radically so, and so should ours be.</p>


text:
<p>2:17<em>&nbsp;And when Jesus heard it, he said to them-&nbsp;</em>The way the Lord Jesus 'knew' things because of His extreme sensitivity, rather than necessarily by some flash of Holy Spirit insight, isn't unparalleled amongst other men. Elisha knew what Gehazi had done when Gehazi went back to ask Naaman for a reward- Elisha commented: "Went not my heart with you, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet you?" (<em><a href='B:120 5:26'>2Ki 5:26</a></em>). Elisha imagined Naaman dismounting from his chariot, etc. And he could guess that the request had involved "money... garments" etc. That the Lord's knowledge wasn't necessarily automatic is reflected in the way we read things like "When he saw their faith... when Jesus heard it..." (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:17'>Mar 2:17</a></em>). He 'saw' and knew things by the sensitivity of His perception.</p><p><em>They that are whole have no need of a doctor-&nbsp;</em>Literally, a healer. The same word is used of how "by his stripes you were healed" (<em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>). All who will finally be saved have been healed by Jesus. Therefore "they that be whole" must be understood as meaning 'those who&nbsp;<em>think they are</em>&nbsp;whole'. The Lord's healing work was done by fellowshipping with those who realized their need for healing. He broke His bread with them first; He didn't heal them and then invite only the healed to His exclusive table. This breaking of bread with them was a 'calling to repentance' (<em><a href='B:480 9:13'>Mar 9:13</a></em>). The many records of the Lord's physical healing were all intended to be acted parables of His healing of spiritual sickness</p><p>The Greek word for "whole" or healthy is usually translated with the sense of 'being able'. The Lord's work was with them who felt&nbsp;<em>unable</em>&nbsp;to be righteous, who felt that circumstance and past history had left them spiritually incapacitated. Perception of need and spiritual helplessness is the vital prerequisite. The Lord healed "them that had need of healing" (<em><a href='B:490 9:11'>Luk 9:11</a></em>), those who perceived their need. The Lord uses the same word in speaking of how He doesn't go find and save those "which need no repentance" (<em><a href='B:490 15:11'>Luk 15:11</a></em>); again, an ellipsis must be read in: 'Those who&nbsp;<em>think they</em>&nbsp;need no repentance'. And again in <em><a href='B:730 3:17'>Rev 3:17</a></em> - the Laodiceans thought that they "had need of nothing". This, therefore, was a major concern of the Lord- that we cease to perceive our need for Him. The attitude that 'I have no need…' is picked up by Paul in <em><a href='B:530 12:21'>1Co 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>, where he warns against thinking that we have no need of weaker members of the body of Christ. Our need for Christ personally is to be reflected in practice in our need for association with His body, however weak we feel it to be. God supplies all our need in Christ (<em><a href='B:570 4:19'>Phi 4:19</a></em>), but that supplying of our need is not solely in the death of Christ for us, but in the body of Christ:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance</em>-</p><p> It was the disciples, including Matthew, who had only recently been 'called' (<em><a href='B:470 4:21'>Mat 4:21</a></em>). They were not the most righteous of people. The fellowship of the Lord Jesus was a call to or towards repentance, not a reward for it. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>; John baptized people&nbsp;<em>unto</em>&nbsp;repentance. The methods of the Lord should be ours, for having spent His ministry doing this, He transferred it to us in bidding us likewise go worldwide and call others to repentance (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>2:18&nbsp;<em>And John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came, and said to him: Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?-&nbsp;</em>Implying they didn't even do so at the Day of Atonement, the one Biblical command for fasting? The Lord's disciples were mostly secular men whom He was trying to turn into spiritual people. And this continues to be the thrust of His work with people. The focus of our preaching should likewise be on getting unspiritual, secular people to believe, rather than focusing on trying to persuade those who already believe in Him to change their understandings of some points. I don't say we shouldn't do this, but far more will be achieved to His glory by bringing unbelievers to faith, rather than correcting misbelievers. Another reason why John's disciples thought the Lord's men didn't fast could have been because they took seriously His command to not appear to others to fast. And John's disciples proclaiming their fasting meant they were overlooking the Lord's clear teaching&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to do this in the Sermon on the Mount. But in His gracious way, the Lord didn't point out the obvious&nbsp;<em>faux pas</em>&nbsp;in their reasoning. He could've said 'John told you to obey Me. I teach not to proclaim your own fasting. Why aren't you obedient to My teaching?'. But instead He reasoned with them on their own ground. And again, we see a pattern for our engagement with others- not to always baldly confront misunderstanding and reduce it to a right / wrong, black and white issue, but to lead the person further by accepting for a moment that their faulty assumptions are true; for they are true to the person who holds them, and the Lord recognized that.</p><p>We also see the Lord's gentle grace in teaching His disciples how to fast, acting as if they were not fasting; when actually they never fasted at all until that point. He wanted them to continue showing themselves to be secular men, who really believed in Jesus. This had been exactly His approach until age 30, to manifest God's perfection through the shroud of ordinariness.</p><p><em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p>2:19<em>&nbsp;And Jesus said to them: Can the sons of the bride chamber fast-&nbsp;</em>John had likened himself to the Lord's best man at a forthcoming wedding. The Lord phrases his reply to John's disciples in terms they would've understood- a pattern for us to follow in our response to people. Note too that the Lord's answer implied that His wedding was about to happen. He hoped against hope that Israel would respond, and the Messianic banquet would be soon. But in His later parables, He spoke of how even the guests couldn't be bothered to attend it; it was delayed until human response was suitable. But His hopefulness for human response is again a pattern for us, to have a hopeful attitude in our witness.</p><p><em>While the bridegroom is with them?-&nbsp;</em>The joy of the bridegroom's friends is a sharing of the groom's joy. John's Gospel records this truth in a different way when speaking of how the Lord's joy is to be our joy (<em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em>); at His return, we will enter into His joy (<em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>). We note again how the Lord phrased His response to John's disciples in terms they would best relate to- for John had said that his joy was complete, because he was 'the friend of the bridegroom' (<em><a href='B:500 3:29'>Joh 3:29</a></em>). The Lord is saying here that His disciples are also friends of the bridegroom- He is seeking to persuade John's disciples that actually His disciples are the same as they are, notwithstanding differences in spiritual culture, in that they are related to Jesus in the same way, as friends of the groom. The Lord was always very positive about His followers. He explained their lack of fasting on their joy at the forthcoming Messianic banquet, when in reality their lack of fasting was because they were secular, non-religious people. The Lord wasn’t naïve, although He was so positive. He told the disciples quite frankly that they were full of “unbelief”, and couldn’t do miracles which He expected them to because they didn’t pray and fast (<em><a href='B:470 17:19-21'>Mat 17:19-21</a></em>). And yet when quizzed by the Pharisees as to why His disciples didn’t fast, He said it was because they were so happy to be with Him, the bridegroom (<em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em>). Here surely He was seeing the best in them. They come over as confused, mixed up men who wanted the Kingdom there and then and were frustrated at the Lord’s inaction in establishing it. But He saw that they recognised Him as the bridegroom, as Messiah, and He exalted in this, and saw their lack of fasting as partly due to the deep-down joy which He knew they had.</p><p><em>As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>&nbsp;</em>Time and again, the Lord uses language about the restoration from exile and applies it to Himself. Thus fasting was common amongst Palestinian Jews of His time, and it was involved with mourning the destruction of the temple and Judah's submission to Rome. And yet the Lord pronounced that the days of fasting were over, and His people were to be feasting because of His work (<em><a href='B:480 2:19'>Mar 2:19</a></em>). But He brought no freedom from Rome, and spoke of the principles of the Messianic Kingdom as being non-resistance to evil rather than military resistance to it. He spoke of Yahweh as 'visiting' His people- but not to save them as they expected, but rather to judge them, with Messiah on His behalf at the head of the Roman armies who would come to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. And thus Jesus deeply disappointed people who didn't want to change their self-centred, nationalistic outlook- those who didn't want to see things spiritually rather than naturally, those who refused to accept the extent of Israel's sin.</p>


text:
<p>2:20- see on <em><a href='B:500 14:2'>Joh 14:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them. In that day, they will fast</em>-</p><p>The Gk:&nbsp;<em>apairo</em>&nbsp;is a form of the Greek&nbsp;<em>pairo</em>&nbsp;which has just been used ("<em>take up</em>&nbsp;your bed" <em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em>) and which is now used in the next verse about the new cloth 'taking from' the old garment (<em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em>). What exactly the connection of thought might be is hard to say. But clearly the 'taking of Jesus from' the disciples was to be at the same time as when the new wine and new cloth were available, which would 'take from' the old cloth in destroying it. This time was surely the death of the Lord Jesus, at which the new wine of His blood confirmed the new covenant and thus ended the old. It was then of course that the disciples mourned (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 16:10'>Mar 16:10</a></em> "they&nbsp;<em>mourned</em>&nbsp;and wept"); and the same Greek word for 'taken from' occurs in <em><a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a></em> where the Jews cry "Away with Him"- to the cross; in <em><a href='B:500 19:31'>Joh 19:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em> where the body of Jesus is 'taken from' the cross and in <em><a href='B:510 8:33'>Act 8:33</a></em> "His life is&nbsp;<em>taken from</em>&nbsp;the earth". Significantly, <em><a href='B:580 2:14'>Col 2:14</a></em> uses the word to describe how on the cross, Christ 'took away' the old covenant. This is the idea of its usage in <em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em>, that the new wine and new garment would 'take from / away' the old. And it was achieved by the 'taking away' of Jesus at the cross. Through the grace of Jesus, He is in love with us; He has called us to be His bride. He sees us in an extremely positive light. He counts us as righteous to a degree that is a real struggle to believe- even during His ministry, "when we were yet sinners", and when the only example He had of His bride were those faltering 12. He tells the Jews that&nbsp;His people will fast and mourn for His absence after His departure, with the intensity that the friends of the bridegroom would have if the groom suddenly collapsed and died at the wedding (this seems to be the picture of <em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em>, seeing "taken away" as an idiom for sudden death). This is surely a positive view of the sorrow of the body of Christ for their Lord's absence. Even if we see in this mini-parable only a description of the disciples' sorrow after the&nbsp;Lord's death, He is giving a very positive description of the disciples' joy, saying that they didn't fast for joy of being with Him; He describes their joy as the joy of the friends of the groom at the wedding. Yet the Gospels paint the twelve as a struggling, uncertain group of men, eaten up with the petty arguments of this life, unused to the self-control of fasting. Peter, for example, had until very recently been a possibly immoral young fisherman (<em><a href='B:670 4:3'>1Pe 4:3</a></em>):&nbsp;The happiness of the disciples is explained in terms of them being at a wedding. The happiness of the wedding is normally associated with alcohol, and the context of <em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em> goes on to explain that Christ's new covenant is symbolised by new wine. The difference between John's disciples and Christ's was that Christ's were full of the joy of the new covenant. But there is ample reason to think that they were heavily influenced by Judaist thinking; they didn't go and preach to the Gentile world as Christ commanded, and even Peter was marvellously slow to realize the Jewish food laws had been ended by Christ, despite the Lord's strong implication of this in <em><a href='B:480 7:19'>Mar 7:19</a></em> (not AV). Yet the grace of Jesus saw His men&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they had grasped the meaning of the new covenant,&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they had the joy of true faith in and understanding of His work; and He spoke of them to the world in these terms. We can take untold comfort from this; for we dare to believe that the Lord does and will confess our name (character) in a like exalted manner to the Father and His Angels.</p><p>There seems to be the idea that fasting was somehow part of the Mosaic system that we have now left behind. Yet the Sermon on the Mount clearly implies that the Lord saw fasting as part of the path of discipleship (<em><a href='B:470 6:16-18'>Mat 6:16-18</a></em>). And there are many examples of fasting in the Old Testament that are quite unconnected with obedience to the Law. When the bridegroom is away, then we will fast by implication, for His return- <em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em>. Try it, that's all I can say. Just start by going without some meals. Use the time and the natural desire to eat to increase the poignancy of the special requests you are making. <em><a href='B:290 58:4'>Isa 58:4</a></em> RV says that fasting makes “your voice to be heard on high”. Yet the essence of fasting is to take us out of our comfort zone. We human beings have a great tendency to form habits in order to create or keep us within the comfort zone. Yet truly creative thinking and action, not to say true obedience to the call of Christ, all occur outside of the comfort zone. Fasting is only one of many ways to go outside of it. Take a different route home from work; describe your faith to yourself in terms and language you wouldn't usually use. Pray at different times, bring before the Lord the most banal things you usually wouldn't dream of talking with Him about.</p><p>Time and again, the Lord uses language about the restoration from exile and applies it to Himself. Thus fasting was common amongst Palestinian Jews of His time, and it was involved with mourning the destruction of the temple and Judah's submission to Rome. And yet the Lord pronounced that the days of fasting were over, and His people were to be feasting because of His work. But He brought no freedom from Rome, and spoke of the principles of the Messianic Kingdom as being non-resistance to evil rather than military resistance to it. He spoke of Yahweh as 'visiting' His people- but not to save them as they expected, but rather to judge them, with Messiah on His behalf at the head of the Roman armies who would come to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. And thus Jesus deeply disappointed people who didn't want to change their self-centred, nationalistic outlook- those who didn't want to see things spiritually rather than naturally, those who refused to accept the extent of Israel's sin.</p>


text:
<p>2:21&nbsp;<em>Nobody sews a piece of unshrunk cloth-&nbsp;</em>The stress may be on "a&nbsp;<em>piece</em>". Taking parts of Christ's teachings was the temptation being given in to by John's disciples (<em><a href='B:470 9:14'>Mat 9:14</a></em> and see note there on&nbsp;<em>fast not</em>). The torn old garment had to be thrown away and the new one totally accepted and publicly worn. The Greek for "new" is not the same as in "new wine" in <em><a href='B:470 9:17'>Mat 9:17</a></em>. Here the word means not dressed, not worked by a dressmaker. The only other time the related word occurs is in <em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em> concerning the clothes of Jesus not having been worked by a dressmaker (AV "fuller"). The Lord Jesus presents Himself here as raw, fresh, unworked to suite the appearance of men:&nbsp;</p><p>To get a piece out of a new garment, that new garment would be spoiled; and the old one likewise would be rent further (Mt:, Mk:). "New"&nbsp;cloth refers to cloth which hasn't yet been washed; on first washing of the new garment, it would shrink, and thus make a tear. The tragic waste envisioned here is like the new wine running away on the ground from the burst old bottles. Likewise the old wine skins would've had to have the old wine poured out from them to have this new wine put into them. Mixing the old life and the new covenant, a bit of the one here and a bit of the other there, results in this tragic wastage all around. The parables make it seem so obvious that this isn't the way to go; but in reality, we find it hard to be so complete in our devotion to the new covenant.</p><p>The unrent garment is that of Christ- the same Greek words are used about the fact that His garment was not rent at His death (<em><a href='B:500 19:24'>Joh 19:24</a></em>). Division both within ourselves and within the community is caused by partial response to the new covenant; mixing grace with legalism; it is a rending of Christ's garment, cutting out just a part of it and mixing it with the old way. An old garment that is torn can't be mended by anything new- it must be thrown out and a new garment accepted. The Mosaic system is described as an old garment in <em><a href='B:650 1:11'>Heb 1:11</a></em>; it "shall perish" uses the same Greek word as in <em><a href='B:480 5:37'>Mar 5:37</a></em>, where the bottles "perish". The new garment of Christ is unrent. We are each clothed with the white garment of Christ's imputed righteousness (<em><a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>); by dividing with each other we are seeking to rend and thereby destroy that covering. "New" translates a different Greek word than that which in the parallel <em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 2:21'>Mar 2:21</a></em> is translated "new". The word there means something which has not been carded. "<em>Agnaphos</em>&nbsp;is a combination of the negative article&nbsp;<em>a</em>, with&nbsp;<em>knapto</em>, meaning, "to card":&nbsp; It is sometimes translated undressed, uncombed or, as above, unfinished, and refers to wool or cotton cloth that has not been carded or combed so that the fibres are aligned, giving it both strength and a smoother, more finished appearance":&nbsp; This suggests that the New Covenant is an unfinished work, God's work in us is ongoing and may take apparently unstable turns and changes- e.g. prophecy is often conditional, the intended timing of Christ's return has and may yet still change, dependent upon factors like the freewill repentance of Israel; God may plan one line of possibility for someone or a whole nation, e.g. Nineveh or Israel at the time of Moses- but change His stated intention in response to human prayer and repentance. This open-ended approach simply can't be squared with the "old" set-in-stone approach of the Old Covenant. The same message is taught by the next parable-&nbsp;<em>new</em>&nbsp;wineskins are required, because the New Covenant wine is fermenting, they need to be soft and flexible enough to change; if they are old and set, they will burst because of the movement and dynamism of the new wine. The wine of the Lord Jesus is therefore not about tradition, about a set pattern; but is rather a call to constant change and evolution. Yet paradoxically, religious people become set in their ways more than any, and seek stability in those traditions; whereas the activity of the Lord Jesus is the very opposite:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Onto an old garment; or else the new piece pulls away from the old, and the tear is made worse</em>-</p><p> "Pulls away from" is&nbsp;Gk:&nbsp;<em>schisma</em>, used elsewhere about divisions between people, especially the Jews, concerning Christ (e.g. <em><a href='B:500 7:43'>Joh 7:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:16'>Joh 9:16</a></em>). We note the contrast with unrent, untorn garment of the Lord Jesus which even in His death was not rent. Acceptance of the way of Christ means that there will come schism with the old; and more positively, seamless unity is only possible between those who have totally given their lives and way of thinking to Him and His way.</p><p>"Made worse" in its NT usage has a moral sense. The division is made more evil. In the context, the Lord was addressing John's disciples who had come under the influence of the Pharisees (<em><a href='B:480 9:14'>Mar 9:14</a></em>). He is saying that they must fully commit to Him, or else the schism between them and the Jews and them and Himself will only become worse and more destructive. There could be no middle way between Christ and orthodox Judaism; the early church tried it, as the NT letters demonstrate, but in the end, it came to a sad and bitter end, and the permanent division of the garment. And this is how all schisms go- unless there is a wholehearted acceptance of Jesus and His teachings, the end finally will be a bitter, destructive rending. The pre-existing, initial schism between persons (cp. that between John's disciples and Christ) will only be made worse unless there is a total surrender to the Lord's ways. In all the unhappy church history which most of us have experienced, that is proved true time and again. Likewise there are those who seek to hide their faith in societies and social situations where it is costly to go Christ's way; but ultimately, they have to choose one way or the other. The rent is made worse. A city set on a hill cannot be hid by its nature.</p>


text:
<p>2:22&nbsp;<em>And no one puts new wine into old wineskins-&nbsp;</em>A clear reference to Christ's blood of the new covenant.</p><p><em>Otherwise the new wine bursts the wineskins-&nbsp;</em>Gk. to shatter, divide. The context is of John's disciples uniting with the Pharisees against the disciples of Jesus. He's saying that if His new wine is not totally accepted, if it is mixed with the old, then lives will be destroyed through further schism. The only basis for avoiding schism is a total acceptance by all parties of the blood of the new covenant:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>The wine is spilled-&nbsp;</em>The same word for "shed" (<em><a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a></em>). Especially significant is the reference in <em><a href='B:470 26:28'>Mat 26:28</a></em> to Christ's blood of the&nbsp;<em>new</em>&nbsp;covenant being "shed". Failed spiritual life, the life which only partially accepts the new wine of Christ but refuses to change, refusing to be new containers for it, results in the blood of Christ being as it were shed, the blood of Calvary wasted in the dust, and Christ crucified afresh by our apostasy (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>). This is the final tragedy of refusing to change upon receipt of the new wine.</p><p><em>And the wineskins are ruined-&nbsp;</em>The point is twice emphasized. The bottles are 'broken' or shattered, and they also "perish". The word is used of the final destruction in condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:15'>Joh 3:15</a></em>). The lives of the untransformed recipients of the new wine are shattered ("break") and then finally they are destroyed in final condemnation:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>New wine must be put into new wineskins</em>-</p><p> Wine skins were made of goat skin. The goats speak of the rejected, the sinners, in the parable of the sheep and goats. The wine skins may therefore speak of our flesh of sin. It's no sin to be a human being and have human flesh, but because of the nature of the new wine, we must become wholly new- or we will be destroyed. The new wine fermented powerfully- similar to the Lord describing His Gospel as yeast which works through flour (<em><a href='B:490 13:21'>Luk 13:21</a></em>). The new covenant will work powerfully in us if we let it, and our skins, the life structure we have, must be prepared to accept that. Each wineskin expanded slightly differently in response to the fermenting of the new wine poured into it; no two wineskins expanded to an identical shape or form. We too will individually and uniquely respond to the new wine:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:23&nbsp;<em>And it came to pass, that he was going on the Sabbath day through the grain fields; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of grain</em>-</p><p> Luke says they rubbed them in their hands; Matthew says they ate. Here we have a superb example of the Gospel writers being in artless agreement with each other, in a manner which would not have been achieved by an uninspired record. The force of "began..." might be because the Pharisees came and stopped them. This shows how closely the Lord and His men were under the critical eyes of others, even from a distance.</p><p>The very poor were allowed to do this by the Law (<em><a href='B:30 19:9'>Lev 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:24-25'>Deu 23:24-25</a></em>), and so we see in this a picture of the deep poverty of the Lord’s followers; He later parallels the urgent hunger of David’s men at the time of 1 Samuel 21 with that of His followers. It would seem that He Himself did not make use of the concession, because the criticism was focused upon His disciples rather than Himself. W:D. Davies lists evidence that Judaism forbad fasting on the Sabbath (Jubilees 50:12) (W:D. Davies&nbsp;<em>Matthew&nbsp;</em>p. 312). In this case, the record is showing how the legalism of the time would’ve condemned the disciples- and the poor generally- either way: for fasting on the Sabbath, or for ‘threshing’ on the Sabbath to get food so as not to fast. The Lord therefore takes the whole argument to a level far above such petty legalism.</p><p>The Pharisees had reasoned themselves into a position whereby plucking heads of corn whilst walking through a corn field on the Sabbath was regarded as reaping. When the Lord was questioned about this issue, He didn’t reply as most of us would have done: to attack the ridiculous definition of ‘work on the Sabbath’. He seeks to teach by general principle that the extent of His Lordship meant that He and His men were free to do as they pleased on this kind of matter.</p><p>The Lord’s men were accused of ‘threshing’ on the Sabbath because they rubbed corn in their hands (<em><a href='B:480 2:23-28'>Mar 2:23-28</a></em>). The Lord could have answered ‘No, this is a non-Biblical definition of working on the Sabbath’. But He didn’t. Instead He reasoned that ‘OK, let’s assume you’re right, but David and&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;men broke the law because they were about God’s business, this over-rode the need for technical obedience’. The Lord Jesus wasn’t constantly correcting specific errors of interpretation. He dealt in principles much larger than this, in order to make a more essential, practical, useful point.</p>


text:
<p>2:24&nbsp;<em>And the Pharisees said to him: Look, why do they do on the Sabbath day what is not lawful?</em>-</p><p> A constant concern with the Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 19:3'>Mat 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:17'>Mat 22:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:6'>Mat 27:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:10'>Joh 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:31'>Joh 18:31</a></em>). The Lord's attitude here was to show that the Old Testament itself envisaged situations where true spirituality was above law. The parable of <em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em> brings the point home- the generous employer justified his pouring out of grace, giving the weak and lazy the same penny a day as the hard workers, on the basis that 'It is lawful for me to do what I wish'.</p>


text:
<p>2:25&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Have you never read-&nbsp;</em>Of course they had, many times. But the Lord here and several times elsewhere challenges them (and us) as to whether we have really read what we have. The Lord could have legitimately answered them: ‘It is lawful to pick corn whilst passing through a field, the Law allows for this if one is poor, and my followers are indeed poor. There is nothing in the Law which stipulates this permission doesn’t operate on the Sabbath’. But as always, the Lord was prepared to meet people where they were, and to take them to a higher level. He seeks to teach by general principle that the extent of His Lordship meant that He and His men were free to do as they pleased on this kind of matter. He reasoned that ‘OK, let’s assume you’re right, but David and&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;men broke the law because they were about God’s business, this over-rode the need for technical obedience’. The Lord Jesus wasn’t constantly correcting specific errors of interpretation. He dealt in principles much larger than this, in order to make a more essential, practical, useful point.</p><p>We need to reflect upon the implications of the fact that the vast majority of the early Christians were illiterate. Literacy levels in first century Palestine were only 10% at the highest estimate. Some estimate that the literacy level in the Roman empire was a maximum of 10%, and literacy levels in Palestine were at most 3%. Most of the literate people in Palestine would have been either the wealthy or the Jewish scribes. And yet it was to the poor that the Gospel was preached, and even in Corinth there were not many educated or “mighty” in this world within the ecclesia. Notice how the Lord said to the Pharisees: “Have you not&nbsp;<em>read</em>?” (<em><a href='B:480 2:25'>Mar 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:5'>Mat 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:4'>Mat 19:4</a></em>), whilst He says to those who responded to Him: “You have&nbsp;<em>heard</em>” (<em><a href='B:470 5:21'>Mat 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:27'>Mat 5:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:33'>Mat 5:33</a></em>). His followers were largely the illiterate:&nbsp;As the ecclesial world developed, Paul wrote inspired letters to the ecclesias. Those letters would have been&nbsp;<em>read</em>&nbsp;to the brethren and sisters. Hence the great importance of ‘teachers’ in the early churches, those who could faithfully read and transmit to others what had been written.</p><p><em>What David did when he had need and was hungry- he and they that were with him?</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s reasoning depends upon drawing a parallel between Himself and David, and David’s warriors and the disciples. Again, He is encouraging them to see themselves as no less than the warriors of David who later became the governors of Israel. Aaron’s sons were the ones who were intended to eat the showbread (<em><a href='B:30 24:5-9'>Lev 24:5-9</a></em>)- and again the Lord is inviting His secular disciples to see themselves as a new priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>2:26<em>&nbsp;How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and gave also to those that were with him?-</em></p><p>&nbsp;<em>&nbsp;</em>For non-Levites to enter the Sanctuary was also not 'lawful', quite apart from eating the bread which only the priests could lawfully eat. This prepares the way for the Lord's later parable about God urging unclean street people to 'enter His house' because Israel had rejected the invitation (the same words are used- <em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em>). The psychological magnitude of the Lord's new system of thinking is hard to appreciate. Non-Levites could now enter it- and even the worst of the Gentiles. But the magnitude of the new thinking in Christ for anyone, not least secular people of the 21st Century, is no less.</p><p>The opposite of love isn’t so much hatred, as indifference. To be indifferent to the real welfare of our fellows in this world, and of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;our own brethren, is perhaps our most common sin. The Lord taught us that we should have a sense of urgency in our response to others. The Lord showed by His example that it is better to meet the hunger of human need than to keep the letter of Sabbath law (<em><a href='B:480 2:25-26'>Mar 2:25-26</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>urgency,&nbsp;<em>God’s&nbsp;</em>urgency,&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>consequent urgency… all means that when even Divine principles appear to come into conflict, we are to be influenced above all by the urgency of others’ need.</p><p>The Lord defended the non-observant Judaism of the twelve as being due to their joy that He, the bridegroom, was with them (<em><a href='B:490 5:33-34'>Luk 5:33-34</a></em>). When they ‘ground corn’ on the Sabbath, the Lord defended them to their critics by saying that they were like David’s men eating the showbread. Those guys were just walking through a cornfield rubbing ears together as their manner was, as they had done on many a Sabbath day, but not realizing that this time there was some Scribe out with his binocular vision scrutinizing them. They surely weren’t doing it because their minds were on the incident of David’s men eating the showbread. The Lord had asked them to obey the Scribes, who sat in Moses’ seat, over this kind of trivia. But He doesn’t rebuke them. Rather, He defends them to others, imputing far more spiritual perception to them than they had (<em><a href='B:490 6:1-4'>Luk 6:1-4</a></em>). Clearly the Lord is suggesting that His ragtag crowd of disciples and questionable ministering women were the new priesthood of a new Israel.</p>


text:
<p>2:27&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: The Sabbath was designed for man, and not man for the Sabbath</em>-</p><p> Mark alone records this. The allusion is surely to the fact that at creation, man was made NEV "designed" just before the Sabbath; the Sabbath was made afterwards, so that man could rest. The Sabbath, the seventh day, came&nbsp;<em>after&nbsp;</em>man's creation on the sixth day. It was therefore for man. It was for man's blessing, and therefore it was wrong to add legislation to it which made it an utter pain for man rather than a blessing. We can almost read in an ellipsis- the Sabbath was made for man's blessing. Man was not made in order to keep a pre-existing legal code about the Sabbath. The laws and institutions of God were intended for human&nbsp;<em>blessing</em>; and yet human legalism has meant that so often, they become a curse and frustration to man. Man is not made or designed to keep legal codes- man was not made to keep "the Sabbath" as it was being presented by Judaism at that time. The Sabbath was made for man's blessing, not in order to trap him. This same argument can be applied to so many of the trappings of religion, from dress codes to statements of faith.</p>


text:
<p>2:28&nbsp;<em>Therefore the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath</em>-</p><p> The “of” is supplied as guesswork by the translators; it could equally be left unsupplied, giving the sense of “the Lord the Sabbath”; or, “Lord&nbsp;<em>on</em>&nbsp;the Sabbath”. Mark in :27 adds that the Lord went on to teach that God's law was made for man, rather than man being built in such a way as to easily fit in with God's word. This could be the inspired comment of the Gospel writer, rather than the actual words of the Lord. Because the Sabbath law was made for human benefit and blessing, man is therefore above the Sabbath; and so "the Son of Man", the quintessential and supreme human, the Lord Jesus, is "Lord of the Sabbath". We see here an incidental proof of the utter humanity of the Lord Jesus; if something is true for man generally, then it is all the more true for Him, because He was also a man, although the supremest of all men. He could legally infringe the law, just as men like David did, because He understood that the intention of the law was for human blessing. If that intention was fulfilled, there was no need to keep the letter of the law. This of course can too easily become a slippery slope towards disobedience; and yet the other extreme is a legalistic obedience to the letter of a law, which results in not achieving what that law intended, which is blessing to man. "Lord even of the Sabbath" can be rendered 'Is also lord of the Sabbath'; as if what were true for man generally is all the more for Jesus. As David and the Lord's disciples were masters of the Sabbath, rather than being dominated by it and the associated legislation; so even more was the Lord Jesus Himself, as the archetypical man, "the son of man", also lord of the Sabbath.</p><p>Here as elsewhere we see the juxtaposition of the Lord's humanity and His Lordship. His exaltation is precisely because He was human; He has authority to judge us because He was Son of man (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>). The Lordship of Jesus was predicated upon His obedience to death and exaltation (<em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>), and yet Jesus was calmly confident that this would be achieved by Him; to the point that He could reason that He already was "Lord" and thereby able to abrogate the Sabbath and act as the ultimate temple.</p>


text:
<p>3:1&nbsp;<em>And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there who had a withered hand</em>-</p><p> His right hand, according to Luke. His own strength and ability to act was withered:&nbsp;The hand had "withered", suggesting this was a result of human accident or sin, rather than genetic.</p>


text:
<p>3:2&nbsp;<em>And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day- so that they would have an excuse to accuse him-&nbsp;</em>"Would heal" is literally 'Will heal'; this typical change of tense is to encourage us to see the situation played out live before our eyes, as it were; entering into the question as we do when watching a movie: 'Will He heal him... or not??'.</p><p>An "excuse to accuse" is a legal term. They wanted to get Jesus in court over this issue. But there’s no evidence they actually did, and there was no recorded mention of Sabbath breaking in His final trial- so well and profoundly did He answer them.</p>


text:
<p>3:3&nbsp;<em>And he said to the man that had the withered hand: Come here</em>-</p><p> The man was apparently not next to the Lord; he was probably lurking at the back of the hall or outside it.</p>


text:
<p>3:4&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do evil? To save a life, or to kill? But they remained quiet</em>-</p><p>When the Lord taught that it was right to break the Sabbath because they were in the business of saving life (<em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em>), His words were purposefully alluding to how the Maccabees had pronounced that it was acceptable for Jewish soldiers to break the Sabbath in time of war, in order to save lives through their fighting (<em>1Ma_2:32</em>). He intended His people to live as active soldiers on duty, at war in order to save the lives of God’s people. Indeed, so frequently, the whole language of the future judgment is applied to us right here and now. We are living out our judgment now; we are standing as it were before the final judgment seat, and receiving our judgment for how we act, speak and feel and are.</p><p>He said that if Had omitted to heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath, this would have been 'doing evil' and even 'killing' (<em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em>). That's how seriously He took omitting to do good when it's in our power to do it. See on <em><a href='B:480 7:11'>Mar 7:11</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord said that He had a choice of saving life or destroying life, were He to prefer to keep the Sabbath laws above the need for preserving life. Clearly He saw failing to act to save life as tantamount to destroying life. We must give our Lord's words their due weight here in our decision making. To not act to save life, to excuse ourselves for whatever reason, is effectively destroying life, or, as Mark's record puts it, “to kill" (<em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:9'>Luk 6:9</a></em>). We can't therefore be passive in this matter. The context of the Lord's statement was in response to questions about whether something was "lawful" or not; it was the age old question, 'Is it is a sin to do X, Y or Z?'. His answer was as ever in terms of a principle- that our guiding principle must be the saving and healing and preservation of human life. The attitude of the Pharisees was that the Lord was infringing a letter of the law and therefore was guilty of death. They murdered Him on the Sabbath days; and thus they chose to destroy life rather than save it. The word for “to kill" in <em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em> is so often used in the Gospels about the killing of Jesus. They failed to take His exhortation. The crucifixion of God's Son was thus a result of legalism; it was because of His attitude to the man with the withered hand that the Pharisees first plotted to kill Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 6:11'>Luk 6:11</a></em>). Whatever our individual conscience, let us not "be filled with madness" as the Pharisees were at the fact the Lord approached human behaviour in terms of principles, rather than reducing everything to a common right / wrong scenario. The principle is clearly the saving and preservation and enriching of others' lives. Surely we should each allow each other to articulate this fundamental issue as we each have occasion to do so:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:5- see on <em><a href='B:480 1:41'>Mar 1:41</a></em>.</p><p><em>And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The way the Lord didn’t just ignore the Jewish leaders, as we might ignore trouble makers at a public meeting or correspondence course students who ask endless questions... this is really quite something. He grieved for the hardness of their hearts, and finally broke down and wept over Jerusalem, in an agony of soul that they would not respond. The apparently foolish catch questions of <em><a href='B:480 3:21-29'>Mar 3:21-29</a></em> are answered in some depth by the Lord, and He concludes with pointing out that they are putting themselves “<em>in danger&nbsp;</em>of eternal damnation” (although, notice, not yet condemned). One senses the urgency with which He put it to them. He was angry i:e. frustrated?, “being grieved for the blindness of their hearts” (<em><a href='B:480 3:5'>Mar 3:5</a></em>). Are we just indifferent or evenly smugly happy that men are so blind…? Or do we grieve about it to the point of angry frustration? Remember how Moses and Paul would fain have given their eternal life for the conversion of Israel, this is how they felt for them.</p><p>Almost every reference to Israel's hardness s:w. "blindness" of heart is to their hearts having been made hard / blind. Their attitude of mind was confirmed by the work of God's Spirit; just as Pharaoh hardened his heart, and had it hardened by God in response. But the Lord grieved for this condition, whatever the cause.</p><p><em>Stretch out your hand. He stretched it out, and his hand was restored</em>-</p><p> Matthew uses the same word to describe how the Lord Himself stretched forth&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;hand in order to heal, save and welcome (<em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:49'>Mat 12:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>). Again we are encouraged to perceive a sense of mutuality between the Lord and His people:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>AV adds: "Whole as the other". This detail is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is another touch of the eye witness- the man would've held out both his hands and everyone would've looked from the one to the other, observing they now looked so similar:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:6&nbsp;<em>And the Pharisees went out-&nbsp;</em>Again, an emphasis on physical movement. We imagine Mark's camera covering their departure from the synagogue.</p><p><em>And immediately took counsel against him with the Herodians-&nbsp;</em>Nothing formal is necessarily implied by the word. Perhaps we are to imagine them gathering in a tight circle somewhere outside the synagogue.</p><p><em>How they might destroy him</em>-</p><p> Here we see the common human feature of doing evil in response to the experience of grace. Even amongst believers, and even at judgment day, there is the possibility of the eye becoming evil because of His goodness and grace to others (<em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>). We see the principle in both secular and church life. Grace shown to others can elicit the worst evil from religious people. We shouldn't be surprised at this phenomenon; but it is the very surprise at encountering it which causes so many to become disillusioned with the church and ultimately with the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>3:7&nbsp;<em>And Jesus with his disciples withdrew to the sea; and a great crowd from Galilee and from Judea followed-&nbsp;</em>Several times we read of the Lord withdrawing from the public, or at least trying to (<em><a href='B:470 4:12'>Mat 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:13'>Mat 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:21'>Mat 15:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:7'>Mar 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>). But Mark especially references this, at least 11 times. We get the impression that He made public appearances, did some healing and teaching, and then 'withdrew'. The Gospel records focus much on the last week and months of His ministry. The first three years has relatively little recorded- but there is a lot of information about some very long, action packed days. We can assume too easily that these recorded days were typical. But perhaps they were not. There are probably no more than 20 days' events recorded- out of the three and a half years of the Lord's ministry. One possibility is that the rest of the time, or much of it, He spent simply teaching the disciples. If the Lord maintained the same tempo and intensity of His recorded activity throughout the three and a half years, it surely would've been almost impossible to have avoided His being propelled to political power by the masses. This suggestion of limited public activity makes better sense of the note we made on <em><a href='B:470 11:20'>Mat 11:20</a></em>, that the majority of His miracles were performed in three small villages in Galilee. That also must provide some context to the comment here that He healed 'all' the multitudes on this occasion; He healed 'all' amongst the crowds who were in need of healing, not every member of the crowd.</p>


text:
<p>3:8&nbsp;<em>And from Jerusalem and from Idumaea and on the other side of the Jordan and about Tyre and Sidon, a great crowd, hearing what great things he did, came to him</em>-</p><p> There would have been many Gentiles in this crowd. Their attraction was because of the miracles, the "things which he did", rather than His teaching. Primitive societies are always attracted to healers, and this healer appeared to be the best ever.</p>


text:
<p>3:9&nbsp;<em>And he told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, in case they crushed him</em>-</p><p> "Crushed" translates the Greek word usually used for 'affliction'. There was the real danger of serious damage to Him. Not just because of the crush of people, but perhaps because of the anger there would be from those who feared they would not get cured. Once the Lord started healing, it was hard to stop- for there would be huge anger and disappointment from those who felt they had missed out. And the line waiting for healing was unending. To draw a point beyond which 'no more' was going to provoke anger.</p>


text:
<p>3:10&nbsp;<em>For he had healed many; so much so that as many as had illnesses pressed upon him that they might touch him-&nbsp;</em>This could suggest that the Lord's physical touch was required for the healing to happen. This would explain the physical danger to the Lord, with perhaps thousands of sick people and their carers desperately trying to touch Him. His pushing out to sea in the boat was therefore a master stroke; because it signalled an end to the healings and a focus upon teaching. It also provided Him with literally a platform from which to speak, with the hills and cliffs behind the shore providing a natural amphitheatre which would have amplified His voice.</p>


text:
<p>3:11&nbsp;<em>And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried, saying: You are the Son of God-&nbsp;</em>Again, the 'spirits' or 'demons' are put for the supposedly demon possessed. It was those afflicted with illnesses which were not understood, the isolated and despised, those with mental illnesses, who perceived the Lord for who He was. Their heightened states of perception in some areas enabled them to make this connection. The falling before Him was in worship.</p>


text:
<p>3:12&nbsp;<em>And he strictly ordered them not to make him known</em>-</p><p> The Lord charged the healed people to not make Him known, in the sense of not advertising their experience of healing, because He wanted to focus on teaching without the distraction of the crowds who sought only healing. Yet His commands about this were disobeyed. Clearly if He were addressing literal spirits, then He failed to have power over them. For they were disobedient, in going around praising Him for His healing. The whole insistence upon reading the "unclean spirits" literally simply breaks down. For evil spirits are not supposed to utter the praise of the Lord Jesus. The language only really makes sense if were read the "spirits" as referring to persons who were once ill but whom the Lord healed.</p>


text:
<p>3:13&nbsp;<em>And he went up into the mountain and called to himself whomever he would; and they came to him</em>-</p><p> In the same way as Moses was called up into the mount to receive his Divine commission, so the Lord Jesus called up to the mount His disciples- implying that they, who represent all of us, were now a new Moses (<em><a href='B:480 3:13'>Mar 3:13</a></em>). Moses was thus an example that challenged those from a Jewish background especially. He was no longer to be gazed at with incomprehension as to his greatness and intimacy with God; he was to become the realistic pattern for all followers of the Lord Jesus, who would meaningfully emulate His closeness to God.</p>


text:
<p>3:14&nbsp;<em>And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them out to preach</em>-</p><p> 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 <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>The idea of course may also be that they were firstly to be with Him, trained by Him; and then sent out alone to preach.</p>


text:
<p>3:15&nbsp;<em>And to have authority to cast out demons-&nbsp;</em>This is in the context of the Lord's concern that the crowds were sheep with no shepherd, which I suggested was an allusion to Moses' words of <em><a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a></em> (see on <em><a href='B:470 9:36'>Mat 9:36</a></em>). Moses asks for God to raise up another to do his work, and God gives him Joshua- and is told "You shall invest him with some of your authority" (<em><a href='B:40 27:20'>Num 27:20</a></em>). So the Lord is here treating the disciples as if they are His replacement, going out to do His work, just as the later body of Christ are to do. We have in this preaching tour they are sent on some sort of foretaste of the great commission.</p>


text:
<p>3:16&nbsp;<em>And Simon he surnamed Peter</em>-</p><p> Note this is not the record of the choosing of the twelve, but rather of their commissioning and being sent out. The list is broken up in Matthew into pairs, perhaps because they were sent out as six pairs. Simon was anything but rock-like, but the Lord named him Peter, 'rocky'. He perceived the ultimate stability in Peter's faith, despite all the ups and downs He had. And He sees to the core of each of us too.</p>


text:
<p>3:17<em>&nbsp;And James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James he surnamed Boanerges, which means, sons of thunder</em>-</p><p> James and John were to be the “sons of thunder", a Rabbinic phrase, used of the young trainee Rabbis who stood at the left and right of the Master of the Synagogue during the Sabbath services (hence the later appeal for confirmation as to whether they would&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>stand at the Master’s right and left in His Kingdom). These uneducated men were to take the place of the learned Scribes whom they had always respected and lived in fear of... truly they were being pushed against the grain. See on <em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>. The Lord was establishing a new Israel with a new synagogue system.</p>


text:
<p>3:18&nbsp;<em>And Andrew and Philip and Bartholomew and Matthew and Thomas and James the son of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus and Simon the Cananaean</em>-</p><p> Bartholomew is apparently the same as Nathanael, also mentioned with Philip in <em><a href='B:500 1:46-51'>Joh 1:46-51</a></em><em>. "</em>Simon the Cananaean" doesn't mean 'from Canaan' but a&nbsp;<em>kananites</em>, a zealot. We see the wide range of men the Lord called into His band; Matthew the tax collector would've been seen as a traitor, whereas the zealots were at the other end of the political spectrum. The way the 12 didn't break up as a group after living together under extreme psychological conditions is a testament to the unifying power of the person of Jesus. The composition of the Lord's body is the same today, including "all types of men". Sadly denominationalism and churchianity has led to churches often being clusters of believers having the same socio-economic, racial and personality type positions, rather than being conglomerations of literally all types of person, of whatever accent and formation.</p>


text:
<p>3:19&nbsp;<em>And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. And then he went home</em>-</p><p> "Iscariot" is perhaps 'man of Kerioth:' Kerioth was a small village in Judea (<em><a href='B:60 15:25'>Jos 15:25</a></em>). Judas would therefore have been the only Judean. It could be that 'Iscariot' is from&nbsp;<em>sicarius</em>, 'dagger-man' or 'assassin'. This would suggest that Judas belonged to what was reckoned to be the most far right of the various resistance groups, the Sicarii (the partisans, cp. <em><a href='B:510 21:38'>Act 21:38</a></em>). Again we see the wide range of people the Lord was calling together in order to weld them into one body in Him.</p><p>The Lord's "home" may have now been in Capernaum. That He can be described as having a "home" is an essay in His utter humanity.</p>


text:
<p>3:20&nbsp;<em>And the crowd gathered again, so many people that they could not so much as eat bread</em>-</p><p> The Lord appeared to have taken the disciples into the "home" He lived in at Capernaum (:19). But the people invaded the home, desperate for healing, to the point that they could not even eat. We can now better understand why the Lord didn't want the healings advertised; it serious derailed the function of His whole ministry.</p>


text:
<p>3:21&nbsp;<em>And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying: He is out of his mind</em>-</p><p> His natural family were no longer in the family home (:19), because it had been taken over by the Lord's new family. "They were saying" to the critical Jews, now eager to check out the Lord's relatives, that He was crazy.</p><p>As Paul wrote to his unspiritual Corinthian brethren, he was doubtless hurt at the thought of their opposition to him; yet his mind flew to the similarities between himself and his Lord being rejected by&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;brethren (<em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em> = <em><a href='B:540 5:13'>2Co 5:13</a></em>).</p><p>When she stands outside the house asking to speak with Jesus, Mary is identified with her other children who considered Jesus crazy. Jesus says that His mothers are those who hear the word of God and do it. This must have so cut her. There is a rather unpleasant connection between <em><a href='B:480 3:32'>Mar 3:32</a></em> “they stood without” and <em><a href='B:480 4:11'>Mar 4:11</a></em> "unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables”. And further, <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em> speaks of how the rejected shall stand without same words knocking and asking to speak with the Lord. <em><a href='B:480 3:19-20'>Mar 3:19-20</a></em> RVmg. says that Jesus came home- i:e. to the family home, and it turned out that the interested visitors took the house over, with His relatives, mother, brothers, sisters etc. left outside (<em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em> RVmg:). No wonder the point was made that He now had a new family; and His natural family, Mary amongst them, resented it:&nbsp;</p><p>The incident of Mary and her other children coming to Jesus is inserted by Mark in the context of his record that the Scribes concluded that He had “an unclean spirit”. In that same context, we read that Mary and His brothers concluded that He was “beside himself” (<em><a href='B:480 3:21-22'>Mar 3:21-22</a></em>). The language of demon / unclean spirit possession is used in the Gospels to describe mental rather than physical illness. The Scribes thought that Jesus was demon possessed; His family and mother thought He was mentally ill. The two thoughts are parallel, as if to imply that His family had been influenced by the prevailing opinion of the elders about Him. The Lord responded to the Scribes by warning them that they ran the risk of blaspheming the Holy Spirit by saying this of Him. And it would appear that His own mother may have been running the same risk. This is such a tragic difference from the young, spiritually minded woman who was so convinced that her Son was indeed Messiah and the uniquely begotten Son of God. And it happened simply because she was influenced by what others thought of Jesus, rather than what she had learnt from the word and experienced herself. It’s a powerful warning to us:&nbsp;</p><p>In <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. The parallel <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. Clearly the brothers, who didn’t believe in Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 7:5'>Joh 7:5</a></em>) influenced her. When He speaks of how His real family are those who hear the word of God and do it, the Lord is alluding to <em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>, where we have the commendation of Levi for refusing to recognize his apostate brethren at the time of the golden calf: “Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren… for they Levi have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant”. The last sentence is&nbsp;the essence of the Lord’s saying that His true family are those who keep God’s word and do it. The strong implication of the allusion is that the Lord felt that His mother and brethren had committed some kind of apostasy. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:22&nbsp;<em>And the scribes that came down from Jerusalem said</em>-</p><p> Perhaps the very ones who had come from Jerusalem to be baptized by John; see on <em><a href='B:480 1:5'>Mar 1:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>He has Beelzebub, and by the prince of the demons he casts out the demons</em>-</p><p> "The Prince of the demons",&nbsp;a<em>rchon</em>, "the first", would imply that Beelzebub was also a demon, the "first" or leading one. Thus the fallacy of their argument is the more apparent- if Beelzebub really existed, why would he cast out his own fellow demons?</p><p>Their comment appears to have been made in very hot blood, for it was logically contradictory to claim that someone who cast out demons must therefore be in league with the prince of the demons; because their own sons (either literally or in the sense of their disciples) claimed to cast out demons (<em><a href='B:470 12:27'>Mat 12:27</a></em>). And if Jesus was actually on the side of the prince of demons, why then was he as it were fighting for the other side by casting out demons. Such gaping error in logic was exactly what the Pharisees were constantly careful to avoid; but their intense jealousy of the Lord led them to make this logical error. Again we note that the Lord's style was not so much to directly state the errors of his opponents, but to work on the assumption that their beliefs were correct- and to then follow those beliefs to their logical conclusions, thus showing how those positions contradicted themselves to the point they could not be true. This is one explanation for the use of the language of demons in the Gospels, even though demons don't in fact exist.</p><p>They were driven to assume that the Lord was in league with some higher power in order to perform His miracles. If it wasn't the Holy Spirit of God- it had to be by some other power, and the only option in their theology was some form of the Satan myth. Their logical desperation is a reflection of the undeniable nature of the Lord's miracles (as in <em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>). Any who claim to be able to do miracles through the Holy Spirit should likewise be producing healings which even their most sceptical opponents cannot deny are miracles; but that feature is not seen in many claims of healings today. When accused of being in league with ‘satan’, the Lord didn’t read them a charge of blasphemy. He reasoned instead that a thief cannot bind a strong man; and likewise He couldn’t bind ‘satan’ unless He were stronger than Satan (cp. <em><a href='B:480 3:23-27'>Mar 3:23-27</a></em>). He doesn’t take the tack that ‘Satan / Beelzebub / demons’ don’t exist; He showed instead that He was evidently stronger than any such being or force, to the point that belief in such a concept was meaningless. Faith must rather be in Him alone.</p>


text:
<p>3:23&nbsp;<em>And he called them to him, and said to them in parables: How can Satan cast out Satan?</em>-</p><p> 'Satan' was a parable and is being used here in a non-literal sense. The Lord reasons with them on their own ground, assuming for a moment that their wrong ideas were true- hence "<em>if</em>&nbsp;Satan...". The one who cast out Satan / demons was of course Jesus personally. Their false logic and theology had led them to label a good man as Satan just because He did a good work of healing. So quickly, false logic and theology drives jealous people along a path of demonization, negative labelling of others and religious hatred:&nbsp;</p><p>But the argument is about casting out of&nbsp;<em>demons,&nbsp;</em>yet here 'satan casts out satan'. One thing we learn from this use of language is that beliefs about 'Satan', demons and the casting out of demons were very vague and poorly defined. And that is how it is to this day with those who believe in the literal existence of 'Satan' and demons. When pressed for definition and a more connected theology, they flounder.</p><p>When accused of being in league with ‘satan’, the Lord didn’t read them a charge of blasphemy. He reasoned instead that a thief cannot bind a strong man; and likewise He couldn’t bind ‘satan’ unless He were stronger than Satan (<em><a href='B:480 3:23-27'>Mar 3:23-27</a></em>). He doesn’t take the tack that ‘Satan / Beelzebub / demons’ don’t exist; He showed instead that He was evidently stronger than any such being or force, to the point that belief in such a concept was meaningless. Faith must rather be in Him alone.</p><p>Judaism had taken over the surrounding pagan notion of a personal ‘Satan’. And the Lord Jesus and the Gospel writers use this term, but in the way they use it, they redefine it. The parable of the Lord Jesus binding the “strong man” – the Devil – was really to show that the “Devil” as they understood it was now no more, and his supposed Kingdom now taken over by that of Christ. The last Gospel, John, doesn’t use the term in the way the earlier Gospels do. He defines what the earlier writers called “the Devil” as actual people, such as the Jews or the brothers of Jesus, in their articulation of an adversarial ‘satanic’ position to Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>3:24&nbsp;<em>And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand</em>-</p><p> Again the Lord accepts their position for one moment as true, and yet takes it forward to its logical implication. If Beelzebub was fighting against his own side, then all the same, Satan's Kingdom was divided against itself and would soon crumble into self-destruction. Therefore what Jesus had done ought to be seen as a presage of Satan's Kingdom ending and, by implication, the soon triumph of God's Kingdom.</p><p>The Lord Jesus framed His parable about Satan's kingdom rising up and being divided against itself (<em><a href='B:480 3:23-26'>Mar 3:23-26</a></em>) in the very language of the Kingdom of Israel being "divided" against itself by Jeroboam's 'rising up' (<em><a href='B:110 12:21'>1Ki 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 13:6'>2Ch 13:6</a></em>)- as if Israel's Kingdom was Satan's kingdom. <em><a href='B:330 17:14'>Eze 17:14</a></em> uses this language about how Old Testament kingdom of Judah no longer 'stood' because of their disobedience. The true Kingdom of God would 'stand' for ever (<em><a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a></em>). The Lord may be hinting that Israel was no longer God's Kingdom and was in fact therefore Satan's kingdom- for the true Kingdom of God would always stand. It is Satan's Kingdom which falls, not God's.</p>


text:
<p>3:25&nbsp;<em>And if a family be divided against itself, that family will not be able to stand</em>-</p><p> &nbsp;The Lord is teaching that the breakup of a Kingdom, even Satan's, must start on the household level and progress higher. Perhaps this is a hint at the growth of&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;kingdom beginning with the household conversions and house churches with which Christianity started.</p>


text:
<p>3:26<em>&nbsp;And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end-&nbsp;</em>The Jews accused the Lord of being in league with the prince of the demons, Beelzebub. His comment was that if the family / house of Satan was so divided, then Satan “has an end” (<em><a href='B:480 3:26'>Mar 3:26</a></em>). His approach was ‘OK you believe in demons, Beelzebub etc. Well if that’s the case, then according to the extension of your logic, Satan will soon come to an end, will cease existence. That’s the bottom line. As it happens, I am indeed ‘binding the strong man’, rendering Satan powerless, making him ‘have an end’, and so whichever way you look at it, believing in demons or not, the bottom line is that My miracles demonstrate that effectively Satan is powerless and not an item now’. The way the New Testament is written reflects the same approach. When the Lord was alone with His disciples, He explained further: “If they have called the Master of the House i:e. Jesus ‘Beelzebub’, how much more shall they call them of his household?” i:e. the disciples (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>). By saying this, the Lord was clarifying that of course He didn’t&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>mean that He was part of the Satan family, working against Satan to destroy the entire family. Rather was He and His family quite separate from the Satan family. But He didn’t make that clarification to the Jewish crowds – He simply used their idea and reasoned with them on their own terms. Note in passing how the Jews actually thought Jesus was Beelzebub, or Satan. This would be one explanation for their mad passion to kill Him; for those labelled ‘Satan’ were hunted to their death in such societies, as seen later in the witch hunts of the middle ages. The Jews say Jesus as a false miracle worker, a false Messiah, a bogus Son of God – all characteristics of their view of ‘Satan’. Some centuries later, the Jewish sage Maimonides described Jesus in terms of the antichrist: “Daniel had already alluded to him when he presaged the downfall of a wicked one and a heretic among the Jews who would endeavour to destroy the Law, claim prophecy for himself, make pretences to miracles, and allege that he is the Messiah” (<em>Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen</em>). It’s been suggested that the way the Jewish rabbinical writings call Him&nbsp;<em>Yeshu</em>&nbsp;is an acronym for the Hebrew expression<em>&nbsp;yemach shemo vezichro</em>&nbsp;– “May his name and memory be obliterated”. This was the very Jewish definition of Satan. They saw Jesus as Satan himself; hence they were so insistent on slaying Him. Yet by the deft twist of Divine providence, it was through the death of Jesus that the&nbsp;<em>real&nbsp;</em>Devil (i:e. the power of sin) was in fact slain (<em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em>). To those with perceptive enough minds to see it, yet once again the Jewish ideas had been turned back upon them to reveal the real nature of the Devil to them, within their own frames of reference and terminology. Likewise Beelzebub means literally ‘the lord of the house’; and the Lord Jesus alludes to this in describing Himself as the Master of the House of God.</p>


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


text:
<p>3:28<em>&nbsp;Truly I say to you: All the sins of the sons of men shall be forgiven and their blasphemies with which they shall blaspheme</em>-</p><p>His simple claim that God can forgive men all sins was radical (<em><a href='B:480 3:28'>Mar 3:28</a></em>)- for the Rabbis had a whole list of unforgivable sins, like murder, apostasy, contempt for the Law, etc. But the Lord went further. His many words of judgment weren’t directed to the murderers and whores and Sabbath breakers; they were instead directed against those who condemned those people, considering themselves righteous. He calls those who appeared so righteous a ‘generation of vipers’. The publican, not the Pharisee, finds God’s acceptance, according to Jesus. And again, the Lord is making a telling point- because Rabbis held that repentance for publicans was almost impossible, because it was impossible for them to know exactly all the people they’d cheated. Very clearly, the Lord’s message was radical. He was out to form a holy people from whores and gamblers, no-good boys and conmen. And moreover, He was out to show that what God especially judges and hates are the things that humanity doesn’t think twice about: hypocrisy, self-righteousness, judgmentalism, exclusion of others… See on <em><a href='B:470 10:29'>Mat 10:29</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>3:29<em>&nbsp;But whoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is never forgiven but is guilty of an eternal sin</em>-</p><p>Whenever we sin, we are judged by the court of Heaven as deserving condemnation. Yet now is our day of opportunity; the verdict really is given, but we can mercifully change it. Consider the implications of <em><a href='B:480 3:29'>Mar 3:29</a></em>: "he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness but is in danger of&nbsp;<em>eternal</em>&nbsp;damnation". Not being&nbsp;<em>ever</em>&nbsp;forgiven is paralleled with having&nbsp;<em>eternal</em>&nbsp;damnation. The implication is that when we sin and are unforgiven, we are condemned. But in this life we can be forgiven, and therefore become uncondemned. Abimelech was "but a dead man" for taking Sarah (<em><a href='B:10 20:3'>Gen 20:3</a></em>), as if although he was alive, for that sin he was in God's eyes condemned and dead. But that verdict for that case was changed by his change of the situation. See on <em><a href='B:730 3:17'>Rev 3:17</a></em>.</p><p>People were forced to a choice. Jesus of Nazareth had access to superhuman power, far more than anyone had ever had. Which power was it, within the framework of their dualistic view of the cosmos- of Satan or God? Was He God's supreme agent on earth- or Satan's? There was no middle ground. All had to choose. The miracles were good. Therefore, it was Satan who had been bound. Jesus was therefore of God. To insist He was from Satan was to wilfully refuse to believe the evidence God had placed before them. There was no forgiveness for this choice- whilst it continued. If anyone wanted to repent and accept that Jesus was of God, to gather with Him, to be with Him rather than against Him- then that was always possible. Note that there is no statement that&nbsp;<em>repentance</em>&nbsp;is impossible, rather that&nbsp;<em>forgiveness</em>&nbsp;is impossible whilst a person is in the position of so strongly rejecting Christ as God's Son. For those who did accept Christ as of God rather than of Satan, then "all manner of sin" could be forgiven them, including even at times speaking against Him personally (<em><a href='B:470 12:32'>Mat 12:32</a></em>). From one viewpoint, the only way we cannot be saved is to wilfully refuse to participate in the new covenant. The Lord laboured the point that the "unforgivable sin" was to "blaspheme the Holy Spirit" (<em><a href='B:480 3:28-30'>Mar 3:28-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:31-37'>Mat 12:31-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:10'>Luk 12:10</a></em>). But it's been demonstrated that this is a reference to Jewish writings and traditions such as Jubilees 15:33 "where not circumcising one's child is unforgivable, because it is a declaration that one does not belong to the covenant people".</p>


text:
<p>3:30&nbsp;<em>He said this because they had said: He has an unclean spirit</em>-</p><p> They had seen the Holy Spirit in operation; and they could not deny it. But they were wilfully choosing to call this the work of an "unclean spirit".</p>


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


text:
<p>3:32- see on <em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em>.</p><p><em>And a crowd was sitting about him, and they said to him: Look, your mother and your brothers are outside looking for you</em>-</p><p> Note how in <em><a href='B:480 3:32'>Mar 3:32</a></em> we read that “thy 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 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>3:33&nbsp;<em>And he answered them, saying: Who is my mother and my brothers?</em>-</p><p> In a fiercely family based society, such radical redefinition of family was remarkable, and the Lord was labouring His radical point lest there be any misunderstanding. He was creating a new family, based around hearing and doing His Father's will; there was a new Father, God, and those who did His will were His children. The nature of the scene portrayed here seems to suggest that in His case, as in so many others afterwards, the new spiritual family was separate from the family of origin; for they were here outside the house. And we must bear in mind that 'house' meant not only a building but a family. This gives new meaning to the way that Paul and James (especially James) so love to address their brethren as "my brothers" (<em><a href='B:660 1:2'>Jas 1:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:16'>Jas 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:19'>Jas 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:14'>Jas 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 3:1'>Jas 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 3:10'>Jas 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 3:12'>Jas 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:10'>Jas 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em>). Their brethren in Christ were really their new family. And it should be the same for us. The divided state of the body of Christ today is surely a result of over-familiar, over-privileged believers failing to grasp the wonder of the fact that others have come into the family by conversion into Christ. In believing communities comprised of first generation converts, there is generally a far greater sense of brotherhood.</p>


text:
<p>3:34&nbsp;<em>And looking round on them that sat round about him, he said: Behold my mother and my brothers</em>-</p><p> Another mark of an eyewitness account is found in this reference to looking round. Given the loss of family many had experienced, this visual image would've remained in their memories, to be drawn upon in the hard times of rejection by family of origin. The Greek&nbsp;<em>epi</em>&nbsp;translated "toward" could strictly mean 'over'- as if the disciples were sitting near to Him. For it was they, rather than the general audience, whom He knew were doing the Father's will. The Lord implied that those who did God’s will were closer to Him than His physical mother or sister or brother (<em><a href='B:470 12:48-50'>Mat 12:48-50</a></em>). It has been observed that “in a kinship-oriented society like Israel, it must have been startling for people to hear of a bond that was even deeper than that of the natural family”. And so it is in many parts of the world today.</p>


text:
<p>3:35&nbsp;<em>For whoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother and sister and mother</em>-</p><p> Another allusion back to the crunch line of the Sermon on the Mount, that the true community would be comprised of those who did the will of the Father in Heaven. The Lord spoke of Himself as 'doing the will' of the Father, supremely in His death on the cross. <em><a href='B:650 10:7'>Heb 10:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:9'>Heb 10:9</a></em> speaks of the Son 'doing the will' of God in dying on the cross, and the passage then goes on to appeal to us likewise to do that same will (<em><a href='B:650 10:36'>Heb 10:36</a></em>). And it is God who will work in us through the Spirit to empower us to do that will- if we ourselves so wish (<em><a href='B:650 13:21'>Heb 13:21</a></em>). The very fact the Lord calls us brethren here is seen by the Hebrew writer as proof of Christ's humanity (= <em><a href='B:650 2:11'>Heb 2:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>4:1<em>&nbsp;And again he began to teach by the sea side. There gathered to him a very great crowd-&nbsp;</em>"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 Christ told the sower parable than concerning almost any other in his ministry, with the exception of the crucifixion (compare <em><a href='B:470 12:22'>Mat 12:22</a></em> to <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:27'>Luk 11:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:10'>Mar 4:10</a></em>). Various types of people heard his words; the immediate context in <em><a href='B:470 13:2'>Mat 13:2</a></em> is that "great multitudes were gathered together unto him". The parable of the differing types of ground which were for the most part unresponsive to the seed therefore refer to the various reception given to Christ's sowing when he first "went forth to sow" in his ministry.</p><p><em>So he entered into a boat and sat in the sea, and all the crowd were gathered along the shore-&nbsp;</em>Of course He didn’t literally sit in the sea. But this is how it would have appeared to a spectator sitting on the grassy hillside, hearing Jesus’ voice clearly from a great distance because of the natural amphitheatre provided by the topography. In this case, the Spirit adopts this perspective in order to invite us to take our place on that same hillside, as it were, beholding the Lord Jesus in the middle distance, looking as if He were sitting in the sea. Perhaps the record is implying that listeners were so transfixed by the words and person of Jesus that they stopped seeing the boat and only saw Jesus, giving the picture of a magnetic man with gripping words sitting in the sea teaching a spellbound audience. There’s another example of this kind of thing in <em><a href='B:70 4:5'>Jdg 4:5</a></em>: “The mountains melted ‘flowed’, AV mg." – to a distant onlooker, the water flowing down the mountains gave the impression that they themselves were melting; not, of course, that they actually were.</p><p>Think about how Mark speaks of Jesus "sitting in the sea" teaching the people on the shore. All else was irrelevant- even the boat He was in. The focus is so zoomed in on the person of Jesus. And Paul in his more 'academic' approach sees&nbsp;Jesus as the very core of the whole cosmos, the reason for everything in the whole of existence.</p><p>As noted on 3:9,10, an offshore boat was required because of the huge press upon the Lord in order to get a miracle. In order to get the people to listen to Him, it must have been necessary for Him to ignore human need for the time being and not do any more miracles- in order that His word might be spread. This was His priority, far more than addressing human material need.</p>


text:
<p>4:2&nbsp;<em>And he taught them many things in parables, and said to them in his teaching</em>-</p><p> The unusually large crowd (:1) 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 from the boat, because time proved it so true to that mass of humanity who heard Him preaching.</p><p>According to the parallel in Matthew 12, this was the Lord's first parable; and it marked a turning point. Now He was intentionally using parables exactly so that the majority of Israel would not understand. The Lord seems to have concluded that the contemporary generation was wicked and bound for condemnation; they had rejected John’s message after having initially responded to it, and had rejected Him. This is now the first time that we read in Matthew of the use of “parables”, and it seems to be in direct context with what He has said to Israelite society at the end of Matthew 11. He is now speaking to them in this form so that they will be confirmed in their disbelief. The Kingdom principles which He had so clearly expressed in the Sermon on the Mount now become “mysteries” of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 12:11'>Mat 12:11</a></em>); instead of the Kingdom which could then have been established had Israel accepted Jesus as Messiah, the Kingdom principles would work quietly from within until such time as the Kingdom were to be politically established at a far future date. No longer do we read of the Kingdom coming ‘near’ and being ‘heralded’. And the themes of most of His subsequent parables in Matthew include Israel’s rejection of the Gospel. He spoke&nbsp;<em>things</em>&nbsp;to them, but in parables. This of itself suggests that He used parables so that people would&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;understand, as is made explicit in <em><a href='B:470 12:11-12'>Mat 12:11-12</a></em>. His parables were not, therefore, simple stories with an obvious meaning. They may appear that way to us who have some understanding of their interpretation, but that was clearly not how they were understood by most of the initial audience. Even if they thought they understood them, it's made clear in <em><a href='B:480 12:11-12'>Mar 12:11-12</a></em> that they didn't. The change in style is due to His conclusion that that generation were condemned and had refused John's ministry and therefore Christ's message. From now onwards He would not be giving them any more- He was cloaking the message in parables, and explaining them only to the minority who had properly responded.</p>


text:
<p>4:3&nbsp;<em>Listen Behold, the sower went forth to sow</em>-</p><p> 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 (<em><a href='B:470 13:1'>Mat 13:1</a></em>)- 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 forth" is the same Greek word has just been used in <em><a href='B:470 12:1'>Mat 12:1</a></em> to describe how Jesus had 'gone forth' out of the house to preach by the lakeshore. Although multitudes were there listening, the Lord knew that only a few would be good ground for the word. The word is several times used of the Lord 'going forth' to teach, and four times He uses it about His 'going forth' to hire workers for His harvest (<em><a href='B:470 20:1'>Mat 20:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:5-6'>Mat 20:5-6</a></em>). The 'sowing' of the word was therefore not merely a placing of ideas and theology in the minds of men, but in practice it was (and is) a call to go out and work, to harvest others for the Kingdom. The Lord 'came forth' in order to preach (<em><a href='B:480 1:38'>Mar 1:38</a></em> s:w. "... that I may preach there... for&nbsp;<em>therefore came I forth</em>"). Note that He didn't 'come forth' from Heaven as a pre-existent person; rather Matthew begins his Gospel by using the word about how the Lord 'came forth' from Bethlehem, His birthplace (<em><a href='B:470 2:6'>Mat 2:6</a></em>). John's Gospel records the Lord as saying that He 'came forth' from God (<em><a href='B:500 16:28'>Joh 16:28</a></em> etc:), but this was in a spiritual sense; this is John's spiritual equivalent of Matthew's statement that He came forth from Bethlehem.</p></p><p><p>The condemned man in the parable of <em><a href='B:470 25:24-26'>Mat 25:24-26</a></em> complained that the Lord expected to reap where He had not sown. But the parable of the sower makes it clear that the Lord sows, even fanatically, everywhere. We perhaps would've reminded the man of the Lord's parable and His unceasing work of sowing, and reasoned 'That's not true'. But this isn't the Lord's style. He takes people where they are and uses their own words and reasonings as if they are true- and shows by an altogether higher level of reasoning that they are not true. This explains His approach to the issue of demons:&nbsp; Luke's account stresses the seed: "A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed..." (<em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em>). This appears to state the obvious- a sower sows seed. But "his seed" can also mean 'the seed of Him'. There is an obvious connection with the great Messianic promises to the Jewish fathers about their "seed". The seed is God's word, but it is also effectively 'Jesus'. For He personally is the essence of the Gospel message. This parable of the types of ground is explaining to the disciples why the majority of Israel were failing to accept Him, and thus had rejected the ministry and message of John.</p>


text:
<p>4:4<em>&nbsp;And it came to pass, as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>hodos</em>&nbsp;means simply 'the way'. It is the very word used about John the Baptist seeking to prepare the way for the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>). If Israel had responded as envisaged in the Isaiah 40 passage which speaks of this, then the way or road would have been prepared and the glory of Yahweh would have travelled over it to establish God's visible Kingdom in Jerusalem. On one hand, the fact the sower sowed even on the 'way' is an element of unreality in the parable which simply points to the extreme enthusiasm of this sower, casting the seed onto all types of human personality, including those who appear hopeless cases. The seed of God's word would have made the rough way smooth for the King of glory to ride over to Zion. But instead the seed was despised and even condemned, trampled underfoot - an idiom meaning it was despised and even condemned. And then the birds came and took it away altogether. The way was not prepared by response to the seed because of the Jewish leadership stopping others responding. We note the usage of the same word to describe how some despised individuals sitting in 'the way' were in fact persuaded to respond to the Kingdom invitation (<em><a href='B:470 22:9-10'>Mat 22:9-10</a></em>); Bartimaeus was likewise sitting in the way s:w. and responded, following Jesus "in the way" (<em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em>). The 'way side' could have responded to the seed- but it didn't. Because men came and trampled it under foot, and the birds came and took it away. It wasn't as if there was no chance at all that it could have responded:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the birds came</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em> adds that first of all, the seed was "trodden down" before the birds came. The impression is given of something, someone or a group of people hindering the growth of the seed- and that is a theme explaining the failure of the seed to grow in the other cases of 'bad ground'. The Lord has in mind the damage done to the growth of the word in the hearts of first century Israel by a group of people- and those people were the Jewish religious leaders. On a wider level, it's true that in practice it is the attitudes and pressures from others, conscious and unconscious, which stops people today from responding to God's word beyond an initial interest. Birds were symbolically understood in Judaism as the Gentiles- and the Lord is applying the symbol to the very religious leaders of Judaism, whom He saw as Gentiles in that they were consciously trying to stop people responding to the seed of God's word of Christ. And yet His later parable&nbsp;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 what he has" (<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><em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em> literally translated speaks of "birds of Heaven". The fowls taking away the unfruitful seed is the first of a number of connections with the true vine parable of John 15, where the ideas of Divine husbandry and fruitfulness due to the word recur. In <em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em> the fruitless branch is taken away by God; in the sower parable, the birds remove the fruitless plant. The conclusion is that God sends 'birds' of various kinds to remove the spiritual deadwood from His ecclesia. It is in this sense that false teaching (e.g. the Judaist "fowls" of the first century) is allowed by God. parable of the sower connects the Devil with the fowls which take away the Word from potential converts, stopping their spiritual growth. This would aptly fit the Judaizers who were leading the young ecclesias away from the word, and the Jews who “shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men... neither suffer ye them that are entering (young converts) to go in” (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>). The Devil takes away the word of the Kingdom, “lest they should believe and be saved” (<em><a href='B:490 8:12'>Luk 8:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>And devoured it</em>-</p><p> The same word is used of how the Pharisees "devoured 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>4:5<em>&nbsp;And other fell on the rocky ground, where it had not much earth-&nbsp;</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 (<em><a href='B:470 12:21'>Mat 12:21</a></em>)- which in the first instance was from the Jews.</p><p><em>And immediately-&nbsp;</em>The immediacy of response is not wrong; immediate response is a great theme of Mark. The good ground also features immediate response. The problem with many is that they do not continue that 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>).</p><p><em>It sprang up-&nbsp;</em>The idea is that they germinated. The seed of the Gospel began to grow- the multitudes had begun to respond to John's message. The same word is used in the next verse to describe how the sun then 'sprung up'. After response to the word begins, there will be trouble and testing. Just as Israel's Red Sea baptism was immediately followed by tribulation and testing. The sun arising and withering the seed is a symbol of tribulation arising in the life of the believer (<em><a href='B:480 4:6'>Mar 4:6</a></em>). But the sun arising is also a clear symbol of the day of the Lord’s return. Thus whenever we encounter tribulation, our response to it is in some sense a preview of our response to the Lord’s coming in judgment. Trials and reproofs from God are Him “entering with thee into judgment”, here and now (<em><a href='B:220 22:4'>Job 22:4</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Because it had no depth of soil</em>-</p><p> John perhaps explains the 'depth' in his account of the woman at the well. The salvation in Christ was brought from the 'deep' s:w. well (<em><a href='B:500 4:11'>Joh 4:11</a></em>). These people had only a surface level interest and did not really grasp the deep reality of Christ and His work.</p>


text:
<p>4:6<em>&nbsp;And when the sun had risen, it was scorched-&nbsp;</em>Literally, burnt. John the Baptist had presented a powerful logic- either baptism by fire by the Jesus whom he preached, or being burnt up with figurative fire at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 3:10-12'>Mat 3:10-12</a></em>). The Lord clearly has that in mind here- those who had refused John's message about Him were even now burnt up, for judgment in its essence begins now, according to our response to the word of Christ:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And because it had no root, it withered away</em>-</p><p>The sun arising and withering the seed is a symbol of tribulation arising in the life of the believer (<em><a href='B:480 4:6'>Mar 4:6</a></em>). But the sun arising is also a clear symbol of the day of the Lord’s return. Thus whenever we encounter tribulation, our response to it is in some sense a preview of our response to the Lord’s coming in judgment. Trials and reproofs from God are Him “entering with thee into judgment”, here and now (<em><a href='B:220 22:4'>Job 22:4</a></em>).</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 13:22, the seed is to become the person. Those who do not wither are those who have the seed within them, the power of eternal life which endures. "Because they had no root, they withered away" (<em><a href='B:470 13:6'>Mat 13:6</a></em>) is alluded to in <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> concerning the branches of the vine withering as a result of God's word not abiding in them. The connection between the plants of the sower parable and the branches of the vine is further evidence that the sower parable mainly concerns the response to the word of those&nbsp;<em>within</em>&nbsp;the ecclesia.</p>


text:
<p>4:7&nbsp;<em>And other fell among the thorns-&nbsp;</em>This of itself didn't mean that growth was impossible. The Lord's later parable makes that clear- the good sees brings forth fruit, clearly alluding to the 'good ground' of the sower parable,<em>&nbsp;despite</em>&nbsp;being surrounded by "tares", weeds, within which category are thorns (<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 12:22'>Mat 12:22</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><em>And the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no fruit</em>-</p><p> The later parable explains that both good and bad seed 'spring / grow up' (<em><a href='B:470 12:26'>Mat 12:26</a></em>); 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 12:22'>Mat 12:22</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>4:8&nbsp;<em>And others fell into the good ground-&nbsp;</em>The next parable is clearly related to this parable of the sower. There, the same word is used for the "good seed", the "children of the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>). The ground refers to the hearts of people; but in the parable of the good seed, the seed itself is paralleled with the person. The word had become flesh in them, as it was in the Lord Himself (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). John the Baptist had preached about the need to be a "good" plant bearing good fruit, or else face condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>, and repeated by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 7:17-19'>Mat 7:17-19</a></em>). The appeal was for the audience to be as John intended, to follow where his teaching led. They had initially accepted that teaching but had failed to follow where it led. And this was to be their condemnation:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And yielded fruit, growing up and increasing; and brought forth, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold-&nbsp;</em>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.</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 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 you 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 whatever you 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 that; the "good ground" brings forth 30, 60 or 100 fold. Some believers respond three times as actively to the Gospel as others; yet they will all be accepted at the end. I see a connection between this parable and Christ's words to the rich, righteous young man: '"If 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. Christ wanted him in the 100 fold category. But if that man didn't sell all that he had, it doesn't necessarily mean that Christ would have rejected him ultimately. In this context, He says: " Many that are first (in this life) will be last (least- in the Kingdom); and the last shall be first" (<em><a href='B:470 19:30'>Mat 19:30</a></em>). Those who don't sell all that they have will be in the Kingdom, but least in it. The poor of his world, rich in faith, will be great in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em>). We need to ask ourselves whether we really accept the parable of the sower; whether we are strong enough to let another brother be weak, to accept that even if he's in the 30 fold category, he's still acceptable to his Lord, just living on a different level. Indeed, it isn't for us to go very deeply at all into how exactly Christ sees others; because we can't know. The point to note is that God wants us to rise up the levels of commitment. Paul was persuaded that the Romans were “full of goodness, filled with all knowledge”, but he prayed they would be filled yet further (<em><a href='B:520 15:13-14'>Rom 15:13-14</a></em>).</p><p>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, rather than sowing like any normal sower would do. This taught that 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. To reach “all men” must be our brief; all types of men and women, including those who are obviously going to respond poorly. Yet the parable talks of one grain of corn that yields one hundredfold (<em><a href='B:480 4:8'>Mar 4:8</a></em>). Any farmer would pick up on this impossibility. An average yield in 1st century Palestine was about ten fold (This has been carefully worked out by R:K. McIver ‘One Hundred-Fold Yield’,&nbsp;<em>New Testament Studies</em>&nbsp;Vol. 40 (1994) pp. 606-608). What kind of response was&nbsp;<em>this</em>? What kind of grain of corn? Clearly, the Lord Jesus- who described Himself in John's record as the grain of corn that was to fall into the ground and bring forth much fruit. But the other grains of corn yielded 30 and 60 fold. This was quite amazing response too, totally unheard of in practice. Was it not that the Lord was trying to show us just how radically His Gospel can transform human life? Amazing fertility was a feature of the future Messianic Kingdom (<em><a href='B:370 9:13'>Amo 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 31:27'>Jer 31:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:29-30'>Eze 36:29-30</a></em>)- it’s as if the Lord is saying in the sower parable that the abundance of the future Kingdom can begin in human life now.</p><p>Jeremias claims that a yield of tenfold was considered good in first century Palestine (Joachim Jeremias,&nbsp;<em>The Parables of Jesus</em>&nbsp;(New York: Scribner’s, 1972) p. 150). Even if that is somewhat conservative, the point is that the seed on good ground yielded amazingly. This element of unreality speaks of how each person in the ‘good ground’ category will experience growth and blessing out of proportion to their tiny spiritual beginnings. The parable of the mustard seed makes the same point. Amazing harvests is the language of the Messianic Kingdom, both Biblically and in Judaism. The beginning of the Kingdom experience is in our response to God’s word in this life. The one hundred fold response is huge- but then so is the loss. It’s as if the Lord is trying to encourage the disciples after the conclusions drawn about the general failure of the ministry of John- and therefore the Lord’s also. His point is that despite all the failure,&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;will respond, and their response and blessing will be so huge that this more than counterbalances all the failure of others. If we can bring one person towards eternity, this is so wonderful that all the rejection of our message is worthwhile:&nbsp;</p><p>Note how the three types of wasted seed and poor ground are matched by three types of response on the good ground. This feature of triads (features occurring in threes) may not necessarily have any meaning, but it may simply be part of a structure designed to aid memorization- which was the initial usage of the Gospel records.</p><p>I have shown in the commentary above that growth was in fact possible on each type of ground, and the New Testament contains examples of where this happened. I suggest that in fact there are only three types of ground- the way side, the rocky and the thorny. These three types of ground would then match the three types of good ground- which gave 30,60 and 100 fold increase. Putting the gospel records together, the Lord's description of the good ground contains elements of the initially good response from the three bad types of ground. The good ground represents a good state of mind- for the ground is clearly to be understood as the heart of those receiving the word. This category therefore refers to those on the three other types of ground who&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;respond to the end, who overcame the pressures upon them not to respond further. This also removes the moral problem which is otherwise presented- in that it would appear that the seed of the word is spread, but the good ground people can do nothing else but respond, and the bad ground people can do nothing but not ultimately respond because of who they are by nature and where they are situated in life. The good ground category had to 'keep the word' (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>)- they didn't let men tread it underfoot nor birds take it away. Given their position in life, even by the wayside, they still responded by keeping the word. There was an element of choice and human effort required- rather than some categories being inevitably unable to keep the word because of their location in life and surrounding influences upon them. In this we see huge encouragement in our cluttered lives today, subject as they are to negative spiritual influences which at times seem too strong to resist. And we are further encouraged in our own sowing of the seed- nobody is incapable of response, from the deepest room in a strict Moslem family to sharing a one room apartment in Europe surrounded by materialistic, unGodly people.</p><p>In fairness, this parable can be read another way. 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.</p>


text:
<p>4:9&nbsp;<em>And he said: Who has ears to hear, let him hear</em>-</p><p>Seeing that the next verses show the Lord considered Israel generally to no longer have ears to hear (see Matthew), this would seem an appeal to the disciples to perceive what He is saying, even though the majority of Israel cannot. Therefore He asks them later to “<em>Hear</em>&nbsp;the parable” (<em><a href='B:470 12:18'>Mat 12:18</a></em>)- for He knows they do have ears to hear. But even they had to make a conscious effort to hear- those with ears are asked to hear. Understanding, in the sense Jesus uses the idea, doesn’t come naturally but requires effort.</p><p>Luke adds: “As he said these things, he cried: He that has ears to hear, let him hear” (<em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em>). The Lord so wanted their response. "As he said these things, he&nbsp;<em>cried</em>, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" (<em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:500 7:37'>Joh 7:37</a></em>). The very muscles of the Lords face, His body language, would have reflected an earnest,&nbsp;<em>burning</em>&nbsp;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&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;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&nbsp;<em>cried</em>, loudly, "he that hath ears to hear,&nbsp;<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 the next verse, 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 <em><a href='B:490 8:10'>Luk 8:10</a></em>: "Unto you it is given (potentially, anyway) to know (understand) the mysteries (parables) of the Kingdom of God". 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>&nbsp;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:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:10- see on <em><a href='B:480 3:14'>Mar 3:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked him about the parables</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s grace to His men is reflected in Mark’s record of how the twelve were confused by the Lord’s parables. He responds that He speaks in parables so that “them that are without” would not understand; but His followers would, He implies, “know the mystery of the Kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables”. And yet it’s immediately apparent that the disciples were equally confused by the parables. We sense the Lord’s frustration with this: “Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?”- i:e. ‘If you don’t understand this parable, it means you won’t understand any of them, which makes you equal with the crowd of those outside of Me, whom I’m seeking to leave confused’. And we note how straight away Mark notes, perhaps in sadness and yet marvel at the Lord’s grace: “But without a parable spake he not unto them the disciples: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples” (<em><a href='B:480 4:10-13'>Mar 4:10-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:34'>Mar 4:34</a></em>). Mark, or Peter writing through Mark, could look back in wonder. 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><p>This question is understandable if this was the first parable the Lord spoke; see on <em><a href='B:470 12:1'>Mat 12:1</a></em>. 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;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:11&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: To you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those that are without, all things are done in parables-&nbsp;</em>The Lord explained that parables only remained incomprehensible to "them that are without". That phrase seems to have stuck with Paul; he uses it five times. Perhaps he saw that a characteristic of the believers, those separated from the world of darkness, was that they understood the parables; and this would explain Paul's frequent allusion to them, stressing as he does the need to appreciate their power. Those “without” in His other teaching clearly refer to those rejected at the judgment, who will stand “without” begging for admission to the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:15'>Rev 20:15</a></em>). But those ‘without’ in <em><a href='B:480 4:11'>Mar 4:11</a></em> are those who chose not to understand the Lord’s teaching, for whom it’s all parables, fascinating perhaps, but confusing, unclear, and not something they are really bothered to understand. This connection of thought doesn’t mean that intellectual clarity of understanding alone decides who will be, indeed who is, within or without of the Kingdom. But it is all the same true that the Kingdom life both now and in the future requires us to understand so that we might believe and live and be as the Lord requires. See on <em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></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>


text:
<p>4:12&nbsp;<em>That seeing, they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn again and it should be forgiven them</em>-</p><p> Understanding and perceiving the meaning of the parables would result in conversion, repentance and forgiveness. Moses persevered because he&nbsp;<em>understood</em>. “Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law” (<em><a href='B:230 119:35'>Psa 119:35</a></em>) is one of many links in David’s thought between understanding and obedience. See on <em><a href='B:480 7:29'>Mar 7:29</a></em>. It was their initial seeing and hearing of John the Baptist which became the basis of their subsequent total blindness and deafness to Jesus. If the word sown isn't responded to further, or only partially so, then there remains only a hardening. We must respond, and immediately- and be led wherever the word leads us:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord Jesus spoke the parable of the sower so that the Jews "by hearing... shall hear, and... not understand" (<em><a href='B:470 13:14'>Mat 13:14</a></em>), which is quoting from <em><a href='B:290 6:9-10'>Isa 6:9-10</a></em> concerning Israel hearing the preaching of Jesus during his ministry. This would explain the present tenses in <em><a href='B:480 4:14-20'>Mar 4:14-20</a></em>: "These&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;they by the way side... these&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;they... which&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;sown...". That prophecy evidently had fulfilment at Isaiah's time; the point is thereby established that prophecy can have multiple fulfilments:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:13&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Do you not understand this parable? And how will you understand all the parables?</em>-</p><p> Not understanding was characteristic of those sown by the wayside, according to the interpretation we have in Matthew 13. We can therefore imagine a note of deep concern in the Lord's voice at this point. For the Lord has just made clear that not understanding Him is a conscious, wilful intellectual act; and people shut their eyes so that they will not understand, lest it demand too much from them personally (<em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em>). The wayside category are not, therefore, merely predestined not to understand. It's not that they were just in the wrong place, exposed to the wrong teachings and religious culture, and therefore they did not understand. For anyone who hears the word or seed of Christ, refusal to understand it is a conscious choice. It may not appear like that, but the Lord has said in <em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em> that it Is. By 'understanding', the Lord means the understanding which brings forth fruit. He is here redefining 'understanding the word', making it refer to something fruitful in practice. He spoke against a religious culture in which spirituality was seen in terms of being a microscopic student of the Old Testament and word by word, verse by verse, coming to the right theological interpretation. Many of us were raised in a similar environment. And the Lord here is redefining 'understanding the word' away from the sense of 'correct exposition' towards 'responding faithfully in practice, bringing forth fruit'. The bad ground, therefore, involved an element of choice to be like that. We showed on <em><a href='B:470 13:4'>Mat 13:4</a></em> that there were 'wayside' persons who&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;respond; our location in terms of culture, environment, psychology etc. is&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;an inevitable barrier to responding to the word which we hear. This proves that sin, in its various manifestations as a 'devil', can be resisted through an understanding of the word:&nbsp;<em>When</em>&nbsp;there was no understanding of the word,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;the devil came. Likewise <em><a href='B:690 5:18-20'>1Jn 5:18-20</a></em> teaches that those who are born again by a true understanding of the word are not even touched by the "wicked one", the Jewish satan. In his justification of confusing the Jews through the sower parable, the Lord twice lamented that they did not&nbsp;<em>understand&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:470 13:13-14'>Mat 13:13-14</a></em>). He was basically saying that the Jews were the bad ground in the parable; the fowls snatched away the seed because they did not&nbsp;<em>understand</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>). By contrast, those on the good ground&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;understand (<em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>). Those who heard the word "and immediately with joy receives it" only to later fall away (<em><a href='B:470 13:20-21'>Mat 13:20-21</a></em>) approximate to the Jews who initially rejoiced at the word of Christ preached by John and later Jesus himself (<em><a href='B:500 5:35'>Joh 5:35</a></em>). And the Lord was concerned that the disciples were in the same category.</p>


text:
<p>4:14&nbsp;<em>The sower, sows the word</em>-</p><p> In terms of a 'this equals that' interpretation, "the sower" is left without interpretation. The seed is the word, but "the sower" is left as "the sower"; but the Lord Jesus and any preacher. The purpose of the parable is to focus not upon the sower but upon human response to the word.</p>


text:
<p>4:15&nbsp;<em>And these by the way side, where the word is sown, represent those who, when they have heard, have Satan immediately come-&nbsp;</em>Note that the parable was spoken the same day as the discourses of Matthew chapter 12- see <em><a href='B:470 13:1'>Mat 13:1</a></em>. The entire context of the parable and the preceding chapter 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&nbsp;<em>The Real Devil</em>, 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><em>And take away the word-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em> "snatches away".<em>&nbsp;</em>The same word had recently been used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em> 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, "the wicked one" is again identified as the Jews. The word is also used about the wolf 'catching away' the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>)- 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. However can we resist that evil one? Paul had his eye on this question in <em><a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:3'>2Th 3:3</a></em>, where he speaks of the word being&nbsp;<em>with them</em>, and also of the&nbsp;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. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Which has been sown in them</em>-</p><p> 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 (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>). 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:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:16&nbsp;<em>And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky places, who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with joy</em>-</p><p> So long as he 'believes for a while' (Lk:). 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>


text:
<p>4:17&nbsp;<em>But they have no root in themselves and only endure for a while. Then, when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they stumble</em>-</p><p> The house built on sand was destroyed by a flood, an oft used type of the second coming and day of judgment. The equivalent in the sower parable is "when the sun was up... they were scattered" (<em><a href='B:470 13:6'>Mat 13:6</a></em>). The sun is a symbol of both Christ's return and also of "tribulation or persecution (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>). It seems that Jesus is teaching that our response to the word now is in effect our judgment seat; if we do not properly grow by it, in time of trial (the sun rising) we will spiritually die. Therefore when "the sun of righteousness" arises (<em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>) at the day of judgment, we will be "scorched" or 'burnt up' (Gk:). There are other examples of where a man's attitude to God's word in this life indicates his position at judgment day (e.g. <em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>). In the same way as we call upon a reserve of word-developed spirituality in time of trial (the "moisture" of the parable), so we will at judgment day. When Paul spoke of how we&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;go through tribulation to enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>), perhaps he was alluding to the parable of the sower, where the Lord taught that when, and not “if” tribulation arises (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>). Paul knew that it&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;come because of the way the Lord had worded the interpretation of the parable.</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>4:18&nbsp;<em>Others are represented by those that are sown among the thorns. These are they that have heard the word</em>-</p><p> 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 tare (<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 tare 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:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:19&nbsp;<em>And the cares of the world-&nbsp;</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.</p><p><em>And the deceitfulness of riches and the lusts of other things entering in-&nbsp;</em>There are not a few Bible passages which present 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 relate to "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;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Choke the word-&nbsp;</em>Paul had thought deeply about the parables. He doesn't just half-quote them in an offhand way. For example, 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>And it becomes unfruitful</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em> has "he becomes unfruitful". The types of ground represent the hearts of various categories of people. We expect to read that&nbsp;<em>the seed</em>&nbsp;becomes unfruitful. But the seed never does, it never of itself loses its power and life. The seed of the word, of Jesus who is&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;seed, becomes the person. The word is to be made flesh in us as it was to perfection in the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). See on 13:6&nbsp;<em>withered</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:&nbsp;<em>After</em>&nbsp;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>


text:
<p>4:20&nbsp;<em>And these are they that were sown upon the good ground: such as hear the word and accept it-</em></p><p>&nbsp;“Understand it” (<em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>), “holds fast” (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). 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><em>And bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold</em>-</p><p> 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;</p><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>


text:
<p>4:21- see on <em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>And he said to them: Is a lamp brought in to be put under a basket, or under a bed, and not on a lamp stand?</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The light of the candlestick is both the believer (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em>) and the Gospel itself (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>). We are to be the Gospel.</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. He is speaking of how our conversion is in order 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.</p><p>We must give forth the light, not keep it under a bucket, because "there is nothing hid which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing 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;</p><p>The Greek article in "the lamp / lamp stand / candlestick" refers to the specific candlestick, and to Jewish minds this would surely have referred to the candlestick in the Holy Place (s:w. <em><a href='B:650 9:2'>Heb 9:2</a></em>). This continues the theme of the Lord teaching a new form of Judaism, for His sermon on the mount is full of allusions to previous Mosaic practice, but redefining it. The implication of :16 is that ordinary men are present in the Holy Place too, who will see our light. Or it could be that Jesus has in mind how it was the priests who alone entered the Holy Place- and He is saying that the light from those who followed Him would illuminate the Jewish priesthood. The light of the candlestick is both the believer (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em>) and the Gospel itself (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>). We are to be the Gospel. We must burn as a candle now, in shedding forth the light, or we will be burnt at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> use the same words). This is but one of many examples of the logic of endurance; we must burn anyway, so why not do it for the Lord's sake and reap the reward.</p><p>The story of the candle that was put under a bucket brings out an issue related to that of the desire to root up the tares: the candle was put there (presumably) on account of an almost paranoiac fear that the wind would blow it out; but this over-protection of the lamp in itself caused the light to go out (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em>). Time and again, preaching the light, holding up the beacon of the word of Christ's cross, has been impeded or stifled in the name of preserving the truth, strengthening&nbsp;what remains (words taken out of context). And because of this lack of witness, this lack of holding out the light to others, the fire of Christ has waxed dim amongst us. This ties in to the theme that preaching is not just commanded as a publicity exercise for Almighty God; He doesn't need us to do that for Him. It is commanded for the benefit of the preacher more than those preached to. To put a candle under a bucket or bed seems senseless; yet this is how senseless and inappropriate it is to hold back preaching for the sake of defending the Faith. Indeed to put it under a bed (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>) and then go to sleep (candles are normally only lit at night) is likely to destroy the person who does it, to burn them while they are asleep. All who have the light but don't preach it (in whatever form) are likely to suffer the same; notice how the Lord (by implication) links night time and sleepiness with an apathy in preaching. Evidently the Lord foresaw the attitude that has surfaced amongst His people: 'We must concentrate on keeping the Truth, new converts are often problematic, too much energy goes to preaching rather than building up ourselves in the faith'. Probably the resistance to preaching to the Gentiles in the first century used similar reasoning. The Lord may have had in mind a Talmud entry (<em>Shabbat</em>&nbsp;107a) which permitted the covering of a lamp with a bowl on the Sabbath if it was done in order to stop the entire house catching fire. He is arguing that such a fear based attitude, fearful of possible consequence if we share the light, will result in the light going out. And that lesson needs to be learnt time and again.</p>


text:
<p>4:22- see on <em><a href='B:530 14:25'>1Co 14:25</a></em>.</p><p><em>For there is nothing hid, save that it should be manifested; neither was anything made secret but that it should come to light</em>-</p><p> 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 any thing 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. The whole process of covering truths before revealing them is not because God plays hard to get. It is because the process of discovery is for our benefit.</p>


text:
<p>4:24&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Pay attention to what you hear. What measure you use shall be applied to you, and more shall be given to you</em>-</p><p> The measuring and giving as we have measured and given is used in <em><a href='B:470 7:2'>Mat 7:2</a></em> regarding the outcome of the final judgment. But it is not that our works shall as it were earn us a place in that Kingdom. The measure we use is applied here to what or "how" (AV) we hear. The context is the parable of the sower; how we hear God's word is critical to our eternal destiny. The outcome of judgment day will be directly proportionate to how far and in what way we have 'heard' the Lord's word. Hearing is doing; intellectual purity of understanding is not in view here.</p>


text:
<p>4:25&nbsp;<em>For he that has, to him shall be given-&nbsp;</em>This is a clear statement of the upward spiral which we can experience. What we 'have' in our commitment to His word (see on :24) 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 he that has not, from him shall be taken away even that which he has</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>4:26&nbsp;<em>And he said: So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed upon the earth</em>-</p><p> The Greek tenses suggest a one-time sowing, contrasted with regular sleeping and rising (:27). As King of the Kingdom, the Lord Jesus did at times give Himself the title "the Kingdom of God". John's Gospel often mentions that the gift of the life of the Lord Jesus is also that of "eternal life"; His life, the kind of life He lived, His spirit, is that which believers shall eternally have. The sower in the preceding parable of the sower refers to the Lord Jesus sowing the seed of God's word; although all those "in Him" are likewise sowers of the word. Perhaps "the earth" refers specifically to the land of Israel, as often in the New Testament. But it could be that this parable is an extension of the parable of the sower, and the earth / ground in view is specifically the good ground, which brings forth much fruit. This parable is then a reflection on the wonder of salvation from the Lord's viewpoint.</p>


text:
<p>4:27&nbsp;<em>He sleeps and rises, night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he does not know how</em>-</p><p> The humility of the Lord Jesus is a reflection of the humility of God His Father. He spoke of Himself as the sower, who sleeps (in His death) and then works night and day (His present Heavenly labour for us) so that the seed should bring forth fruit- "he does not know how" (with allusion to <em><a href='B:250 11:1'>Ecc 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 11:5-6'>Ecc 11:5-6</a></em>). Despite all things having been revealed unto Him, and the Spirit unmeasurably given to Him, He had the spiritual and intellectual humility to openly recognize that our spiritual growth and ultimate salvation is a mystery to Him. It was the Father alone who gave the increase. &nbsp;</p><p>The Lord was limited in understanding. He forgot things at times, didn't understand absolutely everything (e.g. the date of His return, or as here, the mystery of spiritual growth), made a mistake when working as a carpenter, cut His finger. But He was never frustrated with Himself; He was happy being human, comfortable with His humanity.</p>


text:
<p>4:28&nbsp;<em>The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear</em>-</p><p> As noted on :25, these comments are added as caveats to the parable of the sower, lest the impression should be given that all is required is correct exposition of God's word. For this was the great fallacy of Judaism. He who "has" in hearing / understanding / obedience is "given" the more (:25); the hand of grace is a major element in achieving that person's salvation, rather than their own unaided intellectual efforts. And so here, there is an element of mystery to spiritual growth, which even the Lord Himself did not understand; the earth "by itself" appears to produce the fruit. It is not simply a case of receiving the seed into good ground. There is another element in the whole business of spiritual fruition.</p>


text:
<p>4:29&nbsp;<em>But when the grain is ripe, immediately he puts forth the sickle, because the harvest comes</em>-</p><p> He is closely watching our spiritual growth, as the farmer watches the wheat and then&nbsp;<em>immediately</em>&nbsp;begins to harvest it once the humidity and growth is just right. This is the enthusiasm with which the Lord watches our growth, not just individually, but as a community, i:e. the whole field. As the growth is still in some sense a mystery to the farmer, so it may be to the Lord (<em><a href='B:480 4:26-27'>Mar 4:26-27</a></em>); we grow, "he knows not how". This could be taken as an eloquent essay in the Lord's own limitation of knowledge. But the point is, once there is sufficient spiritual fruit, then the harvest is put in. This means that we cannot fix a calendar date for the Lord's return; we have conditions to be met, rather than dates to be waited for. Once the fruit is on the fig tree, then that generation shall see the Lord's return. I suggest this refers specifically to spiritual fruit amongst repentant Jews; and in this may lie the significance of the seed being sown upon the earth / land of Israel (:26).</p>


text:
<p>4:30&nbsp;<em>And he said: To what shall we compare the kingdom of God? Or in what parable shall we set it forth?</em>-</p><p> The Lord has explained that He is going to teach in parables so that Israel shall not understand. The point had arrived in His ministry where the window of their opportunity was starting to close. So it could be that He is asking the disciples to think up parables, a casing within which to place the things of the Kingdom. The "we" would therefore refer to Him and His disciples. They apparently made no response, and so the Lord went on to share another of His comparison parables. 'Think up a modern day parable…' is no bad exercise to use as a pastoral tool today.</p>


text:
<p>4:31- see on <em><a href='B:500 12:23-25'>Joh 12:23-25</a></em>.</p><p><em>It is like a grain-&nbsp;</em>Gk. 'a kernel'. The element of unreality is that a farmer would not consciously sow one tiny seed in a field. But the Lord does this, knowing the potential power within that one tiny seed. He 'takes' this&nbsp;one tiny seed in his palm, we are to imagine out into the field and sows it. And the mustard bush was perceived as a weed, a wild bush, not a crop. But it grows into a tree, it grows far greater and more majestically than could ever be expected. Here again is the Lord's encouragement to His disillusioned preachers- the growth of the Gospel, rather like the unreal increase on the good ground, is out of all proportion to what it initially Is. Preaching appears 'foolish' (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:21'>1Co 1:21</a></em>); that by sharing the Gospel with others, the vast majority of whom ultimately reject it, something so wonderful and eternal can really come. This parable thereby highlights the faith of the Father and Son, the sowers, that the word of the Kingdom really would survive and grow out of all proportion to its beginnings. This was exactly the encouragement which the disciples needed to hear, disillusioned as they were by the pathetic response to John’s ministry and the Lord’s real spiritual demands upon people.</p><p><em>Of mustard seed, which, when it is sown upon the earth, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the earth</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;</p><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>Gk:&nbsp;<em>mikros</em>, the tiniest, the least. Mark adds that it was the tiniest of all seeds&nbsp;<em>in the earth</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 4:31'>Mar 4:31</a></em>). It was the tiniest seed known in the land- and the term often refers to the land promised to Abraham. It was the tiniest imaginable seed. And it would grow into the greatest imaginable tree. The point has been made that orchid and other seeds are actually smaller than mustard seeds (H. N. Moldenke and A:L. Moldenke,&nbsp;<em>Plants of the Bible</em>&nbsp;(Waltham, Mass:: Chronica Botanica Company, 1952) p:61). But the Bible is written from the perspective of its original hearers, it never claims to present global scientific truth, and the mustard seed was the smallest seed known to the Lord’s audience:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:32&nbsp;<em>Yet when it is sown, grows up-&nbsp;</em>The phrase in Greek appears rather strange until we recall Mark's theme of immediacy of response. He envisages the sown seed growing up immediately, in a moment.</p><p><em>And becomes greater than all the herbs, and puts out great branches so that the birds of the sky can lodge under the shadow of it</em>-</p><p> Not ‘grows into’ a tree. The tiniest seed was only supposed to grow into a bush, but this unusual seed ‘became’ a tree,&nbsp;<em>ginomai</em>&nbsp;carrying the sense of being ‘caused to become’. This was another element of the unreal- a shrub became a tree. It is (<em><a href='B:470 13:32'>Mat 13:32</a></em>) "the greatest"; but the mustard bush is not the greatest herb and it is far from the tallest tree. The emphasis is on the word “it”- when&nbsp;<em>this&nbsp;</em>particular tiny seed grows… The point is that this particular tiny seed had extraordinary growth. This on one hand speaks of the amazing growth experienced by the believer from the apparently tiny beginnings of the Gospel. And yet the specific language of&nbsp;<em>the greatest</em>&nbsp;suggests the entire parable may refer to the Lord Jesus, the ultimate seed, tiny and despised, yet who grew to become the Kingdom of God under whose branches the Gentile world would find blessing. For 'the Kingdom' was a legitimate title for Jesus, the King of the Kingdom who embodied it in His very person (<em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>). If here the Lord (as elsewhere) is speaking parables to and about Himself, it would in this context be in encouraging others as to the huge extent of growth possible. For Jesus is the parade example of how something which began so small- an egg within the womb of a barefoot unmarried teenager- could become so great.</p><p>The mustard seed becomes a tree so big that all the birds of the air can live in it (<em><a href='B:480 4:32'>Mar 4:32</a></em>). But mustard trees aren't&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;big. Surely the point is that the small seed of the Gospel produces a quite out of proportion result- by reading literature, spotting a press advertisement, getting baptized... we will by grace become part of the Kingdom of God, and provide shelter to the nations of this world. This is the extraordinary power of the Gospel. This is how far it will take us, and the extent to which we can, through the Gospel, become saviours of men. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:33'>Mat 13:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 17:18'>Rev 17:18</a></em>.</p><p>Mark records that the Lord emphasized that the branches were "great",&nbsp;<em>megas</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 4:32'>Mar 4:32</a></em>). The&nbsp;<em>mikro</em>&nbsp;seed became&nbsp;<em>mega</em>; but the greatness of the tree was because of the greatness of the individual branches. A mustard bush doesn't have 'great' branches, but in this unreal story, it does have them. According to the Lord's parable of <em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>, the branches represented the disciples: "I am the vine, you are the branches". The total greatness of the Lord Jesus depends to some extent upon the degree to which we grow into great branches. The disciples were depressed at the lack of response to their message, and the failure of John's ministry in first century Palestine. The Lord is encouraging them personally that from their&nbsp;<em>mikro</em>, tiny beginnings, they would become great branches, and be able to provide shelter for the birds of the Gentiles; although the "birds" in the earlier parable of the sower were representative of the Jewish religious leaders. When the disciples later baptized priests and Pharisees, the Lord's ambitious vision began to come true.</p><p>There are a number of insights throughout the parables into how the Lord perceived His future Kingdom. Significantly, His emphasis in the parables of the Kingdom is upon our spiritual status then, rather than on the physical wonders which His reign will bring on the earth. He&nbsp;foresaw how although our faith is so puny now, as a mustard seed, we will be those who will be as a solid tree, a real place of refuge, to the nations of the Millennium (<em><a href='B:470 13:31-32'>Mat 13:31-32</a></em> = <em><a href='B:330 17:23-24'>Eze 17:23-24</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Each of the records of the great preaching commission in the Gospels ties in with earlier passages within the same Gospel record. Mark’s “preach the gospel to every creature” is to be understood in the context of the Lord’s prophecy that the seed of His Gospel would be sown by preaching, and would result in creatures&nbsp;of all kinds coming under its’ shadow (<em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em> cp. 4:32). The extent of witness we make is our choice; and according to how well we do it, so the extent of the shadow of the Kingdom gives shelter to many kinds.</p>


text:
<p>4:33&nbsp;<em>And with many such parables he spoke the word to them, according as they were able to understand it</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus spoke the word to men “as they were able to understand it”, not as He was able to expound it. He didn’t always relay to men the maximum level of understanding which He Himself possessed. The language of Jesus as recorded in John's Gospel is very different to that we encounter in the other Gospels. Indeed, the difference is so striking that some have claimed that John put the words into Jesus' mouth in his account. My suggestion is that the Lord did in fact say all the words attributed to Him in all the Gospel records. But He had two levels of talking with people- a Heavenly, spiritual kind of style (which John picked up on); and also a more earthly one, which Matthew, Mark and Luke tended to record. In our context, the simple point that emerges is that Jesus spoke in different ways to different people; He tailored His language in accordance with His audience. It's significant that there are no records of Jesus casting out demons in John's record; this occurs only in the more audience-friendly accounts of the Synoptics.</p><p>There is&nbsp;tendency, it seems to me, for brethren particularly to insist on flaunting their knowledge, to have to correct others who have inferior knowledge or less mature interpretations. The Lord taught men the word “as they were able to hear it” (<em><a href='B:480 4:33'>Mar 4:33</a></em>), not as He was able to expound it. If we ask where He obtained this humility and ability from, it is clearly an inheritance from His dear mother, who stored up things in her heart and didn’t reveal them to others, just quietly meditating over the years. He spoke the word to men “as&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were able to&nbsp;<em>hear</em>&nbsp;it”- He didn’t always relay to men the maximum level of understanding which He Himself possessed. There is a tendency amongst some personality types to turn every disagreement over interpretation of Scripture into a right: wrong, truth : error scenario. Matters relating to basic doctrine are capable of being dealt with like this. But to turn the interpretation of every Bible verse into a conflict area is a recipe for ecclesial disaster. So often the debate becomes personal, with a brother sure that&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;is right and the other wrong, and the other must be shown to be wrong. This leads inevitably to pride, and there is the possibility that the other party is degraded and feels abused by the other. We simply have to accept that much of Scripture is open to various levels of interpretation, which if placed side by side would appear to be contradictory. Consider, for example, how many different applications the NT gives to Psalms 2, 110.</p>


text:
<p>4:34&nbsp;<em>Without a parable he did not speak to them, but in private he explained all things to his own disciples</em>-</p><p> As noted earlier, this marked a changeover in His ministry. He&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;spoke to Israel in parables; there was no more of the plain teaching of the Kingdom as found in the sermon on the mount. They were expected to have grasped that. If they did not, then it was too late. He also designed things so that He explained the truth of things to those who came to Him wishing to understand, rather than those who simply wanted to experience healings.</p>


text:
<p>4:35&nbsp;<em>And on that day, when evening had come, he said to them: Let us go over to the other side of the lake</em>-</p><p> "That day" refers to the longest day recorded in all the Gospels.</p>


text:
<p>4:36&nbsp;<em>And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him-&nbsp;</em>"Just as he was" could imply He had fainted or was unwell. He would have endured immense nervous pressure from the ministry of this very long and active day.</p>


text:
<p>4:37&nbsp;<em>And there arose a great wind storm and the waves slammed into the boat, so much so that the boat was now filling</em>-</p><p> The changes of tense in the Gospel records suggest an eye witness telling the story. "And there arises a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the boat, insomuch that the boat was now filling" (RV). But the rest of the account in the surrounding verses is in proper past tenses- e.g. "He arose, and rebuked the wind, and said..." (:39). The impression we have is of the author getting carried away with the memory of the event, and telling it as if it's happening. And this is especially fitting if in fact the Gospels were performed live rather than coldly memorized as prose.</p><p>The word used for the storm in <em><a href='B:470 8:24'>Mat 8:24</a></em> is also translated "earthquake". "Arose" uses the same Greek word as found in <em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em> "there was / arose a great calm". Just as easily as God can raise up a crisis, He can raise up the resolution to it:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:38- see on <em><a href='B:470 8:25'>Mat 8:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:13'>Joh 10:13</a></em>.</p><p><em>And he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they awoke him, and said to him-&nbsp;</em>The waves from the earthquake "covered" or 'hid' s:w. the ship (Mt:). 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;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><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><p>'Awoke' is 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>Teacher, do you not care that we perish?</em>-</p><p> 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>Matthew records that they asked Him to save them, because "We perish". 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>


text:
<p>4:39&nbsp;<em>And he awoke and rebuked the wind-&nbsp;</em>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><em>And said to the sea: Peace Be still. And the wind ceased and there was a great calm</em>-</p><p> 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:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>; <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>4:40- see on <em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>And he said to them: Why are you fearful? Do you still not have faith?</em>-</p><p> Fear and unbelief are again connected in <em><a href='B:730 21:8'>Rev 21:8</a></em>. The unbelief refers ultimately to disbelief in our salvation, fear of condemnation; see on <em><a href='B:480 8:25'>Mar 8:25</a></em> 'We perish'. The question as to&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;they had little faith (Mt:) 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.</p>


text:
<p>4:41&nbsp;<em>And they feared exceedingly, and said to each other: Who then is this?- "</em>What manner of man is this" (<em><a href='B:470 8:27'>Mat 8:27</a></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>Jesus does not&nbsp;proclaim Himself, and yet He expects us to base our lives around Him. This is yet another paradox. Clearly we are intended to reconstruct Him from our repeated and sensitive readings of the Gospels. We in our day must read the Gospel records, portraying Him as they do from four different angles, and seek to reconstruct Him in our own minds as a person. His actions spoke loudly and in this He is a pattern to us in our witness. When He stilled the storm, the disciples marvelled: "What manner of man is this?", knowing full well 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 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>Even the wind and the sea obey him-&nbsp;</em>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>:&nbsp;</em>See too commentary on Matthew 8 and Luke 8.</p><p><em>And they came to the other side of the sea-&nbsp;</em>The Gospel records, Mark especially, often paint a broad scene and then zoom in upon the person of Jesus. Mark does this by using a plural verb&nbsp;<em>without an explicit subject</em>&nbsp;to paint a picture of the disciples or crowd generally; and then follows this by a singular verb or pronoun referring specifically to Jesus. Here are some examples: "They came to the other side... and when He had stepped out of the boat" (<em><a href='B:480 5:1-2'>Mar 5:1-2</a></em>); "when they came from Bethany, he was hungry" (<em><a href='B:480 8:22'>Mar 8:22</a></em>); "they went to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples..." (<em><a href='B:480 14:32'>Mar 14:32</a></em>). The grammatical feature is more evident in Greek than in English. If the writer of Mark had been a cameraman, he'd have taken a broad sweep, and then suddenly hit the zoom to focus right up close upon Jesus Himself. This is what is being done with words, and it reflects the Christ-centeredness of the whole narrative and preaching of the Gospel, of which the Gospels are transcripts.</p><p><em>Into the country of the Gerasenes</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>5:2&nbsp;<em>And when he got out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit</em>-</p><p> "Immediately" suggests the man was waiting for Him; although :6 says that Legion ran to the Lord from far away, which would make the "immediately" here relative, and intended to create an impression of fast moving action. From his isolated hideouts on the cliffs, he had seen the boat traversing the lake so many times. And he was convinced that within it there was the Son of God. "With an unclean spirit" appears to contradict the idea that he had a legion of such spirits within him- until we accept that this is just the language of the day for mental illness. We are not reading here about literal spirits. See on :7. But when we meet a similar situation in <em><a href='B:510 8:7'>Act 8:7</a></em> of unclean spirits crying out, the Eastern (Aramaic) text reads: "Many who were mentally afflicted cried out". This is because, according to George Lamsa, "Unclean spirits" is an Aramaic term used to describe lunatics" (George Lamsa,&nbsp;<em>New Testament Commentary</em>&nbsp;(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>


text:
<p>5:3&nbsp;<em>Who had his dwelling in the tombs; no one could any more bind him, even with a chain</em>-</p><p> 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>-&nbsp;Israel were “A people... which remain among the tombs, and lodge in the monuments” (<em><a href='B:290 65:3-4'>Isa 65:3-4</a></em>).</p><p>- Legion was always “in the mountains”- the "high places" where Israel sinned (<em><a href='B:290 65:7'>Isa 65:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 4:13'>Hos 4:13</a></em>).</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 <em><a href='B:330 33:24'>Eze 33:24</a></em> about Israel: “Son of man, they that inhabit those wastes of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one, and he inherited the land: but&nbsp;<em>we are many</em>; 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?”.</p><p>- Legion had often been bound with fetters and chains (<em><a href='B:480 5:3-4'>Mar 5:3-4</a></em>)- just as God's people had so often been taken into captivity in "fetters and chains” (<em><a href='B:140 33:11'>2Ch 33:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 36:6'>2Ch 36:6</a></em>, <em><a href='B:120 24:7'>2Ki 24:7</a></em>).</p><p>- When the sick man asks that the unclean spirits not be sent "out of the country" (<em><a href='B:480 5:10'>Mar 5:10</a></em>), 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 <em><a href='B:450 13:2'>Zec 13:2</a></em>: “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”.</p><p>- The herd of pigs being "destroyed" in the water recalls the Egyptians being “destroyed” in the Red Sea when Israel were delivered from Gentile power before. The Gadarene Gentiles "were afraid", just as the Gentile world was at the time of the Exodus (<em><a href='B:20 15:14'>Exo 15:14</a></em>). The curing of Legion is termed “great things” (<em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em>); and Israel's exodus from Gentile power and the destruction of the Egyptians is likewise called “great things” (<em><a href='B:230 106:21'>Psa 106:21</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>5:4&nbsp;<em>For he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him</em>-</p><p> See on :3 for the connection between Legion and Judah. 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>5:5&nbsp;<em>Always, night and day, in the tombs and in the mountains, he was crying out and cutting himself with stones</em>-</p><p> A psychological approach to the self-mutilation which is a classic symptom of mental illness would be to understand it as him trying to stone himself, convinced he was unworthy and deserving of condemnation. No surprise, in this case, that the presence of Jesus lifted that sense of condemnation from him, and the miracle of the pigs was therefore performed to assure him that his sin really had been removed and condemned by drowning in the sea a figure of condemnation in <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em> and <em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em>. The French social scientist René Girard commented at length upon the curing of the demoniac. He took the gashing of himself with stones as being representative of the man's desire to stone himself, and he observes the phenomena of "autolapidation" (self-stoning) as being common within the mentally disturbed. But he observes further that the pigs running over the cliff has "ritual and penal connotations" in that both stoning and being thrown over a cliff were common methods of execution in primitive societies (René Girard,&nbsp;<em>The Scapegoat</em>&nbsp;(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986) p. 176. The same points are made in Jean Starobinski, "The Gerasene Demoniac", in Roland Barthes et al, eds:,&nbsp;<em>Structural Analysis and Biblical Exegesis</em>&nbsp;(Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974) pp. 57-84). We recall how the townspeople tried to execute Jesus by throwing Him off a cliff (<em><a href='B:490 4:29'>Luk 4:29</a></em>). And yet Jesus turned the man's fears on their head; for the pigs, representing the crowd who wished to stone the man and throw him off the cliff, are the ones who are thrown over the cliff by Jesus. The crowd therefore suffer the execution which they wished to inflict upon the victim. Thus "the miracle of Gerasa reverses the universal schema of violence fundamental to all societies" (<em>Ibid</em>&nbsp;p. 179). Now we understand why Jesus declined Legion's request to follow Him on His mission, but insisted he instead return to his own society and live at peace with them. For Jesus had taught the man that the crowd he feared were no more, the lynch mob he obsessively feared had themselves been lynched over the cliff. The man begged that the demons&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;be cast into the sea (<em><a href='B:490 8:31'>Luk 8:31</a></em>) in the sense that he himself feared being cast over the cliff into the sea by the mob. But that fear was taken away by Jesus; for it was the demons, the lynch mob which he feared, the Roman Legions, which he saw represented by the pigs, hurtling to their own destruction over the cliff.</p>


text:
<p>5:6&nbsp;<em>And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him</em>-</p><p> Yet the man is described as "immediately" meeting the Lord; see on :2. His worship suggests He had heard and processed the works and teaching of the Lord, and come to the conclusion which the Lord never stated in so many words- that He was the Son of God. The Lord's style was to let His audience join the dots and come to that conclusion; and this mentally disturbed homeless man was one of the few who did so and saw the picture. It was His illness which stopped Him credibly and usefully proclaiming that; and so the Lord cured that dimension of the man.</p>


text:
<p>5:7&nbsp;<em>And crying out with a loud voice, he said: What have I to do with you, Jesus, you Son of the Most High God? I solemnly implore you by God, do not torment me</em>-</p><p> See on :6. 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&nbsp;<em>me</em>&nbsp;not" (<em><a href='B:480 5:7'>Mar 5:7</a></em>) = “Are you come to torment&nbsp;<em>us</em>?” (<em><a href='B:470 8:29'>Mat 8:29</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>“<em>He</em>&nbsp;singular besought him” (<em><a href='B:480 5:9'>Mar 5:9</a></em>) = "<em>the demons</em>&nbsp;besought him" (<em><a href='B:480 5:12'>Mar 5:12</a></em>)&nbsp;</p><p>The man's own words explain his self-perception: "<em>My</em>&nbsp;name singular is Legion: for&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;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>


text:
<p>5:8&nbsp;<em>For Jesus had said to him: Unclean spirit, come out of the man</em>-</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 (:7).</p>


text:
<p>5:9&nbsp;<em>And he asked the spirit: What is your name?-&nbsp;</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 the spirit replied: My name is Legion. For we are many</em>-</p><p> I have outlined in :3 how 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,&nbsp;<em>Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations</em>&nbsp;(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001) p. 71; Warren Carter,&nbsp;<em>Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-political and Religious Reading</em>&nbsp;(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,&nbsp;<em>Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus</em>&nbsp;(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,&nbsp;<em>Sociology of Earliest Palestinian Christianity</em>&nbsp;(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,&nbsp;<em>"My name is Legion": The Story and Soul of the Gerasene Demoniac</em>&nbsp;(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,&nbsp;</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,&nbsp;<em>Unmasking the Powers</em>&nbsp;(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,&nbsp;<em>The Gospel and the Sacred: Poetics of Violence in Mark</em>&nbsp;(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:&nbsp;<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,&nbsp;<em>The Wretched of the Earth</em>&nbsp;(New York: Grove Press, 1963) p. 57. See too his&nbsp;<em>Black Skin, White Masks</em>&nbsp;(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",&nbsp;<em>Journal of the American Academy of Religion,&nbsp;</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,&nbsp;<em>Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark's Gospel</em>&nbsp;(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&nbsp;</em>p. 147). Newheart writes in very similar terms: "Jesus... demystified the demons, showing that the real culprit was Rome" (Newheart,&nbsp;<em>op cit</em>&nbsp;p. 84).</p>


text:
<p>5:10&nbsp;<em>And he pleaded earnestly with him not to send them out of the country</em>-</p><p> This is the man's fear of condemnation, noted on :8. Note that the sick man is paralleled with the demons. "<em>He</em>&nbsp;begged him earnestly not to send&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;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&nbsp;</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&nbsp;<em>people&nbsp;</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&nbsp;<em>him,&nbsp;</em>Come out of the man, you unclean spirit". He doesn't say to the<em>&nbsp;unclean spirit</em>&nbsp;"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&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;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>5:11&nbsp;<em>Now there was there on the mountain side a great herd of pigs feeding</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 8:30'>Mat 8:30</a></em>&nbsp;<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>


text:
<p>5:12&nbsp;<em>And they pleaded with him, saying: Send us into the pigs, let us enter into them</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 8:31'>Mat 8:31</a></em> adds:&nbsp;<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 ask 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><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 devil into the wilderness”, in the same way as the Lord had been driven into the wilderness&nbsp;<em>by the spirit</em>&nbsp;(<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&nbsp;<em>Antiquities of the Jews</em>&nbsp;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>Mark 5 records three prayers to Jesus: "The demons besought him", and "Jesus gave them leave" (:12,13); the Gadarenes "began to beg him to depart out of their coasts" (:17); and He obliged. And yet when the cured, earnestly zealous man "begged him that he might be with him... Jesus suffered him not" (:18,19). After the fascination, physically and intellectually, had worn off, very few of the crowds continued their interest. The Lord scarcely converted more than 100 people in the course of His ministry. We are familiar, from our own experience of sin and failure, with the pure grace of the Lord Jesus. We see that largeness and generosity of spirit within Him, that manifestation of the God of love, that willingness to concede to our weakness; and therefore we can tend to overlook the fact that the Lord Jesus set uncompromisingly high standards. I would even use the word "demanding" about His attitude.</p>


text:
<p>5:13&nbsp;<em>So he gave them permission-&nbsp;</em>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,&nbsp;<em>and enter no more</em>&nbsp;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&nbsp;<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&nbsp;<em>aide memoire</em>&nbsp;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 behaviour 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,&nbsp;<em>Indian Journal of Psychiatry</em>&nbsp;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><em>And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the pigs; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the hill into the sea and were drowned in the sea</em>-</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,&nbsp;<em>Science and Christian Tradition</em>&nbsp;(New York: Appleton, 1899) p. 225).</p>


text:
<p>5:14&nbsp;<em>And they that fed them fled and told it in the city and in the country. And they came to see what it was that had happened</em>-</p><p> "What had happened" was the cure of Legion; they came to investigate, and saw the cured man (:15). 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>5:15&nbsp;<em>And they came to Jesus and saw him who had been possessed with demons, that previously had the legion, sitting, clothed and in his right mind- and they were afraid</em>-</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>5:16&nbsp;<em>And they that saw it described to them what had happened to him that was previously possessed with demons, and about what had happened to the pigs</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>5:17&nbsp;<em>And they began to beg him to depart from their borders</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>5:18&nbsp;<em>And as he was entering into the boat, he that had been possessed with demons pleaded with him that he might go with him</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>5:19&nbsp;<em>But Jesus did not permit him. Instead he said to him: Go to your home, to your family, and tell them how great things the Lord has done for you and how he had mercy on you</em>-</p><p> See on :18 and :20. 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.</p>


text:
<p>5:20&nbsp;<em>And he went his way and began to publish in Decapolis the great things Jesus had done for him, and all men marvelled</em>-</p><p> This preaching in Decapolis 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><em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em></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;ten cities&nbsp;</em>Decapolis</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>unto your&nbsp;<em>friends&nbsp;</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><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>&nbsp;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>


text:
<p>5:21&nbsp;<em>And when Jesus had crossed over again by boat to the other side, a great crowd was gathered to him; and he was by the sea</em>-</p><p> Just as Legion "immediately" met the Lord on His arrival on the shore (:2), so on going back to "the other side", there was a great crowd waiting for the Lord "by the sea", on the shore. Jairus must have had to push himself to the front of that crowd (:22). According to the parallel in <em><a href='B:470 9:18'>Mat 9:18</a></em>, the Lord began teaching the crowd immediately. Again we see that teaching was the primary focus of His ministry, for surely the crowds were expecting healings. The impression is given in Matthew that the ruler was begging the Lord for the healing of his daughter, but instead the Lord delayed responding in order to complete the teaching He was giving about the vital need for total transformation if we have received the new wine. He felt His message was that important. We also notice something which we see several times in the Gospel records- the Lord appears to not respond to human need, to even be deaf to it. For a while. The reason for that, both then and now, was surely to pique the intensity and urgency of the requests.</p>


text:
<p>5:22&nbsp;<em>And there came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name-</em></p><p>Matthew omits his name- perhaps because his Gospel first circulated in areas local to Jairus where the mention of his name could've led to persecution? 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 (see on :21). 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 seeing him, he fell at his feet</em>-</p><p> This kneeling (Mt:) was in worship; just as Legion had done on the sea shore the other side of the lake. The same formula is used in <em><a href='B:470 8:2'>Mat 8:2</a></em> - the leper worshipped Jesus in that he expressed faith in His power to cleanse (also in <em><a href='B:470 15:25'>Mat 15:25</a></em>). 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>


text:
<p>5:23&nbsp;<em>And implored him earnestly, saying: My little daughter is at the point of death-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:470 9:18'>Mat 9:18</a></em> "My daughter is even now dead". The Greek could carry the idea of 'for now, she is dead' (see the usage in <em><a href='B:470 3:15'>Mat 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:7'>Joh 13:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:12'>Joh 16:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:31'>Joh 16:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em> etc:); in this case, the man believed her death state was only temporary, until the resurrection he believed Jesus would achieve.</p><p><em>I beg you to come and lay your hands on her, that she may be made whole and live</em>-</p><p> The man "came" to Jesus, and now Jesus 'comes' to the man; the same Greek word is used twice. The impression is given of a mutuality between the Lord and those who come to Him in faith.</p>


text:
<p>5:24&nbsp;<em>And Jesus went with him; and a great crowd followed him, and they pressed upon him</em>-</p><p> This verse zooms in close on the body language and physical movement of the characters, as if the author was the cameraman on the scene. Truly we have eye witness accounts in places like this. The image of the Lord Jesus following a man stressed in Matthew is unusual, as readers are accustomed to the disciples following the Lord, not Him following men. The point perhaps is that He is responsive to human need and prayer in a sense controls Him, according to His will of course. The picture is of the man racing ahead, so eager to get home. This sets the scene for the interruption to the journey, and serves to heighten the sense we get of his frustration with the woman who is taking up the Lord's time, when for him, every second counted so crucially.</p>


text:
<p>5:25&nbsp;<em>And a woman, who for twelve years had an issue of blood</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.</p>


text:
<p>5:26&nbsp;<em>And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had and was nothing bettered but rather grew worse</em>-</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>). 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>5:27&nbsp;<em>Having heard the things about Jesus, came from the crowd behind him-&nbsp;</em>The scene is being developed from :24, 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 his garment</em>-</p><p> Mt. "the hem". 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 herself with 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>


text:
<p>5:28&nbsp;<em>For she said: If I touch but his garments-&nbsp;</em>Mt. 'she said within herself'. She had the same wrong notion as many Orthodox and Catholic believers have today- that some physical item can give healing. The Lord corrected her by telling her that it was&nbsp;<em>her faith</em>-</p><p> not the touch of His garment- that had made her whole (<em><a href='B:470 9:21-22'>Mat 9:21-22</a></em>). As so often, He had focused on what was positive in her, rather than the negative. We know that usually the Lord looked for faith in people before healing them. Yet after this incident there are examples of where those who merely sought to touch His garment were healed (<em><a href='B:480 6:56'>Mar 6:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:19'>Luk 6:19</a></em>). They were probably hopeful that they would have a similar experience to the woman. One could argue they were mere opportunists, as were their relatives who got them near enough to Jesus’ clothes. And probably there was a large element of this in them. But the Lord saw through all this to what faith there was, and responded to it. It is perhaps not accidental that Mark records the link between faith and Jesus’ decision to heal in the same chapter (<em><a href='B:480 6:5'>Mar 6:5</a></em>). When we fear there is interest in our message only for what material benefit there may be for the hearers, we need to remember this. To identify wrong motives doesn’t mean that we turn away; we must look deeper, and hope more strongly.</p><p><em>I shall be made whole</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>sozo</em>&nbsp;is that usually used for 'saved'. She had a wider desire for not only healing (for which other Greek words could have been used) but for salvation on a wider level.</p>


text:
<p>5:29&nbsp;<em>And immediately the fountain of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her illness</em>-</p><p> The immediacy of the Lord's cure contrasted sharply with all human attempts at curing an internal disease. "Healed of her illness" is literally "healed of her flogging". For that is how the Greek translated "illness" here is usually translated. We sense an allusion to the prophecy that by the Lord's floggings / stripes we are healed (<em><a href='B:290 53:5'>Isa 53:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>). The woman becomes thereby typical of us all. Our stripes / floggings become His; and thereby, through the representational nature of His life and sacrifice, we are healed.</p>


text:
<p>5:30&nbsp;<em>And immediately Jesus, perceiving in himself that the power proceeding from him had gone forth, turned towards the crowd and said: Who touched my garments?</em>-</p><p> This gives an insight into the huge outflow of energy from the Lord when He healed people. As noted on :29, 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>5:31- see on <em><a href='B:480 14:70'>Mar 14:70</a></em>.</p><p><em>And his disciples said to him: You saw the crowd pressing upon you and you ask, Who touched me?</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 in :40.</p>


text:
<p>5:32&nbsp;<em>And he looked around to see who had done this thing</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em> "But Jesus turning and seeing her<em>...".</em>&nbsp;Again the emphasis is upon recording the physical movement of the persons involved in the scene, so that we can visually reconstruct it. The Gospel records, Luke especially, often record how the Lord turned and spoke to His followers- as if He was in the habit of walking ahead of them, with them following (<em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:44'>Luk 7:44</a></em> <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:25'>Luk 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:28'>Luk 23:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>). Peter thought that following the Lord was not so hard, because he was literally following Jesus around first century Israel, and identifying himself with His cause. But he simply failed to make the connection between following and cross carrying. And we too can agree to follow the Lord without realizing that it means laying down our lives. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>5:33&nbsp;<em>But the woman, fearing and trembling, knowing what had been done to her, came and fell down before him and told him all the truth</em>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p>5:34&nbsp;<em>And he said to her: Daughter-&nbsp;</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-&nbsp;</em>The&nbsp;<em>faith</em>&nbsp;of the sick woman is commended by the Lord (<em><a href='B:480 5:34'>Mar 5:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:20'>Mat 9:20</a></em>)- when it was due to her&nbsp;<em>understanding</em>&nbsp;of the significance of the&nbsp;<em>hem</em>&nbsp;of the Lord's robe that she had touched Him. She had perceived the connection with the High Priest's hem; perhaps too she had added Job's comment about our touching but the hem of God's garment into the equation. And certainly she perceived that the sun of righteousness of Malachi 4 had healing in his hems / wings of his garment.</p><p>The Centurion’s servant was healed for the sake of&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;faith; Jairus’ daughter was healed because of&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;faith (<em><a href='B:480 5:36'>Mar 5:36</a></em>). Hence the Lord told them to believe and stop wavering, so that she would be made whole, or “saved” (<em><a href='B:490 8:50'>Luk 8:50</a></em>). This comes straight after the Lord’s commendation of the woman with “an issue of blood” whose faith hath made her whole or, saved. It’s as if the two healings are similar in their result- being made whole, or saved- and both required faith. But the woman’s own personal faith which led to her healing is paralleled with the faith of the family of the girl who was resurrected.</p><p><em>Go in peace and be free of your illness</em>-</p><p> The woman was fearful of condemnation, and so the Lord wished her peace, with God. Her full healing was only now pronounced, although she had felt it already within herself. The Lord required public confession from her; and so He does today.</p>


text:
<p>5:35&nbsp;<em>While he was still speaking, some came from the ruler of the synagogue's house, saying: Your daughter is dead. Why do you trouble the Teacher any further?</em>-</p><p> Luke adds: “There comes one from the ruler of the synagogue’s house, saying to him, Your daughter is dead, trouble not the Master” (<em><a href='B:490 8:49'>Luk 8:49</a></em>). We naturally ask:&nbsp;<em>who</em>&nbsp;was this “one” along with the "some" mentioned by Mark who came with this message? In the Gospels, it is often the disciples who term Jesus “the Master”, which is how Matthew records the form of address. And it is the disciples who ever show themselves concerned at others 'troubling the master'; every time they try to turn people away from Him on this basis the children, their mothers, the Phoenician woman etc:, He makes a point of accepting and working with those whom they sought to bar from Him. 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.</p>


text:
<p>5:36&nbsp;<em>But Jesus, not heeding the word spoken, said to the ruler of the synagogue: Fear not, only believe</em>-</p><p> The implication could be that the Lord, just like us, was momentarily tempted to heed that bad news and falter in faith. But as so often, His words to Jairus were spoken effectively to Himself. This shows the power of fear- it is fear which stops faith, fear is the opposite of faith. If we know the love that casts out fear, then a whole new style of relationships becomes possible. In so many relationships there is a balance of power which is more realistically a balance of fear- a fear of losing, of being made to look small, a fighting back with self-affirmation against the fear of being subsumed by the other. Be it parents and kids, teachers and students, pastor and flock, so often both sides fear the other. Yet if we are truly affirmed in Christ, no longer seeking victory because we have found victory in Him, His victories become ours… then our whole positioning in relationships becomes so different. For example, our fear of rejection becomes less significant if we believe firmly in our acceptance in the eyes of the Lord, the only one whose judgment has ultimate value. If we can say with Paul that for us the judgment of others has very little value, because we only have one judge… then we will no longer worrying about acting in such a way as to impress others. No longer will it be so important to not express our inner thoughts about people or situations for fear of not using the constant ‘nicespeak’ which results in judgment from others unless it’s used. There will be a congruence between what we feel and think within us, and what we actually show. And thus we will avoid the dysfunction which is so apparent in so many, as they forever struggle to control their outward expressions, hiding their real self, with the real self and the external self struggling against each other in a painful dis-ease.</p>


text:
<p>5:37- see on <em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>And he permitted no one to follow him-&nbsp;</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 (:40; Mt. "Leave").</p><p><em>Save Peter, James and John the brother of James</em>-</p><p> These were clearly the inner three whom He especially sought to educate further.</p>


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


text:
<p>5:39- see on <em><a href='B:510 21:13'>Act 21:13</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when he had entered, he said to them: Why make you a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeps</em>-</p><p> The Lord dismissed the noise of the flute players as a mere "tumult". 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>5:40&nbsp;<em>And they laughed him to scorn-&nbsp;</em>This is recorded in all three of the Synoptics. It made a deep impression upon them all. The Greek could suggest (although not necessarily) that there was a process of derision here which left the Lord looking somehow scorned ("to scorn"). Perhaps He blushed, or looked at the ground- for He was after all human. Clearly these people were just the hired mourners and flute players. There was an element of anger in their derision because clearly money and payment were at issue if they were to just be sent away.</p><p>Luke records how Peter, James, John and the parents of the dead girl entered the house where she was&nbsp;<em>alone</em>; and then "they" laughed Jesus to scorn when He proclaimed she was merely asleep (<em><a href='B:490 8:51'>Luk 8:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:53'>Luk 8:53</a></em>). It's psychologically unlikely that the distraught, desperately hopeful parents would've ridiculed Jesus like this at that time. The reference is surely to the three disciples doing this. This is a profound recognition of the disciples' weakness- there, alone with Jesus and the distraught parents, they mocked Jesus' ability to resurrect the girl. And they have the profound humility to tell the world about that in their record of the Gospel.</p><p><em>But he, having put them outside, took the father of the child and her mother and those that were with him, and went to where the child was</em>-</p><p> The Lord was consciously seeking to reduce the element of hysteria at the miracle He knew He was going to do. Pentecostals need to note this. He wanted as few as possible to see the dead body actually revive. There was perhaps a similar logic in the way His own resurrection was not done publicly and His risen body was only seen by a relatively few rather than being displayed publicly. This was not His way, nor the Father's way, even during His ministry.</p>


text:
<p>5:41&nbsp;<em>And taking the child by the hand, he said to her: Talitha cumi, which means, little girl, I say to you, rise</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>"Rise" here 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" (:39). 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>5:42&nbsp;<em>And immediately the girl got up and began walking (for she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement</em>-</p><p> We note the connection with the woman who had been sick for twelve years. God was at work in parallel in those lives over that period. Their being overcome with amazement reads rather negatively; amazement rather than faith and thanksgiving. The same word is used of the women's amazement at the news of the Lord's resurrection, having again been told not to weep (<em><a href='B:480 16:8'>Mar 16:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>5:43&nbsp;<em>And he strictly ordered them that no one should know about this-&nbsp;</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 (<em><a href='B:490 8:56'>Luk 8:56</a></em>)- for it would have been obvious, surely. For they knew she had died (8:53). 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.</p><p><em>And told them to give her something to eat</em>-</p><p> We see here a window into His sensitivity and thoughtfulness. Despite the inevitable hysteria of joy experienced by the parents, He realized she was hungry, not having eaten for a long time.</p>


text:
<p>6:1&nbsp;<em>And he left there and went to his own country; and his disciples followed him</em>-</p><p> An artless reflection of the way in which He really was so human, having His “own” native area- here on this earth and not in any pre-existent form in Heaven He had a very common Jewish name. The brothers of Jesus had names which were among the commonest Jewish names at the time- James, Joseph, Simon and Judas (<em><a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em>). I know we know this, but just remember how Jesus truly shared our nature. He smelt the smells of the marketplace, as He walked around helping a little child crying because he'd lost his mum. From the larynx of a Palestinian Jew there truly came the words of Almighty God. There, in the very flesh and body tissue of the man Jesus, was God manifested in flesh. And yet that wondrous man, that being, that Son of God who had no human father, readily laughed at the funny side of events, just like anyone else. His hands and arms would have been those of a working man. He is always described as walking everywhere- and it's been calculated that He must have walked 10,000 km. during His ministry. He slept under the Olive trees at the foot of the Mount of Olives; the Son of man had nowhere to lay His head. So He would often have appeared a bit rough, His feet would have developed large blisters, and His skin would have been sunburnt. Palestine was infested with bandits at the time. It was almost inevitable that the Lord was robbed and threatened at least once. He would have gone through all the gut feelings one does when they are mugged: the initial shock, the obvious question that skates through the mind 'How much harm are they gonna do me…?', the bad taste left in the mouth afterwards, the way one keeps on re-living every moment of what happened. He would have known those feelings. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:2<em>&nbsp;And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying: Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom given to him? What mighty works are done by his hands</em>-</p><p> To my mind, one of the most artless and surpassing things about the Lord was that He lived a sinless life for 30 years, and yet when He began His ministry those He lived with were shocked that He could ever be the Messiah. He was “in favour” with men (<em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>), not despised and resented as many righteous men have been. He was the carpenter, a good guy- but not Son of God. Somehow He showed utter perfection in a manner which didn’t distance ordinary people from Him. There was no ‘other-wordliness’ to Him which we so often project to those we live with. We seem to find it hard to live a good life without appearing somehow distasteful to those around us. In fact the villagers were scandalized&nbsp;<em>skandalizein</em>&nbsp;that Jesus should even be a religious figure; they had never noticed His wisdom, and wondered where He had suddenly gotten it from (<em><a href='B:480 6:2-3'>Mar 6:2-3</a></em>). This suppression of His specialness, His uniqueness, must have been most disarming and confusing to Mary. Her son appeared as an ordinary man; there was no halo around His head, no special signs. Just an ordinary guy. And this may well have eroded her earlier clear understanding that here in her arms was the Son of God. Until age 30, the Lord was “hidden” as an arrow in a quiver (<em><a href='B:290 49:2'>Isa 49:2</a></em>). So profound was this that Mary may have come to doubt whether after all He was really as special as she had thought, 30 years ago. 30 years is a long time. We also need to bear in mind that opposition to Jesus both from the other siblings and from His home town was significant. A fair case can be made that He actually moved away to Capernaum, perhaps before the start of His ministry. <em><a href='B:480 2:1'>Mar 2:1</a></em> RVmg. describes Him as being “at home” there; <em><a href='B:470 4:13'>Mat 4:13</a></em> NIV says He lived there; <em><a href='B:470 9:1'>Mat 9:1</a></em> calls it his “own city” (cp. <em><a href='B:480 2:1'>Mar 2:1</a></em>). Don’t forget that the Nazareth people tried to kill Jesus early on in His ministry- this was how strong the opposition was. And Mary had to show herself for or against... and it seems she at least on the surface didn’t exactly show herself for Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:3<em>&nbsp;Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended by him</em>-</p><p> See on :2:It has been suggested that the title “son of Mary” given to Him in <em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em> implied that they considered Him illegitimate- for men were usually called by their father’s name. "Jesus, son of Mary” has a pejorative sense… there is a Jewish principle: A man is illegitimate when he is called by his mother’s name”. The perception of the surrounding world may have influenced Joseph, and must have surely given rise to at least temptations of doubt within Mary as the years went by. &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em>. It has also&nbsp;been observed that it was unusual for the villagers to describe Jesus as “the son of Mary” (<em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em>)- even if Joseph were dead, He would have been known as Jesus-ben-Joseph. It could well be that this was a reflection of their perception of how closely linked Jesus was to His mother. &nbsp;</p><p>According to Talmudic writings like&nbsp;<em>Yebamot</em>&nbsp;78b, <em><a href='B:50 23:3'>Deu 23:3</a></em> was interpreted as meaning that a fatherless man wasn’t allowed to enter the temple or marry a true Israelite. The reference to Jesus as&nbsp; “son of Mary” (<em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em>) rather than “son of Joseph” is, apparently, very unusual. It reflects the Lord’s lack of social identity in first century Israel; He had no father’s house to belong to. In passing, the jibe in <em><a href='B:470 27:64'>Mat 27:64</a></em> “the last deception shall be worse than the first” is likely a reference to Mary and Jesus claiming that He was the result of a virgin birth- this, as far as the Jews were concerned, was the “first deception”.</p><p>Their offence or stumbling is effectively what is happening to Trinitarians. They just can't hack that Jesus, Son of God, perfect human being... was truly human, with a human brother, mother and relatives. And so they have stumbled off into various wrong theories and theologies about Jesus to try to rationalize and spiritually legitimise their lack of faith in Him as a human person.</p><p>One of the most surpassing wonders of the Lord’s character was that He could live for 30 years in a small town in Galilee, never ever committing sin, and never ever omitting an act of righteousness... and yet when He stood up and basically proclaimed Himself to be Messiah, the people were scandalized. They were shocked that this carpenter’s son should think He was anything much more than them. Yet whenever we try to be a bit more righteous than our fellows, it’s always noticed and held against us. Yet the Lord Jesus was both perfect, and also in favour with men. He came over as the ordinary guy, and yet He was perfect, and the light of this world. In this there is a matchless example for us. This wondrous feature of the Lord’s achievement in His own character is reflected by the way His own brothers, who knew Him better than any, perceived Him to be just an ordinary person. When He started implying that He was the Son of God, they thought He’d gone crazy. When He declared Himself as Messiah, the people who had grown up with Him were scandalized. He was&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;human that even though He never sinned, the people who intimately knew Him for 30 years thought that He was truly one of them. In our making the word flesh, we tend to irritate people by our apparent righteousness, or turn them away from us by our hypocrisy. But the Lord truly made the word flesh, to the extent that the very dregs of society could relate to Him as one of them. There is a wonder in this that requires sustained meditation.</p><p>Jesus was poor. He was from Nazareth, a village of between 200 to 2,000 people, about 7 km. away from Sepphoris, a city of 40,000. And He would have gone through the process of socialization which anyone does who lives in a village under the shadow of the big town. He is described as a&nbsp;<em>tekton&nbsp;</em>or manual worker ("carpenter" in many translations). "A&nbsp;<em>tekton</em>&nbsp;was at the lower end of the peasant class, more marginalized than a peasant who owned a small piece of land. We should not think of a&nbsp;<em>tekton</em>&nbsp;as being a step up from a subsistence farmer; rather, a&nbsp;<em>tekton</em>&nbsp;belonged to a family that had lost its land”. The problem was that the Jewish authorities insisted that the tithes were still paid, and these could amount to around 20% of agricultural income. But the Romans added their own heavy taxation system on top of this. Farmers had to pay a 1% land tax, plus a 12% crop tax on produce, as well as various other custom, toll and tribute taxes. For those who wished to be obedient to the Government as well as the Jewish law, there was a total taxation of around 35%. Those who could no longer pay their taxes to Rome lost their land, and a&nbsp;<em>tekton&nbsp;</em>was one in this class. It has been noted: “Some peasant who were forced from their lands turned to carpentry as a profession”. A case has even been made that the term "Abba" 'daddy' was specifically "from lower class Palestinian piety". If this is so, then we see yet another window into the poverty of the Lord Jesus, extending even to the kind of language He used to address His Father in prayer. So Jesus was Himself marginalized, the poorest of the poor perhaps because of paying all the required taxes and not being dishonest, in one of the poorest corners of the Roman empire. The poor needn't think of Jesus as so Heavenly that He doesn't know their crises; the crises that come from not having food or money, the problems of drought, the worry about the weather, the rains not coming, the problem of broken equipment and worn out clothes and shoes, the distress that a little brother is sick, there's medicine in the nearby town, but no money for it…He&nbsp;<em>knows</em>. He really does. He can and does relate to all this. And it's why He is so especially watchful, according to His own teaching, of how we respond to those in such need. It means a lot to Him; because as a poor man, He must have known what it was to receive charity, to be given a few eggs by a neighbour, some milk from a kind woman down the street. When He taught "Blessed are the poor... the hungry", He immediately had a realness and credibility. For all the poor want to be better off. But He was so self-evidently content with who He was. The poor also want a bit more security for the future than just knowing that they have enough food for today. Yet Jesus could teach people to pray only for the food they needed for each day. And they were to forgive their debtors. This was radical stuff for people who lived a generally hand to mouth existence as day labourers and subsistence farmers. Only if Jesus was real and credible would people have flocked to hear Him and taken His teaching seriously. The fact He preached to the poor was a sign that He was indeed Messiah (<em><a href='B:490 7:22'>Luk 7:22</a></em>); the context of that passage suggests it was something totally unusual, that a religious leader should bother with the poor. Serious religion was some kind of hobby for those rich enough to be able to spare the time for it. But Jesus turned all this upside down; He, the poor man, preached to the poor, and showed them that God and salvation was truly for them more than anyone else:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:4&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honour, save in his hometown-&nbsp;</em>We need to ask&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;this is so true. In the first century Palestinian world, a person wasn’t defined so much by ‘who they were’ as by ‘whom they belonged to and where they originated from’. Hence their problem with seeing that the Lord had access to wisdom and power which they did not have as a group. He didn’t get that from them- and this confused them and their lack of understanding it turned to anger with Him. He had become different to them, therefore He was not of them- so they reasoned. And yet He&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;of them- the record stresses that they were His natural&nbsp;<em>patris</em>(“country”) and&nbsp;<em>oikos</em>&nbsp;(“family”). This is the same problem as Trinitarians have- they can’t see that the Lord could have what He had, and yet be one of us, of our human nature. And perhaps that partly explains their frequently observed anger with non-Trinitarian Christians. This proverb is quoted again in <em><a href='B:500 4:44'>Joh 4:44</a></em> but in a different sense. The Lord is recorded as leaving Judea and going to Galilee exactly because a prophet has no honour in “His own country”. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, not in Galilee. It could be that He went to Galilee from Judea because the “country” He had in mind here in quoting this proverb was Bethlehem, rather than Nazareth. And yet in <em><a href='B:470 13:57'>Mat 13:57</a></em> He uses this proverb about Nazareth. Perhaps this explains His deep amazement at His rejection now in Nazareth- see on <em><a href='B:470 13:58'>Mat 13:58</a></em>.</p><p><em>And among his own kin, and in his own family</em>-</p><p> We have yet another evidence of the Lord’s humanity, in that He talked of His own family of origin, which included His blood brothers and sisters of the previous verses. But He has just spoken of Himself as the ‘householder’, the head of the family / house (see on <em><a href='B:470 13:27'>Mat 13:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em>). Clearly enough, He is contrasting His spiritual family with His natural family. That group of mixed up, doubting and misunderstanding men and women who followed Him- had replaced His family of origin as His real family:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:5<em>&nbsp;And there he could not do his mighty work, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them</em>-</p><p>He could not do a mighty work in Nazareth because of their unbelief- as if He would have done a mighty miracle greater than the few healings He did perform there, but that possibility was discounted by their lack of faith (<em><a href='B:480 6:5-6'>Mar 6:5-6</a></em>). Although the Lord at times healed people who had no faith (e.g. the blind man who didn’t even know who the Son of God was), yet it seems that the Lord in this context wanted to see faith before healing people. Thus we see His sensitivity in operating in a different way with different people. Sometimes He does things for people&nbsp;<em>in order that</em>&nbsp;they might come to faith; in other contexts, He will only do things for people if they first have faith. It would seem therefore that He expected faith from His family and neighbours, seeing that they knew Him. <em><a href='B:480 6:6'>Mar 6:6</a></em> adds the comment that the Lord was “amazed” at their unbelief- the only time we hear of Him being ‘amazed’. Yet given His penetrating psychological insight into people, surely He could have guessed at the response in Nazareth? His amazement would therefore seem to be a reflection of His supreme&nbsp;<em>hopefulness</em>&nbsp;for people- a characteristic which makes the Lord so altogether lovely and such a powerful example to us.</p>


text:
<p>6:6- see on <em><a href='B:490 2:33'>Luk 2:33</a></em>.</p><p><em>And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages teaching</em>-</p><p> The Lord Himself&nbsp;<em>marvelled</em>&nbsp;at the unbelief of men, despite knowing what was in man. Surely He could only have genuinely felt such marvel because He began with such an essentially positive spirit. We notice that the focus of His ministry was upon the villages. He clearly didn't want to attract large crowds. His desire was to get His message over rather than deal with the material problems of humanity.</p>


text:
<p>6:7&nbsp;<em>And he called the twelve-&nbsp;</em>Mt. "called to him", implying they were not always with Him. But there seems an intended contrast between calling them to Him, and then sending them forth (:5). They were with Him when they were away from Him. It is simply so, that when we witness, the words we speak are in effect the words of Jesus. Our words are his. This is how close we are to Him. And this is why our deportment and manner of life, which is the essential witness, must be in Him. For He is articulated to the world through us. And it explains the paradox of the parallel record in <em><a href='B:480 3:14'>Mar 3:14</a></em>, whereby Jesus chose men that they should “be with Him and that He might send them forth to preach”. As they went out to witness, they were with Him, just as He is with us in our witness, to the end of the world both geographically and in time. And this solves another Marcan paradox, in <em><a href='B:480 4:10'>Mar 4:10</a></em>: “When He was alone, they that were about Him with the twelve asked Him…”. Was He alone, or not? Mark speaks as if when the Lord was away from the crowd and with His true followers, He was “alone”- for He counted them as one body with Him. This was why the Lord told Mary, when she so desperately wanted to be personally with Him, to go and preach to His brethren (<em><a href='B:500 20:18'>Joh 20:18</a></em>), just as He had told some of those whom He had healed- for going and preaching Him was in effect being with Him.</p><p><em>And began to send them out in pairs</em>-</p><p> The "pairs" may not just have been for mutual encouragement, but in allusion to the principle of two or three witnesses. For a witness was being made to Israel, to which they were to be held accountable.</p><p><em>And he gave them authority over the unclean spirits-&nbsp;</em>This is in the context of the Lord's concern that the crowds were sheep with no shepherd, which I have suggested was an allusion to Moses' words of <em><a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a></em> (see on <em><a href='B:470 9:36'>Mat 9:36</a></em>). Moses asks for God to raise up another to do his work, and God gives him Joshua- and is told "You shall invest him with some of your authority" (<em><a href='B:40 27:20'>Num 27:20</a></em>). So the Lord is here treating the disciples as if they are His replacement, going out to do His work, just as the later body of Christ are to do. We have in this preaching tour they are sent on some sort of foretaste of the great commission.</p>


text:
<p>6:8&nbsp;<em>And he instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a staff. No bread, no wallet-&nbsp;</em>Mark is picking out the picture of Israel as they were on Passover night, as an illustration of how His disciples should be on their preaching mission:&nbsp;"He called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth... and commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only;&nbsp;no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:&nbsp; but be shod with sandals;&nbsp;and not put on two coats" (AV):&nbsp;&nbsp; All this is couched in the language of Israel on Passover night:&nbsp;His next words for them appear to be stating the obvious, unless they allude to Israel remaining at whatever place they reached until the fire and cloud moved them on: "In what place soever ye enter... there abide till you depart from that place" (<em><a href='B:480 6:8-10'>Mar 6:8-10</a></em>):&nbsp;It must be remembered that God intended Israel to be a missionary nation, teaching the surrounding world of His ways by their example of obedience to His law:&nbsp;As Israel left Egypt with the gold and jewels of Egypt, so, Jesus implied, the disciples were to carry the precious things of the Gospel.</p><p><em>No money in their purse</em>-</p><p> Mt:&nbsp;<em>"</em>Nor brass for your purses"- Even small coins were not to be considered necessary for the missionary work to finally succeed.</p>


text:
<p>6:9&nbsp;<em>But to go wearing sandals, and not to wear two coats</em>-</p><p> See on :8; an allusion to Israel on Passover night. Adam Clarke claims: "The sandal was originally a part of the woman’s dress; ancient authors represent them as worn only by women". In this case the command to not wear shoes but sandals (Mt:) was significant. It was another part of the Lord's attempt to challenge gender stereotypes in the new community of people He was forming, where there was to be in that sense neither male nor female, slave nor free. And He may be directing their attention to <em><a href='B:230 68:11'>Psa 68:11</a></em> Heb. and LXX, where "great was the company&nbsp;<em>of the women</em>&nbsp;who published" the word of salvation.</p><p>At this point, Matthew records that they were commanded not to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans (<em><a href='B:470 10:5'>Mat 10:5</a></em>). Mark omits this because he was preaching to Gentiles. We cannot omit any part of the basic Gospel message; but we can present it in ways which are appropriate to our audience.</p>


text:
<p>6:10&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Whenever you enter into a house as a guest, remain there until you leave town</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 :8. 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.</p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>6:11<em>&nbsp;And whatever place shall not receive you and they will not hear you, as you leave there, shake off the dust that is under 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. Indeed, John’s immersion of repentant Israelites would have recalled the way that Gentiles had to be likewise dipped before being accepted into the synagogue. He was teaching “that all Israel were Gentiles in the eyes of God”. 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. The message was clear: rejected Israel would be treated as Gentiles. Thus&nbsp;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>). She would be&nbsp;“Condemned with the world...".</p>


text:
<p>6:12<em>&nbsp;And they went out and preached that all should repent</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:470 10:7'>Mat 10:7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 6:12'>Mar 6:12</a></em> parallel preaching the soon coming of the Kingdom with preaching repentance. The very message of the Lord Jesus is of itself an appeal to re-think, to repent, to change.</p>


text:
<p>6:13&nbsp;<em>And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them</em>-</p><p> Anointing with oil was a common way of trying to cure people. In the case of these healings, they were achieved by the power of God and not by the oil. And yet the did this in order to relate to people in their terms, to as it were speak their language; and that is also the reason why the language of demon possession is used. Anointing with oil also meant to be given a commission. Those healed were thereby commissioned to do something for the Lord, for the Messiah / anointed one with whom they were now associated. We noted on 1:31 how when Peter's wife's mother was cured she respond by immediately serving the Lord and His people.</p>


text:
<p>6:14&nbsp;<em>And king Herod heard of it, for Jesus' name had become well known-&nbsp;</em>When the disciples went out preaching around Israel, Herod heard of the fame of&nbsp;<em>Jesus</em>-</p><p> because they so manifested Him.</p><p><em>And he said: John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these powers work in him</em>-</p><p> The Lord's relationship with His cousin John provides an exquisite insight into both His humanity and His humility. The people thought that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected. Perhaps this was because they looked somehow similar, as cousins?</p><p>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><p><em>And therefore do these powers work in him</em>-</p><p> The Greek could more likely mean ‘the powers’, a reference to the popular beliefs in various ‘powers’ rather than one God. <em><a href='B:500 10:41'>Joh 10:41</a></em> is plain that “John did no miracle”, and yet such was the evident spirituality of John that the theory quickly arose that the miracles of Jesus were really being done by John&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>.</p>


text:
<p>6:15&nbsp;<em>But others said: It is Elijah; and others said: It is a prophet, even as one of the prophets</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. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>6:16&nbsp;<em>But Herod, when he heard of it, said: It is John, whom I beheaded; he is risen</em>-</p><p> 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>6:17&nbsp;<em>For Herod himself had had John arrested and thrown into prison to please Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; for he had married her</em>-</p><p> Josephus claims that she was in fact married to another relative, not Philip, before she married Herod (<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;18:136). We can simply decide to trust the Biblical record over Josephus. Or it could be that Josephus refers to a previous relationship she had. See on <em><a href='B:470 14:10'>Mat 14:10</a></em> for another conflict with Josephus.</p>


text:
<p>6:18&nbsp;<em>For John said to Herod: It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife</em>-</p><p> The laws of <em><a href='B:30 18:16'>Lev 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:21'>Lev 20:21</a></em> were applicable to Jews; which opens the wider question as to whether we ought to be drawing the attention of the world to their disobedience to Biblical principles, even though they do not claim any faith in the Bible. Criticizing others’ ways of living leads to anger if the point isn’t accepted; and we have a classic case of it here. The Herods were from Idumea, but although they weren’t ethnic Jews, they claimed to be religious Jews. So it could be that John’s attitude was that if someone considered themselves as being under God’s law, then they should be obedient to it and were therefore culpable before Him for disobedience to it. In this case, we do not actually have here any reason to think that a Christian’s duty is to lobby the unbelieving world leaders to be obedient to God’s law.</p>


text:
<p>6:19&nbsp;<em>And Herodias set herself against him, and desired to kill him; but she could not</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 14:5'>Mat 14:5</a></em> says that Herod also wanted to kill John, but feared the people. The same Greek words are&nbsp;used about Herod wanting to kill Jesus in <em><a href='B:490 13:31'>Luk 13:31</a></em>. A manipulative woman arranging the death of a prophet through a weak willed ruler recalls Jezebel in 1 Kings 21; and she was a protagonist of Elijah, upon whom John the Baptist was clearly modelled.</p>


text:
<p>6:20&nbsp;<em>For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was much perplexed; and he heard him gladly</em>-</p><p> This came about after his initial desire to murder John (<em><a href='B:470 14:5'>Mat 14:5</a></em>). There was something in John's message which made him oscillate between respecting him and wanting to murder him. He heard him gladly, just as the crowds of self-righteous Jerusalem Jews streamed out of Jerusalem to hear John's rough message of repentance. We too can intellectually assent to a message without grasping the personal appeal for actual change and repentance. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>6:21<em>&nbsp;But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his nobles, military commanders and the leading men of Galilee</em>-</p><p> The idea of "opportunity" leads us to think that the whole scene was set up, so that when Herod was drunk and made one of his famous 'I'll give you whatever you like' statements, they could then pounce with their request.</p>


text:
<p>6:22&nbsp;<em>And when the daughter of Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests, and so the king said to the girl: Ask of me whatever you will, and I will give it to you</em>-</p><p> As suggested on :21, Herod when drunk probably often said these kind of things; for this would not have been his first wild birthday party.</p>


text:
<p>6:23&nbsp;<em>And he made an oath to her: Whatever you shall ask of me, I will give it to you, to the half of my kingdom</em>-</p><p> This continues a theme we find in the book of Daniel- powerful rulers making a rash oath and feeling forced to carry it out because of shame and the pressure of courtiers. The contrast with God, the ultimate ruler, is not that He is not so rash and not manipulated by His subjects. Rather the contrast is surely that Yahweh&nbsp;<em>does</em>&nbsp;change, He has no fear of shame or being shamed; such is His grace that when He sees a repentant Nineveh, He&nbsp;<em>does</em>&nbsp;change His original intention. The fear of shame and pressure from the eyes of others is what leads so many leaders into behaviour and positions which are against their better judgment. There is no shame in change. Indeed, change is part of real spirituality. "To the half my kingdom” is alluding to the king’s promise to Esther in <em><a href='B:190 5:3'>Est 5:3</a></em>, but it seems an allusion with no context or specific meaning, for Herodias' daughter was not at all Esther.</p>


text:
<p>6:24&nbsp;<em>And she went out and said to her mother: What shall I ask? And she said: The head of John the Baptist</em>-</p><p> I suggested on :21 that the whole thing was a set up. They knew Herod made exaggerated offers when drunk, and so they waited for that moment and then pounced with the request for John's head as the next dinner dish. Her going to her mother was therefore just part of the act, rather than from genuine lack of awareness as to what to ask for.</p>


text:
<p>6:25&nbsp;<em>And she rushed to the king and asked, saying: Here and now-&nbsp;</em>The emphasis on “here” is strange. She wanted the head brought in before everyone. This rather strongly contradicts Josephus’ claim that John was beheaded in the Machaerus fortress, a long way from Herod’s court.</p><p><em>I want you to give me on a platter the head of John the Baptist</em>-</p><p> The feast would have been full of plates with various dishes. The idea was that the head would be offered for eating. The implication is that the head would've been brought immediately, which suggests that John was imprisoned nearby. This again rules out Josephus' claim that John was beheaded in the Machaerus fortress, far from Herod's palace in Tiberias. The offering of a head on a platter is full of allusion to pagan ritual. Herod, as one who claimed to be an observant Jew, was now forced to choose- between being a serious Jew, following Divine principle, or a pagan. He was forced to decide- and chose wrongly. He had earlier wanted to kill John, and now his evil thought was being brought to action, in a powerful outworking of the Lord's principle that the thought is indeed counted as the action:&nbsp; We ask, naturally, why it all had to be as it was. John would've carefully reflected upon the life of Elijah, and John would've seen the parallel between Jezebel and the manipulative women behind his own death- and taken comfort from that in his last moments: that he was in fact the Elijah prophet.</p>


text:
<p>6:26&nbsp;<em>And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths and his dinner guests, he could not reject her request</em>-</p><p> And yet we learn in <em><a href='B:470 14:5'>Mat 14:5</a></em> that Herod had wanted to kill John because John had criticized Herod’s lifestyle. We may feel flushes of anger against a person, but if it were to come to actually carrying out what we imagine- we would likely regret it.</p><p>A&nbsp;<em>horkos</em>&nbsp;"oath" was not merely a verbal promise; although he was not ethnically Jewish, Herod claimed to be a practicing Jew, and an 'oath' would've been something like 'May I be eternally condemned at the last day if I do not…'. Peter used the same oaths in denying the Lord. And so we see the torture of this unhappy man- asking himself to be condemned if he didn't do something which surely warrants eternal condemnation. The only way out was to&nbsp;<em>change</em>, to re-pent, to re-think; to recognize that he was not going to get out of this without a deep repentance.</p>


text:
<p>6:27&nbsp;<em>And immediately the king sent a soldier of his guard and commanded that he bring John's head. And the soldier went to the prison and beheaded John</em>-</p><p> The implication is that the court party was held close to the prison. This would have been most unlikely if Josephus is correct in claiming that John was imprisoned and beheaded in the fortress of Machaerus. Herod’s court was in Tiberias. The implication of the language is that Herod took full responsibility for this- as if he personally beheaded John. And he realized this later in his conscience: “John whom I beheaded… John have I beheaded” (<em><a href='B:480 6:16'>Mar 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:9'>Luk 9:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>6:28&nbsp;<em>And brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother</em>-</p><p> The language of bringing to and giving on further is found in the following account of the miraculous feeding. The Lord uses the word "brought" of how He wished the loaves and fishes to be “brought” to Him for His Messianic banquet (<em><a href='B:470 14:18'>Mat 14:18</a></em>). It may be that Herod’s banquet is being set up in contrast to that of the Lord Jesus described later in the chapter.</p>


text:
<p>6:29&nbsp;<em>And when his disciples heard of it, they went and took his corpse and laid it in a tomb</em>-</p><p> The phrase is only used elsewhere about Joseph taking up the body of the Lord Jesus after His death (<em><a href='B:500 19:31'>Joh 19:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em>). And doing the same with it- burying it. He was likely one of the followers of John the Baptist, and his fine action here was surely motivated by the memory of those brave brethren who ‘took up the body’ of John. The example of devotion shown by believers can inspire later believers in different contexts. The power of example is far greater than we can ever imagine.</p>


text:
<p>6:30&nbsp;<em>The apostles returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught</em>-</p><p> The same Greek words are found in <em><a href='B:500 20:18'>Joh 20:18</a></em> of Mary going and telling the disciples. Here, after the ‘taking up of the body’ of the Lord Jesus and ‘burying’ it, just as had been done to John’s corpse, Mary “went and told” the disciples. The disciples “went and told Jesus” of John’s death; now, Mary goes to tell the disciples of the Lord’s resurrection. The similarity of language and yet the inversion of the ideas is all surely intentional. The intention is to show that the tragedy of John’s death was vindicated and gloriously reversed in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>6:31&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Come, we shall depart for a deserted place and rest for a while. For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure time, even to eat</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 9:10'>Luk 9:10</a></em> says that it was near to Bethsaida. This indicates the literal accuracy of the Gospels, because Bethsaida was just outside the boundary of Herod’s jurisdiction, and it would be understandable that after his execution of John, the disciples and Jesus might want to be outside of his territory.</p><p>Matthew says that this desire to withdraw for a while was immediately upon hearing of John's death. The feeding of the five thousand is not in chronological sequence; it is part of the flashback to John’s death. Perhaps the intention is to present the Lord’s banquet as the antithesis of Herod’s banquet which led to John’s execution. We see here yet another insight into the Lord’s humanity. Knowledge of John’s death wasn’t beamed into the Lord’s mind; He didn’t have the total omniscience of God. For He was not God Himself, but the human Son of God. He had to be informed of some things before He knew them. And He reacts in a very human way- He wants to go away on His own with His closest friends to reflect upon the death of a relative and co-worker. But again, in a typically human way, His plan to have time out relatively alone was thwarted- despite His intention to get away alone, or at least just with His close friends, the crowds heard He had been spotted heading out to an uninhabited area, and followed Him there by foot. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:32&nbsp;<em>And they went away in the boat to a deserted place</em>-</p><p> Bethsaida, according to <em><a href='B:490 9:10'>Luk 9:10</a></em>. See on :31. "The boat" suggests they were a common sight, travelling in the same boat, which presumably belonged to the family of James and John, whose father Zebedee had a large enough business to employ hired hands.</p>


text:
<p>6:33&nbsp;<em>Now many saw them going and recognised them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them</em>-</p><p> This is added to demonstrate their commitment to hearing Him teach. Why were they so keen to make such effort to get to Him? <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 (see on <em><a href='B:470 14:22'>Mat 14:22</a></em>). 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><p>The Lord in John 6 comments upon their efforts. The people laboured in that they walked around the lake in the boiling midday sun in order to be with Christ and perhaps benefit from the physical food He might provide:&nbsp; He tells them not to labour for the food which would perish, but for that which would endure for ever. The labouring of those people, trekking around that lake in the heat of the day, should be the effort we put in to eating the manna of God's word- according to how the Lord. There was a theme of urgency in Israel's gathering of the manna; it had to be gathered before the sun was up, or it would be lost. Would that we could have that same sense of urgency as we read, realizing that the rising of the sun at the second coming of will put an end to our opportunity to feed and grow. If Israel didn't gather the manna, or if they left it to another day, it bred worms and stank. The active anger of God was to be expressed against those who didn't take the wonder of the manna seriously. So our gathering of the manna / word must be taken seriously; it's not a question of skim reading familiar words, or doing mental gymnastics with it in an intellectual world of our own. &nbsp;The people had walked all round the lake to see Jesus and get some food from Him. In typical style, He responded: “Labour not for the meat which perisheth but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life” (<em><a href='B:500 6:27'>Joh 6:27</a></em>). They ask what they can&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;that they might work / labour same Greek word the works of God; and they are told that the real work / labour which God requires is to believe (<em><a href='B:500 6:28'>Joh 6:28</a></em>). To truly believe, to the extent of being sure that we will surely have the eternal life promised, is the equivalent of walking round the lake. We like those crowds want to concretely&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;something. The young man likewise had asked what good thing he must&nbsp;<em>do&nbsp;</em>in order to get eternal life (<em><a href='B:470 19:16'>Mat 19:16</a></em>). But the real work is to&nbsp;<em>believe</em>. To really make that enormous mental effort to accept that what God has promised in Christ will surely come true for us. The proof that this is so is because Jesus really said these words, and “him hath God the Father sealed”, i:e. shown His confirmation and acceptance of. So again we come down to the implications of real basics. Do we believe Jesus existed and said those words? Yes. Do we believe the Biblical record is true and inspired? Yes. Well, this Jesus who made these promises and statements about eternal life was “sealed” / validated by God. Do we believe this? Yes. So, what He said is utterly true.</p>


text:
<p>6:34&nbsp;<em>And when Jesus came ashore, he saw a great crowd-&nbsp;</em>Or, 'came forth', as Mt. We could picture Him hiding away in some cave or bush, noticing the crowds combing the area, having spotted the abandoned boat. And then battling with a desire to retreat further into the bush away from them, or to send them away- but instead having compassion on them and going out to meet them with teaching and healing. But that is unlikely the right reading, because :33 notes that some of the people who ran around the lake got to the destination before they did. The ‘coming forth’ would therefore have been coming forth from the boat to land. That moment is perhaps noted because the obvious inclination would have been to sail further and find a better resting place, far from this irritating crowd.</p><p><em>And he had compassion on them, because they were as sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things</em>-</p><p> His pity was therefore for their spiritual state rather than their material need. This being ‘moved with compassion’ is a major characteristic of the Lord which the Gospel writers noticed (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 9:36'>Mat 9:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:32'>Mat 15:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:34'>Mat 20:34</a></em> in Matthew alone- see too <em><a href='B:490 7:13'>Luk 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:33'>Luk 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). The Greek speaks of a literal movement within the ribcage, as if the Lord’s actual body was moved by the compassion He felt. The Lord Jesus is the same yesterday, today and at the day of judgment- and forever. This same basic pity is part of Him, as it is of His Father- and it must be with us too. Several times when we read of the Lord showing such pity, it is in the context of others&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;doing so. In this instance, the disciples don’t want to feed the hungry people; and likewise in <em><a href='B:470 15:32'>Mat 15:32</a></em>. In <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em> the compassion of the Lord to His indebted servant was not reciprocated by that servant; the Samaritan of the parable had compassion when the priest and Levite did not (<em><a href='B:490 10:33'>Luk 10:33</a></em>); the Father had compassion on the prodigal son when the older brother did not (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). Such compassion is therefore an act of the will, rather than a streak some are born with. We can shut up our “bowels of compassion” against human need (<em><a href='B:690 3:17'>1Jn 3:17</a></em>), we have to “put on… bowels of mercies” (<em><a href='B:580 3:12'>Col 3:12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>6:35&nbsp;<em>And when the day was far spent, his disciples came to him-&nbsp;</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>And said: The place is deserted and the day is now far spent</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>&nbsp;</em>AV "The time is now past". “Past” translates&nbsp;<em>parerchomai</em>; the Lord uses a similar word in replying that “they need not&nbsp;<em>depart</em>”-&nbsp;<em>aperchomai</em>. This word choice not only aided memorization of the Gospel record. The disciples considered that time had more than gone, that it was inevitable that the Lord must now send the crowd away, and should’ve done earlier. But He is saying that actually He is not limited by time, the time didn’t have to be “past”; because He was not limited by food either, and could feed them.</p>


text:
<p>6:36&nbsp;<em>Send them away-&nbsp;</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 country and villages round about and buy themselves something to eat</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>” 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>6:37<em>&nbsp;But he answered and said to them: You give them something to eat. And they said to him: Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?</p><p></em>-</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><p>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 had 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>


text:
<p>6:38<em>&nbsp;And he said to them: How many loaves have you? Go and see. And when they knew, they reported: Five loaves and two fishes</em>-</p><p>He calmly bid them feed a huge crowd with just a few loaves. We are left to imagine those men, almost paralysed and certainly gobsmacked 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:). We sense something of the Lord's same style to this day as He works in our lives. They were asked to number their loaves, but they perhaps sarcastically add: "And two small fishes".</p><p><em><a href='B:470 14:17'>Mat 14:17</a></em> adds the word "only": "We have here only five loaves and two fishes". <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 (<em><a href='B:500 6:7'>Joh 6:7</a></em> AV). 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>


text:
<p>6:39&nbsp;<em>And he commanded that all should sit down in groups upon the green grass</em>-</p><p> "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, 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>6:40&nbsp;<em>And they sat down in groups of hundreds or of fifties</em>-</p><p> Vine comments: "Lit:, like beds in a garden. The former adverb, by companies, describes the arrangement; this the colour. The red, blue, and yellow clothing of the poorest Orientals makes an Eastern crowd full of colour; 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>


text:
<p>6:41&nbsp;<em>And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven-&nbsp;</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;</p><p><em>He blessed and broke the loaves; and he gave them to the disciples to set before them; and the two fish he divided among them all</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>6:42&nbsp;<em>And they all ate and were filled</em>-</p><p> "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>


text:
<p>6:43&nbsp;<em>And they collected twelve basketfuls of leftovers, and also of the fish</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>6:44&nbsp;<em>There were five thousand men that ate the loaves</em>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p>6:45&nbsp;<em>And immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and to go without him to the other side to Bethsaida-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em> says that the crowds wanted to “take him by force to make Him a king”. Yet these were the same folk, it seems, who had showed little real faith in Him previously- see on <em><a href='B:470 14:13'>Mat 14:13</a></em><em>&nbsp;on foot</em>. They were so fickle. They evidently saw the connection between the feeding miracle and Him being Messiah, but their understanding of Messiah was that He was to be a King offering immediate salvation. Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1:9 claimed that “…as the former redeemer caused manna to descend... so will the latter redeemer cause manna to descend”. We get the impression that the Lord felt under a sense of great urgency- He “constrained” the disciples to get into the boat and leave, whilst He sent the crowd away. Perhaps He felt that the crowd intended to make Him King and the disciples the leaders of their new&nbsp;<em>junta</em>, but by sending the disciples away, He was greatly reducing the chances of them doing this. However the other reason was simply that the disciples themselves were looking for an immediate kingdom and glory, and He knew the temptation would be too great for them. He likewise works with us so often to deliver us from temptation He knows is too great for us.</p><p>The Lord told them to sail to the other side of the lake, but said that they would be ‘going before / ahead of Him’. The Greek could suggest that His words could have been understood as meaning that they would sail to that place, He would send the crowds away, and then go behind them- i:e:, walking on the water. Of course, they could have understood ‘going before Him’ as meaning that He would join them there at a later stage. But as they sailed away, they must have debated whatever He meant. Because if He meant that He would join them there at a later stage, however was He going to walk there around the lake, whilst so desperately wanting the crowds to go away from Him? Remember He had no personal boat, and they were in a deserted location. Whichever exit He took, whichever way He walked around the lake, He would have the very people with Him whom He was so earnestly trying to avoid. Again, as in asking&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to&nbsp;<em>give</em>&nbsp;and not&nbsp;<em>buy</em>&nbsp;food for the crowd, the Lord was stretching them. He wanted them to reflect upon His words, and if they had done, then logically they were intended to come to the conclusion that He was implying that He would walk over the water to them. And if they were Old Testament minded, they would have known the passages which spoke of Yahweh walking upon the water and the waves of the sea (<em><a href='B:230 29:3'>Psa 29:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 29:10'>Psa 29:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 77:19'>Psa 77:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:410 1:3'>Nah 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 3:15'>Hab 3:15</a></em>). When, therefore, the waves arose and they seemed likely to drown, they were intended to figure that He would come to them, manifesting Yahweh, walking upon the waves of the sea- to save them. Whether any of them did actually get that far in perception and faith seems doubtful. But I believe we can discern how the Lord was seeking to lead them and educate their faith. The tragedy is that so many of His detailed plans for us are likewise wasted because of our lack of spiritual perception, and allowing the immediacy of issues to obscure the clear light of His leadership through life.</p><p>However, <em><a href='B:500 6:15-17'>Joh 6:15-17</a></em> implies they got tired of waiting for the Lord Jesus to return from prayer, and so they pushed off home to Capernaum, leaving Him alone. Yet by grace He came after them on the lake, to their salvation.</p><p><em>While he sent the crowd away</em>-</p><p> The phrase is repeated twice in <em><a href='B:470 14:22-23'>Mat 14:22-23</a></em>, probably in recognition of the miracle performed in managing to send these crowds away empty handed, with no visible Messianic Kingdom. At least, the power of personality in the Lord was very great to be able to get Himself out of this situation.</p>


text:
<p>6:46&nbsp;<em>And after he had taken leave of them, he departed into the mountain to pray</em>-</p><p> Mt. "by himself". The term&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>&nbsp;"by himself" is used about 16 times in the Gospels, covering around 12 different occasions. The need to be alone with the Lord or with the Father is therefore a significant theme. The Lord had departed to the deserted place because of this need to be&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 14:13'>Mat 14:13</a></em>), but His plans were thwarted by the unexpected tenacity of the crowd in following Him there. In this we see another picture of His humanity. But ultimately, God granted Him the need He felt to be&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>, to be alone with God. Perhaps one reason He so insistently sent both the crowd and the disciples away was because He knew He simply had to be alone with God. And there can be times like this for us too. No matter how stupid we might appear in secular life, there can be a time when you just have to go and sit in the toilet for five minutes in your lunch break and pray. The Lord uses the term in speaking of how we are each given something very personal which we are to use in His service-&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>, 'alone by ourselves', or as in AV "according to his several ability" (<em><a href='B:470 25:15'>Mat 25:15</a></em>). Each sheep is called by the Lord&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>, AV "by name" (<em><a href='B:500 10:3'>Joh 10:3</a></em>). And therefore the judgment of each believer will be&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>, AV "according to his own labour" (<em><a href='B:530 3:8'>1Co 3:8</a></em>). There is a very wide range of translations of this phrase. But the idea is that we were each individually called by the Lord and given different callings, and our judgment will be according to this. This is not to say that there is anything other than one basic faith, Gospel, Hope, Lord etc. But in many denominations and fellowships the idea is pushed that each believer must adopt an identical, detailed statement of understanding and calling. Yet in practice, the frames of our calling and the Lord's hopes for our responses vary significantly between individuals.</p><p>The fact the Lord Jesus prayed to His Father is one of the profoundest and logically strongest evidences that He was not God in any Trinitarian sense. The basic facts of the Gospel records were simply not given their full weight by the unBiblical politicians who first created the Trinity doctrine. The liberal theologian Hal Taussig observes that other theologians haven’t written much about Jesus at prayer- for this very reason, that of itself it contradicts Trinitarian dogma: “Because Jesus at prayer confuses theological categories of “divine” and “human” (is there any need for a divine Jesus to pray?), theologians have rarely been interested in Jesus at prayer” (Hal Taussig,&nbsp;<em>Jesus Before God: The Prayer Life of the Historical Jesus</em>&nbsp;(Santa Rosa, CA: The Polebridge Press, 1999) p. 7). Taussig’s question “is there any need for a divine Jesus to pray?” is ultimately impossible for Trinitarian apologists to answer.</p>


text:
<p>6:47&nbsp;<em>And when evening had come, the boat was in the midst of the sea-&nbsp;</em>People at that time had a strong association between the sea and the forces of evil and condemnation; beginning with the condemnation of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, the Bible itself speaks of condemnation as being swamped at sea by the waves. The Egyptians perished "in the midst of the sea" (<em><a href='B:20 14:23'>Exo 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:27'>Exo 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 29:3'>Eze 29:3</a></em>); Jonah drowned "in the midst of the sea" (<em><a href='B:390 2:3'>Jon 2:3</a></em>) as does the fool of Proverbs (<em><a href='B:240 23:34'>Pro 23:34</a></em>), as did Tyre and the Gentile nations (<em><a href='B:330 26:12'>Eze 26:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 27:26-27'>Eze 27:26-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 27:32'>Eze 27:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 28:8'>Eze 28:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 46:2'>Psa 46:2</a></em>) and Babylon (<em><a href='B:300 51:63'>Jer 51:63</a></em>). The disciples doubtless felt condemned. For there were these 12 Old Testament references to condemnation ringing in their Jewish ears. Their cry for salvation was therefore not merely for physical deliverance, but a cry for deliverance out of condemnation. They were "tossed with waves"- the very term used for the torment of the rejected (<em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:10'>Rev 20:10</a></em>). The disciples had earlier seen people who were tormented s:w. "tossed" being delivered by the Lord- to pave the way for them personally crying out for that same deliverance (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 8:6'>Mat 8:6</a></em>).</p><p><em>And he was alone on the land</em>-</p><p> This is a pointed repetition of the information that the Lord was there&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>-</p><p> alone apart, by Himself. His aloneness with God is being brought to our attention. Prayer in one sense has to be a lonely experience. This is all surely why the Lord Himself is frequently pictured by the Gospel writers as making an effort to be alone in prayer to the Father (<em><a href='B:480 1:35'>Mar 1:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:13'>Mar 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:2'>Mar 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:13'>Mat 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:23'>Mat 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:12'>Luk 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:39'>Luk 22:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:41'>Luk 22:41</a></em>). This is all some emphasIs. Be it rising in the early hours to go out and find a lonely place to pray, or withdrawing a stone’s throw from the disciples in Gethsemane to pray… He sought to be alone. <em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em> emphasizes this repeated feature of the Lord’s life: “He departed again into a mountain himself alone”. The fact He often “again” retreated alone like this is emphasized by three words which are effectively saying the same thing- departed, himself, alone. Much as we should participate in communal prayers or in the prayers of our partner or our children, there simply has to be the time for serious personal prayer in our lives. And I have to drive the point home:&nbsp;<em>Are you doing this?</em>&nbsp;Putting it in other terms- are you alone&nbsp;<em>enough:&nbsp;</em>Incident after incident shows the Lord doing something alone, and then the disciples somehow being presented as doing the same. Take the way He departed “himself alone” when the crowd wanted to make Him king; and then soon afterwards we read that the crowd perceived that the disciples had likewise departed ‘themselves alone’ same Greek phrase and construction, <em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:22'>Joh 6:22</a></em>. The point is that the world is presented as perceiving the disciples in the same terms and way as they did Jesus, even when, in this case, Jesus was not physically with them. And we too are to be “in Him” in our work of witness for Him.</p>


