# commentaries

text:
<p>5:47&nbsp;<em>And if you greet your brothers only, what do you more than they. The tax collectors do likewise</em>-</p><p> "More" is, Gk:, 'to super-abound'. This is a word characteristic of the new life in Christ. As God makes His grace&nbsp;<em>abound</em>&nbsp;to us,&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are to&nbsp;<em>abound</em>&nbsp;to every good work (<em><a href='B:540 9:8'>2Co 9:8</a></em>). We are to ‘abound’ in love to each other, as God abounds to us (<em><a href='B:590 3:12'>1Th 3:12</a></em>). This is why there will never be a grudging spirit in those who serve properly motivated by God’s abundance to us. This super-abounding quality in our kindness, generosity, forgiveness etc. is a feature lacking in the unbelievers around us. If we salute our brethren only, then we do not super-abound (<em><a href='B:470 5:47'>Mat 5:47</a></em>); if we love as the world loves its own, then we have missed the special quality of love which the Father and Son speak of and exemplify. This radical generosity of spirit to others is something which will mark us apart from this world.</p>


text:
<p>5:48 See on 5:7.</p><p><em>You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect-&nbsp;</em>We are either seen as absolutely perfect, or totally wicked, due to God's imputation of righteousness or evil to us (<em><a href='B:230 37:37'>Psa 37:37</a></em>). There is no third way. The pure in heart see God, their righteousness (to God) exceeds that of the Pharisees, no part of their body offends them or they pluck it out; they are perfect as their Father is (<em><a href='B:470 5:8'>Mat 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:29'>Mat 5:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>). Every one of the faithful will have a body even now completely full of light, with no part dark (<em><a href='B:490 11:36'>Luk 11:36</a></em>); we will walk, even as the Lord walked (<em><a href='B:690 2:6'>1Jn 2:6</a></em>). These impossible standards were surely designed by the Lord to force us towards a real faith in the imputed righteousness which we can glory in; that the Father really does see us as this righteous. Men have risen up to this. David at the end of his life could say that he was upright and had kept himself from his iniquity (<em><a href='B:100 22:21-24'>2Sa 22:21-24</a></em>). He could only say this by a clear understanding of the concept of imputed righteousness. Paul's claim to have always lived in a pure conscience must be seen in the same way.</p><p>God makes concessions to human weakness; He sets an ideal standard, but will accept us achieving a lower level. "Be ye therefore perfect,&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;your Father in heaven is perfect" (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>) is proof enough of this. The standard is clear: absolute perfection. But our lower attainment is accepted, by grace. If God accepts our obvious failure to attain an ideal standard, we should be inspired to accept this in others. Daily Israel were taught this; for they were to offer totally unblemished animals. And yet there was no totally unblemished animal. We need to recognize that God sets an ultimately high standard, but is prepared to accept our achievement of a lower standard- i:e. God makes concessions. We all disobey the same commandments of Christ day by day and hour by hour. Yet we have a firm hope in salvation. Therefore obedience to commandments is not the only necessity for salvation. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect" (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>) goes unfulfilled by each of us- as far as our own obedience is concerned. It is possible to disobey Christ's commandments every day and be saved. If this statement is false, then salvation is only possible is we attain God's moral perfection, which is impossible. If disobedience to Christ's commands is tolerable by God (on account of our faith in the atonement), how can&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;decide&nbsp;<em>which&nbsp;</em>of those commandments we will tolerate being broken by our brethren, and which of them we will disfellowship for? If we cannot recognize degrees of sin, it is difficult to pronounce some commands to be more important than others.</p><p>There are times when Paul's inspired commentary opens up some of the Lord's more difficult sayings. On "Be you therefore perfect", Paul's comment is: "Be perfected" (<em><a href='B:540 13:11'>2Co 13:11</a></em>). This is quite different to how many may take it- 'Let God perfect you' is the message. Relatively late in his career Paul could comment: “Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect” (<em><a href='B:570 3:12'>Phi 3:12</a></em>), alluding to the Lord’s bidding to be perfect as our Father is (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>). Through this allusion to the Gospels, Paul is showing his own admission of failure to live up to the standard set. And yet we must compare “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect" with “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect…” (<em><a href='B:570 3:12'>Phi 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:15'>Phi 3:15</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:530 13:10'>1Co 13:10</a></em>, he considers he is ‘perfect’, and has put away the things of childhood. Thus he saw his spiritual maturity only on account of his being in Christ; for he himself was not “already perfect”, he admitted.</p><p>Luke’s account has "be merciful, as your Father also is merciful" (<em><a href='B:490 6:36'>Luk 6:36</a></em>). Quite simply, who God is should inspire us to be like Him; to copy His characteristics [the things of His Name] in our personalities. We must be "perfect" as our Father is; "be ye holy", because He is holy (<em><a href='B:670 1:14-16'>1Pe 1:14-16</a></em>); "kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God forgave… be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children" (<em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:1'>Eph 5:1</a></em>); "merciful, as your Father also is merciful" (<em><a href='B:490 6:36'>Luk 6:36</a></em>). <em><a href='B:240 19:11'>Pro 19:11</a></em> RV uses language frequently applied to Yahweh Himself and applies it to the wise man: "The discretion of a man maketh him slow to anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression". And thus Phinehas was commended for being "jealous with my jealousy" (<em><a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a></em> RV)- his emotion at that time was a mirror of that of God Himself. Not only was language re-interpreted by the Christians. Whole concepts were reoriented. Holiness in the sense of separation from the unclean had been a major theme in the Mosaic Law, and it figured largely in the theology of the Pharisees. But the Lord quoted “Be holy because I, Yahweh your God am holy” (<em><a href='B:30 19:2'>Lev 19:2</a></em>) as “Be ye therefore merciful, even as your father in heaven is merciful” (<em><a href='B:490 6:36'>Luk 6:36</a></em>). To be merciful to those who sin is now the true holiness- not merely separation from them and condemnation of their ways. Note, too, how He invites us to interpret the Yahweh as “father”, rather than transliterating the Name.</p><p>The Lord’s manifesto as recorded in the Sermon on the Mount was structured and set up by Him in some ways as a ‘new law’ as opposed to the old law of Moses. And yet His law likewise proves impossible to keep. We cannot be perfect as our Father Is. To a man and to a woman, we would admit that we cannot fully forgive our enemies from our hearts. And so, according to the Lord’s law, we each stand unforgiven. We are to sell all that we have and give to the poor, or risk forfeiting the Kingdom because of our love of this world’s goods (<em><a href='B:480 10:17-22'>Mar 10:17-22</a></em>). An angry thought is murder, a passing lustful look becomes adultery- all mortal sins, which catch each of us within their net. Why was this? Surely yet again, the Lord wished to convict us of our guilt before Him, our inabilities, our desperation… so that we could come to appreciate the wonder of His character and His saving grace. For He was the one and only embodiment of His own teaching, to the point that the person who fulfilled all His teaching was in fact He Himself- and no other man. In knowing Him, we thus know our own desperation, and yet we likewise know- because we know Him- the certainty of our salvation by grace. Further, it becomes apparent that the Lord accepted with open arms those who were so very far from the ideals He laid down in the Sermon on the Mount. He convicted them of their guilt in such a way that with joy and peace they ran to His grace.</p>


text:
<p>6:1&nbsp;<em>Take heed you do not do your good deeds</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'to hold the mind towards'. Again and again, the Lord's emphasis is upon the innermost functioning of the mind and thought processes. For to be spiritually minded is the essence of Christianity:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Before men, to be seen by them</em>-</p><p> The same Greek phrase is used in <em><a href='B:470 23:5'>Mat 23:5</a></em> about the Pharisees doing all their works motivated by this desire to be seen of men. What we do&nbsp;<em>unseen</em>&nbsp;by men is therefore the litmus test of our love and Christianity. We should almost have an obsession about doing good works unseen by men- we must "take heed", consciously set our mind, to do unseen acts of kindness to others. Because the "reward", the nature of our eternity, will depend on these things.</p><p><em>Else you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven-&nbsp;</em>Salvation is by grace, but the 'reward' will be in terms of how the&nbsp;<em>nature</em>&nbsp;of our eternal existence reflects good things done in this life. The Greek word for 'reward' is quite common in the Sermon, and the first usage of it suggests that the reward is given in Heaven right now (<em><a href='B:470 5:12'>Mat 5:12</a></em> "great&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;your reward in Heaven", s:w. <em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em> "he that reaps receives wages / reward, and gathers fruit unto life eternal"; <em><a href='B:470 5:46'>Mat 5:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:1-2'>Mat 6:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:5'>Mat 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:16'>Mat 6:16</a></em>). Yet the Lord comes from Heaven to give us the rewards after we have been resurrected at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:18'>Rev 11:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a></em>). So if we will be given an eternal reward for our works, it follows that there is a recompense for us noted in the books of Heaven at the very point we do the good deed. But there will be no such recompense for things which are openly seen of men, or anything which is consciously done so as to be seen by men. In the reality of life, the hardest thing about good deeds is when we sense nobody appreciates us, that we are holding the fort alone, that we have no recognition. On one hand, recognition for labour is hugely important to our basic psychological makeup- and employers have all come to realize that. It is only by appreciating the principle of eternal blessing for being<em>&nbsp;u</em>nrecognized that we can live the way Jesus asks of us. It is my observation in the life of believers that often the Lord's most zealous servants are marginalized, falsely accused, rejected from churches etc. The Lord's teaching here makes perfect sense of that phenomenon. He wants them to continue their service in a way which will be eternally recognized, and He wants to ensure their motives for their good works are not in order to be seen of men. Therefore He allows them to be marginalized. So that their works may be totally sincere, and receive an eternal recognition. It is also the case that when serving others, we reflect that nobody realized all the host of planning and frustrations which went into one good deed. A plan to visit someone in hospital may involve struggles with public transport, getting lost on the way, forgetting our telephone, being late home which meant we missed something important... and so forth. It is all those good deeds which others don't see. They 'see' only that we spent 15 minutes in a hospital visiting someone. But those other components to the good deed of the 15 minutes are all carefully logged with the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>6:2&nbsp;<em>When therefore you do alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets</em>-</p><p> The reference may be to the bronze collection 'trumpet' into which the wealthy loudly poured large numbers of pennies. Remember that Jesus was addressing His sermon to the illiterate and desperately poor. There was little likelihood they would ever do this. So we are to understand the Lord as making a warning out of those wealthy people- to all of us, in whatever context, great or small, to not advertise our kindnesses, and to not be motivated to it by the thought of what others would think of it.</p><p><em>That they may have glory from men</em>&nbsp;- Perhaps the emphasis is upon "they". Our good works are to be so that "men" give glory to&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 5:16'>Mat 5:16</a></em>). To have any intention of attracting glory to ourselves is therefore to play God. For all glory is to go to Him:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Truly I say to you, they have received their reward</em>-</p><p> The Greek translated "have" means both to receive fully, and intransitively, 'to keep away'. They get their full reward now, so they are keeping themselves away from any future reward at the last day. According to the allusion here in <em><a href='B:610 4:8'>1Ti 4:8</a></em>, the implication is that we aren't to take <em><a href='B:470 6:2-3'>Mat 6:2-3</a></em> ("they have their reward") as implying that we have&nbsp;<em>no</em>&nbsp;reward in this life. We do (cp. <em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>6:3&nbsp;<em>But when you do alms</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus was addressing the very poorest in society. And yet He assumed they would do some good and show some generosity to others. We can too easily dismiss Bible teaching about generosity and assume it applies to the rich, or at least, not to me. Yet the Lord's implication is that every single person can give and be generous in some way. The Lord speaks here of "<em>when</em>" you give, rather than&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;you give. He took giving to others in need as being a basic, intrinsic part of life in Him.</p><p><em>Do not let your left hand know what your right hand does-&nbsp;</em>There had developed a strong Jewish tradition that the right hand side of a man was his spiritual side, and the left hand side was the equivalent of the New Testament 'devil'. The Lord Jesus referred to this understanding when He warned: "Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth" (<em><a href='B:470 6:3'>Mat 6:3</a></em>)- implying that the good deeds of the spiritual man would be misused by the 'devil', e.g. in using them as grounds for spiritual pride.</p><p>The idea perhaps is that our good deeds should not be done consciously, we hardly know ourselves that we are doing them. The Lord taught just the same when He portrayed the faithful at the last day almost arguing back with their Lord before His judgement seat, totally denying they had done the good deeds which He was now rewarding them for ("when did we see You...", <em><a href='B:470 25:39'>Mat 25:39</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>6:4<em>&nbsp;That your alms may be in secret, and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you</em>-</p><p> as if God is especially manifest in Christ when we stand before him in judgment to receive our rewards openly. Our prayers “in secret” will be ‘rewarded’ “openly”; but the language of ‘open reward’ is used by the Lord in reference to the judgment: “For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father with his angels; and then he shall reward [s:w:] every man” (<em><a href='B:470 16:27'>Mat 16:27</a></em>). In that day the workers will be ‘rewarded’ for their work (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:6'>Rom 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a></em>); yet <em><a href='B:470 6:4-6'>Mat 6:4-6</a></em> says they will be rewarded for their prayers. Prayer will only ultimately be answered when the Lord returns; hence <em><a href='B:470 6:4-6'>Mat 6:4-6</a></em> leads on to the Lord’s prayer, with its emphasis upon requesting the coming of the Kingdom, forgiveness etc. rather than petty human requests. Here again we see a connection between prayer and the final judgment.</p><p>Giving alms should be so secret, according to our suggestion on 6:3, that we ourselves are not even fully conscious of them. There is repeated emphasis that what is in secret, concealed from view, will be openly rewarded (<em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:18'>Mat 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:2'>Luk 12:2</a></em>). The day of judgment will be a judging of the secret things (<em><a href='B:520 2:16'>Rom 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). Absolutely nothing that is now hid shall not then be made open- this is a considerable theme in the Lord's teaching (<em><a href='B:470 10:26'>Mat 10:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:22'>Mar 4:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:17'>Luk 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:2'>Luk 12:2</a></em>). The Lord's own journey to die at Jerusalem was done 'in secret'- as so often, He spoke His teaching to Himself (<em><a href='B:500 7:10'>Joh 7:10</a></em>). The need for a sense of significance, reward and recognition to be attached to our works is basic to the structure of human personality. We're not asked to deny this, to live as if we are more or less than human. We're asked instead to realize that the day for that shall come, but it is not now, nor are we to seek it now from the eyes of men.</p><p>The public dimension to the judgment process [AV "openly"] will mean that somehow in a moment we will know 'the secret things' of each other. Only with that basis of understanding could believers who appear to differ in this life live eternally together.</p>


text:
<p>6:5&nbsp;<em>And when you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have received their reward</em>-</p><p> The same Greek word for "seen of men" occurs in 6:16,18 (AV "to appear"). Doing spiritual things for the sake of external appearance was clearly a particular concern of the Lord Jesus. Church life inevitably leads to temptations in this area- mixing with the same people regularly, with families intermarrying over the years, appearance becomes a great temptation. But having this as a motivation for any act of spirituality is so abhorrent to the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>6:6&nbsp;<em>But you, when you pray, enter into your room and shut your door, pray to your Father who is unseen-&nbsp;</em>The Lord taught the intensity of the life He required by taking Old Testament passages which refer to the crisis of the last days, and applying them to the daily life of His people. Take <em><a href='B:290 26:20'>Isa 26:20</a></em>, which speaks of how in the final tribulation, God’s people will shut the doors around them and pray. The Lord applies this to the daily, regular prayer of His people- we are to pray in secret, in our room, with doors closed (<em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>)- clearly an allusion to the Isaiah passage. In the time of Elisha we read that when a problem arose, the people concerned went indoors and shut the door. Going inside and shutting the door is associated with prayer, both by the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>) and Elisha himself (<em><a href='B:120 4:33'>2Ki 4:33</a></em>). The other instances of shutting the door don’t involve prayer, but they involve obediently doing something in faith- the woman shut the door upon her sons and poured out the oil in faith; she shut the door upon her sick son (<em><a href='B:120 4:5'>2Ki 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 4:21'>2Ki 4:21</a></em>). Perhaps the implication is that what she did in faith and hope was read by God as prayer, even though she didn’t apparently verbalize anything:&nbsp; The widow woman shut the door and started to pour out the oil into the vessels (<em><a href='B:120 4:5'>2Ki 4:5</a></em>); the way the Lord alludes to this implies that she prayed before she started pouring, and yet she was sure already that it would happen (<em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>). This should inspire a spirit of soberness in our prayers.</p><p><em>And your Father who sees in secret shall reward you-&nbsp;</em>We should be saying and expressing things to God which are our most intense, essential, personal feelings. We cannot, therefore, easily use trite, stock phrases in our personal prayers. Note the grammatically needless repetition of the personal pronoun in <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>: "You, when&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;pray, enter into&nbsp;<em>your&nbsp;</em>closet, and when&nbsp;<em>you&nbsp;</em>have shut&nbsp;<em>your&nbsp;</em>door, pray to&nbsp;<em>your&nbsp;</em>Father, which is in secret; and&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;Father who sees in secret shall reward&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;openly". Likewise when reading the Psalms, especially 71, note how many times David addresses God with the personal pronoun: thee, thy, thou… it really is a personal relationship.</p>


text:
<p>6:7&nbsp;<em>And in praying do not use vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do, for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking-&nbsp;</em>We will not use "vain repetitions" (<em><a href='B:470 6:7'>Mat 6:7</a></em>); the Greek means literally 'to stutter / stammer with the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>'. We know what the man with a chronic stammer is trying to say before he actually finishes saying it. To hear him saying the same syllables again and again is a frustration for us. It's a telling way of putting it. God knows our need before we ask (<em><a href='B:470 6:8'>Mat 6:8</a></em>). Say it, if we have to be explicit, and mean what we ask. And leave it there. 'Don't keep stammering on in your prayers' is to be connected with what comes a bit later: "Take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? Or, What shall we drink? Or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek)... but seek (i:e. pray for, <em><a href='B:290 55:6'>Isa 55:6</a></em> the Kingdom of God, and His (imputed) righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (<em><a href='B:470 6:31-33'>Mat 6:31-33</a></em>). We are not merely to believe that what we ask for we will receive. Note how again the word&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;occurs; we commented several times in chapter 5 that this is a core idea in the Sermon. Our innermost thought and intention is of the essence.</p>


text:
<p>6:8&nbsp;<em>Therefore, do not be like them! Even before you ask Him, your Father knows&nbsp;</em>-</p><p> This gives a profound insight into the purpose of prayer. Prayer is not in order to inform God of human need. He knows all things, and He knows every human need. So if prayer is not in order to inform God of anything, what is it for? Ultimately, it is for our benefit. Keeping on and on repeating our perceived needs, repeating them vainly, as if we are endlessly stuttering, is actually a form of selfishness. Prayer is to be about dialogue with God, sharing life with Him, confession, sharing thoughts. An analysis of David's prayers as recorded in the book of Psalms shows that only about 5% of the verses are requests for anything material. The rest is simply talking with God. The idea of prayer as a mindless repetition of specific needs, in the belief that the more times we state them, the more likely God is to respond- is the very opposite of the kind of prayer which God intends. The Lord's model prayer which He goes on to give features only one request for anything material- and that is simply a request that God gives us enough food for today.</p><p>The Kingdom prophecy that “Before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear" (<em><a href='B:290 65:24'>Isa 65:24</a></em>) is applied to us&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 6:8'>Mat 6:8</a></em>)- as if answered prayer is a foretaste of the Kingdom life.</p><p><em>What things you need-&nbsp;</em>The hope of the future Kingdom means that we will not now be materialistic. It will give us strength against materialism. And the model prayer was given by Jesus in the context of His comment on how some tend to always be asking God for material things. The Lord teaches that the paramount thing we should request is the coming of the Kingdom, and our forgiveness so that we might partake in it:&nbsp;<em>This</em>&nbsp;is the request we should be making- for "Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of… after&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;manner therefore pray ye…" (<em><a href='B:470 6:9-10'>Mat 6:9-10</a></em>). Later in Matthew 6 the Lord repeats the same words: "Your heavenly Father&nbsp;<em>knoweth that ye have need of all these things</em>… seek ye first his Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 6:32-34'>Mat 6:32-34</a></em> RV). The structure of the Lord's prayer reflects this- for the first and only request in it is a seeking for the coming of His Kingdom. The RV of <em><a href='B:650 10:34-35'>Heb 10:34-35</a></em> brings out well the same theme: " Ye took joyfully the spoiling of your&nbsp;<em>possessions</em>, knowing that ye have your own selves for a better&nbsp;<em>possession</em>" (RVmg). Having warned against materialism, the Lord bids His men to “rather seek ye the Kingdom of God... it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:490 9:31-32'>Luk 9:31-32</a></em>) in the place of seeking for material things. The more we grasp that it really is God’s will that we will be there, the more strength we will have to resist seeking for material things in this life. By being sure that we will be there, the Kingdom becomes our treasure, where our heart is, rather than any material treasure in this life (<em><a href='B:490 9:34'>Luk 9:34</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>6:9&nbsp;<em>In this manner you should pray-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The model prayer given by the Lord can of course be used just as it Is. But it’s worth noting that the Lord’s own subsequent prayers, and some of Paul, repeated the essence of some of the phrases in it, but in different words. This may be a useful pattern for us in learning how to formulate prayers. The prayer of Jesus in John 17 is in some ways an expanded restatement of the model prayer. In it, the Lord asks for the Father’s Name to be hallowed or glorified (<em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:11-12'>Joh 17:11-12</a></em>); for His work or will to be done or finished (<em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>); for deliverance from the evil one (<em><a href='B:500 17:15'>Joh 17:15</a></em>). The prayer of John 17 can be divided into three units of about the same length (<em><a href='B:500 17:1-9'>Joh 17:1-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:19-26'>Joh 17:19-26</a></em>). Each has the theme of glory, of directly addressing the Father, and of the needs of God’s people- all clearly taken from the model prayer.</p><p><em>Our Father</em>-</p><p> The model prayer begins with the words "Our Father". Straight away we are bidden remember that no man is an island; the Lord intended us to be aware of the entire community of believers in our private prayers. "Give us this day&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;daily bread" may appear hard for comfortably off Christians to pray- until they grasp that they are praying for "our" daily bread, not "my" daily bread. There are so many in the brotherhood for whom having daily bread is indeed a constantly uncertain question. We should be aware of the whole brotherhood; and pray that "we" will be given our bread for today:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Who is in Heaven</em>-</p><p> A feature of Biblical prayers is the way they start with some reference to God, often involving several clauses. We are to firstly visualize Him there. This is to be connected with the idea of lifting the eyes to Heaven at the start of a prayer (<em><a href='B:230 121:1'>Psa 121:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 123:1'>Psa 123:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 23:27'>Eze 23:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 4:34'>Dan 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:23'>Luk 16:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:41'>Joh 11:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>). "God&nbsp;<em>is in Heaven</em>, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few (more often translated "little")" (<em><a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a></em>). Ezra, Nehemiah and Solomon all start their major prayers with a reference to the fact that God really&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;there in Heaven. The fact that God is a material, corporeal being is vital here. The very fact God has a spatial location, in Heaven, with Christ at His right hand, indicates of itself that God is a physical rather than purely spiritual being. The fact Christ really is there, seated at God's right hand interceding for us, was a concept which filled Paul's thinking (<em><a href='B:520 8:34'>Rom 8:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:20'>Eph 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:1'>Col 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 1:3'>Heb 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 1:13'>Heb 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 8:1'>Heb 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:12'>Heb 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:2'>Heb 12:2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:670 3:22'>1Pe 3:22</a></em>). This teaching about our having a&nbsp;<em>Heavenly&nbsp;</em>Father may appear quite painless to accept; but it was radical, demanding stuff in the first century. The family then was “the centrally located institution maintaining societal existence… it [was] the primary focus of personal loyalty and it [held] supreme sway over individual life”. “Our father,&nbsp;<em>who is in Heaven</em>” was a prayer hard to pray if one really accepted the full import of the words; every bit as much as it is today. The idea of belonging to another family, of which the invisible Lord Jesus in Heaven was the head, belonging to a new society of world-wide brothers and sisters, where the Lord from Heaven held “supreme sway over individual life”, was radical indeed. It took huge commitment and a deep faith in this invisible head of the new family to step out from ones existing family. And the call of Christ is no less radical today. The social circle at uni, the guys at work, our unbelieving&nbsp;family members… now all take a radical second place to our precious family in Christ. And yet we so easily abuse or disregard the importance of our spiritual family; we too easily exclude them, won’t meet with them, can’t be bothered about them. &nbsp;&nbsp; <><em>Let Your Name be glorified</em>-</p><p> “Hallowed / sanctified be Your name" uses an aorist tense which implies that it will be accomplished as a one-time act; at the coming of the Lord. Indeed, the aorist tenses in the Lord's model prayer are arresting; each phrase of the prayer asks for something to be done in a one-time sense. This alone suggests an intended 'answer' in terms of the final establishment of the Kingdom. “Hallowed be Your Name” was actually one of the Eighteen Benedictions used by most Jews at the time. This common phrase was consciously seen as a reference to the YHWH Name (Hal Taussig,&nbsp;<em>Jesus Before God: The Prayer Life of the Historical Jesus</em>&nbsp;(Santa Rosa, CA: The Polebridge Press, 1999) p. 76). But the Lord purposefully juxtaposes&nbsp;<em>Abba</em>, “Father”, with that phrase. This Aramaic, non-Hebrew, familiar word, an equivalent of “Daddy!”, is placed by the Lord next to Judaism’s most well-known and frequently used blessing of the YHWH Name. By doing so, He was making the Name even more hallowed and glorious- by showing that the essence of that Name speaks of familiar family relationship with us, and is no longer the carefully guarded preserve of Hebrew people, thought, culture and language. <>The Lord prayed this in Gethsemane; and it took Him so long to say these words that the disciples fell asleep.</p>


text:
<p>6:10&nbsp;<em>Your Kingdom come-&nbsp;</em>Greek scholars have pointed out that some phrases in the Lord's prayer show a remarkable lack of etiquette and the usual language of petition to a superior; literally, the text reads: "Come Your Kingdom, done Your will”. Is this part of the "boldness" in approaching God which the NT speaks of? That God should encourage us in this (although He also encourages us in reverential fear of Him) reflects something of His humility. The Kingdom of God refers to that over which God reigns. We are “a colony of Heaven” in our response to His principles (<em><a href='B:570 3:20'>Phi 3:20</a></em> Moffat). We are to pray for His Kingdom to come, so that His will may be done on earth (<em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em>). The Kingdom and the doing of His will are therefore paralleled. His Kingdom reigns over all in Heaven, for there, all the Angels are obedient to Him (<em><a href='B:230 103:19-21'>Psa 103:19-21</a></em>). By praying for the Kingdom to come on earth we are not only praying for the Lord’s second coming, but for the progress of the Gospel world-wide right now. Not only that more men and women will hear it and respond, but that those who have accepted it might work God’s will rather than their own to an ever greater extent. Whether or not we can physically spread the Gospel is in this sense irrelevant; our prayer should be, first and foremost if the pattern of the Lord’s prayer is to be taken exactly, for the triumph of the Gospel world-wide. It has been pointed out by Philip Yancey that "Thy Kingdom come!" was violently in conflict with the Roman view that the lives of a subject people like Israel belonged to Caesar's kingdom.</p><p>"'Your kingdom come!' is therefore a word of defiance; to pray it is a subversive activity. This is also how the authorities understand the ministry of Jesus: it is subversive and not to be tolerated" (Philip Yancey,&nbsp;<em>The Jesus I Never Knew</em>&nbsp;(Harper Collins, 1998). The word&nbsp;<em>basileia&nbsp;</em>translated “Kingdom” definitely brought to mind the imperial reign or empire of Rome. Thus Hal Taussig comments: “Whenever anyone in Jesus’ time used the term “basileia”, the first thing people thought of was the Roman “kingdom” or “empire”. That is, “basileia” really meant “Roman empire” to most people who heard it… It was to many ears a direct insult to the Roman empire. Uttered in the presence of Roman soldiers, such a prayer could have gotten [a person] in immediate trouble” (Hal Taussig,&nbsp;<em>op cit</em>&nbsp;pp. 21,96). And so with us, the seeking of the future Kingdom is a radical denial of the spirit of our age, which seeks its Kingdom now; it demands a separation from the world around us. The well-known description of the Kingdom in <em><a href='B:290 2:1-4'>Isa 2:1-4</a></em> is in the context of appealing to Israel to change their ways. Because they would&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;walk in the ways of the Lord, therefore "O house of Israel [therefore] Come ye [now] and walk in the ways of the Lord" (2:5). The hope of Israel ought to motivate Israel to live the Kingdom life here and now.</p><p><em>Your will be done- A</em>gain using an aorist which demands a one-time fulfilment- in the sense of 'May Your will come about…'. The will of God is often associated with His ultimate plan of salvation (e.g. <em><a href='B:560 1:5-12'>Eph 1:5-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:20'>Col 1:20</a></em>). It has been pointed out that "Hallowed be Your Name" is (grammatically) a request for action, rather than simply an expression of praise. Jesus prayed this in Gethsemane and it cost Him His life. We know from the Old Testament that God in fact "hallows" His own Name (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 28:25'>Eze 28:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:22-23'>Eze 36:22-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 38:16'>Eze 38:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 39:27'>Eze 39:27</a></em>). By asking God to "hallow" or sanctify / realize that Name in our lives, we are definitely praying in accordance with His will. He wishes to do this- and so He will surely do this in our lives if we ask Him. All the principles connected with His Name will be articulated in our lives and experience for sure if we pray for this- for we will be praying according to His revealed will in His word. And the ultimate fulfilment of all this will be in final coming of the Kingdom. But see on 7:21.</p><p>In interpreting the Sermon on the Mount, we need to look for similar phrases within the Sermon in order to grasp the sense the Lord was seeking to develop. And we have just such a connection of though here when we observe that the Sermon concludes with an appeal to 'do the will of My Father' (<em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>; and the theme continues in the Lord's teaching, e.g. <em><a href='B:470 12:50'>Mat 12:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:31'>Mat 21:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:47'>Luk 12:47</a></em>). We are praying therefore not only for Christ's return when the literal coming of the Kingdom on earth will mean that God's will shall be done on earth. We are asking for the principles of God's rulership / Kingdom over men (as outlined in the Lord's parables of the Kingdom) to be manifested in our lives; and for strength to do God's will on earth here and now. In probing deeper how the Lord understood the Father's will, we find the term&nbsp;specifically and repeatedly linked with the salvation of persons, supremely enabled through the Lord's death (<em><a href='B:470 18:14'>Mat 18:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:39-40'>Joh 6:39-40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:4'>Gal 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:5'>Eph 1:5</a></em>). We would therefore be justified in seeing this request for the Kingdom to come and [in parallel] God's will to be done as a request for the successful spreading of the Gospel worldwide (see note on "in earth" below). The coming of the Kingdom and the doing of God's will are in parallel- the coming of the Kingship of God in human life means that humans do God's will as taught by the Lord in the Sermon. Of course, the final physical coming of the Kingdom is also in view, but that is the final manifestation of the process which is now ongoing in human hearts. This more internal, spiritual interpretation of the coming of the Kingdom would be in line with the rest of the Sermon, which emphasizes the rule of Divine principles in the deepest parts of the human heart.</p><p>This phrase occurs verbatim on the Lord's lips when He Himself prayed in Gethsemane "Your will be done" (<em><a href='B:470 26:42'>Mat 26:42</a></em>). So often we find the Lord Himself being the embodiment of His own teaching in the Sermon. The difficulty with which the Lord said those words shows how hard it is to really pray 'the Lord's prayer'. The way it can be rattled off so quickly is tragic:&nbsp;</p><p><em>On earth as it is in Heaven</em>-</p><p> Gk:&nbsp;<em>epi</em>&nbsp;the earth, as the will of God is now done in (Gk:&nbsp;<em>en</em>) Heaven:&nbsp;<em>Epi</em>&nbsp;in this context has the sense of being spread throughout; whereas&nbsp;<em>en</em>&nbsp;more simply and directly means "in". Is there a hint here that we are to be praying for the success of the geographical spreading of the Gospel of the Kingdom throughout the earth? Not just knowledge of that Gospel, but people actually submitting to God's Kingship and living by Kingdom principles; not just baptisms but transformed lives. By doing God's will as it is now done in Heaven, we are developing outposts of God's Heavenly Kingdom here on earth, and this will come to term in the return of Christ and the more physical establishment of the Kingdom on the planet, the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, in every fibre of earthly existence.</p>


text:
<p>6:11&nbsp;<em>Give us this day our daily bread-&nbsp;</em>This has long been recognized as an inadequate translation of a very strange Greek phrase. The adjective&nbsp;<em>epiousios</em>&nbsp;in "our daily bread" is one example of Christ’s radical use of language; there in the midst of the prayer which the Lord bid His followers constantly use, was a word which was virtually unknown to them. Our bread only-for-this-day was the idea; the word is used for the rations of soldiers. The idea is 'Give us today, right now, the bread / food of tomorrow'. In ancient Judaism,&nbsp;<em>mahar&nbsp;</em>means not only tomorrow but the great Tomorrow, i:e. the Kingdom. Jesus spoke of the inauguration of the future Kingdom in terms of eating food together (<em><a href='B:470 8:11'>Mat 8:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:21'>Luk 6:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:15'>Luk 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:29-30'>Luk 22:29-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:16'>Rev 7:16</a></em>). 'Give us the future Kingdom today, may it come right now' is perhaps one of the levels on which He intended us to understand the prayer. The aorist implies: 'Give us this once and final time' the bread of tomorrow. The Lord was surely alluding to the way that Israel in the wilderness had been told that "in the morning [tomorrow] you shall be filled with bread"; and this was widely understood in first century Palestine as being typical of the coming of Messiah's Kingdom. Notice too how <em><a href='B:290 55:10'>Isa 55:10</a></em> connects the descent of God's word made flesh in Jesus, with the giving of bread. And one practical point. Even though we may have daily bread, we are still to pray for it. It’s rather like <em><a href='B:450 10:1'>Zec 10:1</a></em>: “Ask ye of the Lord rain in the time of the latter rain”; even when it’s the season, still ask Him for what it appears you naturally already have. Israel were fed with manna one day at a time- this is so stressed (<em><a href='B:20 16:4'>Exo 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:19-20'>Exo 16:19-20</a></em>).</p><p>The idea of 'daily bread' recalls the gift of manna. There was to be no hoarding of manna- anything extra was to be shared with others (<em><a href='B:20 16:8'>Exo 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:15'>2Co 8:15</a></em>). But we live in a world where the financial challenges of retirement, housing, small family size [if any family at all]... mean that there appears no other option but to 'hoard manna' for the future. To some extent this may be a reflection of the way that life in these very last days is indeed quite different to anything previously known in history; but all the same, we face a very real challenge. Are we going to hoard manna, for our retirement, for our unknown futures? Or will we rise up to the challenge to trust in God's day by day provision, and share what's left over? "Give us this day our bread-for-today" really needs to be prayed by us daily. Let's give full weight to the Lord's command to pray for only "our daily bread", the daily rations granted to a soldier on active duty. It's almost impossible to translate this term adequately in English. In the former USSR and Communist East Germany (DDR), there was the idea that nobody in a Socialist state should go hungry. And so if you were hungry in a restaurant after eating, you had the right to ask for some food, beyond what you paid for. In the former East Germany, the term&nbsp;<em>Sättigungsbeilage&nbsp;</em>was used for this in restaurants- the portion of necessity. It's this food we should ask God for- the food to keep us alive, the food which a Socialist restaurant would give you for free. We shouldn't be thinking in terms of anything more than this. It's an eloquent essay in what our attitude to wealth, materialism and long term self-provision ought to be:&nbsp;</p><p>To steal is to take the Name of Yahweh called upon us in vain (<em><a href='B:240 30:9'>Pro 30:9</a></em>), and therefore we ask to be given&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;our daily bread and no more (NIV); not so much that if we are found out, the Name will be brought into disrepute, but rather that we personally will have blasphemed the imperative of Yahweh which is heavy upon us; these words of Agur are applied to us in <em><a href='B:470 6:11'>Mat 6:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>6:12&nbsp;<em>And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors</em>-</p><p> Probably an allusion to the jubilee. We release / forgive men their debt to us, as God does to us. If we chose not to participate in this Jubilee by not releasing others, then we cannot expect to receive it ourselves (note the Jubilee allusions in <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). Around 90% of Old Testament references to sin use the metaphor of a weight or burden, which can be lifted by forgiveness. The Lord Jesus prefers to speak of sin as a debt, which can be forgiven by not being demanded and the debt erased. The metaphor of debt is somewhat richer than that or burdens. It opens the possibility that God lent to us, that He allowed us to get into that debt- because He didn't strike us dead for the sin. 'Debt' also carries with it the idea that we would like to repay, but cannot. This is the flavour of the Lord's opening to the Sermon- that He is the solution for those who would like to be spiritual but feel unable to be as they would wish to be (see on <em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>). The release of debt carries with it a greater sense of gratitude, knowing that we should not have got into the debt in the first place. All this was foreseen by the Lord in His change of metaphor from sin as weight to sin as debt. It has been noted that sin was not spoken as debt until Jesus introduced the idea. We are in debt to God. And yet so many have the idea that God owes them, and big time. The prayer of Apollonius of Tyana was that “Oye gods, give me the things which are owing to me”. And that ancient attitude is alive today, leading to some who think it is their right not to work and to be supported, or expect some kind of material blessing from God. When actually, we are in deep debt to God, and forgiven it only by pure grace.</p><p>Those “indebted” to us (<em><a href='B:490 11:4'>Luk 11:4</a></em>) are those who have a debt to us. But Biblically, who are those who are ‘indebted’? The same Greek word occurs often in the New Testament. <em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em> explains that there is a debt to us if we have been sinned against and it’s not been reconciled. The debt our brethren have to us, and we to them, is to love one another, to lay our lives down for each other, to entertain and receive each other at home (s:w. <em><a href='B:710 1:8'>3Jn 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:11'>1Jn 4:11</a></em>). A wife has her husband in her debt if he doesn’t love her with the love of Christ (<em><a href='B:560 5:28'>Eph 5:28</a></em>); our brethren are in debt to us if they don’t give us material help when we truly need it (<em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em>); or if they don’t wash our feet (<em><a href='B:500 13:14'>Joh 13:14</a></em>). A debt implies that it’s not been paid; and so I come to the conclusion that the&nbsp;<em>forgiveness&nbsp;</em>of our debtors is forgiving our brethren when they don’t love us as they should, don’t care for us… and never apologize or rectify it. The debt is outstanding; they’ve not cleared it. But we are to forgive it; we are to forgive unconditionally, without demanding restoration or grovelling repentance before us. This is the challenge of that phrase in the Lord’s prayer. For we ask for “our sins” in general to be likewise forgiven; and they surely include many ‘secret sins’ which we don’t even perceive or haven’t repented of. And further. “As we also forgive every one that is indebted to us” (<em><a href='B:490 11:4'>Luk 11:4</a></em>) can actually be read as a word of command, a statement that is actually a request. The request is that the sins of those who’ve sinned against us be forgiven- in this sense, “whosesoever sins ye remit [s:w. forgive] they are remitted unto them” (<em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em>). That’s another challenging thought. If they’re impenitent, how can they be forgiven? But if&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;forgive them, perhaps we are to understand that God is happy to forgive them. If we feel, as I do, that we’ve been sinned against so much… then we have a wonderful opportunity to gain our own forgiveness and even that of those people… by forgiving them. The more I hurt at how others have treated me, the more I realize my own desperate need for forgiveness. The two things, as the Lord foresaw in His model prayer, dovetail seamlessly together.</p><p>Further evidence that Jesus prayed in Aramaic is found by comparing the two records of the Lord's prayer; Matthew has "forgive us our debts", whilst Luke has "forgive us our sins". The Aramaic word&nbsp;<em>hobha</em>&nbsp;means both 'sin' and 'debt'. The conclusion is therefore that Jesus taught the disciples to pray in their native Aramaic dialect rather than in Hebrew or Greek. Further, the Lord's prayer has many links to the&nbsp;<em>Kaddish</em>, an ancient Aramaic prayer which included phrases like "Exalted and hallowed be his great name... may he let his kingdom rule... speedily and soon".</p><p>"As we<em>..."&nbsp;</em>is a challenge:&nbsp;The crucial little Greek word&nbsp;<em>hos</em>&nbsp;is elsewhere translated: according as, as soon as, even as, like as, as greatly as, since, whenever, while. Clearly enough, our forgiveness by God is dependent upon and of the same nature as our forgiveness of others.</p><p>"Forgive us our / debts sins as we have forgiven those who sin against us" (Lk:)<em>&nbsp;</em>again uses the aorist which implies 'Forgive us this once'. Could this not be an anticipation of the state of the believer before the judgment seat of Christ- 'forgive me please this once for all my sins, as I have forgiven those who sinned against me'. If so, we have a powerful exhortation to forgive&nbsp;<em>now</em>; for in that awesome moment, it will be so apparent that the Lord's gracious acceptance of us will be directly proportional to how deeply we accepted and forgave our brethren in this life. Notice how strongly Jesus links future judgment with our present forgiveness (<em><a href='B:490 6:37'>Luk 6:37</a></em>). He teaches us to pray now for forgiveness on the basis of how we have forgiven others, knowing that in prayer, we have a foretaste of the judgment. Now we can come boldly before the throne of grace in prayer, just as we will come before that same throne in the last day.</p>


text:
<p>6:13&nbsp;<em>And lead us not</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>eisphero</em>&nbsp;definitely means to lead inward. The internal process of temptation is in view here, as explained specifically by <em><a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a></em> - which may be a specific comment on this part of the Sermon. Much of James is an expansion upon the Sermon. Whilst the process of temptation is internal (and note how internal processes are the great theme of the Sermon), God is capable of leading a person in the process. The dynamics in the upward and downward spirals are ultimately of God.</p><p><em>Into temptation but deliver us from evil-&nbsp;</em>This<em>&nbsp;</em>can only really come true when we are changed into divine nature; for only then will we be freed /delivered [aorist- once, finally, for all time] from the 'devil' of sin. The word for trial / temptation is&nbsp;<em>peirasmos</em>, and I have never been entirely satisfied that we can reconcile the Lord's words here with the fact that God does not tempt any man (<em><a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a></em>). However, I feel happier with the idea that the Lord may specifically be bidding us pray for deliverance from the latter day holocaust to come upon the saints. The Lord Jesus can keep us from "the hour of trial [<em>peirasmos</em>] which is coming on the whole world" (<em><a href='B:730 3:10'>Rev 3:10</a></em>). When the disciples were bidden pray that they enter not into temptation (<em><a href='B:480 14:38'>Mar 14:38</a></em> -&nbsp;<em>peirasmos</em>&nbsp;again), they were being asked to pray the model prayer with passionate concentration and meaning. Yet those men in Gethsemane were and are representative of the latter day saints who are bidden pray that they may escape "all those things”, the hour of trial /<em>peirasmos&nbsp;</em>which is coming, and to stand acceptably before the Son of man at His coming. We ought to be praying fervently for this deliverance; but I wonder how many of us are? For the days of the final tribulation will be shortened for the sake of the elect- i:e:, for the sake of their prayers (<em><a href='B:480 13:19-20'>Mar 13:19-20</a></em>). The final tribulation of the last days will be the supreme struggle between the flesh and spirit, between the believer and the world, between Christ and the Biblical 'devil'; and we are to pray that we will be delivered victorious from that struggle. Thus "Lead us not into 'the test'" (<em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em>) could in this context be understood as a plea to save us from entering into the time of final tribulation- just as the Lord specifically exhorts us to pray to be delivered from that time. The implication would be that the final time of testing will be so severe that indeed the elect will scarcely be saved. It seems to me that none of us have the urgent sense of the time of testing ahead which we should have; how many are praying daily to be spared it? How many are in actual denial that it will ever come, even though it's clear enough in Scripture?</p><p>We must pray not to be led into temptation (<em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em>); but when we fall into such temptation (s:w:), count it all joy, James says (1:2). The exercise of praying not to experience those temptations was for our spiritual benefit, and God is willing that it should be so.</p><p><em>"</em>Deliver us from evil" is surely alluded to in <em><a href='B:680 2:9'>2Pe 2:9</a></em> “The Lord knows how to&nbsp;<em>deliver</em>&nbsp;the Godly out of temptations”. Evil and temptation are thereby paralleled.</p><p>The Lord Jesus based this part of His prayer on Old Testament passages like <em><a href='B:130 4:10'>1Ch 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 25:22'>Psa 25:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 26:11'>Psa 26:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 31:8'>Psa 31:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 34:22'>Psa 34:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:35'>Psa 78:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:42'>Psa 78:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 140:1'>Psa 140:1</a></em> and <em><a href='B:240 2:12'>Pro 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 6:24'>Pro 6:24</a></em>, which ask for ‘deliverance’ from evil<em>&nbsp;people</em>, sin, distress, tribulation etc. here on earth. Not one of those passages speaks of deliverance from a personal, superhuman Satan. Esther’s prayer in <em><a href='B:150 4:19'>Ezr 4:19</a></em> LXX is very similar – “Deliver us from the hand of the evildoer”, but that ‘evildoer’ was Haman, not any personal, superhuman Satan. Even if we insist upon reading ‘the evil one’, “the evil one” in the Old Testament was always “the evil man in Israel” (<em><a href='B:50 17:12'>Deu 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:19'>Deu 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:21-24'>Deu 22:21-24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:530 5:13'>1Co 5:13</a></em>) – never a superhuman being. And there may be another allusion by the Lord to <em><a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a></em>, where God is called the One “who has redeemed me from all evil”. As the Old Testament ‘word made flesh’, the thinking of the Lord Jesus was constantly reflective of Old Testament passages; but in every case here, the passages He alluded to were&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>concerning a superhuman Devil figure. God ‘delivers from’ “every trouble” (<em><a href='B:230 54:7'>Psa 54:7</a></em>), persecutors and enemies (<em><a href='B:230 142:6'>Psa 142:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:14'>Psa 69:14</a></em>) – but as Ernst Lohmeyer notes, “There is no instance of the [orthodox understanding of the] Devil being called ‘the evil one’ in the Old Testament or in the Jewish writings” (Ernst Lohmeyer,&nbsp;<em>The Lord's Prayer</em>, translated by John Bowden (London: Collins, 1965) p. 214).</p><p>It’s been observed that every aspect of the Lord’s prayer can be interpreted with reference to the future coming of the Kingdom of God on earth. Prayer for deliverance from evil, the time of testing (Gk:), would then tally well with the Lord’s exhortation to pray that we may be delivered from the final time of evil coming on the earth (<em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em>). Another insight into this petition is that God does in fact lead men in a downward spiral as well as in an upward spiral of relationship with Him – Pharaoh would be the classic example. “Why do you make us err from your ways?” was the lament of Israel to their God in <em><a href='B:290 63:17'>Isa 63:17</a></em>. It is perhaps this situation more than any which we should fear – being hardened in sin, drawing ever closer to the waterfall of destruction, until we come to the point that the forces behind us are now too strong to resist... Saul lying face down in the dirt of ancient Palestine the night before his death would be the classic visual image of it. And the Lord would be urging us to pray earnestly that we are not led in that downward spiral. His conversation in Gethsemane, both with the disciples and with His Father, had many points of contact with the text of the Lord’s Prayer. “Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation” (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em>) would perhaps be His equivalent of “lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil”.</p><p><em>For Yours is the Kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever</em>-</p><p> AV and some manuscripts. "For Yours<em>..."&nbsp;</em>is significant. The sense of ‘for’ is definitely ‘because…’, but it could simply be with reference to the entire preceding prayer. Or it could particularly be with reference to the preceding request: “Deliver us from evil”. In any case, the question arises: Why should God answer the prayer, be it the entire prayer or the specific request for deliverance from evil, because the Kingdom, power and glory is God’s? The idea may be that because the Kingdom we seek now to be part of, and to eternally live in, is God’s, therefore it follows that He earnestly desires to grant it to us His children. And we plead that He hears our requests, especially for deliverance from temptation and evil, because surely He wants to give us His glorious Kingdom. Because the Kingdom is&nbsp;<em>His</em>, all glory is to Him, and He wants to see us giving Him glory; because He has all power- therefore we ask Him to give us the requests we have made, because they are all intended to achieve glory to Him and to ensure our entry into His Kingdom. Another angle of exposition would be to consider that we ask for deliverance from temptation and sin because we know that God has rulership (“Kingdom”) and power over all- given His unlimited physical and spiritual power, we ask Him to use it to answer our requests. This reasoning of course assumes that all that has preceded in the prayer is in order for us to enter the Kingdom and to see His glory worked out. Any requests for merely human benefit and advantage cannot be concluded with such an argument- that we ask God to hear this&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;the Kingdom, power and glory is his:&nbsp;</p><p>This is the appropriate conclusion to a prayer that asks for the establishment of that Kingdom. Whilst commenting upon the Lord's prayer, it is worth pointing out that the Lord repeated the essence of each phrase at various points during His life. When facing His ultimate struggle when facing up to the cross, He asked that the Father's Name would be glorified (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>)- quoting His own words from His model prayer. It hurt and cost Him so much to pray that prayer- the prayer we may have known for so many years that we can pray it almost at no cost. But to truly ask for the Father's will to be done is in fact a commitment to the way of the cross (<em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:7-10'>Heb 10:7-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:36'>Mar 14:36</a></em>). So let us pray the prayer- but putting meaning into the words.</p><p>May I place two well-known Scriptures together in your minds. “<em>Yours&nbsp;</em>[God’s] is the Kingdom”. And “Blessed are you poor, for&nbsp;<em>yours</em>&nbsp;is the Kingdom&nbsp;<em>of God</em>” (<em><a href='B:490 6:20'>Luk 6:20</a></em>). The Lord assures us that the Father wants to give&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;Kingdom to those who are poor in spirit, to the broken, to the self-doubters, the uncertain, those uncomfortable with themselves, the unbearably and desperately lonely, the awkwardly spoken… the poor in spirit. Those who would be the very last to believe that God would give&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;what is evidently&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;Kingdom. But not only&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;the Father do this, but Jesus stresses that it&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;ours right now. The certainty of the glory that will be revealed for us means that we cope better with suffering; as Paul writes, they “are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (<em><a href='B:520 8:18'>Rom 8:18</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Amen</em>-</p><p> AV and some manuscripts. Joachim Jeremias mentions that "according to idiomatic Jewish usage the word&nbsp;<em>amen&nbsp;</em>is used to affirm, endorse or appropriate the words of another person [whereas] in the words of Jesus it is used to introduce and endorse Jesus' own words... to end one's own prayer with&nbsp;<em>amen&nbsp;</em>was considered a sign of ignorance" (See the article "Amen" in Joachim Jeremias,&nbsp;<em>New Testament Theology</em>&nbsp;(New York: Scribner's, 1971) pp. 35,36). Thus the Lord Jesus was introducing a radically new type of speaking. But He did so because He wanted us to realize that if our spirit is united with God’s, then our words to God are in a sense God talking to Himself; hence we say ‘Amen’ to our own words, when ‘amen’ was usually a confirmation of God’s words. <em><a href='B:500 16:26'>Joh 16:26</a></em> fits in here, where in the context of speaking of the unity of the believers with the Father and with Himself, the Lord says that He will not need to pray for the believer, but God Himself will hear the believer. I take this to mean that Jesus foresaw that the time would come when our prayer would be His prayer. It’s not so much that He prays for us, but rather prays with us and even through us.</p>


text:
<p>6:14&nbsp;<em>For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you</em>-</p><p> The Lord guessed that His teaching to ask for forgiveness “as” we forgive others would be radical and hard to accept. The Lord’s teaching in the prayer [“as we forgive”] was clear enough, but He repeats it twice (also in :15), so that there be no possible difficulty in interpretation. He rarely spells things out this specifically and with such immediate repetition. The vital, eternally vital need to forgive others is underlined. And the Lord repeats this teaching later in His teaching, with the further detail that unless we forgive others “from your hearts”, we will not be forgiven (<em><a href='B:470 18:35'>Mat 18:35</a></em>; also in <em><a href='B:480 11:25'>Mar 11:25</a></em>). This chronic and urgent need to forgive others, aware that&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;we forgive them is the basis of&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;God will forgive us, leads to the question of whether we should forgive others without their repentance. If we first demand specific repentance, then this is the basis upon which we are asking to be judged; and we all, surely, sin without repentance, sometimes because at the time we do not perceive the sinfulness of our behaviour:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:15&nbsp;<em>But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses</em>-</p><p> Paul alludes here in <em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>. Jesus said: "If you forgive, you'll be forgiven". Paul subtly changes the tenses: "You've been forgiven already, so forgive". It's as if Paul is saying: 'Think carefully about <em><a href='B:470 6:14'>Mat 6:14</a></em>. Don't think it means 'If you do this, I'll do that for you'. No. God has forgiven you. But that forgiveness is conditional on the fact that in the future you will forgive people. If you don't, then that forgiveness you've already been given is cancelled. This is what Jesus really had in mind'. This would suggest a very close analysis of those simple words of Jesus, using all the logic and knowledge of Biblical principles which Paul had. Note that the command to forgive our debtors when we pray is applied by Paul to the need to forgive those who sin against us in the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:13'>Col 3:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>6:16&nbsp;<em>Moreover when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. For they disfigure their faces</em>-</p><p> There is a semantic connection between these words. A&nbsp;<em>hupokrites</em>&nbsp;was a play actor, one who wore a mask. These hypocrites create false faces for themselves, that is the idea- their disfigured faces are but as a mask. The Greek for “disfigure” occurs only five times in the NT, once here- and twice in the next few verses, <em><a href='B:470 6:19-20'>Mat 6:19-20</a></em>, where the Lord warns that external material wealth ‘corrupts’, destroys itself, or is disfigured. By disfiguring their faces, they were destroying their faces, destroying themselves because they wanted to appear other than they were.</p><p><em>So that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have received their reward</em>-</p><p> "May be seen" is s:w. <em><a href='B:470 6:5'>Mat 6:5</a></em>, also in <em><a href='B:470 23:27-28'>Mat 23:27-28</a></em>. To act in a way so as to spiritually impress men is especially distasteful to the Lord. The issue of what other churches, ecclesias or individuals will think of us is not to pay any part in our decision making and action. We are living, thinking and deciding in the loving gaze of the Father and Son. The wonder of that should mean that all fear of human criticism or desire for human approval plays absolutely no role.</p>


text:
<p>6:17&nbsp;<em>But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face</em>-</p><p> Every effort is to be made to conceal our spiritual sacrifices. We are to appear as usual (as in <em><a href='B:340 10:3'>Dan 10:3</a></em>). We are to be actors, hypocrites, in a good sense. The Lord is also alluding to how the rabbis forbad "washing and anointing" on the day of atonement, which was a day of fasting. The Lord is teaching open defiance to their hypocrisy:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:18<em>&nbsp;So you will not be seen by men to fast, but by your Father who is unseen; and your Father, who sees in secret</em>-</p><p> Gk. ‘the One who is in secret / hidden’. The hiddenness of God is in the sense that He specifically looks at the hidden man of the heart (<em><a href='B:670 3:4'>1Pe 3:4</a></em>). This is the sphere in which He operates and sees.</p><p><em>Shall reward you-&nbsp;</em>"Openly". Who we will eternally be in the Kingdom, is who we were secretly in this life. What we think about as we fall asleep, as we travel, walk down streets… this is the essence of the life in Christ. The change of nature we will experience at the Lord’s return will simply be a physical manifestation of who we are in spirit in this life. We will be made manifest [s:w:], declared openly, at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). This means that we will be preserved as we spiritually are in this life. This means that the development of our spiritual person is of paramount importance, because that is how we shall eternally be. The Lord goes right on to warn against materialism (:19,20). But that is in the context of the paramount need for the development of spiritual mindedness. It is petty materialism which is the greatest enemy of this development- the cares of this life and the attainment of material wealth are what crowd out spiritual thinking. The treasure, the most important thing in our life, is our “heart”, our thinking (<em><a href='B:470 6:21'>Mat 6:21</a></em>; “the good treasure of the heart”, <em><a href='B:470 12:35'>Mat 12:35</a></em>). Building up spirituality is placed in opposition to building up material wealth.</p>


text:
<p>6:19&nbsp;<em>Do not store up for yourselves treasures upon the earth</em>-</p><p> see on 6:18 “openly”.</p><p><em>Where moth and rust consume</em>-</p><p> Or, "corrupt". <em><a href='B:660 5:2'>Jas 5:2</a></em> alludes here and states that wealth is already rusted and moth-eaten. So this perhaps was the Lord’s idea here, although the grammar is unclear. The idea of gold is that it doesn’t rust. What appears to be permanent material wealth is not, and is already rusted in God’s eyes.</p><p><em>And where thieves break in and steal</em>-</p><p> Literally, ‘dig through’. Relevant to the earth houses of the very poorest people. The Lord’s return is going to break up the house of those not looking for His return (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em> s:w:). It may be that ‘thieves’ is an intensive plural referring to the great thief, whom Jesus likens to Himself in <em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>. In this case He would be saying that He will take human wealth anyway at the last day- so we should give it to Him now and not seek it.</p><p>Because we know people (and brethren) who are richer and more wealth-seeking than we are, it's fatally easy to conclude that therefore we aren't rich, therefore we aren't materialistic. This is part of the subtle snare of materialism; that we all think that this is an area where we're not doing too badly; that really, we don't care&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;much where we live, or what the furniture's like, or whether we have money to take a holiday... But remember, our attitude to materialism is the litmus test of all our spirituality. None of us should be so quick to say that we're OK in this area. "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break (Gk. dig) through and steal" (<em><a href='B:470 6:19'>Mat 6:19</a></em>) was spoken to a huge crowd of Jewish peasants. The Lord wasn't only referring to the few rich men who might be hanging around on the edge of the group. He was talking to all of them. He knew their mud walled homes which thieves could so easily dig through. That little cheap bangle, that ring, thinly buried under the bed mat after the pattern of Achan, that prized tunic... the petty riches of the poor which they so strove for, which&nbsp;<em>to them</em>&nbsp;were priceless treasures. This is what the Lord was getting at; and His point was that&nbsp;<em>every one of us</em>, from beggar to prince, has this 'laying up' mentality. He is almost ruthless in His demands.</p>


text:
<p>6:20&nbsp;<em>But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes, and where thieves cannot break in or steal</em>-</p><p> The idea is of incremental growth. It’s as if spirituality, both in personality and deed, is carefully noted in Heaven as it occurs:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:21&nbsp;<em>For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also</em>-</p><p> Gk. ‘to there’. The direction of our heart is towards where our treasure Is. If our treasure is in Heaven, with God, then our life direction will be towards Him and not towards earthly things. The emphasis of the Lord throughout the Sermon has been on the state of the heart. The overall direction of our heart, our thinking, is all important. That direction cannot be both to earthly things and Heavenly things. Laying up treasure on earth cannot be done whilst having treasure in Heaven. The emphasis of course is on ‘laying up’, wilfully incrementing, not the mere possession of wealth which the Lord may send into our hands. ‘Laying up’ means to increment, not to merely possess. But it is the overall direction of our hearts which will be the deciding factor in our eternal destiny; ‘to where’ they are directed. And we can direct them by deciding what our treasure really is, and where it Is.</p>


text:
<p>6:22&nbsp;<em>The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is healthy, your whole body shall be full of light</em>-</p><p> This observation about single-mindedness ["healthy" = 'single'] follows on from the Lord’s teaching about the overall direction of the human mind, observing that we cannot have two overall directions for our heart. Our eye must be single, the entrance of light must be only from one source. God gives to all men with a single eye (<em><a href='B:660 1:5'>Jas 1:5</a></em> Gk:); and in response, we too must be single eyed in our giving (<em><a href='B:470 6:22'>Mat 6:22</a></em> s:w:- this is one of James’ many allusions to the sermon on the mount). If our eye / world-view / outlook on life is&nbsp;<em>single</em>&nbsp;[s:w. ‘simple’ in the passages quoted], then our whole body / life will be full of light (<em><a href='B:470 6:22'>Mat 6:22</a></em>). In daily work, in private reflection and planning for our immediate futures and present needs, there must be a direct and undiluted belief of the teachings of the Gospel, connecting those teachings to our daily life of faith. In this simplicity of the life of faith, in a world that makes life so complicated [especially for the poor], we will find humility. With that simplicity and humility will come peace, and the ability to pray with a concentrated and uncluttered mind, without our thoughts wandering off into the petty troubles of life as we frame our words before Almighty God each morning and night.</p></p><p><p>I’ve always sensed that the more complex a person, the harder it is for them to be generous. But we are all commanded to be generous to the Lord’s cause, knowing that nothing we have is our own. And I am not only talking to wealthy brethren:&nbsp;<em>All</em>&nbsp;of us have something, and all of us can give something to our brethren. Consider how the poor believers of the first century such as Corinth [amongst whom there were not many rich or mighty, Paul reminds them] collected funds for the poor brethren in Judea. There is a Greek word translated “simplicity” which is related to the word translated "single" here in <em><a href='B:470 6:22'>Mat 6:22</a></em>. It occurs eight times in the NT. Five of these are in 2 Corinthians, written as it was in the context of Corinth giving funds for the Jerusalem poor.</p><p>Consider how the word is translated:-</p><p> Paul had “<em>simplicity</em>&nbsp;and Godly sincerity” (<em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>)-</p><p> They had “<em>liberality</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>)-</p><p> “<em>Bountifulness</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em>)-</p><p> Their “<em>liberal distribution</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em>)-</p><p> He feared lest they be corrupted from “the&nbsp;<em>simplicity</em>&nbsp;that is in Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>).</p><p>Evidently Paul saw a link between generosity and the simplicity of the faith in Christ. It doesn’t need a lexicon to tell you that this word means both ‘simplicity’ and also ‘generous’. The connection is because the basis for generosity is a simple faith. Not a dumb, blind faith, glossing over the details of God’s word. But a realistic, simple, direct conviction. This is why Paul exhorts that all giving to the Lord’s cause should be done with “simplicity” (<em><a href='B:520 12:8'>Rom 12:8</a></em> - the AVmg. translates ‘liberally’). Give, in whatever way, and don’t complicate it with all the ifs and buts which our fleshly mind proposes. Paul warns them against false teachers who would corrupt them from their “simplicity”- and yet he usually speaks of ‘simplicity’ in the sense of generosity. Pure doctrine, wholeheartedly accepted, will lead us to be generous. False doctrine and human philosophy leads to all manner of self-complication. Paul was clever, he was smart; but he rejoiced that he lived his life “in simplicity…by the grace of God” (<em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>):&nbsp; If our eye is single (translating a Greek word related to that translated ‘simple’), then the whole body is full of light (<em><a href='B:470 6:22'>Mat 6:22</a></em>)- and the Lord spoke again in the context of generosity. An evil eye, a world view that is not ‘simple’ or single, is used as a figure for mean spiritedness:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:23&nbsp;<em>But if your eye is bad, your whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!</em>-</p><p> A bad or evil eye was an idiom for mean spiritedness. It continues the theme of materialism from the previous verses. To follow materialism is to be mean spirited- towards God. Speaking in the context of serving<em>&nbsp;either</em>&nbsp;God&nbsp;<em>or</em>&nbsp;mammon, the Lord uttered these difficult words: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth... the light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness... how great is that darkness!" (<em><a href='B:470 6:19-22'>Mat 6:19-22</a></em>). All this is in the context of not being materialistic. The Lord is drawing on the OT usage of "an evil eye" - and consistently, this idiom means someone who is selfishly materialistic (<em><a href='B:240 22:9'>Pro 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 23:7'>Pro 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 28:22'>Pro 28:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a></em>). The NIV renders some of these idioms as "stingy" or “mean". A single eye refers to a generous spirit (<em><a href='B:130 29:17'>1Ch 29:17</a></em> LXX), and a related Greek word occurs in <em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em> with the sense of “generous". So surely the Lord is saying that our attitude to wealth controls our whole spirituality. Whether we have a mean or generous spirit will affect our whole life- an evil [stingy] eye means our whole body is full of darkness. Just let this sink in. If we are materialistic, our whole life will be filled with darkness, whatever our external pretensions may be, and there is a definite link to be made here with the "darkness" of rejection. The riches of Jericho are described with a Hebrew word which means both a curse, and something devoted (to God; <em><a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a></em>). This teaches a powerful lesson: such riches of this world as come into our possession will curse us, unless they are devoted to the Father.</p>


text:
<p>6:24&nbsp;<em>No one can serve two masters</em>-</p><p> It would be too simplistic to interpret this as meaning that we are either totally serving the Lord, or not serving Him. Paul seems to have thought a lot about this verse because he refers to it several times in Romans, basing his entire Romans chapter 6 around the idea that we do not serve sin as a Master (<em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>). But he goes straight on to lament that in reality, he does serve "the law of sin" with his flesh, but "I myself" serve the law of God (<em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em>). And he concludes the letter by warning that some do not serve the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 16:18'>Rom 16:18</a></em>). Perhaps Paul is writing partly in response to confusion about the Lord's words- for we keep on sinning, yet He taught we can only serve Him alone. And his perspective is that we ourselves as believers are totally devoted to Him as our only Lord and Master. But the flesh, which we do not identify as the real self of the believer, continues to serve the sin principle:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For either he will hate the one-&nbsp;</em>The Lord wasn't just trying to shock us when He offered us the choice between hating God and loving Him (<em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:660 4:4'>Jas 4:4</a></em>); He was deadly literal in what He said. The Lord hammered away at the same theme when He spoke of how a tree can only bring forth one kind of spiritual fruit: bad, or good (<em><a href='B:470 7:18-19'>Mat 7:18-19</a></em>). James likewise: a spring can either give sweet water or bitter water (<em><a href='B:660 3:11'>Jas 3:11</a></em>). We either love God, or the world. If we love the world, we have&nbsp;<em>no</em>&nbsp;love of God in us (<em><a href='B:690 2:15'>1Jn 2:15</a></em>). The man who found the treasure in the field, or the pearl of great price, sold&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;that he had, in order to obtain it. If he had sold any less, he wouldn't have raised the required price. These mini-parables are Christ's comment on the Law's requirement that God's people love Him with&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;their heart and soul, realizing the logic of devotion. Samuel pleaded with Israel: " Serve the Lord with all your heart; and turn ye not aside: for then should ye go after vain things [i:e. idols]" (<em><a href='B:90 12:20-21'>1Sa 12:20-21</a></em>). If we don't serve God whole-heartedly, we will serve the idols of this present age. There's no third road. If we are God’s people, we will flee from the false teacher (<em><a href='B:500 10:5'>Joh 10:5</a></em>). If we do anything other than this, we reflect our basic attitude to God’s truth.</p><p><em>And love the other-&nbsp;</em>Because Israel were in covenant with God,&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;they were not to make covenants with the other nations, and marriage is mentioned as an example of this (<em><a href='B:20 34:10'>Exo 34:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a></em>). In his repetition of this part of the law in Deuteronomy, Moses gave even more repeated emphasis to the fact that our covenant with God precludes any covenant relationship with anyone else: "Thou shalt make no covenant with them... neither shalt thou make marriages with them... for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all (other) people that are on the face of the earth. The Lord …set his love upon you …chose you... because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers... the Lord hath brought you out (of the world) with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen... know therefore that the Lord thy God, he God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments... and repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them; he will not be slack to him that hateth him. Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments..." (<em><a href='B:50 7:2-11'>Deu 7:2-11</a></em>). The wonder of our relationship with Yahweh is stated time and again. To marry back into Egypt, the house of bondmen from which we have been redeemed, is to despise the covenant, to reverse the redemptive work which God has wrought with us. In this context of marriage out of the Faith, we read that God will destroy "him that hateth Him”, and repay him to his face. On the other hand, not marrying Gentiles was part of&nbsp;<em>loving</em>&nbsp;God (<em><a href='B:60 23:12-13'>Jos 23:12-13</a></em>):&nbsp;So according to Moses, whoever married a Gentile was effectively hating God. It is possible that the Lord had this in mind when He taught that we either serve God and hate the world, or we love the world and hate God (<em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em>). This isn't, of course, how we see it. We would like to think that there is a third way; a way in which we can love God and yet also love someone in the world. Yet effectively, in God's eyes, this is hating Him. Doubtless many Israelites thought Moses was going too heavy in saying that those who married Gentiles were hating God. And the new Israel may be tempted to likewise respond to the new covenant's insistence that our love of God means a thorough rejection of this world. Whoever even&nbsp;<em>wishes</em>&nbsp;to be a friend of the world is an enemy of God (<em><a href='B:660 4:4'>Jas 4:4</a></em>).</p><p><em>Or else he will be loyal to the one-&nbsp;</em>There are only two masters whom we completely serve; we hold to either mammon, or God&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em>). The idea of loyalty or “holding to” in Greek implies holding&nbsp;<em>against</em>&nbsp;something else; the result of holding to God is that we are against everything else. "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (<em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>)- rather than being passively indifferent. Men reacted to the Lord in ultimately one of two ways- they either truly believed on Him, or supported the Jews in murdering Him (<em><a href='B:500 11:45-46'>Joh 11:45-46</a></em>). Those who apparently believed on Him but kept it quiet were forced by the cross and resurrection to make their commitment one way or the other [and serious reflection on the memorials of these things in bread and wine leads us to the same decision]. So much for the philosophy of balance! The Hebrew word for vacillate (translated "dissemble" in AV) also means to go astray; indecision and indifference are effectively decisions against God's way. The Hebrew language often reflects God's characteristics and attitudes.</p><p><em>And despise the other</em>-</p><p> The Greek word is usually used elsewhere about despising other believers (<em><a href='B:470 18:10'>Mat 18:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:22'>1Co 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 4:12'>1Ti 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 6:2'>1Ti 6:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:10'>2Pe 2:10</a></em>). Loving God involves loving our brother, and despising our brethren means we do not love God but rather despise Him.</p><p><em>You cannot serve God and money-&nbsp;</em>When the Lord spoke of the impossibility of serving two masters, He personified the one as "Mammon" (AV), the antithesis of God. He goes on to define what he meant: "Therefore... take no&nbsp;<em>thought</em>&nbsp;for your life... which of you by&nbsp;<em>taking thought</em>... why&nbsp;<em>take ye thought</em>&nbsp;for raiment... therefore take no&nbsp;<em>thought</em>&nbsp;saying, What shall we eat?... seek ye first the Kingdom of God... take therefore no&nbsp;<em>thought</em>&nbsp;for the morrow" (<em><a href='B:470 6:24-25'>Mat 6:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:27-28'>Mat 6:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:33-34'>Mat 6:33-34</a></em>). Clearly the Lord saw "Mammon", this personified anti-God, as an attitude of&nbsp;<em>mind</em>. He had the same view of 'Satan' as we do: a personification of sin in the human mind. He also saw seeking "the Kingdom of God" as somehow parallel with serving God rather than mammon. We would wish there were some third category, God, mammon and something in between; as we may idly speculate that it would suit us if there were three categories at judgement day, accepted, rejected, and something else. But both then and now, this very minute, this isn't the case. A deep down recognition of this will have its effect practically. If we are serving God, let's not give anything to mammon, let's not play games, juggling and using brinkmanship:&nbsp;</p><p>There is fair evidence that in God's eyes, our attitude to materialism is the epitome of our spirituality. The Lord places before us only two possible roads: the service of God, or that of mammon (Aramaic for riches / wealth, <em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em>). We would rather expect Him to have said: service of God or the flesh. Indeed, this is the choice that is elsewhere placed before us in the NT. However, the Lord evidently saw "mammon" as the epitome of all the flesh stands for. It is probably the view of many of us that while we have many areas of spiritual weakness, materialism is not one of them. But according to the Lord, if we are reading Him rightly, our attitude to the flesh generally is reflected in our attitude to wealth. This is why the Bible does have a lot to say about the sacrifice of 'our' material possessions; not because God needs them in themselves, but because our resignation of them to His service is an epitome of our whole spirituality.</p><p><em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em> is alluded to in <em><a href='B:630 1:9'>Tit 1:9</a></em>. Holding to God as your master rather than mammon is achieved through holding on to His word. Paul sees one application of serving mammon as acting in a hypocritical way in order to please some in the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em> = <em><a href='B:550 1:10'>Gal 1:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>6:25&nbsp;<em>Therefore I say to you</em>-</p><p> Because our hearts can only be in one place, either with God or not, we should especially beware of materialism. For this more than anything else can lead us to hate God and to despise Him- because it takes our hearts away from Him.</p><p><em>Do not be anxious for your life; what you shall eat, or what you shall drink. Nor for your body; what you shall wear</em>-</p><p> The Sermon is concerned with how we think, with inculcating spiritual mindedness. The exhortations in this section against materialism arise out of that- they are appeals not to be materialistic and faithless in God's provision, because this leads to our thinking, our heart and mind, being on those things rather than with the Lord. It's true that the Greek translated 'thought' can mean 'no&nbsp;<em>anxious</em>&nbsp;thought'. But the problem is that we can make this mean that we are in fact allowed to spend a lot of time thinking about material things, so long as we're not 'anxious'. This line of interpretation seems to ignore the wider context. We can be spiritually minded, the Lord is teaching, if we simply accept that we shall never go hungry or naked. God will provide for His children who trust in Him. The Lord clearly saw material concerns as being the great enemy of daily spiritual mindedness. The emphasis upon not taking thought is considerable- the Lord uses the word five times in swift succession (<em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:27-28'>Mat 6:27-28</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>). And He repeats the command not to take thought for what we shall eat or drink (<em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>). Luke's record records this warning not to worry about what we shall 'eat and drink' only once (<em><a href='B:490 12:29'>Luk 12:29</a></em>), but it is prefaced by the parable of the rich fool, upon whose lips we find the same words. After he has spent a lifetime amassing wealth, he says to himself "eat, drink and be merry" (<em><a href='B:490 12:19'>Luk 12:19</a></em>). Clearly we are to understand him as a man who failed to live by the Lord's principles not to worry about eating and drinking. Yet he was not poor. He was fabulously rich. The point is thus established that the rich, or at least those who have enough to eat and drink, are not to consider the Lord's principle as speaking only to the desperately poor who are tempted to worry about what they shall eat. The principle applies to the rich too. For it is a basic human principle that all of us, rich or poor, are tempted to expend mental thought about how we shall basically survive. The omission of the Sermon in John is typical of how John omits much of the Synoptic material, and yet repeats it in essence. He records the same 'eat and drink' language about our need eat and drink of the flesh and blood of the crucified Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:53'>Joh 6:53</a></em>). The point perhaps is that instead of expending mental energy worrying about how we shall eat and drink, we are to instead focus upon absorbing the Lord Jesus into our lives. And all material things will somehow fall into place. A similar idea is to be found in the Lord's warning not to worry about what clothing to "put on", because He uses the same word about how the rejected man had not 'put on' the wedding garment of the Lord's righteousness (<em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>). Repeatedly the later New Testament appeals for us to "put on [s:w:] the Lord Jesus" (<em><a href='B:520 13:12'>Rom 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 13:14'>Rom 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:27'>Gal 3:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:24'>Eph 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:11'>Eph 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:14'>Eph 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:10'>Col 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:12'>Col 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:8'>1Th 5:8</a></em>), so that in the last day we may 'put on' the clothing of immortality (s:w. <em><a href='B:530 15:53-54'>1Co 15:53-54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:3'>2Co 5:3</a></em>). If putting on&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;garment is our mental focus, then we need not worry about what we shall 'put on' for clothing in this life.</p><p>This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:570 4:6'>Phi 4:6</a></em>. How do we obey that command to "take no thought for your life"? By praying consciously for every little thing that you need in daily life, e.g. daily bread. We do not have two masters; only one. Therefore, the more we grasp this, the more we will give ourselves solely to Him. And this leads on, in the thinking of Jesus, to having no anxious thought for tomorrow; for a life of total devotion to Him means that we need not worry about tomorrow (<em><a href='B:470 6:24-25'>Mat 6:24-25</a></em>). If we seek first His Kingdom, then we will not be anxious for tomorrow (<em><a href='B:470 6:33-34'>Mat 6:33-34</a></em>).</p><p><em>Is not the life more than the food, and the body more than the garment?</em>-</p><p> This continues the theme outlined above. The presence of the articles focuses attention upon&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;life and&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>body- and surely the Lord has in view the life to come, which will involve having a glorious&nbsp;<em>body</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:570 3:21'>Phi 3:21</a></em>), not existence in any disembodied sense. The contrast is therefore between this present life, and&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;life to come; this present body, and&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;body which is to be given us. It's a question of identification; whether we focus upon this present life and body, or perceive that this life is but a miniscule percentage of our eternal existence, when we will not be living this life with this body. The life and the body to come are "more" than the present life and body; and the Greek for "more" is elsewhere translated 'the greater part', the idea being 'the major portion'. The vastly greater part of our existence will be with&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;life and&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>body which is yet to come. If we are secure in Christ and confident of our eternal destiny by His grace, then issues pertaining to this life and this body become insignificant.</p>


text:
<p>6:26&nbsp;<em>Look at</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'gaze into'. Surely He drew attention to some birds flying around. And the Greek words behind "Behold" mean more than a casual glance. He asks us to look for some time with deep penetration at the birds of the natural creation, and learn a lesson.</p><p><em>The birds in the sky; they do not sow, nor do they reap or gather crops into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of much more value than they?</em>-</p><p> As always, the Lord applied His words to Himself. For we sense in <em><a href='B:470 8:20'>Mat 8:20</a></em> that He had really thought about His words. Yes, the Father feeds the birds- but they have nests, and the Son of Man at least that night had nowhere to lay His head. Note too that the birds of the air are generally unclean (<em><a href='B:510 10:12'>Act 10:12</a></em>). The fact God feeds even the unclean animals ties in with the Lord's opening comfort when He began the Sermon that His message is for those who worry about their uncleanness and spiritual inadequacy before God.</p><p>Sow... reap... gather into barns&nbsp;are words repeatedly used by the Lord Jesus, especially in Matthew, for the work of the Gospel. The seed of the word is&nbsp;<em>sown&nbsp;</em>(Matthew records three sowing parables- <em><a href='B:470 13:3'>Mat 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:31'>Mat 13:31</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>), then&nbsp;<em>reaped</em>&nbsp;at Christ's return (<em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em> - as in <em><a href='B:540 9:6'>2Co 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:7-9'>Gal 6:7-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:15'>Rev 14:15</a></em>), and finally&nbsp;<em>gathered</em>&nbsp;(by the preachers and Angels, <em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>), "into my barn" (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>)- the Kingdom. We cannot simply ignore all this use of identical language in Matthew's Gospel. I noted at 6:25 and elsewhere that the Sermon is often saying 'Do not worry about the activities which are part of this life, but focus instead on doing those activities in a spiritual sense'. I gave the example of how the command not to worry about what we shall physically eat and drink implies that we should instead be concerned about our spiritual eating and drinking. Remembering the focus of the Sermon upon the need for outgoing, proactive sharing of the Gospel, it would be fair to conclude that the Lord wishes us to not worry about sowing, reaping and gathering into barns in the literal sense, but instead to concern ourselves with doing those things&nbsp;<em>in the work of the Gospel</em>. 'Focus on sharing the Gospel, and all the material things will fall into place if you just trust that they will work out OK'.</p><p>God consciously feeds the birds with their every mouthful. &nbsp;"If God so clothe the grass of the field... shall He not much more clothe you?" (<em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>). In the same way, God individually and consciously cares for each blade of grass. Fundamentally, they do not grow so much as a result of chemical combination or photosynthesis, but due to the conscious care of God using such processes. The idea of every little thing in life and the world being controlled by Angels contradicts the notion that God has set this world in motion according to certain natural laws, and that things continue without His direct intervention- as if the whole system is run by clockwork which God initially wound up. Intervention in this system by God has been called 'the hand of providence'. However, these ideas surely contradict the clear Biblical teaching that every movement in the natural creation is consciously controlled by God through His Angels, thus needing an energetic input from Him through His Spirit for every action to occur:&nbsp; "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither&nbsp;do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your Heavenly Father feeds them" suggests that God consciously feeds the birds with their every mouthful. See too <em><a href='B:470 5:45'>Mat 5:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:29-31'>Mat 10:29-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 38:12'>Job 38:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 38:32'>Job 38:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 39:27'>Job 39:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:6'>Amo 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:7'>Isa 40:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 90:3'>Psa 90:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 104:13'>Psa 104:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 11:1'>Pro 11:1</a></em>.</p><p>Things being "better than" or "of more value than" is quite a theme in the thinking of the Lord Jesus. The Greek word is used by Him at least three times in this way. Better than the birds, than many sparrows (<em><a href='B:470 10:31'>Mat 10:31</a></em>), than a sheep (<em><a href='B:470 12:12'>Mat 12:12</a></em>). Doubtless this thought was developed in the Lord by His observation of birds, flocks of sparrows and sheep- developing the implications of the simple thought that we are of more value than them to God. For we are made in His image in a way in which they are not.</p>


text:
<p>6:27&nbsp;<em>Which of you by worrying</em>-</p><p> As always, the emphasis is upon the state of the heart. No amount of mental worry can add anything to us. And so our hearts and minds should instead be devoted to the God who can transform our body into an eternal state of existence (see on 6:25).</p><p><em>Can add</em>-</p><p> The same word occurs in 6:33. We cannot ultimately 'add' anything to ourselves in secular life; if we seek first the things of God's Kingdom [i:e. 'take thought' for them rather than our material life], then what is necessary for the material, human life will be added to us. The concept of 'addition' suggests we are to see ourselves as ourselves&nbsp;<em>without</em>&nbsp;the issues of food, clothing and survival. We are then to decide how we are to take care of those 'additional' issues. And the Lord is teaching that we are to focus upon spiritual things and the service of God's Kingdom, believing that He will 'add' these things to us. To perceive ourselves independent from our human, secular needs and position is hard. But Paul got the idea right when he spoke of how we bring nothing into this world and can take nothing out (<em><a href='B:610 6:7'>1Ti 6:7</a></em>). 'We' come into this world; we exist, but have nothing added to us initially. And 'we' exit this world, likewise without anything 'added'.</p><p><em>One cubit to his stature</em>-</p><p> The Greek can mean 'age' as well as referring to our body. No amount of secular thought can add age to our lives. Because life, the eternal life, comes only from God. So it is to Him that our hearts belong. Again, the Lord Jesus was the word of the Sermon made flesh in His own example. For we read that He grew in stature before God (<em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em> s:w:)- not by anxious worldly thought. Perhaps Zacchaeus thought upon the implications of the Lord's words, because Luke uses the same word to note that he was of inadequate stature (<em><a href='B:490 19:3'>Luk 19:3</a></em>). The 'stature' that we seek to attain is not any physique or longevity in this life- but the "stature of the fullness of Christ" (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em> s:w:). The amount of thought and effort that goes into trying to live longer, adding a cubit to our lifespan, is immense. And understandably so, for those who have only this life. Surely the Lord is saying that we should give no anxious thought to this, but rather, give our mental energy to growing into the age / stature of Himself.</p>


text:
<p>6:28&nbsp;So<em>&nbsp;why do you worry about clothing?</em>-</p><p> The allusion is surely to how God provided food, drink and clothing which didn't wear out for the Israelites on their wilderness journey (<em><a href='B:50 8:4'>Deu 8:4</a></em>), just as He will for those who have crossed the Red Sea in baptism (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). Again, it seems likely that the Lord intended us to refocus from material to spiritual. For later in Matthew we read of Him emphasizing the ultimate importance of having the right 'clothing' [s:w. "wedding garment"] to enter God's Kingdom at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 22:11-12'>Mat 22:11-12</a></em>). On a simply practical level, it's my observation that many believers find spirituality hard because their minds are too taken up with making money- to fund the buying of branded, designer clothing. In our generation as never before, the price range of clothing is as never before. It is rather beyond me why in a brotherhood of need, it seems perfectly acceptable to not buy good second hand clothing and pay ten or more times the price for new clothing with the right brand name on it. But maybe that's just me.</p><p><em>Consider the lilies of the field</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'to study deeply', used only here in the NT. The same idea, although a different word, as the Greek for "Behold" in <em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>. Whilst no doubt the Lord with a wave of the hand did draw attention to the mountain lilies growing where He was teaching, He was most definitely not inviting us to take a cursory glance at them. But rather to study them; and the unusual Greek word used for "consider" drove home that point. Perhaps He picked one and invited the disciples to gaze at it in silence for some time.</p><p><em>How they grow</em>-</p><p> The Greek can mean 'in what way' and also 'how much', 'to what great extent'.</p><p><em>They neither toil nor spin!</em>-</p><p> As so often in the Lord's teaching and parables, He was careful to balance what He said with relevance to both men ['toiling' in Greek has the idea of heavy labour], and women [spinning]. The later appeal for those who are 'toiling' in heavy labour to come to Christ (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>) is an invitation to know in this life a lifting of the curse of labour which came upon Adam. This is not to say that we shall not have to labour, but the desperate toiling for survival is mitigated by the knowledge that God will ultimately provide for His people.</p>


text:
<p>6:29&nbsp;Yet<em>&nbsp;I say to you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these</em>-</p><p> It is hard to avoid the connection with the description of the righteous as being clothed in glory at the last day. The clothing metaphor is repeated throughout the NT in this connection (e.g. <em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:18'>Rev 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:13'>Rev 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>). Of course we are dealing with metaphor here- plants are not literally clothed, although perhaps the Lord was alluding to them flowering as their 'glory'. The lily is glorious for what it is, not because it has laboured to make itself something other than it Is. We will be made glorious by God in Christ. The city set on a hill cannot be hid. We are who and as we are before God. There is nothing to cover with clothing. This consideration alone puts the whole issue of present clothing into perspective.</p><p>The Lord Jesus hinted indirectly at Solomon's pride when he said that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one wild flower, symbolic of how God would clothe, with imputed righteousness, even the weakest believer (<em><a href='B:470 6:29-30'>Mat 6:29-30</a></em>):&nbsp; This reference to Solomon is only one of several hints that our Lord read Solomon in a negative light:&nbsp;&nbsp;He goes on to warn against excessive attention to food, drink and clothes (<em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>)- all things which the court of Solomon revelled in to a quite extraordinary extent. "Take therefore no (anxious) thought for the morrow... sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" (<em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>) sounds like a rebuke of the way Solomon did just this in Ecclesiastes, as he intellectually battled with the sadness of knowing that all his achievements would mean nothing in the future. "But", says Jesus, "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you" (<em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>)- clearly a reference to Solomon seeking Divine wisdom and subsequently being blessed; surely the Lord is telling us to follow Solomon's example in this, but to avoid his pride and materialism. Solomon didn’t seek the future Kingdom of God, but rather his own. The Lord taught that we should love our enemies, and not fall into the trap of only loving those who love us (<em><a href='B:470 5:44-46'>Mat 5:44-46</a></em>). He seems to be alluding here to Solomon’s claim that wisdom says: “I love them that love me” (<em><a href='B:240 8:17'>Pro 8:17</a></em>). Maybe I’m wrong, and the Lord didn’t have His mind there on that passage; but in the context of Him re-interpreting and re-presenting Solomon to us, it seems likely that He was consciously showing that God’s grace is in fact the very opposite of what Solomon thought. God loves His enemies, and doesn’t only love those who love Him; and this is to be our credo likewise:&nbsp;The record of how Solomon spoke of his building of the temple can now be seen as blatant pride in his external appearance of spirituality;&nbsp; without the foregoing analysis of the&nbsp;<em>hints&nbsp;</em>of Solomon's pride, this wouldn't necessarily be a correct conclusion to reach;&nbsp; but with all these inspired links, surely we can read the following as pure pride: "Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven (hardly praying in his closet!&nbsp; Was Christ alluding to Solomon in <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>?)... the house that I have built for thy name" (<em><a href='B:110 8:22'>1Ki 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:44'>1Ki 8:44</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;Solomon's frequent emphasis on the fact that&nbsp;<em>he&nbsp;</em>built the house makes a telling connection with the principle that God does not live in houses&nbsp;<em>built</em>&nbsp;by men (<em><a href='B:510 17:24'>Act 17:24</a></em>?) &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:30&nbsp;<em>Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is here today-</em></p><p>&nbsp; The blessings God gives us do not come by clockwork- we thankfully recognize they are individual acts of mercy towards us. Perhaps&nbsp;our sometimes 'clockwork' prayers are an indication that we think God's blessings of food etc. are clockwork too? In the same way, God individually and consciously cares for each blade of grass. Fundamentally, they do not grow merely as a result of chemical combination or photosynthesis, but due to the conscious care of God using such processes. See on <em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>. The worry-free life is a characteristic of the true believer. If God gave us His Son, how much more will He not give us “all things”? The Lord brought out the point in <em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>: If God so clothes the grass… how much more will He clothe us, therefore, don’t worry! “Clothe” translates the Greek&nbsp;<em>amphi-hennumi</em>-</p><p> to enrobe around. The Lord seems to have been referring to a type of wild flower that appears to be draped around by its natural skin, rather like an irIs. God gives the wild flowers robes… although they do not spin them or work for them (<em><a href='B:470 6:29'>Mat 6:29</a></em>). Solomon’s robes weren’t as beautiful as them. And how&nbsp;<em>much more</em>&nbsp;will God clothe us, both literally and with salvation (for this is how the Bible usually uses the idea of God clothing us). God does so much for the lilies, who are to be ‘thrown into the fire’… a phrase which inevitably connects with the Lord’s other uses of that idea to describe the final condemnation of the wicked (as in <em><a href='B:660 1:11'>Jas 1:11</a></em>). God cares for flowers, and He even cares and provides for those whom He will one day condemn. For God to keep such people alive is a conscious outflowing of His lavish energy, His gracious gift of life and health. If He does that for things and persons which will ultimately be ‘thrown into the fire’, how&nbsp;<em>much more</em>&nbsp;will He clothe us. Let’s remember that creation isn’t run on clockwork; God makes His rain come, and His sun to rise, on the just and unjust; He’s aware when a bird falls from the air; counts the hairs on our heads, as a mother dotes over a new-born baby’s features. Just by keeping alive humanity (indeed, all of creation), God is lavishing His grace and consciously outgiving of Himself.</p><p><em>But tomorrow is thrown into the furnace</em>-</p><p> We have noted that the idea of 'casting' is used by the Lord with reference to condemnation at the last day; and 'the oven' is reminiscent of the imagery of Gehenna fire to destroy the rejected. If God shows so much care and gives so much passing glory to that which shall be rejected and be ultimately unused by Him in eternity- how much more will he clothe us whom He loves and has accepted with His nature. All worry about what garment we shall physically put on, let alone whether it has a brand name on it or not, becomes subsumed beneath the wonder of the metaphor of our final clothing.</p><p><em>Will He not more surely care for you, O you of little faith!</em>-</p><p> The word is used another three times in Matthew (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</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>). In each case it refers specifically to a lack of faith in the saving power of Jesus. The "little faith" is not so much in God's promised provision of physical clothing, but in the promise of final clothing in salvation. But God's care even for those whom He shall condemn, keeping them in life, and the glory He gives to the plant and animal creation which last but for days, is sure encouragement that He shall so much more super abundantly clothe us with salvation- and also, will ensure we don't go physically naked in this world. The Gospel records, as transcripts of the disciples' early preaching, show the disciples appealing to others to have faith, to believe and be baptized. And yet the same accounts record so often how weak and small was the disciples' faith. Matthew is a classic example: <em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</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 was on the basis of this acknowledged weakness of their own, that the disciples could appeal so powerfully to others. The more real they showed themselves to be, the more credible was their appeal.</p>


text:
<p>6:31&nbsp;<em>Therefore, do not be anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, How shall we be clothed?</em>-</p><p> The three things God provided for Israel in their wilderness journey. The same old clothes, food (manna) and water, of course. But He provided for them.</p><p>God will provide for us to be "clothed", but the question is, how does He provide? The same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 25:36'>Mat 25:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:38'>Mat 25:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:43'>Mat 25:43</a></em> about the believer in Christ who is not clothed, and needs to be clothed by other believers- some of whom refuse to, whilst others do. If God really does provide food and clothing for His people- why are some apparently without them? One window onto that question might be that potentially all such needs have been met, in that the food and clothing is within the brotherhood. But there can be a dysfunction, in that it is not shared out as it should be- meaning that some go without the provision which God has potentially provided. But another window is that David could say that he had never seen the seed of the righteous begging bread at any time in his long and varied life (<em><a href='B:230 37:25'>Psa 37:25</a></em>). And despite a lifetime in the poorer world I also have yet to encounter this. The promise holds true, in my observation.</p>


text:
<p>6:32&nbsp;<em>For the Gentiles clamour for all these things-&nbsp;</em>God's people who worry and spend their thoughts on eating, drinking and clothing are no better than the Gentile world. This was a radical thing to say to first century Jews. It is a common Biblical theme that the unspiritual amongst God's people shall share the judgments of the world whom in spirit they are like. The idea of the Gentiles seeking is of course from <em><a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a></em>, where we read that finally the Gentiles will seek unto Christ (as in <em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em>). Perhaps the idea is that we should right now have that changed direction of 'seeking' which the Gentile world will have in the future. Our practical life in Christ is really all about our response to the abounding nature of God’s grace. If we really believe it, then we will trust in Him and not worry. <em><a href='B:470 6:32'>Mat 6:32</a></em> goes on to imply that the difference between the Gentile world and the believer in Christ is quite simply that we believe that our Father has this level of care and concern for us; and therefore we will not worry, whereas the unbelieving world worry constantly about material things. This is how much of a ‘first principle’ this really Is.</p><p>'Clamour' is the idea of seeking, and is parallel with 'thinking' anxiously in :31. Again it is the overall direction of our hearts, to where our seeking is set, our mental life and thinking, which is the issue. Rather than individual acts of spiritual failure or success.</p><p><em>Even though your heavenly Father knows you have need of them all</em>-</p><p> God knows our human situation. Our faithlessness and lack of spiritual mindedness is because of an unspoken sense that actually He is unaware of our needs and the nature of being human. But the God who knows all things is not unaware of humanity and the needs which accompany being human. Frequently the prophecies directed to the Jews returning from Babylon spoke at length of God's amazing knowledge- because the sense was that whilst God existed, He did not know close-up about the human situation. He does, of course, know perfectly.</p><p><em>Hapas</em>, 'all things', means strictly 'each and every one of'. God knows every single human need relating to eating, drinking, clothing and existing. And He knows better than we do our greatest need- to eat and drink of that bread and blood which gives eternal life, and to be clothed with His nature.</p>


text:
<p>6:33&nbsp;<em>So seek first</em>-</p><p> Seeking is paralleled with taking thought in :31,32. The overall direction of our lives must be towards the Kingdom of God above all. If that is put "first", then actually there is no room for thought about much else. The idea is not 'Seek the Kingdom first, and other things secondly'. Rather must the 'seeking' of our thinking be towards the Kingdom. 'Seeking' was a common Hebraism for 'worship'. But the Lord has defined 'seeking' as thinking, as the overall direction of our mental state, our heart. It was not merely a question of going through the worship rituals of Judaism in a holy space such as the temple. True worship is redefined as the state of our heart.</p><p><em>His Kingdom</em>-</p><p> I noted under <em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em> that the coming of the Kingdom in our lives is through the doing of God's will. The Lord's message is not simply that we should long for the coming of the Kingdom at His second coming; it is that starting right now, we should seek above all things to extend the principles of the Kingdom (as taught in the Lord's parables of the Kingdom) in our lives and in the world around us.</p><p><em>And His righteousness</em>-</p><p> The Sermon was intended for those who earnestly wished to be righteous but felt unable to attain it as they wished (see on <em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>). Yet we should continue 'seeking' it. And Paul takes the thought further by declaring that if we really seek to be righteous, then we will become "in Christ" and believe in God's offer of imputed righteousness.</p><p><em>And all these things</em>-</p><p> Semitic languages such as Aramaic and Hebrew can often have various levels of meaning in a phrase. The phrase may mean or say one thing, but also suggest something else. We are of course reading the expression of those phrases in Greek:&nbsp;<em>Pas tauta</em>&nbsp;(usually translated "all these things") need not necessarily be translated as a plural. The idea could equally be 'The whole, complete thing'- we might say 'The real deal'. And that would make sense of the connection between 'added' and <em><a href='B:470 6:27'>Mat 6:27</a></em>, which speaks of how we cannot 'add' a cubit to our lifespan. The implication could be that 'the real deal', the&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;thing- eternal life, salvation in God's Kingdom- shall be added if we seek that Kingdom first and foremost. Alternatively, we can interpret more in line with the common translations and understand that 'all these things' is the same 'all these things' of the preceding verse 32- the material things which God knows we need. These things&nbsp;<em>will be added</em>&nbsp;to us if we do not seek them first, but rather seek God's Kingdom first. But there is the suggestion that the real 'all things' for us is eternity in God's Kingdom. For a discussion of what may have happened if these basic things are apparently&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;added to a believer, see on <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>.</p><p><em>Shall be added to you</em>-</p><p> The only other usage of the word in Matthew is just a few verses earlier, where the Lord has pointed out that we are unable to 'add' a cubit to our length of human life nor to our body height (6:27).</p>


text:
<p>6:34&nbsp;<em>Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own-&nbsp;</em>The only other occurrence of the Greek word in Matthew is a few verses earlier in :30. God provides for the grass which "tomorrow" will be cast into the fire. We observed under <em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em> that this is the language of condemnation. If God even keeps alive and provides for those who shall be condemned, and the things of the animal and plant creation which live for only a day or so, how much more will He care for us. The "tomorrow" which is in view is therefore the ultimate 'tomorrow'- of the coming of Christ. We are to take no anxious thought for the outcome of that day if we know that in our hearts we are seeking the things of the Kingdom above all. In the same spirit, Paul taught that all who wholeheartedly love the Lord's appearing shall be saved (<em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>). We should not be full of worried thought about our possible rejection on that day, but rather the overall thinking of our mind should be positively full of the things of the Kingdom. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" could be read as meaning 'Yes there will be evil for some on that day, but don't waste your thoughts worrying about that. If your heart is for the Kingdom of God, you are secure. Don't worry about it". Although this is the ultimate sense of 'tomorrow' which the Lord has in mind, His words can be understood on a quite simple literal level too. We are to live one day at a time without worrying about the future, because quite simply- God will provide. Each day has its own problems, and don't worry about them ahead of time. Rather focus your thinking and mental energy upon the things of God's Kingdom. This is exactly in the spirit of the command in the Lord's model prayer to ask for enough food only for today (<em><a href='B:470 6:11'>Mat 6:11</a></em>). Living like this is of course seen by the world as irresponsible. But it is not irresponsible if we do so with a firm faith that God is responsible for our tomorrows.</p>


text:
<p>7:1&nbsp;<em>Judge not, that you be not judged-&nbsp;</em>For Paul, one phrase from these chapters echoed in his mind throughout the years; thus "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (<em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>) is at the basis of <em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em>; the whole of Romans 14 (<em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>), and <em><a href='B:530 4:3'>1Co 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>. The Lord's teaching about judging does not in fact say that the act of condemning our brother is in itself a sin- it's simply that we must cast out the beam from our own eye first, and then we can judge our brother by pointing out to him the splinter in his eye. But the Lord tells us not to judge because He foresaw that we would never completely throw out the beam from our own eye. His command not to judge /&nbsp;condemn at all was therefore in this sense a concession to our inevitable weakness (<em><a href='B:470 7:1-5'>Mat 7:1-5</a></em>). The commentary of James on this part of the Sermon is interesting: “Don’t speak against one another, brothers. He who speaks against a brother and judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge" (<em><a href='B:660 4:11'>Jas 4:11</a></em>). In what sense is to judge / condemn our brother to judge the law? And which law? Maybe James considered <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em> to be so fundamental a part of "the law of Christ" that he refers to it as "the law". I suggest under <em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em> that James considers the Sermon to be "the perfect law". The Lord had taught clearly that under His law, to condemn meant being condemned. Yet there were those in James' readership, as there are today, who think they can go ahead and condemn others. Seeing the Lord's law is so clear, James is saying that effectively they are condemning the law of Jesus, placing themselves as judges over His law by deciding that they can break it at will.</p>


text:
<p>7:2&nbsp;For<em>&nbsp;with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged</em>-</p><p> The "judgment" is of condemnation- every one of the 28 occurrences of the Greek word refer to "damnation" or "condemnation". The 'judging' which is prohibited in :1 is therefore of condemning others.</p><p><em>And with what measure you use, it shall be applied to you</em>-</p><p> This verse begins with "For". Because of the principle that we shall be condemned if we condemn, we need to remember that we will receive according to the measure we use to people in this life. Again, a direct connection is made between our judgment experience before Jesus at the last day, and our attitude to others now:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:3<em>&nbsp;And why do you see the splinter that is in your brother's eye but ignore the plank that is in your own eye?-&nbsp;</em>In Luke, the Lord prefaces this mini-parable by saying that the blind can't lead the blind. For Him, a man with even slightly impaired vision was effectively blind. In this very context He speaks of the need to be "perfect... as his master". Only the perfect, by implication, can criticize their brethren. And the final reason He gives for not attempting to cast out the plank from our brother's eye is that "For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit”. This is rather hard to understand in the context. But on reflection, it seems that He is teaching that if we are good trees, we will have no corrupt fruit, no splinters in our eye- and because none of us are like this, there is corrupt fruit on each of us, we aren't perfect as our Master, therefore we shouldn't think of trying to cast out the plank from our brother's eye (<em><a href='B:490 6:39-43'>Luk 6:39-43</a></em>). And of course He bids us to be perfect as our Father is. These high standards of demand were mixed with an incredible grace. Only a man who was evidently perfect could speak like this with any realness or credibility. Otherwise His words would just have been seen as the ravings of a weirdo. But there was a realness to His perfection that made and makes His demands so piercingly appropriate to us. The way He handled His perfection is a wonderful insight into His character. He knew that He was without sin; and He knew that the life He lived moment by moment was to be the pattern for all God’s people. Yet somehow, He handled this in a manner which was never arrogant, never proud, and never off-putting to sinners; but rather, actually inviting to them.</p><p>This continues the context about judging from verses 1 and 2. Our attitude to others will be the Lord's attitude to us at the last day. If we are hyper-critical of others, then this is how the Lord will look upon us. If&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;should mark iniquity in us, none could stand (<em><a href='B:230 130:3'>Psa 130:3</a></em>)- and we should struggle with the natural human tendency to mark iniquity in others. The question 'Why…?' is answered by the Lord in verse 4- He perceived that we excuse our judgmentalness and critical attitudes with the excuse that we actually want to assist the poor person who is the object of our critical gaze. How many times have we heard the bitterest, most carping criticism of others- rounded off with the excuse 'I actually really feel so sorry for him'. This is the very mentality the Lord is bringing to our attention. He bids us realize how we justify critical attitudes towards others on the basis that we kind ourselves that we want to help them.</p><p>The splinter is literally, a twig. Both a twig and a beam are all of the same material- wood. If the Lord was indeed a woodworker, He would have prepared this teaching during meditation in His workplace. The point is, all our faults are of the same essence. The problem is that although we have been called out of darkness / blindness into the light of life, we are still blind in so many ways- even though blindness is a feature of the unsaved, and ignorance of God is the basis of His anger with men (<em><a href='B:600 1:8'>2Th 1:8</a></em>). Crystal clear teaching of Jesus relating to wealth, brotherly love, personal forgiveness, the vital unity of His church, personal purity… these all go ignored in some way by each of us, and therefore by us as a community. The Lord gently warns us that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;likely to be blind in some way- why, He asks, are we so keen to comment on our brother's blindness / darkness, when we too have such limited vision (<em><a href='B:470 7:3'>Mat 7:3</a></em>)? We can read the same passages time and again, and fail to let them really register.</p><p>"Consider not" is alluded to by James. James is full of references to the Sermon, and <em><a href='B:660 1:23-24'>Jas 1:23-24</a></em> repeat this Greek word for "consider". James warns that we can be like the man who considers / beholds his face in a mirror and then carries on with life, immediately forgetting what he has seen of himself. It's not that we are totally, blissfully unaware of our faults. We see / consider them, but for a fleeting moment. And then live as if we have not seen them. The Lord is telling us to indeed see / consider our own planks. The idea seems to be that the plank in our own eye is our judgmental attitude towards our brother. This is what damages our vision; John teaches that we cannot see where we are walking if we hate our brother in our heart (<em><a href='B:690 2:11'>1Jn 2:11</a></em>). If we are without this major impediment to our vision, then maybe we will be able to assist others with removing small parts [a twig] of the major problems [a beam] which we have ourselves overcome.</p>


text:
<p>7:4&nbsp;<em>Or how will you say to your brother-&nbsp;</em>Remember that the Sermon was spoken to the disciples. The Lord is foreseeing how things would tend to go in the life of His collective people. There is something grotesque, absurd, over the top in this story. Christ's parables often have an element of unreality in them to highlight how His attitudes are unusual (e.g. the employer who pays all his men the same wages for different hours of work). And these unusual attitudes of His reflect the sensitivity of Jesus:&nbsp;But in this story of the two carpenters there is something not only unreal, but almost cartoon-like. We read it and think 'The Lord's obviously exaggerating, nobody would really be so foolish'. But that's exactly how He knew we would think! Our attempts to sort out our brother really are that absurd! Christ is effectively saying: 'Now, I know you'll think I'm exaggerating- but I'm not' (<em><a href='B:490 6:41-42'>Luk 6:41-42</a></em>). Often it seems the Lord intends us to think His parables through to their end, imagining the necessary details. A splinter will come out of the eye naturally, it's presence will provoke tears which ultimately will wash it out. 'The grief of life will work on your brother to solve his problem, there are some spiritual weaknesses which time and the experience of life will heal; but I know you people will want to rush in and speed up the spiritual growth of your brother. But you can't do it!'. Christ even foresaw how we will stress the fact that our fellow believer is our "brother" as we try to do this; as if we'll try to be so righteous in the very moment when in God's eyes we do something grotesquely foolish. Doubtless the Lord's carpenter years were the time when He formulated this story. Perhaps He intends us to take it further, and pick up the implication that these two carpenters couldn't help each other; but there's another one who can…&nbsp; See on 13:28.</p><p><em>Let me remove the splinter in your eye, when you have a plank in your own eye?-</em></p><p>&nbsp;"Remove" is s:w. 'cast out' in :5. The word is elsewhere used about the casting out of the rejected in condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>). It is also used about casting out from church (<em><a href='B:710 1:10'>3Jn 1:10</a></em>) and synagogue and society (<em><a href='B:510 13:50'>Act 13:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:34'>Joh 9:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>). In Luke's account of the Lord's presentation of the material, he uses the same word for "cast out" from religious association (<em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>) as he does just a few verses later for this 'casting out' of splinters (<em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em>). The casting out is therefore a judgmental condemning of others- and that is the connection with the preceding context of <em><a href='B:470 7:1-3'>Mat 7:1-3</a></em>. In practice, this involved religious disfellowship. Christ's people are to associate with each other in fellowship because they are convinced that by grace, they in the body of Christ shall share eternity together. To 'cast out' from fellowship someone is therefore to effectively 'cast them out' in condemnation. The same word is used in both senses. The Lord's parable is most insightful- because He observes that actually to do this is a natural tendency for His followers, and they will justify it in terms of thinking they are doing it out of concern. And yet their attempt to do this is in fact the plank in their own eye. That judgmentalism is in fact a far worse failing than any fault they have observed in their brother. And this all flows directly and seamlessly on from the Lord's point blank statement that He will condemn those who condemn others (<em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>). The practice and upholding of the wicked practice of disfellowship therefore appears to be an issue upon which our eternity may be staked. We must pay any price, including social death and being cut off from communities and families we have known and loved, in order to avoid doing this.</p><p>We cannot "behold" our plank. This is an invitation to try to actually see the plank in your own eye. The plank is there exactly because you have tried to 'cast out' your brother, having heard the Lord's teaching about the need for a "single eye" (<em><a href='B:470 6:22'>Mat 6:22</a></em>) and deciding that your brother's eye is defective. The plank is your judgmentalism. And that is what is so hard to perceive.</p>


text:
<p>7:5&nbsp;<em>You hypocrite</em>-</p><p> Usually on the Lord's lips with reference to the Pharisees whom the Lord clearly detested and whom the rank and file disciples whom He was addressing likewise despised. But the Lord is saying that their critical, condemnatory attitude to each other would make them no different to the Pharisees.</p><p><em>First</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>proton</em>&nbsp;suggests that the following clause is of ultimate, supreme importance; it's not simply a chronological statement that 'first do this, then do that'. If we condemn ourselves in our self-examination, we will not be condemned (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). We are to most importantly [Gk:&nbsp;<em>proton</em>] “cast out” the beam from our own eye (<em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em>)- and the Lord uses the same word about the ‘casting forth’ of the rejected at the last day. We are to judge our own weaknesses as worthy of condemnation.</p><p><em>Remove the plank from your own eye and then shall you</em>-</p><p> We are to condemn ourselves firstly, recognizing our major blindness, and then with the humility of spirit elicited by this, we will have crystal clear vision with which to assist others.</p><p><em>See clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>dia-blepo</em>&nbsp;is related to the verb&nbsp;<em>blepo</em>&nbsp;in :3 ("why do you&nbsp;<em>behold / see</em>&nbsp;the splinter..."). The judgmental believer sees the splinter in his brother's eye and wants to condemn him for it, but the one who has repented of his judgmentalism and removed that plank from his spiritual vision will see through ('through' is really the sense of&nbsp;<em>dia</em>). The translation "see clearly" doesn't seem to me to have much to commend it. The one who has repented of the plank of his judgmentalism will see through casting out / condemning the splinter in his brother's eye. "Then" you will see through casting out the splinter from his eye-&nbsp;<em>tote</em>&nbsp;more comfortably carries the sense of 'right then'. The moment you repent of your condemnatory judgmentalism, you immediately see through condemning your brother's weakness. And so the Lord has powerfully enforced His principle which He began with at the start of this section- do not condemn. And through this profound parable of casting out splinters and planks, He has brought us to see through our brother's splinter. But the only way you can do that is to cast out / condemn your own condemnatory attitudes. It is often claimed that those who have committed what some would see as 'major' sins feel unable to judge others for their sins, and this is seen as a weakness. But actually, we are all major sinners. Those who have repented or matured into softer, non-condemnatory attitudes are mature, and not 'weak' as they are portrayed by their hard line brethren.</p><p>The Lord foresaw the problems we would have within our community of believers in Him; from the schisms of the first century to the struggles of latter day believers. This story is a classic- of the carpenter with a beam in his own eye who is so keen to extract the splinter from the eye of his fellow worker (note how he almost forces himself upon his brother to do this!). There is something grotesque, absurd, over the top in this story. In this story of the two carpenters there is something not only unreal, but almost cartoon-like. We read it and think 'The Lord's obviously exaggerating, nobody would really be so foolish'. But that's exactly how He knew we would think! Our attempts to sort out our brother really are that absurd! Christ is effectively saying: 'Now, I know you'll think I'm exaggerating- but I'm not' (<em><a href='B:490 6:41-42'>Luk 6:41-42</a></em>). Often it seems the Lord intends us to think His parables through to their end, imagining the necessary details. A splinter will come out of the eye naturally, its presence will provoke tears which ultimately will wash it out. 'The grief of life will work on your brother to solve his problem, there are some spiritual weaknesses which time and the experience of life will heal; but I know you people will want to rush in and speed up the spiritual growth of your brother. But you can't do it!'. Christ even foresaw how we will stress the fact that our fellow believer is our "brother" as we try to do this; as if we'll try to be so righteous in the very moment when in God's eyes we do something grotesquely foolish. Doubtless the Lord's carpenter years were the time when He formulated this story of the two carpenters. Significantly they both had wood in their eye- as if a brother will tend to seek to correct another brother who has in essence the same weaknesses, but the ‘helping’ brother considers that the other brother’s is so much greater than his. Perhaps the Lord intends us to take it further, and pick up the implication that these two carpenters couldn't help each other; but there's another one who can…&nbsp;</p><p>In Luke, having spoken of the need to tolerate our brother, the Lord Jesus repeated His common theme: that there is no third road: "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye…? For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (<em><a href='B:490 6:41-43'>Luk 6:41-43</a></em>). There's no third position. Either we love our brother, and bring forth good fruit; or we don't get down to it, and bring forth bad fruit. We can't sometimes bring forth good, sometimes bad. At heart, we are either loving or selfishly hateful. Anything less than following Yahweh with all our heart is seen as doing evil in His eyes (<em><a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a></em>).</p><p>If we can achieve true self-examination, perceiving what needs to be cast out of our lives and doing so, we have achieved something extremely valuable. We need to ask ourselves what real, practical influence the Gospel is having upon us; for life in Christ is about change, not mere acceptance (let alone inheritance) of a theological position which we loyally preserve to the end of our days as many misguided religious folk do. The value of true change is brought out powerfully when the Lord speaks of casting our pearls before pigs, to be trodden underfoot by them. He says this immediately after stating that we are to “cast out” the beams from our own eyes; but we are not to “cast [out]” our pearls before pigs (<em><a href='B:470 7:5-6'>Mat 7:5-6</a></em>)- the Greek words for “cast out” in 7:5 (<em>ek-ballo</em>) and “cast” in 7:6 (<em>ballo</em>) are related. Clearly verse 6 belongs in the section about judging which begins in :1. The idea of being “cast out” is found earlier in the Sermon on the Mount, where the Lord warns of how saltless salt will be “cast out” and trodden underfoot (<em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>), the unforgiving will be “cast out” into prison (<em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>), those without fruit will be “cast out” into the fire (<em><a href='B:470 7:29'>Mat 7:29</a></em>). To be cast out is to be rejected at the last day; and by condemning ourselves now in our self-examination, casting out the eye that offends (<em><a href='B:470 5:29-30'>Mat 5:29-30</a></em>), we avoid having to be “cast out” at the last judgment. If we condemn ourselves now in our self-examination, we shall not need to be condemned at the last day (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). But we are not to cast out our pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and attack us. In this context, I take this to mean that the offending eyes etc. which we cast out are not to be cast out to the world, lest they condemn us (which is how the Lord used the figure of trampling underfoot in <em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>). Thus the teaching about not casting pearls before pigs is seamlessly in context with the previous teaching about casting the beam out of our eye. Our repentances are to be before God and not necessarily the uncomprehending world. The pigs would’ve confused true pearls with swine feed, and become angry once they realized those stones weren’t food but stones. They just wouldn’t have appreciated them. This isn’t any justification for hypocrisy; it’s simply stating that repentance is a private thing before God. But the point to note is that the offending eyes etc. which are cast out are likened by the Lord to “pearls”; they are of such priceless value. Thus we see the colossal importance of true change, of self-examination resulting in the transformation of human life in practice.</p>


text:
<p>7:6&nbsp;<em>Do not give</em>-</p><p> We are to judge, but not to condemn (7:1). Clearly this verse 6 requires us to show discernment:&nbsp;</p><p><em>That which is holy to the dogs-</em></p><p>&nbsp;<em>Hagios</em>, "the holy", could be translated 'the holy ones', the saints. They were not to be thrown out to the dogs- i:e. to be condemned. This command not to condemn would then fit in seamlessly with the teaching of the preceding verses. The dogs which were on the edge of the city are associated with condemnation in both Jewish thought and Biblically (<em><a href='B:230 59:6'>Psa 59:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 59:14'>Psa 59:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:15'>Rev 22:15</a></em>). We are not to condemn, to throw the saints out to the dogs.</p><p><em>Nor cast</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Ballo</em>, related to&nbsp;<em>ekballo</em>&nbsp;("cast out") in :5. I have noted several times that 'casting out' is used in the Lord's thought for condemnation.</p><p><em>Your pearls</em>-</p><p> Pearls represent the believers. The 12 pearls of <em><a href='B:730 21:21'>Rev 21:21</a></em> represent the 12 disciples. The Lord Jesus in His work with us is "seeking goodly pearls" (<em><a href='B:470 13:45'>Mat 13:45</a></em>). The pearls are 'ours' in the sense that all that are Christ's are ours, as He makes explicit in John 17. His pearls are our brethren:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Before the pigs, lest they trample them under their feet</em>-</p><p> Trampling by pigs was another Jewish figure of condemnation, of rejection into the Gentile world. Earlier in the Sermon, the Lord used the figure of trampling [s:w:] to describe condemnation and rejection (<em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>). To trample under foot meant to despise and specifically, to reject (s:w. <em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em> "trodden underfoot the Son of God"). Again the point is being made- don't condemn your brethren and treat them as mere worldlings, or even worse, those who shall be rejected from God's Kingdom. To refuse to fellowship them is treating them just like that:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And turn again and tear you to pieces</em>-</p><p> If we condemn our brethren, as it were casting them out to the pigs- those same pigs will turn on us and rend us- i:e:,&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;will share the same condemnation which we gave our brethren. And thus the point of 7:1 is repeated- if you condemn, you shall be condemned. The same word translated "rend" is used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 9:17'>Mat 9:17</a></em> about how the wine of the new covenant will "burst" or destroy the old wineskins and the wine will run out from them. The bursting or rending of the wineskins is a picture of destruction and condemnation. The pigs of condemnation to whom we consigned our brethren will turn again and trample&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;underfoot. Therefore- do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. This interpretation of verse 6 fits snugly into the context of the preceding verses. Any attempt to make it apply to not offering the Gospel to "pigs" in case we get hurt by them would seem out of context- and contrary to the spirit of taking the Gospel to all men without discrimination, and never holding back in sharing the Gospel from fear that we might get beat up for it:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:7&nbsp;<em>Ask and it shall be given you</em>-</p><p> The connections within the Sermon surely send us back to <em><a href='B:470 5:42'>Mat 5:42</a></em> "Give to him that asks". The same Greek words are used. Our responsiveness to others will be reflected in God's responsiveness to us. And yet the Lord's style throughout the sermon is to elevate the natural onto a higher, spiritual plane. This is not a blank cheque promise, as is clear from both personal experience and Bible teaching. What we can be utterly assured of being given is God's grace and salvation. The Lord surely foresaw that the initial mental objection to His words would be 'But that's not true! I don't get everything I ask for, and neither did many Bible characters!'. But He wanted us to therefore think further as to what He might be really saying- and what He is saying is that forgiveness and salvation will surely be given to whoever asks. These things are summarized in <em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em> as God for sure giving "good things to them that ask Him". The parallel <em><a href='B:490 11:13'>Luk 11:13</a></em> summarizes those "good things" as "the Holy Spirit". The power of spiritual victory, the real way to holiness in practice, a spiritual mind, unity through forgiveness with God's mind / spirit, is assured to those who simply ask for it in faith. Seeking and finding, knocking on the door and it being opened, are likewise metaphors elsewhere used for God's assured positive response to our spiritual requests. John's equivalent to this part of the Sermon is perhaps the Lord's assurance that He will definitely<em>&nbsp;give</em>&nbsp;"living water" to whoever&nbsp;<em>asks</em>&nbsp;Him (<em><a href='B:500 4:10'>Joh 4:10</a></em>); and the frequent references to us being given "the Holy Spirit" or whatever we ask in His Name if it results in the Father being glorified (<em><a href='B:500 14:13-14'>Joh 14:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:23-24'>Joh 16:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:26'>Joh 16:26</a></em>). The letter of James is full of reference to the Sermon, and his allusion to 'ask and you will be given' is that if any man ask for&nbsp;<em>wisdom</em>, he will be given it (<em><a href='B:660 1:5-6'>Jas 1:5-6</a></em>), but a man will&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;be given things if he asks for material things to fulfil his own natural desires (<em><a href='B:660 4:2-3'>Jas 4:2-3</a></em>). It's as if James is answering the primitive objection: 'Jesus said if you ask, you will be given- but I asked for stuff and never got it'. And his answer is that the blank cheque promise is obviously about asking for spiritual things, not material things. <em><a href='B:690 3:22'>1Jn 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:14-15'>1Jn 5:14-15</a></em> likewise speak of receiving whatever we ask- in the context of saying that we can look forward to the day of judgment and be confident of acceptance there. God is willing and eager to save us, as the whole wonder of the crucifixion makes clear. If we ask for forgiveness, salvation and the strength to be spiritual, then He has promised to give those things to us. The wonder of that means that any attempt to try to as it were extort material blessing from God is sadly inappropriate and will not enter the mind of those who are rejoicing in His salvation.</p><p><em>Seek and you shall find</em>-</p><p> As David "found" God through experiencing His forgiveness, so can "every one that is Godly" today (<em><a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a></em>). It is quite possible that "seek and you shall find”&nbsp;was uttered by the Lord with his mind on <em><a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a></em> and David's experience. After all, we cannot expect this to be a blank cheque offer, that whatever we seek for we must receive. But if these words are an allusion to David's seeking and finding forgiveness in <em><a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a></em>, then the promise is more realistic. If we seek for forgiveness and a living relationship with God, then we have this unconditional promise that we&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;find this. Yet in a sense, the time when we will ultimately find God will be at the judgment: we will "find mercy of the Lord in that day" (<em><a href='B:620 1:18'>2Ti 1:18</a></em>), so that "ye may be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless" (<em><a href='B:680 3:14'>2Pe 3:14</a></em>). We will find God, as He will find us, in that great moment of consummation; "for then shall (we) know (God), even as also (we) are known" by Him (<em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>; ). Then we will "be&nbsp;<em>found</em>&nbsp;in him... that I may (then)&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;him" (<em><a href='B:570 3:9-10'>Phi 3:9-10</a></em>). Yet David says that after forgiveness, we can find and know God. It is as if whenever we sin, we in a sense face our judgment seat. And the knowledge and 'finding' of God which we will then enjoy should be prefigured in our present experience of forgiveness. Should we not therefore pray for forgiveness with the intensity with which we would at the judgment, if we were then offered the chance to do so? &nbsp;</p><p>The 'seeking' which is in view is clearly of spiritual things. Not long previously in the Sermon, the Lord had used the same word in encouraging us to above all "seek the Kingdom of God" (<em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>). And now He is encouraging us that if we seek it, we will 'find' it- the word for "find" is elsewhere translated "obtain". If we really want the things of the Kingdom and to eternally be in that environment- we will be. The Lord Jesus Himself went out seeking for goodly pearls- and found them (<em><a href='B:470 13:45-46'>Mat 13:45-46</a></em>). He goes seeking His sheep- and finds it (<em><a href='B:470 18:12-13'>Mat 18:12-13</a></em>). He "found" faith in a Gentile (<em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em>), He was as the woman who sought and found her precious coin (<em><a href='B:490 15:8-9'>Luk 15:8-9</a></em>). Our seeking the things of the Kingdom is therefore not merely our personal seeking a place in its future establishment upon earth. We can seek the progress of the Kingdom principles which comprise the reign and kingship of God on earth right now. Part of that is in seeking men and women to submit to that Kingship / Kingdom. And that too shall ultimately succeed, as the Lord Jesus demonstrated in His own life despite so many setbacks and failures in response to Him. 'But nobody's interested!' is really the cry of unbelief in this promise. If we are seeking for men and women to submit to the things of God's Kingdom, then we shall find them- even if they may not join our denomination or agree totally with all of our theology.</p><p><em>Knock and it shall be opened to you</em>-</p><p> This again is the language of preaching. For Paul appears to allude to it three times in speaking of how doors of opportunity have been opened for him in the work of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:530 16:9'>1Co 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:12'>2Co 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:3'>Col 4:3</a></em>). The implication is surely that he had knocked in prayer, and the doors had been opened. If we pray for opportunities to preach, to save people (rather than spending our mental energy on condemning our brethren, in the context of :6), then God will respond. According to our principle of letting the Sermon interpret itself, it may be that the idea of the door being opened looks back to <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em> - in prayer, we are to shut our door and pray. And our knocking means that the door is opened. The particular metaphor of knocking upon a door and it being opened is used in <em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em> about the Lord knocking on our door at the second coming, and us opening; yet He stands today and knocks at the door, and we are to open to Him (<em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em>). The point is surely that our relationship with Him is mutual, we knock and He opens, He knocks and we open. And at the last day, tragically too late, the rejected knock and the door will not be opened to them (<em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>). Their knocking is a desperate plea for salvation. But if we ask for it in this life- we shall receive it. So the metaphor speaks of seeking salvation and a relationship with the Lord in this life, but in context of the rest of the verse it also refers to our desire for others to have the door opened to them. John's equivalent to all this is perhaps His description of the Lord Jesus as the door, through whom any man may enter in to salvation. It's the same idea- the door is easily opened in this life, indeed the implication is that Jesus is effectively an open door for all who believe in Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:8&nbsp;<em>For everyone that asks receives, and he that seeks finds, and to him that knocks it shall be opened</em>-</p><p> Note that the first two clauses [asking and seeking] are in the present tense. If we ask and seek for spiritual things, we shall receive them. But the metaphor of knocking and opening I suggested on 7:7 has a specific reference to seeking salvation at the last day. Hence the Lord uses the future tense. His repetition of what He has said in 7:7 is to drive home the wonder of it all. That if we ask for salvation, for ourselves as well as opportunities for others to have it, for the extension of God's Kingdom and glory- we really will receive it.</p><p>The other couplets use the same Greek words as in <em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em> (seek... find; knock... opened). 'Ask' is the same Greek word, but&nbsp;<em>lambano</em>&nbsp;is used for 'receive' rather than&nbsp;<em>didomi</em>&nbsp;("given", 7:7). The words 'ask... receive' are to be found again in <em><a href='B:500 16:24'>Joh 16:24</a></em>, where the Lord says that in the era of the comforter, whatever is asked for in His Name will be received. This would not be the only time that the Sermon appears to look ahead to the promises of the Comforter era- see on <em><a href='B:470 5:4'>Mat 5:4</a></em>. <em><a href='B:660 4:3'>Jas 4:3</a></em> continues James' commentary on the Sermon by saying that his readership asked and did not receive (same Greek words) because they asked for the wrong things from the wrong motives. He was correcting the impression some had taken that the Lord was offering a blank cheque for anything. Our commentary so far has shown that the Lord is promising salvation and the things connected with the extension of His Kingdom principles in our lives and those of others:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:9&nbsp;<em>Which one of you</em>-</p><p> The Lord was addressing the disciples in Matthew's record of the Sermon. We can imagine Him looking around at each of them.</p><p><em>If his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?-&nbsp;</em>Ask... giv<em>e&nbsp;</em>are the same words as in <em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>. The Lord sensed that His promise of Divine response to prayer for salvation would be so hard for them to accept. He is here persuading them by all manner of methods to simply accept that reality. We are God's children, and He will not be cruel to us. It would be unnatural and counter-instinctive for Him to not save us. For His is the Kingdom- therefore He desires to give it to us, He designed it for us:&nbsp;</p><p>The point has been made that loaves of bread looked like stones, just as there were some fish (similar to eels) caught in the sea of Galilee which looked like snakes (<em><a href='B:470 7:10'>Mat 7:10</a></em>). This surely played a part in the Lord's temptation to turn the stones of the wilderness into bread (<em><a href='B:470 4:3'>Mat 4:3</a></em>). The similarity of the Aramaic words for bread and stone would have strengthened the connection. The simple message is that God will not play a cruel trick on us- because He is our loving Father. The Lord sensed human scepticism about God's simple offer of salvation. It is simply there- for all who will trust Him in a simple, child-like way. Perhaps the stone is to be connected with how the same word is used for the millstone of condemnation in <em><a href='B:480 9:42'>Mar 9:42</a></em> and <em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em>, and "the stone of stumbling" in <em><a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a></em>. If we seek the bread of the Kingdom (a common Jewish concept at the time, <em><a href='B:490 14:15'>Luk 14:15</a></em>), God will not condemn us. Note how the Lord spoke of salvation and relation with Him as "the children's bread" (<em><a href='B:470 15:26'>Mat 15:26</a></em>), the bread of salvation given (<em>didomi</em>&nbsp;as in <em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>) freely (<em><a href='B:500 6:32'>Joh 6:32</a></em>). The Lord saw to the essence of human fear- of Divine condemnation, that instead of the children's bread we would be given the stone of condemnation. One reason for the crucifixion was in order to try to openly persuade the world of God's grace- that it is for real. The Lord's teaching here signals one of man's greatest difficulties: to believe in God's grace. To accept His desire and passion to save us.</p><p>The&nbsp;<em>giving</em>&nbsp;of bread to us by Jesus at the breaking of bread (<em>lambano</em>&nbsp;again, as in 7:8) is surely an acted parable of His utter commitment to indeed give us the bread we seek above all things (<em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>). Earlier in the Sermon, the Lord had used the same words to teach us to do just this: "Give us this day our daily bread". So He clearly intends us to see ourselves as the hungry little child, asking his daddy for bread. And surely God will not disappoint. The prayer will be answered.</p>


text:
<p>7:10&nbsp;<em>Or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him a serpent?</em></p><p>- <em><a href='B:490 11:11'>Luk 11:11</a></em> labours the point: "If he ask a fish, will he&nbsp;<em>for a fish&nbsp;</em>give him a serpent?". The Lord is penetrating deep into the psychology of His people. We fear that the promised salvation may only be an appearance. And we are being shown here that that is to effectively accuse God of a cruel trick. At what stage the fish became a symbol of Christianity is not clear (there is a distinct similarity in sound between the Aramaic for 'Jesus' and for 'fish', something like 'Iisus' and 'Ikfus'), but the combination of fish and serpent tempt us to interpret this as also having the sense: Do you think that Christianity, the whole offer of the Kingdom I am making, is really such a cruel trick that it's really the serpent, the symbol of evil incarnate? Because that really is how it would have to be. It's either that, or gloriously true. And if we accept God as our loving Father, then with childlike faith we must also believe that His offer of salvation is simply true for us- if we ask. Again we see a connection with earlier teaching in the Sermon; for the Lord had taught His people to pray to "Our Father". Like all of the Lord's prayer, that is harder to pray than might first appear. Because if He really is our loving Heavenly Father, then we are to believe that if we ask Him for salvation and the things of His Kingdom, we shall surely receive:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:11&nbsp;<em>If you then, being evil</em>-</p><p> This record of the Sermon was addressed to the disciples. Did the Lord consider them to 'be evil'? The only other time we encounter the phrase "being evil" is again on the Lord's lips and again in Matthew: "O generation of vipers, how can you,&nbsp;<em>being evil</em>, speak good things?" (<em><a href='B:470 12:34'>Mat 12:34</a></em>). He may have the sense that 'Even the worst Pharisees have a soft spot for their little boys and would never play a cruel trick on them- so do you think God will do that to you?'. The sentence opens with the particle&nbsp;<em>ei</em>, and it would be justifiable to translate this 'Whether' or 'Even if' instead of "if". Even if they were as evil as the very worst sinners, they would still give their child bread rather than a stone. The logic is very powerful. If we believe God is basically good, then seeing even wicked people would not play a cruel trick on their kiddies, how much more would God not do that to us His beloved children, whom we address as "Our Father"?&nbsp;</p><p><em>Know how to give</em>-</p><p> Now the Lord moves beyond simply teaching that God will give us daily bread and salvation if we ask. He alludes here to how a father, even a man who is otherwise evil, has an intuitive sense as to what present his child would like. Paul Tournier's insightful book&nbsp;<em>The Meaning of Gifts</em>&nbsp;demonstrates that the desire to give gifts is psychologically part of 'love'. God knows what ultimately we would love so much. And yet, as the <em><a href='B:660 4:3'>Jas 4:3</a></em> allusion demonstrates, it is not material things in this life which are in view here. God knows us and He knows all our possible futures, our eternal possibilities throughout His Kingdom. And He will surely give us that. He has created for us the most wonderful things to lavish upon us. To think that in any sense God is a 'hard man' is to tragically misunderstand. That persuasion only really comes from a lack of basic faith in Him and His grace:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Good gifts to your children</em>-</p><p> The emphasis upon "good" continues the laboured addressing of our fear that God just might not be 'good' and we might get a serpent rather than a fish from Him. The point is laboured because it is such a powerful array of step logic- if it's not all a cruel trick, then it is all wonderfully true. The parallel record speaks of "the Holy Spirit" instead of "good gifts", and there is a clear connection with <em><a href='B:560 4:8'>Eph 4:8</a></em>: "He gave gifts unto men", referring to the Holy Spirit. All the Greek words there are used here in <em><a href='B:470 7:11-12'>Mat 7:11-12</a></em>. On one level, there is a prediction of the Comforter, as elsewhere in the Sermon (see on 7:8). And yet the principle appears to be clearly that in general terms, God will not only give us daily bread and future salvation, but so much more besides- in spiritual terms. Whilst the form of manifestation of Spiritual gifts has changed since the first century, the principle remains- that God will give His Spirit to those who are poor in spirit and who hunger and thirst for righteousness:&nbsp;</p><p><em>How much more shall your Father who is in heaven-&nbsp;</em>Many times the idea of "Your father which is in heaven" is used in the context of faith in prayer being answered (<em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:19'>Mat 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:22'>Mat 21:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:24'>Mar 11:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:13'>Joh 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:5-6'>Jas 1:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:17'>Jas 1:17</a></em> etc:). It's as if the reality of God actually existing in Heaven in a personal form should be a powerful focus for our prayers:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Give good things to them that ask him-&nbsp;</em>Answered prayer is paralleled with being given the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 11:13'>Luk 11:13</a></em>). The prayer of the Philippians for Paul is likewise linked with "the supply of the Spirit" (<em><a href='B:570 1:19'>Phi 1:19</a></em>). These passages therefore teach that having spiritual fruit is associated with answered prayer (<em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>), as is the possession of the Comforter (<em><a href='B:500 14:14'>Joh 14:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:24'>Joh 16:24</a></em> are in this context). Many passages imply that God's hearing of our prayers is proportionate to His perception of our spirituality. He will not respond to the prayer of those whose way of life is contrary to His word: <em><a href='B:230 66:18'>Psa 66:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 1:24-28'>Pro 1:24-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 1:15'>Isa 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 59:2'>Isa 59:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:16'>Jer 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 11:14'>Jer 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 14:10-12'>Jer 14:10-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 29:12'>Jer 29:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 3:8'>Lam 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 3:44'>Lam 3:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:7-9'>Mal 1:7-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:25'>Mar 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:31'>Joh 9:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:6-7'>Jas 1:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 4:3'>Jas 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:7'>1Pe 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:12'>1Pe 3:12</a></em>. But He will hear the prayer of the righteous; and 'hearing' is an idiom for 'answering', it doesn't just mean that God takes cognizance of the fact the righteous have prayed: <em><a href='B:120 19:20'>2Ki 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:19-20'>Mat 18:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:14'>Joh 14:14</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>7:12&nbsp;<em>Therefore</em>-</p><p> The reason why we should do to others as we would like them to do to us flow straight on from :11. But what is the connection of thought? Perhaps the Lord is changing tack here and introducing His concluding summary for the Sermon, which is about 'doing' what He has been teaching. The same Greek for 'do' here in :12 is translated 'bring forth' or 'do' in the distinct seven-fold exhortation to do' which we find in <em><a href='B:470 7:17-19'>Mat 7:17-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:26'>Mat 7:26</a></em>. The Greek&nbsp;<em>oun</em>&nbsp;translated "therefore" is of wide meaning, and could just as comfortably introduce a new section rather than conclude the section about judging which began in <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>. It can have the sense of 'truly' or 'certainly', as if introducing a major truth. But it may be that the context of judgment, so clearly established in the preceding 11 verses, is not out of the Lord's mind in His use of the word&nbsp;<em>oun</em>, "Therefore...". If we condemn others, if we drag them before God's judgment because we refuse to forgive them, then we must consider: Do I want others to do that to me? For we have all sinned and upset others to the point some struggle to forgive us. As we judge others, then we shall be judged likewise. If we really hope they have to answer for their sin against us, then perhaps they will have to. And would you like others to take you to the Divine court for your sins?</p><p><em>Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets</em>-</p><p> This is another way of saying 'Love your neighbour as yourself'. The Greek for 'do to you' recurs in <em><a href='B:470 18:35'>Mat 18:35</a></em> where we read how God shall 'do to you' if you do not forgive your brother. We also find the phrase in <em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em> - 'whatever you do' to Christ's brethren, you do to Him and shall receive from Him accordingly. It is true that what goes around, comes around- so it's best to treat others as you would like to be treated. But that kind of truth is expressed in almost every religious and cultural system of the world. My sense is that the Lord is not merely repeating conventional, folksy wisdom, but rather is elevating it to a far higher and more deeply internal, spiritual level. For this is His style throughout the Sermon. The recurrence of the phrase 'whatever you do' in <em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em> teaches that whatever we do (or do not do) to others, we do to Christ personally. And in that dimension of life, the 'come back' of our actions will not simply be in this life, but more importantly, at the last day. Judgment day, either explicitly or implicitly, forms a major theme in the Lord's teaching. If He is indeed teaching that what we do to others is done to Him and therefore will have its response at the day of judgment, rather than merely in this life as folksy wisdom teaches, then indeed we can understand His comment: "For this is the law and the prophets". The law and the prophets do indeed teach that human behaviour, especially that done to others, shall come to final judgment in the last day. But I would not say that 'what goes around, comes around' is exactly their major and noteworthy theme, true as that bit of folksy wisdom Is.</p>


text:
<p>7:13&nbsp;<em>Enter in</em>-</p><p> The context is quite clear that the Lord means 'enter into the Kingdom' (<em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:24'>Mat 19:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:25'>Luk 18:25</a></em>). But the question is, whether the Lord speaks of entering into the Kingdom at the last day, or in some sense, in this life. Luke's record of this statement of the Lord is in <em><a href='B:490 13:24'>Luk 13:24</a></em>: "Strive to enter in at the narrow gate: for many... will seek to enter in, and shall not be able". This favours a 'last day' interpretation, for we know from the parable of the foolish girls that some will seek to enter at the time of the Lord's return and be unable to. Some other usages of the phrase 'enter in' imply the same (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:19'>Heb 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:6'>Heb 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:14'>Rev 22:14</a></em>). However, John's equivalent of this phrase speaks of the believer 'entering in' to a relationship and salvation with the Lord right now (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>). And other words of the Lord speak of 'entering in' to "life" right now (<em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:8-9'>Mat 18:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:17'>Mat 19:17</a></em>). The guests enter in to the Messianic banquet now, before the Master comes, <em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>; the Scribes stopped men entering the Kingdom right now, <em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>; by birth of water and spirit we enter the Kingdom, <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>; the Gentiles enter in every time one is converted (<em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>); a promise is given us of entering the promised rest, but we who believe do right now 'enter in' to that rest (<em><a href='B:650 4:1'>Heb 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>). And yet we are to labour in order to enter into that rest (<em><a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a></em>). The rich man must shed the load of his wealth and enter in- now (<em><a href='B:470 19:23-24'>Mat 19:23-24</a></em>). For judgment day is too late to shed the load of wealth. We can therefore conclude that by following the Lord's teaching now, we enter into His Kingdom; insofar as His Kingship is exercised over us, we are His Kingdom, those whom He is King over. The outcome of the judgment day is not therefore some terrible unknown to us if we are in our hearts and lives clearly under His Kingship in this life. Our passage into the future Kingdom of God on earth will be a seamless continuation of our present experience:&nbsp;</p><p><em>By the narrow gate</em>-</p><p> The Greek could imply 'made narrow'. The Lord repeats the term in :14, emphasizing how narrow is the entrance. The contrast is with the wide gate and broad road. The idea of two gates facing a man was surely an allusion to the gates of Jerusalem, which had a main gate, through which camels could pass, and the small gate through which only pedestrians could enter. This leads me to favour the traditional interpretation of entering through into the Kingdom through the eye of a needle (<em><a href='B:470 19:24'>Mat 19:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:25'>Luk 18:25</a></em>)- the rich must unload their camels of all their wealth and squeeze through the small needle gate. The narrowness of the gate is because it is so hard for people to give up their materialism. They desire spirituality, to enter in, but not without their present attachment to wealth. Remember the Lord was primarily and initially addressing the poor. The desire for wealth, and especially mental concern about it, is the main reason why people do not grasp the way to the Kingdom. That needs some sober reflection, because our natural assumption is that warnings against materialism do not apply to&nbsp;<em>me</em>. Whenever we find ourselves making such an assumption, that Biblical warnings do not apply to us, we need to really ensure that we are thinking straight and that our self-deceiving flesh is not kidding us that we simply don't have to take the Lord at His word.</p><p><em>For wide is the gate and broad is the way</em>-</p><p> Surely the Lord at this stage in His ministry had in mind the way that John the Baptist had come to prepare a "way" for Him (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>). By admitting that this way would only be found by a minority of Israel, the Lord was perhaps tacitly recognizing that John's attempt to prepare a way over which the King of glory could come to Jerusalem had not succeeded:&nbsp;</p><p><em>That leads</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Apago</em>&nbsp;is used another 14 times in the New Testament. Ten of these specifically refer to being 'lead away to death', the majority referring to the leading away of the Lord Jesus to death on the cross. 7:14 contrasts being lead to destruction with being lead to life; but the way to life is through the death of the cross. We either bear our iniquities and their result (<em><a href='B:30 19:8'>Lev 19:8</a></em>), or we bear the cross of the Lord Jesus. It's a burden either way. The Lord played on this fact when He spoke of there being two roads, one which&nbsp;<em>leads</em>&nbsp;to death, and the other to life (Matthew 7; Matthew 13, 14). The Greek word translated 'lead' is in fact part of an idiom: to be led is an idiom for 'to be put to death' (cp. <em><a href='B:500 18:13'>Joh 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:18'>Joh 21:18</a></em>). Indeed, the very word translated “lead" in <em><a href='B:470 7:14'>Mat 7:14</a></em> is rendered "be put to death" (<em><a href='B:510 12:19'>Act 12:19</a></em>). So, we're led out to death either way, as the criminal made his 'last walk' to the cross. We're either led out and put to death for the sake of eternal life, or for eternal death. The logic is glaring. The Hebrew of <em><a href='B:230 139:24'>Psa 139:24</a></em> reveals a telling play on words which makes the same point: "Wicked way" is rendered in the AVmg. as 'way of pain'; the way of wickedness is itself the way of pain.</p><p><em>To destruction</em>-</p><p> The Greek is used another 19 times in the New Testament, nearly always with reference to condemnation at the last day. We are making the choice now- condemnation, or the path to the cross, to death, and thence to eternal life. The essence of the future judgment is before us daily; "we make the answer now".</p><p><em>And many are they that enter in thereby</em>-</p><p> The same word used about the "many" who were now listening to Him teach (<em><a href='B:470 4:25'>Mat 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:1'>Mat 8:1</a></em>). Surely He was saying that the Kingdom road is not found by many. And yet we compare this with the promise that Abraham's seed will become many. Compared to the wonder of salvation, we are indeed "many", but relative to the many who do not respond, we are a minority.</p>


text:
<p>7:14&nbsp;<em>For narrow is the gate and straight the road that leads to life-&nbsp;</em>"The way of the sluggard is blocked with thorns; but the path of the upright is a highway" (<em><a href='B:240 15:19'>Pro 15:19</a></em> NIV). The road of the wise is described as a highway in <em><a href='B:240 16:17'>Pro 16:17</a></em> too; and the way of the wicked is also strewn with difficult obstacles in <em><a href='B:240 22:5'>Pro 22:5</a></em>; "Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths" (2:15). There is probably a designed contrast between this and the way the Lord described the road to the Kingdom as made narrow, and the way to death as a wide, broad highway (<em><a href='B:470 7:13-14'>Mat 7:13-14</a></em>); the Proverbs seem to say the opposite. The answer may be that Proverbs is presenting God's viewpoint; in ultimate reality, the way to the Kingdom is wide and clear and easier, better marked, than the road to death. But the Lord turned all this round, because He appreciated that from&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;perspective, this wouldn't be the case. We will think that the way to the Kingdom is made narrow (Gk:) and hard, restricted; whilst the road to death seems so wide and obviously right. The Lord Jesus based many of His parables on the Proverbs, and His words concerning the wide road to destruction and the narrow road to the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 7:13-14'>Mat 7:13-14</a></em>) are surely based on the frequent descriptions of the ways / great way to life, and that to death, which Proverbs so often mentions. The road / way of life which we are on is really leading somewhere. "The way of the wicked" is opposed to the way of him "that followeth after righteousness" (<em><a href='B:240 15:9'>Pro 15:9</a></em> cp. seeking the Kingdom and God's righteousness, <em><a href='B:470 5:47'>Mat 5:47</a></em>).</p><p><em>But few</em>-</p><p> See on "many" in <em><a href='B:470 7:13'>Mat 7:13</a></em>. We find another contrast between the few and the many when we read that only "few" will be chosen from the many who are called (<em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:14'>Mat 22:14</a></em>). The implication seems to be that out of the "many" who were then listening to the Lord's teaching ("many" in <em><a href='B:470 7:13'>Mat 7:13</a></em> is s:w. <em><a href='B:470 4:25'>Mat 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:1'>Mat 8:1</a></em>), only a minority would enter into life. There seems fair Biblical reason to think that the community of God's people are a minority in the world, and yet within them, only a minority will finally choose the way of salvation. This helps make sense of why all the faithful lament the weak spiritual state of the church communities surrounding them. And recognizing that this is a general principle shields us from the disillusion which arises from having started out believing that the majority of our community are genuine believers. We have no option but to assume they will be saved, for we cannot condemn any individual; but on the other hand, we are to recognize that on a statistical level, only a few of those within the community will be saved. The majority of those who were 'baptized' in the Red Sea did not make it to God's Kingdom, and this fact is used in 1 Corinthians 10 and Hebrews 3, 4 to warn us not to assume that the ratio will be much higher in the Christian community.</p><p><em>Are they that find it</em>-</p><p> This is clearly to be connected with the Lord's teaching a few verses earlier that whoever seeks will find (<em><a href='B:470 7:7-8'>Mat 7:7-8</a></em>). He is balancing out the statistical difficulty of salvation with the fact that those who want to be there just have to ask- and they will be. The promise that whoever seeks / asks will find / receive is not a blank cheque about material things, but rather is a promise of entry into the Kingdom. All those who truly love the Lord's appearing will enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:620 4:1'>2Ti 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>). It is so simple that it is hard to believe- those who truly seek to be in the Kingdom, will find a place therein. Note how the Lord here speaks of finding the way that leads to life, elsewhere He speaks of finding life (<em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>). This is typical of the now / but not yet teaching of the New Testament. We have the eternal life in the sense that we are living that kind of life which we shall eternally live, we have entered the way to life; but we are still mortal and await the physical change to immortality.</p>


text:
<p>7:15&nbsp;<em>Beware</em>-</p><p> Clearly the prohibition against judging others in the sense of condemning them (7:1) doesn't mean that we can't form a valid opinion about someone's genuineness as a teacher.</p><p><em>Of false prophets</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Pseudo-prophetes</em>&nbsp;means that these people are not spiritual at all, they are faking it, pseudo- prophets. To be such a fake, a&nbsp;<em>pseudo</em>, is not the same as being a believer who has failed in behaviour at times or who has some Biblical interpretations which we don't personally agree with.</p><p><em>Who come to you</em>-</p><p> The Greek phrase likely means 'Appear to you':&nbsp;</p><p><em>In sheep's clothing</em>-</p><p> Dressed as if they are Jesus?</p><p><em>But inwardly</em>-</p><p> Given our inability to judge the inner thoughts of others, and the clear prohibition against judging to condemnation in the context (<em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>), perhaps this is the Lord's comment upon them, and is not meant to be an invitation to us to claim to read the inward thoughts of others? However the next verse goes on to say that we can observe their fruits, and it is by their fruits that&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are to discern them. But the Lord discerns them by their inward thoughts, which are visible to Him. Thereby His position on these false prophets becomes our position too- but we arrive there by different routes. We are to observe their fruits, whereas He looks upon their hearts. The Lord uses the same word several times to tell the Pharisees that&nbsp;<em>inwardly</em>&nbsp;or 'within' they are full of unspirituality (<em><a href='B:470 23:25'>Mat 23:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:27-28'>Mat 23:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:39'>Luk 11:39</a></em>). This suggests that His warning against "false prophets" is a warning against the Jewish leadership. But He uses the language of 'prophets' because this fits in with the Old Testament theme of false and true prophets. Just as the people had to discern between those two groups, so now, in an era when there were no more prophets in the Old Testament sense, God's people had to beware of imposters like the Pharisees. They were false prophets, false speakers of God's word, in that they had effectively elevated their interpretations of God's word [the&nbsp;<em>halakah</em>] to the same level as God's actual inspired word.</p><p><em>Are ravening wolves</em>-</p><p> The Greek word is always translated elsewhere as 'extortioner'. The Pharisees are clearly in view here, and yet the Pharisee of <em><a href='B:490 18:11'>Luk 18:11</a></em> thanked God with the same word, that he was not an 'extortioner' (<em><a href='B:490 18:11'>Luk 18:11</a></em>). The Pharisee didn't see his own sin. The Lord saw their hearts and saw that they were extortioners, but they thanked God that they were not. This is an essay in the blindness of humans to their own sins, and in our need to see ourselves as the Lord sees us, with His eyes and from His perspective. This is the essence of self-examination. The motive of the Pharisees / false prophets was clearly financial gain. This is pinpointed by the Lord as the fundamental reason for their false prophecies, for their external appearance of spirituality- it was because they wanted cash out of people. This was and is clearly deeply upsetting to the Lord.</p><p>We've seen that these false prophets were specifically the Pharisees in the Lord's immediate context. When He warns the disciples that He is sending them out as sheep amongst wolves (<em><a href='B:470 10:16'>Mat 10:16</a></em>), He is clearly alluding to His teaching here- that the Pharisees appear as sheep, but are as wolves. The implication could be that there would be fake disciples of Jesus, and that the real opposition to the work of the disciples would be the wolves of the Pharisees (see on 'The Jewish Satan' in my&nbsp;<em>The Real Devil</em>). This clearly happened after the Lord's death, where the Judaist plot to destroy Paul's preaching of Christianity involved Judaist 'false brethren in Christ' entering in to the flock as wolves (<em><a href='B:550 2:4'>Gal 2:4</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>, the Lord speaks of how He as the good shepherd would give His life fighting the wolf so that the sheep might be saved; the implication is that the wolf killed Him. His death was at the hands of the Jewish leadership. Wolves don't usually kill men. This is an element of unreality to highlight the point- that legalism may not appear too bad nor too ultimately dangerous; but in fact it is, and was what led to the death of God's Son. Paul's warning that wolves would enter the flock (<em><a href='B:510 20:29'>Act 20:29</a></em>) likewise came true in the Judaist false teachers who entered in to the ecclesias and destroyed so much, both spiritually and doctrinally. I have shown elsewhere that the roots of the false thinking which led to later false doctrines such as the Trinity actually began in Judaist ideas which entered Christianity. From our standpoint today, we can take the point that the major enemy of the Gospel will be legalism and posturing religious leaders.</p>


text:
<p>7:16&nbsp;<em>By their fruits you shall know them</em>-</p><p> Perhaps the emphasis was upon the "you". The Lord knows the evil hearts of these people- but we can't see their hearts, and so&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;shall know them by their external fruits:&nbsp;The need for fruit as a sign of repentance had been a theme in John's teaching (<em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>), and the Lord in His Sermon is often building on John's words. The Lord's concern is about those who appear to have accepted His message, dressing as sheep, and yet are in fact completely false. The whole thrust of His Sermon is that acceptance of Him produces a change in human life; there must be fruit. And we take a simple lesson from that- if we are to be able to tell whether someone is a genuine Christian or not by whether their fruits are visible, we have to ask ourselves whether our lives are so markedly different from unbelievers. There is to be something about us, fruit hanging on us, which clearly differentiates us from the unbelieving world. The difference has got to be fairly obvious, because the Lord is here teaching that we can easily discern whether someone purporting to be spiritual is indeed so because the fruits of it will be evident. Therefore there will not be any debate about whether someone is in the wolf / false prophet category- because they either have the fruits of the Spirit, the signs of the transformed life, or they do not. And the difference will be obvious. And yet endless energy has been expended trying to judge false prophets according to the content of their Biblical exposition and teaching. The Lord, however, teaches that the litmus test is in their life, rather than in their intellectual position:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?</p><p></em>-</p><p> The idea is 'Of course not'. The Lord's point is that spiritual fruit is obvious, it cannot be hidden, like a city set on a hill. If there are grapes, the blessed fruit of the new covenant, on a person- then for sure they are not a thorn bush, with all the associations between thorns and cursing. In <em><a href='B:470 12:33'>Mat 12:33</a></em> the Lord makes an apparently obvious point- a good tree has good fruit, a bad tree has bad fruit. But the point is that we can easily, clearly tell whether someone has the fruit of the transformed life or not. There is no argument about it, because the fruit of the transformed life, lived according to this Sermon on the Mount, is public and visible. The seed of the Gospel which is sown by Jesus either brings forth fruit, or it doesn't (<em><a href='B:470 13:8'>Mat 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:26'>Mat 13:26</a></em>). So much angst about labelling individuals as false teachers is rendered unnecessary if we take this approach. And the false teachers with whom the later New Testament letters engage are teaching a false way of life, and Jude, Peter and John especially point out that their way of life indicates that they are false teachers:&nbsp;</p><p>Figs are associated with spiritual fruit (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>), whereas thistles, like thorns, are associated with the curse (<em><a href='B:10 3:18'>Gen 3:18</a></em> "thorns and thistles"; s:w. <em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em> "that which bears thorns and thistles is rejected"). The point is, that the difference between the accepted and the condemned is apparent even in this life, because the fruit of the transformed life simply has to be seen publicly on people. This is perhaps the Lord's expansion upon His command not to judge / condemn in <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>. He's saying that we should not, however, walk around life blind and imperceptive, but rather take good notice of the presence or absence of fruit on a person:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord puts it slightly another way in <em><a href='B:490 6:44'>Luk 6:44</a></em> when He says that men don't "gather" good fruit from a corrupt tree. The language of gathering is very much that of judgment to come; and yet the fruit is produced and gathered now, in the words / fruit that comes out of our mouth. This is why right now we can judge a false teacher, by his corrupt words [this is one of the contexts of the Lord's words about corrupt trees and fruit- we see the fruit&nbsp;<em>now</em>]. The corrupt man&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;speak villainy (<em><a href='B:290 32:6'>Isa 32:6</a></em>). But corrupt words don't just mean expletives- the false teacher would be too smart to use them. He comes in sheep's clothing. But <em><a href='B:490 6:41-44'>Luk 6:41-44</a></em> gives us an example of "corrupt" words; words which create a corrupting spiritual influence in a man or in a community. One may&nbsp;<em>say</em>&nbsp;to his brother that he must cast out the splinter from his eye, although he has a plank in his own. And the Lord goes on to say that a good tree doesn't bring forth corrupt fruit. The corrupt fruit, as in the above passages, means 'corrupt words'. And in <em><a href='B:490 6:45'>Luk 6:45</a></em> the Lord concludes by saying that "for of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh". The corrupt fruit are the corrupt words of <em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em> - saying, 'My brother, I'm very sorry, but I just have to correct you, you are so obviously wrong and stupid to walk round with a splinter in your eye, I can correct your spiritual vision, because I see perfectly. At the moment your spiritual perception ['eye] is just hopeless'. The Lord understood 'the eye' as ones' spiritual vision (<em><a href='B:470 6:22-23'>Mat 6:22-23</a></em>). These kind of words, in essence, are the real leaven; they corrupt / pull apart over time communities as well as individual faith. These criticisms work away within a brother or sister, disaffirming them as believers, disaffirming them for who they are, raising doubt and not hope, humiliating them that they haven't made the grade… until they are corrupted. We have a specific example of a man being punished in judgment for his words, and it may well be the basis for the Lord's teaching here: "When the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks. For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done this…" (<em><a href='B:290 10:11-12'>Isa 10:11-12</a></em>). And there follows a long quotation of his words. These words were the 'fruit of his heart'- out of the abundance of his heart his mouth had spoken. And these words were almost cited back to him at the time of his condemnation. We know, however, that it is quite possible for human actions and words to&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;reflect the heart. Consider how Sennacherib invaded Judah but in his heart "he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so" (<em><a href='B:290 10:7'>Isa 10:7</a></em>). This is why the Lord clearly condemns the thought as being as bad as the action, even if the action isn't actually committed. <em><a href='B:230 55:21'>Psa 55:21</a></em> laments how words cannot reflect the true state of a man's heart: "The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords". So why, then, is there so much emphasis on spoken words as the basis for judgment to come? Surely it is that although thoughts will also be judged, and the hypocrites revealed for who they are, it doesn't follow that a good man sometimes uses 'corrupt speech'. It's impossible. A good man cannot bring forth bad words. But a bad man can sometimes bring forth words which seem good on the surface, but which are in fact counterfeit. But it can't happen another way- a good man's words aren't just his surface level sin. And I for one flinch at this; because when I have to own up to having said inappropriate words, my flesh wants me to think that in my heart, I didn't mean them. And yet, ruthlessly, I must press the point: bad words reflect a bad heart. We can't justify them. We must repent of them, and by the influence of knowing God, through and in His Son and His word, we must change the state of mind that leads to them. And we should be, on one hand, simply&nbsp;<em>worried</em>: that bad words came out of a bad heart. And a good man cannot bring forth such corrupt fruit. There is with some especially the problem of temper, saying things well beyond what they really mean in hot blood. But here again, the words of hot blood do reflect something of the real man or woman. The tongue is a fire that can lead to condemnation, whatever and however we justify its' words as a relatively harmless outcome of our personality type. This may be true, but it isn't harmless.</p>


text:
<p>7:17&nbsp;<em>Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit but the corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit</em>-</p><p> See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>7:18&nbsp;<em>A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit-&nbsp;</em>This appears to belabour the point made in the preceding verses. But the Lord so wishes to drive the point home- that fruit on a transformed person is obvious and visible. If we are to use the presence or absence of fruit as a basis for perceiving false teachers, then we will have no problem at all discerning who is of the Lord and who isn't. And yet this very issue of deciding on others' status has been fatally divisive and destructive for the Lord's church. Statements of faith are analysed, and the teaching of others is watchfully dissected to see if it fits that given statement- in order to decide whether someone is 'in' or 'out'. The Lord foresaw that tendency, for it was the tendency of the scribes too. And instead He offers us this other way, elevating spirituality to the highest level- whoever has the fruits "cannot" be a bad tree. The issue of 'fruit' therefore becomes the key methodology through which to make the judgments which we are called to make in life. The attitude is often expressed that 'Well they may be very nice Christians and all that, but they do not understand the Truth about... [issue X]'. The Lord is tackling that mentality head on, by saying that this "cannot" be the case; if the fruit is there, then they are a good tree, whatever misunderstandings they may have (and we all have them):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:19&nbsp;<em>Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire-&nbsp;</em>The Gehenna fire of condemnation of the wicked is "already kindled" by men's attitude now (<em><a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a></em>). The tree that will not bring forth good fruit "<em>is</em>&nbsp;hewn down, and cast into the fire" (<em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>)- alluding to the figure of Gehenna, into which the rejected will be 'thrown'. The ungodly&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;already like the chaff that will be blown away after the Lord's return (<em><a href='B:230 1:4-5'>Psa 1:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 35:5'>Psa 35:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 21:18-20'>Job 21:18-20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 5:24'>Isa 5:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 17:13'>Isa 17:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 29:5'>Isa 29:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 2:35'>Dan 2:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:17'>Luk 3:17</a></em>). Those who lose their first love are&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>condemned (<em><a href='B:610 3:6'>1Ti 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 5:12'>1Ti 5:12</a></em>). The Lord Jesus stands with the sword of judgment&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>going out of His mouth (<em><a href='B:730 1:16'>Rev 1:16</a></em>), as it will do at the final judgment (<em><a href='B:290 11:4'>Isa 11:4</a></em>). The Lord's description of the rejected being cut down and thrown into the fire is surely referring to the words of <em><a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a></em> (cp. 7:5); where the idols of the world were to be hewn down and thrown into the fire. The Lord understood that those who worship idols are like unto them (<em><a href='B:230 115:8'>Psa 115:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 135:18'>Psa 135:18</a></em>). Because the idols will be destroyed in the last day, all who worship them will have to share their destruction. And yet we can be hewn down by God's word now (<em><a href='B:350 6:5'>Hos 6:5</a></em>) rather than wait for God to do it to us by the condemnation process. We must cut off (s:w. hew down) our flesh&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:470 5:30'>Mat 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:8'>Mat 18:8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>7:20<em>&nbsp;Therefore by their fruits you shall know them-&nbsp;</em>The belaboured repetition of the point (see on 7:17,18) is surely because we will have a strong temptation to undervalue spiritual fruit, and to seek to judge others in terms of their traditions, culture and specific interpretations- rather than by their fruit:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:21&nbsp;<em>Not everyone that says to me: Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 2:13'>Rom 2:13</a></em>. Paul saw the "Lord, Lord" people of the parable as the Jews of the first century who initially responded enthusiastically to the Gospel. The contrast is between saying "Lord, Lord" in this life, and then in the future not entering into the Kingdom ("in that day", :22). The contrast is between merely&nbsp;<em>saying</em>&nbsp;and actually&nbsp;<em>doing</em>. The Lord repeats the idea in His mini parable of the two sons; the one who 'said' he would be obedient, and the other who 'did' the will of his father (<em><a href='B:470 21:30-31'>Mat 21:30-31</a></em>). The acceptance of Christ as Lord means that we are as His servants and slaves; it is for us to 'do' His will and work. This fits with the context of the preceding verses- that if He is really our Lord, we will inevitably&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;His will, and that doing will be actual, practical and visible. It is the false prophets who merely say but don't&nbsp;<em>do</em>, just as they claim to be good trees but don't have good fruit.</p><p><em>But he that pleases my Father who is in heaven</em>-</p><p> Or, "does the will". Allowing the Sermon to interpret itself, we see an obvious connection with our prayer asking "Your will be done" (<em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em>). If that request was just asking for God to do His will, it would be easy to pray and also somewhat meaningless. But the connection with <em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em> means that we are asking that&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;do God's will. And doing His will is difficult, slow progress, building on a rock- as the rest of Matthew 7 records. The Lord's prayer in Gethsemane demonstrates the difficulty of praying for the Father's will to be done in our lives- prayed there with sweat like drops of blood (<em><a href='B:470 26:42'>Mat 26:42</a></em>). So we are to pray for strength to do God's will, for spiritual strength to live obediently to the principles of the Sermon. <em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em> encourages us that if we ask for anything "according to&nbsp;[<em>kata</em>] His will, He hears us". But asking&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;His will could just as well be translated 'in order to fulfil'. If we want strength to do His will in practice, He will give it to us. And His will is expressed here in Matthew 5-7 quite clearly:&nbsp;</p><p>"The will of My Father in Heaven" is a fairly common phrase with the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 12:50'>Mat 12:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:14'>Mat 18:14</a></em>; John's equivalent seems to be 'to do the will of Him that sent Me', <em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38-40'>Joh 6:38-40</a></em>). The idea seems to be that we on earth can do the will of Him who is in one sense so far away from us, "in Heaven"; and thereby collapse that distance between us:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:22&nbsp;<em>Many</em>-</p><p> The Greek often means 'the majority'. Here perhaps we have the clearest implication that only a minority of those who come to Christ shall ultimately be saved. Hebrews, Romans and 1 Corinthians 10 suggest that if we think that natural Israel were far worse than spiritual Israel in terms of percentage coming to salvation- then we must take heed lest we fall.</p><p><em>Will say to Me in that day</em>-</p><p> Judgment will be a process, with the rejected initially protesting, seeking to change the Lord's mind- and then slinking away in shame. Nobody will be passive in that day. The only thing important will be acceptance at His hand and a place in the Kingdom. We will come to that position either by loving obedience to His ways in this life- or all too late, in condemnation. The logic is powerful- we must choose that desire for the Kingdom life&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;as the dominant emotion, overarching all our emotions, decision making and formation of our deepest desires.</p><p><em>Lord, Lord</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 13:2'>1Co 13:2</a></em>. To say "Lord, Lord" without really&nbsp;<em>knowing</em>&nbsp;Christ is living without love. Thus Paul saw an association between a lack of true love and an external show of appreciation of Christ's Lordship. Not doing what Christ says is a lack of love, in Paul's mind. If we appreciate this, we will see that those who are ignorant of Christ's words cannot show true love. Biblically ignorant Christians need to think through the implications of this. Those who insincerely say "Lord, Lord" now, will say the same then, at the judgment, with the same lack of reality (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>). The repetition of "Lord, Lord" shows that our attitude to Him in this life will be that we have when we meet in the last day. The sensation of working for the Lord can be so self-deceptive. He draws the difference between doing many wonderful works in His name, saying “Lord, Lord”; and&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;doing the will of the Father (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>). The parallel <em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em> has that men will say “Lord, Lord” but not really hear His words. To hear them is to do the will of the Father. Putting all this together, it is perfectly possible to bear His Name, call Him Lord, work hard for Him- and yet never really hear His words, and thereby never really know the will of our Father. From this parallel we can conclude that our attitude to Christ in this life (e.g. "Lord, Lord!") will be our attitude to Him at the judgment seat. If we think He is a hard, unreasonable Lord: that is how He will be. To the froward (in this life), He will show Himself froward. Straight away we are met head on with a major challenge: Our attitude to Christ in this life will be our attitude to Him at the judgment seat. John's letters reason down the same line: “If (in this life) our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence (now) toward God... this is the confidence that we have in him... abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence... before him (at the judgment) at His coming" (<em><a href='B:690 3:21'>1Jn 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>). The confidence we have towards Christ now will be the confidence we have at judgment day. This fact should pull us up out of the spiritual indifference which characterizes so much of our lives. If we see Christ as an abstract theological necessity, a black box in our brain called 'Christ'; if we don't have a dynamic, two- way relationship with Him now- then this too is how we will regard Him then:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Did we not prophesy in your name</em>-</p><p> When we consider the Lord's teaching of <em><a href='B:470 7:22-23'>Mat 7:22-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:42-44'>Mat 25:42-44</a></em> together, He's saying that those rejected at the day of judgment will be so on account of their&nbsp;<em>omissions</em>-</p><p> hence their surprise, and anger because they knew that they had&nbsp;<em>done</em>&nbsp;good works; they thought that what they had&nbsp;<em>committed</em>&nbsp;was morally acceptable to God, and this would usher them into the Kingdom. But their sins of&nbsp;<em>omission</em>&nbsp;cost them the Kingdom. The mention of prophesying must be seen in the context of the Lord's warning in 7:15 about&nbsp;<em>false</em>&nbsp;prophets. To claim to have spoken / prophesied in His Name (cp. 'in sheep's clothing', appearing as Jesus) implies these people had considered themselves followers of Jesus in this life:&nbsp;</p></p><p><p><em>And in your name cast out demons and in your name do many mighty works?</em>-</p><p> The possession of Holy Spirit gifts which enabled healings and miracles to be performed was no guarantee of final acceptance at the last day. Pentecostal theology needs to take note of this- for the power to do miracles is simply not any guarantee of salvation, as they wrongly suppose. And we who live in an era when the miraculous gifts have been withdrawn can still take a powerful lesson- no matter how dramatically we may be a channel for God's activity in the lives of others, this is irrelevant to our final salvation. The essence of the life in Christ, the life of the Kingdom, is internal spiritual mindedness. The contrast is between 'doing' wonderful works and 'doing' (the same Greek word is used in :21) the will of the Father. The language of 'doing the Father's will' is used about the Lord's life and final death on the cross. To be as Him, to give our deepest life as He did, is not the same as doing external works for others. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:23&nbsp;<em>And then will I tell them-&nbsp;</em>The attitude which we have to the Lord Jesus&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;will be the attitude we have to Him at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em>). The Lord will "profess" to them that He doesn't know them and they must depart from Him; but Strong understands the Greek to mean 'to say the same thing as another, i:e. to agree with, assent'. The Lord will be agreeing with them, that they are worthy of condemnation. They will have condemned themselves, and the Lord will simply confirm this to them in His final verdict. If we are ashamed of Him now, we will be ashamed from before Him then (<em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>), and He will be ashamed of us (<em><a href='B:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</a></em>). Every time we are asked to stand up for Him and His words in the eyes of men, we are as it were living out our future judgment.</p><p><em>I never knew you-&nbsp;</em>“Many" will be rejected at the judgment seat because they don't&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;the Lord Jesus Christ; they never had a personal relationship with Jesus, even though they have experienced answered prayer, done miracles, worked for their Lord etc. (<em><a href='B:470 7:22-23'>Mat 7:22-23</a></em>; 1 Corinthians 13). They will have built a spiritual house, but on sand. It isn't difficult to be a good Christian outwardly. But to&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;the Lord Jesus? That's another question. The Greek for "never" means literally 'never at any time'. The course of their lives was such that there had never been a time when He 'knew' them. We rather expect Him to say '<em>You</em>&nbsp;never knew&nbsp;<em>Me</em>'. But He says that&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;never knew&nbsp;<em>them</em>-</p><p> because the whole idea of 'knowing' Him is mutual. Insofar as we know Him (in a relational sense), He knows us- and vice versa. We really need to ask whether we are praying to Jesus, talking to Him, 'knowing' Him…&nbsp;</p><p><em>Depart from me-&nbsp;</em>This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:620 2:19'>2Ti 2:19</a></em>: ‘Depart from sin now, or you'll depart from Christ at the judgment’. This is Paul's classic way of making plays on words; again an indication of how his writings are partly a product of his own meditation upon and familiarity with the Gospels:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You that work iniquity</em>-</p><p> And yet they have just protested all the good they did for others, healing, teaching etc. On one level, good can be done- but the good is a work of iniquity if it is done with an unspiritual heart, and especially in order to gain personal wealth or advantage (see on "ravening wolves", <em><a href='B:470 7:15'>Mat 7:15</a></em>). In Old Testament times, God used the nations to do His will, but they were still condemned for their hearts being far from Him. Those who "do iniquity" [s:w:] are gathered out of the Kingdom at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>)- confirming that these people are within the visible Christian community. And there will be "many" of them (:22)- suggesting the Lord doesn't just have in view a handful of charlatans at the leadership level who claim to do miracles and teach in His Name just for money. This problem of thinking that we are justified before Him just because we are His channel of work is clearly foreseen by the Lord as a major and widespread problem. <em><a href='B:470 24:12'>Mat 24:12</a></em> could imply that this will be a specific latter day problem- for within the believing community, "because iniquity [s:w:] shall abound, the love of many [Gk. 'the majority'] shall become cold".</p>


text:
<p>7:24&nbsp;<em>Everyone therefore that hears these words of mine</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;<em>Logos</em>&nbsp;suggests more than simply words. The Lord intends us to get to the essential intention of His Spirit. God's word is often styled His 'judgments' in the OT (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 119:43'>Psa 119:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:160'>Psa 119:160</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 147:19'>Psa 147:19</a></em>). In His word we see His judgments- how He judges and will judge. And in the wealth of Bible history we see examples of how these judgments have been articulated with men in practice. Thus the Lord Jesus concluded the sermon on the mount with a parable of judgment, that of the two builders (<em><a href='B:470 7:24-27'>Mat 7:24-27</a></em>). One heard the Lord's words of the sermon and did them, the other heard but didn't deeply apply them. The message was clear: 'Deeply meditate on what I've just been saying. For this is the basis upon which I will judge men in the last day. You can try to discern for yourselves how seriously and fundamentally you apply my words; and in this you will have a preview of how I will judge you".</p><p><em>And does them</em>-</p><p> An echo of :21, he who&nbsp;<em>does</em>&nbsp;the will of the Father. The parallel is thus made between the will of the Father, and "these sayings of Mine" in the Sermon. Yet in the Lord's own case, the doing of the Father's will meant the death of the cross. This finally was and is the outcome of living in accordance with the Sermon. This is what it leads to. The figure of building a house on a rock conjures up the idea of sweating labour. Do we feel that we are spiritually sweating, in a sense? Is it that hard to understand and therefore do the words of Christ? A number of passages make this connection between labouring&nbsp;and understanding the word. Elders labour in the word (<em><a href='B:610 5:17'>1Ti 5:17</a></em>), as the prophets laboured in writing the word of God (<em><a href='B:500 4:38'>Joh 4:38</a></em>); and the true Bible student is a labourer who will not be ashamed of his work at the end (<em><a href='B:620 2:15'>2Ti 2:15</a></em>). And the Lord Jesus spoke of us labouring for the manna of God's words, even harder than we labour for our daily bread, and more earnestly than the crowds ran around the lake of Galilee in the blazing midday sun in order to benefit from Christ's miracles (<em><a href='B:500 6:27'>Joh 6:27</a></em>). One could be forgiven for thinking that most of us find hearing the words of Christ easy. But there is an element of difficulty, even unpleasantness for us, in truly understanding Him in practical application. &nbsp;How do we hear and do? We are helped to get the answer by considering how Christ elsewhere appealed to people to "Hear&nbsp;<em>and understand</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 15:10'>Mat 15:10</a></em>). Truly understanding is related to action, 'doing'. In the parable, hearing and doing is like the hard work of digging the foundation on a rock. This is how hard it is to truly understand the words of Christ. Remember how the one talent man also dug into the earth (<em><a href='B:470 25:18'>Mat 25:18</a></em>). He did some digging, he did some work. But he failed to truly understand. The very physical action of digging deceived him into thinking he had done enough, as the physical action of building deceived the man who built on earth. Of course we are progressing somewhere spiritually, as we live day by day. But our movement can deceive us. &nbsp;</p><p>James clearly alludes to the appeal to not only hear but do: “But be doers of the word, and not only hearers, deluding your own selves” (<em><a href='B:660 1:22'>Jas 1:22</a></em>). James spells out the problem- we hear the Lord's words and for a moment assent to them- but don't continue to do them in the long term. "The word" is paralleled by James with "the perfect law of freedom":&nbsp; “But he who looks into the perfect law of freedom, and continues, not being a hearer who forgets, but a doer of the work, this man will be blessed in what he does” (<em><a href='B:660 1:25'>Jas 1:25</a></em>). The term "perfect law of freedom" is hard to interpret, and it seems to be in contrast with how the New Testament elsewhere speaks of the Mosaic law as being a form of bondage, with Christ's teaching as the way to freedom. I would suggest that this "perfect law of freedom" refers to the Sermon on the Mount (see on <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>), perhaps specifically to the challenge to be perfect (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>); the Sermon, as we showed in commenting on <em><a href='B:470 5:1'>Mat 5:1</a></em>, was the Lord's equivalent to the Mosaic Law. The Sermon would've been memorized and recited by the vast mass of early Christians who were illiterate. And James is urging them to not merely encounter the words and nod approvingly at them, nor even merely recite them- but continuing in actually doing them. And this of course is the challenge to us too, assailed as we are in our generation by too many words, to the point that we can easily give a passing 'like' to them, and yet live on uninfluenced. &nbsp;</p></p><p><p><em>Shall be like</em>-</p><p> As in :27, "shall be likened unto". The future tenses imply that the truth of the parable of the builders will only be apparent at the day of judgment. The purpose of judgment day is largely for our benefit, and therefore the process will be public- we will learn from the rejection and acceptance of others. Paul alludes to the idea by saying that "the day [of judgment] shall declare" each man's building work (<em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). And to whom will it be declared? The Lord already knows them that are his. It will be declared to the individual being judged, and to those who are observing. The Lord uses the same word translated 'likened' in speaking of how in this life, the state of the Kingdom in a man's life "<em>is</em>&nbsp;likened", present tense, right now, to various things (<em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:23'>Mat 18:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:2'>Mat 22:2</a></em>). But in <em><a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a></em> we find another future tense- at the Lord's return, the Kingdom&nbsp;<em>will be likened unto</em>&nbsp;the wise and foolish girls [cp. the wise and foolish builders]. We can perceive the essence of the Lord's future judgment in this life- for the Bible is full of His "judgments" ahead of time. Therefore the nature and outcome of the final judgment need not be a mystery for us, if we perceive the principles of judgment which the Lord teaches in the Sermon and elsewhere. But all the same, that day will be the final and ultimate declaration of those values.</p><p><em>A wise man who built his house upon the rock-</em></p><p>&nbsp;This is exactly what the Lord Himself is doing (<em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:61'>Mat 26:61</a></em>). There is a mutuality between the Lord and us. We build upon a rock, and He builds us upon a rock. We ourselves build, and yet we are "built up a spiritual house" by God (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; note how Peter goes right on to speak of the Jews as foolish builders in <em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em>; he surely had the Lord's parable of the two types of builder in mind). Both men&nbsp;<em>built</em>&nbsp;in that both men&nbsp;<em>heard</em>&nbsp;the Lord's sayings. We are all making progress on our spiritual journey, for good or bad. There's no way to just take a break from the journey. We are building, hearing the Lord's will- but the question is, where is our foundation. The fundamental core, the dominant desire, of the Lord's people is Him. For the rock is clearly a symbol of the Lord Jesus ("that rock was Christ", <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a></em> s:w:). On one hand, the Lord teaches that obedience to His sayings in practice is building upon a rock. And yet the rock is Him. He was the word made flesh, the perfect fulfilment and example of obedience to His sayings. To follow the Sermon fully means becoming as Him. And yet the judgment of the last day will not be a simple test of legalistic obedience. It will be a revelation of where our core foundation, our dominant desire, really Is. Many people living in this postmodern, passionless world will have to think long and hard before answering the question: 'What is your dominant desire?'. Short term things such as getting a qualification, a career, a particular level or form of wealth, buying a particular house, marrying a particular person, some specific success for our children... all these things fade from dominance in the course of a person's life. Many people simply don't have a dominant desire. The difference with true believers is that we do- and it is 'Christ', Him as a person, the things of His eternal Kingdom. This perhaps more than anything else is the simple difference between the true believer and all other people. This is why there is a simple test as to whether a person is a genuine Christian or not- and it's 'fruit', as the Lord has just previously explained. The difference is clear. The dominant desire of a true Christian is manifest and cannot be hid:&nbsp;</p><p>Comparing with the parallel <em><a href='B:490 6:48'>Luk 6:48</a></em> it seems that both men built on the same kind of ground- it was rock overlaid with sand. The difference was that the wise man dug through the sand to the rock, whereas the fool built only on the sand. To really get down to the rock of Christ is hard and long work. It is achieved through the process of 'doing' what He teaches. And the story is true to life- for so many of us in our spiritual biography can relate how we passed through years of being 'Christian' or religious without having any personal relationship with Jesus, not praying nor talking to Him, not sensing Him at all as a living Lord. The story suggests that there will be some, perhaps "many", who build a spiritual edifice of grand appearance which has no personal root in a relationship with Jesus- indeed, some actually preach against this because of their obsession with upholding theologies about the supremacy of God the Father. But getting through the sand, through the dirt and dust of our own humanity, to truly knowing Christ- this is what alone will come through judgment day.</p><p>Paul uses the metaphor of building about the work of converting and building up others in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:23'>1Co 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:18'>Gal 2:18</a></em>), knowing that the day of judgment shall declare the quality of our work (<em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). But even if that building work does not pass through the fire of judgment, we shall personally be saved (<em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>). But our personal house must stand firm throughout the judgment process. Note there is a continuity between the house before and after the storm of judgment day- it "fell not". Who we essentially are in spiritual terms is who we shall eternally be; our spirit shall be saved at that day (<em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em>), our essential spiritual person will be preserved. The experience of the day of judgment will not make us somehow flip over another side and relationship with the Lord, previously unknown to us. Those who say "Lord, Lord" in this life without meaning will use the same empty terms in that day (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>).</p><p>To get down to the rock, the man who truly heard Christ had to dig through the earth which the foolish man also dug into. Hearing Christ's words is likened to digging into that earth. Doing and understanding them is likened to then digging into the bed- rock. The foolish man did allow the word to go into him- skin deep. We need to ask ourselves how often these days the word really goes right through our skin, and forces us to hack into the bed- rock. Are we truly building our house on a rock? The force of <em><a href='B:480 16:16'>Mar 16:16</a></em>, for example, went more than skin deep just before our baptism. We read it, thought about it, and did it. But now. Are we old and brave, thick skinned, hardened by the humdrum of repetition, no longer building a house on a rock? My sense is that many of us are. Let's be aware that <em><a href='B:650 6:1-2'>Heb 6:1-2</a></em> defines "the foundation" as "repentance", and an awareness of the reality of the resurrection and coming judgment. In some ways, the longer we are in Christ, the more likely it is that we will not reach down to the bedrock of these things as we ought to. I mean, how often these days do we really repent of something? How often does the reality of the judgment seat truly come home to us? The poetry of the Bible's language, especially if we read the same version, makes God's word glide over us. Exhortations, even the recollection of Golgotha's tragic scene, the final, friendless end... can all slip so easily over our heads. We rest on the laurels of past spiritual victories. Nothing really shakes us up, reaching right down to the bedrock. Surely each of us should be sensing a surge of spiritual urgency when we look at ourselves like this. Yet God will help us; it is He Himself who will "settle" us, or 'make a foundation for' us, as the Greek can mean (<em><a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a></em>):&nbsp;The rock which our response to the word must reach down to is that of the crucified Christ. That rock represents Christ and Him crucified, according to Paul (<em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:11'>1Co 3:11</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 2:2'>Mat 2:2</a></em>). The Lord's parable of building on the rock was surely quarried from His understanding of <em><a href='B:290 28:16-17'>Isa 28:16-17</a></em>: “I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone... a precious cornerstone. The hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place". Truly doing God's word will always lead us back to the spirit of the suffering Christ on Calvary. If it does not, our building, our apparent development within the much-vaunted Biblicism of our faith, is just a "refuge of lies". All our spiritual effort and suffering finds its ultimate summation in Christ's crucifixion. His suffering there is the quintessence of all spiritual struggle:&nbsp; It is quite possible that as we break bread weekly, we are merely digging a little deeper than usual in the earth, yet still not reaching down to the real meaning of building on the example of Christ's death. The wise man's house was "founded upon a rock". The same Greek word occurs in <em><a href='B:580 2:7'>Col 2:7</a></em>, describing how we are "rooted and built up in him". The parallel <em><a href='B:560 3:17'>Eph 3:17</a></em> expands this to mean that if Christ dwells in our hearts, we are "rooted and grounded in love... able to comprehend... and to know the love of Christ", which was supremely shown in His death. <em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em> associates this being "grounded and settled" with not being "moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard". If the word really sinks down deep within us, it will reveal to us the love of Christ on the cross, it will result in true love, and all this will be the outworking of the basic doctrines of the Truth which we understood at baptism. Thus the hacking away at the rock is not only hard, grim work against human nature. It reveals the wondrous love of Christ. The implication is that we can only really understand this love, that passes human knowledge, if we are really sweating away to obey Christ's words, to build our house on a rock.</p>


text:
<p>7:25&nbsp;<em>And the rain descended and the floods came-&nbsp;</em>The allusion is clearly to Noah's flood; although the Greek for 'flood' here usually refers to a river. Only those within the ark of Christ were saved. To do he will of God, to hear and do the Lord's teaching, to be in the ark of Christ, to be founded upon the rock of Christ as our dominant desire- these are all different ways of saying the same thing. Our core root, our foundation, our dominant desire, our main self-perception and self-understanding, must be of being and living in Christ. This is the fundamental divide between persons, not their statement of faith, their spiritual culture. It comes down to whether they have a heart for the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom. And we cannot judge those "secrets of men" in this life, but we can at least be sure never to reject anyone who professes to have such a heart for the Lord. Paul uses the same word for "descended" to describe how Christ shall descend from Heaven at His return (<em><a href='B:590 4:16'>1Th 4:16</a></em>); likewise the word for "came" is used about the coming of Christ (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em> parallel the coming of Noah's flood with the coming of Christ). The coming of Christ will be judgment; our meeting with Him will be the coming of the rain etc. Even the house founded upon the rock took a fair beating- the purpose of judgment day is to reveal to the builder (and other observers) how he built:&nbsp;</p><p>The flood which came was like the day of judgment. This fits in exactly with the way Christ used the figure of the flood to describe His second coming in Matthew 24. Peter does the same in 2 Peter 3. The beating of the stream upon the house on a rock (v:49) is a truly apposite figure for the day of judgment. It certainly implies a process of judgment, in which the unworthy will experience a gradual collapse of their spirituality. For the man with the firm foundation, the flood of the parable would have been a worrying experience. Would the house stand up to it? In many of the parables, we can profitably speculate as to likely details of the story. The wise man would have remembered his hard work on the foundation, not with any sense of pride or self- gratitude. But he would nevertheless have been aware of it. Our real spiritual effort will be so valuable in that day. Only then will we realize the extent of the fact that there can be no short cut to true spiritual development. A man cannot be crowned, unless he strive lawfully:&nbsp; The Lord's parable was no doubt partly based on <em><a href='B:290 28:17'>Isa 28:17</a></em>, which speaks of the day of judgment being like hail which "shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters (which) shall overflow". The spiritual house of the foolish builder was a lie, effectively; an appearance of real development which deceived men. For externally, men cannot know anything about the different foundations of houses built side by side. We are left to imagine the details of the parable. The foolish man would have run outside and watched his house being beaten down and washed away. He would have thought of trying to do something to stop the destruction, but then given up, realizing it was too late. The foolish girls saw that "our oil&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;running out" (Gk:). The unworthy will have that terrible sense of their opportunity and spirituality ebbing away from them. The impression is given in the parable that the two houses were next door to each other; again confirming our feeling that this parable is about different attitudes to the word within the ecclesia:&nbsp;</p><p>"Came" is the same word in the model prayer- we pray for God's Kingdom to "come" (<em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em>), but again we find it hard to pray that prayer if we understand it. We are praying for the storm of judgment to come and beat upon our house:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the winds blew</em>-</p><p> The disciples surely recalled the Lord's teaching when they were on the sea of Galilee with winds blowing so strongly that they were going to drown (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:24'>Mat 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:18'>Joh 6:18</a></em> s:w. 'blow'). Those incidents they would've understood as a foretaste of judgment and condemnation- out of which they were saved only by the presence and grace of the Lord Jesus. Perhaps the winds refer here to the Angels who will play a major part in our judgment process; for God makes His Angels winds (<em><a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a></em>).</p><p><em>And beat upon that house-&nbsp;</em>The Greek for 'to beat upon' is used seven other times in the NT- and always about falling down at the feet of the Lord Jesus. We either do that in our desperation today, or His judgment shall fall upon us in the last day. There is good reason to think that our meeting of the Lord will not be just to receive a yes/no decision. The picture of the storm beating on the house to see if it collapses implies a purpose and process of the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em>). If it were only a yes / no decision, the language of tribunal, judgment and appeal which occurs in passages concerning the judgment seat would appear to be out of place. Both sheep and goats register their surprise at their Lord's comments on various specific actions of theirs which he discusses with them- "When saw we thee…?" (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>).</p><p><em>And it did not collapse</em>-</p><p> The same house stood before and after judgment. See on 7:24 "his house". The same word is used of how we desperate sinners in this life fall down before Jesus in confession that we have sinned and we dearly wish to do something about that debt (<em><a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a></em>). We either do that, or we shall fall down in condemnation at the last day, with the same realization (<em><a href='B:470 18:26'>Mat 18:26</a></em>). Every knee shall bow to Him in this manner- either in this life, or in condemnation before Him. This is what flesh must come to; and we must realize that now. We must fall down and be broken upon the rock of Christ now, or that rock will fall upon us and grind us to powder with the rest of the kingdoms of men (<em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>). Ananias and Saphira fell to the earth at their condemnation, whereas Saul fell to the earth in repentance (<em><a href='B:510 5:5'>Act 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:10'>Act 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:4'>Act 9:4</a></em> s:w:). At the last day, we shall fall to the earth but be lifted up and made to stand (<em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>For it was founded upon the rock</em>-</p><p> Surely alluded to by Paul when he teaches that we must be grounded / have a foundation in love (<em><a href='B:560 3:17'>Eph 3:17</a></em>), in the Gospel of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em>). And God Himself has the ability to "settle" or ground / foundation us (<em><a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a></em> s:w:)- if we so wish to have the things of the Lord Jesus, His love and His Kingdom, as the dominant, master passion of our lives, then God will confirm us in that.</p>


text:
<p>7:26<em>&nbsp;And everyone that hears these words of mine and does not obey them, shall be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand</em>-</p><p> The Jews who rejected the Lord Jesus are described as builders in <em><a href='B:480 12:10'>Mar 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:48'>Luk 11:48</a></em> - and to unwise builders in <em><a href='B:490 14:28'>Luk 14:28</a></em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:27&nbsp;<em>And the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it collapse-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord spoke of the rejected at the judgment as being like a house against which "the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell". Floods (of the ungodly), winds (whirlwinds), smiting, a falling house- this is all language taken from Job's experiences. He went through all this&nbsp;<em>now</em>, just as each righteous man must come to condemn himself in self-examination&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;so that he won't be condemned then. Flesh must be condemned, each man must come to know his own desperation. And if he won't do this, the judgment process at the last day will teach it him.</p><p><em>And great was its collapse</em>-</p><p> A common figure for condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 15:14'>Mat 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:5'>Act 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:11'>Rom 11:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:22'>Rom 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:8'>1Co 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:12'>1Co 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em>). Condemnation will be tragic- "great". Not only for those individuals, but for the Father and Son and all of us who view it. These are the final words of the Sermon. The Lord ends on the note of the possibility of condemnation, despite His many positive, upbeat and encouraging words about the certainty of salvation. The tragedy of the future we might miss is simply so great that the Lord felt He had to say this. It isn't mere negative psychology. The eternal reality of the issues before us are such that we can do nothing else but let the Lord's concern and earnestness ring in our ears.</p><p>The parable of the builders is fundamentally about our attitude to the Lord. There is good reason to think it mainly concerns the attitude of the responsible; in Luke, these words of Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 6:47'>Luk 6:47</a></em>) are set against the background of <em><a href='B:490 6:27'>Luk 6:27</a></em>: "I say unto you which hear". The rest of the chapter seems to be addressed primarily to the disciples- e.g. <em><a href='B:490 6:41-42'>Luk 6:41-42</a></em> speak of them beholding the mote in their brother's eye; warning surely more relevant to believing disciples than to the world generally. The parable of the builders likewise refers to those within the ecclesia, who know Christ as their Lord: "Lord, Lord", they say. Among this class of people there would be "many" (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-23'>Mat 7:21-23</a></em>) who would hear Christ's sayings, but not do them. I'm obviously labouring this point, that the builders in the parable are those within the ecclesia, or at best the responsible. This is because the parallel record in Matthew 7 is rather unpleasant to apply to the ecclesia; it says that "many" of us will be in the category who say "Lord, Lord", and whose house will be destroyed. The Greek for “many" can imply 'the majority'. Even the majority of those who hear Christ's words simply don't do them. Now that's an uncomfortable statistic for us who sit before the bread and wine each week, seeking to hear Christ's words and do them. This parable was spoken in the context of crowds of the ecclesia of Israel coming to Christ, hearing His words, and doing sweet nothing about it. Such an attitude is not building a house on a rock.</p>


text:
<p>7:28&nbsp;<em>And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words that the crowds</em>-</p><p> Although the Lord started teaching only His disciples, leaving the multitude at the bottom of the mountain (<em><a href='B:470 5:1'>Mat 5:1</a></em>), clearly many of them came up to hear Him over the course of His discourse- for in <em><a href='B:470 8:1'>Mat 8:1</a></em> we learn that the multitudes returned from up the mountain.</p><p><em>Were astonished at his teaching</em>-</p><p> The sense of reality commented upon in :27 left the people with utter astonishment. Never before nor since have the eternal issues of existence been stated so clearly and compellingly:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:29&nbsp;<em>For he taught them as one having authority and not as their scribes-</em></p><p>&nbsp;It was exactly because the Lord Jesus had the power to give or take eternity that He had this authority which the people sensed:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:1 See on 7:28.</p><p><em>And when he had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him-&nbsp;</em>The word for "crowds" is used 48 times in Matthew alone. The verbal picture is powerful- the Lord Jesus at the head of a multitude, with them, followed by them, and yet so alone...</p>


text:
<p>8:2&nbsp;<em>And a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying-&nbsp;</em>The Greek literally means to bow or crouch. Perhaps it is being used here in that literal sense, inviting us then to imagine the Lord extending His hand to the kneeling man (8:3). Or the idea could be that the man's worship was not in any external display of respect, but in the fact he believed in the Lord's ability and power to respond to his request. In this case, the man worshipped Jesus&nbsp;<em>in saying</em>&nbsp;"If You will, You can...".</p><p>Lord, if You desire, You can- The Lord replied that this was indeed His will (8:3). This coincidence of human will with that of our Lord is what fellowship with Him and answered prayer is all about. The phrase "If You will, You can..." is recorded identically in all three of the synoptics (<em><a href='B:480 1:40'>Mar 1:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:12'>Luk 5:12</a></em>), as if they all wished to draw attention to the man's attitude and make an example of it- accepting that the Lord has all power ("can" =&nbsp;<em>dunamai</em>), but that our will is not always his.</p><p>Make me clean- The leper didn't ask so much for healing as for cleansing. He wanted the healing&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;he could be accepted into the community of believers in the temple. Our requests for health and healing should likewise be motivated by a desire to use the healed situation in the Lord's service. Faith is inculcated by an appreciation of the height of Christ’s exaltation. He now has all power in Heaven and in earth, and this in itself should inspire us with faith in prayer and hope in His coming salvation. On the basis of passages like <em><a href='B:20 4:7'>Exo 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 12:10-15'>Num 12:10-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 5:7-8'>2Ki 5:7-8</a></em>, “leprosy was regarded as a “stroke" only to be removed by the Divine hand which had imposed it" (L:G. Sargent,<em>&nbsp;The Gospel Of The Son Of God</em>, p. 28). The leper lived with this understanding, and yet he saw in Jesus nothing less than God manifest. Inspired by the height of the position which he gave Jesus in his heart, he could ask him in faith for a cure: “If thou wilt,&nbsp;<em>thou canst</em>&nbsp;[as only God was understood to be able to] make me clean".</p>


text:
<p>8:3&nbsp;<em>And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying</em>-</p><p> The Lord is described a staggering 28 times in the synoptics as touching people. This was a studied rejection of the false teaching of 'guilt by association' or 'contamination by contact'. More than that, the Lord was at such lengths to identify Himself with suffering people.</p><p><em>I do desire. Be made clean!</em>-</p><p> In <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em> the Lord told the disciples to likewise "cleanse the lepers". Again the Lord is giving the disciples the work of the priests to do. For it was their job to pronounce lepers cleansed. But He is asking them to do what He Himself had done in <em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em>. His work was to be theirs. The later NT references to&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;being cleansed by the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:560 5:26'>Eph 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 2:14'>Tit 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:7'>1Jn 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:9'>1Jn 1:9</a></em> etc:) perhaps look back to how the historical Jesus cleansed lepers in Galilee. We are to see ourselves in that isolated and rejected man.</p><p><em>And immediately his leprosy was cleansed</em>-</p><p> The Greek literally means 'scales' and the same word is used of scales falling from Saul's eyes in <em><a href='B:510 9:18'>Act 9:18</a></em>. It could've been any skin disease rather than Hansen's disease.</p>


text:
<p>8:4&nbsp;And<em>&nbsp;Jesus said to him: See you tell no one, but go show yourself to the priests and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony to them-&nbsp;</em>The Lord had told the cured leper to tell no other man but go and offer for his cleansing, in order to make a witness to the priests. All three synoptics record this, as if it made a special impression on everyone (<em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:44'>Mar 1:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:14'>Luk 5:14</a></em>). It could be that the Lord is using an idiom when He told the leper to tell nobody: ‘Go and make a witness&nbsp;<em>first and foremost</em>&nbsp;to the priests as opposed to anybody else’. Such was His zeal for their salvation. And the fact that “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>) shows how this apparently hope-against-hope desire of the Lord for the conversion of His enemies somehow came true. We noted on <em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em> that the work of the priests was to cleanse the leper- but this had been done by the Lord. The man was therefore to show himself to the priests- in order to demonstrate to them that another priest and priesthood was already coming into operation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 8:5'>Mat 8:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when he was entering into Capernaum, there came to him a centurion, begging him</em>-</p><p> "There came" is a poor translation. The Greek word is related to that translated 'worship' in <em><a href='B:470 8:2'>Mat 8:2</a></em>. The parallel is thus drawn between the socially isolated and poverty stricken leper, and the wealthy, respected Centurion. The point is that they both were experiencing the same utter desperation which led them to cast themselves upon the Lord. Social differences are therefore eliminated within the community gathered around Christ- on the basis of our common recognition of our desperation and His unique and sole ability to help and save.</p>


text:
<p>8:6&nbsp;<em>Saying: Lord, my servant</em>-</p><p> Masters were well known for disregarding the welfare of their slaves, so in the centurion's passionate concern for his slave we have an insight into the nature of this delightful man.</p><p><em>Lies in the house paralysed</em>-</p><p> The same words recur in <em><a href='B:470 8:14'>Mat 8:14</a></em>, where Peter's mother also lies at home sick, and the Lord heals her. The centurion's servant and Peter's mother are thus being paralleled- just as in <em><a href='B:470 8:5'>Mat 8:5</a></em> the wealthy Centurion and the poor leper are paralleled. The point is being made that many people from very different lives and circumstances had one thing in common- desperate need for healing and salvation at the hands of the Lord.</p><p><em>Grievously tormented</em>-</p><p> The same word for 'grievously' is used about the disciples' fear during the storm on the lake (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>); the Lord was seeking to educate the twelve by showing them His ability to cure a person in a 'grievous' situation, and then the next day (or later that same day?) giving them the opportunity to themselves be in a 'grievous' situation from which likewise just His word was sufficient to save them. But they failed to see the similarity. And so a bit later, He have them another opportunity to learn from this situation. The servant was "tormented", and the very same Greek word is used about how the disciples "toiled" or were tormented in trying to row their boat in another storm (<em><a href='B:480 6:48'>Mar 6:48</a></em>); in <em><a href='B:470 14:24'>Mat 14:24</a></em> we read that their ship was "tossed", or tormented [same word again]. And again, they failed to learn the lesson- that a word from the Lord was sufficient to save them out of 'grievous torment', just as it had done for the centurion's servant. In our struggle to attach meaning to event, we are to likewise perceive how the Lord demonstrates His power in another's life- and then brings us into a situation which in essence is similar, so that we might ourselves experience His power to meet&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;human need. And whether we 'get it' or not, He tends to repeat the lessons, as He did with the disciples.</p>


text:
<p>8:7&nbsp;<em>And he said to him: I will come and heal him</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:470 8:9'>Mat 8:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Come and he comes.</em></p>


text:
<p>8:8&nbsp;<em>And the centurion answered and said: Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof</em>-</p><p> He was aware that Jews were not supposed to ‘come to' or under the roof of a Gentile (<em><a href='B:510 10:28'>Act 10:28</a></em>). He was therefore aware that the purpose of God at that time was for Jews rather than Gentiles- his understanding was quite deep. See on 8:9. But the Lord was quite willing to go under the roof a Gentile; that is the significance of the Lord's response that He would come to the sick servant.</p><p><em>But only say the word and my servant shall be healed</em>-</p><p> He had a deep belief in the power of the Lord's word, and may well be alluding to the unique Hebrew conception of the creation of all things being through the medium of a word spoken. One of Paul's many allusions to the Gospels is in <em><a href='B:590 1:5'>1Th 1:5</a></em>, where he observes that the Thessalonians had not heard "the word only" but had had it confirmed by signs and miracles. He seems to be reminding them of the centurion, who believed "the word only"&nbsp;<em>before</em>&nbsp;he experienced the healing miracle.</p>


text:
<p>8:9&nbsp;<em>For I also am a man under authority</em>-</p><p> The centurion had perceived exactly who the Lord Jesus was- a man, who was under (Divine) authority and yet had others beneath&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;authority. And he understand the Lord Jesus as his representative, very similar to him, but with far more power. Admittedly he seems to have misunderstood the issue of demons- he understood that the Lord could say 'go' to whatever mighty ones [cp. his soldiers] were making his servant sick. Whatever his beliefs about sickness and its cause, he believed the Lord Jesus was far more powerful than whatever was causing it. But the Lord all the same commended the man for his&nbsp;<em>faith</em>&nbsp;even if the precise content of that faith was misinformed, and if his way of life as a Roman centurion was not the best way of being a Jesus follower; not to mention that he was a Gentile. This opens a helpful window onto how the Lord feels about those who strongly believe in Him but have their understanding of some details awry:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Come and he comes</em>-</p><p> The same word just used by the Lord in saying that in response to the centurion's request: "I will come" (<em><a href='B:470 8:8'>Mat 8:8</a></em>). Perhaps the centurion is marvelling at the grace of the fact that he had asked the Son of God to come, and He had come in response...</p><p><em>Having under myself soldiers and I say to one: Go! And he goes. And to another: Come! And he comes. And to my servant: Do this! And he does it-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The centurion seems to have believed in demon possession. He understood that his servant was “grievously tormented” by them. He believed that the Lord could cure him, in the same way as he could say to his underlings “go, and he goeth” (<em><a href='B:470 8:6-10'>Mat 8:6-10</a></em>). And so, he implied, couldn’t Jesus just say to the demons ‘Go!’, and they would go, as with the ‘demons’ in the madman near Gadara? The Lord didn’t wheel round and read him a lecture about ‘demons don’t exist’ (although they don’t, of course, and it’s important to understand that they don’t). He understood that this man had faith that He, as the Son of God, had power over these ‘demons’, and therefore “he marvelled, and said… Verily… I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel”. He focused on what faith and understanding the man had. With the height of His spirituality, with all the reason He had to be disappointed in people, the Lord marvelled at a man’s faith. It is an essay in how He seized on what genuine faith He found, and worked to develop it, even if there was an element of false understanding in it.</p>


text:
<p>8:10&nbsp;<em>When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him</em>-</p><p> He admired him [Gk:]. Here we see the humility of the Lord Jesus, that despite His own peerless perfection, He could admire the faith of a man who as a centurion was yet far from His own level of spirituality. Despite His peerless faith, the Lord Jesus marvelled at the extent of other's faith; the Gospels stress how sensitive He was to the faith of others (<em><a href='B:470 9:2'>Mat 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:29'>Mat 9:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:28'>Mat 15:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:34'>Mar 5:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:50'>Luk 7:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:48'>Luk 8:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:19'>Luk 17:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:42'>Luk 18:42</a></em>). Yet measured by His standards, they probably hardly knew what faith was. “No, not in Israel" suggests the Lord thought that Israel’s faith was something&nbsp;<em>very</em>&nbsp;high; when their rejection of Him was the cruellest tragedy in their history. The Lord marvelled at the man's faith, and also at the extent of unbelief in others (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 6:6'>Mar 6:6</a></em>). Given the Lord's tiredness, mental and physical exhaustion, demanding program, extreme loneliness etc:, the fact He had the emotional energy to marvel is an essay in His extreme sensitivity, and how He let neither His spiritual mission nor His external circumstances stop Him from having such sensitivity regarding the spiritual state of others. In this we see a deep challenge to ourselves.</p><p>There must have been certain similarities of personality type between the Lord and His mother. Thus in <em><a href='B:490 2:33'>Luk 2:33</a></em> Mary “marvelled”, and the same word is used about Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 6:6'>Mar 6:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>Truly I say to you, I have not found anyone in Israel</em>-</p><p> The Lord was and is actively searching for faith in people. He is the man looking to find a great treasure (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>), seeking to find a pearl of great price (<em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em>), finding a lost sheep or coin (<em><a href='B:470 18:13'>Mat 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:4-9'>Luk 15:4-9</a></em>), finding weak and rejected workers to work for Him in His work (<em><a href='B:470 20:6'>Mat 20:6</a></em>), wanting to find spiritual fruit on the fig tree (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>), finding willing guests for His own wedding (<em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>)- any who believe in Him. As He meets so many disappointments, imagine His joy at finding&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;faith, incomplete and at times misplaced as it Is. Surely in all this work of seeking and finding just a few He was living out His own command to seek, because we will find (<em><a href='B:490 11:10'>Luk 11:10</a></em>). He seems to allude to the idea in telling the disciples to fish on the right side of their boat, and they would find (<em><a href='B:500 21:6'>Joh 21:6</a></em>). The incident is replete with symbolism- the message surely is that we will find converts for the Lord, if we seek for them as the Lord did. We in our turn are searching to find the Lord (<em><a href='B:510 17:27'>Act 17:27</a></em>); and He is seeking to find us. Hence the flash moment when the searching God and His Son meet searching man in conversion to Christ. Ultimately we are 'found' at the Lord's return (<em><a href='B:570 3:9'>Phi 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:18'>2Ti 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:14'>2Pe 3:14</a></em>), but we are also 'found' by Him at the point of first faith in this life.</p><p><em>With such great faith</em>-</p><p> But as demonstrated in the comment on 8:9, this man had profound&nbsp;<em>understanding</em>. Faith must have content, it is belief&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;something, and in this sense faith and understanding are connected.</p>


text:
<p>8:11&nbsp;<em>And I say to you, that many shall come from the east and the west and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven</em>-</p><p> Gk. ‘to recline’. The reference is to the Messianic banquet, where Gentile Christians will sit with Abraham and the Jewish fathers- because they have become the children of Abraham by faith and baptism into Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em> comments that the Lord will have to&nbsp;<em>make</em>&nbsp;the faithful sit down at that banquet- so strong will be our abiding sense that ‘I am not worthy of this’. We note too the literal, personal nature of our existence in the Kingdom age.</p>


text:
<p>8:12&nbsp;<em>But the sons of the kingdom shall be</em>-</p><p> The similar passage in <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em> identifies this class as “you yourselves”, the Jews of the first century in whose streets the Lord had taught (<em><a href='B:490 13:26'>Luk 13:26</a></em>). They were therefore still in some sense God’s Kingdom, even though the political form of that Kingdom had been overthrown in Zedekiah’s time (<em><a href='B:330 21:25-27'>Eze 21:25-27</a></em>). Likewise those who are under the dominion of the King are in a sense His Kingdom right now, even though the Kingdom is not yet restored in its visible, literal, political sense.</p><p><em>Cast out into the outer darkness-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The metaphor continues from the idea of reclining at banquet in 8:11. Some would be cast out from that happy, well lit room- into the darkness outside. The idea of entering a banquet and then being cast out of it is repeated in the parable of the man without a wedding garment, who enters the banquet but is then likewise cast out into “outer darkness” (<em><a href='B:470 22:12-13'>Mat 22:12-13</a></em>). That man therefore becomes symbolic of the Jews who trusted in their fleshly descent from Abraham as a guarantee of salvation and eternal fellowship with him. ‘Cast into outer darkness’ to experience weeping and gnashing of teeth is paralleled in <em><a href='B:470 13:42'>Mat 13:42</a></em> by “Cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”. The “furnace of fire” and the “outer darkness” are both therefore figurative. The language speaks of intense aloneness (in the darkness) and searing mental pain. The spectre and possibility of rejection at the last day is brought frequently before us in the Scriptures, especially in the teaching of the Lord Jesus. It is an element, a dimension of life, that we need to bear in mind. On the one hand, the Lord seems eager to save anyone who believes, such is His grace; on the other pole there is this kind of language about condemnation. I submit that this is an intended, irreconcilable paradox which we are left with, purposefully, and for our good. I doubt that the paradox can be resolved, at least not by any intellectual, expositional process.</p><p><em>There shall be the weeping</em>-</p><p> Either we will mourn now in repentance (<em><a href='B:490 6:25'>Luk 6:25</a></em>; the Greek for "mourn" is often in a repentance context), or we will mourn at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em> etc:). Having foretold the inevitable coming of judgment day, Yahweh Himself pleads with Israel: "Therefore also&nbsp;<em>now</em>... turn ye even to me... with weeping, and with mourning" (<em><a href='B:360 2:12'>Joe 2:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>And the gnashing of teeth</em>-</p><p> Weeping and gnashing of teeth is emphasized in Matthew (<em><a href='B:470 13:42'>Mat 13:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:50'>Mat 13:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:51'>Mat 24:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). Luke mentions it once (<em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em>), Mark and John never. It was clearly a dimension to the Lord’s teaching which struck Matthew deeply, and he used it often in his teaching of the Gospel, of which ‘the Gospel according to Matthew’ is a transcript. Gnashing of teeth suggests anger, and <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em> says it is triggered by seeing Gentiles in God’s Kingdom and Jewish people from the time of Jesus rejected. So it is partly anger with self, but also the raging anger which comes from jealousy. We need to meditate upon the way in which actual human beings who met Jesus in the flesh are for sure going to reappear at the day of judgment. On their deathbeds or later in life they may’ve idly reflected ‘Ah yes, there was that Jesus guy I met once, the one they killed, and then a cult started based around Him afterwards’. Such people will reappear at judgment day, and their same basic personality will continue. As they were furious at the Lord’s claim that Gentiles would be in God’s Kingdom, so they will be in a blind rage about it still at judgment day. The only other time the Greek for ‘gnashing’ is used in the New Testament is in <em><a href='B:510 7:54'>Act 7:54</a></em>, where again the Jewish conscience was pricked, leading them to gnash upon Stephen. How they were then in the first century is how they will be at the last day. The gnashing of teeth is clearly connected with the anger which comes from jealousy at others’ acceptance. One cannot help think of the very many professing believers who have huge anger at the thought of an open table, or of someone they consider to be ‘outside’ of their small circle breaking bread at the Lord’s table. Those same basic structures and constructs of thinking, that same essential personality, will reappear at judgment day. The awesomeness of having been resurrected and actually meeting Jesus in person will not change our basic personalities. Our spirit, in that sense, is preserved. The time for change of attitudes and transformation of character is now:&nbsp; In the OT, gnashing of teeth always means to hate somebody, often the righteous (<em><a href='B:220 16:9'>Job 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 35:16'>Psa 35:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 37:12'>Psa 37:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 112:10'>Psa 112:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:16'>Lam 2:16</a></em>). Could it not be that the rejected hate their Lord and His people, who will be watching the judgment in some form, and therefore go and join the ranks of the embittered armies that come against Him? Or is their extreme hatred against themselves? <em><a href='B:230 112:10'>Psa 112:10</a></em> speaks of the wicked gnashing with their teeth and melting away, suggesting that the slinking away process goes on even in the outer darkness; they wander, but in their aimless wandering they slowly slink yet further away from their Lord- the one who once fain would have carried them on His shoulders, gathered them under His wings. It's a terrible picture. Cain, in typifying all the rejected, felt that his condemnation was something greater than he could bear (<em><a href='B:10 4:13'>Gen 4:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>8:13&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to the centurion: Go your way</em>-</p><p> The Lord several times uses this word (literally, ‘depart’) to a person after having healed them or having had a saving encounter with them. He used it to the healed leper in <em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em>, and again in <em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em> (the paralyzed man); <em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em> (Legion); <em><a href='B:480 5:34'>Mar 5:34</a></em> (the woman with an issue of blood); <em><a href='B:480 7:29'>Mar 7:29</a></em> (the Syrian woman); <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em> (the rich young man); <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em> (the blind man); <em><a href='B:490 17:14'>Luk 17:14</a></em> (the lepers); the Samaritan woman (<em><a href='B:500 4:16'>Joh 4:16</a></em>); the blind man at Siloam (<em><a href='B:500 9:7'>Joh 9:7</a></em>); the resurrected Lazarus (<em><a href='B:500 11:44'>Joh 11:44</a></em>). This is a significant theme, therefore, in the Lord’s dealings with people. It suggests a commission, a sending forth on His work- the same word is found in the commission to “Go into the vineyard” to work (<em><a href='B:470 20:4'>Mat 20:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:7'>Mat 20:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:28'>Mat 21:28</a></em>), ‘going’ to bring forth fruit (<em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>) and finally in ‘going’ to the world to tell them of the Lord’s resurrection (<em><a href='B:480 16:7'>Mar 16:7</a></em>). We are each individually sent out from Him to do His work in our own unique way. The way for the great commission is therefore prepared by these many examples of ‘sending’. That commission, the sending out, is therefore a totally personal matter- not something to be merely considered by missions committees, or groups of enthusiasts. We are each personally ‘sent’, bidden depart on our personal way, as a result of our encounter with the Lord.</p><p><em>As you have believed, so it is done for you</em>– The idea could be that the quality, nature and extent of healing was dependent upon the nature of the faith. We ask for forgiveness for our own sins “as” we have forgiven others. There is here a recognition by the Lord that issues like faith and forgiveness are not simply black or white situations. They are processes, and there is clearly a sliding scale of measurement for things such as faith and forgiveness. The point is that according to where we set the slider on our own faith or forgiveness, so there will be a corresponding response from God. God’s possibility is our possibility; and this is what the Lord was teaching the man who thought that it all depended upon the Lord’s possibility alone (<em><a href='B:480 9:23'>Mar 9:23</a></em>). The extent and nature of the Lord's healing seems to have been limited by the faith of the recipient (<em><a href='B:470 8:13'>Mat 8:13</a></em> " as…so”; <em><a href='B:470 9:29'>Mat 9:29</a></em> " according to”; <em><a href='B:470 12:22'>Mat 12:22</a></em> " inasmuch”).</p><p><em>And the servant was healed in that hour</em>-</p><p> The phrase could mean that the servant was cured within the same hour, or at that very instant. In this case the suggestion would be that the centurion’s faith was great and therefore the cure happened totally and instantly. The Greek for ‘healed’ is also translated ‘made whole’, so there could be a comment upon the extent (total healing) and immediacy (instant) of the cure- as a result of the man’s great level of faith.</p>


text:
<p>8:14&nbsp;<em>And when Jesus had entered Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying</em>-</p><p> As if the Lord noticed the problem and took the initiative to assist, rather than being asked to. Yet <em><a href='B:480 1:31'>Mar 1:31</a></em> states that “they [told] Him about her” and He responded. Surely the overall picture is that He did notice her need. But He waited to be asked before responding- not because He would not otherwise have responded, but because He wanted to pique the intensity of request and entreaty on their part. We sense the same spirit in how He appeared to be asleep on the sinking boat, and how He made as if He would go further on the way to Emmaus. And His apparent silence in our own lives is surely to provoke our prayerfulness and faith likewise.</p><p><em>Sick with a fever</em>-</p><p> The Greek literally means ‘to be on fire’. This is yet another example of phenomenological language. A high temperature was thought to be a sign that something was on fire within a person; that wrong idea is repeated without correction, just as the language of demons Is. The simple point being made, time and again, is that however folk understood disease, the power of the Lord Jesus was so infinitely greater that whatever was supposed to be causing the illness effectively didn’t exist.</p>


text:
<p>8:15&nbsp;<em>And he touched her hand and</em>-</p><p> One of the colossal 28 references in the Gospels to the Lord touching needy and neglected people, thereby showing His desire to connect with us in our humanity. We noted under <em><a href='B:470 8:14'>Mat 8:14</a></em> that the belief was that this woman’s high temperature was because of our fire deep within her. By touching her&nbsp;<em>hand</em>, an extremity, perhaps the Lord was showing that actually that belief was wrong. But as with the whole issue of belief in demons as a cause of unexplained illness, the Lord dealt with the issue by inference and implication rather than a direct statement that ‘this is wrong’. He reserved such a style for the condemnation of spiritual intolerance and other moral issues.</p><p><em>The fever left her</em>-</p><p> Also the language of the day, because illness was understood as having to go somewhere when it was healed.</p><p><em>And she arose and ministered to him</em>-</p><p> Her response to her healing was to serve the Lord and His people. This should be the underlying motive why we ask for healing and good health- so that we can serve. And our response to the Lord’s touching of us can never be passive- it involves some level of active serving. Perhaps the use of&nbsp;<em>diakoneo</em>&nbsp;looks forward to the office and practice of women being deacons, ministers, in the early church. For the church of any age is to be an extension of the men and women who followed the Lord Jesus in Galilee:&nbsp; There was a Rabbinic prohibition of women serving men at table, so this is yet another instance of the Lord and His people being driven by their desire to respond to God's grace to breaking accepted social norms about gender.</p>


text:
<p>8:16&nbsp;<em>And when evening had come, they brought to him many possessed with demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all that were sick</em>-</p><p> The healing had been done on a Sabbath, and so they only carried their sick to the Lord after sunset. We see here the power of religious tradition and fear of religious leaders and infringement of their traditions. There would have been urgently sick people, who needed healing as soon as possible. The people believed the Lord could heal them; but their fear of infringing Sabbath traditions was even greater. And we see the same in essence today.</p>


text:
<p>8:17&nbsp;<em>So that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: He took our infirmities and bore our diseases</em>-</p><p> “He took our infirmities and bore our diseases” is how Isaiah 53 described the cross; but these words are quoted in <em><a href='B:470 8:16-17'>Mat 8:16-17</a></em> about the Lord’s healing of people. The miracles therefore were performed in the spirit of the cross- personally identifying with the sick and healing them through that identification.</p>


text:
<p>8:18&nbsp;<em>Now when Jesus saw-</em></p><p>&nbsp;An example of how the Lord was so human that He still acquired knowledge by the exercise of His senses. Knowledge was not just beamed into Him.</p><p><em>Great crowds</em>-</p><p> Why did the Lord dislike the crowds? It may be that He simply found it nervously and spiritually too exhausting for Him to be surrounded by so many wrongly motivated people. If so, what does that mean about our decision making in view of our human limitations? Or it could be that His focus was upon the training of the twelve and He didn’t want to be distracted from that. Or perhaps He foresaw that if the crowds remained too long with Him, then they would begin a public revolt to enthrone Him as a King or at least some figurehead in protest against the Roman occupation. Hence His continual emphasis that His kingdom was about internal renewal, not external revolt. There may well have been a simple logistical issue- He could not normally address thousands of people and be heard by them all without speech reinforcement. The feeding miracles seem to have involved the use of a natural amphitheatre which enabled this. But thousands of people just tagging along, pressing closer to see or feel a miracle… often there would have been no chance to actually teach them anything, and most of the crowd would’ve only heard exaggerated and distorted versions of what was being said and done by Jesus. And there was also the very real practical danger of a stampede and people being trampled to death; <em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em> speaks of how one such “innumerable multitude… trod one upon another”.</p><p><em>About him, he gave commandment to depart to the other side</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>peran&nbsp;</em>doesn’t have to mean this; it can also simply mean to go further or beyond.</p>


text:
<p>8:19&nbsp;<em>And there came a scribe and said to him</em>-</p><p> Not necessarily a religious one, although probably this is the reference. The same word is also translated “clerk”. It was after Jesus had commanded the disciples to sail to the other side of the lake, that this scribe came to Him. By talking to this man, who likely was just asking the Lord trick questions and trying to catch Him out, the Lord delayed their departure; with the result that they nearly lost their lives in the storm that came (<em><a href='B:470 8:18-23'>Mat 8:18-23</a></em>). The disciples must have many times during that storm reflected with bitter annoyance how the Lord has gotten them in to this problem all because He had been wasting time with that Scribe. But the Lord had such a hopefulness and a spirit of passionate concern for the salvation of the individual, however arrogant and conceited they seemed to be, that He would risk danger in order to spend time with such a person. I find this an amazing example, surrounded as we are by a majority of people who appear like that Scribe.</p><p><em>Teacher, I will follow you</em>-</p><p> A massive 76 times we read in the Gospels of people following Jesus. Following Him&nbsp;<em>wherever He goes&nbsp;</em>is the characteristic of the faithful (<em><a href='B:730 14:4'>Rev 14:4</a></em>). The following of Jesus around Palestine therefore was presented in the Gospel records (and they are transcripts of the preaching of the Gospel) as the pattern for all who would later follow Him. His teaching in these verses, as so often, is that following Him is not about being part of a large crowd which broadly identifies with Jesus and hangs around Him, although often not hearing and taking seriously His words (see on <em><a href='B:470 8:18'>Mat 8:18</a></em>). It is about real self-sacrifice, and a following Him to the cross. In this we see a rebuke of the cultural ‘Christianity’ which has historically been so much a part of the Western world. It’s hard to follow Him; whereas joining the Christian denomination in which they were raised is for many people easier to do than not do. But really following Jesus is not so easy, and it leads to the death of the cross.</p><p><em>Wherever you go</em>-</p><p> He sensed the Lord was trying to distance Himself from the crowds (see on <em><a href='B:470 8:18'>Mat 8:18</a></em>) by going on beyond them, or to the other side of the Lake. And this man said he was willing to do that, to be in the inner circle which the Lord visibly had around Him. For when surrounded by the crowds, He addressed Himself to the disciples (<em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em>; and also in giving the Sermon on the Mount, <em><a href='B:470 5:1'>Mat 5:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 8:1'>Mat 8:1</a></em>). “Go” here translates the same Greek word as the Lord has just used in <em><a href='B:470 8:18'>Mat 8:18</a></em> - He commanded the inner circle disciples to “depart”, or “go”. And this scribe wanted to be in that inner circle and to go with them. The Lord Jesus had a way of gently turning comments and questions back on the person who made them, and of redefining the terms used. The man said that he would follow Him “whithersoever you got”, i:e. to whatever end point the road may lead to. The Lord replied that He had nowhere to lay His head. In other words, it’s the following of Him that we need to focus on, rather than the hardness of some possible great future sacrifice that may lie ahead. It’s the road, and not the destination, that are important (<em><a href='B:470 8:19-21'>Mat 8:19-21</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>8:20 See on <em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Jesus said to him: The foxes have holes and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head</em>-</p><p> The only other time the Greek phrase is used in the record that on death, He ‘bowed His head’ (<em><a href='B:500 19:30'>Joh 19:30</a></em>). His later warnings about what it meant to follow Him were to the effect that it meant carrying our cross with Him to the place of crucifixion. Perhaps there is a hint of that here. It may be that that night, the Lord literally had nowhere to sleep. But it was not the case for Him every night. Yet He seems to be purposefully painting a demanding picture in order to make the point- that following Him was not a case of tagging along with the crowd, hearing garbled reports of His words from others and enthusiastically hoping for some personal benefit from being involved with Him. Jesus died because He gave out His Spirit, as an act of the will. He gave His life, it was not taken from Him by murder. The fact the Lord died not just because events overtook Him and happened to Him is perhaps reflected in Paul’s speaking in Romans 6 of “the death that he died… the life that he liveth”. He died a death; he Himself died it; and yet just as truly, He lived a life. He didn’t just let events happen to Him. He was not mastered in His life by human lusts and selfish desires; He was in that sense the only ultimately free person to have ever lived. When He “bowed his head”, the same Greek is used as in <em><a href='B:470 8:20'>Mat 8:20</a></em>: “The Son of man has no place to lay / bow his head”. It was as if He only lay His head down, giving out His life, when He knew it was time to rest from a day’s work well done. He lived a surpassingly free life, and freely gave that life up; it was not taken from Him:&nbsp;When the Lord spoke of how "the son of man has nowhere to lay his head" (<em><a href='B:470 8:20'>Mat 8:20</a></em>), He was apparently alluding to a common proverb about how humanity generally ["son of man" as generalized humanity] is homeless in the cosmos. In this case, we see how the Lord took every opportunity to attest to the fact that what was true of humanity in general was true of Him. Perhaps this explains His fondness for describing Himself as "son of man", a term which can mean both humanity in general, and also specifically the Messiah predicted in Daniel.</p>


text:
<p>8:21&nbsp;<em>And another of the disciples said to him</em>-</p><p> The scribe of <em><a href='B:470 8:19'>Mat 8:19</a></em> could therefore be classed as a ‘disciple’. The term doesn’t necessarily refer to the twelve, although there does seem a distinction between the ‘multitudes’ who followed and from the edge of that crowd heard a few garbled versions of the Lord’s words and work (see on <em><a href='B:470 8:18'>Mat 8:18</a></em>), and ‘disciples’, those who were willing to be learners from Him as from a rabbi.</p><p><em>Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father</em>-</p><p> This was perhaps said in response to the Lord’s decision to move on beyond the crowds, or “to the other side” (see on <em><a href='B:470 8:18'>Mat 8:18</a></em>). Like the scribe, this man wanted to be in some kind of inner circle. And he had shown some interest- it would seem that on the morning of his father’s funeral, he had come to listen to Jesus. But he wanted the Lord to delay His departure until he had completed burying his father that afternoon. It seems that a third individual also wanted to follow the Lord further in response to the command He gave to the inner circle to “depart”; for <em><a href='B:490 9:61'>Luk 9:61</a></em> records another person wanting the Lord to just wait until he had run home to say goodbye to his family and explain his absence.</p>


text:
<p>8:22&nbsp;<em>But Jesus said to him: Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead</em>-</p><p> All three people (see <em><a href='B:490 9:61'>Luk 9:61</a></em>) wanted to follow Jesus. But the Lord’s point is that unless they were going to pay the price until it hurt, then they were not following Him. They were just tagging along the huge crowds. There is a clear link between following Christ and carrying His cross. <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:34'>Mar 8:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em> make it apparent: “Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me”. But there are other less evident connections. The man following his father’s coffin was told to break off and come follow Christ instead (<em><a href='B:470 8:22'>Mat 8:22</a></em>)- as if following Him involved following Him unto the place of death. The faithful women who literally followed Him to the cross are described as&nbsp;<em>also</em>&nbsp;having followed Him in Galilee (<em><a href='B:480 15:41'>Mar 15:41</a></em>), as if their following then and their literal following of Him to Golgotha were all part of the same walk.</p>


text:
<p>8:23&nbsp;<em>And when he had boarded a boat, his disciples followed him</em>-</p><p> This is quite a compliment, given the definitions the Lord has been giving in :22 about the difficulty of following Him truly. Chapter 8 emphasizes this theme of following Jesus, the Greek literally means to take the same road as (<em><a href='B:470 8:1'>Mat 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:19'>Mat 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:22'>Mat 8:22</a></em>). Verses 21 and 22 emphasize that this was not as easy as merely literally walking around Palestine with Him, externally following- but it involved the loss of all one holds dear in human life. And the road or way taken by the Lord ultimately led to the cross. A huge 76 times this word is used in the Gospels. The following of Jesus in all ways is the essence of Christianity- for the faithful are those who follow the Lamb&nbsp;<em>wherever</em>&nbsp;[and that surely is the emphasis] He goes (<em><a href='B:730 14:4'>Rev 14:4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>8:24&nbsp;<em>And without warning, a furious storm</em>-</p><p> The word is also translated "earthquake". The waves from the earthquake "covered" or 'hid' [s:w:] the ship. Given the intensity of the situation it seems unlikely the Lord was really "asleep". Here we have a picture of the apparent silence of God. He appeared to be asleep, He remained with eyes closed, lying there as the boat was hidden beneath the waves. But He did this surely to pique the intensity of faith and urgency of appeal in their prayer to Him for salvation. And the apparent silence of the Lord in our lives is ultimately to try to achieve the same effect:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Arose on the sea</em>-</p><p> Same Greek word occurs 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. The changes of tense in the Gospel records suggest an eye witness telling the story. Take the parallel <em><a href='B:480 4:37'>Mar 4:37</a></em>: "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..." (<em><a href='B:480 4:39'>Mar 4:39</a></em>). 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><em>So much so that the boat was covered with the waves; but he slept</em>-</p><p> The Greek could also stand the translation 'lying down to rest'. But how could He appear to be resting or asleep in such a situation? I suggest He did this to elicit their desire for Him. Likewise He made as if He would walk by them during another storm, and acted as if He would go on further on the walk to Emmaus. It was all in order to elicit their urgent desire for Him. And so it is with His apparent silence to us; that silence or lack of immediate response is in order to heighten our final sense of His grace and action. We see it in how He delayed going to Lazarus; it is the principle of <em><a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a></em>: "Therefore Yahweh will wait, that He may be gracious to you; and therefore He will be exalted, that He may have mercy on you, for Yahweh is a God of justice. Blessed are all those who wait for Him".</p>


text:
<p>8:25&nbsp;<em>And they came to Him</em>-</p><p> 'Coming to' can be understood in the sense of worship. His apparent silence led them to an intensity of prayerful approach to Him. See on :24.</p><p><em>And awoke him</em>-</p><p> Literally, to raise up. 'Asleep' in <em><a href='B:470 8:24'>Mat 8:24</a></em> can also mean simply to lay down to rest. 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>Saying, Save us, Lord!</em>-</p><p> Peter used the same word when he urged the Lord in another storm "save&nbsp;<em>me</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 14:30'>Mat 14:30</a></em>). We see how the Lord repeated the storm experience in the lives of the disciples, hoping they would learn the lesson of faith and focus upon Him, and repeating them so that they might be learnt. The two incidents are again connected by the rebuke "Ye [plural] of little faith" (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>) and then to Peter "You [singular] of little faith" (<em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>).</p><p><em>We perish!</em>-</p><p> The same Greek words for 'save' and 'perish' also occur together in <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>, where the Lord teaches that if we seek to save our lives in this world then we will perish. He could thereby be making a criticism of the disciples' plea to be saved from perishing; His sense would then have been 'You should have an even greater, focused intensity upon your need to be saved spiritually and not to perish eternally'. Again the two words occur together in <em><a href='B:470 18:11'>Mat 18:11</a></em>, where the Lord says that He came to save those who are perishing- and again, He has in view spiritual, ultimate salvation. The perishing disciples on the lake, in need of saving, are therefore being set up as a picture of the intensity of desire we should have for forgiveness and salvation. The way essential intention is understood as prayer is perhaps reflected in the way Matthew records that the disciples prayed during the storm on the lake: "Lord, save us, we are perishing!" (<em><a href='B:470 8:25'>Mat 8:25</a></em>). Mark records that their actual words were "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?" (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>). Perhaps this was read by Matthew's inspiration as prayer. An alternative would be that they firstly said the words recorded by Mark, and then those by Matthew- in which case we could perhaps notice the difference between "Teacher!" and "Lord!", as if the higher they perceived the greatness of the Lord Jesus, the more moved they were to prayer.</p></p><p><p>Mark records that they actually said:&nbsp;“Carest thou not that we perish?” (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>). His whole life and death were because He&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;so care that they would not perish (<em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>). It’s so reminiscent of a child’s total, if temporary, misunderstanding and lack of appreciation of the parent’s love and self-sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p>8:26&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Why are you fearful?</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 8:25 'We perish'.</p><p><em>O you of little faith!</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:470 8:25'>Mat 8:25</a></em> "save us". The question as to&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;they had little faith echoes to us. Why is it that faith is so hard for us? The track record of the Father and Son as rewarding faith is clear and without question. This&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;question drives each individual into personal introspection, reviewing our history, past and present influences upon us, the nature of our personality:&nbsp;<em>Why</em>&nbsp;do we not believe very strongly... ? The records of the Lord’s words to the disciples in the sinking ship are significantly different within the Gospel records. Luke’s record has Him upbraiding them: “Where is your faith?”, as if He thought they had none. Matthew and Mark have Him commenting: “O you of&nbsp;<em>little</em>&nbsp;faith...". Putting them together, perhaps He said and implied something like: ‘O you of little faith, you who think you have a little faith, in my view you have no&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;faith. Come on, where is your&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;faith, not the little bit which&nbsp;<em>you&nbsp;</em>think you have…?’ (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 4:40'>Mar 4:40</a></em>). The Greek for “little” faith is also translated ‘almost’; as if the Lord is saying that they almost had faith, but in reality, had nothing. The Lord spoke of how just a little piece of real faith, like a grain of mustard seed, could result in so much (<em><a href='B:480 11:12-13'>Mar 11:12-13</a></em>)- as if He recognized that there was pseudo-faith, and the real thing:&nbsp;<em>Oligopistos&nbsp;</em>("little faith") is used five times by Matthew (<em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:8'>Mat 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>); it never occurs in Mark and only once in Luke. Perhaps Matthew's Gospel record was written to challenge those whose faith was small, and he encourages them that the disciples likewise started with "little faith":&nbsp;</p><p>It seems to me that all the Lord's servants are taught by increments, progressively, being given tests as to the degree to which they have grasped what the Lord has sought to teach them previously. And the Lord Jesus used a similar structured approach with the training of the twelve disciples. When the Lord commented “Have you not yet faith?” (<em><a href='B:480 4:40'>Mar 4:40</a></em> RV) it becomes immediately apparent that He was working with the twelve according to some program of spiritual development, and He was frustrated with their lack of response to it and slow progress. He surely has a similar program in place, and makes similar patient efforts, with each one of us. It is apparent to any reader of the Greek text of the Gospels that Jesus almost always left the verb “believe” without an object (e.g. <em><a href='B:480 4:40'>Mar 4:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:34'>Mar 5:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:36'>Mar 5:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:23'>Mar 9:23</a></em>). The question naturally arose: ‘Believe&nbsp;<em>in what or whom</em>?’. And seeing the speaker of the words, the answer was there before their eyes.</p><p><em>Then he arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm</em>-</p><p> The Greek for "rebuked" can mean just this, but it is also translated 'to solemnly charge'. There are times in the Gospels where the sovereign authority of Jesus as Lord simply shines through. He did His work with a minimum of such displays of authority. Yet there are enough of them to make us appreciate how He could so easily have 'come down from the cross'; such incidents of sovereign authority in His ministry simply pave the way for us to appreciate the degree of self-control and wilful sacrifice and suffering which He achieved on the cross. The peoples of the first century, and their predecessors, believed that demons and the Satan monster were somehow associated with water – that was why, they figured, the water mysteriously kept moving, and at times blew up into storms. When we read of God ‘rebuking’ the waters and making them calm or do what He wished (<em><a href='B:230 18:16'>Psa 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 104:7'>Psa 104:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:9'>Psa 106:9</a></em>), we’re effectively being told that Yahweh of Israel is so infinitely superior to those supposed demons and sea monsters that for God’s people, they have no effective existence. The Lord Jesus taught the same lesson when He ‘rebuked’ the sea and wind during the storm on the lake (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>). The same Greek word is used to described how He ‘rebuked’ demons (<em><a href='B:470 17:18'>Mat 17:18</a></em> etc:). I have no doubt that the Lord Jesus didn’t believe there was a Loch Ness–type monster lurking in Galilee which He had to rebuke in order to save the disciples from the storm; and likewise He spoke of ‘rebuking’ demons as a similar way of teaching others that&nbsp;<em>whatever</em>&nbsp;ideas they had about demons, He was greater and was in a position to ‘rebuke’ them. Likewise He assured His men that they had the power to tread on snakes, scorpions, and all their enemies (<em><a href='B:490 10:17-20'>Luk 10:17-20</a></em>). The image of a victorious god trampling his foes and snakes underfoot was well established in the surrounding cultures, and had entered Judaism. The Lord is teaching those fearful men that OK, if that’s your perception of things, well, in your terms, you have ultimate victory through working ‘in My name’.</p><p>Mark records that the Lord commanded the waves “Peace, be still”. His authoritative "Peace, be still" (<em><a href='B:480 4:39'>Mar 4:39</a></em>) was probably primarily addressed to the Angels controlling the natural elements. The reference to Angels 'ministering' to Him after the temptations suggests their inferiority. Thus He could summon twelve legions of Angels at the time of His greatest passion- maybe He remembered this incident and it was a temptation to Him to use this power over Angels at the crucifixion.</p><p>All three of the Synoptics use the same phrase for "a great calm" (<em><a href='B:480 4:39'>Mar 4:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:24'>Luk 8:24</a></em>). It would've been a profound experience. The whole experience looks ahead to the calm of God's Kingdom being brought about by intense latter day prayer during a tribulation so intense that unless it were shortened, the faithful would die. When the Lord calmed the raging sea into a still calmness, He was consciously replicating what happened when Jonah was cast into the sea. He said plainly that He understood Jonah’s willing submission to this as a type of His coming death. Therefore He saw the stilled sea as a symbol of the peace His sacrifice would achieve. And yet even during His ministry, He brought that calmness about; for in principle, His sacrifice was ongoing throughout His life. His blood is a symbol both of His cross and of the life He lived.</p>


text:
<p>8:27&nbsp;<em>And the men</em>-</p><p> An unusual term for the disciples. But it's understandable- they were awed by the power and majesty of the Father and Son, and therefore keenly felt their humanity.</p><p><em>Marvelled, saying</em>-</p><p> A word so often used about the response of people to miracles. The Lord had marvelled at another's faith in 8:10, and now men marvel at His faith. A very positive mutuality is suggested here between the Lord and His followers.</p><p><em>What manner of man is this</em>-</p><p> What&nbsp;<em>sort</em>&nbsp;of man is this (Gk:&nbsp;<em>potapos</em>), they asked themselves. They felt very much their own humanity (hence they are called "the men" at this time), and their awe was because they sensed that Jesus too was a man. Accepting the humanity of the Lord Jesus is relatively easy on one level, as a matter of theology, exposition or logic. But then comes the far harder part- the awe at the fact that One who was like me could actually do so much and be so much. And this can lead to our feeling a kind of gap between Him and us, although we know He shared the same nature, this in a sense means that we feel the spiritual distance between Him and us very keenly. In later spiritual maturity, Peter seems to have reflected upon this gap and realized that it was bridgeable- for he uses a similar word in saying that because of God's grace, "what manner of persons(<em>potapous</em>) ought we to be...". Just as Jesus was human and yet different from unbelieving men, so that same element of difference can be seen in us. The whole consideration is an essay in His humanity and representation of us as humans.</p><p>"What manner of&nbsp;<em>man</em>&nbsp;is this?" was maybe said on perceiving that His actions were in fulfilment of the prophecy that&nbsp;<em>Yahweh&nbsp;</em>would still the waves of the sea. And in the context of stilling another storm, He comments: "Fear not, it is I" - not 'it's&nbsp;<em>me</em>'. He was surely suggesting they connect Him with the essence of the Yahweh Name, I am that I am. But the connection was only for those who would truly meditate and connect things together. As our Moslem friends have correctly pointed out many times, Jesus Himself never in so many words claimed to be Messiah. When others said this about Him, He replies by describing Himself as the "son of man". Indeed, this was His preferred self-image. He was intensely conscious of His humanity, His solidarity with us, and it was as if He directed us who later have believed to image Him first and foremost as a&nbsp;<em>man of our nature</em>. Of course, He was and is so much more than that. But because we are human, we have to image ourselves around a perfect human- Jesus, the real and full humanity as God intended. Here those who believe Jesus was God Himself place themselves at a distinct disadvantage- our understanding that Jesus did indeed come "in the flesh" ought to be a tremendous inspiration to us to be like Him. The power and compulsion of His life and example are surely diminished by relating to Him as God Himself.</p><p><em>That even the winds and the sea obey him?</em>-</p><p> The disciples spoke of the wind and sea as if they were conscious entities, able to be obedient to the word of Jesus. The same word is used to describe the marvel of the people that "even the unclean spirits... obey Him" (<em><a href='B:480 1:27'>Mar 1:27</a></em>). Just as wind and sea are not actually living entities, so unclean spirits likewise don't actually exist. But the disciples clearly had the idea in their head. Yet the scale of the Lord's power over such entities in fact showed their effective non-existence in practice.</p>


text:
And when he had arrived on the other side- The Gospel records often paint a broad scene and then zoom in upon the person of Jesus. Mark does this by using a plural verb without an explicit subject 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: &quot;They came to the other side... and when He had stepped out of the boat&quot; (<a href='B:480 5:1-2'>Mk. 5:1,2</a>); &quot;when they came from Bethany, he was hungry&quot; (<a href='B:480 8:22'>Mk. 8:22</a>); &quot;they went to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples...&quot; (<a href='B:480 14:32'>Mk. 14:32</a>). 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>In the country of the Gadarenes- The &quot;Girgashites&quot; of Dt. 7:1, 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><p>There met him two possessed with demons- Mark and Luke focus upon just one of them, Legion. Luke says that Peter went to the Lord's tomb after the resurrection, yet several other disciples also went there (&quot;some of our number&quot;). Luke chose to focus upon only Peter; and here too, he chooses to focus upon only one of the two demoniacs. </p><p>Coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could go that way- See on <a href='B:470 8:34'>8:34</a>. </p><p>For a detailed study on this incident, see my discussion of it in The Real Devil, http://www.realdevil.info . See too commentary on Mark 5 and Luke 8.</p>


text:
<p>8:29&nbsp;<em>And they cried out, saying: What have we to do with you, you Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?</em>-</p><p> The language of judgment at the last day, "the time" (<em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:10'>Rev 20:10</a></em>). See on :30&nbsp;<em>a good way off&nbsp;</em>and on :31&nbsp;<em>cast us out</em>. 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 [<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>A comparison of the records indicates that the voice of the individual man is paralleled with that of the 'demons'- 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>


text:
<p>8:30&nbsp;<em>Now there was afar off from them a herd of many pigs feeding</em>-</p><p> 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 men saw themselves as far from Christ, with nothing in common between them and Him (:29). His response was to say that OK, let's get the condemnation over and done with- and you yourselves shall be saved. This is very much the kind of teaching which John's Gospel records as being specifically on the Lord's lips. See on :31:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:31&nbsp;<em>And the demons begged him, saying: If you cast us out</em>-</p><p> 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>). These men were obsessed with the thought of condemnation at the last day, being 'tormented' at the last day (:28), being 'far off' from Christ and His salvation (see on :30), '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 :32). They 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 them that their 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. 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. These men had a fine understanding of the Lord Jesus. They realized that meeting Him was meeting their judge. And they ask that the pigs bear their condemnation. And the Lord agrees- which meant that once they had as it were received their condemnation, they had passed from death into life:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Suffer us</em>-</p><p> AV and some manuscripts. They recognized Jesus as not only Son of God but also their Lord, in total control of their final destiny.</p><p><em>Send us away into the herd of pigs</em>-</p><p> The same word is used about the rejected at the final judgment 'going away' into condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 25:46'>Mat 25:46</a></em>).</p><p>Why did the pigs run over the cliff, and why did the Lord Jesus agree to the man's request for this?</p><p>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>Steve Keating pointed out to me that 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:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:32&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Go. And they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the hill into the sea and perished in the waters-&nbsp;</em>Death in the sea was seen as condemnation; the same figure is used of Babylon's final condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p>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>8:33&nbsp;<em>And they that fed them fled, and went away into the city and told everything, including what had happened to them that had been possessed with demons</em>-</p><p> See on :34&nbsp;<em>besought</em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:34&nbsp;<em>And all in the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him they begged him-&nbsp;</em>"Begged" is the very same word used about the demons / mentally ill men 'beseeching' Jesus in :31. 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" (:33), so the same word is used of the demons 'going away' into the pigs (:31,32). 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. The parallel record in Mark 5 records three prayers to Jesus: "the devils besought him", and "Jesus gave them leave" (vv. 12,13); the Gadarenes "began to pray him to depart out of their coasts" (v. 17); and He obliged. And yet when the cured, earnestly zealous man "prayed him that he might be with him... Jesus suffered him not" (vv. 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><p><em>To depart from their borders-</em></p><p>&nbsp;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><p>Mark records further: “And as he was entering into the boat, he that had been possessed with demons pleaded with him that he might go with him. 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. And he went his way and began to publish in Decapolis the great things Jesus had done for him, and all men marvelled” (<em><a href='B:480 5:18-20'>Mar 5:18-20</a></em>). 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 thy&nbsp;<em>house</em></td><td>He goes to the<em>&nbsp;ten cities&nbsp;</em>[Decapolis]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>unto thy&nbsp;<em>friends</em></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;hath done for thee</td><td><em>Jesus&nbsp;</em>had done for him</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>and how he had mercy on thee.</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><p>Mary’s praise that “He hath done to me great things” is surely behind her Son’s words in <em><a href='B:490 8:39'>Luk 8:39</a></em>, where He bids Legion go home" and shew how great things God hath done unto thee":&nbsp;Her eternal influence on her Son is a huge encouragement to all mothers. For the language of the risen Lord in Revelation has discernible links with language she used to Him in His infancy.</p>


text:
<p>9:1&nbsp;<em>And he entered into a boat and crossed over</em>-</p><p> The Gospels record the Lord entering into a boat around 15 times. The visual image of Him entering the boat remained deeply with the Gospel writers. It's an incidental proof of the veracity of their records as eyewitness accounts. There must've been something about His body language as He climbed over the boat's side which lodged deeply within them. Perhaps because it is awkward for a man to climb over a boat's side, especially for one who had not grown up as a fisherman, messing with boats from childhood. Perhaps that proof of His utter humanity remained with them all, and is artlessly reflected in their later write-up of their time with Him.</p><p><em>And came into his own city</em>-</p><p> Another essay in the Lord's humanity. The same term is used about Joseph going to be taxed in "his own city" (<em><a href='B:490 2:3'>Luk 2:3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>9:2&nbsp;<em>Behold</em>-</p><p> AV and some manuscripts. Another encouragement for us to play 'Bible television' with the record, inviting us to 'Look' at Him, imagining the Lord in a particular situation which is being described.</p><p><em>They brought to Him</em>-</p><p> The term is also used of bringing a sacrifice to God, but in this case of the lame:&nbsp;</p><p><em>A paralysed man, lying on a bed</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>ballo</em>&nbsp;suggests they had thrown him onto the bed / stretcher in their haste to bring him to Jesus. "Bed" is Gk. a table or a couch. They had grabbed whatever could serve as a stretcher.</p><p><em>And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralysed 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>).</p><p><em>Son, be of good courage</em>-</p><p> The same term is used later in the chapter, when the sick woman is told that because of&nbsp;<em>her</em>&nbsp;faith, she can be of good comfort because the Lord will heal her (<em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em>). Note too that the woman "said within herself" (<em><a href='B:470 9:21'>Mat 9:21</a></em>), using the same phrase as used about the scribes talking 'within themselves' (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>). The parallel in the situations is surely to underline the lesson- that the faith of&nbsp;<em>others</em>&nbsp;can be as effective as the faith of an individual in leading to healing and forgiveness.</p><p><em>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>9:3&nbsp;<em>Behold-&nbsp;</em>AV and some MSS. We are invited to imagine the faces of those men, and likewise perceive as Jesus did what they were thinking within.</p><p><em>Certain of the scribes said within themselves: This man blasphemes</em>-</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>&nbsp;<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>


text:
<p>9:4&nbsp;<em>And Jesus knowing their thoughts</em>-</p><p> Matthew says the same about the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 12:25'>Mat 12:25</a></em>. Time and again, the Gospels record how He “perceived” things about people. Admittedly this could have been because He simply had a Holy Spirit gift to enable this. But I prefer to think that His sensitivity, His perception, aided by His extraordinary intellectual ability as the Son of God [for intelligence and perception / sensitivity are related]… these things developed within Him over the years so that He could sense the essential needs and feelings of others to an unsurpassed extent. “Jesus, seeing their thoughts…” (<em><a href='B:470 9:4'>Mat 9:4</a></em> RVmg:) shows how He came to perceive the hearts of others from His observation of them. This was the same Jesus who could be ridiculed into scorn / shame / embarrassment (<em><a href='B:470 9:24'>Mat 9:24</a></em>), such was His sensitivity to others. This incident helps us to understand the ability of the mind / spirit of the Lord Jesus to connect with that of human beings. <em><a href='B:480 2:8'>Mar 2:8</a></em> puts it like this: "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 this incident in the Gospels 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. 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>Said: Why do you think evil in your hearts?</em>-</p><p> The Gk. means 'to ponder', to dwell upon- which is how the word is translated in its two other occurrences in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:470 1:20'>Mat 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:19'>Act 10:19</a></em>). The human heart is a fountain of evil thoughts, but the sin is to dwell upon them as the Jews were doing. We note again how the root cause of the Jewish plot to murder the Son of God is located as attitudes within their hearts which grew into the final sin of the crucifixion.</p><p>What evil did the Lord have in mind? The use of&nbsp;<em>poneros</em>&nbsp;here rather than any word carrying the idea of sin would suggest the Lord had a particular evil act in mind; and surely, He could foresee the evil of the crucifixion. He perceived that this was beginning as a jealous thought brooded upon within their minds. The Lord may have had the same idea in mind when He taught that the Jews would bring forth evil things from their evil hearts (<em><a href='B:470 12:34-35'>Mat 12:34-35</a></em>). The 'evil things' may have been an intensive plural for the greatest evil- the crucifixion. A review of the passages listed in the commentary on <em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em> will reveal that He perceived it was the state of their mind which would lead them to kill Him; there is therefore a great appropriacy in the language of 'satan' being used about both the Jewish opposition, and the mind of the flesh.</p>


text:
<p>9:5&nbsp;<em>For which is easier to say</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'less work'. The Lord meant 'Which is easier&nbsp;<em>for Me</em>'. 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</em>&nbsp;they would realize that He had power to forgive sins (:6).</p><p><em>Your sins are forgiven, or, Arise and walk?</em>-</p><p> 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>9:6&nbsp;<em>But so you may know</em>-</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>). 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><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 <em><a href='B:470 9:8'>Mat 9:8</a></em> 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><em>Has authority on earth to forgive sins-</em></p><p>&nbsp;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 then said to the paralytic</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><p><em>Arise, take up your bed-&nbsp;</em>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><em>And go to your house-&nbsp;</em>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>9:7&nbsp;<em>And he arose and departed to his house</em>-</p><p> Emphasizing his exact and studied obedience to the Lord's command to Him in :6.</p>


text:
<p>9:8&nbsp;<em>But when the crowds saw it</em>-</p><p> A word used about 150 times in the Gospel records. The crowds were a major feature of the Lord's ministry, and they must have been a great trial to Him. We sense Him seeking to avoid them, to stop them gathering, and yet being so compassionate towards them, despite their often superficial grasp of His works and message. It makes an interesting exercise to consider whether on balance the Gospel writers take a positive view of the crowds or not. John seems to be more negative about them, whereas Matthew seems to emphasize their wonder, naivety, weak understanding and fickleness. But all the Gospels seem to present a clear pyramid structure beginning with Jesus, then an inner circle of disciples, then the twelve, then the crowds, and then the unbelieving, aggressive Jewish leadership. There are certainly similarities with Moses on Sinai and in his relationship with Israel, but they cannot be pushed too precisely. The crowd here in <em><a href='B:470 9:8'>Mat 9:8</a></em> is contrasted favourably with the Scribes- the opening "But..." suggests that they marvelled at the Lord's authority, whereas some of the Scribes became bitterly jealous.</p><p><em>They were afraid and glorified God, who had given such authority to men</em>-</p><p> See on 9:6&nbsp;<em>Son of Man</em>. There may be significance in the plural&nbsp;<em>men</em>&nbsp;rather than&nbsp;<em>a man</em>. They marvelled that one of them could have such power to forgive and remove the consequences of sin. It is all an essay in the Lord's evident humanity.</p>


text:
<p>9:9- see on <em><a href='B:470 4:16'>Mat 4:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>And as Jesus left there he saw a man-&nbsp;</em>Towards Matthew, the author of the account. Such close up detail makes sense if this is indeed an eyewitness account. It's almost as if Matthew had a video camera on his desk and captures the Lord walking towards him after healing the paralyzed man.</p><p><em>Called Matthew-&nbsp;</em>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 (see Mark and Luke's record), 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&nbsp;tax office</em>-</p><p> 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</em>-</p><p> 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;</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 (9:6- another example of Matthew highlighting immediate response to the Lord's call). It's as if Matthew saw himself in that paralyzed man. 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"). The Lord spoke with "authority" in the eyes of the people- so that a man arose and followed Him. 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 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>9:10&nbsp;<em>And it came to pass, as he sat eating in the house</em>-</p><p> Matthew's record is purposefully ambiguous. Whose house? His own house, where He was living? For Capernaum is called "his own city" at that time (<em><a href='B:470 9:1'>Mat 9:1</a></em>). Or the house to which the healed paralytic had returned (<em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em>)? Or Matthew's house? However, the other Gospels say that the house was Matthews, and the presence of other publicans supports that. 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 came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples</em>-</p><p> Clearly the associates of Matthew. They came and sat down with Jesus whilst He was eating. And He accepted them. See the digression about the significance of eating together, and the Lord's open table. <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>9:11&nbsp;<em>And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to his disciples: Why does your Teacher eat with the 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>9:12&nbsp;<em>But when he heard it, he said</em>-</p><p> Did He overhear? Or simply perceive, as in <em><a href='B:470 9:4'>Mat 9:4</a></em>?</p><p><em>They that are sick need a doctor</em>-</p><p> 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:470 9:13'>Mat 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><em>Not they that are healthy</em>-</p><p> The Greek word 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.</p><p>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>


text:
<p>9:13&nbsp;<em>Go</em>-</p><p> The Lord was telling them to literally get out of the house, and do some Bible study. Of course, the Pharisees spent their time doing this. The Lord's point was that if they really meditated upon the implications of God's love of grace over sacrifice, then they would understand that it is therefore actually necessary to eat with sinners to call them to repentance.</p><p><em>And learn</em>-</p><p> The Pharisees saw themselves as only teachers, not pupils. The Lord had diagnosed this problem, for He told them as a teacher would tell a pupil: “Go ye and learn what that means...". He sent them away to do some homework. And there is a warning for speaking brethren here; the repeated experience of teaching can take away from the eternal sense of student-ship which the true believer will ever feel.</p><p><em>What this means</em>-</p><p> Literally, 'what is'. The same two Greek words have just been on the Lord's lips to the Scribes- "<em>What is</em>&nbsp;easier..." (<em><a href='B:470 9:5'>Mat 9:5</a></em>). Capernaum was a small place, and probably the incidents recorded in Matthew 9 featured the same group of opponents:&nbsp;</p><p><em>I desire mercy and not sacrifice</em>-</p><p> This was some kind of proof text for the Lord, for He says exactly the same words in <em><a href='B:470 12:7'>Mat 12:7</a></em>: "If you had known what this means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless". The context of <em><a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a></em> (from where the Lord was quoting) was of God appealing to a deeply apostate Israel through the situation of Hosea and Gomer. He appeals for her to show&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>, covenant love ("mercy"), and not just give the external appearances of a marriage relationship (cp. offering sacrifices). Here in the Capernaum incident, the Lord is saying that He fellowships with sinners because God loves the display of grace rather than technical obedience. If God wishes&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>, covenant love, from us, then how do we show it? By fellowshipping with sinners and thereby calling them to repentance. The love which God wishes us to show to Him is channelled in practice through calling others to repentance. For that is the greatest display of love for Him. And if that principle is followed, then we will be lead through the practice of such grace to never condemn the guiltless (this is how the Lord uses&nbsp; <em><a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a></em> in <em><a href='B:470 12:7'>Mat 12:7</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>I came not to call</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>). Matthew again is showing that he considered himself a sinner, one of the sick who needed a doctor:&nbsp;<em></p>The righteous</em>-</p><p> Those who&nbsp;<em>thought they were</em>&nbsp;righteous.</p><p><em>But sinners to repentance</em>-</p><p> AV and some MSS. The fellowship of the Lord Jesus was a call 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>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:14&nbsp;<em>Then the disciples of John came to him, saying</em>-</p><p> Was this also in Capernaum? If so, we note that John's influence had spread as far north as Galilee. In any case, the impression is given of wave after wave of questioning, activity, controversy. It would've all been so mentally draining of the Lord's spirituality and emotions.</p><p><em>Why do we and the Pharisees often fast</em>-</p><p> The Greek for 'often' can just as well mean 'largely', i:e. they abstained from food for long periods:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But your disciples do not fast?</em>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p>9:15&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to them: Can the sons of the bride chamber</em>-</p><p> 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>Mourn while the bridegroom is with them?</em>-</p><p> 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 here in <em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em> is saying 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>But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be</em>-</p><p> Not necessarily plural- s:w. "the day" (<em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:15'>Mat 10:15</a></em>), "that day" (<em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em>)</p><p><em>Taken away from them, and then 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 in <em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em> ("<em>take up</em>&nbsp;your bed") 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>9:16&nbsp;<em>No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth</em>-</p><p> 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 :17. 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:470 5:37'>Mat 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</em>-</p><p> The same phrase is used to describe the Mosaic system in <em><a href='B:650 1:11'>Heb 1:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>For the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made-&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>AV and some MSS:&nbsp;<em>That which is put in to fill it</em>-</p><p> This translates one Greek word,&nbsp;<em>pleroma</em>, which is elsewhere simply translated 'to fulfil' and refers to the fulfilment of the Law in Christ and "the fullness of Christ" (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Takes from</em>-</p><p> Gk. to separate, divide. The encounter with Christ means that ultimately there can be no brinkmanship in remaining partly with the old way, be it the Mosaic way or the way of secular modern life, and partly in the Lord's way. There will only be a painful and messy division in the end.</p><p><em>The rent&nbsp;</em>[NEV "tear"]- 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><em>Is made worse</em>-</p><p> The word and 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:470 9:14'>Mat 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>9:17<em>&nbsp;Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins</em>-</p><p> A clear reference to Christ's blood of the new covenant.</p><p><em>If they do, the skins will burst</em>-</p><p> 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;</p><p><em>The wine will run out</em>-</p><p> S:w. "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 will be ruined</em>-</p><p> 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;</p><p><em>No, they pour new wine 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><p><em>And both are preserved</em>-</p><p> The loss is not only to the untransformed person. There is also a loss and damage to the new wine, the Lord Jesus. He is not undamaged by the loss of any of His people. Their failure is His re-crucifixion, the pouring out again of His blood, but in vain. All this signals the danger of not being totally transformed after having received the Truth. Interestingly, a form of the Greek&nbsp;<em>suntereo</em>&nbsp;["preserved"] is used in <em><a href='B:500 2:10'>Joh 2:10</a></em>, where it is noted that the Lord Jesus&nbsp;<em>kept</em>&nbsp;[Gk:&nbsp;<em>tereo</em>] the best wine:&nbsp;<em>Tereo</em>&nbsp;is frequently on the lips of the Lord in John's Gospel (and is widely used by John in his letters), in the context of 'keeping' His word. But this is done by totally surrendering human life to be a vessel totally devoted to the new wine we have received, rather than steel willed, nail-biting, white-knuckled struggle for obedience to specific laws.</p><p>Luke's record adds that the Lord concluded by observing that "No man also having drunk old wine immediately desires new: for he says [deep within himself], The old is better" (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). This appears to be a concession to the weakness of John's disciples, and to our weakness. Having taught that unless we are transformed, we shall shatter and be destroyed / condemned, the Lord accepts the basic conservatism of human nature- that we will not make the change immediately. There was indeed a changeover period between the Lord's death and the destruction of the temple in AD70. And in human lives today, the Lord recognizes that the total change of life will not come immediately- because we are essentially conservative. In seeking to make the total transformation, we ourselves must realize that however progressive, liberal, flexible, open to new ideas we think we are- when it comes to spiritual change, we are terribly conservative. And it is such unbridled conservatism which stops people changing and accepting the new wine. There is the assumption in many Christian groups and minds that conservative = righteous, and change is likely to be for the worst. And yet the Lord is teaching that it is our native conservatism which stops the vital, transforming change which is necessary to avoid the shattering of life and personality now, and final destruction at judgment day. The Lord here recognizes the basic conservatism of human nature; even those who consider themselves "liberal" are often only so in comparison to others, in relative terms- we are all in fact basically conservative. We stick with what we know and don't easily go outside our comfort zone of the old and familiar. We all find change hard; new wineskins are able to be stretched. He was perhaps, in the context, making some apology for John's disciples, who still couldn't fully allow themselves to be filled with the new covenant wine. The Gospel of Jesus is all about change and being stretched; and He recognizes that we find this so very difficult. People do not immediately / quickly respond to the new wine of the new covenant because, the Lord piercingly observed, they think the old was better (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). He perceived, with His amazing penetration of the human psyche, that there is a conservatism deep within us all that militates against the immediate response to Him and the new wine of His blood / sacrifice which He so seeks. Yet once we have made this immediate response in a few things, it becomes easier to get into an upward spiral of response to Him. We become truly a new creation in Him, breaking constantly with factor after factor in our past, which has previously defined us as persons. Quite simply, we become new persons, with all the rejection of the ‘old’ ways which this requires.</p><p>The parable of the sower shows how the Lord foresaw that the majority who responded to His word would not hold on; He knew that men would not immediately appreciate the blood of His cross, but would prefer the old wine of the old covenant (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). He saw that our spiritual growth would be an agonizingly slow business; as slow as a tiny mustard seed growing into a tree, as slow as a man digging a foundation in rock, or a seed growing and bringing forth fruit. Such growth is&nbsp;<em>very</em>&nbsp;slow&nbsp;<em>from a human perspective</em>. &nbsp;The parable of the wine exactly predicted the attitude of people to Christ's work in taking the Old Covenant out of the way. The Lord is surely saying: 'I know you won't immediately want the blood of my new covenant. I understand your nature, by nature you'll prefer what you are familiar with, the Old Covenant; you won't "straightway" desire the new wine, but (by implication) you will, after a while' (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). He foresaw how the implication of the blood of His sacrifice wouldn't be accepted by His people first of all. It would be a process, of coming to accept how radical the gift of His blood Is. As we weekly take the cup of His covenant, we come to see more and more the excellency of that blood, and its supremacy over all else. Christ recognized that conservatism in human nature which will naturally shy away from the marvellous implications of what He achieved for us. And true enough, whenever we talk about the present aspect of the Kingdom of God, our present blessings of redemption in Christ, the sense in which we have already been saved…there is a desire to shy away from it all:&nbsp; And true enough, the early Christian believers desperately clung on to the Mosaic food laws, circumcision and synagogue attendance as far as they could; the command to witness to the Gentiles was likewise not taken seriously for some time. It must have been painful for the Lord to know this and to see it, recognizing in it a lack of appreciation of His life and final sacrifice, a desire to reconcile with God without totally committing oneself to His work. He saw the possibility of His blood being wasted if men didn't change from old to new wineskins. The slowness of the changeover in attitudes amongst the early believers must have been a great pain to Him; as if His blood was being poured out again. The implication is that we shed His blood afresh if we won't change, if we allow the conservatism of our natures to have an iron grip upon us we not only destroy ourselves, but waste the blood of the Son of God. This is the danger of the conservatism that is in our natures; it was this which led men to shed the Lord's blood, and it is this same element within us which He foresaw would lead us to crucify Him afresh. How many times has this conservatism been mistaken as true spirituality! How careful we must be, therefore, not to adopt any attitude which glorifies that conservatism and masks it as the hallmark of a stable believer. The sensitivity of Jesus to the value of the human person was the very opposite of this:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:18&nbsp;<em>While He spoke these things to them</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; The impression is given 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><p><em>A ruler</em>-</p><p> Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue (Mk:). 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&nbsp;<em>While He spake</em>). 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>Came and knelt before him, saying</em>-</p><p> Perhaps not in so many words, but in that believing in the Lord's absolute power in action is a form of worshipping Him. 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><p><em>My daughter is even now dead</em>-</p><p> 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>But come and lay your hand upon her that she shall 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>9:19<em>&nbsp;And Jesus rose and followed him, as did his disciples-&nbsp;</em>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 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>9:20&nbsp;<em>Behold</em>-</p><p> AV. If Matthew is like a cameraman at these scenes, the word "behold" is as it were a zoom in message, bringing us to focus upon an individual.</p><p><em>And a woman who had an issue of blood for twelve years</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><p><em>Came behind Him</em>-</p><p> The scene is being developed from <em><a href='B:470 9:19'>Mat 9:19</a></em>, where the Lord and the disciples are following the rushing man; and now we 'see' the woman coming behind Jesus, as if she in this sense was also one of the disciples who followed behind Him.</p><p><em>And touched the border of his garment</em>-</p><p> Her example inspired the many others who later sought to do this in <em><a href='B:470 14:36'>Mat 14:36</a></em>. It has been suggested that the hem of the garment referred to the blue band which was to be worn by Jews to remind them of their commitment to obedience to God. In this case she would have been seeking to associate 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>


