# commentaries

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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:14'>Mat 17:14</a></em><em>&nbsp;And when they came to the crowd, a man came up to him and knelt before him, saying-&nbsp;</em>This meeting with the crowd occurred the day after the transfiguration (<em><a href='B:490 9:37'>Luk 9:37</a></em>)- presumably they slept up the mountain for the night. The transfiguration record is replete with references to the theophany on Sinai. Moses' return from the mount was to a faithless people of God, and the same is found here, in that the disciples had been unable to perform a healing which they had potentially been given the power to do.</p><p>Note how the three accounts dovetail so nicely: Jesus and the three with Him moved towards the crowd (Mt:), Jesus having noticed them from a distance (Mk:), and the crowd came towards them (Lk:). And as Jesus came (<em>erchomai</em>) towards the crowd, there came out of the crowd towards Him (<em>pros-erchomai</em>) the man who wanted a healing for his son (Mt:). Mark records that the people ran towards Jesus when they saw Him (<em><a href='B:480 9:15'>Mar 9:15</a></em> - presumably His face was shining after the encounter, after the pattern of Moses), which explains why Luke says that the man had to ‘cry out’ from out of the crowd (<em><a href='B:490 9:38'>Luk 9:38</a></em> - Gk. ‘to holler’, to get attention amidst the rush of all the others towards Jesus) and that Jesus firstly asked the Scribes what they were questioning His disciples about. We really can powerfully reconstruct the scene by putting the three different viewpoints together. Matthew focuses upon the man who came to Jesus wanting healing for his son. The best analogy is to cameramen. Matthew focuses close up upon one man; Mark is taking a broader view of the crowd as a whole, and therefore picks up the brief question to the Scribes first of all- they made no answer that is recorded, and the Lord’s answer to whatever questions they were asking was given in the healing miracle. That there are no actual contradictions of fact or chronology is to me a profound internal evidence of an inspired record, with a common Divine hand behind all the authors. If these were three uninspired men writing their recollections some time after the event, or uninspired people writing down what had been passed down to them as originating with those men, then for sure there would be contradictions. Because misremembering of detail is just part of our human condition, and the supposed lengthy process of oral tradition would inevitably have meant there was further corruption and unclarity added. The lack of contradiction in the accounts and the way they complement each other so perfectly has to me the hallmark of the Divine. Even witnesses who agree together to lie in court and rehearse their stories many times over- still end up contradicting each other. But that is not the case with the Gospels.</p><h4>Mark adds: “All the crowd, when they saw Him, were greatly amazed; and running to Him saluted Him” (<em><a href='B:480 9:15'>Mar 9:15</a></em>). They ran up to Him- and He add Peter, James and John with Him. This sentence in Greek is intentionally similar to the account of <em><a href='B:510 3:11'>Act 3:11</a></em>, where again “All the people [cp. “all the crowd”] ran [s:w. “running to Him”] together unto them… greatly wondering [s:w. “greatly amazed”]. The response of the crowd to Peter and John in <em><a href='B:510 3:11'>Act 3:11</a></em> could not possibly have been contrived by them. Their experience at the return from the transfiguration was to prepare them for their own later witness, when without the physical presence of Jesus, they were Him to the world. And the same kind of carefully, sensitively planned education of us is ongoing now. Not only do situations occur and then repeat in essence later in our lives, but what we go through in this life will only have understood meaning in the Kingdom, when we shall put into eternal practice what we are learning now. But for now, there is an inevitable difficulty in attaching meaning to event, because we cannot foresee the billion situations in our eternities where we will put into practice what we are now learning.</h4>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:19'>Mat 17:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then came the disciples to Jesus privately, and said</em>- In a house (Mk:):&nbsp;</p><h4><em>Why could we not cast it out?</em>- They were surprised at their inability, which suggests they had performed such cures before and had faith that they could do miracles. The Lord's explanation in the next verse that they had no faith ("unbelief",&nbsp;<em>a-pisteo</em>, no faith) would therefore have been hard for them to initially accept. His idea was that we either believe or do not believe, and often what seems to us as faith, even if it is admittedly small faith, is ultimately not faith. John's Gospel even more clearly presents faith as something one either has or doesn't have. And yet in reality there are gradations of faith, and the Bible recognizes this. The Lord's next comment that "<em>If&nbsp;</em>you [really, as you think] have faith as a grain of mustard seed::." was therefore speaking to their assumption that although their faith was small, they did actually believe. Again we see how the Lord sees to the inner, unexpressed thoughts and positions of His audiences, and addresses them. This presentation of faith as an absolute, a black or white position (and John's Gospel stresses this even more), is a huge challenge to examine our faith.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:470 17:26'>Mat 17:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when he said ‘From strangers’, Jesus said to him: Therefore the children are free-&nbsp;</em>Barnes summarizes the argument: “Kings do not tax their own sons. This tribute-money is taken up for the temple service; that is, the service of my Father. I, therefore, being the Son of God, for whom this is taken up, cannot be lawfully required to pay this tribute”. Peter later asks his sheep: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man… unto governors…&nbsp;<em>as free</em>… honour all men” (<em><a href='B:670 2:13-17'>1Pe 2:13-17</a></em>). This is all evident allusion to the way he had once felt that as free in Christ and in Israel, he didn’t need to submit to men and pay taxes. But the Lord had gently rebuked him, and provided the coin to pay for them both (<em><a href='B:470 17:25-27'>Mat 17:25-27</a></em>). The Gospels records would have been well known amongst the early believers; there is a tradition that at least the Gospel of Mark was learnt by heart as part of instruction for baptism. Peter’s readers would have known of the incident, and now, here he is telling them to learn the lesson he had had to learn. The Lord seems to make a concession to the inability of the surrounding world to understand Him, when He tells Peter that as God's people, they are free from the requirement to pay taxes to the present world. But "lest we should offend them", we should pay them (<em><a href='B:470 17:27'>Mat 17:27</a></em>). As the Lord spoke to men according to their level of ability to comprehend Him (<em><a href='B:480 4:33'>Mar 4:33</a></em>; and consider how He used the language of demons), so should we.</h4><p>The statement that His followers were “free” from paying the temple tax was effectively a statement that the Lord’s greatness as “one greater than the temple” (<em><a href='B:470 12:6'>Mat 12:6</a></em>) meant that He was at liberty to therefore abrogate the teaching of Torah- for <em><a href='B:20 30:13-14'>Exo 30:13-14</a></em> did indeed stipulate a temple tax. His overturning of the tables of the moneychangers, who enabled the payment of the temple tax in practice (<em><a href='B:470 21:12-17'>Mat 21:12-17</a></em>) was likewise effectively stating that the temple tax law was not binding on His followers. The Lord taught that the tax should be paid so as not to offend the potential Christian faith of the Jews, rather than because it was a question of obedience to Divine law- because that law was ended.</p><p>Another consideration is that the Lord is alluding to the Jewish idea that the priests themselves were exempted from the temple tax (<em>Sheqalim</em>&nbsp;1:8)- because He considered His followers the new priesthood. He had used the same argument in justifying why the disciples could grind corn on the Sabbath- they were, He implied, like the priests who could even eat the showbread on the Sabbath.</p>


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 18:2'>Mat 18:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he called to himself</em>- Just as the Lord is often described as calling the disciples. The idea is that those called, which included the disciples, should be as little children.</p><p><em>A little child-&nbsp;</em>The disciples are framed as doing exactly the opposite soon afterwards, when they forbad the little children [s:w:] to come to Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 19:13'>Mat 19:13</a></em>)- whereas the Lord actually invited them to Him. Again we note how the Gospel writers present the disciples as so often out of step with their Lord.</p><h4><em>And set him</em>- The Greek means to stand, not to sit- this is how it is usually translated. <em><a href='B:480 9:35-36'>Mar 9:35-36</a></em> says that the Lord&nbsp;<em>sat</em>&nbsp;but He&nbsp;<em>stood</em>&nbsp;the child in their midst. But&nbsp;<em>histemi</em>, often translated "set" in <em><a href='B:470 18:2'>Mat 18:2</a></em>, has the strong connotation of standing up or setting someone up in a position. "The midst" suggests the disciples were in a closed circle, and the Lord stood the child within the circle. If you call an onlooking child into the midst of a group of unknown adults, they will typically not want to come. We see the powerful attraction of the Lord to children in that this child came, although likely with much nervousness, wanting to come to Jesus, but not into that closed circle of men- just as so many today. Almost certainly the child came to the Lord and He held the child close to Himself; for He goes on to urge the disciples to "receive" such little ones, implying they were reluctant to have the child amongst them. That closeness to the Lord was what was being set up as an example. The scene is portrayed graphically if we put the Gospel records together- the Lord&nbsp;<em>sat</em>&nbsp;with the men in a circle around Him, He calls the child to Him, stands him up "by Him" (<em>para</em>&nbsp;Him means close by Him, <em><a href='B:490 9:47'>Luk 9:47</a></em>) and then 'takes' him, cuddling the child to Himself "in His arms" (<em><a href='B:480 9:36'>Mar 9:36</a></em>)- whilst He is sitting down. The natural response of the child who had been stood would be to want to sit down, holding on to Jesus, and not to stand above those men with their attention focused upon him. This natural desire to come down, to humble self, is what is being memorialized by the Lord as the pattern for all who wish to enter His Kingdom. Perhaps we can imagine the scene even further- the child would've wanted to come to Jesus personally, but the circle of disciples with their apparent superiority and judgmentalism would've been offputting. But still the child came, and the Lord in Luke's record urges the disciples to allow the child to join the circle and "receive" him. This scenario is seen so often in the body of Christ in our days. In the early church, there soon developed a problem about 'receiving' others, not least children, women and Gentiles- and the Gospel records through this incident show how seriously wrong the disciples were not to do so. Luke's record goes on to record the incident with John's disciples where the Lord's disciples didn't want to "receive" them- implying they did not immediately grasp the teaching themselves.</h4><p><em>In the midst of them</em>- This phrase is used several times about the Lord Jesus Himself standing in the midst of His followers (<em><a href='B:490 24:36'>Luk 24:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:26'>Joh 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:9'>Joh 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:19'>Joh 20:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:26'>Joh 20:26</a></em>). The supreme "child" was the Lord Jesus. This connection between Him and that child was it seems perceived by Peter later, when he uses the same word to describe the Lord Jesus as God's "holy child" (<em><a href='B:510 4:27'>Act 4:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>). If as suggested the Lord held the child to Himself, the identification would have been visually powerful and the image would've remained with the disciples. The Lord Himself clinches the connection by saying that whoever becomes as that child will be the greatest in the Kingdom- and He clearly was and is the greatest in the Kingdom (:4). <em><a href='B:490 9:48'>Luk 9:48</a></em> makes the connection beyond doubt in recording that the Lord then said that "Whosoever shall receive this child::. receives Me". His subsequent comment there that "For he that is least among you all, the same is great" is surely a reference to Himself, rather than urging them to be the least so that they might be the greatest. The Lord's answer as to who was greatest in the Kingdom was therefore to indirectly point out that He is the greatest, and we should simply seek to be like Him, using the little child as a template to that end. The antidote to division, therefore, is to be focused upon Christ and to seek to simply enter the Kingdom- the things of the Kingdom and of the Name (<em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>).</p><p>The Lord took a child and set him in the midst of those rough fishermen and tax collectors. He said that they must become like that child; and further, they must receive that child as a representative of Himself, and thereby, of God Himself. In&nbsp;probable allusion to this, Paul teaches that in malice we should be children, but in understanding: men (<em><a href='B:530 14:20'>1Co 14:20</a></em>). The child in the midst of men, wide eyed, simple and sincere amidst men full of cynicism and human wisdom and self-righteousness and the gruffness of the flesh::. This was a symbol of every true believer, of the Lord Himself, and of Almighty God, as they were and as they are in the midst of a world and even a brotherhood that, like the disciples, so often stares on uncomprehending. The aptness was not in the child’s humility [if indeed a child can be humble], but in the purity of the innocence and sincerity and unassuming directness.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>18:5&nbsp;<em>And whoever shall receive one such little child in my name receives me</em>- To not offend others we must “receive” them (<em><a href='B:470 18:5'>Mat 18:5</a></em>). It is written of Jesus that when crowds of materialistic, fascinated people followed Him, “He received them, and spake unto them of the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:490 9:11'>Luk 9:11</a></em>). He didn’t just turn round and read them a lecture about the Kingdom. “He&nbsp;<em>received&nbsp;</em>them”. Presumably Luke means to reflect how he perceived something in the Lord’s body language that was receiving of that crowd of peasants- whom we would likely have written off as just dumb groupies with no more than surface level interest. And we too must receive one another, even as the Lord has received us (<em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>)- and this includes receiving him who is even weak in the faith (<em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>). We should be looking for every reason to receive and fellowship our brethren, rather than reasons not to.</p><h4>The disciples would've had to open their closed circle to allow the child to enter. As the child settled down in the arms of the Lord Jesus, he was effectively added to the circle of disciples. Children were counted as non-persons in first century society, along with women, serious sinners, the mentally ill and lepers. The Lord is powerfully teaching that our attitude to such persons is our attitude to Him and therefore to God (Mk:, Lk:). The challenge comes down to many of us too, who come from closed table communities. The Lord foresaw that to form a tight circle around Him was the natural response of those who followed Him, but He is saying that unless we open that circle, we are in danger of actually not having received Him at all. Our not receiving of such persons is going to make them stumble ("offend them"), and this warrants eternal condemnation. The Lord had bidden the disciples 'humble themselves', and now they are given an opportunity to do so- by 'receiving' amongst themselves, as one of them, into their circle, a little child. Opening our circle and accepting amongst us those who do not share (at least, at this time) our level of faith, understanding or even culture- this is indeed a humbling experience. All that is in us cries out to keep them excluded, and to keep our circle tightly closed against them. But the argument for a closed circle, or a closed table, is ultimately one which originates in pride and a refusal to humble self:&nbsp;<br/><em><br/></em>The little child was to be identified with the Lord Jesus personally. See on <em><a href='B:470 18:2'>Mat 18:2</a></em>. To not receive the little ones is to not receive Jesus personally. The issue is of eternal importance, as the next verse emphasizes. We cannot simply go along with such rejections and refusal to receive others just because it is the policy of a church or fellowship to which we have belonged or grown up in. Social death and rejection by our brethren is nothing compared to the painful rejection at the last day which the Lord speaks of:&nbsp;</h4><p>Mark inserts at this point the question about a man casting out demons although 'not following us' (<em><a href='B:480 9:38-42'>Mar 9:38-42</a></em>). The Lord rebukes them for this and goes on to warn them about not offending little ones. In Matthew, that warning follows straight on from the teaching about the need to receive little ones- as if refusing to receive them is what makes them stumble. The case raised by the disciples, as it were in protest at His teaching about receiving little ones, was presumably one of John's disciples. Although they had a different spiritual culture, history and even doctrinal understanding, the Lord had earlier likened both His and John's disciples to children in the marketplace working in parallel, presenting the same message in different ways. They were admittedly immature in some ways and in parts of their doctrinal understanding, but the Lord is teaching that this is what made John's disciples "little ones", and they must still be accepted. The Lord warns twice in that section in <em><a href='B:480 9:38-42'>Mar 9:38-42</a></em>: "Forbid him not". This is the same as saying 'Receive him, do not forbid him from entering your circle'. It is the same word which the Lord will go on to use in <em><a href='B:470 19:14'>Mat 19:14</a></em> about not forbidding another group of "little children". The Jewish world was to be condemned exactly because they hindered or forbad [s:w:] men to enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 11:52'>Luk 11:52</a></em> - see on 18:7&nbsp;<em>Woe to the world</em>). Peter surely alludes to the Lord's teaching when reasoning: "Who can forbid water" that Gentiles be baptized (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>). Refusing baptism to those not considered good, ready or mature enough is surely a way of forbidding and not receiving little ones.</p>


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


text:
<p>18:7&nbsp;<em>Woe to the world::. the man</em>- CEV: "The world is in for trouble because of the way it causes people to sin". The&nbsp;<em>kosmos</em>&nbsp;in mind was surely the Jewish world [the word usually has this primary meaning in John's Gospel]. In this case "Woe to that man" would then be specifically addressed to the disciples; they were to take the warning to themselves each one, which is why the next verse speaks of the need for 'you' singular to do absolutely everything to avoid causing another to stumble. The Jewish religious system caused men to stumble, as the Lord often pointed out. Bu there would be an especial woe to the individuals who caused the stumbling, because for doing this they will be liable to personal condemnation. The Jewish world, the system, was to face the "Woe" of Divine judgment specifically because it made men stumble spiritually. That's what these words of Jesus seem to be saying, and His criticisms of that system recorded elsewhere would accord with that view- the 'Woes' He pronounces on the Jewish system in Matthew 23 particularly focus on the damage that system did to people, and the barrier it became between God and man.</p><p><em>Because of temptations to stumble! For it is necessary that the temptations occur, but woe to that man through whom the temptation comes!-&nbsp;</em>The Lord continues His theme of giving offence to others when He says: “It must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! [The Lord must have said this after such careful introspection, knowing that He was the rock of offence to many, and that Jewry were to be ‘offended’ by Him]:&nbsp;<em>Wherefore</em>&nbsp;if thy hand or thy foot&nbsp;<em>makes you a cause of stumbling</em>&nbsp;[i:e. to others], cut them off…” or else you will be condemned (<em><a href='B:470 18:7'>Mat 18:7</a></em> Gk:). This is how important it is to search our lives and see what may cause others offence. And, in His relentless way, the Lord continues: “See that ye despise not one of these little ones” (<em><a href='B:470 18:10'>Mat 18:10</a></em>), the little ones He has Himself just been so careful not to offend, by paying up His taxes. We offend people by ‘despising’ them. And, on and on and on, Jesus incisively takes His teaching further- in the parable of the shepherd who seeks the lost sheep.</p><p>To&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;seek others’ salvation is to despise them. We may not think we are despiteful people. But effectively, in His eyes, we are…if we neglect to actively seek for their salvation until we find it. To not offend others is thus made parallel to seeking their salvation. And the shepherd seeking the lost sheep matches the man who plucks out his eye and cuts off his hand lest they offend others. So you see the parallels throughout Matthew 18 :</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>Lest we offend them</td><td>Pay the temple tax, go fishing, make the effort</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lest we offend others and are cast into condemnation</td><td>Pluck out our eye, cut off our hands and feet</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lest we offend the little ones and are cast into the sea</td><td>Receive the little ones as if they are Christ, see the Christ in them</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Don’t despise others</td><td>Go out looking for the lost sheep with unlimited effort</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lest we are cast “to the tormentors”</td><td>Give unlimited forgiveness to your brother, try to “gain your brother”</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The self-willed effort we must make to not offend our brother is quite something. Just imagine looking at yourself in the mirror, wedging your finger nails under your eye socket, and pulling out your eye. This is the conscious effort we must make not to offend, and thereby to save. It’s really quite something. Note that the parallels tabled above show that to not offend is to save. If we seek above all the salvation of others, then we will not offend them. We will, quite simply,&nbsp;<em>care for them</em>&nbsp;as the Lord cares for us.</h4>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>18:12&nbsp;<em>What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray</em>- Of course we must use our freewill and repent, but the Lord in the parables of the lost coin and sheep likens us to things which&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;repent and are not repentant, and yet all the same are brought back by the Lord's endless searching and pastoral care. By all means compare this with Peter's comment that the Lord's exaltation was in order to give&nbsp;<em>repentance</em>, not just forgiveness, to God's people (<em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:18'>Act 11:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:620 2:25'>2Ti 2:25</a></em>). This is the extent of His atonement for men; not only to enable forgiveness, but to show His matchless grace yet further in even granting&nbsp;<em>repentance</em>&nbsp;to men. In the light of this it remains open to question how much credit we can personally take for our repentance. Not all lost sinners will come back, but the Lord speaks as if He will search always, in every case,&nbsp;<em>until</em>&nbsp;they do. These hyperboles are all to teach the vast extent of His desire to win back the lost. In the light of this, who are we to start questioning whether or not a brother has actually repented, if he says he has and shows this to some extent?</p><h4><em>Does he not:::?</em>- The answer is, No, he doesn't. This is the element of unreality in this parable. It seems there are such elements in all the parables, and they are there to signpost us to the essential point of the parable. The Lord’s parables all feature an element of unreality, which flags attention to His essential point. The shepherd who left the 99 and went after the lost one was an unusual shepherd. Common sense tells us that one should think of the good of the majority, not max out on the minority. We invest effort and resources in ways which will benefit the maximum number of people. But the Lord turned all that on its head. The heart that bleeds cannot disregard the minority, however small or stupid or irritating it or they may be. For people matter, and the heart that bleeds will bleed for every single one.</h4><p><em>Leave the ninety nine</em>- This may appear irresponsible. But it is in line with the Lord's grotesque language of cutting off body parts in order to avoid offending little ones. It's hyperbole to make a point- that the one little one or lost one is to have our maximum attention. I suggested above that the loss of body parts was an allusion to rendering themselves unfit for priestly service under the Old Covenant system. The Lord may be continuing the idea. Focusing on the little ones, the lost, may well lead to our being judged unfit for wider shepherding roles by those who are the power brokers within the human side of God's people on earth. But so be it. Lose that kudos, those roles. Focus on saving the lost. For that is what the Lord did, and thanks to that, we have been found and saved.</p><p>The idea of "leave" is ‘to send away’, and four times in this chapter alone is translated ‘forgive’ (<em><a href='B:470 18:21'>Mat 18:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:35'>Mat 18:35</a></em>). The same word is then found in <em><a href='B:470 19:14'>Mat 19:14</a></em>, where the disciples again forbid little ones and refuse to ‘receive’ them, and the Lord tells the disciples to ‘suffer’ those little ones to come to Him. The use of the word suggests that the disciples needed to ‘forgive’ their immaturity. The whole section is very thematic and it therefore seems unlikely that the repeated usage of this word is insignificant. Maybe the Lord is hinting that we should not waste energy on unforgiveness, but rather forgive even 99 sheep, and seek by all means to rescue / save / receive / not cause to stumble the one. It’s as if unforgiveness towards others may lead the “one” to stumble. And that is indeed true to observed experience, because those who stumble are often full of stories from church life of where they encountered unforgiving attitudes towards others. The parable seems to be saying that if someone has been offended by the exclusion they experienced from the majority, then we are to forgive the majority and all the same do all we can to regain the lost. The closed circle of disciples who turned away the children from Jesus thus become the 99 sheep; the focus must be upon winning back those who have become lost. The parable teaches this in itself, because a sheep will only leave the flock if there has been some incident or situation between the flock and that sheep which mean that the flock has rejected or excommunicated it. For sheep do not just wander off alone from the flock and get lost. They tend to stay together by nature.</p><p><em>On the mountains-&nbsp;</em>The Old Testament is clear that the sheep of God's people were lost on the mountains because of poor shepherding (<em><a href='B:140 18:16'>2Ch 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 50:6'>Jer 50:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 34:6'>Eze 34:6</a></em>). The language of 'going astray' fits this picture, because the Greek word essentially means 'to be deceived' and is used in the context of the Jewish religious leaders deceiving ordinary Jewish people in the first century (<em><a href='B:470 24:4'>Mat 24:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:7'>Gal 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:26'>1Jn 2:26</a></em>). The mission of the disciples was to take over the role of the shepherds; they were resigning from the chance of being shepherds under the Old Covenant, disqualifying themselves from priestly service by cutting off their limbs, leaving the shepherding of the 99- but thereby becoming the shepherds of the New Covenant.</p><p>We all have the desire to keep our faith to ourselves, to hold onto it personally on our own little island::. and it was this attitude which the Lord so repeatedly and trenchantly criticized. And in his demanding way, he implied that a failure in this would cost us the Kingdom. He more than any other must have known the desire for a desert island spiritual life; but instead he left the 99 righteous and went up into the mountains (i:e. he prayed intensely, after the pattern of Moses for Israel?), in order to find the lost sheep (<em><a href='B:470 18:12'>Mat 18:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>And go in search of the one that went astray?-&nbsp;</em>We are all such sheep who have gone astray (<em><a href='B:670 2:25'>1Pe 2:25</a></em> s:w:). We are to replicate what the Lord did for us, in seeking the lost. But it is only if we perceive the degree to which we really were "astray" that we will be motivated to use His methods to likewise save others. This is especially difficult to achieve for those raised in believing homes, who were schooled into Christ from an early age:&nbsp; The lost sheep who leaves the fold and goes off is based on <em><a href='B:230 119:176'>Psa 119:176</a></em>: "I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments". The lost sheep that is found therefore has the attitude of recognizing it is lost, that it is still the servant of the shepherd although isolated from him, and still has not forgotten the things of God's word. The picture in <em><a href='B:230 119:176'>Psa 119:176</a></em> is strange indeed: a lost sheep asking the shepherd to come and find him. It's as if the sheep talks to himself, feeling the shepherd can't and won't hear, feeling that he's just too far away. And this is&nbsp;<em>exactly, exactly&nbsp;</em>the position of all those who leave the faith and return: they don't forget the doctrines of the Truth, in their hearts they feel too far away, but they wish somehow something could happen to get them back. This explains the type of sheep one is dealing with in the parable, and why the parable isn't true of all who go astray.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>18:15&nbsp;<em>And-&nbsp;</em>AV "Moreover". Thus the previous theme is continued. Having spoken of such radical inclusiveness, the Lord foresees and tackles the obvious objection- that there may be cases where a believer has sinned against us, and that, surely, would be a reason for exclusion from the circle of disciples. But of course that would be illogical- if we are to be open to the little ones coming into the circle, then once they are within it, it would make no sense to then throw them out of it because they sinned against us. And the Lord now spells that out clearly.</p><p><em>If your brother sins against you-&nbsp;</em>Luke’s record adds: "<em>Take heed to yourselves</em>; if your brother trespass::. forgive him" (<em><a href='B:490 17:3'>Luk 17:3</a></em>). This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>, where Paul says we should&nbsp;<em>take heed</em>&nbsp;of the likelihood of false teachers. Surely what he's saying is 'Yes, take heed to forgive your brother personal offences, take heed because you'll be tempted&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>to forgive him; but have the same level of watchfulness for false teaching'. On another level, “take heed” suggests that in the case of personal offence, the tendency may be not to actually talk to your brother about it, nor to consciously forgive him in your heart. And it is these undealt with issues which create so much damage, both to us and to others. The purpose of the process outlined here is&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;<em>just</em>&nbsp;for the sake of the brother who has erred, it isn't just a polite protocol to follow; it is for&nbsp;<em>our sake too</em>, who have seen the weakness of our brother:&nbsp;<em>Unless</em>&nbsp;we talk frankly to him about it, between us&nbsp;<em>alone</em>, then we will end up hating him in our heart (even though it may not feel like that) and we will gossip about him. The frank raising of the issue with our brother is associated with loving our neighbour as ourselves. This is actually the opposite to what we would think; we would imagine that it would be more 'loving' to say nothing to our brother. But in this case, we will inevitably gossip about him and be bitter against him. The practice of true love will result in an open community in which we can frankly discuss with each other the issues which concern us, with love and not hatred in our hearts. This is the teaching of <em><a href='B:30 19:16-18'>Lev 19:16-18</a></em>. No wonder the Proverbs expand upon it so much. And no wonder the Lord appropriated it as a ground rule for His ecclesia- there must be no gossip in the church:&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>.</p><p>“Trespass” is the same word translated “sin” in <em><a href='B:470 18:21'>Mat 18:21</a></em> where Peter alludes back to these words and asks how many times his brother can “sin” [s:w. “trespass”] against him and be forgiven. The Lord’s answer is basically ‘An unlimited number of times’, which indicates that Peter is to forgive without analysing the integrity of the supposed repentance. Luke’s record in <em><a href='B:490 17:3-4'>Luk 17:3-4</a></em> could suggest (if read in isolation from the context) that the sinning brother should only be forgiven if he repents. But the way the Lord clarifies this to Peter effectively offers a far higher level of response to the brother’s sin. If he is to be forgiven multiple times for the same sin, even the same day, and if the genuineness of his repentance is irrelevant- then in practice the Lord is teaching to forgive without requiring repentance. The lower level is to forgive only upon repentance; but the only problem with that is that as we behave in this matter, so we shall be dealt with by the Lord. In the Lord’s prayer we are taught to ask for forgiveness&nbsp;<em>as&nbsp;</em>we forgive others. It’s therefore important for us to be as generous as possible in forgiveness. As so often in spiritual life, taking the lower and easier path (in this case, forgiving only if we receive repentance first) creates a far harder situation for us- in this context, only being forgiven ourselves if we consciously repent of absolutely every sin. Not for us, therefore, could be David’s prayer to be forgiven for his “secret faults” (<em><a href='B:230 19:12'>Psa 19:12</a></em>), those that were secret or hidden from himself.</p><p>This whole section about ‘taking matters up’ with our brother and forgiving upon repentance (<em><a href='B:490 17:3-4'>Luk 17:3-4</a></em>) seems out of step with the spirit of the material which precedes it (about doing absolutely anything to receive our weak brother), and with that which follows it (the teaching about unconditional forgiveness regardless of repentance). I suggest it is purposefully out of step with it, and is in fact an allusion to and parody of synagogue disciplinary rules; it is certainly alluding to the procedure for disciple mentioned in the Qumran documents as being practiced in the Qumran community (1 QS [Rule of the Community] 5:24-26; CD [The Damascus Document] 7:2; 9:8). The synagogues had a disciplinary sanction of&nbsp;<em>Niddui</em>, casting out with no further association, and it would seem clear that the Lord is alluding to this when He speaks of making the disciplined brother as a Gentile and publican. There is evidence that later Christian excommunication was called “the judgment of the Jew”, so clear was the Judaistic basis for the later Christian practice of excommunication (Lawrence Frizzell, ‘Excommunication’, in E. Kessler and N. Wenborn,&nbsp;<em>A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C:U:P:, 2005) p. 152; see too G. Forkman,&nbsp;<em>The Limits of the Religious Community. Expulsion from the Religious Community within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism and within Primitive Christianity</em>&nbsp;(Lund: Gleerup, 1972)). This kind of parody of the language and practices of Judaism is common on the Lord’s lips, and I have mentioned such cases throughout this exposition. This would explain the way that He goes on to assume there is some kind of established meeting with a congregation, witnesses etc. Admittedly He uses the word&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>, often translated “church”, instead of synagogue, but the synagogue was the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;for the very first disciples (we note how the early ecclesia is called a “synagogue” in <em><a href='B:660 2:2'>Jas 2:2</a></em>, and early Christian writers like Ignatius and Hermas likewise call the church a “synagogue”). When recounting Old Testament history and quoting from the Old Testament, Josephus at least nine times replaces the LXX&nbsp;<em>sunagoge</em>&nbsp;with&nbsp;<em>ekklesia&nbsp;</em>(F:J:A:Hort,&nbsp;<em>The Christian Ecclesia</em>&nbsp;(London: Macmillan, 1898) p. 7):&nbsp;<em>Ekklesia&nbsp;</em>as a word doesn’t have any religious connotation. And strictly speaking, the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia&nbsp;</em>was not so much the body of believers or synagogue as the called-together assembly of the members at a specific time and place, which in the synagogue context ratified disciplinary decisions. The word developed into meaning ‘the church’ generally in the later New Testament, but initially it meant a specific local gathering of called individuals at one place and time, and had no universal sense to it. There was no established Christian congregation at the time the Lord was speaking, and yet He speaks as if such a system was well known by the disciples. Hort comments on the use of&nbsp;<em>ekklesia&nbsp;</em>in <em><a href='B:470 18:17'>Mat 18:17</a></em>: “The actual precept is hardly intelligible if the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;meant is not the Jewish community, apparently the Jewish local community, to which the injured person and the offender both belonged” (Hort,&nbsp;<em>ibid.</em>, p. 10). To therefore follow this section to the letter in&nbsp;<em>church</em>&nbsp;life today may be totally missing the point, and acting as the synagogue did- rather than as did the ever forgiving Lord of unconditional ‘receiving’ of little ones, sinners, the lost etc. This is only a suggestion- my notes on the passage don’t always assume that this is the only interpretation.</p><p><em>Go show him his fault</em>- The Greek word carries the sense of convicting a person, persuading them; it carries with it the hope of success. It’s not a case of merely telling a person that we have noticed their faults, it is an attempt to convict a person of them with a view to their positively changing. The Lord uses the word later when He comments that He does this in love and hope of reformation: “As many as I love I rebuke [s:w. ‘tell a fault’ here] and chasten; be zealous therefore, and repent” (<em><a href='B:730 3:19'>Rev 3:19</a></em>).</p><p><em>Between you and him alone</em>- This is so difficult! We would far rather notice the fault and tell others about it. This teaching is likely one of the most disobeyed principles of the Lord. The sense of being alone together is supported by the command to “<em>go&nbsp;</em>and tell him his fault… alone”. The command to “go” and tell him he fault would seem a mere literary flourish until we perceive that&nbsp;<em>hupago</em>&nbsp;means not simply ‘to go’, but to go away, to depart. We are to depart from the time and place of realization of the offence against us, and then&nbsp;<em>alone</em>&nbsp;with the brother, attempt to convict him of a better way.</p><p><em>If he hears you, you have gained your brother-&nbsp;</em>The question arises as to whether the gaining / regaining of the brother is to us personally, or to God. It&nbsp;<em>could&nbsp;</em>mean that personal regaining of relationship is in view. But the word translated ‘gain’ is elsewhere used about gaining or regaining a person&nbsp;<em>to God</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:530 9:19-22'>1Co 9:19-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:1'>1Pe 3:1</a></em>), and the word is repeatedly used in the parable of the talents, whereby the servants ‘gain’ more talents&nbsp;<em>for their Master</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 25:17'>Mat 25:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:20'>Mat 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:22'>Mat 25:22</a></em>). In practice, this surely refers to gaining&nbsp;<em>people</em>&nbsp;for Him. The two are of course related, because to gain a brother for the Lord is to gain a brother for ourselves.</p><h4>Here the Lord says of a sinful brother: “If your brother sins… go and point out the fault… if he listens to you, you have [re]gained your brother”. But in <em><a href='B:490 17:3'>Luk 17:3</a></em>, He says: “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him”. This would parallel the brother’s ‘repentance’ with him ‘listening’ to you. Seeing repentance is a state of the heart, and we simply can’t know the hearts of others, it seems to me practically impossible to judge the level of another’s repentance. The Greek and Hebrew words translated ‘repentance’ strictly mean a change of mind, and not necessarily any works / actions. God in this sense can ‘repent’. It seems to me that we have to recognize a changed state of heart in our repentant brother, without demanding ‘works’.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>18:21&nbsp;<em>Then Peter came and said to him: Lord-&nbsp;</em>Peter asked: “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?”. Jesus responds with a parable in which a man who calls his king “Lord” is himself forgiven, but refuses to forgive another man. Surely that parable was specifically for Peter, the one who delighted to know Jesus as Lord. He was warned through the parable that calling Him ‘Lord’ wasn’t enough. An appreciation of Him as Lord of his life would mean quite naturally that he had a spirit of frank forgiveness for his brother, not carefully measuring it out, but rather reflecting his Lord’s forgiveness of him. If Jesus is really Lord, then everything which He does and all that He shows becomes an imperative for us to follow.</p><p><em>How often-&nbsp;</em>Jesus replies, 70 x 7. i:e. to an unlimited extent, even when the repentance is obviously insincere. It's as if He's saying that yes you can go through the procedure of sorting it out with your brother and rejecting him from your personal company. But, the higher level, is to simply forgive him. It's like adultery under the Law. There were several options for the husband. Do a trial of jealousy and make her infertile. Stone her. Divorce her. Or, just forgive her. We surely all ought to be aiming for the higher level. Those who quote Matthew 18 as a reason for withdrawal are in my view living on a lower spiritual level than those who forgive 70 x 7. But the gracious Lord doubtless shall accept them too in the last day.</p><h4><em>Shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?</em>- The Lord's comment that "If your brother shall trespass against you" (:15- see notes there) is picked up here by Peter. The Lord's reply was that Peter should forgive his brother to an unlimited extent, each and every day. It seems to me that the Lord was saying that the 'one-two-out' attitude which He had just described was very much the lower level of response, the way of the Jewish synagogues; He wished His followers to take the higher level, of unconditional forgiveness. Indeed, the whole passage where He speaks about going to see your brother and then telling the church is wedged in between His teachings about grace and forgiveness. It's so out of place that one wonders whether He wasn't saying it very tongue in cheek, in allusion to the synagogue discipline methods. At the very least, He seems to intend the contrast between His surrounding words and those about 'one-two-out' to sink in, to the point that we realize, as He told Peter, that there is indeed a higher way:&nbsp;</h4><p><em>Until seven times</em>- <em><a href='B:490 17:4'>Luk 17:4</a></em> adds “in a day”. Perhaps Peter had in mind how Jacob bowed seven times to Esau and was forgiven (<em><a href='B:10 33:3'>Gen 33:3</a></em>), or perhaps he had wondered whether the sprinkling of blood seven times in the Mosaic rituals spoke of forgiveness of a maximum of seven sins in one day, as some Rabbis taught (<em><a href='B:30 4:6'>Lev 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:17'>Lev 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:11'>Lev 8:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:7'>Lev 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:51'>Lev 14:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:14'>Lev 16:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:19'>Lev 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:4'>Num 19:4</a></em>). Or perhaps <em><a href='B:240 24:16'>Pro 24:16</a></em> was another source for his thinking- “a just man falls seven times and rises up again”. The Lord’s answer was that we need to forgive far more than seven times because we too sin far more than seven times / day- which is the function of the hopelessly indebted servant in the following parable. Peter’s phrase “<em>until&nbsp;</em>seven times” is strangely lifted right out of <em><a href='B:340 4:23'>Dan 4:23</a></em>, where Nebuchadnezzar was to be punished “until seven times” passed over him. Peter often alludes to Old Testament scripture in his recorded speech; he was very Bible-minded. He may have been suggesting ‘Even if someone’s as bad as Gentile Nebuchadnezzar, we should still forgive them, I suppose, but that surely is the limit’. But the Lord’s subsequent comment about 70 sevens is from the prophecy of Daniel 9 regarding the far longer “times” which were to pass over Israel for their sin. So His comeback on Peter’s clever allusion was: ‘No, Peter. Don’t forgive people “till seven times”, as much as God did Gentile king Nebuchadnezzar- but as much as God forgave&nbsp;<em>Israel</em>, which was an infinite amount, 70 times, more than that!’. Such level of dialogue with Peter would’ve been perfectly possible and normal, for he really knew and loved the Old Testament and was quite the amateur Bible student- see ‘Peter: Bible Student’ in my&nbsp;<em>Peter and Paul</em>&nbsp;(Sydney: Aletheia, 2008). See on <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Forgave him the debt</em>.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>18:26&nbsp;<em>The servant therefore fell on his knees, saying</em>- This is precisely what the second servant does to the forgiven servant (:29 s:w:; he also asks for “patience” just as the first servant did). Our situation before God is exactly mirrored by the situation of others before us who have sinned. The Lord’s prayer had made this point, in asking that we be forgiven&nbsp;<em>as&nbsp;</em>we forgive others. Forgiving them, therefore, becomes of utterly crucial importance in our personal salvation. Nothing else we may do or be can compensate for unforgiveness, rejection of little ones, and the subsequent causing them to stumble which this causes. See on :25&nbsp;<em>His wife and children</em>.</p><p><em>Fell down and worshipped-</em>&nbsp;AV. The two words often occur together. The basis of real worship is thereby defined for us as being a deep conviction of the depth of our sin. Such worship isn’t therefore something that can just be turned on or turned off. True worship has very deep roots, in deep conviction of personal debt and a core desire to somehow beseech God’s grace.</p><h4><em>Lord, have patience with me-&nbsp;</em>See on :26&nbsp;<em>Fell down</em>. The servants both ask for “patience”, and yet the story invites us to see how irrelevant is that request- no amount of time can repay such a huge debt. Even although the servant therefore doesn’t throw himself on the King’s grace to the extent he ought to have done, and still entertains the absurd idea that he can actually somehow repay the debt- the King shows grace. Again, the attitude of those ‘little ones’ we engage with will be far from ideal, they miscalculate their debt just as the servant genuinely thought he could “pay all”, they fail to appreciate the damage done, the hurt caused, believing that they can put right what clearly they never can. But the King’s forgiveness of that servant is our pattern for forgiving those indebted to us by their sins and poor behaviour. Yet again we see the hint that forgiveness based upon repentance and restoration is not what is needed at all. Sin cannot in that sense ever be restored or put right by the sinner, but only by the grace of the one sinned against.</h4><p><em>And I will pay you all that I owe-&nbsp;</em>The servant is presented as insincere, to those who meditate a bit upon the information given. His falling down at the feet of the King was not sincere, surely; for instead of admitting his fault and begging for grace, he claims that with time, “patience”, he can actually repay it. No amount of work could repay his debt. The huge sum which he ‘owed’ the King was so large that we are invited to imagine that the debt had arisen more by theft than by being lent that huge amount. For why would he, a servant, need to borrow such a huge amount? We are led to expect a confession of theft from the King- but there is none. Likewise the huge sum of debt is an element of unreality in the story that attracts our attention. The King typically would have killed such a person- but this unusual King doesn’t do that. He offers him a way out apart from death- and still the man isn’t grateful, he doesn’t even want to do a period in bonded slavery for his sins. Within the context of Israel, a slave could only be held for seven years. And “in the seventh year he shall go out a free person, without debt” (<em><a href='B:20 21:2'>Exo 21:2</a></em>). In the seventh year, all debt was to be forgiven (<em><a href='B:50 15:1-3'>Deu 15:1-3</a></em>). So this gracious King was willing to actually forgive the debt and give the man a path to total freedom. But he didn’t want even that- he wanted time so that he could pay the debt. He clearly had no real conception of the extent of his debt. And he even implies that the problem is with the King not being patient enough- as if to say ‘If only you were patient, I can pay all this back’.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then his Lord summoned him and said to him: You wicked servant; because you pleaded with me</em>- What is the function of the detail about the fellow servants informing their Lord, and His response being to call the wicked servant and punish him? The calling to account and ‘eternal punishment’ is surely allegorical of the second coming of Christ and the final judgment. The impression is surely that He is encouraged in doing this by His servants coming to Him and sharing with Him their hurt at the way His servants are being treated- both within the household as well as outside of it.</h4><p><em>I forgave you-&nbsp;</em>The Lord was absolutely sure that He would be victorious on the cross; His parables speak of our responsibilities and blessings on account of what He knew He would achieve for us. Thus the Master in the parable is able to remonstrate with the unforgiving servant: "I forgave you all that debt". The Lord's assumption was that He would attain our forgiveness on account of successfully enduring the cross. Yet He triumphed through His faith; although He was all too aware of the human possibility of failure, He believed He wouldn't fail, He made use of the constant encouragement of the word to this end. He described Himself as the Lord of the servants, and also as the King (e:g. <em><a href='B:470 18:23'>Mat 18:23</a></em> cp. 31- there are other similar parables)- even before His cross. He had such confidence that He would be crowned as a result of His future cross. The tenses in Greek can be used very exactly (unlike Hebrew); it was quite within the ability of the Lord to build into His parables the concept of future Kingship. He could have implied 'When I'm King, I'll judge like this'. But instead He saw Himself as already having overcome. "Be of good cheer, I have (already) overcome the world::. now I go my way to him that sent me (bypassing the cross in His words) ::. I have glorified thee::. I have finished the work thou gavest me to do" (<em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:5'>Joh 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>); these are only a few samples of the Lord's remarkable confidence that He would overcome. This confidence is reflected in the parables. He was practising His own preaching concerning believing that we have already received what we ask for. No doubt His words recorded in John 15-17 and the parables which reflected this confidence came back to Him as He struggled to quell His crisis of doubt in Gethsemane.</p><p><em>All that debt</em>- The hint could be that the exact amount was still clearly in the King’s mind. God forgives sin but He doesn’t literally forget it in the sense of as it were deleting it all from memory cells. It is ‘forgotten’ in the metaphorical sense of not being held against us. Peter was the one initially addressed here, and he uses the ideas in his later letter, when he criticizes some of his converts for having forgotten that they were purged from their old sins, and notes that therefore they were without motivation in living the Christian life (<em><a href='B:680 1:9'>2Pe 1:9</a></em>).</p><p><em>Because you desired me</em>- AV. Actually, as noted at :26, the wicked servant didn’t actually desire forgiveness of the debt. He asked instead for time, “patience”, so that he could repay everything he owed. The pity of the Master was more because of the man’s lostness and how little he appreciated his own position. However, the Master kindly and sensitively read through the man’s request for ‘time to repay’ to the desire of the man’s heart- that the debt be written off in total. And he did so. The Father and Son likewise perceive the spirit behind our prayers, and see through the surface level word choice which we make. This of itself is a great comfort to those who fear that they ‘are not good at praying’. Because it is our inner spirit rather than our word choice which is the essence of prayer.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>19:3&nbsp;<em>And Pharisees came up to him</em>- Presumably “there”, beyond Jordan. They had maybe heard that He was there because of the rumours of great miracles, and yet they made the effort to go to Him there with their legalistic questions. Their petty legalism contrasts sharply with the wonder of His teaching and extent of His miracles. They tagged along with the crowds, for they “also” came unto Him.</p><p><em>And tested him, by asking</em>- Another hint that the source of ‘testing’ in the wilderness which returned to the Lord later in His ministry was from the Jewish satan / adversary.</p><p><em>Is it lawful to divorce one's wife</em>- According to the chiasmic structure of this section [see above], this teaching about divorce is parallel with the Lord’s teaching about not despising little ones but rather unconditionally forgiving them (see notes on chapter 18). It cannot therefore be accidental that there is a word play in the usage of the word&nbsp;<em>apoluo</em>, to “put away”, because the word is also used concerning forgiveness, the sending away of the sin of another, and releasing them from debt to us. The word has just been used in <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>, where the gracious Lord “loosed” the wicked servant from his huge debt without repentance. And so the question here is whether a man could put away / forgive / release his wife “for every cause”. In a sense, the man was indeed to release / forgive his wife for every cause, for everything. But of course the Pharisees had in view the sense of sending away in divorce, and not forgiveness. The Lord surely means them to understand that they should send her away- in forgiveness.</p><h4><em>For any cause?</em>- The standard interpretation is that the Pharisees were seeking to draw the Lord into taking a position behind&nbsp;either the school of Hillel (that a man might divorce his wife for any reason) or that of Shammai (divorce was allowable only for unfaithfulness). The Hillel school had justified Herod Antipas recent marriage on this basis, and he was likely to crack down on anyone teaching otherwise- this was obviously one reason they sought to lead the Lord into this whole minefield. But if so, the question arises as to why they should raise this issue with Him so apparently ‘out of the blue’. If the question was simply as to which rabbinic school the Lord supported on this issue, then it would seem that He quite clearly came down on the side of Shammai- ‘for unfaithfulness’ (:9). But whenever the Lord was given such questions, He always avoided giving such direct answers but rather elevated the issues to a much higher and yet more essential level. I suggest that what they found so shocking was His teaching about unconditional forgiveness regardless of the sincerity of repentance, and so they came to Him with the case of adultery in marriage- where surely, so they thought, there could be no forgiveness for adultery and in fact Moses commanded that a man divorce his wife in this case. Whichever rabbinic school the Lord supported, He would surely have to admit that there were some sins which could not just be forgiven but must be acted upon in terms of divorce and exclusion from the marriage. Their use of&nbsp;<em>apoluo</em>, to “put away”, was therefore a conscious allusion to the Lord’s usage of the word in <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>, where the gracious Lord “loosed” [s:w:] the wicked servant from his huge debt without repentance. So I would read the Pharisees here as implying: ‘You claim a man must forgive his brother anything without checking out his repentance; but OK, can a man really forgive his&nbsp;<em>wife</em>&nbsp;“every cause”? And Moses surely did sanction divorce for some reasons, whether you go with Hillel [‘every or any cause’] or Shammai [for adultery]”. In terms of connection with the Lord’s previous teaching, the Lord had taught that if someone sins against you, i:e. a personal offence, then you can drag them through the synagogue discipline system [“tell it to the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>/ assembled meeting”]- although the higher level was unconditional forgiveness. For many listeners and readers, that teaching begs the very same question: “OK, so far so good, Jesus… but really, literally, for every cause, in every case…?”. The Pharisees are asking this question, assuming that they have the Lord trapped because Moses teaches divorce for some things. Of course, Moses doesn’t ‘teach divorce’- there was a higher level. If your wife sinned against you, you could do as Hosea did, and simply forgive her, rather than making use of Mosaic concessions. Hence the Lord’s answer is basically that any verses in the Law which might appear to teach divorce are in fact concessions to human weakness and not the ideal standard.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>19:9&nbsp;<em>And I say to you</em>- This rubric is usually used when the Lord is replacing commands of Moses with His own higher standard. He appears to be merely repeating the Mosaic teaching- that there was an exception which permitted divorce, namely adultery, but that otherwise, divorce was not be countenanced. But in this case He would appear to have allowed Himself to have been drawn into the debate between Shammai and Hillel, and was coming down directly on the side of Shammai [divorce only for adultery]. This is not His style- the Lord engages with questions thrown at Him by lifting the issues to a different level, rather than answering them on the same level as they were given to Him. Mark's record has the Lord clearly teaching that divorce should not be countenanced for anything, and the disciples respond in amazement that it would be better not to marry rather than sign up for this (:10). Perhaps they held the common chauvinistic view that a wife was almost inevitably adulterous and would likely need to be divorced at some stage in the marriage. The Lord responds to that by saying that He accepted that not all His followers could live by what He was teaching (:11). To understand how "I say unto you" was therefore something radically new and higher than Moses' teaching, we have to therefore include Mark's record of His teaching that there should never be divorce for any reason. He mentions that there should be no divorce "except for&nbsp;<em>porneia</em>" in order to clarify in passing that Hillel's view that Moses allowed divorce for literally anything was not correct. But "I say unto you" suggests He was not merely reiterating Moses' position, but adding something new and more demanding. But we only see what that was by putting Mark's account [no divorce for any reason] together with what we have here in Matthew's. Jewish law in the first century&nbsp;<em>demanded</em>&nbsp;that a man divorce his wife for adultery, and in that sense the Lord’s principle that ideally he forgive her rather than divorce her was something radically new.</p><h4><em>Whoever shall send his wife away</em>- The Lord seems to have in view a situation where a man proactively takes the decision to send his wife away. The implication could be that if he has to send her away, then she actually wishes to remain with him. The language of sending away surely implies she was still living with him. Therefore what is in view is a situation of unforgiveness on the part of the husband, and that is the entire context of this section of teaching which began in Matthew 18. The adultery was therefore a temporary situation and didn't involve the wife moving in with another man. In such a case, this whole passage is not directly relevant. The more general idea in chapter 18 of dealing with personal sins against us is now in chapter 19 focused down to the classic personal offence, the sin against us of a partner committing adultery. And let us note that the whole passage beginning in chapter 18 is speaking of ideal standards, whilst the Lord is prepared to accept lower standards (:11). Let's remember that in 1 Corinthians 7 we are challenged that the single life of devotion to the Lord is the highest level, and marriage in itself is a concession to human weakness which most of us have made use of. And overarching all our thinking about this matter, especially in terms of our response to those who may divorce for not very solid reasons, we have the parable at the end of chapter 18. We are to see ourselves as chief of sinners, with an unpayable and huge debt to the Lord, compared to which all sin against us is of small account. We also need to remember that others' behaviour to each other is not a sin against us. The teaching here is very personal- about how we are to respond to personal sin against us, and here in chapter 19 the specific example of adultery within marriage is raised. This teaching is not really about how we should respond to the sins of others (e:g. divorce for the wrong reasons) which we observe from a distance.</h4><p><em>Except for porneia and shall marry another, commits adultery</em>- This is a more general word than&nbsp;<em>moichao</em>, the word which refers strictly to ‘adultery’ and which we find used later in this verse and e:g. in <em><a href='B:470 15:19'>Mat 15:19</a></em>. Indeed&nbsp;<em>porneia&nbsp;</em>appears to be a different category of sexual sin to “adultery” in <em><a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a></em>. Remember how this section is an expansion upon the general teaching in chapter 18 about how to respond to personal offences against us. The word in practice, therefore, refers to whatever unfaithfulness constitutes a personal offence against a marital partner. The word could, therefore, just as well refer to the use of pornography. Pushing for a strict interpretation of the word misses the point- that this teaching is in the context of personal offences and forgiving what needs to be forgiven. Any view other than this ends up having to define the word in terms of the insertion of body parts into other body parts; and yet there are a whole range of sexual, mental and emotional positions which may just as well be the&nbsp;<em>porneia</em>&nbsp;which a partner must forgive. The Lord’s use of&nbsp;<em>porneia</em>&nbsp;rather than<em>&nbsp;moichao</em>&nbsp;would appear to be a disagreement with Shammai’s school, who taught that divorce was possible strictly for&nbsp;<em>moichao</em>, adultery. In this we see again that the Lord isn’t coming down on either side of the Shammai – Hillel dispute, but rather teaching an altogether higher level.</p><p><em>And he that marries a divorced woman, commits adultery</em>- I noted above that ‘sent away’ [NEV "divorced"] suggests the woman has committed adultery but remains living with her husband. The “whoever” here may not necessarily be global, as if to say that anyone who marries a divorced woman is an adulterer. Because clearly the Lord recognizes that adultery breaks the marriage bond and He appears to consider that once that is broken, then remarriage is possible- just as the marriage covenant between God and Israel was broken, and He entered into relationship with another wife, the Gentiles, or more exactly, the body of Christ comprised of whoever (Jew or Gentile) who believes in Christ. It needs to be seriously noted that the English word “whoever” found in many translations doesn’t translate any original Greek word in the text. The text literally reads ‘And the one marrying her who is sent away commits adultery’. That ‘one’ in view could well be the man with whom she has had the affair. This reading means that contrary to how some wish to read these words based on the mistranslation “Whoever”, the Lord is not in fact condemning second marriage. His theme is of forgiveness, and of the spiritual damage done by not forgiving. If a man will not forgive his wife for an isolated act of adultery, then he is likely to lead her towards marrying the man she sinned with and thereby falling deeper into sin. And her husband’s lack of forgiveness will have played a part in making her stumble in this way. This is how I would understand the Lord’s teaching in <em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>, that sending away a wife causes her to commit adultery. See on :10&nbsp;<em>The man</em>.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:470 19:15'>Mat 19:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he laid his hands on them and departed from there</em>- His blessing was and is mediated without physical contact. The need for physical contact in order to receive blessing was embedded in the religious mentality of the time, and is seen to this day in so many rituals and traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. The sick woman thought to herself that if she could only&nbsp;<em>touch&nbsp;</em>Jesus, she would be made whole; but He responded that He made her whole because of&nbsp;<em>her faith</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 9:21-22'>Mat 9:21-22</a></em>). He was gently correcting her mistaken understanding of the power of touch. And yet the Lord made a concession to this misunderstanding by indeed touching the children as requested.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>19:24- See on <em><a href='B:470 7:13'>Mat 7:13</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And again I say unto you-</em>&nbsp;Note the double repetition of this powerful point- that wealth makes entry into the Kingdom difficult.</p><p><em>It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God</em>- I go with the old explanation that this is an allusion to a loaded camel needing to be unloaded of its 'wealth' so that it could squeeze through the pedestrian gate- a call to become human, to realize we are naked before God, and our wealth adds nothing to us. Mark's record uses a term for "the eye of a needle" which the Septuagint always uses for "the holes of the rocks" (e:g. <em><a href='B:70 6:2'>Jdg 6:2</a></em>; n; <em><a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 13:4'>Jer 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 16:16'>Jer 16:16</a></em>), from whence we see the idea of a hole in the rocky city walls.</p><h4>In the beauty and depth of His simplicity, the Lord comprehended all this in some of the most powerful sentences of all time:&nbsp;<em>It is very hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom:&nbsp;</em>He&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;shed his riches, like the camel&nbsp;<em>had&nbsp;</em>to unload to pass through the needle gate (<em><a href='B:470 19:24'>Mat 19:24</a></em>). This is such a powerful lesson. And it's so simple. It doesn't need any great expositional gymnastics to understand it. Like me, you can probably remember a few things very vividly from your very early childhood. I remember my dear dad showing me this as a very young child, with a toy camel and a gate drawn on a piece of paper. And I saw the point, at four, five, maybe six. It is&nbsp;<em>so clear</em>. But what of our bank balances now, now we're old and brave? It's easier for a camel, the Lord said. Why? Surely because someone else unloads the camel, he (or she) has no say in it. But in the story, surely we must be the camel who unloads himself, who shakes it all off his humps, as an act of the will. And as we've seen, the spirit of all this applies to every one of us, including those without bank accounts.</h4>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em><em>&nbsp;And everyone that has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold and shall inherit eternal life-&nbsp;</em>This list of things to be forsaken recalls the language of the Levites forsaking these things in order to serve God (<em><a href='B:20 32:26-29'>Exo 32:26-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:8-10'>Deu 33:8-10</a></em>). The secular disciples again are encouraged to see themselves as the Levites of the new Israel the Lord was creating. <em><a href='B:470 19:27-30'>Mat 19:27-30</a></em> has a series of extended allusions to the fact that we are now the priesthood. The Lord speaks of how His followers will each have left mother, brother etc. to serve Him, referring to how Moses blessed Levi for forsaking these very things so as to God's service (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>). But He also spoke of how they would forsake houses and lands for His sake and the Gospel's- a reference to the way the Levites resigned their right to physical inheritance in the land for the sake of their relationship with God and the work they were called to. In the same way as Moses predicted that the Levites would be materially blessed even now as a result of their dedication (<em><a href='B:50 33:11'>Deu 33:11</a></em>), so the Lord made the same promise. And there is no Christian who has heart and soul committed themselves to the Gospel's work, either in the world or amongst their brethren, who has not lived to see the truth of this definition of priesthood.</p><h4><em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em> speaks of the preacher as offering up his converts upon the altar [note how <em><a href='B:510 11:7'>Act 11:7</a></em> uses the same image of ‘offering up’ sacrifices to describe preaching]. And this connects with how Paul had earlier spoken in <em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em> of offering ourselves as living sacrifices in dedication. The aim of the preacher, therefore, is to provoke a sacrificial life in his or her converts, after the pattern of the Master whom they learn of. When we read of ‘ministering’ in the NT, we are to generally perceive an allusion to the spirit of priesthood; for it was the OT priests who were understood as “ministers”. Paul speaks of preaching God's word, both in the world and to brethren and sisters, as ministering (<em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:25'>Col 1:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:13'>1Co 9:13</a></em>). He saw himself as a minister of the Gospel "that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>). This is priestly language. Paul saw his efforts for others as preparing a sacrifice. He says that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;ministers (cp. priests) of God, stewards of the true Gospel, and should act appropriately (<em><a href='B:530 4:1'>1Co 4:1</a></em>). Others gave money to poorer brethren, and again this is described as ministering, priest-ing (<em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:10'>Heb 6:10</a></em>). Reminding brethren of basic doctrines they already know is another kind of ministering (<em><a href='B:610 4:16'>1Ti 4:16</a></em>). Indeed, Peter says that we&nbsp;<em>each</em>&nbsp;have something to minister to each other, there is some way in which we can each serve each other (<em><a href='B:670 4:10-11'>1Pe 4:10-11</a></em>). We must bear one another's burden, as the priesthood bore the burden of Israel's iniquity (<em><a href='B:40 18:1'>Num 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:23'>Num 18:23</a></em>). This is the meaning of priesthood. Paul speaks of his preaching work as offering up the Gentiles, as if he is a priest (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>)- and in the same figure, Peter is encouraged to preach to Gentiles by killing and eating animals in a peace offering (<em><a href='B:510 11:7'>Act 11:7</a></em>). The command that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel is referring back to how the priests had no material inheritance but lived off the sacrifices (<em><a href='B:40 18:11'>Num 18:11</a></em>). And for us, the honour and wonder of preaching Christ should mean that we keep a loose hold on the material things of this life. And as we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;priests, we are all preachers.</h4><p>It is perhaps significant, given the theme of ‘following’ in the records of Peter, that he became well known for ‘leading about’ his wife (<em><a href='B:530 9:5'>1Co 9:5</a></em>), as if she followed him everywhere. Peter translated the principles of following Christ into domestic life. There was a time when he may well have ‘forsaken’ his wife in order to follow Christ (<em><a href='B:470 19:27-29'>Mat 19:27-29</a></em>). But further down that path of following he came to see that as he was to follow his Lord to the end, so he was to be as the self-crucifying Christ to her, and lead her in her following of him that she might follow Christ.</p><p><em>"</em>For My Name’s sake<em>"&nbsp;</em>is parallel with<em>&nbsp;</em>“The kingdom of God’s sake” (<em><a href='B:490 18:29'>Luk 18:29</a></em>) is paralleled with the sake of the Name of Christ by the account here in <em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em>. The things of the Name and the things of the Kingdom were therefore not two different things, rather were they different ways of referring to the same realities.</p><p>The Lord’s prophecy that the believer receives fathers, mothers, houses, lands etc. only has its fulfilment insofar as the ecclesia is willing to share these things and relationships with its members. But the condition of the fulfilment was&nbsp;not explicitly stated. We forsake all human relationships to follow the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 19:27-29'>Mat 19:27-29</a></em>). And He promises to compensate for this even in this life. But it depends to what extent we are willing to accept and perceive it. Through meaningful fellowship with our brethren we will find those relationships which we have given up compensated for, even if we aren’t physically close to our brethren. In reference to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt we read: “God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains” (<em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em>). To be set in a new family is paralleled with being brought out from slavery. Part of the process of our redemption is that we are set in a new ecclesial family. This must be a reference to how Israel were brought out on Passover night, where the families and lonely ones had to join together into households big enough to kill a lamb for. The implication of Psalms 68 could be that it was in these family groups that they travelled through the wilderness. The N:C:V. reads: “God is in his holy Temple. He is a father to orphans, and he defends the widows. God gives the lonely a home. He leads prisoners out with joy::.". The very house / family of God becomes the house / family of the lonely. Hence the ecclesia&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the house of God (<em><a href='B:530 3:16'>1Co 3:16</a></em>). We find true family in the new family of God. By baptism we are “added together” with those others who are likewise saved in Christ (<em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em> RVmg:). We will live together eternally with the other members of this new body and community which we enter. The links between us within that new family are even stronger than those with our natural family; and hence any division amongst the family of God is the greatest tragedy. What this means in practice is that we must fellowship each other. Even if we are isolated from other believers, one can always write letters, make phone calls, invite others to visit them, attempt to meet others…</p><p><em>"</em>Inherit eternal life" are the very words of the rich young man (<em><a href='B:480 10:17'>Mar 10:17</a></em>). The answer to that man’s question was that we have to lose now, if we are to win eternally; we must forsake material things if we are to inherit the life eternal. As he was only a young man, it’s likely that his wealth had been inherited. He was being told that the greatest inheritance was of life eternal, but this didn’t come easily nor by good luck or circumstance, but in response to a lifetime of following Jesus. The things which were to be forsaken include [putting the records in Mark and Luke together with Matthew]: family, brothers, sisters, father, mother, lands, houses etc. These were all the things which the young man had received by inheritance, and to forsake association with his family, on behalf of whom he had received his wealth, would’ve been crazy and social suicide. It was as crazy as trashing a winning lottery ticket and walking away the same you were before you bought it. But this is the radical calling of those who must forsake materialism in order to inherit eternity. Therefore all seeking for material advantage in this life is surely inappropriate if in fact we are to forsake it even if it comes to us without our seeking it.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:470 20:6'>Mat 20:6</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 22:8'>Mat 22:8</a></em>.<br/><em>And about the eleventh hour-&nbsp;</em>The servant goes at the 11th hour and hires the men who others had refused, presumably because they didn't look strong enough for the work. And they get paid the very same wage as those who had worked all day. This element of unreality serves to highlight the (humanly) irrational zeal of the Lord for the spread of the Gospel in the last days before His return. He will take on anyone who is willing to work, no matter how feebly, no matter for how short a time; the fact they are standing there ready and willing to do their little bit is what is important to Him. A man does not usually go out between 4 and 5 p:m. looking for more labourers, with sunset approaching. He must have had an unusually great need for workers, racing against time to get the harvest in. And this is the very urgency of the Gospel, and the passion of the Lord's desire to get the harvest reaped. God could reap the harvest of the earth, requiring not help from man. But He has chosen to work through men in the preaching of the Gospel, and therefore the number of workers and their zeal reflects the amount of harvest of souls that can be reaped. The eternal destiny of others is therefore seen to depend on our extent of labour in preaching. It’s also apparent that the amount of harvest was unreally huge- hence the unusual running backwards and forwards to get more workers. One expects the manager to know the size of the harvest and hire the right number of labourers at the start of the day. But in this parable, he doesn’t. The awesome size of the potential harvest out there in this world means that&nbsp;<em>never</em>&nbsp;should we conclude that ‘nobody’s interested’. There is a&nbsp;<em>huge</em>&nbsp;harvest out there. And in passing, it can be noted that grapes have to be harvested at just the right time. If they’re left even a day too long on the vine, the sugar content becomes too high and they are no use. We can perhaps infer that the parable describes a scene on a Friday, with the Sabbath coming on when nobody can work- and yet it is&nbsp;<em>just</em>&nbsp;the right day for reaping the harvest. This makes the obvious connection in our minds- that just before the Sabbath day of the Millennium, in the last days, there is an abnormally huge harvest to be reaped. And this would connect with other Biblical teaching about a great appeal being made to all nations, just prior to the Lord’s return. The parable also yields the lesson that those men would not normally work for one hour. We are to imagine those men with families at home who needed feeding. No pay that day, no food. But they were willing to do at least something. And their generous Lord simply pitied their poverty, so he gave them a day's wage- even to the 11th hour workers. And this is the Lord who has graciously hired us. Likewise, no rich King who finds that the wedding of his son will be poorly attended would go out and invite beggars. The element of unreality is that he so wants every place filled. No human King, nor his son, would want riff raff at the wedding, just because his own class of people turned down the invitations. But the King of Heaven is unlike any human king. He wants others to share in the joy of His Son, and absolutely nobody is too low to share; and moreover, He has a compelling desire to fill those places. The implication is that the net is being spread wider and more compulsively as the days shorten unto the supper.</h4><p><em>He went out and found others</em>- This parable forms the closing section of the block of material which began at the beginning of chapter 18 and which is arranged in a chiasmus see <em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em>. The Lord’s ‘finding’ of men to do His work connects with the ‘finding’ of the lost sheep in 18:13. These men whom the Lord ‘finds’ are the lost sheep. The parallel is thus between the lost sheep, the child brought into the midst, the man who owes 100 pence, the brother who sins against us… and now, the lazy or weak labourers who are saved by grace. The point of the section is that they must be accepted- and the parable speaks of how those who have worked harder and longer will have a tendency not to do so. And that tendency may cost them their own salvation.</p><p><em>Standing, and he said to them: Why do you stand here idle all the day?</em>- The implication is almost that they should’ve gone to work without waiting to be invited. They should’ve been motivated by the tragedy of an amazing harvest wasting. Or perhaps the question was more rhetorical. Why were they idle? Why had nobody hired them? Because they were weak, lazy, had bad reputations, been fired by other employers, were too old to work effectively… And the Lord wanted them to be fully aware of their inadequacies before He sent them to do His harvesting work. The same is seen in how the Lord made the disciples perceive their own blindness and lack of faith- and&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;gave them the great commission. This is indeed the ultimate qualification for preaching work. And that is taught by the Lord’s hand in life, not by Bible colleges or preparatory programs.</p><p>The parable of the labourers indicates that the Lord's desire for response to the Gospel will increase as the coming of the Kingdom advances. Apparently He increasingly is the Jesus who understands human weakness. There is an element of unreality in the parable; the servant goes at the 11th hour and hires the men who others had refused, presumably because they didn't look strong enough for the work. This element of unreality serves to highlight the (humanly) irrational zeal of the Lord for the spread of the Gospel in the last days before His return. The parable of the marriage supper explains why this Is. We need to enter into the sense of urgency and tragedy which there was; the marriage of the King's son was going to be delayed because the guests didn't want to come. The shame, even anger, of the King (cp. God) and the bridegroom (cp. Christ) need to be imagined; and this really is the feeling of the Father and Son whenever the Gospel is rejected. And time and again it happens, from Sunday School kids to those hundreds who every year complete Bible study courses and turn away from the call:&nbsp;</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:470 20:12'>Mat 20:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>These last-&nbsp;</em>The Lord answers the question “Are there few that be saved?” by insisting that we personally strive to enter by the narrow door (<em><a href='B:490 13:23-24'>Luk 13:23-24</a></em>). This was the same message the Lord had taught Peter through the parable of the 1st hour labourer getting distracted by the reward of the 11th hour one. He had that tendency to look on the faults of others (<em><a href='B:470 18:21'>Mat 18:21</a></em>), to compare himself with others (<em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em> cp. 27; <em><a href='B:470 26:33'>Mat 26:33</a></em>). John’s Gospel ends with Peter yet again being distracted by the possible spiritual destiny of his brother John- ‘What about&nbsp;<em>this&nbsp;</em>man?’ was answered by the Lord with an appeal to Peter to not worry about that but instead “You- follow Me”. And so, so many tragic times we do the same. We are distracted from the quintessence of our lives, the following, to death, of the Lord, by our jealousy of others and our desire to enter into their spirituality rather than personally following. We should rather be like the weak old labourers in the parable who walk away from judgment day clutching their ‘penny’ of salvation, thinking "I really shouldn't have this. I didn't work for a day, and this… this coin… this is a day's pay”. But we will be there. You and me. For all our doubts and fears, our chronic lack of self worth, for all the inward, unspoken struggles to believe and understand, that nobody knows nor even notices. We will be there. This is grace, and this will be grace. Truly there is all joy and peace through believing these things, “that ye may abound in hope” (<em><a href='B:520 15:13'>Rom 15:13</a></em>).<br/>Paul was ever aware of his own proneness to failure. He saw himself as tempted to be like the man in the parable who thought he should have more, because he had laboured more abundantly than the others (<em><a href='B:470 20:12'>Mat 20:12</a></em> Gk. = <em><a href='B:540 11:25'>2Co 11:25</a></em>).</h4><p><em>Have spent</em>- Clearly the harder workers believed that there was to be a direct connection between work and reward. And the purpose of the story is to debunk that idea.</p><p><em>Only one hour</em>- The labourers had been brought into the vineyard at various times. It was the scandal of the 11th hour labourers which so stuck in the gut of the original workers. And those 11th hour workers, at least in chronological terms, are us- called in these very last days. We therefore can see ourselves as the recipients of maximum grace- for we are hardly the strongest or most functional of the generations of Christ's servants, more focused as we are on internal grievances than on the massive work of getting the amazing harvest in.</p><p><em>But you have made them</em>- This is precisely the same word used earlier in the verse to speak of how the weaker workers had 'worked' or, literally, 'made' only one hour. By accident, almost, these complaining labourers had stumbled upon the salvation by grace and imputed righteousness which Paul spells out in Romans in so many words. The strangely gracious Lord of the harvest had 'worked them' as worthy of a day's pay; He had imputed to them the work of a whole day when they had only done a fraction of that. And still the workers didn’t get it. The story ends with them still in confusion. Some will be in the Kingdom who have big questions about the justice of God (<em><a href='B:470 20:12-13'>Mat 20:12-13</a></em> "friend"); the wise virgins, apparently selfishly, won't give any oil to the others; some will sit in the Kingdom in "shame" because they thought they were greater than other brethren (<em><a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a></em> - cp. the elder brother?); some remonstrate that a highly rewarded brother already has ten pounds, and surely doesn't need any more exaltation (<em><a href='B:490 19:25'>Luk 19:25</a></em>).</p><p><em>Equal to us-&nbsp;</em>It was on this basis that they were all made "equal" before the final judgment. The basis of their unity, therefore, should have been- and indeed&nbsp;<em>is</em>- the fact that our salvation is by imputed righteousness. Peter surely learnt the lesson of all this when he spoke of how to the Gentiles had been&nbsp;<em>given</em>&nbsp;by God the 'like' s:w. "equal"&nbsp;<em>gift</em>&nbsp;which had been given to "us", the Jewish disciples (<em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>). In this sense the dimensions of the new Jerusalem are "equal" (<em><a href='B:730 21:16'>Rev 21:16</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Who have borne the burden of the day</em>- The same words used for carrying the burden of the cross and of the sins and failures of others (<em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:17'>Joh 19:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:1'>Rom 15:1</a></em>). It can be no accident that here in Matthew 20 the Lord goes on to speak of His cross and the need to participate in that death through carrying the cross. Whenever we behold the cross, surely we are left with the deep impression that 'I would not have gone through with this'. But that is the burden we are to carry, and no amount of other works or attainment of standards can compensate for that. The disciples thought they could so easily carry that cross (<em><a href='B:470 20:22'>Mat 20:22</a></em> "we are able"), just as these workers were sure that they had borne the required burden and should be rewarded for it. But in the light of the cross and of the demand implicit within it to likewise suffer in the salvation of little ones, the hard workers had carried nothing:&nbsp; Their salvation too was to be on the basis of total grace:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the scorching heat</em>- This is the language of the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:680 3:10'>2Pe 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:12'>2Pe 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:11'>Jas 1:11</a></em>). These hard workers had been through nothing- they had not been through the day of judgment, at which acceptance will be proportionate to our acceptance of other little ones.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:17'>Mat 20:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And as Jesus was going up</em>- This could refer to the uphill journey, but ‘going up’ was a technical term used for going up to Jerusalem, particularly to keep a feast- Passover, in this case. Mark adds: “And Jesus went before them, and they were amazed; and as they followed they were sore afraid”:&nbsp;</p><h4><em>To Jerusalem</em>- From Jericho, <em><a href='B:470 19:15'>Mat 19:15</a></em>. Hence they went “up”, uphill to Jerusalem. These small details all support the position that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses and were not created many years later by people who were not present. They were going the opposite direction of man in the parable of the Good Samaritan, who went&nbsp;<em>down</em>&nbsp;from Jerusalem to Jericho. We may be able to infer that the Lord intended us to read that man as one who was not going in the way of the cross, who was going away from Jerusalem rather than towards it- and who was still saved by the grace of the Samaritan / Jesus:&nbsp;</h4><p><em>He took the twelve disciples aside</em>- The implication is that there were others travelling with them, and the Lord wished to explain the reality of the cross to the disciples alone.</p><p><em>And on the way he said to them</em>- It could be inferred that “the way” is the way to Jerusalem and the cross; the disciples were following Jesus in that “way” without appreciating what it really involved and where it ultimately led, and that can be true for us too.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


