# commentaries

text:
<p><em>And he said: Truly I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own hometown</em>- We need to ask&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;this is so true. In the first century Palestinian world, a person wasn’t defined so much by ‘who they were’ as by ‘whom they belonged to and where they originated from’. Hence their problem with seeing that the Lord had access to wisdom and power which they did not have as a group. He didn’t get that from them- and this confused them and their lack of understanding it turned to anger with Him. He had become different to them, therefore He was not of them- so they reasoned. And yet He&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;of them- the record stresses that they were His natural&nbsp;<em>patris</em>(“country”) and&nbsp;<em>oikos</em>&nbsp;(“family”). This is the same problem as Trinitarians have- they can’t see that the Lord could have what He had, and yet be one of us, of our human nature. And perhaps that partly explains their frequently observed anger with non-Trinitarian Christians. This proverb is quoted again in <em><a href='B:500 4:44'>Joh 4:44</a></em> but in a different sense. The Lord is recorded as leaving Judea and going to Galilee exactly because a prophet has no honour in “His own country”. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, not in Galilee. It could be that He went to Galilee from Judea because the “country” He had in mind here in quoting this proverb was Bethlehem, rather than Nazareth. And yet in <em><a href='B:470 13:57'>Mat 13:57</a></em> He uses this proverb about Nazareth. Perhaps this explains His deep amazement at His rejection now in Nazareth</p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:470 13:58'>Mat 13:58</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>But of a truth I say to you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:660 5:16-18'>Jas 5:16-18</a></em>. We only learn of the length of the famine in the New Testament. Three and a half years is a period we often meet in the latter day prophecies- 1260 days, 42 months, a time, times [two times] and a half. This latter day period is therefore flagged up as the time of the ministry of the latter day Elijah, as an appeal for Israel to repent. </p>


text:
<p><em>And to none of them was Elijah sent, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman that was a widow</em>- In the context of :27, the implication would be that this woman too was a Gentile. Even at the start of His ministry, the Lord stressed Gentile acceptance. This was not simply because He realized Israel would reject Him and the door thereby opened to the Gentiles; but because He understood that the good news of the Hope of Israel was in fact good news for the Gentile world if they embraced that hope. </p>


text:
<p><em>And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them were cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian</em>- When Naaman's maid asserted that Elisha could cure him of his leprosy, this was not therefore based on experience. She had not even heard of Elisha curing any lepers in Israel. But she believed it was the kind of thing he could do.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were all filled with anger in the synagogue as they heard these things</em>- There is a similar account in <em><a href='B:470 13:55-58'>Mat 13:55-58</a></em>. If this is indeed a later, similar incident, then we marvel at how despite this rejection, the Lord later returned to give them another chance- and was treated likewise. Anger is demonstrated here to be rooted in a bad conscience. They realized the truth of who He was, but refused to accept it. And this leads to anger. Much human anger, although not all of it, is rooted in such bad conscience. And the anger is directed at the one[s]whose words have been rejected. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they rose up and threw him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong</em>- This was the punishment for a heretic. They knew He said the truth, but because it demanded so much of them, they claimed He was heretical. So many cries of 'heresy' and 'heretic' are psychologically rooted in a subconscious refusal to accept the truths presented. I suggest this is why there has been such a long tradition of hatred, anger and calling of 'heretic' against those who preach a non-Trinitarian Jesus. If He truly had our nature and therefore was not God, this demands so much of us. And men shy away from that and cry 'heresy' rather than be challenged as to what are the very high possibilities for we who share the nature the Lord had when mortal.</p><p>There may be an allusion here to Jephthah, who had been "despised and rejected of men" during the time of Israel's suffering:&nbsp; In this and many other ways he is a clear type of Christ. Jephthah reminded the "elders of Gilead" who were now seeking his help, "Did not you hate me, and expel me out of my father's house?" (<em><a href='B:70 11:7'>Jdg 11:7</a></em>):&nbsp; The Hebrew for "expel" is also translated 'thrust out';&nbsp;Jesus was 'thrust out' from his native town as Jephthah was from Gilead, perhaps a technical term for local excommunication from the city synagogue region:&nbsp;It was "the elders" who were also responsible for Christ's rejection. He was despised as "the son of a strange woman" (<em><a href='B:70 11:2'>Jdg 11:2</a></em>) as the Lord was accused of being born out of wedlock (<em><a href='B:500 8:41'>Joh 8:41</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>But he passing through the midst of them went his way- </em>The Lord clearly had the ability to avoid capture and death. This explains why towards the end of His ministry He was not taken and killed earlier. He gave His life, it was not taken from Him (<em><a href='B:500 10:17-18'>Joh 10:17-18</a></em>). So we see highlighted the fact that He could have avoided the cross, but chose not to- the essence of His wilderness temptations.<em></em></p>


text:
<p><em>And he came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them on the Sabbath day</em>- He had been there earlier (:23), and cured the nobleman's son there. But Luke is writing for Gentiles, and so he mentions where Capernaum was located.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were astonished at his teaching; for his word was with authority</em>- The synagogue minister gave the lesson or sermon, but invited members of the congregation to contribute their thoughts. The Lord's message would therefore have been brief, but so powerful that it astonished people. The Gospel records twelve times record astonishment at the Lord's teaching. How could the passage of mere ideas from the larynx of a Palestinian Jew be so utterly astonishing, no matter how profound the content of the message? The Old Testament prophets likewise spoke God's word, but they were met with cynicism and mocking. Surely there was another factor which elicited such astonishment at His teaching, and I suggest it was in the way that His person was so perfectly congruent with the amazing ideas He was teaching. He was after all the word made flesh. </p><p>His authority was based upon something. And I suggest it was not His miracles, but rather the congruence between His person and His word. The scribes indeed claimed authority. But the teaching of Jesus somehow had that authority within itself. It was not therefore just the nature or profundity of the ideas and content itself which were authoritative. He really did have authority, and He didn't need to make any claim to having it. The amazing challenge is in the parable of <em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>, where the Lord gives His authority to us His servants::. We are not merely standing on a street lamely holding out tracts, offering them to anyone willing to come up and take one. We have an element of His authority if we are teaching His word in His Name; and thus Paul uses the word when speaking of his 'authority in the [preaching of] the Gospel' (<em><a href='B:530 9:18'>1Co 9:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:8'>2Co 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:10'>2Co 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:9'>2Th 3:9</a></em>). And in our personal standing before the Father, we likewise have been given authority by the Lord Jesus to be the sons of God (<em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em>). Paul realized we have each been given this authority, and uses the same word when warning believers not to let their "authority" (AV "this liberty of yours") cause others to stumble (<em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And in the synagogue, there was a man that had a spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice</em>- Notice that the man [singular] cried out in the plural ["us::. we", :34], and then changes immediately back to the singular "I know you::." (:34). This is a classic case of schizophrenia- not literal demon possession. </p>


text:
<p><em>Leave us alone! What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are! The Holy One of God</em>!</p><p>- See on :33. Notice the changes of pronouns from plural to singular. The supposedly spirit-possessed man was what we would call a man suffering from multiple personality disorder or a schizophrenic. Perhaps the dominant personality of the man was that which could say "I know who you are- the Holy One of God". "You Nazarene" may suggest this man had met the Lord previously, and was one of the few who during the Lord's carpenter years had perceived that He was God's Holy One. Despite his affliction, in his deepest heart and most fundamental personality, the mentally ill man perceived what few others did- that Jesus was the Son of God. The man's less dominant personalities feared condemnation and destruction from this Son of God, and wanted Him to leave. The dominant personality recognized Him as Son of God, and maybe we are to imagine him saying "I know who you are::." said in a totally different tone of voice, as if another person was speaking compared to the ones who feared condemnation and didn't want closer engagement with Jesus. That same struggle, in essence, goes on in the mind of every person as they come to Jesus; a desire to pull back before it gets too serious and risky, and yet another desire to accept Him for who He is, the saviour Son of God. The Lord's apparent exorcism of the other personalities therefore left the man with who he really was in his heart of confused hearts- a believer in Jesus as God's Holy Son. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus rebuked him, saying: Hold your peace and come out of him. And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst, he came out of him, having done him no hurt</em>- If as suggested on :34, the man had multiple personalities, the Lord is rebuking the less dominant personality. He speaks of course in terms which the man would have related to- of demon possession. The language of "rebuke" is appropriate to rebuking a personality; for one could hardly "rebuke" a erson for being mentally disturbed. That is not a moral issue. </p><p>This is recorded from the perspective of the onlooking crowd, with their beliefs and observations coloured by those beliefs. The video camera of the Gospel writer is as it were focused on them, and therefore the language of demon possession is used. The Greek for "tearing" used in Mark at this point is literally 'to make gasp'. It is appropriate to an epileptic convulsion or fit. But these incidents are not the work of indwelling demons; for they can be managed by medication today. The convulsion is described in the language of the day, as if there was a struggle within the man, and then in the man's panting afterwards we are invited to imagine a spirit departing from him. There was no actual "unclean spirit" involved; the cure was of personality, as noted on :34, it was as if one of the man's less dominant personalities now left him. And that is the kind of healing which the Lord through the Spirit can work today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And amazement came upon all, and they spoke together, one with another, saying: What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits and they come out</em></p><p>- See on :32. We can see here one reason why the Lord 'went along' with their misunderstanding about evil spirits. They were left with the impression, within their albeit incorrect worldview, that His <em>teaching</em> had the power to change radically, and to cause a spirit or mindset to depart from a person permanently. They thereby perceived that His words had power; the ideas in His teaching were of themselves powerful.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there went a rumour concerning him into every place of the region round about</em>- "Rumour" is literally "a noise". The word about the Lord Jesus went to "every place", every isolated dwelling. The Lord clearly used an economy of miracle, but He did so initially in order to publicize His Messianic claims and above all, His message. For we have noted above that He was using the miracles to exemplify and back up His message. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he rose up from the synagogue and entered into the house of Simon. And Simon's wife's mother was sick with a high fever- </em>The Greek literally means ‘to be on fire’. This is yet another example of phenomenological language. A high temperature was thought to be a sign that something was on fire within a person; that wrong idea is repeated without correction, just as the language of demons Is. The simple point being made, time and again, is that however folk understood disease, the power of the Lord Jesus was so infinitely greater that whatever was supposed to be causing the illness effectively didn’t exist.</p><p><em>And they made request of him concerning her</em>- <em><a href='B:470 8:14'>Mat 8:14</a></em> says:&nbsp;<em>"</em>And when Jesus had entered Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying", as if the Lord noticed the problem and took the initiative to assist, rather than being asked to- although Luke says they did ask Him. But they asked for what He already had noticed and knew all about. <em><a href='B:480 1:31'>Mar 1:31</a></em> states that “they [told] Him about her” and He responded. Surely the overall picture is that He did notice her need. But He waited to be asked before responding- not because He would not otherwise have responded, but because He wanted to pique the intensity of request and entreaty on their part. We sense the same spirit in how He appeared to be asleep on the sinking boat, and how He made as if He would go further on the way to Emmaus. And His apparent silence in our own lives is surely to provoke our prayerfulness and faith likewise.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he stood over her and rebuked the fever; and it left her-</em> Also the language of the day, because illness was understood as having to go somewhere when it was healed.</p><h4><em>And immediately she rose up and served them</em>-&nbsp; Her response to her healing was to serve the Lord and His people. This should be the underlying motive why we ask for healing and good health- so that we can serve. And our response to the Lord’s touching of us can never be passive- it involves some level of active serving. Perhaps the use of&nbsp;<em>diakoneo</em>&nbsp;looks forward to the office and practice of women being deacons, ministers, in the early church. For the church of any age is to be an extension of the men and women who followed the Lord Jesus in Galilee:&nbsp; There was a Rabbinic prohibition of women serving men at table, so this is yet another instance of the Lord and His people being driven by their desire to respond to God's grace to breaking accepted social norms about gender.</h4>


text:
<p><em>And when the sun was setting, they brought to him all that were sick with various diseases; and he laid his hands on everyone of them and healed them</em>- The healing had been done on a Sabbath, and so they only carried their sick to the Lord after sunset. We see here the power of religious tradition and fear of religious leaders and infringement of their traditions. There would have been urgently sick people, who needed healing as soon as possible. The people believed the Lord could heal them; but their fear of infringing Sabbath traditions was even greater. And we see the same in essence today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And demons also came out from many, crying out and saying: You are the Son of God!- </em>The "many" had "various diseases" (<em><a href='B:480 1:34'>Mar 1:34</a></em>). The "various diseases" demonstrated His wide ranging power; for healers tended to specialize in specific diseases, claiming power over particular [supposed] demons. But the Lord could heal all kinds of diseases. The purpose of the healings was not simply to meet human need, but to elicit a belief in Him as "Son of God". His miracles were always to back up His preaching.</p><p><em>But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ</em>- "Allow / permit" is the same word translated "send forth". The idea could simply be that the Lord didn't send out these converts as 'sent forth' missionary apostles. "The demons" are put for the [supposedly] 'demon possessed' people. The focus is ultimately upon the person and not upon whatever was thought to be possessing them. Note how it was the Egyptian people who were judged (<em><a href='B:10 15:14'>Gen 15:14</a></em>); their idols (“gods”) are used by metonymy to stand for those who believed in them. Likewise “demons” is sometimes put by metonymy for those who believed in them.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now when it was day, he departed and went into a deserted place. And the crowd sought him and came to him, and tried to keep him from leaving them</em>- We continually notice the Lord's dislikeof melodrama and large crowds. He was used to sustained personal contact with the Father, and the pressure of the crowds would have been unbearable for Him. He loved solitude with God. Many of us can relate to Him in this, and He thereby to us. But He worked with the crowds exactly because He saw their need, He as it were came out of Himself for their sakes and for the sake of God's glory. </p>


text:
<p><em>But he said to them: I must preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for this is why I was sent</em>- He did not want to be a mere miracle man. His focus was upon preaching the Kingdom, and so He departed rather than meet all the human need which He could have done. His approach ought to be programmatic for us; and too often the focus of our ministry has either been upon purely academic pushing of Biblical ideas at one extreme, or mere do-gooding for its own sake at the other.</p><p>Comparing with :19, the preaching of the Kingdom is made parallel to preaching the time of acceptance with God and forgiveness of sins <em>now</em> (<em><a href='B:540 6:2'>2Co 6:2</a></em>). <em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em> seems to teach that the Kingdom of God is more about "peace and joy in the Holy Spirit", both now and eternally, than physical, tangible things. Christ's parables about the Kingdom don't speak of a political Kingdom, but rather about the relationship between God and the believer in the here and now. See on <em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee</em>- As with Paul's ministry, the openness of the synagogues to visiting teachers was well used by the Lord. <em>"</em>Went about… teaching… preaching… healing" (<em><a href='B:470 4:23'>Mat 4:23</a></em>) is just what we read of the Lord's followers doing in Acts. The preaching of the apostles (and of ourselves) continues the personal work of the Lord in whom they lived and moved, and therefore often Acts records the preaching work in language lifted from Luke as well as the other Gospel records (e:g. <em><a href='B:510 4:2'>Act 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:12-16'>Act 5:12-16</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 4:23'>Mat 4:23</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Now it came to pass, while the crowd pressed upon him and heard the word of God, that he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret</em>- As elsewhere in the Gospels, the Lord's focus is presented as being upon the disciples rather than upon the crowds. He sought to develop and teach a small body of serious converts rather than make mass conversions; the mass conversions were to be made by them, rather than Him personally. And Acts continues this theme.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he saw two boats standing by the lake; but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets</em>- The impression is that they were potentially ready to go 'fishing' for the Lord, but with His presence in the boat they were able to do it. "Fishermen" is literally, 'salty ones'. The Greek can equally mean 'sailors'. The Lord must have had this in mind when He said that they were "the salt of the earth" (<em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>). If we are likewise the salt of the earth in our influence upon others, we will find ourselves as the modern counterpart to those 'salty ones' who followed the Lord in His Galilee days.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he entered into one of the boats, which was Simon's, and asked him to put out a little from the shore. And he sat down and taught the crowds out of the boat</em>- It was for all the world as if the boat belonged to the Lord. He was setting these men up to continue His preaching ministry. He sat in their place, so that they would take His place later. Teaching from a boat is in intended contrast with the idea that teaching could only take place within the synagogue. He surely would have been better standing up, so that His voice carried, and so that He could speak louder. But He "sat", as His style was, just as an adult gets down to the level of a child in order to talk with them. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon: Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch</em>- The scene is purposefully repeated by the Lord after His resurrection. He wished them to see that He was the same essential Jesus both in His mortal life and also in His post resurrection glory. And the same Jesus who loved little children and so desperately wished human salvation is the same yesterday, today and for ever- including when we meet Him at judgment day. He had asked Peter to "put out" into shallow water, with Him in the boat teaching (:3 s:w:). Now He asks them to "put out" into deeper water, alone, without Him, to fish. This was an acted parable of how their calling was to share the Gospel with others as the Lord had done; His teaching was their fishing of men. Prior to His presence and entering of their lives, they could not have done this. But He was present on the shore. This is expressed in more abstract terms in John 14-16, where the Comforter, the spirit of Jesus, is promised to all who will teach Him to others. He is with us just as really as He was in His mortal life. But they were to go fishing "for a catch", in the expectation of response. Our witness too is not merely a witness for the sake of it, but is to be made in firm faith that there are fish / men out there to be caught. A "catch" is literally a 'bringing', the same word is used of how sick people were 'brought' to the Lord in <em><a href='B:490 4:10'>Luk 4:10</a></em>. The drawing process depends partially upon our bringing of men into the Gospel net.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Simon answered and said: Master, we toiled all night and took nothing, but at your word I will let down the nets</em></p><p>- See on :4 and <em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em>. Despite having toiled all night and caught nothing, Peter was able to subdue his natural wisdom, his sense of futility, and the sense of irritation and superiority which exists in the experienced working man: "Nevertheless ["but"] (how much that hides!) at <em>your word</em>&nbsp; I will let down the nets". It would seem that the parallel record of this is found in <em><a href='B:470 4:18'>Mat 4:18</a></em>, which describes the call of the disciples soon after Christ's triumphant emergence from the wilderness temptations. We learn from <em><a href='B:500 1:41-42'>Joh 1:41-42</a></em> that it was Peter's brother, Andrew, who first told Peter about Jesus, and who brought him to meet Jesus first of all. The point is that at the time of Peter's call as hewas fishing, he had probably heard very few of Christ's words personally. He had heard about Him, and listened to His words for perhaps a few hours at different times in the past. So where did he get this tremendous respect for the word of Christ from, which he demonstrated when Christ called him? The answer must be that he meditated deeply on those words that he had heard and understood, and came to appreciate that the man saying them was worth giving all for. Our far easier access to God's word does not seem to make us more meditative as individuals. We have access to hearing God's word which previous generations never had. We can listen to it on a Walkman, have tapes of well-read Scripture playing at home, analyse it by computer, hear it sung to us according to our taste in music, read it from pocket Bibles as we work and travel::. we <em>can</em>&nbsp;and <em>could</em>&nbsp;do all these things. My sense is that we just don't make use of our opportunities as we should. Why has God given our generation these special opportunities to be ultra-familiar with His word? Surely it is because our age contains temptations which are simply more powerful than those of former years. So it is <em>vital</em>, vital for our eternal destiny, that we do make as much use as possible of all these opportunities. We should be <em>cramming</em>, yes cramming, our hearts and brains with the words of God. I certainly get the feeling that Peter would have listened to a tape of Isaiah on his Walkman if he had one, as he went out fishing; that he'd have had tapes of the Psalms going all evening long in his little fisherman's cottage, wife and kids caught up in his enthusiasm too (<em><a href='B:480 10:10'>Mar 10:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:15'>Mar 10:15</a></em> suggests that the incident with the little children occurred in Peter's house). There <em>are</em> a handful of Christian homes where this spirit is truly seen. &nbsp;</p><p>It seems to me that the Lord asks each of us to do that which is essentially difficult for us personally, something against the grain of our very nature and personal understanding of and position in life. This may explain why sometimes He asked those He cured to spread the message (perhaps the introverts, or those whose past lives had been notorious?), whilst others (perhaps the extroverts?) He asked to remain silent about what He had done. When the Lord asked Peter to go out fishing, for example, this was totally and exactly against every grain of Peter's natural self. He was a fisherman, he'd been fishing all night, he knew it was <em>absolutely</em> pointless to try again. He knew that a carpenter didn't know what a fisherman did. The Lord's request was a blow at the justifiable pride in his specialism which every working man has. If the Lord Jesus had asked let's say <em>Paul</em> to go out fishing, well, I guess he'd have obeyed with no real difficulty. But He asked Peter to do that, at that very moment, because it was a real cross for Peter to pick up. Likewise it would have seemed logical for Paul to preach to the Jews, and Peter to the Gentiles (note how the Gentiles approached Philip, from semi-Gentile Galilee, in <em><a href='B:500 12:20-21'>Joh 12:20-21</a></em>). Yet in fact the Lord God used those men in the very opposite way, right against the grain of their natural abilities. He asked goldsmiths to do the manual work of building the wall of Jerusalem, bruising their sensitive fingers against lumps of rock (<em><a href='B:160 3:8'>Neh 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 3:31'>Neh 3:31</a></em>); and Barak’s victorious warriors were civil servants and writers (<em><a href='B:70 5:14'>Jdg 5:14</a></em>), not military men. Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews, when we’d have thought that naturally speaking, they would have been far more comfortable in the reverse roles. Judas was put in charge of the money amongst the twelve; when Matthew the tax collector would presumably have been the obvious man for the job. Naaman wanted to do some great act, but was asked to do the hardest thing for him- to dip in Jordan. And Abraham was asked to do what was so evidently the hardest thing- to offer up his only, specially beloved son.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had done this, they caught a great many fishes; and their nets were breaking</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:510 2:6'>Act 2:6</a></em>. As explained above, the Lord was teaching them that they were to do His work of fishing men into the Gospel net. In the similar incident after the resurrection, their nets did not break. The Lord will somehow provide the resources needed for this work. And perhaps He was also encouraging them to follow Him and forsake their fishing business because He is absolutely able to provide any amount of fish. All human endeavour and desire for income can be dramatically overridden by the Lord if we devote ourselves to His work.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they beckoned to their partners in the other boat, that they should come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink</em>- Paul seems to allude here in saying that the desire for wealth can drown believers (<em><a href='B:610 6:9'>1Ti 6:9</a></em>). The Lord is warning them not to allow their desire for wealth and good income to drown them; rather they were to focus upon doing the work of the Gospel, and somehow all shall be provided.</p><p>It would seem that Peter as a working man had a love of his job. He left his fishing in Mark 1 to follow the Lord, but returned to it by Luke 5. Then he left it, and returned to it in the post-resurrection crisIs. The Lord’s provision of fish on the shore was simply saying: ‘You don’t need to fish any more’. He asked them to drag the nets to land, which would usually have broken them, but they didn’t break. Likewise He had earlier told fisherman Peter to cast the net on the other side, when Peter knew full well which side of the boat there were likely to be fish. And a whirlwind storm had come upon Galilee which would have drowned fisherman and sailor Peter were it not for the Lord’s presence. In all these things, Peter was being taught to quit the life that he loved. “Lovest thou me more than these?” was asked with the huge catch of fish lying there on the shore- a fisherman’s dream. It could be that the question referred to them. ‘Go and feed <em>my</em> sheep rather than worry about <em>your </em>fish’. When earlier the boats had begun to sink with too many fish, the word used for ‘sinking’ occurs in <em><a href='B:610 6:9'>1Ti 6:9</a></em>, about believers being drowned in materialism and thereby condemning themselves (<em><a href='B:490 5:7'>Luk 5:7</a></em>). Whether it’s a career that we love, a livelihood that we simply trust as a sure means of human survival, or the spiritual pride that we love the Lord more than our brethren, all these things are demanded of us by the demanding Lord, as we seek to follow Him to the cross:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But Simon Peter, when he saw it, fell down at Jesus' knees, saying: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord </em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em>. The Father seems to have wanted Peter to make the connection between preaching and recognition of personal sinfulness quite early on. “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord” was followed by a commission to go preach the Gospel to Israel, just as Isaiah had been brought to the same point and then been sent on a like mission. The picture of the condemned is presented in Scripture in some detail. We are all condemned men and women before the light of the glory of Jesus Christ. If we are to be saved in that future day, we must judge / condemn ourselves now in our self-examination (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). This means that we ought to have their feelings in some respects; as they will have no desire to go on living in the flesh, as they will so earnestly desire entry into the Kingdom, as they will then desperately not want to go back into the world::. so we should feel now, grateful that for us there is entry into the Kingdom made possible. Thus Peter asked the Lord to depart from him (<em><a href='B:490 5:8'>Luk 5:8</a></em>), with the very same words the Lord used about what He will say to the rejected (<em><a href='B:490 13:27'>Luk 13:27</a></em>).</p>&nbsp;<p>"Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord" was capturing the spirit of Isaiah. But the Lord responded that he was not to fear, but no now "catch men". Peter's deep recognition of his sinfulness resulted in him being given a preaching commission. And in similar vein, Peter was given another commission to teach the word when he met the Lord after his denials (<em><a href='B:500 21:15-17'>Joh 21:15-17</a></em>). In response to this he stood up and preached that forgiveness of sins was possible to all those that are afar off from God (<em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em>). As he did so, consciously or unconsciously, part of his mind must have been back in the way that on that shameful night he followed the Lord “afar off”, and far off from Him, denied Him (<em><a href='B:480 14:54'>Mar 14:54</a></em>). Peter’s vision of the unclean animals in the net taught him that those people whom he considered unclean, he was to “eat”, i:e. preach to and fellowship with. When he recounts the vision, he comments [in an account that is strictly factual in all other regards and without any embellishment]: “It [the sheet with the animals] came <em>even to me</em>” (<em><a href='B:510 11:5'>Act 11:5</a></em>). He is expressing his unworthiness at being called to the task of preaching, just as Paul likewise expressed his inadequacy.</p>


text:
<p><em>For he was amazed, and all that were with him, at the catch of fish which they had taken</em>- The huge catch of fish, which nearly drowned them, was what provoked Peter to confess how sinful he was. He felt therefore that his sin was in being materialistic, in being obsessed with that huge catch, thinking of all the money they could earn in the market by selling it. The gift of wealth elicited within him a sense of sinfulness; and it should likewise within us all.</p>


text:
<p><em>And so were also James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon: Fear not. From this time forward you shall catch men</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 9:59'>Luk 9:59</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:2'>Joh 21:2</a></em>. <em>"</em>Catch men" is Gk. 'to catch alive'. This is an example of where what sounds like predictive prophecy is actually a command, which men are free to obey or disobey. The whole section about the temple to be built in Ezekiel 40-48 is another example. Peter was not to "fear" his tendency to materialism and his momentary failure in this matter. He was to move onwards from that and see that the greatest thing in life is not success in our business, but bringing others into the Gospel net, dragging them, with the help of our brethren ["partners" is <em>koinonos</em>, those we fellowship with], into the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had brought their boats to land, they left all and followed him</em>- They became His disciples, that is the meaning of the idiom. They powerfully learnt the lesson- that the Lord could give business success and wealth at ease. And therefore they in a moment left it all and focused on following Him. The "all" which they left included the huge catch of fish.</p><h4>Peter on the shore doesn’t say to the Lord that he had ‘made a mistake’ or cast the net on the wrong side etc:- he confesses that he is a “sinful man” altogether. Jesus taught that sin was no longer to be seen as a list of specific actions which must be avoided in order to have a good conscience before God. The conviction of sin as God intends is far deeper than this. As the Lord makes clear, it’s all about motives, what is inside the cup rather than what appears on the outside (<em><a href='B:490 11:39'>Luk 11:39</a></em>). And we are to press on with the work of the Gospel, regardless of our previous failings in being distracted by issues of wealth and income. </h4>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, while he was in one of the cities, that there was a man full of leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, saying- </em>The Greek literally means to bow or crouch. Perhaps it is being used here in that literal sense, inviting us then to imagine the Lord extending His hand to the kneeling man (:13). Or the idea could be that the man's worship was not in any external display of respect, but in the fact he believed in the Lord's ability and power to respond to his request. In this case, the man worshipped Jesus&nbsp;<em>in saying</em>&nbsp;"If You will, You can::.".</p><p>"Begging" is the Greek <em>parakleo</em>; and John's Gospel records at length the Lord's promise to be our<em> parakletos</em>, doing the work of comfort and entreaty, <em>parakleo</em>, for <em>us</em>. We see here the mutuality between a man and his Lord; both relate to each other in the same passionate way, in prayer [from our side] and in the Lord's gracious response [from His side]. The<em>parakleo</em> group of words are appropriate to both sides of the relationship.</p><p><em>Lord, if you will, you can make me clean</em>- The Lord replied that this was indeed His will (:13). This coincidence of human will with that of our Lord is what fellowship with Him and answered prayer is all about. The phrase "If You will, You can::." is recorded identically in all three of the synoptics (<em><a href='B:480 1:40'>Mar 1:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:12'>Luk 5:12</a></em>), as if they all wished to draw attention to the man's attitude and make an example of it- accepting that the Lord has all power ("can" =&nbsp;<em>dunamai</em>), but that our will is not always his.</p><p>The man recognized that it was within the Lord's power to heal him, but he also recognized that the Lord's will is not always ours, as His longer term plan may require Him not to respond to our request in the immediate term. This is a great example to us. For he would have been aware that the Lord did not heal all human need which He encountered; He had just left Simon's house, apparently because He didn't want to cure all the crowds surely gathering there for healing.</p><p>Faith is inculcated by an appreciation of the height of Christ’s exaltation. He now has all power in Heaven and in earth, and this in itself should inspire us with faith in prayer and hope in His coming salvation. On the basis of passages like <em><a href='B:20 4:7'>Exo 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 12:10-15'>Num 12:10-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 5:7-8'>2Ki 5:7-8</a></em>, “leprosy was regarded as a “stroke" only to be removed by the Divine hand which had imposed it" (L:G. Sargent,<em> The Gospel Of The Son Of God</em>, p. 28). The leper lived with this understanding, and yet he saw in Jesus nothing less than God manifest. Inspired by the height of the position which he gave Jesus in his heart, he could ask him in faith for a cure: “If You will, You can [as only God was understood to be able to] make me clean". </p>


text:
<p><em>And he stretched forth his hand and touched him, saying: I will. Be made clean- </em>The Lord responds within the terms of the man's request: "If You will, You can make me clean". We note the man sought cleansing above mere healing; his spiritual need for cleansing was paramount in his mind. We likewise should ask for material blessings motivated by spiritual concerns. The Lord could have cured the man in multiple ways, but he chose to touch the man, making Himself technically unclean; although it could be argued that the cure was so immediate that it was therefore debatable as to whether the Lord had actually touched a leper or not. Surely He did it the way He did to provoke such questions; for the process of questioning led to them becoming the more aware of the fact that the Lord's touch had indeed cleansed the man. And the whole question of ritual uncleanness was of course put in the spotlight. The Lord was and is unafraid to associate with the very dirtiest of human conditions and situations. There was no revulsion from them, as there is not today. The Lord is described a staggering 28 times in the synoptics as touching people. This was a studied rejection of the false teaching of 'guilt by association' or 'contamination by contact'. More than that, the Lord was at such lengths to identify Himself with suffering people.</p><p><em>And immediately the leprosy departed from him</em>- The immediacy of the cure upon touching the Lord raised all kind of questions for the legalistic mind, as to whether the Lord was made unclean or not. The Greek literally means 'scales' and the same word is used of scales falling from Saul's eyes in <em><a href='B:510 9:18'>Act 9:18</a></em>. It could've been any skin disease rather than Hansen's disease. In <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em> the Lord told the disciples to likewise "cleanse the lepers". Again the Lord is giving the disciples the work of the priests to do. For it was their job to pronounce lepers cleansed. But He is asking them to do what He Himself had done here. His work was to be theirs. The later NT references to&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;being cleansed by the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:560 5:26'>Eph 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 2:14'>Tit 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:7'>1Jn 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:9'>1Jn 1:9</a></em> etc:) perhaps look back to how the historical Jesus cleansed lepers in Galilee. We are to see ourselves in that isolated and rejected man.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>However, the report went around concerning him all the more; and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities</em>- <em><a href='B:480 1:45'>Mar 1:45</a></em> notes that therefore "Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but stayed in deserted places". If we put the stress on the word "openly", we are left imagining Jesus somehow disguising Himself in order to enter the towns. This is the reason why the Lord so sternly charged the healed man not to spread the news (:43); the stampede of people wanting healing meant that the Lord was unable to perform His most important ministry, which was to preach ratherthan to heal</p>


text:
<p><em>But he withdrew himself into the desert and prayed</em>- Each healing took energy and spiritual power from the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 8:46'>Luk 8:46</a></em>). As noted on <em><a href='B:490 4:42'>Luk 4:42</a></em>, the Lord was desperate for aloneness with God in prayer; for this was His source of being filled by the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass on one of those days that he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, who had come out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was with him to hea</em>l- The power of the Lord was present to heal the Pharisees- but they would not make use of what was potentially made available. The text suggests that the healing was possible for the Pharisees. The healing in view was therefore spiritual healing; and the whole incident of curing the paralyzed man was therefore in order to potentially provide the religious leaders with spiritual healing. The Lord's work in our lives is likewise multifaceted. Things happen in order that others may be taught, as happened in the life and sufferings of Job- it was to convert and teach the friends rather than Job personally, who is presented as "perfect" both before and after the recorded sufferings.</p>


text:
<p><em>And men brought on a bed a man that was paralysed; and they sought to bring him in and to lay him before him</em>- The term for "brought" is also used of bringing a sacrifice to God, but in this case of the lame:&nbsp;"Bed" is Gk. a table or a couch. They had grabbed whatever could serve as a stretcher.</p>


text:
<p><em>But not finding by what way they might bring him in, because of the crowd, they went to the housetop and let him down through the tiles with his couch, into the midst before Jesus</em>- This was all done in faith, and by doing this the Lord saw their faith (:20). <em><a href='B:480 2:3'>Mar 2:3</a></em> says they "carried" him, the term means literally to be taken up or away, and reflects the Hebrew term used for the bearing away of sin. And :20 confirms this association by stating that it was through the faith of the four friends that the man's sins were forgiven. This is the huge horizon of potential which there is for us in our efforts for others- we can even play a role in the Lord forgiving them their sins. This lifts the concept of pastoral work far beyond mere doing of good works.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason-</em>Matthew adds "within themselves". Consider the huge emphasis of the New Testament upon 'thinking / talking within oneself', especially within the Gospels. The same Greek phrase is used repeatedly:</p><p>- "Think not to say within yourselves" (<em><a href='B:470 3:9'>Mat 3:9</a></em>)</p><p>- "The scribes said within themselves" (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>)</p><p>- "She said within herself" (<em><a href='B:470 9:21'>Mat 9:21</a></em>)</p><p>- The believer who fails to grow spiritually has no root "within himself" (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>)</p><p>- "They reasoned within themselves::. Why do you reason within yourselves::." (<em><a href='B:470 16:7-8'>Mat 16:7-8</a></em>)</p><p>- "The husbandmen::. said within themselves" (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>)</p><p>- The disciples "disputed within themselves" (<em><a href='B:480 9:33'>Mar 9:33</a></em>)</p><p>- Have salt "within yourselves" (<em><a href='B:480 9:50'>Mar 9:50</a></em>)</p><p>- The Pharisee "spake within himself" (<em><a href='B:490 7:39'>Luk 7:39</a></em>)</p><p>- The guests "began to say within themselves" (<em><a href='B:490 7:49'>Luk 7:49</a></em>)</p><p>- The rich fool "thought within himself, saying::." (<em><a href='B:490 12:17'>Luk 12:17</a></em>)</p><p>- "The steward said within himself" (<em><a href='B:490 16:3'>Luk 16:3</a></em>)</p><p>- The unjust judge "said within himself" (<em><a href='B:490 18:4'>Luk 18:4</a></em>)</p><p>- Peter "doubted in himself" (<em><a href='B:510 10:17'>Act 10:17</a></em>)</p><p>- Jews who heard the Gospel "reasoned within themselves" (<em><a href='B:510 28:29'>Act 28:29</a></em> Gk:)</p><p>- Israel "through the lusts of their own hearts::. dishonoured their bodies within themselves" (<em><a href='B:520 1:24'>Rom 1:24</a></em>)</p><p>- "Within yourselves::. you have a better and enduring substance" (<em><a href='B:650 10:34'>Heb 10:34</a></em>)</p><p>- "Partial within yourselves, judges of evil thoughts" (<em><a href='B:660 2:4'>Jas 2:4</a></em>).</p><p>There are many other Bible verses which likewise speak of the internal state of a person and the significance of our self-talk- these are just examples of one Greek phrase. It is logical therefore to expect that the great adversary or 'satan' to be internal thinking, how we think and speak within ourselves. And properly understood, this is indeed what 'satan' in the Bible sometimes refers to. We should deeply note at this point that the thoughts of men in their hearts are known to the Father and Son, and have been recorded publicly here in these records for many centuries. </p><p><em>Saying: Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?</em>- The miracles of Jesus exposed the error of local views, e:g. of demons, without correcting them in so many words. Thus in <em><a href='B:490 5:21'>Luk 5:21</a></em> the Jews made two false statements: that Jesus was a blasphemer, and that God alone could forgive sins. Jesus did not verbally correct them; instead he did a miracle which proved the falsity of those statements. It was clearly the belief of Jesus that actions speak louder than words. He rarely denounced false ideas directly, thus he did not denounce the Mosaic law as being unable to offer salvation, but He showed by His actions, e:g. healing on the Sabbath, what the truth was.</p><p>The Jews got caught up on the issue of whether Christ's forgiveness of others made Him God or not- just as some folk do today. His response was to refocus them on the fact that He wanted&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;to<em> know</em>&nbsp;that He had real power to forgive&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;sins (<em><a href='B:490 5:24'>Luk 5:24</a></em>). I spend a lot of time arguing against the trinity and the 'Jesus = God' mentality. But the essence is, do we&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;on a personal level that the Lord Jesus really has the power to forgive&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;sins?</p>


text:
<p><em>But Jesus, perceiving their reasoning, answered and said to them- </em>Time and again, the Gospels record how He “perceived” things about people. Admittedly this could have been because He simply had a Holy Spirit gift to enable this. But I prefer to think that His sensitivity, His perception, aided by His extraordinary intellectual ability as the Son of God [for intelligence and perception / sensitivity are related]… these things developed within Him over the years so that He could sense the essential needs and feelings of others to an unsurpassed extent. “Jesus, seeing their thoughts…” (<em><a href='B:470 9:4'>Mat 9:4</a></em> RVmg:) shows how He came to perceive the hearts of others from His observation of them. This was the same Jesus who could be ridiculed into scorn / shame / embarrassment (<em><a href='B:470 9:24'>Mat 9:24</a></em>), such was His sensitivity to others. This incident helps us to understand the ability of the mind / spirit of the Lord Jesus to connect with that of human beings. <em><a href='B:480 2:8'>Mar 2:8</a></em> puts it like this: "Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, "Why are you thinking such things in your hearts?" (NET Bible). The spirit / mind of Jesus was at one with the spirit / mind of those men. Such was His sensitivity. I don't think it was a gift of Holy Spirit knowledge so much as His sensitivity to the minds of men::. and yet <em><a href='B:520 8:16'>Rom 8:16</a></em> calls Jesus "The Spirit" as a title, saying that He bears witness with our spirit / mind, in His intercession to the Father. So this incident in the Gospels gives us as it were an insight into how He&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;operates too::. He's the same today as yesterday. He's at one with our mind / spirit, and also with the mind / Spirit of the Father. Thus is He such a matchless mediator. The way the Lord Jesus 'knew' things because of His extreme sensitivity, rather than necessarily by some flash of Holy Spirit insight, isn't unparalleled amongst other men. Elisha knew what Gehazi had done when Gehazi went back to ask Naaman for a reward- Elisha commented: "Went not my heart with you, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet you?" (<em><a href='B:120 5:26'>2Ki 5:26</a></em>). Elisha imagined Naaman dismounting from his chariot, etc. And he could guess that the request had involved "money::. garments" etc. That the Lord's knowledge wasn't necessarily automatic is reflected in the way we read things like "When he saw their faith::. when Jesus heard it::." (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:17'>Mar 2:17</a></em>). He 'saw' and knew things by the sensitivity of His perception.</p><p><em>Why reason you so in your hearts?</em>- This was a rhetorical question. Why did they struggle with His offer of forgiveness? Because it required an acceptance of it from them, which in turn required repentance. </p>


text:
<p><em>Which is easier to say-</em> Gk. 'less work'. The Lord meant 'Which is easier&nbsp;for Me'. There were plenty of claims to heal people; but to forgive sins was of a different order altogether. But the Lord is saying that for Him, they are one and the same; and that His healing was performed in this case on the basis of having forgiven the man his sin. Not only could He forgive sin, but in this case He could remove the consequence of it. For the Lord healed the man&nbsp;<em>so that&nbsp;</em>they would realize that He had power to forgive sins (:24).</p><p><em>Your sins are forgiven; or to say: Arise and walk?</em>- The same words used by Peter when he tells the lame man to 'arise and walk' (<em><a href='B:510 3:6'>Act 3:6</a></em>). Peter consciously or unconsciously replicated his Lord in doing healing miracles. The very body language and word choice of the Lord were so impressed upon him that they became the pattern for&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;ministry; and the same should be true of us. The paralyzed man of <em><a href='B:500 5:8'>Joh 5:8</a></em> was likewise told to arise, take up his bed and walk- using the same words used here about the paralyzed man. Clearly the Lord Jesus worked with people according to some pattern. And we can discern similar hallmarks of His work as we get to know each other within the body of Christ today, perceiving as we exchange stories and testimonies that the Lord in essence works in similar ways between human lives today.</p>


text:
<h4><em>But that you may know-</em> The reason for the healing miracle was to teach that He could forgive sins. This is why I suggest that in this man's case, his paralysis was a direct and publicly known result of his sin. Perhaps he had been alcoholic, or become paralyzed in an accident whilst stealing something. In this case his friends are to be commended for so wanting his healing, because many would have shrugged him off as someone who was suffering justly. The link between his illness and his sin was so clear that to heal him was seen as effectively forgiving him&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;removing the consequence of his sin. David, Moses and others often asked for the consequences of sin to be removed and at times received this. The palsied man was healed by the Lord in order to&nbsp;<em>teach others</em>&nbsp;that Jesus had the power to forgive sins. Job was a “perfect” man before the afflictions started; and he is presented as a ‘perfect’ man at the end. The purpose of his trials was not only to develop him, but also in order to teach the friends [and we readers] some lessons. The purpose of our trials too may not only be for our benefit, but for that of others. If we suffer anything, it is so that we might help others (<em><a href='B:540 1:4'>2Co 1:4</a></em>). He didn’t&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;reward the faith of the man’s friends; His motive for the miracle was to seek to teach those Scribes. Our tendency surely would have been to ignore them, to be angry that in the face of grace they could be so legalistic and petty and so far, far from God::. and get on and heal the sick man who believed. But the Lord’s picture of human salvation was far wider and more inclusive and more hopeful than that.</h4><p><em>That the Son of Man- </em>The humanity of Jesus was the very basis upon which He could and can forgive human sin. This is why <em><a href='B:470 9:8'>Mat 9:8</a></em> records that the crowds praised God for having given such power&nbsp;<em>unto men</em>. He understood Himself as rightful judge of humanity exactly because He was "son of man" (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>)- because every time we sin, He as a man would've chosen differently, He is therefore able to be our judge. And likewise, exactly because He was a "son of man", "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins". If it is indeed true that "'Son of Man' represents the highest conceivable declaration of exaltation in Judaism", then we can understand the play on words the Lord was making- for the term 'son of man' can also without doubt just mean 'humanity generally'. Exactly because He was human, and yet perfect, He was so exalted.</p><p><em>Has authority on earth to forgive sins (he said to him who was paralyzed)-</em> He had that power during His mortal life, and yet after His resurrection "<em>all</em>&nbsp;power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth" (<em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em>). His power to save and forgive is therefore even greater. Perhaps the contrast was that He had the power of forgiveness delegated to Him in specific cases during His ministry, but after the resurrection He had power in His own right to forgive, not on the basis of delegated power but power / authority in His own Name; even though that exalted position was of course given Him by God the Father.</p><p>The Jews got caught up on the issue of whether Christ's forgiveness of others made Him God or not- just as some folk do today. His response was to refocus them on the fact that He wanted <em>you</em> to <em>know</em> that He had real power to forgive <em>their</em> sins. I spend a lot of time arguing against the trinity and the 'Jesus = God' mentality. But the essence is, do we <em>know</em> on a personal level that the Lord Jesus really has the power to forgive <em>our</em> sins?</p><p>The disciples observed as Jesus made a lame man <em>arise</em>, take up his bed, and follow Him. But in <em><a href='B:510 9:34'>Act 9:34</a></em>, we find Peter doing just the same to Aeneas, even taking him by the hand as he had seen Jesus do to Jairus’ daughter. What Peter had seen and learnt of the Lord Jesus, he was now called to do. Not for nothing did he tell Aeneas that “Jesus Christ makes you whole”, thereby recognizing the connection between him and his Lord.</p><p>"He said to him that was paralyzed" suggests He turned from the Jews to the paralyzed man. It could be that the healing was really for the benefit of the hard hearted scribes- the Lord was going to all this trouble to try to persuade them of His authority as God's Son. We would likely have given up with them, but the way the Lord kept on trying with the orthodox Jews of His day is an essay in perseverance in witnessing. And amazingly, it paid off- in that a number of priests and Pharisees were baptized after His resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>).</p><p><em>I say to you, arise and take up your bedding and go to your house</em>- The same word is used for taking up the cross (<em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>), and the Greek for "bed" is also translated a table or couch. He was to pick up a piece of wood and go his way. He was given a simple task of obedience immediately after meeting with Jesus, and we can see that pattern repeated in how the Lord works with people today.</p><p>The Lord was sensitive to the situation of those He healed or converted. Just as He commanded the resurrected girl to be given something to eat, so He realized the pressure that would be on the healed man- and so He told him to go home immediately and thus avoid the limelight.</p>


text:
<p><em>And immediately, he stood up before them, picked up what he had been lying on and went home, glorifying God</em>- Emphasizing his exact and studied obedience to the Lord's command to Him to go home (:24). He did it "before them [all]"- another hint that the miracle was for teaching purposes; the Lord was surrounded by people eager for healing, and instead He taught them. The immediacy of the cure, especially in response to the faith of third parties, was utterly unknown amongst those who had seen too many fake healers attempting to heal illness.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were all amazed, and they glorified God; and they were filled with fear, saying: We have seen strange things today</em>- This is a strange mixture, at first blush- glorifying God and yet being filled with fear instead of joy, describing the wonderful healing and forgiveness as "strange things". Why the barrier to joyful acceptance of the Lord's work? I suggest as noted on :22 that His offer of forgiveness demanded acceptance of it, and therefore repentance. And so they preferred to act bemused and confused, as many do to this day when faced with God's truth in Christ, preferring the search rather than the finding of the ultimate truth- that really we can be forgiven and faith rewarded in salvation and the ultimate healing of persons. On one hand, they knew it was all true, and "glorified God". But then their humanity kicked in. And we see this so often in folk today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after these things he went and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax office, and said to him: Follow me</em>- Matthew, according to Matthew's record. There is reason to believe that Matthew was himself a converted Scribe, who had perhaps turned away from it to being a tax collector; the way he has access to various versions of Scripture and quotes them as having been fulfilled in a way reminiscent of the Jewish commentaries (compare <em><a href='B:470 4:12-17'>Mat 4:12-17</a></em> with <em><a href='B:480 1:14-15'>Mar 1:14-15</a></em>) suggests this. Matthew's other name was Levi, strengthening the possibility he was once a Levitical scribe; for the scribes were drawn from the priests and Levites. The point is that in this case Matthew would be referring to himself when he writes: “Every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old” (<em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em>). Yet he does so in a beautifully oblique and selfless manner. The Scribes have just been mentioned in the previous incident, which apparently took place within sight of Matthew's desk (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>).</p><p>It's hard to grasp the degree to which tax collectors were despised and distrusted. We may at times think that we need to show our best front personally when preaching the Gospel, to display our credentials, in order to persuade others of our message. Matthew thought otherwise. He was quite open about who he had been when he was called. Human credentials do not ultimately persuade men and women of Christ- a degree in theology, knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, academic status, a stable career, an externally spotless family history. Rather do the Gospels show us that it is those from questionable backgrounds who are chosen by the Lord as His most effective messengers. The content of the message ultimately far outweighs the credibility of the messenger. And the same is seen today in the preaching of the Gospel:&nbsp;</p><p>It was whilst he was at work that he was called, just as the other disciples were called exactly whilst they were about their fishing business, and like Matthew, left all and "followed" the Lord. This is when the call of Christ comes to us- in the very midst of secular life, rather than resting at home looking at a screen.</p><p>"Follow me" means to share the same road with. And the road or way of Jesus led to Jerusalem, to the death of the cross, and then to life eternal. The word is used about 80 times in the Gospels. The call was to follow Jesus; the crowds followed, the disciples followed, but often the Lord tries to teach them the difference between merely externally following Him on the same public road, and following Him as He intends; which is to carry a cross and follow Him to Golgotha. We who follow Him in our life situations today are in essence continuing the following of Him which began in those early days in Galilee. But we likewise are challenged as to whether our following is mere membership of a denomination, or a personal following of Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he forsook all, and rose up and followed him</em>- Exactly as he had just observed the paralyzed man obediently arise and go where the Lord told him. It's as if Matthew saw himself in that paralyzed man. As the man was laying on the 'bed', so Matthew was sitting 'on' the receipt of custom, the elevated chair and desk (<em>epi</em>, translated "at", is better translated in this context "on"). The Lord spoke with "authority" in the eyes of the people- so that a man arose and followed Him. What gave Him this? Surely it was His lifestyle, who He was, the way there was no gap between His words and who He was. The word of the Gospel, the message, was made flesh in Him. There was a perfect congruence between His theory and His practice. The repeated amazement which people expressed at the Lord's teaching may not only refer to the actual content of His material; but more at the way in which He expressed it, the unique way in which word was made flesh in Him. The way the Lord could ask men to follow Him, and they arose and followed is surely testimony to the absolute, direct and unaccountable authority of Jesus. It was surely His very ordinariness which made Him so compelling.</p><p>The Lord valued persons for who they were, and this had radical results in practice. And yet He spoke with "authority" in the eyes of the people. What gave Him this? Surely it was His lifestyle, who He was, the way there was no gap between His words and who He was. The word of the Gospel, the message, was made flesh in Him. There was a perfect congruence between His theory and His practice. The repeated amazement which people expressed at the Lord's teaching may not only refer to the actual content of His material; but more at the way in which He expressed it, the unique way in which word was made flesh in Him. The way the Lord could ask men to follow Him, and they arose and followed (<em><a href='B:480 2:14'>Mar 2:14</a></em>), is surely testimony to the absolute, direct and unaccountable authority of Jesus. It was surely His very ordinariness which made Him so compelling. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And Levi made him a great feast in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and of others that were dining with them</em>- Clearly the associates of Matthew. They came and sat down with Jesus whilst He was eating. And He accepted them. Given the religious significance of eating together, note the Lord's open table:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And the Pharisees and their scribes murmured against his disciples, saying: Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 7:39'>Luk 7:39</a></em>. To eat together had a religious dimension; the Lord was seen as fellowshipping sinners at His table in a radically open manner, just as we should. To break your bread with someone, to eat together, was a religious act in Palestinian Jewish society. The Lord broke His bread with sinners in order to bring them to repentance; not because He considered they had cleared some kind of bar of moral and doctrinal acceptability. His table was open, radically so, and so should ours be.</p><p>The disciples were from very varied backgrounds; and <em><a href='B:490 5:30'>Luk 5:30</a></em> RVmg. describes how publicans and sinners had Pharisees and Scribes among them as they all sat at the same table gathered around Jesus. There was something in His person and teaching which welded people together:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answering said to them: They that are in health have no need of a doctor, but they that are sick</em>- "Doctor" is literally, a healer. The same word is used f how "by his stripes you were healed" (<em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>). All who will finally be saved have been healed by Jesus. Therefore "they that be whole" must be understood as meaning 'those who&nbsp;<em>think they are</em>&nbsp;whole'. The Lord's healing work was done by fellowshipping with those who realized their need for healing. He broke His bread with them first; He didn't heal them and then invite only the healed to His exclusive table. This breaking of bread with them was a 'calling to repentance' (:32). The many records of the Lord's physical healing were all intended to be acted parables of His healing of spiritual sickness</p><p>The Greek word for "in health" is usually translated with the sense of 'being able'. The Lord's work was with them who felt&nbsp;<em>unable</em>&nbsp;to be righteous, who felt that circumstance and past history had left them spiritually incapacitated. </p><p>Perception of need and spiritual helplessness is the vital prerequisite. The Lord healed "them that had need of healing" (<em><a href='B:490 9:11'>Luk 9:11</a></em>), those who perceived their need. The Lord uses the same word in speaking of how He doesn't go find and save those "which need no repentance" (<em><a href='B:490 15:11'>Luk 15:11</a></em>); again, an ellipsis must be read in: 'Those who&nbsp;<em>think they</em>&nbsp;need no repentance'. And again in <em><a href='B:730 3:17'>Rev 3:17</a></em> - the Laodiceans thought that they "had need of nothing". This, therefore, was a major concern of the Lord- that we cease to perceive our need for Him. The attitude that 'I have no need:::' is picked up by Paul in <em><a href='B:530 12:21'>1Co 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>, where he warns against thinking that we have no need of weaker members of the body of Christ. Our need for Christ personally is to be reflected in practice in our need for association with His body, however weak we feel it to be. God supplies all our need in Christ (<em><a href='B:570 4:19'>Phi 4:19</a></em>), but that supplying of our need is not solely in the death of Christ for us, but in the body of Christ:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance</em>- He was implying, ‘I came not to call those who believe they are righteous’. But Jesus spoke to them on their own terms, even though, technically, He was using language which was untrue. See on <em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em>:&nbsp;The Lord is referring to the wicked Pharisees here as “the righteous… they that are whole”. Yet they were not righteous. He was speaking of them according to how they saw themselves.</p><p>It was the disciples who had only recently been 'called'- because they considered themselves sinners, the sick who needed a doctor:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Consider how the Lord asks Zacchaeus to eat with Him- a public sign of religious fellowship in first century Palestine. This acceptance of the man for who and where he was, inspired Zacchaeus to then start changing his life in practice- he then offered to give back what he had stolen. When quizzed as to why He ate / fellowshipped with sinners, the Lord replied that He had come to call sinners to repentance. Think through the implications of this. He fellowshipped with those who were so weak within the ecclesia of Israel so as to bring them to repentance; His eating with them was like a doctor making a home visit. The religious attitude of the Pharisees was that one only fellowshipped someone who was repentant; whereas the Lord said that He fellowshipped with people to bring them to repentance. Note how in <em><a href='B:490 19:1-10'>Luk 19:1-10</a></em>, the Lord offered salvation to sinners <em>before</em> they had repented. It’s the same idea. </p><p>The fellowship of the Lord Jesus was a call towards repentance, not a reward for it. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>; John baptized people&nbsp;<em>unto</em>&nbsp;repentance. The methods of the Lord should be ours, for having spent His ministry doing this, He transferred it to us in bidding us likewise go worldwide and call others to repentance (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And they said to him: The disciples of John fast often and make supplications, likewise also the disciples of the Pharisees; but your disciples eat and drink</em>- Was this also in Capernaum? If so, we note that John's influence had spread as far north as Galilee. In any case, the impression is given of wave after wave of questioning, activity, controversy. It would've all been so mentally draining of the Lord's spirituality and emotions.</p><p>The implication was that they didn't even fast at the Day of Atonement, the one Biblical command for fasting. The Lord's disciples were mostly secular men whom He was trying to turn into spiritual people. And this continues to be the thrust of His work with people. The focus of our preaching should likewise be on getting unspiritual, secular people to believe, rather than focusing on trying to persuade those who already believe in Him to change their understandings of some points. I don't say we shouldn't do this, but far more will be achieved to His glory by bringing unbelievers to faith, rather than correcting misbelievers. Another reason why John's disciples thought the Lord's men didn't fast could have been because they took seriously His command to not appear to others to fast. And John's disciples proclaiming their fasting meant they were overlooking the Lord's clear teaching&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to do this in the Sermon on the Mount. But in His gracious way, the Lord didn't point out the obvious&nbsp;<em>faux pas</em>&nbsp;in their reasoning. He could've said 'John told you to obey Me. I teach not to proclaim your own fasting. Why aren't you obedient to My teaching?'. But instead He reasoned with them on their own ground. And again, we see a pattern for our engagement with others- not to always baldly confront misunderstanding and reduce it to a right / wrong, black and white issue, but to lead the person further by accepting for a moment that their faulty assumptions are true; for they are true to the person who holds them, and the Lord recognized that.</p><p>We also see the Lord's gentle grace in teaching His disciples how to fast, acting as if they were not fasting; when actually they never fasted at all until that point. He wanted them to continue showing themselves to be secular men, who really believed in Jesus. This had been exactly His approach until age 30, to manifest God's perfection through the shroud of ordinariness.</p><p>The Lord defended the non-observant Judaism of the twelve as being due to their joy that He, the bridegroom, was with them. When they ‘ground corn’ on the Sabbath, the Lord defended them to their critics by saying that they were like David’s men eating the shewbread. Those guys were just walking through a cornfield rubbing ears together as their manner was, as they had done on many a Sabbath day, but not realizing that this time there was some Scribe out with his binocular vision scrutinizing them. They surely weren’t doing it because their minds were on the incident of David’s men eating the shewbread. The Lord had asked them to obey the Scribes, who sat in Moses’ seat, over this kind of trivia. But He doesn’t rebuke them. Rather, He defends them to others, imputing far more spiritual perception to them than they had (<em><a href='B:490 6:1-4'>Luk 6:1-4</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to them: Can you make the wedding guests fast, while the bridegroom is with them?</em>- He spoke of how that band of rough, mixed up men were filled with the joy of little bridesmaids because He was among them. Now this is an essay in imputed righteousness. The Lord saw the zeal of the uncertain, misunderstanding disciples as storm troopers taking the city of the Kingdom of God by force- knowing exactly where they were coming from and where they were going (<em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em>). And even after reprimanding them for their slowness of heart to believe, the record graciously says that they “believed not for joy”- although joy can never hinder faith. </p><p>John had likened himself to the Lord's best man at a forthcoming wedding. The Lord phrases his reply to John's disciples in terms they would've understood- a pattern for us to follow in our response to people. Note too that the Lord's answer implied that His wedding was about to happen. He hoped against hope that Israel would respond, and the Messianic banquet would be soon. But in His later parables, He spoke of how even the guests couldn't be bothered to attend it; it was delayed until human response was suitable. But His hopefulness for human response is again a pattern for us, to have a hopeful attitude in our witness.</p><p>The joy of the bridegroom's friends is a sharing of the groom's joy. John's Gospel records this truth in a different way when speaking of how the Lord's joy is to be our joy (<em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em>); at His return, we will enter into His joy (<em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>). We note again how the Lord phrased His response to John's disciples in terms they would best relate to- for John had said that his joy was complete, because he was 'the friend of the bridegroom' (<em><a href='B:500 3:29'>Joh 3:29</a></em>). The Lord is saying that His disciples are also friends of the bridegroom- He is seeking to persuade John's disciples that actually His disciples are the same as they are, notwithstanding differences in spiritual culture, in that they are related to Jesus in the same way, as friends of the groom. The Lord was always very positive about His followers. He explained their lack of fasting on their joy at the forthcoming Messianic banquet, when in reality their lack of fasting was because they were secular, non-religious people. The Lord wasn’t naïve, although He was so positive. He told the disciples quite frankly that they were full of “unbelief”, and couldn’t do miracles which He expected them to because they didn’t pray and fast (<em><a href='B:470 17:19-21'>Mat 17:19-21</a></em>). And yet when quizzed by the Pharisees as to why His disciples didn’t fast, He said it was because they were so happy to be with Him, the bridegroom. Here surely He was seeing the best in them. They come over as confused, mixed up men who wanted the Kingdom there and then and were frustrated at the Lord’s inaction in establishing it. But He saw that they recognised Him as the bridegroom, as Messiah, and He exalted in this, and saw their lack of fasting as partly due to the deep-down joy which He knew they had.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the days will come- </em>Not necessarily plural- s:w. "the day" (<em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:15'>Mat 10:15</a></em>), "that day" (<em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em>).</p><p><em>When the bridegroom shall be taken away from them; then will they fast, in those days</em>- The Gk:&nbsp;<em>apairo</em>&nbsp;["taken away"] is a form of the Greek&nbsp;<em>pairo</em>&nbsp;which has just been used in <em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em> ("<em>take up</em>&nbsp;your bed") and which is now used in the next verse about the new cloth 'taking from' the old garment (<em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em>). What exactly the connection of thought might be is hard to say. But clearly the 'taking of Jesus from' the disciples was to be at the same time as when the new wine and new cloth were available, which would 'take from' the old cloth in destroying it. This time was surely the death of the Lord Jesus, at which the new wine of His blood confirmed the new covenant and thus ended the old. It was then of course that the disciples mourned (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 16:10'>Mar 16:10</a></em> "they&nbsp;<em>mourned</em>&nbsp;and wept"); and the same Greek word for 'taken from' occurs in <em><a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a></em> where the Jews cry "Away with Him!"- to the cross; in <em><a href='B:500 19:31'>Joh 19:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em> where the body of Jesus is 'taken from' the cross and in <em><a href='B:510 8:33'>Act 8:33</a></em> "His life is&nbsp;<em>taken from</em>&nbsp;the earth". Significantly, <em><a href='B:580 2:14'>Col 2:14</a></em> uses the word to describe how on the cross, Christ 'took away' the old covenant. This is the idea of its usage in <em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em>, that the new wine and new garment would 'take from / away' the old. And it was achieved by the 'taking away' of Jesus at the cross. Through the grace of Jesus, He is in love with us; He has called us to be His bride. He sees us in an extremely positive light. He counts us as righteous to a degree that is a real struggle to believe- even during His ministry, "when we were yet sinners", and when the only example He had of His bride were those faltering 12. He tells the Jews that&nbsp; His people will fast and mourn for His absence after His departure, with the intensity that the friends of the bridegroom would have if the groom suddenly collapsed and died at the wedding (this seems to be the picture of <em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em>, seeing "taken away" as an idiom for sudden death). This is surely a positive view of the sorrow of the body of Christ for their Lord's absence. Even if we see in this mini-parable only a description of the disciples' sorrow after the&nbsp;Lord's death, He is giving a very positive description of the disciples' joy, saying that they didn't fast for joy of being with Him; He describes their joy as the joy of the friends of the groom at the wedding. Yet the Gospels paint the twelve as a struggling, uncertain group of men, eaten up with the petty arguments of this life, unused to the self-control of fasting. Peter, for example, had until very recently been a possibly immoral young fisherman (<em><a href='B:670 4:3'>1Pe 4:3</a></em>):&nbsp;The happiness of the disciples is explained in terms of them being at a wedding. The appiness of the wedding is normally associated with alcohol, and the context here goes on to explain that Christ's new covenant is symbolised by new wine. The difference between John's disciples and Christ's was that Christ's were full of the joy of the new covenant. But there is ample reason to think that they were heavily influenced by Judaist thinking; they didn't go and preach to the Gentile world as Christ commanded, and even Peter was marvellously slow to realize the Jewish food laws had been ended by Christ, despite the Lord's strong implication of this in <em><a href='B:480 7:19'>Mar 7:19</a></em> (not AV). Yet the grace of Jesus saw His men&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they had grasped the meaning of the new covenant,&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they had the joy of true faith in and understanding of His work; and He spoke of them to the world in these terms. We can take untold comfort from this; for we dare to believe that the Lord does and will confess our name (character) in a like exalted manner to the Father and His Angels.</p><p>There seems to be the idea that fasting was somehow part of the Mosaic system that we have now left behind. Yet the Sermon on the Mount clearly implies that the Lord saw fasting as part of the path of discipleship (<em><a href='B:470 6:16-18'>Mat 6:16-18</a></em>). And there are many examples of fasting in the Old Testament that are quite unconnected with obedience to the Law. When the bridegroom is away, then we will fast [by implication, for His return]. Try it, that's all I can say. Just start by going without some meals. Use the time and the natural desire to eat to increase the poignancy of the special requests you are making. <em><a href='B:290 58:4'>Isa 58:4</a></em> RV says that fasting makes “your voice to be heard on high”. Yet the essence of fasting is to take us out of our comfort zone. We human beings have a great tendency to form habits in order to create or keep us within the comfort zone. Yet truly creative thinking and action, not to say true obedience to the call of Christ, all occur outside of the comfort zone. Fasting is only one of many ways to go outside of it. Take a different route home from work; describe your faith to yourself in terms and language you wouldn't usually use. Pray at different times, bring before the Lord the most banal things you usually wouldn't dream of talking with Him about.</p><p>Time and again, the Lord uses language about the restoration from exile and applies it to Himself. Thus fasting was common amongst Palestinian Jews of His time, and it was involved with mourning the destruction of the temple and Judah's submission to Rome. And yet the Lord pronounced that the days of fasting were over, and His people were to be feasting because of His work. But He brought no freedom from Rome, and spoke of the principles of the Messianic Kingdom as being non-resistance to evil rather than military resistance to it. He spoke of Yahweh as 'visiting' His people- but not to save them as they expected, but rather to judge them, with Messiah on His behalf at the head of the Roman armies who would come to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. And thus Jesus deeply disappointed people who didn't want to change their self-centred, nationalistic outlook- those who didn't want to see things spiritually rather than naturally, those who refused to accept the extent of Israel's sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke also a parable to them: No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it upon an old garment, else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not agree with the old</em>- The same phrase for "old garment" is used to describe the Mosaic system in <em><a href='B:650 1:11'>Heb 1:11</a></em>. The stress may be on "a&nbsp;<em>piece</em>". Taking parts of Christ's teachings like fasting was the temptation being given in to by John's disciples. The torn old garment had to be thrown away and the new one totally accepted and publicly worn. The Greek for "new" is not the same as in "new wine" in :37. Here the word means not dressed, not worked by a dressmaker. The only other time the related word occurs is in <em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em> concerning the clothes of Jesus not having been worked by a dressmaker (AV "fuller"). The Lord Jesus presents Himself here as raw, fresh, unworked to suite the appearance of men:&nbsp;</p><p>To get a piece out of a new garment, that new garment would be spoiled; and the old one likewise would be rent further (Mt:, Mk:). "New"&nbsp;cloth refers to cloth which hasn't yet been washed; on first washing of the new garment, it would shrink, and thus make a tear. The tragic waste envisioned here is like the new wine running away on the ground from the burst old bottles. Likewise the old wine skins would've had to have the old wine poured out from them to have this new wine put into them. Mixing the old life and the new covenant, a bit of the one here and a bit of the other there, results in this tragic wastage all around. The parables make it seem so obvious that this isn't the way to go; but in reality, we find it hard to be so complete in our devotion to the new covenant.</p><p>Jesus told this parable in the context of His eating with sinners- clothing and wine were part of the 'eating out' scene; He took whatever was around Him and made spiritual lessons out of it. To get a piece out of a new garment, that new garment would be spoiled; and the old one likewise would be rent further (Mt:, Mk:). "New"&nbsp;cloth refers to cloth which hasn't yet been washed; on first washing of the new garment, it would shrink, and thus make a tear. The tragic waste envisioned here is like the new wine running away on the ground from the burst old bottles. Likewise the old wine skins would've had to have the old wine poured out from them to have this new wine put into them. Mixing the old life and the new covenant, a bit of the one here and a bit of the other there, results in this tragic wastage all around. The parables make it seem so obvious that this isn't the way to go; but in reality, we find it hard to be so complete in our devotion to the new covenant. </p><p>The unrent garment is that of Christ- the same Greek words are used about the fact that His garment was not rent at His death (<em><a href='B:500 19:24'>Joh 19:24</a></em>). Division both within ourselves and within the community is caused by partial response to the new covenant; mixing grace with legalism; it is a rending of Christ's garment, cutting out just a part of it and mixing it with the old way. An old garment that is torn can't be mended by anything new- it must be thrown out and a new garment accepted. The Mosaic system is described as an old garment in <em><a href='B:650 1:11'>Heb 1:11</a></em>; it "shall perish" uses the same Greek word as in <em><a href='B:490 5:37'>Luk 5:37</a></em>, where the bottles "perish". The new garment of Christ is unrent. We are each clothed with the white garment of Christ's imputed righteousness (<em><a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>); by dividing with each other we are seeking to rend and thereby destroy that covering. "New" translates a different Greek word than that which in the parallel <em><a href='B:470 9:16'>Mat 9:16</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 2:21'>Mar 2:21</a></em> is translated "new". The word there means something which has not been carded. "<em>Agnaphos</em> is a combination of the negative article <em>a</em>, with <em>knapto</em>, meaning, "to card":&nbsp; It is sometimes translated undressed, uncombed or, as above, unfinished, and refers to wool or cotton cloth that has not been carded or combed so that the fibers are aligned, giving it both strength and a smoother, more finished appearance":&nbsp; This suggests that the New Covenant is an unfinished work, God's work in us is ongoing and may take apparently unstable turns and changes- e:g. prophecy is often conditional, the intended timing of Christ's return has and may yet still change, dependent upon factors like the freewill repentance of Israel; God may plan one line of possibility for someone or a whole nation, e:g. Nineveh or Israel at the time of Moses- but change His stated intention in response to human prayer and repentance. This open-ended approach simply can't be squared with the "old" set-in-stone approach of the Old Covenant. The same message is taught by the next parable- <em>new</em> wineskins are required, because the New Covenant wine is fermenting, they need to be soft and flexible enough to change; if they are old and set, they will burst because of the movement and dynamism of the new wine. The wine of the Lord Jesus is therefore not about tradition, about a set pattern; but is rather a call to constant change and evolution. Yet paradoxically, religious people become set in their ways more than any, and seek stability in those traditions; whereas the activity of the Lord Jesus is the very opposite. </p><p>Old and new covenants cannot overlap. The encounter with Christ means that ultimately there can be no brinkmanship in remaining partly with the old way, be it the Mosaic way of legalism or the way of secular modern life, and partly in the Lord's way. There will only be a painful and messy division in the end.</p>


text:
<p><em>And no one puts new wine into old wine-skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilt, and the skins will perish</em>- The new wine is a clear reference to Christ's blood of the new covenant.</p><p>Wine skins were made of goat skin. The goats speak of the rejected, the sinners, in the parable of the sheep and goats. The wine skins may therefore speak of our flesh of sin. It's no sin to be a human being and have human flesh, but because of the nature of the new wine, we must become wholly new- or we will be destroyed. The new wine fermented powerfully- similar to the Lord describing His Gospel as yeast which works through flour (<em><a href='B:490 13:21'>Luk 13:21</a></em>). The new covenant will work powerfully in us if we let it, and our skins, the life structure we have, must be prepared to accept that. Each wineskin expanded slightly differently in response to the fermenting of the new wine poured into it; no two wineskins expanded to an identical shape or form. We too will individually and uniquely respond to the new wine. </p><p>The skins will be "burst", Gk. to shatter, divide. The context is of John's disciples uniting with the Pharisees against the disciples of Jesus. He's saying that if His new wine is not totally accepted, if it is mixed with the old, then lives will be destroyed through further schism. The only basis for avoiding schism is a total acceptance by all parties of the blood of the new covenant:&nbsp;</p><p>"Spilt" is the same word used in <em><a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a></em> about the blood of the new covenant being "shed". We can crucify Christ afresh (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>), His death can be "in vain" for us (<em><a href='B:550 2:21'>Gal 2:21</a></em>)- if we refuse to respond and be renewed, or trust in our own works:&nbsp; Especially significant is the reference in <em><a href='B:470 26:28'>Mat 26:28</a></em> to Christ's blood of the&nbsp;<em>new</em>&nbsp;covenant being "shed". Failed spiritual life, the life which only partially accepts the new wine of Christ but refuses to change, refusing to be new containers for it, results in the blood of Christ being as it were shed, the blood of Calvary wasted in the dust, and Christ crucified afresh by our apostasy (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>). This is the final tragedy of refusing to change upon receipt of the new wine.</p>


text:
<p><em>But new wine must be put into fresh wine-skins</em>- AV adds "and both are preserved", Gk. preserved from loss / ruin. There is a very real sense of loss to Jesus if His blood (the new wine) is as it were poured out in vain. There will be tragic loss both to Him and to the person who refuses to be wholly renewed. The word is used of the final destruction in condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:15'>Joh 3:15</a></em>). The lives of the untransformed recipients of the new wine are shattered ("break") and then finally they are destroyed in final condemnation:&nbsp;The loss is not only to the untransformed person. There is also a loss and damage to the new wine, the Lord Jesus. He is not undamaged by the loss of any of His people. Their failure is His re-crucifixion, the pouring out again of His blood, but in vain. All this signals the danger of not being totally transformed after having received the Truth. Interestingly, a form of the Greek&nbsp;<em>suntereo</em>&nbsp;["preserved"] is used in <em><a href='B:500 2:10'>Joh 2:10</a></em>, where it is noted that the Lord Jesus&nbsp;<em>kept</em>&nbsp;[Gk:&nbsp;<em>tereo</em>] the best wine:&nbsp;<em>Tereo</em>&nbsp;is frequently on the lips of the Lord in John's Gospel (and is widely used by John in his letters), in the context of 'keeping' His word. But this is done by totally surrendering human life to be a vessel totally devoted to the new wine we have received, rather than steel willed, nail-biting, white-knuckled struggle for obedience to specific laws.</p>


text:
<p><em>And no one having drunk old wine immediately then desires new wine; for he says: The old is good</em>- The Lord here recognizes the basic conservatism of human nature; even those who consider themselves "liberal" are often only so in comparison to others, in relative terms- we are all in fact basically conservative. We stick with what we know and don't easily go outside our comfort zone of the old and familiar. We all find change hard; new wineskins are able to be stretched. He was perhaps, in the context, making some apology for John's disciples, who still couldn't fully allow themselves to be filled with the new covenant wine. The Gospel of Jesus is all about change and being stretched; and He recognizes that we find this so very difficult. People do not immediately / quickly respond to the new wine of the new covenant because, the Lord piercingly observed, they think the old was better (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). He perceived, with His amazing penetration of the human psyche, that there is a conservatism deep within us all that militates against the immediate response to Him and the new wine of His blood / sacrifice which He so seeks. Yet once we have made this immediate response in a few things, it becomes easier to get into an upward spiral of response to Him. We become truly a new creation in Him, breaking constantly with factor after factor in our past, which has previously defined us as persons. Quite simply, we become new persons, with all the rejection of the ‘old’ ways which this requires.</p><h4>The parable of the sower shows how the Lord foresaw that the majority who responded to His word would not hold on; He knew that men would not immediately appreciate the blood of His cross, but would prefer the old wine of the old covenant (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). He saw that our spiritual growth would be an agonizingly slow business; as slow as a tiny mustard seed growing into a tree, as slow as a man digging a foundation in rock, or a seed growing and bringing forth fruit. Such growth is <em>very</em> slow <em>from a human perspective</em>. &nbsp;</h4><p>The parable of the wine exactly predicted the attitude of people to Christ's work in taking the Old Covenant out of the way. The Lord is surely saying: 'I know you won't immediately want the blood of my new covenant. I understandyour nature, by nature you'll prefer what you are familiar with, the Old Covenant; you won't "straightway" desire the new wine, but (by implication) you will, after a while' (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). He foresaw how the implication of the blood of His sacrifice wouldn't be accepted by His people first of all. It would be a process, of coming to accept how radical the gift of His blood Is. As we weekly take the cup of His covenant, we come to see more and more the excellency of that blood, and its supremacy over all else. Christ recognized that conservatism in human nature which will naturally shy away from the marvellous implications of what He achieved for us. And true enough, whenever we talk about the present aspect of the Kingdom of God, our present blessings of redemption in Christ, the sense in which we have already been saved:::there is a desire to shy away from it all:&nbsp; And true enough, the early Christian believers desperately clung on to the Mosaic food laws, circumcision and synagogue attendance as far as they could; the command to witness to the Gentiles was likewise not taken seriously for some time. It must have been painful for the Lord to know this and to see it, recognizing in it a lack of appreciation of His life and final sacrifice, a desire to reconcile with God without totally committing oneself to His work. He saw the possibility of His blood being wasted if men didn't change from old to new wineskins. The slowness of the changeover in attitudes amongst the early believers must have been a great pain to Him; as if His blood was being poured out again. The implication is that we shed His blood afresh if we won't change, if we allow the conservatism of our natures to have an iron grip upon us we not only destroy ourselves, but waste the blood of the Son of God. The picture of the new wine being "spilled" uses the same word as in <em><a href='B:470 26:28'>Mat 26:28</a></em> concerning the 'shedding' of Christ's blood. Again, how utterly, painfully accurate. This is the danger of the conservatism that is in our natures; it was this which led men to shed the Lord's blood, and it is this same element within us which He foresaw would lead us to crucify Him afresh. How many times has this conservatism been mistaken as true spirituality! How careful we must be, therefore, not to adopt any attitude which glorifies that conservatism and masks it as the hallmark of a stable believer. The sensitivity of Jesus to the value of the human person was the very opposite of this. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now it came to pass on a Sabbath that he was going through the grain fields- </em>The very poor were allowed to do this by the Law (<em><a href='B:30 19:9'>Lev 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:24-25'>Deu 23:24-25</a></em>), and so we see in this a picture of the deep poverty of the Lord’s followers; He later parallels the urgent hunger of David’s men at the time of 1 Samuel 21 with that of His followers. It would seem that He Himself did not make use of the concession, because the criticism was focused upon His disciples rather than Himself. W:D. Davies lists evidence that Judaism forbad fasting on the Sabbath (Jubilees (W:D. Davies&nbsp;<em>Matthew&nbsp;</em>p. 312 (<em>op cit.</em>)). In this case, the record is showing how the legalism of the time would’ve condemned the disciples- and the poor generally- either way: for fasting on the Sabbath, or for ‘threshing’ on the Sabbath to get food so as not to fast. The Lord therefore takes the whole argument to a level far above such petty legalism:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And his disciples plucked the ears and ate, rubbing them in their hands</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 26:11'>Mat 26:11</a></em>. The only point in mentioning this would presumably be because the Pharisees came and stopped them. This shows how closely the Lord and His men were under the critical eyes of others, even from a distance.</p>


text:
<p><em>But certain of the Pharisees said: Why do you do what is unlawful on the Sabbath day?</em>- A constant concern with the Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 19:3'>Mat 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:17'>Mat 22:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:6'>Mat 27:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:10'>Joh 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:31'>Joh 18:31</a></em>). The Lord's attitude here was to show that the Old Testament itself envisaged situations where true spirituality was above law. The parable of <em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em> brings the point home- the generous employer justified his pouring out of grace, giving the weak and lazy the same penny a day as the hard workers, on the basis that 'It is lawful for me to do what I wish'.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answered them, saying: Have you not read- </em>Of course they had, many times. But the Lord here and several times elsewhere challenges them (and us) as to whether we have really read what we have. The Lord could have legitimately answered them: ‘It is lawful to pick corn whilst passing through a field, the Law allows for this if one is poor, and my followers are indeed poor. There is nothing in the Law which stipulates this permission doesn’t operate on the Sabbath’. But as always, the Lord was prepared to meet people where they were, and to take them to a higher level. He seeks to teach by general principle that the extent of His Lordship meant that He and His men were free to do as they pleased on this kind of matter. He reasoned that ‘OK, let’s assume you’re right, but David and&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;men broke the law because they were about God’s business, this over-rode the need for technical obedience’. The Lord Jesus wasn’t constantly correcting specific errors of interpretation. He dealt in principles much larger than this, in order to make a more essential, practical, useful point.</p><p><em>What David did when he was hungry, he and they that were with him?</em>- The Lord’s reasoning depends upon drawing a parallel between Himself and David, and David’s warriors and the disciples. Again, He is encouraging them to see themselves as no less than the warriors of David who later became the governors of Israel. Aaron’s sons were the ones who were intended to eat the showbread (<em><a href='B:30 24:5-9'>Lev 24:5-9</a></em>)- and again the Lord is inviting His secular disciples to see themselves as a new priesthood.</p>


text:
<p><em>How he entered the house of God- </em>For non-Levites to enter the Sanctuary was also not 'lawful', quite apart from eating the bread which only the priests could lawfully eat. This prepares the way for the Lord's later parable about God urging unclean street people to 'enter [His] house' because Israel had rejected the invitation (the same words are used-<em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em>). The psychological magnitude of the Lord's new system of thinking is hard to appreciate. Non-Levites could now enter it- and even the worst of the Gentiles. But the magnitude of the new thinking in Christ for anyone, not least secular people of the 21st Century, is no less.</p><p><em>And took and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?</em>- The Lord defended the non-observant Judaism of the twelve as being due to their joy that He, the bridegroom, was with them (<em><a href='B:490 5:33-34'>Luk 5:33-34</a></em>). When they ‘ground corn’ on the Sabbath, the Lord defended them to their critics by saying that they were like David’s men eating the showbread. Those guys were just walking through a cornfield rubbing ears together as their manner was, as they had done on many a Sabbath day, but not realizing that this time there was some Scribe out with his binocular vision scrutinizing them. They surely weren’t doing it because their minds were on the incident of David’s men eating the showbread. The Lord had asked them to obey the Scribes, who sat in Moses’ seat, over this kind of trivia. But He doesn’t rebuke them. Rather, He defends them to others, imputing far more spiritual perception to them than they had. &nbsp;</p><p>"Gave it to those with him" recalls how the Lord blessed the bread and gave it to those with <em>Him</em>. He was turning the ordinary bread of the people into the shewbread of the sanctuary. Clearly the Lord is suggesting that His ragtag crowd of disciples and questionable ministering women were the new priesthood of a new Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: The Son of Man is lord- </em>Here as elsewhere we see the juxtaposition of the Lord's humanity and His Lordship. His exaltation is precisely because He was human; He has authority to judge us because He was Son of man (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>). The Lordship of Jesus was predicated upon His obedience to death and exaltation (<em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>), and yet Jesus was calmly confident that this would be achieved by Him; to the point that He could reason that He already was "Lord" and thereby able to abrogate the Sabbath and act as the ultimate temple.</p><p><em>Of the Sabbath</em>- The “of” is supplied as guesswork by the translators; it could equally be left unsupplied, giving the sense of “the Lord the Sabbath”; or, “Lord&nbsp;<em>on</em>&nbsp;the Sabbath”. Mark adds that the Lord went on to teach that God's law was made for man, rather than man being built in such a way as to easily fit in with God's word (<em><a href='B:480 2:27'>Mar 2:27</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass on another Sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered</em>- The point is that the Lord was&nbsp;<em>outside</em>&nbsp;the synagogue when He had recently declared that the "place" where He was then standing, in or near a cornfield, was holy ground; see on <em><a href='B:470 12:6'>Mat 12:6</a></em>. It was "their" synagogue, just as the temple was "the temple of the Jews", and the feasts of Yahweh had been hijacked to become "the feast of the Jews". It's typical of Luke as a doctor to mention the medical details. God's Spirit worked through the natural perceptions and personalities of those who were inspired, and achieves a similar synthesis in working with us today. His right hand suggests his own strength and ability to act was withered:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And the scribes and Pharisees watched him closely, whether he would heal on the Sabbath, that they might find an accusation against him</em>- A legal term. They wanted to get Jesus in court over this issue. But there’s no evidence they actually did, and there was no recorded mention of Sabbath breaking in His final trial- so well and profoundly did He answer them. Their false accusation of Him was especially seen at His trials. Pilate’s question to them “What accusation do you bring against this man?” (<em><a href='B:500 18:29'>Joh 18:29</a></em>) shows the Jews as the ultimate false accusers of God’s Son. For it was because of their playing the ultimate role of the Devil, the false accuser, that the Son of God was slain. No wonder the ideas of ‘Devil’ and ‘Satan’ are often associated with the Jewish system’s opposition of Christ and His people. The same Greek word for ‘accuser’ is five times used about Jewish false accusation of Paul in an attempt to hinder His work for Christ (<em><a href='B:510 23:30'>Act 23:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:35'>Act 23:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 24:8'>Act 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 25:16'>Act 25:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 25:18'>Act 25:18</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>But he knew their thoughts- </em>The Lord's ability to read minds and motives (<em><a href='B:490 5:22'>Luk 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:25'>Joh 2:25</a></em>) was partly given by the Spirit, but also an outcome of His own extreme sensitivity to humanity, and also His undoubted intellectual ability as God's Son. He was far ahead of all depth psychologists of later generations. I will suggest later regarding the triumphal entry that the Lord set up all the circumstances surrounding His death and apparent 'capture' by the Jews and betrayal by Judas; He therefore knew exactly the events which would follow, as the chess grandmaster foresees the game in advance. <em><a href='B:730 2:23'>Rev 2:23</a></em> states that the Lord to this day has this ability, even more enhanced by His Divine nature</p><p><em>And he said to the man that had his hand withered: Rise up and stand in the midst. And he arose and stood</em>- The Lord's miracles were performed for a range of reasons, quite apart from basic sympathy with the sick. He often used them to teach lessons to the onlookers; and this explains the way He asked the man to cooperate in public display.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to them: I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do harm? To save a life, or to destroy it?</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 9:54-55'>Luk 9:54-55</a></em>. The Lord said that to refrain from saving a man when it was in your power to do so was effectively “to do evil… to destroy” (<em><a href='B:490 6:9'>Luk 6:9</a></em> AV). This is how the Lord looks at our laziness and passivity- as active wrongdoing. Sins of omission are probably our greatest temptation. </p><p>Mark records that He developed this point- if He had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;performed the miracle, He would have been actively committing “evil”, even ‘killing’. When the Lord taught that it was right to break the Sabbath because they were in the business of saving life (<em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em>), His words were purposefully alluding to how the Maccabees had pronounced that it was acceptable for Jewish soldiers to break the Sabbath in time of war, in order to save lives through their fighting (<em>1Ma_2:32</em>). He intended His people to live as active soldiers on duty, at war in order to save the lives of God’s people. Indeed, so frequently, the whole language of the future judgment is applied to us right here and now. We are living out our judgment now; we are standing as it were before the final judgment seat, and receiving our judgment for how we act, speak and feel and are. Thus if He had omitted to heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath, this would have been 'doing evil' and even 'killing' (<em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em>). That's how seriously He took omitting to do good when it's in our power to do it. He had a choice of saving life or destroying life, were He to prefer to keep the Sabbath laws above the need for preserving life. Clearly He saw failing to act to save life as tantamount to destroying life. We must give our Lord's words their due weight here in our decision making. To not act to save life, to excuse ourselves for whatever reason, is effectively destroying life, or, as Mark's record puts it, “to kill" (<em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:9'>Luk 6:9</a></em>). We can't therefore be passive in this matter. The context of the Lord's statement was in response to questions about whether something was "lawful" or not; it was the age old question, 'Is it is a sin to do X, Y or Z?'. His answer was as ever in terms of a principle- that our guiding principle must be the saving and healing and preservation of human life. The attitude of the Pharisees was that the Lord was infringing a letter of the law and therefore was guilty of death. They murdered Him on the Sabbath days; and thus they chose to destroy life rather than save it. The word for “to kill" in <em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em> is so often used in the Gospels about the killing of Jesus. They failed to take His exhortation. The crucifixion of God's Son was thus a result of legalism; it was because of His attitude to the man with the withered hand that the Pharisees first plotted to kill Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 6:11'>Luk 6:11</a></em>). Whatever our individual conscience, let us not "be filled with madness" as the Pharisees were at the fact the Lord approached human behaviour in terms of principles, rather than reducing everything to a common right / wrong scenario. The principle is clearly the saving and preservation and enriching of others' lives. Surely we should each allow each other to articulate this fundamental issue as we each have occasion to do so:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he looked round about on them all, and then said to him- </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. </p><p><em>Stretch out your hand. And he did so, and his hand was restored</em>- Matthew uses the same word to describe how the Lord Himself stretched forth&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;hand in order to heal, save and welcome (<em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:49'>Mat 12:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>). Again we are encouraged to perceive a sense of mutuality between the Lord and His people:&nbsp;According to the textus receptus, his hand was restored whole as the other. This detail is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is another touch of the eye witness- the man would've held out both his hands and everyone would've looked from the one to the other, observing they now looked so similar:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But they were filled with rage, and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus</em>-&nbsp;Here we see the common human feature of doing evil in response to the experience of grace. Even amongst believers, and even at judgment day, there is the possibility of the eye becoming evil because of Hisgoodness and grace to others (<em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>). We see the principle in both secular and church life. Grace shown to others can elicit the worst evil from religious people. We shouldn't be surprised at this phenomenon; but it is the very surprise at encountering it which causes so many to become disillusioned with the church and ultimately with the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass in these days that he went out into the mountain to pray; and he continued all night in prayer to God</em>- Luke alone records the all night prayer. How long have you ever prayed for at one time? Luke as a doctor was struck by the psychological intensity of the Lord in maintaining such lengthy contact with God Almighty. He presumably was praying for wisdom and blessing in this matter of ordaining the twelve, probably with special attention to the issue of calling Judas.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when it was day, he called his disciples- </em>He was in the mountain, so He called them up into the mountain, and they came down the mountain with Him (:17). In the same way as Moses was called up into the mount to receive his Divine commission, so the Lord Jesus called up to the mount His disciples- implying that they, who represent all of us, were now a new Moses. Moses was thus an example that challenged those from a Jewish background especially. He was no longer to be gazed at with incomprehension as to his greatness and intimacy with God; he was to become the realistic pattern for all followers of the Lord Jesus, who would meaningfully emulate His closeness to God.</p><p><em>And he chose from them twelve, whom also he named apostles</em>- Whoever is sent forth is apostled, and the great commission sends forth all believers. This is not the same incident as the sending forth of the twelve in Matthew 10. But we see how there were various tiers; the crowds, His disciples, the twelve supported by the ministering women; and within them, an inner core of Peter, James and John, with Peter set up as the leader. This kind of hierarchy of leadership was found in the Old Testament too, and is not inappropriate today, if managed with humility and servant-leadership as the dominant spirit. For total equality of role is just unworkable amongst any group of people, and attempts to enforce it often leave Christian communities without the leadership which people need, and the group becomes rudderless.</p>


text:
<h4><em>Simon, whom he also named Peter- </em>Simon was anything but rock-like, but the Lord named him Peter, 'rocky'. He perceived the ultimate stability in Peter's faith, despite all the ups and downs he had. And He sees to the core of each of us too. Peter is always listed first in the lists of apostles, and was the one chosen to be the rock of the early church. But the Lord chose the one who seemed most inappropriate for that work. And so is again exhibited a major theme in the Lord's work amongst men and women like us, that the most inappropriate are often chosen for the job. For the Lord's power is made manifest through our inadequacy. </h4><p><em>And Andrew his brother, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew</em>- Apparently the same as Nathanael, also mentioned with Philip in <em><a href='B:500 1:46-51'>Joh 1:46-51</a></em><em>.</em> </p>


text:
<p><em>And Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot</em>- We see the wide range of men the Lord called into His band; Matthew the tax collector would've been seen as a traitor, whereas the zealots were at the other end of the political spectrum. The way the 12 didn't break up as a group after living together under extreme psychological conditions is a testament to the unifying power of the person of Jesus. The composition of the Lord's body is the same today, including "all [types of] men". Sadly denominationalism and churchianity has led to churches often being clusters of believers having the same socio-economic, racial and personality type positions, rather than being conglomerations of literally all types, of whatever accent and formation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became the betrayer</em>- "Iscariot" is perhaps 'man of Kerioth:' Kerioth was a small village in Judea (<em><a href='B:60 15:25'>Jos 15:25</a></em>). Judas would therefore have been the only Judean. It could be that 'Iscariot' is from&nbsp;<em>sicarius</em>, 'dagger-man' or 'assassin'. This would suggest that Judas belonged to what was reckoned to be the most far right of the various resistance groups, the Sicarii (the partisans, cp. <em><a href='B:510 21:38'>Act 21:38</a></em>). Again we see the wide range of people the Lord was calling together in order to weld them into one body in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he came down with them and stood on a level place; and a great crowd of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, came to hear him and to be healed of their diseases</em>- "Came down" heightens the similarity with Moses coming down from the mountain after receiving the law (Exodus 19). </p>


text:
<p><em>And all the crowd sought to touch him, for power went out from him and healed them all</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em>.</p><p>It seems that the apostles were filled with the Spirit in order to do certain acts, and after doing them they were as it were 'drained' of the Spirit, and had to be filled up again. Thus the Lord Jesus felt that something had gone out of Him after performing miracles (<em><a href='B:490 6:19'>Luk 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:46'>Luk 8:46</a></em>). The non-miraculous work of God through His Spirit would seem to follow a similar pattern. We are "strengthened with might by his spirit in the inner man", "strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and long-suffering" (<em><a href='B:560 3:16'>Eph 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:11'>Col 1:11</a></em>). God strengthens us deep inside to have that <em>hupomonè</em>, that patient endurance, that energy to keep on keeping on. But this strengthening is according to our effort in the appropriate spiritual exercises, and the strength given is not ultimately permanent unless we continue responding to it. and it isn't only a N:T. phenomena; even in earlier times, they that waited onthe Lord had their strength renewed, they mounted up on eagle wings, they were made to walk and not faint in God's ways (<em><a href='B:290 40:31'>Isa 40:31</a></em>). As God doesn’t faint or weary, so somehow those who identify their lives with His will also keep on keeping on- even now (<em><a href='B:290 40:31'>Isa 40:31</a></em> cp. 29). David felt that his youth was renewed like the eagle's in his repeated experience of God's grace (<em><a href='B:230 103:5'>Psa 103:5</a></em>), that his soul was restored (<em><a href='B:230 23:5'>Psa 23:5</a></em>), and that a right spirit could be renewed by God within him (<em><a href='B:230 51:10'>Psa 51:10</a></em>):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Then he lifted up his eyes toward his disciples, and said- </em>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>). The Hebrew phrase "to lift up the eyes" is used very extensively about the Abraham family; and the Lord was the seed of Abraham. Most Bible characters have the term used at most once or twice about them; but the Genesis record emphasizes this characteristic of this family. It's as if we're being bidden to really visualize them as a family, and to enable this we're even given an insight into their body language. Consider the emphasis on the way this family had of lifting up their eyes:</p><p>Lot lifted up his eyes (<em><a href='B:10 13:10'>Gen 13:10</a></em>)</p><p>Abraham lifted up his eyes (<em><a href='B:10 13:14'>Gen 13:14</a></em>)</p><p>Abraham lifted up his eyes and noticed the Angels (<em><a href='B:10 18:2'>Gen 18:2</a></em>)</p><p>Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place of sacrifice (<em><a href='B:10 22:4'>Gen 22:4</a></em>)</p><p>Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the ram caught (<em><a href='B:10 22:13'>Gen 22:13</a></em>)</p><p>Isaac lifted up his eyes and saw camels coming on which Rebekah was riding (<em><a href='B:10 24:63'>Gen 24:63</a></em>)</p><p>Rebekah, as part of a marriage made in Heaven, lifted up <em>her</em> eyes and saw Isaac at the same moment (<em><a href='B:10 24:64'>Gen 24:64</a></em>)</p><p>Jacob lifted up his eyes and saw the vision of the speckled cattle (twice recorded- <em><a href='B:10 31:10'>Gen 31:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:12'>Gen 31:12</a></em>)</p><p>Jacob lifted up his eyes and saw Esau coming (<em><a href='B:10 33:1'>Gen 33:1</a></em>)</p><p>Esau lifted up his eyes and saw Jacob's family (<em><a href='B:10 33:5'>Gen 33:5</a></em>)</p><p>Jacob's sons lifted up their eyes and saw the traders coming (<em><a href='B:10 37:25'>Gen 37:25</a></em>)</p><p>Joseph lifted up his eyes and saw Benjamin (<em><a href='B:10 43:29'>Gen 43:29</a></em>)</p><p>Of course the classic epitome of this feature is when Abraham lifts up his eyes to Heaven and is asked to count the stars, and there and then believes God's word of promise that "so shall thy seed be". Yet <em>we</em>, as Abraham's family, his children by faith, are likewise asked [with the same Hebrew words] to lift up <em>our</em> eyes to Heaven and consider the stars, and take strength from the fact that their creator is our God (<em><a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:6'>Isa 51:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:4'>Isa 60:4</a></em>):&nbsp; Surrounded by huge crowds, the Lord focused upon teaching the disciples. This was typical of Him, and occurred also at the time of the sermon on the mount. </p><p><em>Blessed are you poor- </em>The poverty in view is spiritual poverty; those who wish to be spiritually rich but are not. It is no blessing to simply be poor materially; for such poverty can distract people from spiritual focus just as much as wealth can. Our prayers should be like those of a man on death row in a dark dungeon, waiting to die, but groaning for salvation (<em><a href='B:230 102:17'>Psa 102:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 102:20'>Psa 102:20</a></em>). This is the extent of our desperation. We are “the poor” (Gk. ‘the crouchers’), cringing in utter spiritual destitution (<em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em>). And yet we have a terrible tendency to only occasionally&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;pray, content with prayer on a surface level. The Lord's parables invite us to see ourselves as, e:g:, the desperate widow woman pleading for deliverance from her oppressive landlord (<em><a href='B:490 18:3'>Luk 18:3</a></em>).</p><p><em>For yours is the kingdom of God</em>- The Lord's prayer used the same phrase "Yours is the Kingdom" in addressing God. But “Blessed are you poor, for <em>yours</em> is the Kingdom <em>of God</em>”. The Lord thereby assures us that the Father wants to give <em>His</em> Kingdom to those who are poor in spirit, to the broken, to the self-doubters, the uncertain, those uncomfortable with themselves the unbearably and desperately lonely, the awkwardly spoken… the poor in spirit. Those who would be the very last to believe that God would give <em>them</em> what is evidently <em>His</em> Kingdom. But not only <em>will</em> the Father do this, but Jesus stresses that it <em>is</em> ours right now. The certainty of the glory that will be revealed for us means that we cope better with suffering; as Paul writes, they “are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (<em><a href='B:520 8:18'>Rom 8:18</a></em>). </p><p>The similarities with the sermon on the mount are many; but this sermon is delivered on the plain. The Lord is repeating in the Jerusalem area what He had taught in Galilee.</p>


text:
<p><em>Blessed are you that hunger now; for you shall be filled-</em>According to the beatitudes, the hunger is a spiritual hunger after righteousness (<em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>):&nbsp; “<em>Blessed</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em>) are they which do&nbsp;<em>hunger</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em>) and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be&nbsp;<em>filled&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em>)” (<em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>) shows the Lord clearly alluding to His mother’s own description of herself. It’s as if He stands up there before the hushed crowd and lays down His manifesto with those words. This was the keynote of what He had to say to humanity. Everybody was waiting to hear what His message really was. And this is what He said. He was saying ‘This, guys, is what I essentially and most fundamentally seek to inspire in you’. And He saw His dear mother as the epitome of the converts He was seeking to make. I lay great store by this allusion. For it makes Mary, at least at the time of the Angel’s visit, truly our pattern. She heard the glad tidings and believed that word in faith, holding on to it in her heart (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:21'>Luk 8:21</a></em>). She was a model for all who hear the Gospel. It could even be that the language of <em><a href='B:490 1:32-33'>Luk 1:32-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:35'>Luk 1:35</a></em> is framed in such a way as to make Mary appear to be the first person who heard the gospel about Jesus. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Blessed are you that weep now; for you shall laugh</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em>. Associated in the Old Testament with mourning for sin (<em><a href='B:20 33:4-5'>Exo 33:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 10:6'>Ezr 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 8:9'>Neh 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 38:5-6'>Psa 38:5-6</a></em>). The time of God's grace was extended to those who mourned for their sins (<em><a href='B:290 61:2-3'>Isa 61:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:10'>Isa 66:10</a></em>). Such Godly sorrow is the sorrow of repentance (<em><a href='B:540 7:10'>2Co 7:10</a></em>); and the laughter in view is therefore the utter joy of good conscience with God through His forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p><em>Blessed are you, when men shall hate you, and when they shall reject you, and reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake</em>- 'Reject' is literally 'to drive away' (<em><a href='B:470 1:23'>Mat 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:34'>Mat 23:34</a></em>), maybe carrying the idea of excommunication. Being thrown out of the synagogue was a major and frequent occurrence for many who came to Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>). There are Old Testament connections between persecution and suffering for sin (<em><a href='B:50 30:1-7'>Deu 30:1-7</a></em>), so the Lord could also have in view, as in the Beatitudes, that He is offering blessing and happiness for the messed up sinners who are suffering in this life for their sins.</p><p>This is quoted by Peter in <em><a href='B:670 4:14'>1Pe 4:14</a></em> where he says that we are blessed / happy if we are reviled for the sake of Christ's Name. The implication is that persecution, slander and serious opposition is inevitable for all who will follow Christ. Yet when these things happen, we seem to be shocked and surprised. Paul's extraordinary ability to rejoice in his trials seems to have been rooted in his sustained reflection upon these verses. These words are alluded to in at least 5 verses in his epistles. When Corinth reviled him (<em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>), Paul saw this as being reviled and persecuted after the pattern of <em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy; for your reward is great in heaven. For in the same manner did their fathers treat the prophets</em>- Again seeking to challenge the prevailing views of the Jewish leadership, the Lord invited His humble fishermen-followers to see themselves as the great prophets of old being persecuted by a wicked Israel. The language of persecution is also rooted very much in the language and experience of the prophets. The similar language in <em><a href='B:480 13:8-11'>Mar 13:8-11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 21:12-18'>Luk 21:12-18</a></em> suggests the same. Again, just as the Lord has challenged his secular, nothing-special followers to see themselves as Moses, now He invites them to see themselves as the prophets. And so a theme develops in the Lord's teaching- that He is seeking to place the mantle of Moses, David and the prophets upon ordinary, sinful members of spiritual society, seeking to show them their huge potential significance in God's program. And that impression must come home to us too in our situations, no longer considering that spiritual heroics and work for God are somehow for 'the others', the leaders.</p>


text:
<p><em>But woe to you that are rich! For you have received your consolation</em>- Is the "woe!" in <em><a href='B:490 6:24-26'>Luk 6:24-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:42-52'>Luk 11:42-52</a></em> an imprecation ['woe to'] or a lament ['alas!']? Luke has more to say about the "rich" than any other of the gospels. The implication is that the comfort is for those who are poor in spirit. The comfort offered in Isaiah was specifically comfort for sinners who realized their desperation (<em><a href='B:290 12:1'>Isa 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a></em>). We noted on Matthew 4 that the Lord presented the way that John had prepared the way for Him in terms of the prophecy of Isaiah 40, which spoke of 'comfort' to God's doubting people. If this comfort were accepted, then the glory would come to Zion and John's work would have prepared a highway of repentant people over which the Lord Jesus could have come to Zion and established the Kingdom there and then. Comfort to the mourners was one of Isaiah's descriptions of that possible Kingdom. It could have all happened in the first century, but Israel would not- and so the final fulfilment of this comfort will be at Christ's return and the establishment of God's Kingdom fully on earth. "Be comforted" may be a prophesy of the Comforter which was to give a measure of comfort even in this life (<em><a href='B:500 14:16'>Joh 14:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you, you that are full now! For you shall hunger. Woe to you that laugh now! For you shall mourn and weep</em>- The wealth, laughter and fullness refers to spiritual confidence of the type seen in the Jewish religious leadership. The gospel is good news for those who mourn for their sins, and hunger to be righteous. Those who considered themselves spiritually rich would experience the mourning and weeping associated with condemnation at the last day. Either we will mourn now in repentance, or we will mourn at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em> etc:). Having foretold the inevitable coming of judgment day, Yahweh Himself pleads with Israel: "Therefore also <em>now</em>::. turn ye even to me::. with weeping, and with mourning" (<em><a href='B:360 2:12'>Joe 2:12</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you, when all men shall speak well of you! For in the same manner did their fathers do to the false prophets</em>- The Lord assumes that His followers will not be people of spotless reputation, but will be as unpopular as the Old Testament prophets. He was at this point largely appealing to secular, irreligious people who wanted to be spiritual but couldn't so far get their act together- rather than seeking to tweak the theology of those who claimed to be believers already. And this should be the focus of our outreach too. But just as in this verse He assumes His people will not be well thought of in society, so He assumes that they shall each one be as the true prophets of Israel. He reasons as if all His followers shall have a prophetic ministry. </p>


text:
<p><em>But I say to you that hear: Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you</em>- We tend to love in response to others' love. But the love which the Lord has in mind is the love which is an act of the will, consciously effected towards the&nbsp;<em>un</em>loving:&nbsp;This love of enemies is specifically exemplified in :35 as lending without expecting anything back. It's not usual for an enemy to try to borrow from us; but I suggest that the lending in view is that of forgiveness. For debt is so often used as a metaphor for sin. </p><p>It was the Essenes in their&nbsp;<em>Rule Of The Community</em>&nbsp;who taught that Essenes must yearly chant curses upon their enemies. The Lord's attitude to the Essenes is a case study in bridge building- developing what we have in common with our target audience, and yet through that commonality addressing the issues over which we differ. The Dead Sea scrolls reveal that the terms ""poor in spirit" and "poor" are technical terms used only by the Essenes to describe themselves". So when the Lord encouraged us to be "poor in spirit" (<em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em>), He was commending the Essene position. Likewise when He praised those who were eunuchs for God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 19:10-12'>Mat 19:10-12</a></em>), He was alluding to the Essenes, who were the only celibate group in first century Israel. And yet lepers were anathema to the Essenes, and the Lord's staying in the home of Simon the leper (<em><a href='B:480 14:3'>Mar 14:3</a></em>) was a purposeful affront to Essene thinking. The parable of the Good Samaritan has been seen as another purposeful attack upon them; likewise the Lord's teaching: "You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy" (<em><a href='B:470 5:43'>Mat 5:43</a></em>). So the Lord&nbsp;within His teaching as a whole, both commended and challenged the Essenes; His bridge building didn't involve just accepting their position.</p>


text:
<p><em>Bless those that curse you, pray for those that mistreat you</em>- Praying for our enemies and abusers, not wishing a curse upon them but rather a blessing, sounds like Job (<em><a href='B:220 31:30'>Job 31:30</a></em>). 'Blessing' has Biblical connection with the ideas of forgiveness and salvation. There would be no point in praying for forgiveness for the obviously impenitent unless God might actually grant it. This opens huge possibilities and potentials to us. God is willing to forgive people for the sake of the prayers and efforts of others (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>). Jesus isn't simply telling us to vaguely pray for our enemies because it is psychologically good for us and eases our pain a bit. Genuine prayer for abusers really has the possibility of being heard- for God is willing to save people for the sake of our prayers. Otherwise, this exhortation to do good to abusers through praying for their blessing would be rather meaningless. 'Cursing' likewise tended to carry the sense of 'May you be condemned at the day of judgment'. Those who condemn others will be condemned (<em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em> etc:)- and yet we can pray for their blessing. It is perhaps only our prayers and desire for their salvation which can over-ride the otherwise certain connection between condemning others and being condemned. This gives those condemned and abused by others so much work to do. In fact, so amazing are the possibilities that that alone is therapeutic. Moses' praying for Pharaoh in <em><a href='B:20 9:28-29'>Exo 9:28-29</a></em> is perhaps the Old Testament source of Christ's words. Let's not read those records as implying that Moses simply uttered a few words to God, and then each of the plagues was lifted. There was an element of real fervency in Moses' prayers- which may well be lacking in ours. This is surely an example of genuinely praying for our enemies.</p><p>Curse [condemn]::. hate::. despitefully use [slander]::. persecute [chase out- excommunicate]<em></em> the terms used here are very applicable to attitudes from some members of God's people to others- first century Israel, in the first context, and the Christian church in the longer term context. The language is not so applicable to persecution at the hands of the unbelieving world. Likewise the commands to pray for spiritual blessing and acceptance of our abusers is surely more appropriate to prayers for those who are bitter misbelievers than for complete unbelievers who profess no desire to please God.</p>


text:
<h4><em>To him that hits you on the cheek offer also the other- </em>&nbsp;You singular. Time and again the Sermons on the Mount and Plain seem to take a broad sweep in its record of the Lord’s teaching to us all; and then He suddenly focuses in on the individual. The AV brings this out well through the use of “you” (plural) and “thee” (singular): “Blessed are you poor… love your enemies… to him who strikes thee on the cheek…”. Note how many times there is this change of pronoun in Luke 6. Clearly the Lord wants us to see our collective standing before Him, and yet not to overlook the purely personal nature of His appeal to us individually:&nbsp;The Lord was smitten on the cheek but enquired why He was being smitten, rather than literally turning the other cheek. But to do this would be so humiliating for the aggressor that it would be a far more effective resistance of evil than anything else. The power in the confrontation is now with the one who turns the other cheek. S/he is calling the shots, not the beater. The idea of not resisting evil and offering the other cheek we normally apply to suffering loss from the world without fighting for our rights. Yet Paul took this as referring to the need to not retaliate to the harmful things done to us by members of the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:520 12:16-17'>Rom 12:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:7'>1Co 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:15'>1Th 5:15</a></em>). When struck on the right cheek- which was a Semitic insult to a heretic- they were to not respond and open themselves up for further insult [surely a lesson for those brethren who are falsely accused of wrong beliefs]. And yet the compassion of Jesus shines through both His parables and the records of His words; as does His acceptance of people for who they were. People were relaxed with Him because they could see He had no hidden agenda. He wasn't going to use them for His own power trip.</h4><p><em>And from him that takes away your cloak- withhold not your coat also</em>- The simple principle 'Do not resist wrong judgment of you' is a very large ask. Even in this life, truth often comes out. And if we believe in the ultimate justice of the final judgment, we will not for ever be going around correcting others' misjudgements and wrong impressions of us. That is something I have had to deeply learn in my own life. It was forbidden by the Law to keep a man’s outer garment overnight (<em><a href='B:20 22:26-27'>Exo 22:26-27</a></em>). But the Lord taught&nbsp;<em>whilst the law was still in operation&nbsp;</em>that we should be willing to give it up, and even offer it. The threatened man could have quoted the Law and kept his clothing. But the Lord bids us go to a higher level, beyond using God’s law to uphold our own rights. And in this He raises a vital if difficult principle: Don’t always enforce what Biblical rights you have against your brother. Don’t rush to your own defence and justification even if Scripture is on your side. Live on the level of true love and non-resistance to evil. In this case the idea would be that even if someone amongst God's people does something unBiblical to us, clearly breaking God's laws, we are still to not resist evil but rather by our grace to them, shame them into repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>Give to everyone who asks of you, from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back</em>- This parallels the Lord's teaching that we receive from God whatever we ask. But that is not to be taken literally. It is paramountly true in spiritual terms. 'Debt' is used as a metaphor for sin. The idea is used in :35 for forgiving sin. Likewise the Lord's teaching here likely has context and parameters to it. The Lord is teaching not to resist evil; for the 'asking' of us is parallel to taking away our goods:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them likewise</em>- This is another way of saying 'Love your neighbour as yourself'. The Greek for 'do to you' recurs in <em><a href='B:470 18:35'>Mat 18:35</a></em> where we read how God shall 'do to you' if you do not forgive your brother. We also find the phrase in <em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em> - 'whatever you do' to Christ's brethren, you do to Him and shall receive from Him accordingly. It is true that what goes around, comes around- so it's best to treat others as you would like to be treated. But that kind of truth is expressed in almost every religious and cultural system of the world. My sense is that the Lord is not merely repeating conventional, folksy wisdom, but rather is elevating it to a far higher and more deeply internal, spiritual level. For this is His style throughout the Sermons on the mount and plain. The recurrence of the phrase 'whatever you do' in <em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em> teaches that whatever we do (or do not do) to others, we do to Christ personally. And in that dimension of life, the 'come back' of our actions will not simply be in this life, but more importantly, at the last day. Judgment day, either explicitly or implicitly, forms a major theme in the Lord's teaching. If He is indeed teaching that what we do to others is done to Him and therefore will have its response at the day of judgment, rather than merely in this life as folksy wisdom teaches, then indeed we can understand His comment in <em><a href='B:470 7:12'>Mat 7:12</a></em>: "For this is the law and the prophets". The law and the prophets do indeed teach that human behaviour, especially that done to others, shall come to final judgment in the last day. But I would not say that 'what goes around, comes around' is exactly their major and noteworthy theme, true as that bit of folksy wisdom Is:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For if you love those that love you, what praise do you have? For even sinners love those that love them</em>- Taking responsibility for others is often thankless. Our human dysfunction cries out for affirmation, and we tend not to do those things for which we are not thanked. This is one of the most radical aspects of our calling as followers of Christ- to serve without being thanked. Belief in God’s judgment helps us with this. For all our works will be rewarded in some sense by Him at the last day. If we love those that love us, we have no “thank” (AV) or "praise"- but we will have “thank”, or “praise of God” ultimately. And this is what ultimately matters. This speaks of receiving "thank" for making the conscious effort to love the unlovable. The Greek for "thank" or "praise" is <em>charis</em>, normally translated "grace", and often connected with the help of the Spirit which is given to us in response to our own efforts.</p>


text:
<p><em>And if you do good to those that do good to you, what praise do you have? For even sinners do the same</em>- There is no <em>charis</em>, no grace, in loving those who love us; grace is found in doing good to those who do not do good to us. Too easily, believing communities can become self-help clubs, whereby we do good to those who do good to us. And that is the way of the world, of secular society. The call of grace is to do good to those who are not of us, and who are against us. </p>


text:
<p><em>And if you lend to those of whom you hope to receive, what praise do you have? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much</em>- As noted on :32 and :33, there is no grace [s:w. "praise"] in giving when we hope to receive back in this life. This is the way of secular society and groups within it. From whom do we receive grace or praise? Surely from the Father, the source of grace. Secular people do good (:33) and lend to others because they hope to receive again "as much", literally, the same kind of thing. Our spiritual investment is of an altogether different character. We will not receive back in this life from those we give to. But we are banking in Heaven, and at judgment day, will receive back the grace we are so desperately in need of. Then we shall receive "praise of God" (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>), according to the parable, the Lord will go through our good works to weak people and praise us for them. We will indeed "receive" for what we do, but not "as much", not in the same coin, not things of the same nature which we gave. There is a radical exchange going on- our lending to others, be it literally or in terms of the gift of forgiveness, time and grace, shall be recompensed- but not from them, and on a far more wonderful level.</p>


text:
<p><em>But love your enemies, and do good and lend, never despairing, and your reward shall be great, and you shall be sons of the Most High. For He is kind toward the unthankful and evil</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 5:45'>Mat 5:45</a></em>. The Lord sort to inculcate in His followers His same positive spirit. We must love our enemies “never despairing”. To never give up with people, for all the losses, the casualties, the hurt… never despairing of humanity. This was and is the spirit of Jesus. Debt is a common metaphor for sin, being in need of forgiveness. The constant lending we are called to, not expecting repayment but all the same placing those lent to in an ever greater debt to us, corresponds more accurately with the experience of forgiving people than it does with lending of material things. To lend without hoping for anything back ["never despairing"] is quite some challenge. This appears to be the pattern of God's kindness; He is kind for the sake of it, with no hope of anything back. And yet what joy we must give Him when we form the habit of regular thanks before food, and seek to appreciate His kindness. Worthiness of the recipient is not the way of grace, and the teaching here is in conscious contrast to the Jewish idea, soon to be recorded by Luke, that a man was worthy of a miracle because he had been generous to a Jewish community (<em><a href='B:490 7:4'>Luk 7:4</a></em>). The paradox of this teaching is that although we should serve for nothing, with no hope for anything back, there will in fact be a great reward prepared for us. Although not in this life, nor in secular terms, as noted on :34.</p>


text:
<p><em>Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful</em>- Quite simply, who God is should inspire us to be like Him; to copy His characteristics [the things of His Name] in our personalities. We must be "perfect" as our Father is; "be holy", because He is holy (<em><a href='B:670 1:14-16'>1Pe 1:14-16</a></em>); "kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God forgave… be you therefore followers of God, as dear children" (<em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:1'>Eph 5:1</a></em>); "merciful, as your Father is merciful" (<em><a href='B:490 6:36'>Luk 6:36</a></em>). <em><a href='B:240 19:11'>Pro 19:11</a></em> RV uses language frequently applied to Yahweh Himself and applies it to the wise man: "The discretion of a man makes him slow to anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression". And thus Phinehas was commended for being "jealous with my jealousy" (<em><a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a></em> RV)- his emotion at that time was a mirror of that of God Himself.</p><p>Not only was language re-interpreted by the Christian movement. Whole concepts were reoriented. Holiness in the sense of separation from the unclean had been a major theme in the Mosaic Law, and it figured largely in the theology of the Pharisees. But the Lord quoted “Be holy because I, Yahweh your God am holy” (<em><a href='B:30 19:2'>Lev 19:2</a></em>) as “Be merciful, even as your father [in heaven- AV] is merciful”. To be merciful to those who sin is now the true holiness- not merely separation from them and condemnation of their ways. Note, too, how He invites us to interpret the Yahweh as “father”, rather than transliterating the Name.</p>


text:
<p><em>Judge not, and you shall not be judged; condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven</em>- This confirms the suggestion so far made in commentary on this chapter; that the lending and giving in view is particularly that of forgiveness, unconditionally granted. For Paul, "judge not::." echoed in his mind throughout the years; thus it is at the basis of <em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em>; the whole of Romans 14, and <em><a href='B:530 4:3'>1Co 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>. The Lord's teaching about judging does not in fact say that the act of condemning our brother is in itself a sin- it's simply that we must cast out the beam from our own eye first, and then we can judge our brother by pointing out to him the splinter in his eye. But the Lord tells us not to judge because He foresaw that we would never completely throw out the beam from our own eye. His command not to judge /&nbsp;condemn at all was therefore in this sense a concession to our inevitable weakness (:41). The commentary of James on this is interesting: “Don’t speak against one another, brothers. He who speaks against a brother and judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of thelaw, but a judge" (<em><a href='B:660 4:11'>Jas 4:11</a></em>). In what sense is to judge / condemn our brother to judge the law? And which law? Maybe James considered <em><a href='B:490 6:37'>Luk 6:37</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em> to be so fundamental a part of "the law of Christ" that he refers to it as "the law". See on <em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em>. The Lord had taught clearly that under His law, to condemn meant being condemned. Yet there were those in James' readership, as there are today, who think they can go ahead and condemn others. Seeing the Lord's law is so clear, James is saying that effectively they are condemning the law of Jesus, placing themselves as judges over His law by deciding that they can break it at will.</p><p>We observe that not forgiving is parallel here to condemning and judging. We are setting ourselves up as judge of others if we refuse to forgive. Forgiveness is not the same as trust, but it is clearly required- otherwise we are condemning. If we assume that all our brethren shall be saved [and seeing we can't prejudge the judgment, we have to assume this, as Paul did about Corinth], then we assume that whatever sins they have committed against us will be forgiven. Therefore we must forgive them, acting in harmony with the Lord's position to them. In this lies the connection between not forgiving and condemning. If we refuse to condemn them, then we must forgive them. And the nature of the logic demands that we are to grant that forgiveness to any whom the Lord will not condemn, and so the forgiveness in view is to be granted without any angst about whether or not the person has repented. That is not for us to judge; it is for us to forgive. The logic of the whole argument requires this. There are passages which picture a person sinning against us and saying they repent and then being forgiven; but their purpose is to teach that we are to forgive when they do that, even if their repentance appears insincere; but we are not thereby taught not to forgive unless they repent. We are being presented in those passages with a theoretical situation, and told to forgive even if repentance seems sincere. But the logic here in <em><a href='B:490 6:37'>Luk 6:37</a></em> is to forgive in any case; for all "in Christ" are not condemned and therefore forgiven.</p><p>Because of the principle that we shall be condemned if we condemn, we need to remember that we will receive according to the measure we use to people in this life. Again, a direct connection is made between our judgment experience before Jesus at the last day, and our attitude to others now:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Give; and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they pour into your lap. For with what measure you use, it shall be measured to you again</em>- We are to give expecting nothing again, and we do not get such generous response to our generosity from men in this life. So I suggest the reference is to judgment day, and the "men" refer to Angels. As men gather in a net and sort out the fish, so the angels will at judgment day (<em><a href='B:470 13:47-50'>Mat 13:47-50</a></em>). "Men (angels) gather (the branches), and cast them into the fire, and they are burned" (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). This same equation of men and angels is seen in <em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em>, this time concerning how the angels will mete out rewards as well as punishment at the judgment; for the language here is very much the language of judgment to come (<em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 7:1-2'>Mat 7:1-2</a></em>). This association of "men" (angels) with the judgment is fitting, seeing that our guardian angel will have been with us through every up and down of life, and shall come with the Lord Jesus to our judgment. See on <em><a href='B:490 12:48'>Luk 12:48</a></em>.</p><p>We might have expected Him to say: ‘Give generously, with a good, running over measure, and this is what you will receive in return’. But He doesn’t. He says simply “Give”; and then we will be given to in a generous measure, because with what measure we use in our giving, we will receive. Thinking it through, He means surely that “giving”, by His definition, means a generous, well packed, abundant giving; for that <em>is </em>Christian giving. And note that the context of <em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em> is the Lord talking about not being critical and judgmental of others, but rather forgiving and accepting them. It is our 'giving' in this sense which is to be so full and generous. Only God’s grace / giving can inspire this attitude within us, as we live hemmed in by the people of a materialistic, mean world, where nobody takes up a cross for anyone else. This is why Paul makes a play on the word ‘grace’ when writing to the Corinthians about giving; for <em>charis</em>, “grace”, means ‘giving’. He urges them to not receive God’s grace in vain, but rather, motivated by it, to give grace to others (<em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:6-7'>2Co 8:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:19'>2Co 8:19</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke also a parable to them: Can the blind guide the blind? Shall they not both fall into a pit?</em>- The blind can lead the blind into the ditch, i:e. to be 'rooted up' in condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 15:13-14'>Mat 15:13-14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 13:29'>Luk 13:29</a></em>). And yet&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>in this day of marvellous opportunity, we can lift both ourselves and others out of that pit of condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 12:11'>Mat 12:11</a></em>). Some of those who are now 'rooted up', i:e. condemned as they would be in the future judgment (<em><a href='B:470 13:28'>Mat 13:28</a></em>), who are “wandering” as the rejected will in the last day, can still be saved from this by us pulling them out of the fire of condemnation (<em><a href='B:720 1:12'>Jud 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:22'>Jud 1:22</a></em>). Men can escape from the "damnation of hell" in which they are in (<em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>). Herein lies the urgency of our task in both personal repentance and pastoral work. But we notetoo the responsibility of leaders- they can lead others to condemnation. We do well to analyse our leaders. When the Lord elsewhere spoke of the blind leading the blind, He went on to tell the story of the partially sighted man who tries to remove what he perceives as a splinter of wood from his brother’s eye (:39-42). The implication is that we are all blind, and need leadership- but by the Lord, not by each other. And He is saying the same thing here in Matthew 15. By telling the disciples not to be led by the Pharisees in order to avoid falling into condemnation, He is effectively implying that the disciples were blind- for if the blind lead the blind, then they will fall into the ditch of condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p>The pit is that of condemnation. And yet the Lord likens Himself to a man who lifts His sheep out of the ditch / pit (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 12:11'>Mat 12:11</a></em>). We can be condemned in this life, as Peter was, and yet be saved out of it. Just as some of those blind Scribes and Pharisees were saved.</p>


text:
<h4><em>The disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is perfected, shall be as his teacher</em>- The Lord is partly speaking to the possible desire in some of the disciples to be martyrs for His cause. Peter's attitude in Gethsemane was clearly of that nature, and some of the disciples came from radicalized, fanatical backgrounds. Martyrdom was a common concept in the first century, and the Lord's warning to flee persecution, to bring about a quiet revolution rather than a political one, was aimed at warning against any desire for a quick, glamorous death for the sake of the Kingdom. In the context, He has warned them to endure persecution. He could be saying that the game plan was that&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;was to die, but&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to seek to preserve their lives so that they could make a longer and more effective witness to Him. They were not 'above' Him- He was the one who had to die as the perfect sacrifice, not them. They were to be 'as' Him in terms of personality, and be satisfied with that- it was to be "enough" for them to bear His reproach (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>). The Lord elsewhere taught Peter that the time for martyrdom would indeed come for Peter, when he was "perfected" or matured- but not right then. So there is the possibility that the Lord is implying 'You are not at this stage&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;("above") Me, for the moment, focus on being "as" Me, as disciples learning to copy their teacher'. This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that Paul later writes that we are indeed to be&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Christ, in the sense of being instead of Him, for His sake, in our witness. Thus we are to preach "<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Christ::. in Christ's stead [<em>huper</em>&nbsp;again]" (<em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>), suffering in the work of preaching&nbsp;<em>huper&nbsp;</em>Christ (<em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:29'>Phi 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:24'>Col 1:24</a></em>), giving our lives&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Christ (<em><a href='B:510 15:26'>Act 15:26</a></em>), in response to Christ's death&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;us (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em> and often). So when the Lord taught that the disciples were not to give their lives&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Him their Lord and Master, He might have meant 'at this time'. The time would come, but for then, they were to focus on learning of Him:&nbsp;</h4><p>Today, students are 'trained' to think for themselves, be creative, develop their own opinions, push forward their own independent research, using question / problem-based learning as a paradigm for their education. 'Education' in the first century wasn't like that at all. The idea was that "every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher" (<em><a href='B:490 6:40'>Luk 6:40</a></em>). The idea was that a person born into a certain social situation was trained to take their place in society, given that 'station and place' into which they had been born. Initiative in that sense was not encouraged; it was all about training up a person to correctly fulfil societies' expectation of them. The idea of being personally taught by the invisible Master / teacher Jesus, becoming like Him rather than like the person whom society expected, being given talents by Him which we are to trade and multiply at our initiative (<em><a href='B:470 25:15-28'>Mat 25:15-28</a></em>)::. this was all totally counter-cultural stuff. What was so vital in the Mediterranean world was that a person achieved conformity to accepted values. Cicero advised that in any good presentation of a legal case or encomium, emotions and passions shouldn't be referred to. Individualism was seen as a threat to tradition and the collective society. The huge New Testament emphasis on becoming disciples, learners, of an invisible Lord, Master and teacher located in Heaven, serving Him alone, worried about <em>His</em> standards, perceptions and judgment of us- that was and is so totally opposite to the expectations of society. People were educated to be embedded in society, rather than to come out of their world and live in the new world in which Christ was the light, and all things were made new in a new creation, a new set of values.</p>


text:
<p><em>And why do you see the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye?</em>- The Lord prefaces this mini-parable by saying that the blind can't lead the blind. For Him, a man with even slightly impaired vision was effectively blind. In this very context He speaks of the need to be "perfected::. as his master". Only the perfect, by implication, can criticize their brethren. And the final reason He gives for not attempting to cast out the plank from our brother's eye is that "For a good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit”. This is rather hard to understand in the context. But on reflection, it seems that He is teaching that if we are good trees, we will have no corrupt fruit, no splinters in our eye- and because none of us are like this, there is corrupt fruit on each of us, we aren't perfect as our Master, therefore we shouldn't think of trying to cast out the plank from our brother's eye (<em><a href='B:490 6:39-43'>Luk 6:39-43</a></em>). And of course He bids us to be perfect as our Father Is. These high standards of demand were mixed with an incredible grace. Only a man who was evidently perfect could speak like this with any realness or credibility. Otherwise His words would just have been seen as the ravings of a weirdo. But there was a realness to His perfection that made and makes His demands so piercingly appropriate to us. The way He handled His perfection is a wonderful insight into His character. He knew that He was without sin; and He knew that the life He lived moment by moment was to be the pattern for all God’s people. Yet somehow, He handled this in a manner which was never arrogant, never proud, and never off-putting to sinners; but rather, actually inviting to them.</p><p>This continues the context about judging. Our attitude to others will be the Lord's attitude to us at the last day. If we are hyper-critical of others, then this is how the Lord will look upon us. If&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;should mark iniquity in us, none could stand (<em><a href='B:230 130:3'>Psa 130:3</a></em>)- and we should struggle with the natural human tendency to mark iniquity in others. The question 'Why:::?' is answered by the Lord in verse 42- He perceived that we excuse our judgmentalness and critical attitudes with the excuse that we actually want to assist the poor person who is the object of our critical gaze. How many times have we heard the bitterest, most carping criticism of others- rounded off with the excuse 'I actually really feel so sorry for him'. This is the very mentality the Lord is bringing to our attention. He bids us realize how we justify critical attitudes towards others on the basis that we kind ourselves that we want to help them.</p><p>The splinter is literally, a twig. Both a twig and a beam are all of the same material- wood. If the Lord was indeed a woodworker, He would have prepared this teaching during meditation in His workplace. The point is, all our faults are of the same essence. The problem is that although we have been called out of darkness / blindness into the light of life, we are still blind in so many ways- even though blindness is a feature of the unsaved, and ignorance of God is the basis of His anger with men (<em><a href='B:600 1:8'>2Th 1:8</a></em>). Crystal clear teaching of Jesus relating to wealth, brotherly love, personal forgiveness, the vital unity of His church, personal purity… these all go ignored in some way by each of us, and therefore by us as a community. The Lord gently warns us that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;likely to be blind in some way- why, He asks, are we so keen to comment on our brother's blindness / darkness, when we too have such limited vision (<em><a href='B:470 7:3'>Mat 7:3</a></em>)? We can read the same passages time and again, and fail to let them really register.</p><p>"Consider not" is alluded to by James. James is full of references to the Sermon, and <em><a href='B:660 1:23-24'>Jas 1:23-24</a></em> repeat this Greek word for "consider". James warns that we can be like the man who considers / beholds his face in a mirror and then carries on with life, immediately forgetting what he has seen of himself. It's not that we are totally, blissfully unaware of our faults. We see / consider them, but for a fleeting moment. And then live as if we have not seen them. The Lord is telling us to indeed see / consider our own planks. The idea seems to be that the plank in our own eye is our judgmental attitude towards our brother. This is what damages our vision; John teaches that we cannot see where we are walking if we hate our brother in our heart (<em><a href='B:690 2:11'>1Jn 2:11</a></em>). If we are without this major impediment to our vision, then maybe we will be able to assist others with removing small parts [a twig] of the major problems [a beam] which we have ourselves overcome.</p>


text:
<p><em>Or how can you say to your brother: Brother, let me cast out the splinter that is in your eye- when you yourself do not perceive the beam that is in your own eye? You hypocrite! Cast out first the beam out of your own eye, and then shall you see clearly to cast out the splinter that is in your brother's eye</em>- The Lord foresaw the problems we would have within our community; from the schisms of the first century to the struggles of latter day believers. Consider the story He told of the carpenter with a beam in his own eye who is so keen to extract the splinter from the eye of his fellow worker (note how he almost forces himself upon his brother to do this!). There is something grotesque, absurd, over the top in this story. In this story of the two carpenters there is something not only unreal, but almost cartoon-like. We read it and think 'The Lord's obviously exaggerating, nobody would really be so foolish'. But that's exactly how He knew we would think! Our attempts to sort out our brother really are that absurd! Christ is effectively saying: 'Now, I know you'll think I'm exaggerating- but I'm not' (<em><a href='B:490 6:41-42'>Luk 6:41-42</a></em>). Often it seems the Lord intends us to think His parables through to their end, imagining the necessary details. A splinter will come out of the eye naturally, its presence will provoke tears which ultimately will wash it out. 'The grief of life will work on your brother to solve his problem, there are some spiritual weaknesses which time and the experience of life will heal; but I know you people will want to rush in and speed up the spiritual growth of your brother. But you can't do it!'. Christ even foresaw how we will stress the fact that our fellow believer is our "brother" as we try to do this; as if we'll try to be so righteous in the very moment when in God's eyes we do something grotesquely foolish. Doubtless the Lord's carpenter years were the time when He formulated this story of the two carpenters. Significantly they both had wood in their eye- as if a brother will tend to seek to correct another brother who has in essence the same weaknesses, but the ‘helping’ brother considers that the other brother’s is so much greater than his. Perhaps the Lord intends us to take it further, and pick up the implication that these two carpenters couldn't help each other; but there's another one who can::. </p><p>If we condemn ourselves in our self-examination, we will not be condemned (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). We are to most importantly [Gk. <em>proton</em>] “cast out” the beam from our own eye (<em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em>)- and the Lord uses the same word about the ‘casting forth’ of the rejected at the last day. We are to judge our own weaknesses as worthy of condemnation. See on <em><a href='B:490 18:10'>Luk 18:10</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>For there is no good tree that brings forth corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree that brings forth good fruit</em>- We take a third road of indifferent tolerance to far too many. Having spoken of the need to tolerate our brother, the Lord Jesus repeated His common theme: that there is no third road. There's no third position. Either we love our brother, and bring forth good fruit; or we don't get down to it, and bring forth bad fruit. We can't sometimes bring forth good, sometimes bad. At heart, we are either loving or selfishly hateful. Anything less than following Yahweh with all our heart is seen as doing evil in His eyes (<em><a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a></em>).</p><p>Fruit on a transformed person is obvious and visible. If we are to use the presence or absence of fruit as a basis for perceiving false teachers, then we will have no problem at all discerning who is of the Lord and who isn't. And yet this very issue of deciding on others' status has been fatally divisive and destructive for the Lord's church. Statements of faith are analysed, and the teaching of others is watchfully dissected to see if it fits that given statement- in order to decide whether someone is 'in' or 'out'. The Lord foresaw that tendency, for it was the tendency of the scribes too. And instead He offers us this other way, elevating spirituality to the highest level- whoever has the fruits "cannot" be a bad tree. The issue of 'fruit' therefore becomes the key methodology through which to make the judgments which we are called to make in life. The attitude is often expressed that 'Well they may be very nice Christians and all that, but they do not understand the Truth about::. [issue X]'. The Lord is tackling that mentality head on, by saying that this "cannot" be the case; if the fruit is there, then they are a good tree, whatever misunderstandings they may have (and we all have them):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For each tree is known by its own fruit- </em>The Lord knows the evil hearts of people- but we can't see their hearts, and so&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;shall know them by their external fruits:&nbsp;The need for fruit as a sign of repentance had been a theme in John's teaching (<em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>), and the Lord in HisSermon is often building on John's words. The Lord's concern is about those who appear to have accepted His message, dressing as sheep, and yet are in fact completely false. The whole thrust of His Sermon is that acceptance of Him produces a change in human life; there must be fruit. And we take a simple lesson from that- if we are to be able to tell whether someone is a genuine Christian or not by whether their fruits are visible, we have to ask ourselves whether our lives are so markedly different from unbelievers. There is to be something about us, fruit hanging on us, which clearly differentiates us from the unbelieving world. The difference has got to be fairly obvious, because the Lord is here teaching that we can easily discern whether someone purporting to be spiritual is indeed so because the fruits of it will be evident. Therefore there will not be any debate about whether someone is in the wolf / false prophet category- because they either have the fruits of the Spirit, the signs of the transformed life, or they do not. And the difference will be obvious. And yet endless energy has been expended trying to judge false prophets according to the content of their Biblical exposition and teaching. The Lord, however, teaches that the litmus test is in their life, rather than in their intellectual position:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For from thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush do they gather grapes</em>- The idea is 'Of course not'. The Lord's point is that spiritual fruit is obvious, it cannot be hidden, like a city set on a hill. If there are grapes, the blessed fruit of the new covenant, on a person- then for sure they are not a thorn bush, with all the associations between thorns and cursing. In <em><a href='B:470 12:33'>Mat 12:33</a></em> the Lord makes an apparently obvious point- a good tree has good fruit, a bad tree has bad fruit. But the point is that we can easily, clearly tell whether someone has the fruit of the transformed life or not. There is no argument about it, because the fruit of the transformed life, lived according to this Sermon on the Mount, is public and visible. The seed of the Gospel which is sown by Jesus either brings forth fruit, or it doesn't (<em><a href='B:470 13:8'>Mat 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:26'>Mat 13:26</a></em>). So much angst about labelling individuals as false teachers is rendered unnecessary if we take this approach. And the false teachers with whom the later New Testament letters engage are teaching a false way of life, and Jude, Peter and John especially point out that their way of life indicates that they are false teachers:&nbsp;</p><p>Figs are associated with spiritual fruit (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>), whereas thistles, like thorns, are associated with the curse (<em><a href='B:10 3:18'>Gen 3:18</a></em> "thorns and thistles"; s:w. <em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em> "that which bears thorns and thistles is rejected"). The point is, that the difference between the accepted and the condemned is apparent even in this life, because the fruit of the transformed life simply has to be seen publicly on people. This is perhaps the Lord's expansion upon His command not to judge / condemn. He's saying that we should not, however, walk around life blind and imperceptive, but rather take good notice of the presence or absence of fruit on a person:&nbsp;</p><h4>The Lord puts it slightly another way in <em><a href='B:490 6:44'>Luk 6:44</a></em> when He says that men don't "gather" good fruit from a corrupt tree. The language of gathering is very much that of judgment to come; and yet the fruit is produced and gathered now, in the words / fruit that comes out of our mouth. This is why right now we can judge a false teacher, by his corrupt words [this is one of the contexts of the Lord's words about corrupt trees and fruit- we see the fruit&nbsp;<em>now</em>]. The corrupt man&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;speak villainy (<em><a href='B:290 32:6'>Isa 32:6</a></em>). But corrupt words don't just mean expletives- the false teacher would be too smart to use them. He comes in sheep's clothing. But <em><a href='B:490 6:41-44'>Luk 6:41-44</a></em> gives us an example of "corrupt" words; words which create a corrupting spiritual influence in a man or in a community. One may&nbsp;<em>say</em>&nbsp;to his brother that he must cast out the splinter from his eye, although he has a plank in his own. And the Lord goes on to say that a good tree doesn't bring forth corrupt fruit. The corrupt fruit, as in the above passages, means 'corrupt words'. And in <em><a href='B:490 6:45'>Luk 6:45</a></em> the Lord concludes by saying that "for of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh". The corrupt fruit are the corrupt words of <em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em> - saying, 'My brother, I'm very sorry, but I just have to correct you, you are so obviously wrong and stupid to walk round with a splinter in your eye, I can correct your spiritual vision, because I see perfectly. At the moment your spiritual perception ['eye] is just hopeless'. The Lord understood 'the eye' as ones' spiritual vision (<em><a href='B:470 6:22-23'>Mat 6:22-23</a></em>). These kind of words, in essence, are the real leaven; they corrupt / pull apart over time communities as well as individual faith. These criticisms work away within a brother or sister, disaffirming them as believers, disaffirming them for who they are, raising doubt and not hope, humiliating them that they haven't made the grade… until they are corrupted. We have a specific example of a man being punished in judgment for his words, and it may well be the basis for the Lord's teaching here: "When the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks. For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done this…" (<em><a href='B:290 10:11-12'>Isa 10:11-12</a></em>). And there follows a long quotation of his words. These words were the 'fruit of his heart'- out of the abundance of his heart his mouth had spoken. And these words were almost cited back to him at the time of his condemnation. We know, however, that it is quite possible for human actions and words to&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;reflect the heart. Consider how Sennacherib invaded Judah but in his heart "he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so" (<em><a href='B:290 10:7'>Isa 10:7</a></em>). This is why the Lord clearly condemns the thought as being as bad as the action, even if the action isn't actually committed. <em><a href='B:230 55:21'>Psa 55:21</a></em> laments how words cannot reflect the true state of a man's heart: "The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords". So why, then, is there so much emphasis on spoken words as the basis for judgment to come? Surely it is that although thoughts will also be judged, and the hypocrites revealed for who they are, it doesn't follow that a good man sometimes uses 'corrupt speech'. It's impossible. A good man cannot bring forth bad words. But a bad man can sometimes bring forth words which seem good on the surface, but which are in fact counterfeit. But it can't happen another way- a good man's words aren't just his surface level sin. And I for one flinch at this; because when I have to own up to having said inappropriate words, my flesh wants me to think that in my heart, I didn't mean them. And yet, ruthlessly, I must press the point: bad words reflect a bad heart. We can't justify them. We must repent of them, and by the influence of knowing God, through and in His Son and His word, we must change the state of mind that leads to them. And we should be, on one hand, simply&nbsp;<em>worried</em>: that bad words came out of a bad heart. And a good man cannot bring forth such corrupt fruit. There is with some especially the problem of temper, saying things well beyond what they really mean in hot blood. But here again, the words of hot blood do reflect something of the real man or woman. The tongue is a fire that can lead to condemnation, whatever and however we justify its' words as a relatively harmless outcome of our personality type. This may be true, but it isn't harmless.</h4>


text:
<p><em>The good man- </em>The good man is as the good tree. His good fruit or works is because of a good mind within- and vice versa. The Lord as always took the issue to its deepest essence- which was within the deepest heart. He was the ultimate “good man” and good tree. His good works came forth from deep within Him, they were a reflection of His mind.</p><p><em>Out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth that which is good- </em>The heart is our wealth. This is the real gold and silver, the core value of a man's life- what we are thinking about. Spiritual mindedness is the essence of Christianity.</p><p><em>And the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth that which is evil- </em>The Lord uses the same word to speak of "this evil (AV "wicked") generation" in <em><a href='B:470 12:45'>Mat 12:45</a></em>. The problem with Jewish society as a whole was how they thought. This is the Biblical emphasis- sin comes from our thinking, and not because society is controlled by a personal cosmic 'satan' figure.</p><p><em>For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks</em>- Gk. 'that which remains'. The idea may be that a certain amount of human thought is taken up with basic human functioning, but that which remains over and above that, the part of our thinking which we can consciously control, is what must be controlled- for it is that part of our thinking which controls the words and actions which are the fruit on the tree of a man's life.</p>


text:
<p><em>And why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and not do the things which I say?</em>- In <em><a href='B:520 2:13'>Rom 2:13</a></em>, Paul saw the "Lord, Lord" people as the Jews of the first century who initially responded enthusiastically to the Gospel. The contrast is between saying "Lord, Lord" in this life, and then in the future not entering into the Kingdom. The contrast is between merely&nbsp;<em>saying</em>&nbsp;and actually&nbsp;<em>doing</em>. The Lord repeats the idea in His mini parable of the two sons; the one who 'said' he would be obedient, and the other who 'did' the will of his father (<em><a href='B:470 21:30-31'>Mat 21:30-31</a></em>). The acceptance of Christ as Lord means that we are as His servants and slaves; it is for us to 'do' His will and work. This fits with the context of the preceding verses- that if He is really our Lord, we will inevitably&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;His will, and that doing will be actual, practical and visible. It is the false prophets who merely say but don't&nbsp;<em>do</em>, just as they claim to be good trees but don't have good fruit.</p><p>As with many aspects of doctrine, it is often difficult for us to appreciate how radically revolutionary they were in the first century context; and in essence they should lose none of their radicalness with us. David Bosch observes: “Christians confessed Jesus as Lord of all lords- the most revolutionary political demonstration imaginable in the Roman Empire". Philip Yancey likewise: “As the church spread throughout the Roman empire, its followers took up the slogan “Christ is Lord", a direct affront to Roman authorities who required all citizens to take the oath ‘Caesar [the state] is Lord’" (<em>The Jesus I Never Knew</em>, p. 246). It hurt, it cost, to recognize Him as Lord. And so it should with us. Men and women died for this; and we likewise give our lives in response to that very same knowledge. There is a tendency, which the Lord Himself brought to our attention, of calling Him Lord but not doing what He says. To know Him as Lord in truth is axiomatically to be obedient to Him (<em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em>). The attitude which we have to the Lord Jesus <em>now</em> will be the attitude we have to Him at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em>).</p><p>The sensation of working for the Lord can be so self-deceptive. He draws the difference between doing many wonderful works in His name, saying “Lord, Lord”; and <em>really</em> doing the will of the Father (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>). The parallel <em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em> has that men will say “Lord, Lord” but not really hear His words. To hear them is to do the will of the Father. Putting all this together, it is perfectly possible to bear His Name, call Him Lord, work hard for Him- and yet never really hear His words, and thereby never really know the will of our Father. From this parallel we can conclude that our attitude to Christ in this life (e:g. "Lord, Lord!") will be our attitude to Him at the judgment seat. If we think He is a hard, unreasonable Lord: that is how He will be. To the froward (in this life), He will shew Himself froward. Straight away we are met head on with a major challenge: Our attitude to Christ in this life will be our attitude to Him at the judgment seat. John's letters reason down the same line: “If (in this life) our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence (now) toward God::. this is the confidence that we have in him::. abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence::. before him (at the judgment) at His coming" (<em><a href='B:690 3:21'>1Jn 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>). The confidence we have towards Christ now will be the confidence we have at judgment day. This fact should pull us up out of the spiritual indifference which characterizes so much of our lives. If we see Christ as an abstract theological necessity, a black box in our brain called 'Christ'; if we don't have a dynamic, two- way relationship with Him now- then this too is how we will regard Him then. </p><p>In <em><a href='B:530 13:2'>1Co 13:2</a></em> Paul understands those who say "Lord, Lord" as saying it without really&nbsp;<em>knowing</em>&nbsp;Christ, and living without love. Thus Paul saw an association between a lack of true love and an external show of appreciation of Christ's Lordship. Not doing what Christ says is a lack of love, in Paul's mind. If we appreciate this, we will see that those who are ignorant of Christ's words cannot show true love. Biblically ignorant Christians need to think through the implications of this. Those who insincerely say "Lord, Lord" now, will say the same then, at the judgment, with the same lack of reality (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>). The repetition of "Lord, Lord" shows that our attitude to Him in this life will be that we have when we meet in the last day. </p>


text:
<p><em>Everyone that comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you to whom he is like</em>- The parable of the builders is fundamentally about our attitude to the Lord. There is good reason to think it mainly concerns the attitude of the responsible; these words of Jesus are set against the background of :27: "I say unto you which hear". The rest of the chapter seems to be addressed primarily to the disciples- e:g. :41,42 speak of them beholding the mote in their brother's eye; warning surely more relevant to believing disciples than to the world generally. The parable of the builders likewise refers to those within the ecclesia, who know Christ as their Lord: "Lord, Lord", they say. Among this class of people there would be "many" (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-23'>Mat 7:21-23</a></em>) who would hear Christ's sayings, but not do them. See on <em><a href='B:500 13:13'>Joh 13:13</a></em>. I'm obviously labouring this point, that the builders in the parable are those within the ecclesia, or at best the responsible. This is because the parallel record in Matthew 7 is rather unpleasant to apply to the ecclesia; it says that "many" of us will be in the category who say "Lord, Lord", and whose house will be destroyed. The Greek for “many" can imply 'the majority'. Even the majority of those who hear Christ's words simply don't do them. Now that's an uncomfortable statistic for us who sit before the bread and wine each week, seeking to hear Christ's words and do them. This parable was spoken in the context of crowds of the ecclesia of Israel coming to Christ, hearing His words, and doing sweet nothing about it. Such an attitude is not building a house on a rock. </p><p><em>Logos</em>&nbsp;suggests more than simply words. The Lord intends us to get to the essential intention of His Spirit. God's word is often styled His 'judgments' in the OT (e:g. <em><a href='B:230 119:43'>Psa 119:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:160'>Psa 119:160</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 147:19'>Psa 147:19</a></em>). In His word we see His judgments- how He judges and will judge. And in the wealth of Bible history we see examples of how these judgments have been articulated with men in practice. Thus the Lord Jesus concluded the sermon with a parable of judgment, that of the two builders. One heard the Lord's words of the sermon and did them, the other heard but didn't deeply apply them. The message was clear: 'Deeply meditate on what I've just been saying. For this is the basis upon which I will judge men in the last day. You can try to discern for yourselves how seriously and fundamentally you apply my words; and in this you will have a preview of how I will judge you".</p><p>The figure of building a house on a rock conjures up the idea of sweating labour. Do we feel that we are spiritually sweating, in a sense? Is it that hard to understand and therefore do the words of Christ? A number of passages make this connection between labouring&nbsp;and understanding the word. Elders labour in the word (<em><a href='B:610 5:17'>1Ti 5:17</a></em>), as the prophets laboured in writing the word of God (<em><a href='B:500 4:38'>Joh 4:38</a></em>); and the true Bible student is a labourer who will not be ashamed of his work at the end (<em><a href='B:620 2:15'>2Ti 2:15</a></em>). And the Lord Jesus spoke of us labouring for the manna of God's words, even harder than we labour for our daily bread, and more earnestly than the crowds ran around the lake of Galilee in the blazing midday sun in order to benefit from Christ's miracles (<em><a href='B:500 6:27'>Joh 6:27</a></em>). One could be forgiven for thinking that most of us find hearing the words of Christ easy. But there is an element of difficulty, even unpleasantness for us, in truly understanding Him in practical application. &nbsp;How do we hear and do? We are helped to get the answer by considering how Christ elsewhere appealed to people to "Hear&nbsp;<em>and understand</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 15:10'>Mat 15:10</a></em>). Truly understanding is related to action, 'doing'. In the parable, hearing and doing is like the hard work of digging the foundation on a rock. This is how hard it is to truly understand the words of Christ. Remember how the one talent man also dug into the earth (<em><a href='B:470 25:18'>Mat 25:18</a></em>). He did some digging, he did some work. But he failed to truly understand. The very physical action of digging deceived him into thinking he had done enough, as the physical action of building deceived the man who built on earth. Of course we are progressing somewhere spiritually, as we live day by day. But our movement can deceive us. &nbsp;</p><p>James clearly alludes to the appeal to not only hear but do: “But be doers of the word, and not only hearers, deluding your own selves” (<em><a href='B:660 1:22'>Jas 1:22</a></em>). James spells out the problem- we hear the Lord's words and for a moment assent to them- but don't continue to do them in the long term. "The word" is paralleled by James with "the perfect law of freedom":&nbsp; “But he who looks into the perfect law of freedom, and continues, not being a hearer who forgets, but a doer of the work, this man will be blessed in what he does” (<em><a href='B:660 1:25'>Jas 1:25</a></em>). The term "perfect law of freedom" is hard to interpret, and it seems to be in contrast with how the New Testament elsewhere speaks of the Mosaic law as being a form of bondage, with Christ's teaching as the way to freedom. I would suggest that this "perfect law of freedom" refers to the Sermons on the Mount and plain (see on <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>), perhaps specifically to the challenge to be perfect (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>); the Sermon, as we showed in commenting on <em><a href='B:470 5:1'>Mat 5:1</a></em>, was the Lord's equivalent to the Mosaic Law. The Sermon would've been memorized and recited by the vast mass of early Christians who were illiterate. And James is urging them to not merely encounter the words and nod approvingly at them, nor even merely recite them- but continuing in actually doing them. And this of course is the challenge to us too, assailed as we are in our generation by too many words, to the point that we can easily give a passing 'like' to them, and yet live on uninfluenced.</p>


text:
<p><em>He is like- </em>Present tense. Matthew says he "shall be like"; the essence of judgment is now. We can discern the principles by which we shall be judged. The future tenses in Matthew's version imply that the truth of the parable of the builders will only be apparent at the day of judgment. The purpose of judgment day is largely for our benefit, and therefore the process will be public- we will learn from the rejection and acceptance of others. Paul alludes to the idea by saying that "the day [of judgment] shall declare" each man's building work (<em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). And to whom will it be declared? The Lord already knows them that are his. It will be declared to the individual being judged, and to those who are observing. The Lord uses the same word translated 'likened' in speaking of how in this life, the state of the Kingdom in a man's life "<em>is</em>&nbsp;likened", present tense, right now, to various things (<em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:23'>Mat 18:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:2'>Mat 22:2</a></em>). But in <em><a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a></em> we find another future tense- at the Lord's return, the Kingdom&nbsp;<em>will be likened unto</em>&nbsp;the wise and foolish girls [cp. the wise and foolish builders]. We can perceive the essence of the Lord's future judgment in this life- for the Bible is full of His "judgments" ahead of time. Therefore the nature and outcome of the final judgment need not be a mystery for us, if we perceive the principles of judgment which the Lord teaches in the Sermon and elsewhere. But all the same, that day will be the final and ultimate declaration of those values.</p><h4><em>A man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation upon the rock- </em>This is exactly what the Lord Himself is doing (<em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:61'>Mat 26:61</a></em>). There is a mutuality between the Lord and us. We build upon a rock, and He builds us upon a rock. We ourselves build, and yet we are "built up a spiritual house" by God (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; note how Peter goes right on to speak of the Jews as foolish builders in <em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em>; he surely had the Lord's parable of the two types of builder in mind). Both men&nbsp;<em>built</em>&nbsp;in that both men&nbsp;<em>heard</em>&nbsp;the Lord's sayings. We are all making progress on our spiritual journey, for good or bad. There's no way to just take a break from the journey. We are building, hearing the Lord's will- but the question is, where is our foundation. The fundamental core, the dominant desire, of the Lord's people is Him. For the rock is clearly a symbol of the Lord Jesus ("that rock was Christ", <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a></em> s:w:). On one hand, the Lord teaches that obedience to His sayings in practice is building upon a rock. And yet the rock is Him. He was the word made flesh, the perfect fulfilment and example of obedience to His sayings. To follow the Sermon fully means becoming as Him. And yet the judgment of the last day will not be a simple test of legalistic obedience. It will be a revelation of where our core foundation, our dominant desire, really Is. Many people living in this postmodern, passionless world will have to think long and hard before answering the question: 'What is your dominant desire?'. Short term things such as getting a qualification, a career, a particular level or form of wealth, buying a particular house, marrying a particular person, some specific success for our children::. all these things fade from dominance in the course of a person's life. Many people simply don't have a dominant desire. The difference with true believers is that we do- and it is 'Christ', Him as a person, the things of His eternal Kingdom. This perhaps more than anything else is the simple difference between the true believer and all other people. This is why there is a simple test as to whether a person is a genuine Christian or not- and it's 'fruit', as the Lord has just previously explained. The difference is clear. The dominant desire of a true Christian is manifest and cannot be hid:&nbsp;</h4><p>Comparing with the parallel in Matthew 7 it seems that both men built on the same kind of ground- it was rock overlaid with sand. The difference was that the wise man dug through the sand to the rock, whereas the fool built only on the sand. To really get down to the rock of Christ is hard and long work. It is achieved through the process of 'doing' what He teaches. And the story is true to life- for so many of us in our spiritual biography can relate how we passed through years of being 'Christian' or religious without having any personal relationship with Jesus, not praying nor talking to Him, not sensing Him at all as a living Lord. The story suggests that there will be some, perhaps "many", who build a spiritual edifice of grand appearance which has no personal root in a relationship with Jesus- indeed, some actually preach against this because of their obsession with upholding theologies about the supremacy of God the Father. But getting through the sand, through the dirt and dust of our own humanity, to truly knowing Christ- this is what alone will come through judgment day.</p><p>Paul uses the metaphor of building about the work of converting and building up others in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:23'>1Co 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:18'>Gal 2:18</a></em>), knowing that the day of judgment shall declare the quality of our work (<em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). But even if that building work does not pass through the fire of judgment, we shall personally be saved (<em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>). But our personal house must stand firm throughout the judgment process. Note there is a continuity between the house before and after the storm of judgment day- it "fell not". Who we essentially are in spiritual terms is who we shall eternally be; our spirit shall be saved at that day (<em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em>), our essential spiritual person will be preserved. The experience of the day of judgment will not make us somehow flip over another side and relationship with the Lord, previously unknown to us. Those who say "Lord, Lord" in this life without meaning will use the same empty terms in that day.</p><p>To get down to the rock, the man who truly heard Christ had to dig through the earth which the foolish man also dug into. Hearing Christ's words is likened to digging into that earth. Doing and understanding them is likened to then digging into the bed- rock. The foolish man did allow the word to go into him- skin deep. We need to ask ourselves how often these days the word really goes right through our skin, and forces us to hack into the bed- rock. Are we truly building our house on a rock? The force of <em><a href='B:480 16:16'>Mar 16:16</a></em>, for example, went more than skin deep just before our baptism. We read it, thought about it, and did it. But now. Are we old and brave, thick skinned, hardened by the humdrum of repetition, no longer building a house on a rock? My sense is that many of us are. Let's be aware that <em><a href='B:650 6:1-2'>Heb 6:1-2</a></em> defines "the foundation" as "repentance", and an awareness of the reality of the resurrection and coming judgment. In some ways, the longer we are in Christ, the more likely it is that we will not reach down to the bedrock of these things as we ought to. I mean, how often these days do we really repent of something? How often does the reality of the judgment seat truly come home to us? The poetry of the Bible's language, especially if we read the same version, makes God's word glide over us. Exhortations, even the recollection of Golgotha's tragic scene, the final, friendless end::. can all slip so easily over our heads. We rest on the laurels of past spiritual victories. Nothing really shakes us up, reaching right down to the bedrock. Surely each of us should be sensing a surge of spiritual urgency when we look at ourselves like this. Yet God will help us; it is He Himself who will "settle" us, or 'make a foundation for' us, as the Greek can mean (<em><a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>The rock which our response to the word must reach down to is that of the crucified Christ. That rock represents Christ and Him crucified, according to Paul (<em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:11'>1Co 3:11</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 2:2'>Luk 2:2</a></em>). The Lord's parable of building on the rock was surely quarried from His understanding of <em><a href='B:290 28:16-17'>Isa 28:16-17</a></em>: “I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone::. a precious cornerstone. The hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place". Truly doing God's word will always lead us back to the spirit of the suffering Christ on Calvary. If it does not, our building, our apparent development within the much-vaunted biblicism of our faith, is just a "refuge of lies". All our spiritual effort and suffering finds its ultimate summation in Christ's crucifixion. His suffering there is the quintessence of all spiritual struggle:&nbsp; It is quite possible that as we break bread weekly, we are merely digginga little deeper than usual in the earth, yet still not reaching down to the real meaning of building on the example of Christ's death. The wise man's house was "founded upon a rock". The same Greek word occurs in <em><a href='B:580 2:7'>Col 2:7</a></em>, describing how we are "rooted and built up in him". The parallel <em><a href='B:560 3:17'>Eph 3:17</a></em> expands this to mean that if Christ dwells in our hearts, we are "rooted and grounded in love::. able to comprehend::. and to know the love of Christ", which was supremely shown in His death. <em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em> associates this being "grounded and settled" with not being "moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard". If the word really sinks down deep within us, it will reveal to us the love of Christ on the cross, it will result in true love, and all this will be the outworking of the basic doctrines of the Truth which we understood at baptism. Thus the hacking away at the rock is not only hard, grim work against human nature. It reveals the wondrous love of Christ. The implication is that we can only really understand this love, that passes human knowledge, if we are really sweating away to obey Christ's words, to build our house on a rock.</p><p>Luke seems to translate the Palestinian style of things into terms which were understandable by a Roman audience. He had an ambition to preach the gospel to Gentiles even when this was felt by the other brethren to be an outrageous thing to do. Thus <em><a href='B:490 6:48'>Luk 6:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em> speak of houses with cellars, which were uncommon in Palestine; and in <em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em> of houses with an entrance passage from which the light shines out. The synagogue official of <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em> becomes the "bailiff" in <em><a href='B:490 12:58'>Luk 12:58</a></em>. In Palestine, the cultivation of mustard in garden beds was forbidden, whereas <em><a href='B:490 13:19'>Luk 13:19</a></em> speaks of mustard sown in a garden, which would have been understandable only to a Roman audience. It seems in these cases that inspiration caused Luke to dynamically translate the essence of the Lord's teaching into terms understandable to a non-Palestinian audience. Even in <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em> we read of going to prison for non-payment of debts, which was not the standard Jewish practice. Imprisonment was unknown in Jewish law. The point of all this is to show that we must match our terms and language to our audience. See on <em><a href='B:480 13:35'>Mar 13:35</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when the flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it; because it had been founded upon a rock</em>- The allusion is clearly to Noah's flood; although the Greek for 'flood' here usually refers to a river. Only those within the ark of Christ were saved. To do he will of God, to hear and do the Lord's teaching, to be in the ark of Christ, to be founded upon the rock of Christ as our dominant desire- these are all different ways of saying the same thing. Our core root, our foundation, our dominant desire, our main self-perception and self-understanding, must be of being and living in Christ. This is the fundamental divide between persons, not their statement of faith, their spiritual culture. It comes down to whether they have a heart for the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom. And we cannot judge those "secrets of men" in this life, but we can at least be sure never to reject anyone who professes to have such a heart for the Lord. Paul uses the same word for "descended" to describe how Christ shall descend from Heaven at His return (<em><a href='B:590 4:16'>1Th 4:16</a></em>); likewise the word for "came" is used about the coming of Christ (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em> parallel the coming of Noah's flood with the coming of Christ). The coming of Christ will be judgment; our meeting with Him will be the coming of the rain etc. Even the house founded upon the rock took a fair beating- the purpose of judgment day is to reveal to the builder (and other observers) how he built:&nbsp;</p><p>The flood which came was like the day of judgment. This fits in exactly with the way Christ used the figure of the flood to describe His second coming in Matthew 24. Peter does the same in 2 Peter 3. The beating of the stream upon the house on a rock is a truly apposite figure for the day of judgment. It certainly implies a process of judgment, in which the unworthy will experience a gradual collapse of their spirituality. For the man with the firm foundation, the flood of the parable would have been a worrying experience. Would the house stand up to it? In many of the parables, we can profitably speculate as to likely details of the story. The wise man would have remembered his hard work on the foundation, not with any sense of pride or self-gratitude. But he would nevertheless have been aware of it. Our real spiritual effort will be so valuable in that day. Only then will we realize the extent of the fact that there can be no short cut to true spiritual development. A man cannot be crowned, unless he strive lawfully:&nbsp; The Lord's parable was no doubt partly based on <em><a href='B:290 28:17'>Isa 28:17</a></em>, which speaks of the day of judgment being like hail which "shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters (which) shall overflow". The spiritual house of the foolish builder was a lie, effectively; an appearance of real development which deceived men. For externally, men cannot know anything about the different foundations of houses built side by side. We are left to imagine the details of the parable. The foolish man would have run outside and watched his house being beaten down and washed away. He would have thought of trying to do something to stop the destruction, but then given up, realizing it was too late. The foolish girls saw that "our oil&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;running out" (Gk:). The unworthy will have that terrible sense of their opportunity and spirituality ebbing away from them. The impression is given in the parable that the two houses were next door to each other; again confirming our feeling that this parable is about different attitudes to the word within the ecclesia:&nbsp;</p><p>"Came" is the same word in the model prayer- we pray for God's Kingdom to "come" (<em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em>), but again we find it hard to pray that prayer if we understand it. We are praying for the storm of judgment to come and beat upon our house:&nbsp;</p><p>The picture of the storm beating on the house to see if it collapses implies a purpose and process of the judgment. If it were only a yes / no decision, the language of tribunal, judgment and appeal which occurs in passages concerning the judgment seat would appear to be out of place. Both sheep and goats register their surprise at their Lord's comments on various specific actions of theirs which he discusses with them (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>).</p><p>The same house stood before and after judgment. Every knee shall bow to Him in this manner- either in this life, or in condemnation before Him. This is what flesh must come to; and we must realize that now. We must fall down and be broken upon the rock of Christ now, or that rock will fall upon us and grind us to powder with the rest of the kingdoms of men (<em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>). Ananias and Saphira fell to the earth at their condemnation, whereas Saul fell to the earth in repentance (<em><a href='B:510 5:5'>Act 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:10'>Act 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:4'>Act 9:4</a></em> s:w:). At the last day, we shall fall to the earth but be lifted up and made to stand (<em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>"Because it had been founded upon a rock" is surely alluded to by Paul when he teaches that we must be rounded / have a foundation in love (<em><a href='B:560 3:17'>Eph 3:17</a></em>), in the Gospel of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em>). And God Himself has the ability to "settle" or ground / foundation us (<em><a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a></em> s:w:)- if we so wish to have the things of the Lord Jesus, His love and His Kingdom, as the dominant, master passion of our lives, then God will confirm us in that.</p>


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


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


text:
<h4><em>And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear to him, was sick and at the point of death</em>- It is tempting to think that this is the same incident as recorded in <em><a href='B:470 8:5-13'>Mat 8:5-13</a></em>. But the differences are such that they preclude this. In Matthew, the centurion and the Lord are in direct contact, and not through mediators and messengers. The healing is from a distance, a Gentile centurion is involved, his sick servant is healed, the Lord is willing to enter the Gentile's house but each Centurion says that this is not necessary as they believe in the Lord's power to heal. So there were two centurions in the Capernaum area who both had sick servants whom the Lord healed. The similarity of wording between the two is understandable; one of the incidents happened first, and the second Centurion was inspired to faith and humility by the words and attitude of the first one. This is how faith spreads today too; a person sees in practice the words and faith of a person similar in position to themselves- and they are encouraged to do as that person has done.</h4><p>The next pericope in Luke concerns the widow's son at Nain, and this also is not recorded elsewhere apart from in Luke. Indeed, most of Luke 7 is material unique to Luke. This strengthens the suggestion that this is not the same centurion as in Matthew 8 but is more unique material. </p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em>And when the men came to him, they said: John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask: Are you he that comes, or do we look for another?</em>- The emphasis may be on the word “you”. The coming one was a well-known term for Messiah, based upon <em><a href='B:230 118:26'>Psa 118:26</a></em>. Despite John’s clearly stated belief that Jesus was the promised bridegroom, the lamb of God and Son of God (<em><a href='B:500 1:29-34'>Joh 1:29-34</a></em>), it seems things had not gone according to the prophetic program John had imagined- and he now had doubts about Jesus. For a man claiming (at least implicitly) to be Messiah, it would’ve been an unnecessary question to ask Him ‘Are you Messiah?’. It could be inferred that John still believed in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, but had begun to wonder if He was only the&nbsp;<em>herald</em>&nbsp;of “another” whom they should be looking for in order to establish the Kingdom. It could be that John’s understanding of himself as the Elijah prophet had led him to expect that all Israel would repent, and then Messiah Himself would come and establish His Kingdom immediately. For this is indeed how the prophecies of Isaiah 40 and Malachi 4 could be read. Perhaps John was full of such self-doubt that he wondered if he really had been the Elijah prophet, and was thinking that maybe he had just heralded the Elijah prophet, Jesus, who was in turn to herald “He that should come”. This is the problem with holding a dogmatic view of prophetic sequences- when they prove wrong, either because our interpretation was faulty or because human lack of response means they are to come true in another way than ideally planned, then often peoples’ faith in Christ Himself is damaged. If we have an open ended view of prophecy, whereby we understand it to state possibilities which may have other ways of fulfilment than what is ideally intended, then such crises don’t arise. “Look we for another?” doesn’t sound as if John was simply asking for a sign, in the spirit of Gideon. He had major questions about the whole prophetic program, sensing that something had changed; the word for “another” is also translated “altered” (<em><a href='B:490 9:29'>Luk 9:29</a></em>). In this sense, his question may not necessarily reflect a crisis of faith in Jesus personally, but rather an earnest desire to know the new details of the revised prophetic program.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>I say to you, among those that are born of women- there is none greater than John- </em>The Lord Jesus was Himself the greatest of all born of women (<em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em>), but in His humility He adds no rider to the effect 'John was the greatest of all born of women, Myself excepted, of course'. How we love Him for His humility.</p><h4><em>Yet he that is but little in the kingdom of God is greater than he</em>- The little ones were the disciples, according to what the Lord had recently said in <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em> (s:w:). He was urging them, yet again, to see their exalted status and to get over Judaism's attitude that the prophets were icons to whom the rank and file of God's people should never pretend. The Lord is using hyperbole here to make the point- that His immature 'little ones' were going to be far greater than even John, the greatest prophet. Or He could be implying that there will be some element of rank in God’s future Kingdom- ruling over different numbers of cities, one star differing from another in glory. And the least in that age will be far greater than John was&nbsp;<em>in this life</em>. And yet Jesus was proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom in the sense of the breaking in of God’s principles in the lives of men. He could mean that John was the greatest under the old system, but the least of those within the new system were greater than John. Oscar Cullmann made a case for translating&nbsp;<em>mikroteros</em>&nbsp;here as “the youngest”, with reference to the Lord being younger than John the Baptist and yet greater than him (see <em><a href='B:500 3:30'>Joh 3:30</a></em>).</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em>And Jesus answering said to him: Simon, I have something to say to you. And he said: Teacher, speak</em>- Like David, the Lord Jesus saw through peoples’ actions to the self-talk behind it. He observed the body language of the Pharisee, despising the repentant woman; <em><a href='B:490 7:39'>Luk 7:39</a></em> records that the man “said within himself::. ‘She is a sinner!’”, but “Jesus <em>answering</em> said to him::." (<em><a href='B:490 7:40'>Luk 7:40</a></em>). The Lord perceived the man’s self-talk, and responded to it. For Him, the Pharisee’s unspoken words were loud and clear, and Jesus acted as if He was in a conversation with the man. He correctly read the man’s silent disapproval as actually saying something, and responded to it as if in conversation. Of course we could argue that the Lord was empowered by a flash of Holy Spirit illumination to be able to read the Pharisee’s mind; but it seems to me altogether more likely that it was His own sensitivity, His own perception of the other’s self-talk, that enabled Him to know what was being silently said within the man’s mind.</h4><p>The parables of Luke 7, 14 were told during a meal- perhaps many of the others were, too. The Lord would have been a brilliant conversationalist, drawing out unexpected challenges and lessons from what appeared to be everyday facts. The implications of the parables are not pleasant- they would have soured some of His table conversations if they were properly perceived. And likewise with us as we read them in this age; these stories are indeed profoundly disturbing if understood properly and allowed to take their effect upon us. Yet for all their challenge, the parables of Jesus reveal how deeply familiar He was with human life in all its daily issues and complexities. He artlessly revealed how He had meditated deeply upon the issues involved in farming, the problem of weeds, how much poor men were paid for a day’s work, the desperation of the beggar Lazarus, problems faced by builders when laying foundations… He was and is truly sensitive and understanding of the everyday issues of our lives, and yet draws out of them something deeply challenging and radical. In this was and is His surpassing, magnetic brilliance. But the unanswered questions in the parables aren't all there is to them.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>The sower went to sow his seed- </em>The Lord’s teaching in <em><a href='B:470 12:43'>Mat 12:43</a></em> that the Jews had not responded to John the Baptist lays the basis for the parable of the sower, which was told the same day- the seed initially experienced some growth, but then the 'evil one', the Jewish system, stunted that growth. Who is the sower? The preacher, or the Lord Jesus? Some Greek texts read “<em>a&nbsp;</em>sower” (followed by the AV), others “<em>the</em>&nbsp;sower” (cp. the Diaglott). Perhaps the Lord said both: ‘A sower, the sower, went out:::’. Surely the sower is the Lord Jesus, but in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;work of witness we are&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;witnesses. For we represent Him to the world. This is why “the Spirit (the Lord the Spirit, Jesus) and the bride (the ecclesia) say, Come”; ours is a united witness with Him.</p><p>"Went" is the word used several times of the Lord 'going forth' to teach, and four times He uses it about His 'going forth' to hire workers for His harvest (<em><a href='B:470 20:1'>Mat 20:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:5-6'>Mat 20:5-6</a></em>). The 'sowing' of the word was therefore not merely a placing of ideas and theology in the minds of men, but in practice it was (and is) a call to go out and work, to harvest others for the Kingdom. The Lord 'came forth' in order to preach (<em><a href='B:480 1:38'>Mar 1:38</a></em> s:w. "::. that I may preach there::. for&nbsp;<em>therefore came I forth</em>"). Note that He didn't 'come forth' from Heaven as a pre-existent person; rather Matthew begins his Gospel by using the word about how the Lord 'came forth' from Bethlehem, His birthplace (<em><a href='B:470 2:6'>Mat 2:6</a></em>). John's Gospel records the Lord as saying that He 'came forth' from God (<em><a href='B:500 16:28'>Joh 16:28</a></em> etc:), but this was in a spiritual sense; this is John's spiritual equivalent of Matthew's statement that He came forth from Bethlehem.</p><p><em>And as he sowed- </em>The condemned man in the parable of <em><a href='B:470 25:24-26'>Mat 25:24-26</a></em> complained that the Lord expected to reap where He had not sown. But the parable of the sower makes it clear that the Lord sows, even fanatically, everywhere. We perhaps would've reminded the man of the Lord's parable and His unceasing work of sowing, and reasoned 'That's not true!'. But this isn't the Lord's style. He takes people where they are and uses their own words and reasonings as if they are true- and shows by an altogether higher level of reasoning that they are not true. This explains His approach to the issue of demons. Matthew doesn't record that the Lord made a big issue about the seed- Luke's account records this: "A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed::." (<em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em>). This appears to state the obvious- a sower sows seed. But "his seed" can also mean 'the seed of Him'. There is an obvious connection with the great Messianic promises to the Jewish fathers about their "seed". The seed is God's word, but it is also effectively 'Jesus'. For He personally is the essence of the Gospel message. This parable of the types of ground is explaining to the disciples why the majority of Israel were failing to accept Him, and thus had rejected the ministry and message of John.</p><h4><em>Some fell by the way side, and it was trodden under foot, and the birds of the air devoured it</em>- The reason for the way side growth being so short lived was that the seed was "trodden down". This is a Biblical idiom for disdain and contempt (<em><a href='B:70 5:21'>Jdg 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:19'>Isa 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 18:7'>Isa 18:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 28:3'>Isa 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 7:10'>Mic 7:10</a></em>). A half-hearted response to the word, is effectively to tread it down in contempt. Yet such is the word's power that even a partial response to it results in some growth- although in the final analysis, even this is unacceptable.</h4><p>Our witness must fundamentally be Christ-centred. The same Greek words are used about treading underfoot the seed of the Gospel, and treading underfoot the Son of God (<em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em>). Our knowledge of Him and living in Him are the essence of our witness. He is essentially our witness. </p><p>The fowls taking away the unfruitful plant is the first of a number of connections with the true vine parable of John 15, where the ideas of Divine husbandry, fruitfulness due to the word and purging recur. In <em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em> the fruitless branch is taken away by God; in the sower parable, the birds remove the fruitless plant. The conclusion is that God sends 'birds' of various kinds to remove the spiritual deadwood from His ecclesia. It is in this sense that false teaching (e:g. the Judaist "birds" of the first century) is allowed by God. Thus <em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em> literally translated speaks of "birds of Heaven".</p><p>The Greek&nbsp;<em>hodos</em>&nbsp;means simply 'the way'. It is the very word used about John the Baptist seeking to prepare the way for the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>). If Israel had responded as envisaged in the Isaiah 40 passage which speaks of this, then the way or road would have been prepared and the glory of Yahweh would have travelled over it to establish God's visible Kingdom in Jerusalem. On one hand, the fact the sower sowed even on the 'way' is an element of unreality in the parable which simply points to the extreme enthusiasm of this sower, casting the seed onto all types of human personality, including those who appear hopeless cases. The seed of God's word would have made the rough way smooth for the King of glory to ride over to Zion. But instead the seed was despised and even condemned, trampled underfoot- an idiom meaning it was despised and even condemned. And then the birds came and took it away altogether. The way was not prepared by response to the seed because of the Jewish leadership stopping others responding. We note the usage of the same word to describe how some despised individuals sitting in 'the way' were in fact persuaded to respond to the Kingdom invitation (<em><a href='B:470 22:9-10'>Mat 22:9-10</a></em>); Bartimaeus was likewise sitting in the way [s:w:] and responded, following Jesus "in the way" (<em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em>). The 'way [side]' could have responded to the seed- but it didn't. Because men came and trampled it under foot, and the birds came and took it away. It wasn't as if there was no chance at all that it could have responded:&nbsp;</p><p>First of all, the seed was "trodden down" before the birds came. The impression is given of something, someone or a group of people hindering the growth of the seed- and that is a theme explaining the failure of the seed to grow in the other cases of 'bad ground'. The Lord has in mind the damage done to the growth of the word in the hearts of first century Israel by a group of people- and those people were the Jewish religious leaders. On a wider level, it's true that in practice it is the attitudes and pressures from others, conscious and unconscious, which stops people today from responding to God's word beyond an initial interest. Birds were symbolically understood in Judaism as the Gentiles- and the Lord is applying the symbol to the very religious leaders of Judaism, whom He saw as Gentiles in that they were consciously trying to stop people responding to the seed of God's word of Christ. And yet His later parable in the same chapter speaks of the birds coming and dwelling in the branches of His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 13:32'>Mat 13:32</a></em>). I see in this His hope, even His fantasy, that His worst opponents would come into His Kingdom. And some did- for some Pharisees did later repent and were baptized, even Saul. And this is a great example to us, of wishing the very best, the Kingdom, for even the worst.</p><p>The picture of fowls coming down to take away the seed is firmly rooted in a host of Old Testament passages which speak of fowls descending on apostate Israel (<em><a href='B:290 18:6'>Isa 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:33'>Jer 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 15:3'>Jer 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 16:4'>Jer 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 19:7'>Jer 19:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 34:20'>Jer 34:20</a></em>). These birds taking away the seed are interpreted as "the wicked one" (the Biblical devil) 'catching away' the word. There must be a thought connection here with Jesus' comment that from him who would not understand the sower parable "shall be&nbsp;<em>taken away</em>&nbsp;even that he hath" (<em><a href='B:470 13:12'>Mat 13:12</a></em>). Those who would not make the mental effort to grapple with Christ's parable had what understanding they did have snatched away by the Jewish devil. "The wicked one" responsible for this easily connects with "the devil" of the parable of the tares which follows; this parable has frequently been interpreted with reference to Jewish false teachers of the first century. "The wicked one::. catches away" the seed/word, as the Jewish wolf "catches" the sheep (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>). This association of the first century Jewish system with the wolf/ wild beast/ devil/ wicked one is probably continued by some of the beasts of Revelation having a similar Jewish application in the first century.</p><p>literally translated speaks of "birds of Heaven". The fowls taking away the unfruitful seed is the first of a number of connections with the true vine parable of John 15, where the ideas of Divine husbandry and fruitfulness due to the word recur. In <em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em> the fruitless branch is taken away by God; in the sower parable, the birds remove the fruitless plant. The conclusion is that God sends 'birds' of various kinds to remove the spiritual deadwood from His ecclesia. It is in this sense that false teaching (e:g. the Judaist "fowls" of the first century) is allowed by God. parable of the sower connects the Devil with the fowls which take away the Word from potential converts, stopping their spiritual growth. This would aptly fit the Judaizers who were leading the young ecclesias away from the word, and the Jews who “shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men::. neither do you suffer them that are entering (young converts) to go in” (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>). The Devil takes away the word of the Kingdom, “lest they should believe and be saved” (<em><a href='B:490 8:12'>Luk 8:12</a></em>).</p><p>The seed was "devoured"; the same word is used of how the Pharisees "devour[ed] widows houses" (<em><a href='B:470 23:14'>Mat 23:14</a></em>) and of how the Judaist fifth column within the fledgling church 'devoured' some (<em><a href='B:550 5:15'>Gal 5:15</a></em>). The sober fact is that we can be barriers to the response of others to the word of Jesus, the word which is&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;seed- Jesus. One lesson we can take from the parable is that spiritual growth involves resisting other influences in order to respond to the Lord Jesus personally through His word.</p>


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


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


text:
<p><em>And other fell into the good ground, and grew, and brought forth fruit a hundredfold- </em>The next parable in Matthew is clearly related to this parable of the sower. There, the same word is used for the "good seed", the "children of the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>). The ground refers to the hearts of people; but in the parable of the good seed, the seed itself is paralleled with the person. The word had become flesh in them, as it was in the Lord Himself (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). John the Baptist had preached about the need to be a "good" plant bearing good fruit, or else face condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>, and repeated by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 7:17-19'>Mat 7:17-19</a></em>). The appeal was for the audience to be as John intended, to follow where his teaching led. They had initially accepted that teaching but had failed to follow where it led. And this was to be their condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:480 4:8'>Mar 4:8</a></em> adds the significant detail that it was the&nbsp;<em>fruit</em>&nbsp;that the plant yielded which "sprung up and increased". The picture is of a plant bringing forth seeds which themselves germinate into separate plants and bear fruit. This can be interpreted in at least two ways:&nbsp;</p><p>1) True spiritual development in our lives is a cumulative upward spiral; successfully developing spiritual fruit leads to developing yet more.</p><p>2) The new plants which come out of our fruit refer to our converts, both from the world and those within the ecclesia whom we help to yield spiritual fruit. There is another link here with the parable of the vine bearing fruit: "I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should&nbsp;<em>go</em>&nbsp;and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain"(<em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). This connects with Christ's command to them to&nbsp;<em>go</em>&nbsp;into the world preaching the Gospel and thereby making converts. In this sense our spiritual fruiting is partly through our bringing others to glorify God through the development of a God-like character. It is in this context of using the word for preaching and personal spiritual development that we receive the glorious encouragement "that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he (will) give it you" (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). Every believer who truly strives to bring forth fruit to God's glory, both in preaching to others and in personal character development, will find this promise constantly true.</p><h4>God works like this because He is prepared to accept that different people will make something different of His Truth. The parable of the sower shows this in that the "good ground" brings forth 30, 60 or 100 fold. Some believers respond three times as actively to the Gospel as others; yet they will all be accepted at the end. I see a connection between this parable and the Lord's words to the rich, righteous young man: '"If you will be&nbsp;<em>perfect</em>::." sell what you've got; and then you'll receive&nbsp;<em>100 fold</em>&nbsp;in this life, and eternal life in the Kingdom' (<em><a href='B:470 19:12'>Mat 19:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>). Presumably, that man at that time was (say) in the 30 or 60 fold category. The Lord wanted him in the 100 fold category. But if that man didn't sell all that he had, it doesn't necessarily mean that Christ would have rejected him ultimately. In this context, He says: " Many that are first (in this life) will be last (least- in the Kingdom); and the last shall be first" (<em><a href='B:470 19:30'>Mat 19:30</a></em>). Those who don't sell all that they have will be in the Kingdom, but least in it. The poor of his world, rich in faith, will be great in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em>). We need to ask ourselves whether we really accept the parable of the sower; whether we are strong enough to let another brother be weak, to accept that even if he's in the 30 fold category, he's still acceptable to his Lord, just living on a different level. Indeed, it isn't for us to go very deeply at all into how exactly the Lord sees others; because we can't know. The point to note is that God wants us to rise up the levels of commitment. Paul was persuaded that the Romans were “full of goodness, filled with all knowledge”, but he prayed they would be filled yet further (<em><a href='B:520 15:13-14'>Rom 15:13-14</a></em>).</h4><p>Growth was in fact possible on each type of ground, and the New Testament contains examples of where this happened. I suggest that in fact there are only three types of ground- the way side, the rocky and the thorny. These three types of ground would then match the three types of good ground- which gave 30,60 and 100 fold increase. Putting the gospel records together, the Lord's description of the good ground contains elements of the initially good response from the three bad types of ground. The good ground represents a good state of mind- for the ground is clearly to be understood as the heart of those receiving the word. This category therefore refers to those on the three other types of ground who&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;respond to the end, who overcame the pressures upon them not to respond further. This also removes the moral problem which is otherwise presented- in that it would appear that the seed of the word is spread, but the good ground people can do nothing else but respond, and the bad ground people can do nothing but not ultimately respond because of who they are by nature and where they are situated in life. The good ground category had to 'keep the word' (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>)- they didn't let men tread it underfoot nor birds take it away. Given their position in life, even by the wayside, they still responded by keeping the word. There was an element of choice and human effort required- rather than some categories being inevitably unable to keep the word because of their location in life and surrounding influences upon them. In this we see huge encouragement in our cluttered lives today, subject as they are to negative spiritual influences which at times seem too strong to resist. And we are further encouraged in our own sowing of the seed- nobody is incapable of response, from the deepest room in a strict Moslem family to sharing a one room apartment in Europe surrounded by materialistic, unGodly people.</p><p>Jeremias claims that a yield of tenfold was considered good in first century Palestine (Joachim Jeremias,&nbsp;<em>The Parables of Jesus</em>&nbsp;(New York: Scribner’s, 1972) p. 150). Even if that is somewhat conservative, the point is that the seed on good ground yielded amazingly. This element of unreality speaks of how each person in the ‘good ground’ category will experience growth and blessing out of proportion to their tiny spiritual beginnings. The parable of the mustard seed makes the same point. Amazing harvests is the language of the Messianic Kingdom, both Biblically and in Judaism. The beginning of the Kingdom experience is in our response to God’s word in this life. The one hundred fold response is huge- but then so is the loss. It’s as if the Lord is trying to encourage the disciples after the conclusions drawn about the general failure of the ministry of John- and therefore the Lord’s also. His point is that despite all the failure,&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;will respond, and their response and blessing will be so huge that this more than counterbalances all the failure of others. If we can bring one person towards eternity, this is so wonderful that all the rejection of our message is worthwhile:&nbsp;</p><p>In Palestine, sowing precedes ploughing. The sower sows on the path which the villagers have beaten over the stubble, since he intends to plough up the path with the rest of the field. He sows amongst thorns because they too will be ploughed in. And it has been suggested that the rocky ground was land with underlying limestone which barely shows above the surface. Even if some preaching work appears not to bear fruit, this shouldn't discourage us from the essentially outgoing spirit we should have in spreading the word far and wide. Many of the parables have an element of unreality about them, designed to focus our attention on a vital aspect of teaching. The sower parable has 75% of the seed sowed on bad ground, due to the almost fanatic way the sower throws the seed so far and wide, evidently without too much attention to whether it lands on responsive soil or not. His emphasis was clearly on broadcasting the seed far and wide. We should desire to see the spread of God’s ways, His Truth, His will, the knowledge of the real Christ, to as many as possible:&nbsp;</p><p>The word / seed which fell into good ground produced fruit. This connects with <em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>, which says that the branches of the vine bring forth fruit through the word abiding in them. Likewise the good ground keeps the word and continually brings forth fruit (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). It is common for us to learn something from the word, apply it for a few days, and then forget it. Yet surely the implication is that if our hearts are truly open to the word, it will have permanent effects upon us, if the word abides in us. For this reason it is necessary to pray at least daily for our minds to be good ground for the word, and to retain what we already comprehend. Those on the good ground who hear and understand in <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em> are described as those who hear and keep the word (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>). True understanding of the word's teaching is therefore related to an ongoing practical application of it. We may read a human book and understandit at the moment of reading; understanding God's word is quite a different concept. Truly understanding it means keeping it in our heart and therefore in our lives. The seed fell on good ground, "sprang up, and bare fruit"; indeed, it kept on bearing fruit (<em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). The plant being sown was therefore a repeating crop. True response to the word will lead to wave after wave of spiritual progression. Again, we see that the sower parable is describing an ongoing response to the word- it keeps on being sown by the believer keeping the word, and fruit is continuously brought forth.</p><p><em>As he said these things, he cried: He that has ears to hear, let him hear</em>- The Lord so wanted their response. The very muscles of the Lords face, His body language, would have reflected an earnest, <em>burning</em> care and compassion. The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost; He put His whole personality into the task. And we beseech men “in the face of Christ" (<em><a href='B:540 2:10'>2Co 2:10</a></em> RV). We are to be <em>His</em> face to this world and to our brethren. With raised eyebrows, lines showing in our forehead, one eye half closed… our body language should reflect the depth of our concern for others. Having spoken of how our attitudes to God's word will elicit from Him varying responses, the Lord <em>cried</em>, loudly, "he that has ears to hear, <em>let him hear</em>" (<em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em>). There is then the sickening anti-climax of :9, where the disciples ask Him whatever His parable meant:&nbsp; One senses a moment of silence in which the Lord composed Himself and camouflaged the pain of His disappointment; and then His essential hopefulness returns in :10: "Unto you it is given (potentially, anyway) to know (understand) the mysteries (parables) of the Kingdom of God".</p><p>There is a fine point of translation in <em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em> which needs to be appreciated: “<em>As</em> he said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” (ASV and Greek). It seems that the Lord was ‘throwing out’ this challenge several times, as He spoke the parable. As the sower sows seed, so the Lord was challenging His hearers to decide what type of ground they were, as they heard the parable. </p>


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


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


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


text:
<p>, the Jewish system is frequently described as the 'satan' or adversary of the early church. By 'the wicked one', the Lord's audience would've understood 'satan'; and the Lord is redefining their view of 'satan' as being not so much the Gentiles or some cosmic being, as their own religious elders and system.</p><p><em>And takes away- </em>The same word for "takes away" had recently been used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em> about how the violent take away the Kingdom. I suggested in the commentary there that this is possible to understand as referring to the Jewish leaders stopping people entering the Kingdom of Jesus. In this case, "the wicked one" is again identified as the Jews. The word is also used about the wolf 'catching away' the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>)- and in the same passage in John 10, it is the wolf who kills Jesus in His mortal combat with him in order to save the rest of the sheep. Clearly the wolf there refers to the Jewish leaders who ravaged the flock, indeed John 10 is full of reference to Ezekiel 34, which speaks of Israel's priesthood as responsible for the scattering of the sheep. <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em> describes the evil one taking away the word out of&nbsp;our heart. However can we resist that evil one? Paul had his eye on this question in <em><a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:3'>2Th 3:3</a></em>, where he speaks of the word being&nbsp;<em>with them</em>, and also of the&nbsp;Lord keeping them from the evil one. Paul knew that the Lord (Jesus) will help us in keeping the word in our hearts, if we allow him to; he saw that the power of God is greater than our low nature. &nbsp;</p><p><em>The word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved</em>- Clearly the types of ground represent types of heart or mind. In addition to the elements of unreality in the parables, there are other features which shout out for our attention. Often details are omitted which we would expect to see merely as part of the story. For example, the parable of the ten girls says nothing at all about the bride; the bridegroom alone is focused upon, along with the bridesmaids. Where’s the bride in the story? Surely the point is that in the story, the bridesmaids are treated as the bride; this is the wonder of the whole thing, that we as mere bridesmaids are in fact the bride herself. Another example would be the way in which the sower’s presence is not really explained. No reference is made to the importance of rain or ploughing in making the seed grow. The preacher is unimportant; we are mere voices, as was John the Baptist. But it is the type of ground we are which is so all important; and the type of ground refers to the type of heart we have (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>). The state of the human heart is what is so crucial. Yet another example is in the way that there is no explanation for exactly why the tenants of the vineyard so hate the owner and kill His Son. This teaches of the irrational hatred the Jews had towards the Father and Son. And why would the owner send His Son, when so clearly the other servants had been abused? Why not just use force against them? Here again we see reflected the inevitable grace of the Father in sending the Son to be the Saviour of the Jewish world:&nbsp;</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And that which fell among the thorns, these are those that have heard- </em>One of the ineffable sadnesses of Paul's life must have been to see his converts falling away. Yet he seems to have comforted himself by seeing their defection in terms of the sower parable. Many a missionary has been brought close to that parable for the same reason. It supplies an explanation, an answer, a comfort, as 'Friends one by one depart (some we saw as pillars to our own faith, those we thought would always be there) / Lonely and sad our heart'. Thus Paul saw Demas as a seed among thorns (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em> = <em><a href='B:620 4:10'>2Ti 4:10</a></em>); he saw Elymas as a weed (<em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>); and he pleads with the Romans not to slip into the weed category (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em> Gk. = <em><a href='B:520 14:13'>Rom 14:13</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><h4>Thorns were symbolic of false teachers in the Old Testament ecclesia (<em><a href='B:330 2:6'>Eze 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 33:12-14'>Isa 33:12-14</a></em>). It is a repeated theme that thorns are devoured by fire (<em><a href='B:20 22:6'>Exo 22:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 118:12'>Psa 118:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 7:6'>Ecc 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 10:17'>Isa 10:17</a></em>), looking ahead to the destruction of all false elements of the ecclesia. The thorns easily equate with the tares of the next parable, which represent false teachers (primarily the Judaist infiltrators of the first century ecclesia). It would seem from this that some members of the ecclesia are never right with God, but exist purely for the spiritual trial of others; although it cannot be over-emphasized that it is quite wrong to attempt to label individuals as this 'thorn' element. Thus Jesus pointed out that grapes (the true Israel) and thorns can be apparently similar (<em><a href='B:470 7:16'>Mat 7:16</a></em>), but "Ye shall know them by their&nbsp;<em>fruits</em>". The thorns of the sower parable and those they influenced were "unfruitful". However, seeing that "the thorns sprang up&nbsp;<em>with it</em>" (<em><a href='B:490 8:7'>Luk 8:7</a></em>), there was some genuine spiritual growth, matched by the appearance of this among the thorns too. <em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em> likewise speaks of the thorns as believers who grew up within the ecclesia. This indicates the dual-mindedness of those who only partially commit themselves to the word; knowledge like this should play an active part in our self-examination. Because the thorns outwardly look like true believers, having an outward appearance of spiritual growth even more zealous and strong than that of the plants which they choke, it is impossible to personally identify the "thorns"; but there can be no doubt that, according to the parable, they&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;be present among the ecclesia. The seed "fell&nbsp;<em>among</em>&nbsp;thorns" (<em><a href='B:470 13:7'>Mat 13:7</a></em>), showing that this thorn category were already within the ecclesia when the person who was to be choked was converted. We have shown that Biblically the thorns are false teachers; yet Jesus interprets them as "the care (Gk. 'divisions'- the double mindedness of serving two masters) of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches" (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em>). The conclusion to be drawn is that the false teachers are responsible for the new convert being choked by these things. <em><a href='B:480 4:19'>Mar 4:19</a></em> says that these lusts enter into the convert's heart. Therefore the thorns must influence the person's thinking, so that he follows after these things until "he becometh unfruitful". The Greek for "choked" is from a root meaning 'association, companionship'. Marshall's Interlinear renders the Greek text of <em><a href='B:490 8:7'>Luk 8:7</a></em> in keeping with this idea: "Growing up with the thorns choked it". Thus it is through close association with the thorn element already in the ecclesia, that the new convert who enters it is corrupted. We each have to ask 'What type of ground are we as an ecclesia? Do&nbsp;<em>I&nbsp;</em>have thorn elements to me:::?'</h4><p><em>But as they go on their way, they are choked- </em>Paul had thought deeply about the parables. He doesn't just half-quote them in an offhand way. For example, <em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em> says that riches choke a man's response to the word. <em><a href='B:610 6:9'>1Ti 6:9</a></em> warns that those who&nbsp;<em>want to be rich</em>&nbsp;are choked by their&nbsp;<em>desire&nbsp;</em>for riches. Likewise Paul saw the rich man of <em><a href='B:470 19:23'>Mat 19:23</a></em> as actually one who&nbsp;<em>wanted</em>&nbsp;to be rich (= <em><a href='B:610 6:9-10'>1Ti 6:9-10</a></em>). So Paul had thought through the parable. He saw that possession of riches alone wouldn't choke a man; he saw that the Lord was using "riches" as meaning 'the desire for riches'. And because "riches" are relative and subjective, this must be right. And therefore the Spirit was able to use Paul's deductions. My point is that the Spirit&nbsp;<em>could</em>&nbsp;have used just anyone to write (e:g:) <em><a href='B:610 6:9'>1Ti 6:9</a></em>. But it was no accident that God chose to use a man with a fine knowledge and appreciation of His Son to be His pen-man.</p><p><em>With cares and riches and the pleasures of life- </em>In our age as never before, given more possibilities and knowledge of possible futures and what could go wrong, we have as never before the temptation to be full of such care. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:490 21:34'>Luk 21:34</a></em> about the "cares" which will be a feature of the last days- both of AD70 and today. But in the first instance, the 'world' in view was the Jewish world. There are not a few Bible passages which confirm this view of materialism, as&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;besetting temptation of every human soul, and which confirm that therefore our attitude to materialism,&nbsp;serving God or mammon, is the litmus test of our spirituality. The parable of the sower teaches that for those who begin well in the Truth, who don't fall away immediately or get discouraged by persecution, "the deceitfulness of riches::. the cares and pleasures of this life" will be their temptation. I would have expected the Lord to either speak in more general terms about the flesh, or to reel off a list of common vices. But instead He focuses on the desire for wealth as the real problem:&nbsp; The love of wealth is the root of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;evil behaviour (<em><a href='B:610 6:10'>1Ti 6:10</a></em>). And I would go further, and suggest that so many of the excuses we hear which relateto "I haven't got time" (for reading, preaching, meeting, writing:::) are related to this desire for material improvement. The desire for advancement takes an iron grip on a man's soul. As we move through life, our thinking is concerned with prices, with possibilities, with schemings::. what&nbsp;<em>ought</em>&nbsp;to be the surpassingly dominating aspect of our life, the Son of God and His Truth, takes a poor second place. The connection between the desire for riches and the devil (our nature) is powerful. The devil is a deceiver. And 'riches' is also a deceiver (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em>). That we know for sure. The desire for material things, for the false security of bank balances, the excuse that we are allowing ourselves to be so preoccupied for the sake of our families, the idea that we are only human beings and so God will let us be dominated by these worries::. all this is the deception of the flesh. God&nbsp;<em>does</em>&nbsp;remember that we are dust, and yes, of course we&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;provide for our own, some thought (but not&nbsp;<em>anxious</em>&nbsp;thought) must be given to tomorrow (<em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>). But these facts must never make us push God's Truth into&nbsp;<em>second</em>&nbsp;place. The lilies of the field are fed and dressed by God without anxiously worrying about it. Israel on their wilderness journey were miraculously provided with food&nbsp;<em>and clothing,</em>&nbsp;surely to prefigure God's basic material care of His spiritual Israel of later years. David, all his life long, never saw the seed of the righteous begging bread (<em><a href='B:230 37:25'>Psa 37:25</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And bring no fruit to maturity</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 15:31'>Luk 15:31</a></em>. The word becoming unfruitful in <em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em> is matched by it yielding "no fruit" (<em><a href='B:480 4:7'>Mar 4:7</a></em>) and no fruit being perfected in <em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>. The conclusion from this is that spiritual fruit which is developed but does not remain is not really fruit at all. There is the constant temptation for us to recognize just a bit of apparent 'growth' within us, and feel satisfied with it- rather than taking on board the concept of the word having a fullness of effect upon every part of our lives. Given the lesson of the thorns, there is no doubt that one must watch their friends even within the ecclesia. "Thorns and snares are in the way of the forward: he that doth keep (the Hebrew for "keep" is often used in Proverbs about keeping the word) his soul shall be far from them" (<em><a href='B:240 22:5'>Pro 22:5</a></em>). The language of thorns must connect with the curse upon Eden; the ecclesia, the paradise of God, must always have its thorns in order to spiritually exercise Adam, the spiritual gardener. As our brother's keeper, we need to be aware that after conversion, a whole gamut of new temptations face the convert. <em>After</em> he has heard the word, he is choked with the cares, riches and pleasures (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>). Yet these things existed before he heard the word; the point is that they became new temptations after his response to the word. A concerted effort to understand, with Biblical guidance, the pressures upon new converts might help save a few more of the many which are being lost.</p><p>The parable of the sower can be interpreted as fulfilling every time we hear the word sown in us. Thus some seed is "choked with cares" (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>)- exactly the same words used about Martha being "cumbered" with her domestic duties so that she didn't hear the Lord's word at that time (<em><a href='B:490 10:40'>Luk 10:40</a></em>). We bring various attitudes of mind- stony, receptive, cumbered etc:- to the word each time we hear it. And it is our attitude to it which determines our response to it.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em>And there came to him his mother and relatives; and they could not come to him because of the crowd</em>- <em><a href='B:470 12:46-50'>Mat 12:46-50</a></em> five times repeats the phrase “his mother and his brethren”, as if to link her with them. In the parallel <em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:31-35'>Mar 3:31-35</a></em> we read of how “his own” family thought He was crazy and came to talk to Him. Then we read that it was His mother and brothers who demanded an audience with Him, perhaps linking Mary with her other children. Their cynicism of Jesus, their lack of perception of Him, came to influence her- for He effectively rebuffs her special claims upon Him by saying that His mother and brethren are all who hear God’s word. Clearly the brothers, who didn’t believe in Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 7:5'>Joh 7:5</a></em>) influenced her. When He speaks of how His real family are those who hear the word of God and do it, the Lord is alluding to <em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>, where we have the commendation of Levi for refusing to recognize his apostate brethren at the time of the golden calf: “Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren… for they [Levi] have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant”. The last sentence is&nbsp;the essence of the Lord’s saying that His true family are those who keep God’s word and do it. The strong implication of the allusion is that the Lord felt that His mother and brethren had committed some kind of apostasy.</h4>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>And they came to him and woke him, saying- </em>Literally, to raise up. It seemed He didn't want to do anything- until they imposed upon Him with all their energy and intensity of focus upon Him and Him alone as their Saviour. And the whole situation was raised up to that end.</p><p><em>Master, master, we perish! And he awoke, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water; and they ceased, and there was a calm</em>- The same Greek words for 'save' and 'perish' also occur together in <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>, where the Lord teaches that if we seek to save our lives in this world then we will perish. He could thereby be making a criticism of the disciples' plea to be saved from perishing; His sense would then have been 'You should have an even greater, focused intensity upon your need to be saved spiritually and not to perish eternally'. Again the two words occur together in <em><a href='B:470 18:11'>Mat 18:11</a></em>, where the Lord says that He came to save those who are perishing- and again, He has in view spiritual, ultimate salvation. The perishing disciples on the lake, in need of saving, are therefore being set up as a picture of the intensity of desire we should have for forgiveness and salvation. The way essential intention is understood as prayer is perhaps reflected in the way Matthew records that the disciples prayed during the storm on the lake: "Lord, save us, we are perishing!" (<em><a href='B:470 8:25'>Mat 8:25</a></em>). Mark records that their actual words were "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?" (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>). Perhaps this was read by Matthew's inspiration as prayer. An alternative would be that they firstly said the words recorded by Mark, and then those by Matthew- in which case we could perhaps notice the difference between "Teacher!" and "Lord!", as if the higher they perceived the greatness of the Lord Jesus, the more moved they were to prayer.</p><p>Mark records that they actually said:&nbsp;“Don't you care that we perish?” (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>). His whole life and death were because He&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;so care that they would not perish (<em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>). It’s so reminiscent of a child’s total, if temporary, misunderstanding and lack of appreciation of the parent’s love and self-sacrifice.</p><p>The Greek for "rebuked" can mean just this, but it is also translated 'to solemnly charge'. There are times in the Gospels where the sovereign authority of Jesus as Lord simply shines through. He did His work with a minimum of such displays of authority. Yet there are enough of them to make us appreciate how He could so easily have 'come down from the cross'; such incidents of sovereign authority in His ministry simply pave the way for us to appreciate the degree of self-control and wilful sacrifice and suffering which He achieved on the cross. The peoples of the first century, and their predecessors, believed that demons and the Satan monster were somehow associated with water – that was why, they figured, the water mysteriously kept moving, and at times blew up into storms. When we read of God ‘rebuking’ the waters and making them calm or do what He wished (<em><a href='B:230 18:16'>Psa 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 104:7'>Psa 104:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:9'>Psa 106:9</a></em>), we’re effectively being told that Yahweh of Israel is so infinitely superior to those supposed demons and sea monsters that for God’s people, they have no effective existence. The Lord Jesus taught the same lesson when He ‘rebuked’ the sea and wind during the storm on the lake(<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>). The same Greek word is used to described how He ‘rebuked’ demons (<em><a href='B:470 17:18'>Mat 17:18</a></em> etc:). I have no doubt that the Lord Jesus didn’t believe there was a Loch Ness–type monster lurking in Galilee which He had to rebuke in order to save the disciples from the storm; and likewise He spoke of ‘rebuking’ demons as a similar way of teaching others that&nbsp;<em>whatever</em>&nbsp;ideas they had about demons, He was greater and was in a position to ‘rebuke’ them. Likewise He assured His men that they had the power to tread on snakes, scorpions, and all their enemies (<em><a href='B:490 10:17-20'>Luk 10:17-20</a></em>). The image of a victorious god trampling his foes and snakes underfoot was well established in the surrounding cultures, and had entered Judaism. The Lord is teaching those fearful men that OK, if that’s your perception of things, well, in your terms, you have ultimate victory through working ‘in My name’.</p><p>Mark records that the Lord commanded the waves “Peace, be still”. His authoritative "Peace, be still" (<em><a href='B:480 4:39'>Mar 4:39</a></em>) was probably primarily addressed to the Angels controlling the natural elements. The reference to Angels 'ministering' to Him after the temptations suggests their inferiority. Thus He could summon twelve legions of Angels at the time of His greatest passion- maybe He remembered this incident and it was a temptation to Him to use this power over Angels at the crucifixion.</p><p>All three of the Synoptics use the same phrase for "a great calm" (<em><a href='B:480 4:39'>Mar 4:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:24'>Luk 8:24</a></em>). It would've been a profound experience. The whole experience looks ahead to the calm of God's Kingdom being brought about by intense latter day prayer during a tribulation so intense that unless it were shortened, the faithful would die. When the Lord calmed the raging sea into a still calmness, He was consciously replicating what happened when Jonah was cast into the sea. He said plainly that He understood Jonah’s willing submission to this as a type of His coming death. Therefore He saw the stilled sea as a symbol of the peace His sacrifice would achieve. And yet even during His ministry, He brought that calmness about; for in principle, His sacrifice was ongoing throughout His life. His blood is a symbol both of His cross and of the life He lived.</p>


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


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


text:
<p><em>. </em>See too commentary on Matthew 8 and Mark 5. There are many incidents where evidently the disciples were with Jesus, yet the focus of the record is entirely upon Him, so awed were they by the magnitude of His personality, and so selfless were they (<em><a href='B:490 8:27'>Luk 8:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:38-41'>Luk 10:38-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:15'>Joh 11:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:20-57'>Joh 11:20-57</a></em>). They are appealing for others to believe on the basis that they are recounting the story of how they heard Jesus, and eventually, very slowly and falteringly, had also come to believe.</p><p>We are not reading here about literal spirits. See on Ml. <em><a href='B:490 5:7'>Luk 5:7</a></em>. But when we meet a similar situation in <em><a href='B:510 8:7'>Act 8:7</a></em> of unclean spirits crying out, the Eastern (Aramaic) text reads: "Many who were mentally afflicted cried out". This is because, according to George Lamsa, ""Unclean spirits" is an Aramaic term used to describe lunatics" (George Lamsa, <em>New Testament Commentary</em> (Philadelphia: A:J. Holman, 1945) pp. 57,58). It should be noted that Lamsa was a native Aramaic speaker with a fine understanding of Aramaic terms. He grew up in a remote part of Kurdistan which had maintained the Aramaic language almost unchanged since the time of Jesus. It's significant that Lamsa's extensive writings indicate that he failed to see in the teachings of Jesus and Paul any support for the popular conception of the devil and demons- he insisted that the Semitic and Aramaic terms used by them have been misunderstood by Western readers and misused in order to lend support for their conceptions of a personal Devil and demons. </p><h4>&nbsp;<em>And for a long time he had worn no clothes and abode not in any house, but in the tombs</em>- A fairly detailed case can be made that the man Legion was to be understood as representative of Judah in captivity, suffering for their sins, who despite initially opposing Christ (Legion ran up to Jesus just as he had 'run upon' people in aggressive fits earlier), could still repent as Legion did, be healed of their sins and be His witnesses to the world. This fits in with the whole theme which the Lord had- that the restoration of Israel's fortunes would not be by violent opposition to the Legions of Rome but by repentance and spiritual witness to the world. The point is, Israel were bound in fetters and beaten by the Gentiles because of their sins, which they were culpable of, for which they had responsibility and from which they could repent; rather than because they had been taken over by powerful demons against their will. Here then are reasons for understanding Legion as representative of Judah under Gentile oppression: </h4><p>- Israel were “A people::. which remain among the tombs, and lodge in the monuments” (<em><a href='B:290 65:3-4'>Isa 65:3-4</a></em>). </p><p>- Legion was always “in the mountains”- the "high places" where Israel sinned (<em><a href='B:290 65:7'>Isa 65:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 4:13'>Hos 4:13</a></em>). </p><p>- The man's name, Legion, suggests he was under the ownership of Rome. The miracle occurred in Gentile territory, suggesting Judah in the Gentile dominated world. </p><p>- ‘What is your name?’ is the same question asked of Jacob</p><p>- Legion's comment that ‘we are many’ is identical to the words of <em><a href='B:330 33:24'>Eze 33:24</a></em> about Israel: “Son of man, they that inhabit those wastes of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one, and he inherited the land: but <em>we are many</em>; the land is given us for inheritance. Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land?”.</p><p>- Legion had often been bound with fetters and chains (<em><a href='B:480 5:3-4'>Mar 5:3-4</a></em>)- just as God's people had so often been taken into captivity in "fetters and chains” (<em><a href='B:140 33:11'>2Ch 33:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 36:6'>2Ch 36:6</a></em>, <em><a href='B:120 24:7'>2Ki 24:7</a></em>). </p><p>- When the sick man asks that the unclean spirits not be sent "out of the country" (<em><a href='B:480 5:10'>Mar 5:10</a></em>), I take this as his resisting the healing. But he later repents and asks for them to be sent into the herd of pigs. This recalls a prophecy about the restoration of Judah in <em><a href='B:450 13:2'>Zec 13:2</a></em>: “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land”. </p><p>- The herd of pigs being "destroyed" in the water recalls the Egyptians being “destroyed” in the Red Sea when Israel were delivered from Gentile power before. The Gadarene Gentiles "were afraid", just as the Gentile world was at the time of the Exodus (<em><a href='B:20 15:14'>Exo 15:14</a></em>). The curing of Legion is termed “great things” (<em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em>); and Israel's exodus from Gentile power and the destruction of the Egyptians is likewise called “great things” (<em><a href='B:230 106:21'>Psa 106:21</a></em>). </p>


