# commentaries

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


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


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


text:
<p><em>And they begged him that he would not command them to depart into the abyss</em></p><h4>- See on <em><a href='B:510 16:16'>Act 16:16</a></em>. This is the man's fear of condemnation, noted on :28. Note that the sick man is paralleled with the demons. "<em>He</em> begged him earnestly not to send <em>them</em> out of the country" (<em><a href='B:480 5:10'>Mar 5:10</a></em>) parallels "he", the man, with "them", the demons. And the parallel record speaks as if it were the demons who did the begging: "<em>They </em>begged him not to order them to go into the abyss" (<em><a href='B:490 8:31'>Luk 8:31</a></em>). This is significant in that the record doesn't suggest that demons were manipulating the man to speak and be mad; rather are they made parallel with the man himself. This indicates, on the level of linguistics at least, that the language of "demons" is being used as a synonym for the mentally ill man. There's another example of this, in <em><a href='B:480 3:11'>Mar 3:11</a></em>: "Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, “You are the Son of God!”". Who fell down on their knees and who shouted? The mentally disturbed people. But they are called "unclean spirits". <em><a href='B:660 2:19'>Jas 2:19</a></em> likewise: "The demons believe and tremble". This is surely an allusion to the trembling of those <em>people </em>whom Jesus cured, and 'belief' is appropriate to persons not [supposed] eternally damned agents of Satan. Clearly James is putting "demons" for 'mentally disturbed people who believed and were cured'. And thus we can better understand why in <em><a href='B:480 5:8'>Mar 5:8</a></em> Jesus addresses Himself not to these supposed spirits; but to the man himself: "Jesus said to <em>him, </em>Come out of the man, you unclean spirit". He doesn't say to the<em> unclean spirit</em> "Come out of the man". Jesus addresses Himself to "the man". The demons / unclean spirits never actually say anything in the records; it's always the man himself who speaks. Josephus records that when the first century Rabbis cast out demons [as they supposed], they first had to ask for the name of the demon. The Lord Jesus doesn't do this; He asks the man for <em>his</em> personal name. The difference is instructive- the Lord wasn't speaking to demons, He was speaking to the mentally sick man, and going along with the man's belief that he had demons within him. The 'demons' plead with Jesus not to torment them, and back this up by invoking God. 'They' believed in God and honoured Him to the point of believing He was the ultimate authenticator of oaths. 'They' hardly fit the classical idea that demons are anti-God and in conflict with Him. Clearly enough, when we read of demons and spirits in this passage we are not reading of the actual existence of 'demons' as they are classically understood, but simply of the mentally ill man himself. </h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>Return to your family, and declare what great things God has done for you- </em>We must "do" the Lord's will (<em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>), but the Lord also 'does' for us by His grace ("mercy"); our 'doing' is in response to His 'doing' for us. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:500 4:1'>Joh 4:1</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em>) of how the Lord 'did' or "made" disciples. That was the end point in view; the "great things" done were not just the cure, but the making of a disciple. Mary’s praise that “He has done to me great things” is surely behind her Son’s words in <em><a href='B:490 8:39'>Luk 8:39</a></em>, where He bids a man go home "and shew how great things God has done unto you". </p><p><em>And he went his way, publishing throughout the whole city how great were the things Jesus had done for him</em>- This public preaching in the city and all the Decapolis (Mark says) rather than to his family could be read as disobedience. The Gospels are transcripts of the twelve disciples’ own preaching and obedience to the Lord’s commission for them to go into all the world and tell the news of what they had seen and heard of Him. Yet there is a theme in the Gospels, consciously included by the writers and speakers, of men being disobedient to the preaching commission which the Lord gave them. When some were told to say nothing, they went and told many others (<em><a href='B:480 7:36'>Mar 7:36</a></em>). And as Acts makes clear, the disciples themselves were disobedient, initially, to the commission to go tell the Gentiles the good news of their salvation. Legion’s disobedience is especially instructive for us:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>Mar 519</td><td><em><a href='B:480 5:20'>Mar 5:20</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Go to your&nbsp;<em>house</em></td><td>He goes to the<em>&nbsp;</em><em>ten cities&nbsp;</em>[Decapolis]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>unto your&nbsp;<em>friends </em>[relatives]</td><td>He goes to&nbsp;<em>strangers</em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>tell&nbsp;</em>them [<em><a href='B:490 8:39'>Luk 8:39</a></em> “<em>show</em>&nbsp;them”- by personal demonstration to individuals]</td><td>He “<em>publishes</em>”</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>how great things</td><td>how great things</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the&nbsp;<em>Lord [i:e. God]</em>&nbsp;has done for you</td><td><em>Jesus&nbsp;</em>had done for him</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>and how he had mercy on you.</td><td>[ignored]</td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;<p>The record of the commission given him and his obedience to it are clearly intended to be compared. The man went to strange cities, indeed he organized a whole preaching tour of ten cities- rather than going home and telling his immediate friends / family. And how true this is of us. It’s so much easier to embark upon a campaign to strangers, to do ‘mission work’, to ‘publish’ the Gospel loudly, rather than&nbsp;<em>tell</em>&nbsp;and<em> show</em>&nbsp;it to our immediate personal contacts. And we notice too how he omits to tell others of the Lord’s merciful grace to him personally. Rather does he speak only of the material, the literality of the healing. And he tells others what Jesus had done for him, rather than take the Lord Jesus’ invitation to perceive the bigger picture in all this- that this was the hand of God. One wonders whether the disciples were commenting upon their own sense of inadequacy in their initial personal witness. The Lord told the cured demoniac to go back to his friends (<em><a href='B:480 5:19'>Mar 5:19</a></em>) and family (<em><a href='B:490 8:39'>Luk 8:39</a></em>) and witness to them. Clearly enough, the man didn’t have any friends- for he had a history of violence and lived alone, many having tried unsuccessfully to bind him due to the grievous harm he must have inflicted upon many. Yet the man went out and preached to the whole area (<em><a href='B:480 5:20'>Mar 5:20</a></em>). Was this just rank disobedience to what His Saviour Lord had just told him? Perhaps, due to unrestrained enthusiasm. But more likely is that the man now considered the whole world around him to be his family and friends, and therefore he witnessed to them. His care for others in desiring to witness to them flowed quite naturally from his experience of conversion at the Lord’s hands.</h4><p>There are some things in Scripture which are recorded in such a way as to promote meditation, and therefore they will always be ambiguous in terms of the actual interpretation which is sustainable. We can't <em>always</em> say "This word means X, this phrase means Y, therefore this verse means interpretation Z; and if you don't agree with that, you don't really accept the Bible". Because it is possible to say that about the interpretation of basic doctrine doesn't mean that we can adopt this attitude to the interpretation of every Bible passage. The record of the crucifixion is a good example of this. Or consider how it is recorded that some of those healed by the Lord <em>didn't</em> afterwards do what He said: one preached to his whole city rather than to his family (<em><a href='B:490 8:39'>Luk 8:39</a></em>); another didn't obey the Lord's plea to not tell anyone else (<em><a href='B:480 1:45'>Mar 1:45</a></em>). How are we to read these responses? Rank disobedience? Misguided zeal? Zeal in doing over and above what they were asked? You may have your ideas, and it is right that we should meditate upon these things and discuss them. But I suggest that ultimately they are left 'hanging' for the very purpose of promoting meditation and personal application, rather than being statements which shout for an obvious interpretation.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>Came behind him- </em>The scene is being developed from <em><a href='B:470 9:19'>Mat 9:19</a></em>, where the Lord and the disciples are following the rushing man; and now we 'see' the woman coming behind Jesus, as if she in this sense was also one of the disciples who followed behind Him.</p><p><em>And touched the border of his garment; and immediately her bleeding stopped</em>- It was by the unclean touching the clean that she was cleansed; whereas in Mosaic ritual, the clean is always made unclean by touching the unclean. The Lord radically reversed all the fears of guilt by association. </p><p>Her example inspired the many others who later sought to do this in <em><a href='B:470 14:36'>Mat 14:36</a></em>. It has been suggested that the hem of the garment referred to the blue band which was to be worn by Jews to remind them of their commitment to obedience to God. In this case she would have been seeking to associate herselfwith the righteousness of Christ and be healed / saved [the same Greek word is used] thereby. In essence, this is what faith and baptism into Christ is all about. But the simpler reading is that she thought that if she associated herself even with the Lord's periphery, she would thereby be saved / healed. Given Jewish phobia about blood and the fact that any touching her would have been ritually unclean, she surely disguised her condition. And yet she didn't consider that her uncleanness could make the Lord unclean. Her view of His righteousness was correct- it can be shared with us, but our uncleanness cannot negate His purity. She was driven to this insight by her desperation, just as Job's desperation led him to understand doctrinal truths that were beyond his time and place.</p><p>The Lord allowed this interruption when the man was so earnest that the Lord would haste to his home. The Lord, and the hand of providence, wanted to teach the man that how long a person has been dead is no barrier to resurrection; his faith needed to be developed further. And it fits in with the apparent silence of the Lord, always to develop the intensity of our desire for Him and our focus upon Him. Jesus focused on the essential whilst still being human enough to be involved in the irrelevancies which cloud the lives of all other men. Just glancing through a few random chapters from the Gospels reveals this tremendous sense of focus which He had, and His refusal to be distracted by self-justification. In all of the following examples I suspect we would have become caught up with justifying ourselves and answering the distractions to the point that our initial aim was paralyzed:&nbsp;</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>Focus</td><td>Distraction</td><td>Resumed Focus</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The sick woman touches His clothes, and He turns around to see her. He wants to talk to her.</td><td>The disciples tell Him that this is unreasonable, as a huge crowd is pressing on to Him</td><td>"He looked round about [again] to see her that had done this thing" (<em><a href='B:480 5:30-32'>Mar 5:30-32</a></em>). He talks to her.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He says that the dead girl is only sleeping; for He wants to raise her.</td><td>"They laughed Him to scorn"</td><td>"But::." He put them all out of the house and raised her (<em><a href='B:480 5:40-41'>Mar 5:40-41</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He was moved with compassion for the crowds, and wants to feed them and teach them more.</td><td>The disciples tell Him to send the people away as it was getting late</td><td>He tells the disciples to feed them so that they can stay and hear more (<em><a href='B:480 6:35-37'>Mar 6:35-37</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Again He has compassion&nbsp;on the hunger of the crowd</td><td>The disciples mock His plan to feed them</td><td>He feeds them (<em><a href='B:480 8:3-6'>Mar 8:3-6</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He explains how He must die</td><td>Peter rebukes Him</td><td>He repeats His message, telling them that they too must follow the way of the cross (<em><a href='B:480 8:31-34'>Mar 8:31-34</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>Now Herod the tetrarch- </em>Literally, ‘one of a fourth’; a reference to how after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, the kingdom was divided amongst four others.</p><h4><em>Heard of all that was done- </em>The Lord had recently used the same word in saying that unbelievers "By hearing shall hear and shall not understand" (<em><a href='B:470 13:14'>Mat 13:14</a></em>). The connection may be to demonstrate that pagan Herod was no better than the unbelieving Jewish religious leaders. Even in the Old Testament, unbelieving Israel are often described in terms of the Gentile world. We can also note that the Gospels were designed for memorization, and such word plays are common in order to assist committing them to memory. The Gospels likewise should be the lifeblood of all serious Christian living and thinking in this age of electronic memory.</h4><p><em>And he was very worried, because of what was said by some, that John had risen from the dead</em>- The people thought that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected (<em><a href='B:480 6:14'>Mar 6:14</a></em>). Perhaps this was because they looked somehow similar, as cousins?&nbsp;The idea of bodily resurrection was around in the first century, but very often in the sense of a dead person not really dying but returning&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>&nbsp;in another form. This was widely believed about Nero- and there are allusions to the legend of Nero&nbsp;<em>redivivus&nbsp;</em>in Revelation (they are deconstructed there as being untrue- the ultimate resurrection was of the Lord Jesus, not Nero). Herod's words show that a 'resurrected' person was expected to do great miracles as proof of their resurrection. The Lord's resurrection was likewise accompanied by "mighty works"- but not by Him personally, but by the community of believers. This accommodation to contemporary views of resurrection was therefore a way of demonstrating that the believers doing the miracles after the Lord's resurrection were being presented to society as Jesus&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>; as if they truly were the body of Jesus revived. Which of course they were, and we are. Paul uses the same Greek word translated "show forth themselves" to describe how the Lord Jesus worked through both Peter and himself through the doing of miracles (<em><a href='B:550 2:8'>Gal 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:5'>Gal 3:5</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>But the crowds knew it, and they followed him; and he welcomed them, and spoke to them of the kingdom of God, and those that had need of healing he cured</em>- Possibly implying that some posed as being sick, and yet the Lord could discern whose need was genuine. How hard His life must have been, in that hard land. And how hard it <em>is</em> for Him, in this hard world.</p><p>To not offend others we must “receive” them (<em><a href='B:470 18:5'>Mat 18:5</a></em>). It is written of Jesus that when crowds of materialistic, fascinated people followed Him, “He received them, and spake unto them of the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:490 9:11'>Luk 9:11</a></em>). He didn’t just turn round and read them a lecture about the Kingdom. “He <em>received </em>them”. Presumably Luke means to reflect how he perceived something in the Lord’s body language that was receiving of that crowd of peasants- whom we would likely have written off as just dumb groupies with no more than surface level interest. And we too must receive one another, even as the Lord has received us (<em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>)- and this includes receiving him who is even weak in the faith (<em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>). We should be looking for every reason to receive and fellowship our brethren, rather than reasons not to.</p><p><em><a href='B:470 13:54-58'>Mat 13:54-58</a></em> records how the Lord taught in the synagogue but didn’t get a good response, nor did He do many miracles there because of their unbelief. But now He leaves, and the people flock after Him. This may be understandable just in terms of basic psychology- when a wonderful offer is not taken up but appears to be receding, people then desperately grab onto it. Perhaps that’s why the Lord seems well disposed to these people- healing and feeding them. But we also get the impression that the Lord was not constantly available for teaching and healing. I have previously remarked that the intensity of some of the days which the Gospels record was surely not repeated every day of His ministry. It seems He spent most of His time training the twelve and only occasionally made public appearances to teach and heal.</p>


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


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


text:
<h4><em>For they were about five thousand men- </em>It is tempting to try to work out some significance in the figures here and in the feeding of the 4000 recorded later. Five loaves and two fishes fed 5000 with 12 baskets taken up; seven loaves and a few fishes fed 4000 with seven baskets taken up. With the food distributed each time by 12 disciples. One observation would be that the total number of loaves used was 12, which was the number of loaves required for the showbread (<em><a href='B:30 24:5'>Lev 24:5</a></em>). The loaves in totality represent the Lord Jesus, the bread of God’s presence in Israel, offered to all and sundry- not just to the priests. The Lord had made the same point in reminding Israel that David and his men had eaten the showbread- the things considered exclusively for the religious elite were now open to all, women and kids and Gentiles included. The very same Greek phrase “about five thousand men” occurs in <em><a href='B:510 4:4'>Act 4:4</a></em>, to describe the total number of converts made by the disciples in the very early days of the church. Surely there must be some connection here. As the disciples moved amongst the crowds, each of them repeatedly breaking the bread of Christ to the multitudes, they were being trained towards the day when they would move amongst other multitudes preaching Christ and baptizing people into Him. It would seem that there were two major incidents when the disciples preached and performed mass baptisms; the 3000 in <em><a href='B:510 2:41'>Act 2:41</a></em>, and then either 2000 or 5000 (depending how one reads the Greek) in <em><a href='B:510 4:4'>Act 4:4</a></em>. These days of mass baptisms were probably never repeated in the history of the early church; and so the two feeding miracles were to prepare them for those two later incidents. In our yearning to attach meaning to event, we too can be encouraged that what we currently cannot understand is likely preparation for some potential future calling for us at some point in the future.</h4><p><em>And he said to his disciples: Make them sit down in groups, about fifty in each</em>-&nbsp; "In groups" is a technical term for how in the Roman empire, large groups sat at groups of three tables forming three sides of a square, with divans or couches on which they reclined as they ate. The open end of the square was entered by the servants who waited on the guests. But there no tables nor couches. They were bidden imagine them. For this was set up as a banquet; with the Lord as host. It was a foretaste of the Messianic banquet. And all and any present were invited to recline and eat. So the people sat down as it were in table-companies but without tables, in companies of a hundred and others of fifty (Mk:), waited upon by the disciples. Who you ate with had religious meaning in their society; it was a sign of religious fellowship. And here the Lord opened His table to any who wished to hear His word, be they clean, unclean, Jew, Gentile, women or children. </p>


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as he was praying alone, that his disciples joined him; and he asked them, saying- Erotao</em>&nbsp;can mean to pray, to entreat, to ask for something- rather than to casually enquire about an opinion held. He asked the question seeking a positive answer; He was indirectly asking them to believe in Him as God's Son.</p><p><em>Who do the crowds say that I am?</em>- This was to pave the way for His more significant, personal question: Whom do&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;say I am? (:20). "Say" translates&nbsp;<em>lego</em>&nbsp;which more specifically means to speak rather than 'to believe' or 'to understand'. He wanted to know the words of men’s' actual lips about Him- which again hints that the disciples were not with the Lord all the time. They were often with people when the Lord wasn't present. Psychologically, considering others' views of Christ helps us better understand where we personally stand regarding Him- indeed, this is true generally in terms of self-understanding. Hence the Lord firstly asks whom others thought Him to be, rather than simply asking the disciples whether they believed in Him as the Son of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they answering said: John the Baptist-</em>Literally,&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>John the Baptist. "Some::." is simply translating&nbsp;<em>ho</em>, the definite article. "The John the Baptist" would therefore appear to be the main opinion- after that, some thought Jesus was Elijah, others thought He was another of the prophets. There was a strong belief in dead people reappearing in the form of others,&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>, a kind of reincarnation. This had been Herod's view of Jesus, that He was the resurrected John the Baptist. None of the opinions they list include the possibility that Jesus was Messiah. The disciples' answer is therefore a tacit recognition of the failure of John's ministry. He was known even at that early stage as "John the Baptist" because his baptism of so many people was what he was noted for. But that baptism, that recognition of sin, had not led people to accept Jesus as the Christ. It happens so often, that we can have a temporary conviction of sin, and even do something about it- but to fully come to Christ is a different question, and it seems that few go on to make that vital connection:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But others Elijah- </em>John's crisis of faith in prison involved him thinking that perhaps he had only been the herald of Elijah, rather than Messiah- and that therefore perhaps Jesus was the Elijah prophet. And it seems some had accepted that view. This is the problem with crises of faith- others are affected by them and can easily share our opinion. In <em><a href='B:500 6:14'>Joh 6:14</a></em> we learn that after the miracle of feeding the 5000, the crowd thought that Jesus must be "that prophet which should come into the world". But by "that prophet" they likely referred to Elijah or a herald of Elijah- and not Messiah.</p><p><em>And others, that one of the old prophets hasrisen</em>- Why so much misunderstanding? Perhaps because it demands far less faith to accept Jesus as a prophet, a holy man, than as being the unique Son of God, Saviour and Messiah; it demands far less response in practice. Islam presents Jesus as a "prophet", the new age religions as a "top bloke". But to accept Him as He is demands not only more faith, but also far more response in practice.</p><p>We can note that in <em><a href='B:470 12:23'>Mat 12:23</a></em> the crowd asks: "Is not this the Son of David?". That was a Messianic title. But the answer given here shows that this suspicion that Jesus might be Messiah was just a passing thing. The miracles themselves did not persuade the crowds of the Lord's Messiahship. Pentecostals should take note of that- miracles do not necessarily produce faith.</p><p>The false notion that the Lord Jesus literally pre-existed and was then somehow incarnated, or re-incarnated, was a pagan idea that had become popular in Judaism around the time of Christ. In fact the road to the Trinity began with Justin and other 'church fathers' coming to teach that Jesus personally pre-existed- even though they initially denied that He was God Himself. The Qumran sect, some of whose followers became the first Christians, believed that the "Teacher of Righteousness" pre-existed as the former prophets and would be an incarnation of them. This explains why they thought Messiah had previously been incarnated as Moses, Elijah and the prophets. In this lies the significance of the account in <em><a href='B:470 16:14-18'>Mat 16:14-18</a></em>. Jesus enquires who the people think He is- and the disciples answer that the popular view is that Jesus of Nazareth is Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets reincarnated. But this was exactly who first century Judaism thought Messiah would be. So the crowd view was indeed that Jesus was Messiah- but "Messiah" as they understood Messiah would be. The significance of the incident lies in Peter's affirmation that Jesus, whom he accepted as Messiah, was not a re-incarnation of a pre-existent prophet but was the begotten Son of God. Note in passing that the false doctrine of pre-existence is connected to the pagan myth of incarnation and re-incarnation. If, for example, Jesus really was existing in Old Testament times, then somehow He would have had to have been re-incarnated in Mary's womb.</p>


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


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


text:
<p><em>Saying: The Son of Man must- </em>The usage of&nbsp;<em>dei </em>["must"]is so common in the Lord's discussion of His death.</p><p><em>Suffer many things- </em>The phrase is used elsewhere of the sick woman who had "suffered many things" at the hands of "many physicians" (<em><a href='B:480 5:26'>Mar 5:26</a></em>), and yet is used elsewhere about the Lord's 'many' sufferings at the hands of the Jewish leaders (also in <em><a href='B:480 9:12'>Mar 9:12</a></em>). Surely the Lord perceived in her someone who was sharing something of His final sufferings. All our sufferings are likewise part of His crucifixion sufferings, and if we suffer with Him, we shall also therefore experience His resurrection. That woman was therefore set up as an example of us all.</p><p><em>And be rejected- </em>The same word is used about the stone of Christ being "rejected" by themselves, the builders (<em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>). The word carries the sense of legally condemning. They rejected the sinless Son of God as a condemned sinner and demanded His death. If nothing else we learn some basic psychology- that when a person touches the conscience of less spiritual people, they are likely to intensely slander the person and effectively demand their death, which in our day may be the social death of rejection:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>By the elders- Presbuteros</em>&nbsp;is specifically used of the Sanhedrin members. The Lord's predictions here are highly specific and detailed.</p><p><em>And chief priests and scribes and be killed, and the third day be raised up</em>- Literally, 'High Priests'. There was only supposed to be one High Priest, but the positionwas so lucrative and argued over that there were a group called the 'High Priests'- so far had Judaism fallen away from basic Biblical teachings, despite their zeal to keep the details.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to all: If anyone would follow me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>. In the context of telling His followers to witness to Him, the Lord equates this with taking up their cross daily (<em><a href='B:490 9:23'>Luk 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</a></em>). To not bear that cross is to deny the knowledge of Him before men. To live the crucifixion life is the essential witness. Every act of grace, every evident sign of self-control, every statement of forgiveness towards misunderstanding and unrepentant men::. all this is showing something of the cross. And in this, painful and difficult as it is, demanding and driving-to-the-limit as it must be, lies the essence of our being the Lord’s witnesses. To witness Christ is not to just painlessly distribute a few tracts. It is to live out the dying of the cross.</p><p>Take up the cross, and follow me" is inviting us to carry Christ's cross with Him - He speaks of "the cross" rather than 'a cross'. The Greek translated "take up" is that translated 'to take away' in the context of Christ taking away our sins. Strong says that it implies "expiation" (of sins). This connection, between our taking away / up the cross, and Christ's taking away our sins, suggests that the efficacy of His cross for us depends upon our daily 'taking up the cross'. It is vital therefore that we "take up the cross" if our sins are to be taken away by Him. But our taking up of the cross is a response to the taking away / up of our sins.</p><h4>We all know from experience that how we start each day is important. Indeed, how we start any enterprise is crucial- hence the need for a sound understanding of the basic Gospel before we're baptized. We so often meet the phrase "rose early in the morning" in the Hebrew Bible. Strong defines the Hebrew <em>shawkam </em>translated "rose early" as essentially meaning "to incline the shoulder to a burden::. literally to load up on the back of man". In this we see an evident connection with the Lord's thought about taking up the cross <em>daily</em>, for that surely implies we are to take it up each morning (<em><a href='B:490 9:23'>Luk 9:23</a></em>). Men and women had arisen each morning for 4000 years and inclined their shoulders to the burden of the day, loaded themselves with it onto their back. And the Lord now took humanity further, in redefining that "load", that burden, as His cross. Practically, does this not mean that we are to reflect as we come to consciousness each morning that we are to load ourselves with His cross? This thought need not necessarily lead to an image of having to burden ourselves with an impossible, awful weight. For again in allusion to this idea of loading oneself up each morning, the Lord spoke of how His burden is <em>light</em>! Here perhaps is one of the finest paradoxes of the spiritual life- that His cross, the life of self-sacrifice and self-giving unto the very end, is indeed heavy and demanding::. yet in another sense it is "light", far lighter than the burdens of legalism which Pharisaic religion bound [and binds] upon people.</h4>


text:
<p><em>For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever shall lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it</em>- <em><a href='B:490 9:23-24'>Luk 9:23-24</a></em> describes cross carrying as a rejection of saving <em>our</em> life, of making our present life as rich and fulfilled as possible; and instead concentrating on <em>giving up</em> our lives. William Barclay comments on this passage: “A man must spend his life, not hoard it::. the Christian must realize that he is given life, not to keep it for himself, but to spend it for others; not to husband its flame, but to burn himself out for Christ and for men::. the questions are not ‘How much can I <em>get</em>?’, but, ‘How much can I <em>give</em>?’. Not ‘What is the <em>safe</em> thing to do?’, but ‘What is the <em>right</em> thing to do?”. </p>


text:
<p><em>For what does it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but lose or forfeit his life?</em>- This threat rung in Paul’s mind (in <em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:9'>2Co 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:8'>Phi 3:8</a></em>): If a man gains the world for Christ but does not take up the cross, or is ashamed of Christ's words and principles in this world, he will be <em>cast away</em>. Especially does Paul allude to these words in <em><a href='B:530 9:27'>1Co 9:27</a></em>: "Lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway". Paul recognized his temptation: to think that his zeal for preaching excused him from taking up the cross. In essence, we must all see our own likely temptations: to focus on one area of spirituality, with the hope that it will excuse us from the cross:&nbsp;</p><p>Jesus speaks of how a person can lose their place in the Kingdom as a person losing or forfeiting their own self; He was thereby teaching that a place in the Kingdom was possessing one’s own real self (<em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em> RV).</p><p>The Greek text in <em><a href='B:470 16:25-26'>Mat 16:25-26</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em> can bear a re-translation and re-punctuation which quite alters the sense as found in the English translations. It shows the Lord emphasizing the evident and compelling logic of losing our lives for His sake: "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For how much a man is profited if he shall gain the whole world (in the Kingdom) and lose his own soul (now, as I asked you to do, to lose your soul for me)!::. for the Son of man shall come::. and then he shall reward every man according to his works", i:e. the losing of our soul is through our everyday works. <em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em> makes the same point: 'How is a man advantaged if he gain the whole world (the Kingdom) and lose himself (now)!: <em>or</em> - be cast away, be condemned at the judgment, because he tried to keep his soul, he didn't see the logic of all this!'. The oint is, a man at the day of judgment will be willing to give up <em>everything</em>, even the whole world if he possesses it in order that he may find acceptance. But then it will be too late. <em>Now</em> is the time to resign all for the sake of that blessed acceptance.</p>


text:
<p><em>For whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his own glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:730 19:10'>Rev 19:10</a></em>. If we are <em>now</em> ashamed of our Lord before men, we will be in the condemnation process (<em><a href='B:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>). </p>&nbsp;<p>See on <em><a href='B:520 1:16'>Rom 1:16</a></em>. Being ashamed of the Lord's words doesn't just apply to not speaking up for the Truth when someone invites us to a topless bar after work. It's equally true, and the punishment for it just the same, in the context of not speaking out Christ's word in the ecclesia, to our very own brethren (<em><a href='B:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</a></em> = <em><a href='B:620 1:8'>2Ti 1:8</a></em>). The Lord Jesus will be ashamed of the rejected when He comes in the glory of the Father. There is a telling juxtaposition of ideas here- shame and glory. Amidst the utter glory of the Father's throne, surrounded by Angels, the Lord will be sitting there with eyes downwards in shame as the rejected stand before Him and walk away. The Proverbs speak of how shame is to be the ultimate end of the wicked, and glory the end of the righteous. Yet it is <em>the rejected who</em> go away "into shame". <em>They</em> will be "ashamed before him at his coming". Yet the Lord will so feel for even the rejected, that He feels for them and reflects their feelings. This is no stern-faced judge chasing away those He is angry with. This is a window into the Lord's ineffable love and feelings even for those for whom it truly is too late, for whom the way to the tree of life is now barred.</p><p>The way the Lord Jesus says that He will be "ashamed" of those He has to reject opens an interesting window into what it means to have Divine nature. It doesn't mean that we will not then know the range of emotions which we have as humans today- for we are made in God's image. To think of the Lord of Heaven and earth, on the throne of His glory, sitting or standing there "ashamed"::. because of His people. And shame is really a concept relevant to the presence of others- and the others who will be present will be the Angels and ourselves. Before us, we who are ourselves <em>so</em> weak and saved by His grace alone, He will feel shame because of those He has to reject. But there's another way of looking at the Lord's 'shame'. It is the rejected who will have shame in that day (<em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>). Such is the nature of the Lord's love and empathy that He will somehow feel their shame, feel embarrassed for them as it were. Which thought in itself should banish for ever any idea that we are coming before an angry Master. The Lord of grace is the One who will be, and is, our judge. And even in His condemnation of men, His essential love shines through. His condemnation of Israel involved them wandering for years in the wilderness; but during that wandering, "in all their affliction, he was afflicted" (<em><a href='B:290 63:9'>Isa 63:9</a></em>). God shared in their feelings and suffering of rejection; just as the Lord Jesus will share in the shame of those who walk away from Him at the last day in shame. God's being with Israel during their wilderness wanderings is cited in <em><a href='B:370 2:10'>Amo 2:10</a></em> as an example of His especial love for His people.</p>


text:
<p><em>But I tell you a truth: There are some that stand here, who shall in no way taste death, until they see the kingdom of God</em>- The Lord will essentially be the same as the Gospels present Him when we see Him again. This is why Jesus even in His earthly life could be called "the Kingdom of God", so close was the link between the man who walked Palestine and the One who will come again in glory. “They see the Kingdom of God come” (<em><a href='B:480 9:1'>Mar 9:1</a></em>) is paralleled by “They see the Son of man coming” (<em><a href='B:470 16:28'>Mat 16:28</a></em>). Indeed it would seem that the references in the Synoptic Gospels to the ‘coming’ of the Kingdom are interpreted in the rest of the New Testament as referring to the personal ‘coming’ of the Lord Jesus (e:g. <em><a href='B:530 16:22'>1Co 16:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:20'>Rev 22:20</a></em>). In that very context of referring to Himself as "the Kingdom of God", the Lord speaks of His return as 'the days of the Son of man'- the human Jesus. And yet He also speaks in that context of how after His death, men will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, i:e. how He had been in His mortal life (<em><a href='B:490 17:20-26'>Luk 17:20-26</a></em>). As He was in His mortal days, so He will essentially be in the day of His final glory. </p><p><em><a href='B:480 9:1'>Mar 9:1</a></em> records that He also said: "The Kingdom of God come with power". It is of course argued by many that the Gospel writers are merely summarizing the Lord's words in their own words. After extensive comparison of the Gospel records, I find this explanation unnecessary- because in no case of apparent contradiction do I see that the different forms of words are mutually contradictory. The Lord could easily have said something like: 'Till&nbsp;they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom (Mt:)<em>-&nbsp;</em>The Kingdom of God come with power (Mk:)'. Luke's "Till they see the Kingdom of God" (<em><a href='B:490 9:27'>Luk 9:27</a></em>) is perfectly in accordance with this- the first part of that clause ("Till they see") is from Matthew and "the Kingdom of God" is from Mark. It's statistically incredible that there is not a single case that I have come across in comparing the Gospels which is impossible to reconcile in this manner. If the Gospel writers were anything less than Divinely inspired, there would simply have to be contradiction between the accounts. I therefore see no need to assume that the writers were summarizing the Lord's words in their own words. This manner of repeating the same basic truth several times, e:g. 'Till&nbsp;they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom (Mt:)<em>-&nbsp;</em>The Kingdom of God come with power (Mk:)', is true to my human experience in preaching the Gospel in public formats to illiterate people. I tend to repeat the same basic idea in slightly differentwords. And this is exactly what the Lord would've been doing, and the records of His words reflect that:&nbsp;</p><p>The preceding verse 26 has clearly used the language of Christ's coming and His Kingdom in the context of the final judgment, when payment will be made to those who have 'lost' in this life that they might gain eternally. It is of course no coincidence that the synoptics each go on to record the transfiguration. But the connection with verse 26 means that the Lord surely was referring to His actual return in glory and final judgment. The language of '<em>Some</em>&nbsp;here will not taste of death' is strange if the Lord has in mind an event which would occur within the next week. Surely He meant that that generation would see His coming in glory. The transfiguration was at best a vision or foretaste of that time, the evident "glory" involved with the situation is to be connected with the "glory" that will be revealed at the Lord's second coming (:26). I note under <em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em> that the Lord may not have been even expecting the transfiguration when He spoke these words. What are we to make of this?</p><p>One suggestion is that just as it had been possible for Israel to have been prepared by John to accept Jesus as Christ and thus enabled the King of glory to come to Zion and establish His Kingdom, so it was possible that the Kingdom of God could have been established in that generation. But Israel crucified the Son rather than giving Him the fruit of the vineyard, and even afterwards they did not repent&nbsp;<em>en masse</em>, and those who did failed to take the Gospel to the Gentile world to the extent which was then required for the Kingdom to come. "<em>Shall not</em>&nbsp;taste of death" uses the same word as in <em><a href='B:470 10:23'>Mat 10:23</a></em>: "You&nbsp;<em>shall not</em>&nbsp;have gone over the cities of Israel [in preaching the Gospel] before the Son of Man be come". But it seems that the disciples did not fulfil the preaching commission as intended, for the Lord's parables of harvest lament the paucity and weakness of the labourers, to the extent that the implication is that the harvest was largely spoilt because of this:&nbsp;</p><p>Much hinges around how we understand&nbsp;<em>heos an</em>, translated "until". "Until" suggests that one state is ended after an event happens. Did the Lord mean 'You will not die until the Kingdom comes, and then you will die'?. That reflection alone suggests we need to think more carefully about the translation of those Greek words. Did the Lord really mean that they would not die until they saw the Kingdom come, and then they would? It could be that&nbsp;<em>heos an</em>&nbsp;is capable of a conditional meaning, as if to say 'Some of you will not taste of death&nbsp;<em>heos an</em>&nbsp;the coming of the Kingdom- i:e. you need not necessarily die, until the Kingdom come'. The problem with that is that every attested usage of&nbsp;<em>heos an</em>&nbsp;means 'until'; hyper examination of a common Greek term and trying to make it mean something else, or hoping such a meaning might be legitimate, is not the way to conduct Bible study:&nbsp;</p><p>Which leads me to my preferred suggestion- that the Lord indeed was saying that some of those present would indeed taste of death after they had seen His coming in glory. In this case, those referred to would be the rejected, those who had sought to gain the world for themselves in this life, rather than losing it all now in order to gain the future Kingdom at the day of His coming. The Lord often speaks of the awful position of the condemned in the last day. They will “see” Him- and&nbsp;<em>eido&nbsp;</em>refers more to understanding and recognition than to physical seeing- but all too late, for after that, they will then die the second death. According to <em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>, those who condemned Him to death would see Him again, and say "Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord", they would accept Him as Messiah- but when? At His return, they as persons responsible to judgment will be resurrected and then in that day will wish to welcome Him as Messiah. But too late. This is the basis for the gnashing of teeth at the last day- seeing His coming and Kingdom, recognizing Him as Lord, but then having to die. <em><a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a></em> speaks of this situation- those who pierced Him will see Him at His coming in glory and bitterly weep. So the Lord is foreseeing how some would indeed be resurrected to judgment, see His Kingdom come- and then have to die "the second death":&nbsp;</p><p>However, it seems another meaning is also loaded within the words. John's Gospel speaks of how only those who are born again can "see the Kingdom of God::. see life" (<em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:36'>Joh 3:36</a></em>). Later, John records how the Lord spoke of how those who keep His word shall never "see death::. never taste of death" (<em><a href='B:500 8:51-52'>Joh 8:51-52</a></em>). The idea would then be that some of them would come to find spiritual life, and see the essence of the Kingdom in their lives- and the following account of the transfiguration would then be proof that this was indeed achieved in embryo by at least three of them. In this case we could also understand "the Kingdom" as a reference to the King of the Kingdom, the 'royal splendour' referring to Christ personally- and the disciples saw this in the transfiguration. The connections with John's Gospel are strong, but it would however seem strange for Matthew to start using language in such symbolic ways in the style of John. For this is generally not his style at all.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass about eight days after these sayings, that he took with him Peter, John and James and went up into the mountain to pray</em>- Peter is mentioned first. An over-reaction against Catholic views of Peter can lead us to under-estimate the undoubted supremacy of Peter in the early ecclesia. He was in the inner three along with James and John, and in incidents involving them he is always mentioned first, as the leader (<em><a href='B:470 17:1-2'>Mat 17:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:37'>Mat 26:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:37'>Mar 5:37</a></em>). He is the first to confess Jesus as Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 16:13-17'>Mat 16:13-17</a></em>), the first apostle to see the risen Christ (<em><a href='B:490 24:34'>Luk 24:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:5'>1Co 15:5</a></em>), the first to preach to the Gentiles. Being given the keys of the Kingdom is language which would have been understood at the time as the Lord making Peter the Chief Rabbi of His new ecclesia. The Acts record without doubt gives primacy to Peter as the leader and chief representative of Christ’s fledgling church. But, humanly speaking, he was the most unlikely choice. The one who in the eyes of the world and brotherhood should have sat a fair while on the back burner, done the honourable thing… in fact, many honourable things, in just keeping a respectful and bashful silence. And there is no lack of evidence that Peter himself would have preferred that. But no, he was commissioned by the Lord to specifically lead the church. The early church was to be built on the rock of Peter. Whether we like to read this as meaning the rock of Peter’s confession that Christ was the Son of God, or as simply meaning Peter’s work as the manifestation of Christ,&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>rock, the Acts record showsclearly that the early church was built upon the specific work of Peter.</p><p>Being led up [Gk:] a high mountain by the leader to be present at a theophany is very much the language of Moses taking Joshua and earlier another trio of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu) with him part way up Mount Sinai, and likewise experiencing a shining face (<em><a href='B:20 34:29-35'>Exo 34:29-35</a></em>) and God’s voice from a cloud (<em><a href='B:20 34:5'>Exo 34:5</a></em>). Moses returned from the Mount with shining face and the people were afraid- just as happened here (<em><a href='B:480 9:6'>Mar 9:6</a></em>). Perhaps Peter vaguely comprehended all this when he wanted to build ‘tabernacles’, because this was the task given to Moses for Israel to complete. <em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em> speaks of the&nbsp;<em>exodus&nbsp;</em>which the Lord was to make at Jerusalem- a reference to His death. It was the Passover lamb which died at the Exodus- the implication is that now God’s people were free to leave Egypt. Again, those secular fishermen were being shown (through the obvious parallel) that they were none less than Joshua in this new Israel which was being created; and after the Lord’s departure, they were to take His place and lead God’s Israel into the Kingdom:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he was praying- </em>The idea seems to be that just as He had taken the twelve into Gentile areas for a period of intense teaching of them, so even within the twelve He focused upon these three and wanted to spend time alone with them. He “took” them means to desire association with, to come close to. This was His intention, and one wonders whether the transfiguration was therefore unexpected for Him. Previously when He had tried to get the twelve away by themselves, there had been unexpected events which hampered that, such as the crowds following them, and even in Gentile areas the Lord seems to have been surprised by the faith and need to perform miracles which He encountered. In this case, it would be unintentional that the transfiguration is recorded as following straight after His words about His coming in His Kingdom; it wasn’t as if the Lord said those words knowing that some would witness the transfiguration. According to <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em>, the Lord’s intention was to go up the mountain “to pray”, but whilst He prayed, the transfiguration occurred. See on <em><a href='B:470 16:28'>Mat 16:28</a></em>:&nbsp;He started praying and then there was a theophany; but in their human weakness they missed much of it because they fell asleep. This was exactly the situation in the Garden of Gethsemane, with the same three involved; it was as if He was seeking to train them for it. They were “heavy” with sleep (<em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em>), and the word is only used elsewhere in the Gospels to describe how the same three were “heavy” with sleep in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:43'>Mat 26:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:40'>Mar 14:40</a></em>). Even if Jesus Himself wasn’t consciously doing this, we have here an example of how the Divine hand leads us through experiences in order to prepare us for others which are to come later in similar form:&nbsp;</p><h4><em>The appearance of his face was altered- </em>Mt. "His face shone as the sun". The same word used about the shining associated with the Lord's second coming (<em><a href='B:490 17:24'>Luk 17:24</a></em>). Having taught that we too should be transfigured (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> s:w:), Paul goes on to say that God has “shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>). This is transfiguration language. We are to be transformed into that same image. He there becomes the picture of what each of us in Him are evolving into. The Lord's return will be as the rising of the sun (<em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>). The same figure is used for the Kingdom age and His return in <em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em> and <em><a href='B:730 1:16'>Rev 1:16</a></em>:&nbsp;&nbsp;</h4><p><em>And his garment became white and dazzling</em>- The same description used about the white clothing of the Angels at the resurrection ("white as snow", <em><a href='B:470 28:3'>Mat 28:3</a></em>, just as in <em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:5'>Mar 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:12'>Joh 20:12</a></em>). In the midst of the conversation about His upcoming death (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>), there was the encouragement of what the resurrection glory would be like. The same word is also used about the Lord's current appearance in Heavenly glory with clothes "as white as snow" (<em><a href='B:730 1:14'>Rev 1:14</a></em> - the very phrased used in <em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em>). Indeed, the description of the risen Lord in Revelation 1 has many connections with the language used about His appearance at the transfiguration. Again the idea was to show Him how He would be after His glorification, to motivate Him to go through with the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;at the cross which He must fulfil at Jerusalem:&nbsp; </p><p>Mark adds that the Lord's clothing was "white as snow, such that no fuller on earth can white them" (<em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em>). The Hebrew mind would have obviously thought of the clothing of God Himself, the "ancient of days" of <em><a href='B:340 7:9'>Dan 7:9</a></em>, which is described likewise. The comment that no&nbsp;<em>man</em>&nbsp;could ever make them so white is also a hint in that direction. He was clothed with the clothing of God. This doesn't make Him God, for Revelation has many descriptions of the faithful having the same kind of clothing. Against this background, the promise of <em><a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a></em> becomes the more awesome- that even although our sins are red as crimson, yet they can become white as snow. This can only be achieved by the wearing of God's own clothing, the gift ofHis imputed righteousness, which Paul extensively glories in throughout Romans 1-8. <em><a href='B:730 7:14'>Rev 7:14</a></em> speaks of plunging our robes in the blood of the lamb, and them becoming white. It's all so paradoxical- that this whiteness cannot be achieved by man, no fuller on earth could do this, but by plunging [surely an allusion to baptism] into the red blood of Christ. This is the challenge of faith- to believe that the promised whiteness can be achieved through Christ. It was possible even in Isaiah's time, on the basis that God looked ahead to the work of Christ which as it were enabled Him to do this. Therefore the reference to "no fuller on earth" suggests that there is a fuller in Heaven who can do this. And <em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em> is specific that the Messiah heralded by the Elijah prophet, John the Baptist, would be like "fuller's soap" in cleansing men through the judgment of their sins. David in the depth of his sin appealed to God to 'full' him ("wash me", but s:w. 'fuller'- <em><a href='B:230 51:2'>Psa 51:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a></em>); and this was done for him, on account of the future work of Christ which the Father then held in view:&nbsp; The Lord's glistering garments are therefore available for all of us. And it is with that connection that the scene there becomes no mere spectacle to behold in awe from afar, but a real picture of our own possibility before God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And talking with him were two men, who were Moses and Elijah</em>- They appeared “in glory” (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>), as the Lord did- this is clearly a vision of the Kingdom. The Lord Jesus was the firstfruits from the dead, who opened the way to immortality. So there is no way that they were already glorified before His death and resurrection. It was a vision (<em><a href='B:470 17:9'>Mat 17:9</a></em>), of the Kingdom. Just as Jesus was not then glorified Himself at that time, neither were they. They spoke of how the Lord was going to “fulfil” the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;in His death at Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>). It was Moses who could supremely explain this to the Lord, having himself slain the Passover lamb and experienced the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;made possible thereby.</p><p>The transfiguration follows straight on from the Lord’s talk about the Kingdom. It was a foretaste of the Kingdom. Yet the Kingdom is fundamentally a&nbsp;<em>relationship</em>&nbsp;with God. Thus the foretaste of the Kingdom presented at the transfiguration was of faithful men in spiritual conversation with the glorified Lord Jesus, with His face shining as the sun as it will in the Kingdom, as the “sun of righteousness” (<em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:680 1:15'>2Pe 1:15</a></em>. "In glory" suggests they were presented as it were already in the Kingdom, and from that kingdom perspective they talked with the Lord about His upcoming short term sufferings. We too must try to see our sharings in the cross as being in the context of the Kingdom. "Departure" is <em>eksodos</em>- Moses and Elijah had each experienced death at their exodus. And yet the Lord's exodus was all the more meaningful because it would enable the final delivery of God's people from the slavery of sin and death.</p>&nbsp;<p>They appeared “in glory”, as the Lord did- this is clearly a vision of the Kingdom. The Lord Jesus was the firstfruits from the dead, who opened the way to immortality. So there is no way that they were already glorified before His death and resurrection. It was a vision (<em><a href='B:470 17:9'>Mat 17:9</a></em>), of the Kingdom. Just as Jesus was not then glorified Himself at that time, neither were they. They spoke of how the Lord was going to “fulfil” the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;in His death at Jerusalem. It was Moses who could supremely explain this to the Lord, having himself slain the Passover lamb and experienced the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;made possible thereby.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep, but when they were fully awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him</em>- “Saw his glory” is absolutely the language of Moses and the Old Testament heroes seeing Divine glory in theophanies, and like the disciples, hearing God’s voice (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em> Heb. – “shew” is the same word translated ‘to see’’; Isaiah- <em><a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a></em>; Ezekiel- <em><a href='B:330 1:28'>Eze 1:28</a></em>). Yet again the Lord was seeking to show those secular men that they were called to work on the level of Moses and the prophets in the new Israel which the Lord Jesus was creating out of manual labourers, prostitutes, tax collectors, swindlers and sinners.</p><p>The disciples’ eyes were heavy in Gethsemane and they fell asleep at the critical moment. But earlier, “having remained awake”, the same disciples were blessed with a vision of the Lord’s glory (<em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em> RVmg:). If they had remained awake in the garden, they would have seen the Lord being glorified by Angelic visitation. But they didn't perceive how the circumstances were repeating, and thus didn’t find the strength and inspiration which was potentially prepared for them through the similarity of circumstance:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as they were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus: Master, it is good for us to be here! Let us make three booths, one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah-</em> Throughout the Lord's ministry, Peter had a mental barrierto the idea of his Lord suffering and dying. It could be argued that his desire to build tents and remain in the mountain of transfiguration was rooted in this- Moses and Elijah had just spoken with the Lord Jesus about the path He must take to death, and Peter somehow wants the Lord to stay there in the mountain (<em><a href='B:480 9:5'>Mar 9:5</a></em>). And yet Peter's later preaching has so much to say about the Lord's death. And his letters contain quotations and allusions from Isaiah's suffering servant prophecies (<em><a href='B:670 2:21'>1Pe 2:21</a></em> etc:). Further, if we accept the idea elsewhere discussed that Mark's Gospel is a transcript of Peter's preaching of the Gospel, it becomes significant that Mark's version of the Gospel likewise emphasizes Jesus as the suffering servant. Thus what Peter was once blind to, he made a special point of preaching. The content of his witness reflected his deep awareness of his past blindness- and therefore his appeal to others to 'get it' was the more powerful seeing that he himself had patently 'not got it' for some years. And it shouldn't be hard to translate his example into our daily experience, speaking of our weaknesses and former blindnesses rather than coming over as the self-congratulatory religious guy.</p><p>It may have taken much of the day to climb the mountain, and Peter was maybe thinking of where they were going to sleep for the night. Or was did he also have in mind a celebration of the feast of Tabernacles at that time? Later, Peter came to see his death as a taking down of a tent (<em><a href='B:680 1:13'>2Pe 1:13</a></em>), using the same word for the tabernacle he had wanted to build for his Lord at the transfiguration. Then, he had wanted the tent to be set up so that the time of the Lord’s departure wouldn’t come; so that the Lord would stay with them there, with Moses and Elijah, in what must have seemed like the Kingdom of God. Again, Peter didn’t want the cross, neither for his Lord nor for himself. But by the time he wrote 2 Peter, he had learnt his lesson; he saw that his tent must be taken down. The vision of the glory of the Lord Jesus, the words of His coming death and future Kingdom, these were quite enough. There had been no need of the tent on the mountain, and now he saw there was no need for the tent of his body either. We are all the same. Our death will literally be a death with the Lord, in that our resurrection will be after the pattern of His (<em><a href='B:520 6:5'>Rom 6:5</a></em>). Peter learnt this lesson from the transfiguration because he describes his coming death as his&nbsp;<em>exodus&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:680 1:15'>2Pe 1:15</a></em>), just as Moses and Elijah had spoken then of the Lord’s coming death (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Not knowing what he said</em>- It is possible to understand Peter’s suggestion simply as the kind of inappropriate thing a man would say who wants to make a response to spirituality, but doesn’t know how to. He wanted to do something material and physical- he simply didn’t know what to say. The response was the voice from Heaven telling Peter to&nbsp;<em>hear</em>&nbsp;Jesus, to respond to His word, rather than run around doing inappropriate works just because we feel we have to&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;something.</p>


text:
<p><em>And while he said these things, there came a cloud that overshadowed them; and they were fearful as they entered into the cloud</em>- Moses had previously entered the cloud of glory, seen God’s glory and heard God’s voice- on the top of a mountain. Moses’ ascent into the mountain and into the very cloud of Divine glory was understood in Judaism as the very zenith of human spiritual achievement of all time, coming so close to the very personal presence of God, never to be repeated amongst men. And now, three fishermen were having the very same experience. No wonder they feared as they themselves entered into that cloud:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: This is My Son, My chosen. Hear him</em>- This was literally the word of God, and yet it was actually a string of three quotations from God’s word in the Old Testament: “You are My Son” (<em><a href='B:230 2:7'>Psa 2:7</a></em>), “In whom My soul delights” (<em><a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a></em>), “Hear Him” (<em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em>). It must have been a profound evidence of the Bible’s Divine inspiration. The very voice of God repeating His own words as found in the Law, Psalms and Prophets- the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures:&nbsp;"Hear Him<em>"</em> was intended to take the mind back to <em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em>, where it was written that Messiah would be ‘heard’ by the faithful. But Peter fell down paralyzed with fear; he didn’t really hear the son of God then. Yet in <em><a href='B:510 3:22'>Act 3:22</a></em>, Peter quotes <em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em> and asks his hearers to obey the passage by hearing Jesus, through his preaching of Him. He was asking his audience to do what he himself hadn’t done. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the voice came, Jesus was found alone- </em>He was the word made flesh. The law and the prophets were fulfilled in Him, and so the voice of God as it were made Elijah and Moses to exit. Matthew says: "No one, save Jesus only". In the Greek as well as in translation, this is really labouring the point. The “save / only”,&nbsp;<em>monos</em>, is redundant- they saw ‘nobody except Jesus’ is a statement which needs no further qualification, indeed grammatically it almost&nbsp;cannot&nbsp;be given further qualification, and reads awkwardly because of the&nbsp;monos, “only”, that is added. But the word “only” is added to emphasize that their focus was solely upon Him. That was the purpose of the event, and it had been achieved. Christ centeredness is the ultimate, final and total issue of our experience of Him, the Law and the prophets. The transfiguration ends with this total focus&nbsp;monos&nbsp;upon Christ; this was the practical effect of the theophany. John’s Gospel doesn’t record the transfiguration, but as so often, it is indeed alluded to. For John’s Gospel is full of references to seeing glory, to hearingthe Son. It’s as if John presents Jesus to us a constant theophany, not one that three of the best disciples go up a mountain to see for a short period, but one which is continually before each of us, and which according to Paul’s allusions to it, draws us into its very process. For we too are transfigured as we like the disciples behold the Lord’s transfiguration (<em><a href='B:520 12:2'>Rom 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> s:w:).</p><p><em>And they kept quiet and told no one in those days any of the things which they had seen</em>- <em>"</em>To no one" maybe connects with the fact that they saw “no man” except Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 9:8'>Mar 9:8</a></em>); and so they are asked to tell the vision to “no man” until after the Lord’s resurrection. It could be that the Lord wanted them to retain their focus upon Him by not telling others but instead meditating personally upon what they had seen. The vision had been of the Lord’s resurrection glory- we noted above the similarities in language to the shining garments of the Angels at the resurrection scene. The Lord didn’t want people to think that He had already attained that glory without the cross. Even though in prospect He had that glory, He was insistent that no impression be given that He could attain it without passing through the cross. This was particularly important for Peter to appreciate, who several times entertained a hope that glory was possible for the Lord without the cross.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And a man from the crowd cried, saying: Teacher, I beg you to look upon my son; for he is my only child</em>- Having only one child was unusual; perhaps the mother had died. </p>


text:
<p><em>And a spirit seizes him, and he suddenly cries out- </em>The spirit and the person are parallel here; the person's behaviour was understood to be that of the supposed spirit. They failed to examine the behaviour or symptoms of a person as just that, instead they sought to explain it with reference to their theories of spirits.</p><h4><em>It convulses him so that he foams at the mouth; and it departs from him with great difficulty, bruising him</em>- Matthew and Mark speak of gnashing teeth and jumping into fire and water. Descriptions of the rejected come to mind as gnashing teeth, cast into fire and water, wallowing helpless::. Likewise hitting himself was a sign of self-hatred, believing he was guilty of the beatings which were associated with the idea of condemnation (<em><a href='B:490 12:47-48'>Luk 12:47-48</a></em>). The child was obsessed with fear of condemnation, just as we noted Legion had been. His problem was therefore psychologically rooted, and the language of demons is simply the language of the day to describe his actions and theirapparent cure. This connection shows at least two things: that there will be a madness in the rejected, the tragic aimlessness of the demented. And secondly, that because the demoniac was cured, it is possible for a man whose behaviour leads to his condemnation&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>to still repent, before it's too late. And yet although the rejected may appear demented, they may well not feel like this. They will gnash their teeth with anger, not least against themselves. Being cast into fire or water (Mt:) were both figures of condemnation. The young man felt he was worthy of condemnation- hence conviction of the Lord's saving mercy would have been enough to cure him of the deep sense of unworthiness which he had.</h4>


text:
<p><em>And I begged your disciples to cast it out- </em>He "besought" them, he begged them, to heal the child. According to Mark, when the father of the dumb child brought him to the disciples, he tells Jesus that “I brought unto thee my son”, but the disciples couldn’t cure him (<em><a href='B:480 9:17'>Mar 9:17</a></em> RV); he perceived Jesus as His followers, just as folk do today. The Lord had earlier given them power over “unclean spirits” (<em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>)- but still they couldn’t heal him. The power given to them was therefore potential power, but it was no guarantee that they would actually do the works. Alternatively, we could conclude that that power was only given to them temporarily. Or, that there is a difference between the twelve, and the more general “disciples” / followers of Jesus. However it would have been strange indeed if the man had not brought his son to the group of the twelve in the hope of healing. And it is the disciples, presumably the twelve, who then come to the Lord and ask why they could not perform the cure (<em><a href='B:470 17:19'>Mat 17:19</a></em>).</p><p><em>But they could not</em>- They had no&nbsp;<em>dunamai&nbsp;</em>(possibility); <em><a href='B:480 9:18'>Mar 9:18</a></em> uses a different word- according to Mark, the man said that they “could not” using&nbsp;<em>ischuo&nbsp;</em>(more carrying the sense of physical power). The man therefore bewailed at least twice that the disciples couldn’t help; and he asks the Lord Jesus to help “if You can” (<em><a href='B:480 9:22'>Mar 9:22</a></em> -&nbsp;<em>dunamai</em>). They did have the possibility; but they lacked the faith to actualize it (<em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:19-20'>Luk 10:19-20</a></em> “I give unto you power… over all the power of the enemy… the spirits are subject unto you”). We too have been given potentials which require faith to exploit, and our failures to do so leave people with the impression that the Lord Himself is limited- for, like the disciples, we are His representatives in this world, and people coming to us are effectively coming to Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answered and said: O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you and put up with you?-</em> He describes them as [part of] a “faithless generation”, again indicating how the disciples were all too influenced by Judaism, the “generation” or world around them. The disciples and Judaism / the Jewish world are paralleled in <em><a href='B:500 7:3-4'>Joh 7:3-4</a></em>: “Let your disciples see your work… shew yourself to the world”:&nbsp; See on <em><a href='B:500 7:33'>Joh 7:33</a></em>.</p><p>An example of the Lord’s perhaps unconscious usage of His Father’s words is to be found in this exasperated comment:&nbsp; Of course the Lord would have spoken those words and expressed those ideas in Aramaic- but the similarity is striking with His Father’s Hebrew words of <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation…?”. As a son comes out with phrases and word usages which ‘Could be his father speaking!’, so the Lord Jesus did the same thing. What I am saying is that the Lord was not merely quoting or alluding to the Father’s Old Testament words, in the way that, say, Paul or Peter did. As the Father’s Son, He was speaking in the same way as His Father, no doubt saturated with the written record of the Father’s words, but all the same, there were those similarities of wording and underlying thinking which are only seen between fathers and sons. And His words of <em><a href='B:470 17:17'>Mat 17:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em> seem to me to be an example of this. It was the disciples who were faithless. In Matthew chapters 12 and 13, the Lord had drawn a clear difference between the disciples, and the unbelieving surrounding generation. It seems that He now despaired of whether that distinction was valid; He sees them, in the heat of that moment of bitter disappointment, as no better than the masses who did not believe. The "faithless" will be condemned (<em><a href='B:490 12:46'>Luk 12:46</a></em> "his portion with the unbelievers", s:w:), and this is the term used about the world generally (<em><a href='B:530 6:6'>1Co 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:12'>1Co 7:12</a></em>); or as the Lord puts it, this "generation". And yet the Lord uses it here about the disciples and again in <em><a href='B:500 20:27'>Joh 20:27</a></em>. The very phrase "perverse generation" is used by Paul about the unbelieving world (<em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em>). To use this term about the disciples is therefore significant; the Lord really felt that His faith and hope that they were different from the Jewish world had been misplaced. After His encounter with Elijah and Moses, he doubtless expected more of God's people.</p><p>This fits in with a Biblical theme- of people being confronted with acute spiritual temptation immediately after a highly spiritual experience. And this is true to life- so often, merely hours after a highly intense spiritual experience [e:g. at a breaking of bread meeting] we find ourselves assailed by temptation and spiritualdepression. It's not that we are encountered by a physical person called 'Satan' immediately after our spiritual 'high'; rather it is a feature of human nature that the closer we come to God, the stronger is the tidal backwash of&nbsp;<em>internal</em>&nbsp;temptation immediately afterwards. Consider some examples:</p><p>- Noah walks off the ark, a superb triumph of faith, into a cleansed and pristine world, with the rainbow arch of God's grace above him- and gets dead drunk (<em><a href='B:10 9:21-24'>Gen 9:21-24</a></em>).</p><p>- Moses renounced greatness, stood up for God's people and then left Egypt by faith, "not fearing the wrath of the king" (<em><a href='B:650 11:27'>Heb 11:27</a></em>); and yet ended up fleeing in fear from Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 2:14-15'>Exo 2:14-15</a></em>).</p><p>- Moses returned from the awesome meeting with God on Sinai and gave in to a flash of anger, during which he smashed the tables of the covenant- a covenant which had also been made with him personally.</p><p>- Israel were ecstatic with joy and confidence in God as they stood on the other side of the Red Sea- but very soon afterwards they were giving in to temptation in the wilderness, accusing God of intending to kill them and being careless for them.</p><p>- Judas went from the spiritual height of being present at the first "breaking of bread" meeting with the Lord Jesus, just prior to His death, directly into temptation from "the Devil" and then went out into the darkness of that night (<em><a href='B:490 22:3'>Luk 22:3</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>- Soon after his spiritual triumph on Carmel, Elijah is to be found suicidal and bitter with God, and considering that the other faithful in Israel are in fact also apostate (<em><a href='B:110 19:4-11'>1Ki 19:4-11</a></em>).</p><p>- Samson's life was full of giving in to spiritual temptation immediately after he had been empowered by God to do some great miracle.</p><p>- Immediately after having been saved by God's grace from a huge invasion (2 Samuel 11), David sins with Bathsheba and murders Uriah (2 Samuel 12).</p><p>- After the wonder of having a terminal illness delayed by 15 years in response to prayer, Hezekiah gives in to the temptation to be proud and selfish in the events of Isaiah 39.</p><p>- Soon after the wonder of the miracles of the loaves and fishes, the disciples hardened their heart to it and accused Jesus of not caring for them (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:52'>Mar 6:52</a></em>).</p><p>- Paul straight after his wonderful vision of "the third heaven" finds himself struggling with a "thorn in the flesh", a term I have elsewhere suggested may refer to a spiritual weakness or temptation (<em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em>).</p><p>- After the wonder of baptism and the confirming voice from Heaven, Jesus was immediately assaulted by major temptation in the wilderness.</p><p>This is surely the most graphic and intense expression of frustration in the entire recorded history of the Lord Jesus. His frustration was with how His disciples were not living up to their potential, and how faithless they were. And we daily exhibit the same terribly disappointing characteristics. But&nbsp;<em>how long</em>&nbsp;may not necessarily be a cry of exasperation- although it could be that. There can also be the sense of 'Until when?', and the time in view was the Lord's death. John's Gospel records the Lord several times speaking of how His hour or time had not yet come, and how He agonized until it did. That end point was clearly the moment when He cried from the cross "It is finished".</p>&nbsp;<p><em>Bring your son here</em>- The man had brought [s:w. "bring"] his son to the disciples, they couldn't heal him, and so the Lord asks for the child to be brought to Him personally. And yet He had taught that in their witness, the disciples were Him to this world. Coming to them was coming to Him. But He despaired that in this case, there was now a difference between them and Him. They were unable to manifest Him as they should because of their lack of faith. And there are times when our status as 'brethren in Christ' likewise fails, and we fail to be Him to this world and He has to intervene and reveal Himself more directly to men.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he was coming, the demon dashed him down and convulsed him. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the boy, and gave him back to his father</em>- As noted above, the young man was obsessed with fear of condemnation. When he realized he was in the presence of the Lord, his condition therefore worsened considerably; he felt he really had arrived at judgment day, and wanted to destroy himself. Again we note that the underlying problem with him was psychological and spiritual, rather than being literally attacked by a demon. </p><p>There are a number of parallels between the language used of ‘casting out’ demons, and that used about healings. Jesus “rebuked” demons in <em><a href='B:480 9:25'>Mar 9:25</a></em>, and yet He “rebuked” a fever (<em><a href='B:490 4:39'>Luk 4:39</a></em>) and the wind (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>). Demons are spoken of as having “departed” (<em><a href='B:470 17:18'>Mat 17:18</a></em>), yet we read of leprosy ‘departing’ (<em><a href='B:480 1:42'>Mar 1:42</a></em>) and diseases ‘departing’ after cure (<em><a href='B:510 19:12'>Act 19:12</a></em>). I’d go so far as to say that every case of a person being spoken of as demon possessed has its equivalent in diseases which we can identify today – e:g. epilepsy, schizophrenia. The peoples of the first century, and their predecessors, believed that demons and the Satan monster were somehow associated with water- that was why, they figured, the water mysteriously kept moving, and at times blew up into storms. When we read of God 'rebuking' the waters and making them calm or do what He wished (<em><a href='B:230 18:16'>Psa 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 104:7'>Psa 104:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:9'>Psa 106:9</a></em>), we're effectively being told that Yahweh of Israel is so infinitely superior to those supposed demons and sea monsters that for God's people, they have no effective existence. The Lord Jesus taught the same lesson when He 'rebuked' the sea and wind during the storm on the lake (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>). The same Greek word is used to described how He 'rebuked' demons (<em><a href='B:470 17:18'>Mat 17:18</a></em> etc:). I have no doubt that the Lord Jesus didn't believe there was a Loch Ness-type monster lurking in Galilee which He had to rebuke in order to save the disciples from the storm; and likewise He spoke of 'rebuking' demons as a similar way of teaching others that&nbsp;<em>whatever</em>&nbsp;ideas they had about demons, He was greater and was in a position to 'rebuke' them. Likewise He assured His men that they had the power to tread on snakes, scorpions, and all their enemies (<em><a href='B:490 10:17-20'>Luk 10:17-20</a></em>). The image of a victorious god trampling his foes and snakesunderfoot was well established in the surrounding cultures, and had entered Judaism. The Lord is teaching those fearful men that OK, if that's your perception of things, well, in your terms, you have ultimate victory through working 'in My name'. It must be noted that the man had previously described the boy’s condition as being due to how “A spirit seizes him… and it&nbsp;<em>departs</em>&nbsp;from him with great difficulty” (<em><a href='B:490 9:39'>Luk 9:39</a></em>). The condition was intermittent (consistent with viewing the condition as epilepsy rather than actual, literal manipulation by a spirit or demon). Trying various remedies, probably including beating him, the condition ‘departed’. The Lord’s cure is described in the same terms, with the implication that it was total and permanent, rather than partial and temporary, as their ‘healings’ were. The Lord said that the ‘spirit’ would never again enter the boy (<em><a href='B:480 9:25'>Mar 9:25</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


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


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


text:
<p><em>But they did not understand this saying, and it was hidden from them so that they did not perceive it, and they were afraid to ask Him about this saying</em>- They were rebuked later for being so slow to understand. A refusal to understand has a psychological basis. They didn't want to understand the predictions of His death because it meant death with Him, in essence if not in practice. So they would rather it just were not true. In response, God "hid" the understanding from them. We are confirmed in whichever way we wish to go in.</p><p>The Lord’s teaching about the cross was “hid from them” (<em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>), much to the Lord’s distress. And yet in prayer to the Father, He rejoices that these things are not hid from them (<em><a href='B:490 10:21'>Luk 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>). This is a picture of the Lord’s present mediation for us in prayer- speaking of us as far better than we are. The message of Christ crucified was “hid” from them (<em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:34'>Luk 18:34</a></em>)- and Paul surely alludes to this when he says that this message is hid by the veil of Judaism from those who are lost (<em><a href='B:540 4:3'>2Co 4:3</a></em>).</p>


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


text:
<p><em>But when Jesus saw the reasoning of their heart, he took a little child and set him by his side</em>- The disciples are framed as doing exactly the opposite soon afterwards, when they forbad the little children [s:w:] to come to Jesus(<em><a href='B:490 19:13'>Luk 19:13</a></em>)- whereas the Lord actually invited them to Him. Again we note how the Gospel writers present the disciples as so often out of step with their Lord.</p><p>The Greek for "set" means to stand, not to sit- this is how it is usually translated. <em><a href='B:480 9:35-36'>Mar 9:35-36</a></em> says that the Lord&nbsp;<em>sat</em>&nbsp;but He&nbsp;<em>stood</em>&nbsp;the child in their midst. But&nbsp;<em>histemi</em>, often translated "set" in <em><a href='B:470 18:2'>Mat 18:2</a></em>, has the strong connotation of standing up or setting someone up in a position. "The midst" suggests the disciples were in a closed circle, and the Lord stood the child within the circle. If you call an onlooking child into the midst of a group of unknown adults, they will typically not want to come. We see the powerful attraction of the Lord to children in that this child came, although likely with much nervousness, wanting to come to Jesus, but not into that closed circle of men- just as so many today. Almost certainly the child came to the Lord and He held the child close to Himself; for He goes on to urge the disciples to "receive" such little ones, implying they were reluctant to have the child amongst them. That closeness to the Lord was what was being set up as an example. The scene is portrayed graphically if we put the Gospel records together- the Lord&nbsp;<em>sat</em>&nbsp;with the men in a circle around Him, He calls the child to Him, stands him up "by Him" (<em>para</em>&nbsp;Him means close by Him, <em><a href='B:490 9:47'>Luk 9:47</a></em>) and then 'takes' him, cuddling the child to Himself "in His arms" (<em><a href='B:480 9:36'>Mar 9:36</a></em>)- whilst He is sitting down. The natural response of the child who had been stood would be to want to sit down, holding on to Jesus, and not to stand above those men with their attention focused upon him. This natural desire to come down, to humble self, is what is being memorialized by the Lord as the pattern for all who wish to enter His Kingdom. Perhaps we can imagine the scene even further- the child would've wanted to come to Jesus personally, but the circle of disciples with their apparent superiority and judgmentalism would've been off-putting. But still the child came, and the Lord in Luke's record urges the disciples to allow the child to join the circle and "receive" him. This scenario is seen so often in the body of Christ in our days. In the early church, there soon developed a problem about 'receiving' others, not least children, women and Gentiles- and the Gospel records through this incident show how seriously wrong the disciples were not to do so. Luke's record goes on to record the incident with John's disciples where the Lord's disciples didn't want to "receive" them- implying they did not immediately grasp the teaching themselves.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And John answered and said: Master, we saw onecasting out demons in your name and we forbade him, because he follows not with us</em>- Luke inserts at this point the question about a man casting out demons although 'not following us'. The Lord rebukes them for this and goes on to warn them about not offending little ones. In Matthew, that warning follows straight on from the teaching about the need to receive little ones- as if refusing to receive them is what makes them stumble. The case raised by the disciples, as it were in protest at His teaching about receiving little ones, was presumably one of John's disciples. Although they had a different spiritual culture, history and even doctrinal understanding, the Lord had earlier likened both His and John's disciples to children in the marketplace working in parallel, presenting the same message in different ways. They were admittedly immature in some ways and in parts of their doctrinal understanding, but the Lord is teaching that this is what made John's disciples "little ones", and they must still be accepted. The Lord warns twice in that section in <em><a href='B:480 9:38-42'>Mar 9:38-42</a></em>: "Forbid him not". This is the same as saying 'Receive him, do not forbid him from entering your circle'. It is the same word which the Lord will go on to use in <em><a href='B:470 19:14'>Mat 19:14</a></em> about not forbidding another group of "little children". The Jewish world was to be condemned exactly because they hindered or forbad [s:w:] men to enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 11:52'>Luk 11:52</a></em></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:470 18:7'>Mat 18:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Woe to the world</em>). Peter surely alludes to the Lord's teaching when reasoning: "Who can forbid water" that Gentiles be baptized (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>). Refusing baptism to those not considered good, ready or mature enough is surely a way of forbidding and not receiving little ones.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Jesus said to him: Forbid not- </em>The preceding section has sternly warned against forbidding the little ones, and now we have a worked example. The little ones in view were John's disciples; although seeing "John did no miracle" we wonder whether the miracle claimed was legitimate. But the Lord is not only gentle, He seeks to accept even such misunderstanding and misguided ones. For He alludes without doubt to <em><a href='B:40 11:28-29'>Num 11:28-29</a></em>: "Joshua… answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Are you envious for my sake? Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them". He considered this misguided miracle worker in John's group as all the same one of God's new Israel. As noted earlier, the disciples tended to "forbid" those whom the Lord wished to accept. And that same tension is seen time and again with the way closed, denominational mindsets seek to exclude and "forbid" others who differ and are immature. But the allusion to Numbers 11 seems to be saying that all in whom the Spirit is working should be accepted; and the litmus test is whether they shall "speak evil of me". If they do not, then they are not against Him but for, despite their misunderstanding. An alternative reading however is "Shall not lightly speak evil of me" (as AV). In this case, the Lord is comforting His sceptical disciples that if such a person does is in fact against Him, then this is no light matter and will be dealt with by the Lord's judgment; but not by theirs. This incident is surely alluded to by Paul when he warns against some who claimed to possess the Spirit who 'call Jesus accursed' (<em><a href='B:530 12:3'>1Co 12:3</a></em>). There were such, and it was their attitude to the Lord Jesus personally which proclaimed them against Him. What people think of Christ is the critical issue when it comes to deciding whether a person is for or against Him; and that is obvious really, but the natural tendency to "forbid" those who interpret differently to ourselves is strong:&nbsp; </p><p><em>For he that is not against you is for you</em>- If a person is not against the Lord personally (<em><a href='B:480 9:39'>Mar 9:39</a></em>), then he is not against "us", the body of Christ. And so even if that person will not mix with us, from God's wider point of view he is "for us", "on our part". Here on earth, sectors of the Lord's body are against each other. But from the Lord's perspective, those who are not against Him are on His part. But speaking evil of the Lord personally is parallel here with being against <em>us</em>. And here we have a worrying implication. Attitudes to those in Christ are attitudes to Him. To be "against" any of them is to be against Him. </p><p>And so the Lord's attitude to John’s disciples is very telling. He saw those who “follow not us” as being “on our part”, not losing their reward, as being the little ones who believed in Him; and He saw wisdom as being justified by <em>all</em> her children, be they His personal disciples or those of John (<em><a href='B:480 9:38-41'>Mar 9:38-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:35'>Luk 7:35</a></em>). John’s men had a wrong attitude to fellowship- they should have ‘followed with’ the disciples of Jesus; and it would seem their doctrinal understanding of the Holy Spirit was lacking, although not wrong (<em><a href='B:510 19:1-5'>Act 19:1-5</a></em>). Indeed, they are called there “disciples”, a term synonymous with all believers in Luke’s writing. And the Lord too spoke in such an inclusive way towards them. No wonder His disciples had and have such difficulty grasping His inclusiveness and breadth of desire to fellowship and save.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em>And he said to another: Follow me. But he said: Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father</em>- Following Christ, which is to carry His cross, is paralleled by Him with preaching His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 9:59-60'>Luk 9:59-60</a></em>). To live out the essence of the cross, in daily self-control, unconditional kindness and forgiveness, patience with those who provoke us… this is the real witness (<em><a href='B:490 9:23-26'>Luk 9:23-26</a></em>). If we don’t preach, we aren’t following Him. And if we do follow Him, it’s axiomatic that we therefore preach Him. “From henceforth you shall catch men. And::. they forsook all, and followed him” (<em><a href='B:490 5:10-11'>Luk 5:10-11</a></em>) definitely parallels preaching with&nbsp;following the Lord. Following after Him is the way to be fishers of men (<em><a href='B:480 1:17'>Mar 1:17</a></em>), and yet following Jesus is so often understood by Him as a call to carrying the cross. A focus on Him and the life of His cross leads to a catching of men for Him in a quite natural way.</h4><p>The man was on the way to his father’s funeral and yet the Lord expected him to immediately follow Him, and quit going to the funeral as he intended (<em><a href='B:490 9:59'>Luk 9:59</a></em>). And He criticized the man for not doing this. Another who wanted to first “bid farewell” to his family was likewise criticized (<em><a href='B:490 9:61'>Luk 9:61</a></em>). Even Elisha bid farewell to his family before following Elijah, and Elijah allowed him to do this (<em><a href='B:110 19:20'>1Ki 19:20</a></em>)- but the Lord Jesus was more demanding. He described the disciples as a “perverse generation” because they didn’t have enough faith to work a miracle (<em><a href='B:490 9:41'>Luk 9:41</a></em>). His demands and standards were and are very high; and we should never allow the extent of His grace to blind us to this fact, nor to assume that He is not serious about those demands.</p><p>The man who wanted to first attend his father'sfuneral was told that this wasn't good enough; although Abraham and Joseph did this. The man who wanted to go and say farewell to his family was told the same; although Elisha did this (<em><a href='B:490 9:60-61'>Luk 9:60-61</a></em>). The Lord is surely saying that the commitment of such Old Testament giants was to be less than what He expected of those for whom He was to give His all. It isn't that He won't <em>save </em>a man who (in the parable) puts his father's funeral before the Lord's demands. But He expects the <em>ultimate</em> level of commitment from us. Likewise His Father had asked Abraham to offer his dearest: Isaac. This is the Father and Son with whom we have to do. His parables of Matthew 25 make the point that the rejected will be surprised at how hard He turns out to be: they didn't expect Him to judge sins of omission so seriously. Likewise the man who held on to his talent of the Truth seemed surprised when the Lord said that He expected more. The foolish virgins were likewise shocked to be told that actually they didn't know their Lord at all. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>And into whatever house you shall enter, first say: Peace to this house</em>- The Lord raised everything to an altogether higher level. It was, for example, customary for Semitic peoples to greet each other [as it is today] with the words 'shalom!' or 'salaam!' ['peace']. But there was little real meaning in those words. The Lord said that His peace, His 'shalom', He gives to us, not as the [Jewish] world gave it. Likewise He told His disciples to say "Peace be to this house" when they entered a home. Yet this was the standard greeting. What He surely meant was that they were to say it with meaning; and wish the household peace with God through His Son. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And if a son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it, but if not, it shall return to you</em>- "Peace" meant peace with God; it had been John the Baptist's mission to guide the feet of Israel into the way of peace (<em><a href='B:490 1:79'>Luk 1:79</a></em>). Very many had responded to John's message, but they failed to fully accept Jesus as Christ when it actually came to it. The mission of the apostles was likely to those who had responded to John; that would have been the logical program in any case, to go visit and develop interest amongst those who were already known to have responded to John the Baptist. </p>


text:
<p><em>And in that same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give. For the labourer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 9:4'>Luk 9:4</a></em>.</p><p>Preaching is all about relationships. The Lord commanded to not go from house to house but rather build up a base in one home. I take this to mean that He saw the importance of relationship building in preaching, rather than a surface level contact with many people of the type achieved in more public addresses. He envisioned these houses as becoming the focus of house churches,which were to be the building blocks of the wider body of Christ.</p><p>Preaching is essentially about building relationships, not platform evangelism. The Lord taught that His preachers were not to go "from house to house" but rather to remain within an acceptive household and make that their base. In modern terms, I think we could interpret this as meaning: 'Focus on building relationships; don't build up a shallow relationship with a lot of people, but rather try to get deep with one household'. </p><p>The reference to eating and drinking what was offered, as noted on :8, would seem more likely to mean 'Accept their offer of table fellowship on whatever basis they offer it'. </p><p>The saying that "the labourer is worthy of his hire" is quoted as "Scripture" in <em><a href='B:610 5:18'>1Ti 5:18</a></em>, on the same level of acceptance as the Old Testament. This indicates that the gospel records were in circulation in written form from an early stage after the events, and were accepted by the church as Divinely inspired. Higher criticism is simply wrong to claim that the gospels were written long after the events by men with dim memories. </p><p>As in all ages, it was common in the first century for religious teachers to expect payment. But here the Lord redefines that 'payment' as being no more than subsistence level. </p>


text:
<p><em>And into whatever city you enter, if they welcome you, eat such things as are set before you</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:530 9:22'>1Co 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:27'>1Co 10:27</a></em>. I don't think the Lord simply means 'Don't be fussy about your food, be grateful for what's on your plate'. To eat together had religious dimensions. You ate together as a sign of fellowship. So I take the Lord to be meaning that they should accept whatever fellowship was offered to them, and work from within that setting to convince men of the truth of Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em>Heal the sick that are therein, and say to them: The kingdom of God comes near to you</em>- This again is the language of John's ministry; I suggested on :6 that the households being visited were those who had originally responded positively to John's message. The healing of the sick was to serve as an acted parable and exemplification of the gospel of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>But into whatever city you shall enter and they do not welcome you, go out into the streets of it and say</em>- The language is very similar to that in <em><a href='B:490 14:21'>Luk 14:21</a></em>, where Israelite rejection of the Gospel was to lead the preachers to go out into the streets of such cities- and drag in absolutely anyone they could find living on those streets. </p>


text:
<p><em>Even the dust from your city, that clings to our feet, we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God comes near</em>- Whether or not Israel accepted the Gospel, the Kingdom of God as it was in Messiah Jesus would still come. If the coming of the King and His Kingdom was not dependent upon Israel's acceptance of it, the implication had to be that the Gentiles would accept it, and therefore it would come.</p><p>The disciples were to shake off the dust of their feet against unbelieving Israel (<em><a href='B:470 10:14'>Mat 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:11'>Mar 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:51'>Act 13:51</a></em>), in allusion to the Rabbinic teaching that the dust of Gentile lands caused defilement. Israel who rejected the Gospel were thus to be treated as Gentiles. Time and again the prophets describe the judgments to fall upon Israel in the same terms as they speak of the condemnations of the surrounding nations (e:g. <em><a href='B:300 50:3'>Jer 50:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 50:13'>Jer 50:13</a></em>). The message was clear: rejected Israel would be treated as Gentiles. Thus Joel describes the locust invasion of Israel in the language of locusts covering the face of Egypt (<em><a href='B:360 2:2'>Joe 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:20'>Joe 2:20</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 10:14-15'>Exo 10:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 10:19'>Exo 10:19</a></em>). Israel’s hardness of heart is explicitly likened to that of Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:90 6:6'>1Sa 6:6</a></em>); as the Egyptians were drowned, so would Israel be (<em><a href='B:370 9:5-8'>Amo 9:5-8</a></em>). As Pharaoh’s heart was plagued (<em><a href='B:20 9:14'>Exo 9:14</a></em>), so was Israel’s (<em><a href='B:110 8:38'>1Ki 8:38</a></em>); as Egypt was a reed, so were Israel (<em><a href='B:110 14:15'>1Ki 14:15</a></em>). As Pharaoh-hophra was given into the hand of his enemies, so would Israel be (<em><a href='B:300 44:30'>Jer 44:30</a></em>). Even if we are separated from this world externally, we can still act in a worldly way, and share the world's condemnation by being finally "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you, it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city</em>- <em><a href='B:300 20:16'>Jer 20:16</a></em> has a graphic description of the people of Sodom screaming out in anguish, both mental and physical, as the judgments of God fell upon them: "The cry in the morning (when the judgments began, <em><a href='B:10 19:23-24'>Gen 19:23-24</a></em>), and the shouting at noontide". This is in reality a picture of the rejected in the last days:&nbsp;And yet those who heard the Christian Gospel and rejected it will be resurrected to a worse judgment than Sodom. The degrees of judgment ("more tolerable::.") reflect degrees of responsibility to God according to varying levels of knowledge. The Sodomites had seen Lot's way of life and presumably been told by him that their behaviour was wrong. Their refusal to repent means that "in that day" of the Lord's coming they will be resurrected and punished; but those who hear the Christian gospel and reject it shall have a far greater punishment than Sodom had or will have.</p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which were done in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes</em></p><h4>- See on <em><a href='B:490 19:42'>Luk 19:42</a></em>. The pain that arises from knowing what might have been is really the essence of grief and tragedy; and the Father and Son who know all possible futures must therefore feel so pained. The connection between grief and knowing what might have been is so poignantly brought out by the grief of Martha and Mary over their brother's death- they knew that if Jesus had have been there, Lazarus wouldn't have died (<em><a href='B:500 11:21'>Joh 11:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:32'>Joh 11:32</a></em>). Jesus as God's Son had something of this ability to see what might have been- hence He could state with absolute confidence that if Gentile Tyre and Sidon had witnessed His miracles, they would've repented in sackcloth and ashes. He lamented with pain over the fact that things would have been so much better for Jerusalem if she had only known / apprehended the things which would bring her ultimate peace (<em><a href='B:490 19:42'>Luk 19:42</a></em>). The Lord Jesus was deeply pained at what might have been, if the things of God's Kingdom had not remained wilfully hidden from Israel's perception. His pain was because of realizing what might have been. In this He was directly reflecting the mind of His Father, who had previously lamented over Jerusalem: "O that you had hearkened to my commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river" (<em><a href='B:290 48:18'>Isa 48:18</a></em>). </h4>


text:
<p><em>But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment, than for you</em>- The Lord taught His preachers that if people rejected their message, <em>in that day </em>when they did this, “it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city”. But He repeats Himself later on: “It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon <em>in the judgment</em> than for you” (<em><a href='B:490 10:12'>Luk 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:14'>Luk 10:14</a></em> RV). “In that day” clearly refers to the day on which the preacher’s message was rejected. But that day was effectively their judgment day.</p>


text:
<p><em>And you, Capernaum, shall you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades</em>- Some will be exalted and others brought down at the day of judgment ("come up higher::. go down lower", <em><a href='B:490 14:10'>Luk 14:10</a></em>). Capernaum was expecting commendation an exaltation at judgment day; but that was to be the very reason why she would be cast down to destruction. And in essence, that judgment process is ongoing whenever people hear the Gospel (:18).</p><p>As He sent the 70 away on their preaching mission, the Lord commented that Capernaum was exalted to heaven, and yet at the judgment would be thrust down to hell; and yet when they returned, He said that He had seen Satan falling from heaven to earth (<em><a href='B:490 10:15'>Luk 10:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:18'>Luk 10:18</a></em>), in anticipation of how it will at judgment day (Revelation 12). The connection is not co-incidental. He was countering the disciples' joy at the superficial response by saying that He has seen it another way; He had seen the Satan of the Jewish system already condemned, hurled from heaven to earth, by their rejection of the Gospel preached.</p>


text:
<p><em>He that hears you hears me; and he that rejects you rejects me, and he that rejects me rejects Him that sent me</em>- Here we see the Lord Jesus personally equated with His word in the Gospel, preached by His followers. Attitudes to that word are attitudes to Him. The rejection of some at the last day will be because they themselves rejected the Lord. They made the answer in their attitude to His word; in that sense those who "reject" (s:w:) the Lord are judged by His word at the last day (<em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>). Attention to His word is therefore critical. Whoever rejects us as we preach therefore rejects God (<em><a href='B:590 4:8'>1Th 4:8</a></em> s:w:). </p>


text:
<p><em>And the seventy returned with joy, saying: Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!</em>- As noted on :9, the miracles were to back up the preaching of the word of the Kingdom; but the disciples failed to properly perceive this. They considered that the miracles they had done were of themselves the most impressive thing; whereas the Lord always gave priority to the preaching of the word over miracles, and Himself used an economy of miracle to get His message over. He therefore urges them to rejoice more in the fact that they personally will be saved in the Kingdom (:20).</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven</em>- No sinful being can be tolerated in God’s presence in Heaven (<em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 5:4-5'>Psa 5:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 1:13'>Hab 1:13</a></em>). The Lord is using parabolic language - “<em>as</em> lightning fall from heaven” (AV)- so this “Satan” or adversary fell. Lightning comes from heaven in the sense of the sky, not as in the dwelling place of God. It doesn't literally fall from heaven to earth. Any attempt to link this with the prince of this world being cast out is difficult, because that happened at Christ’s death (note “now” in <em><a href='B:500 12:31'>Joh 12:31</a></em>), whereas this falling of Satan occurred during His ministry. According to popular thought, “Satan” is supposed to have fallen from heaven in Eden, so that he was on the earth at Job’s time, yet Jesus is described as seeing this occurring at His time. Weymouth adds a marginal note on <em><a href='B:490 10:18'>Luk 10:18</a></em> in his translation of the Bible: "The thought is not that of Milton's rebel angelbanished for ever from the abide of bliss". If an evil being and his host of followers fell down on to earth literally, why did only Jesus see it and not the disciples? Why is there no other record of this strange event? Falling from heaven is figurative of losing authority, e:g. it is used about the demise of the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14. See also <em><a href='B:310 2:1'>Lam 2:1</a></em> and <em><a href='B:300 51:53'>Jer 51:53</a></em>. </p><p>The apostles had just cured many people and were blinded by their great physical power over disease (:20). The real cause of illness and disease is our sin prone nature. That sin is the ultimate reason for illness is stressed in <em><a href='B:470 9:12'>Mat 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:11'>Mat 12:11</a></em>, where a sheep gone astray, a clear symbol of a sinner (<em><a href='B:470 18:13'>Mat 18:13</a></em>), is equated with a sick man. The principle is summed up in <em><a href='B:470 9:5'>Mat 9:5</a></em> “Which is easier, to say, Your sins be forgiven you; or to say, Arise and walk?”. Thus Jesus said, “I beheld Satan fall”, i:e. “In My view the great thing was that the power of sin was being overcome”. There must be a connection with the fall of Capernaum in :15. Is Jesus implying that “Satan”, the ways of the flesh, which were so well exemplified in Capernaum, were being overcome? Notice that Capernaum was “exalted” in Jewish eyes. “Satan” often referring to the Jewish system, maybe Jesus is equating Capernaum with “Satan” and commenting how the sin which was at the basis of this system was being toppled by the preaching of the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em>See, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall in any way hurt you</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:480 16:18'>Mar 16:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>. This is a promise repeated in the context of preaching the Gospel in <em><a href='B:480 16:18'>Mar 16:18</a></em>. The gift of the Spirit continues to assist Christian preachers, but only in the first century was it manifested in such miraculous forms; and even then, only in specific times and places during the course of missionary work. Paul taking up a viper in his hand and being unharmed on Malta would be an example.</p>


text:
<p><em>Nevertheless, rejoice not that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven</em>- This implies that their elation at being able to pull off miracles was wrong, or at best immature; rather should they have rejoiced that their names were written in Heaven; that the good news of future salvation in the Kingdom they preached was so personally true.</p>


text:
<p><em>In that same hour he rejoiced in spirit, and said-</em> This was the kind of rejoicing in spirit (cp. rejoicing about subject spirits in :20) which they should have had- a glorying in the Father's way of working with the simple and marginalized.</p><p><em>I thank You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You hid these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to babes. Yes, Father. For so it was pleasing in Your sight</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 1:47'>Luk 1:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>. This is the standard Jewish thanksgiving before food: "I thank You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth::.". We expect to hear thanks for food, but instead find praise for how the Father works with people by revealing truths to babes rather than the worldly wise. As was the case with the Samaritan woman, the Lord found the Father's working with other people His food and drink which sustained Him. And it can be so with us too. This is one reason for meeting together and sharing testimony of the Lord's work in our lives. </p><p>The disciples didn't have totally correct understanding; they believed in ghosts and demons, and were too maxed out on miracles (:20). But still the Lord rejoices in what has been revealed to them, the babes; and those same truths had not been revealed to the Jewish leadership who claimed to be wise and understanding. We note that truths are "revealed" by God in a sovereign way. It's not simply that whoever reads the Bible understands. There is a higher hand at work than that; the way of God's grace, revealing truths to the "babes".</p>


text:
<p><em>All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomever the Son wills to reveal Him</em>- Again as noted on :21 there is a distinct revelation of the Father to people through the Son. This can mean simply that in the Son, we see the Father reflected. And yet the language goes somewhat further than that, in saying that the Son chooses some to whom to reveal the Father. This is by the work of the Spirit of Christ, which refers both to the spirit of the character and personality of the Lord Jesus and also to how that spirit transforms human hearts, under His direction. "Knows" is in a continuous sense, implying that the Father and Son grow in knowing each other; the knowledge in view is the Hebraic sense of knowledge as relationship, rather than increments of factual knowledge. The "all things" delivered to the Son may be the power of salvation for all men:&nbsp;</p>&nbsp;<p>Nobody, the disciples included, to whom the Father had ‘revealed’ repentance, fully knew the Son nor the Father. There is a parallel to be observed here between ‘knowing the Father’ and repenting; for the context in Matthew 11 speaks of how the majority had not repented despite the Lord’s miracles. The little ones, the babes, the disciples, had repented- but this had been ‘revealed’ to them by the Father (<em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>). Now, the Lord speaks of how the Son ‘reveals’ the Father. The life of repentance is the life of knowing the Father. To know God is to know our sinfulness and repent. And this is the “rest” from sin which the Lord speaks of in <em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p>Whether or not Joseph died or left Mary by the time Jesus hit adolescence, the fact was that Joseph wasn’t His real father. He was effectively fatherless in the earthly sense. As such, this would have set Him up in certain psychological matrices which had their effect on His personality. He could speak of His Heavenly Father in the shockingly unprecedented form of ‘abba’, daddy. He grew so close to His Heavenly Father because of the lack of an earthly one, and the inevitable stresses which there would have been between Him and Joseph. A strong, fatherly-type figure is a recurrent feature of the Lord’s parables; clearly He was very focused upon His Heavenly Father. He could say with passionate truth: “No one knows a son except a father, and no one knows a father except a son” (<em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:22'>Luk 10:22</a></em> Gk:).</p><p>The idea is not that the Lord Jesus had a list of humanity and chose a few from that list. He has earlier spoken of the freedom of choice to ‘receive’ (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em>) God’s message, and He was urging all men to do so. Although all men are potentially delivered to Him, the Father is revealing Himself to only some of them. The Father is revealed in the Son, as John’s Gospel makes clear. It’s not that some people are chosen by the Son to have this revelation; rather is it a statement of fact, or method- the knowledge of the Father is through the Son revealing Him. And this is why He goes straight on in <em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em> to urge people to come to Him. The ideas of coming to Him and ‘whomsoever’, anyone, are very much the language of John’s Gospel and the Revelation, which concludes with an appeal to ‘whosoever will’ to ‘come’ to Christ and salvation:&nbsp;</p><p>The revealing is by the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:5'>Eph 3:5</a></em>). It was not flesh and blood that revealed the Lord to Peter (<em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em>). As noted on <em><a href='B:670 1:21'>1Pe 1:21</a></em>, relationship with God is predicated upon relationship with the Son; He is the only way to the Father. Academic Bible study, consideration of the apparent evidence of apologetics, will not reveal God as Father to men. It is the Son who reveals Him. If we take the jump of faith in accepting Him, only then will He reveal the Father to us. </p>


text:
<p><em>And turning to the disciples, he said privately: Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>. As noted on :22, to have the Son reveal the Father to us is the work of the Spirit, and is of grace. The idea of predestined calling is discussed by Paul in Romans in the context of explaining how the Spirit works. The fact we have been called to know Him is grace indeed.</p>


text:
<p><em>For I say to you, that many prophets and kings desired to see the things which you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them</em>- The blessedness of :23 also relates to where we stand in human history. There was a desire amongst the Old Testament heroes to know more about the Lord Jesus; but then was not the time for the full manifestation now given. We who have the completed New Testament, and easy access to it, are perhaps even more blessed. This insight into 'blessedness' is helpful when in moments of depression we may consider that we lack blessing, and all we have are vague, dimly revealed ideas that somehow 'God loves me'. We can indeed count our blessings and name them one by one. And where we stand in history is&nbsp;one of them, according to the Lord's reasoning here. It may well be that we are blessed to be the generation which see the Lord's return- the only generation to never taste of death. </p>


text:
<p><em>And a certain lawyer stood up, and to test him, asked: Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?</em>- When the lawyer asked Jesus what he must “do to inherit eternal life”, the Lord could have lectured him on salvation being by grace rather than works. But He doesn’t; instead He tells the parable of the good Samaritan, running with the lawyer’s misunderstanding for a while [as His gracious manner was]. The essential basis of inheriting eternal life is of course faith, but the Lord’s answer to the question shows that we can safely conclude: ‘Faith must be shown in our care for the salvation of this world if it is real faith’.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: What is written in the law? How do you read it?</em>- The Lord was not searching for a right or wrong answer, ready to respond to the effect that 'Ah well, you just misunderstood a bit, now let Me correct you'. His questions are nearly always rhetorical. Whatever the answer, the Lord would work with it. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he answered saying: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself</em>- He quotes <em><a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a></em> along with <em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>. <em><a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a></em> along with <em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em> was repeated by the Jews morning and evening, and was the text written in the phylacteries. But this zealous lawyer added <em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em> about loving neighbours. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: You have answered correctly- </em>We have eternal life insofar as the life that Jesus lived and lives, He will eternally live. If we live that life, we are living the essence of the life which we will eternally live. The lawyer asked the Lord what good thing he must do “to inherit eternal life”. The Lord replied that he must properly love his God and his neighbour: “this do, and you shall live”. By living a life based on this, he would be living the life which he would eternally live (<em><a href='B:490 10:25'>Luk 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:28'>Luk 10:28</a></em>). And thus the Lord responds to the query about inheriting eternal life by changing the emphasis of thequestion- He replies by speaking of the life we should be living now.</p><p>That God is one is not just a numerical description. If there is only one God, He therefore demands our <em>all</em>. Because He is the One God, He demands all our worship; and because He is One, He therefore treats all His people the same, regardless, e:g:, of their nationality (<em><a href='B:520 3:30'>Rom 3:30</a></em>). All true worshippers of the one God, whether Jew or Gentile, are united in that the one God offers salvation to them on the same basis. The fact there is only one Lord Jesus implies the same for Him (<em><a href='B:520 10:12'>Rom 10:12</a></em>). Paul saw these implications in the doctrine of the unity of God. But that doctrine needs reflecting on before we come to grasp these conclusions. Christ taught that the command that God was one and therefore we must love God <em>included </em>the second command: to love our neighbour as ourselves. The first and second commands were in fact one command; they were inseparably part of the first commandment (<em><a href='B:480 12:29-31'>Mar 12:29-31</a></em>). This is why the 'two' commandments, to love God and neighbour, are spoken of in the singular in <em><a href='B:490 10:27-28'>Luk 10:27-28</a></em>: "<em>this</em> do…". If God is one, then our brother bears the one Name of God, and so to love God is to love our brother (cp. <em><a href='B:690 4:21'>1Jn 4:21</a></em>). And because there is only one God, this demands <em>all</em> our spiritual energy. There is only one, the one God, who seeks glory for men and judges them (<em><a href='B:500 8:50'>Joh 8:50</a></em>)- therefore the unity of God should mean we do not seek glory of men, neither do we judge our brother. </p><p><em>This do and you shall live</em>- The context is that the lawyer asked the Lord Jesus what he should do "to inherit eternal life" (<em><a href='B:490 10:25'>Luk 10:25</a></em>), and in a sense we ask the same question. But we mustn't be quite like him, in thinking that if we physically <em>do</em>&nbsp;certain things, then we will at some future point be given eternal life as a kind of payment; and nor should we think that the eternity of the Kingdom life is the most important aspect of our salvation. In <em><a href='B:490 18:18'>Luk 18:18</a></em> "a certain ruler asked him" the very same question: What he should do to inherit eternal life. The Lord's response was that if he kept the commandments in the right spirit, he would "have treasure in heaven". When the man found this impossible, the Lord commented how hard it was for the rich to "enter into the kingdom of God" (<em><a href='B:490 18:24'>Luk 18:24</a></em>). So there is a parallel here between inheriting eternal life, having treasure in heaven, and entering the Kingdom. We are told that now is the time, in this life, for us to lay up treasure in Heaven (<em><a href='B:470 6:20'>Mat 6:20</a></em>). So here and now it is possible to have treasure in Heaven, to have eternal life in prospect. In a sense we now have eternal life (<em><a href='B:690 5:11'>1Jn 5:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:13'>1Jn 5:13</a></em>), in a sense we are now in the process of entering into the Kingdom. We have been translated, here and now, into the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:580 1:13'>Col 1:13</a></em>). The very same Greek construction used in <em><a href='B:580 1:13'>Col 1:13</a></em> occurs in <em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>, where Paul says that through much tribulation we enter into the Kingdom; in other words, entry into the Kingdom is an ongoing process, and we experience this on account of the effect of our trials. Entering the Kingdom is used to describe our response to the Gospel in <em><a href='B:490 16:16'>Luk 16:16</a></em>: "The kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it". Unless we receive the Gospel of the kingdom as a child, we will not enter it; i:e. respond fully to that Gospel (<em><a href='B:490 18:17'>Luk 18:17</a></em>). </p><h4>In prospect we have been saved, we are now in Christ, and therefore the great salvation which he was given is therefore counted to all those who are in him. We shy away from the positive promises that we really can start to enter the Kingdom now, that we do now have eternal life in prospect. But this shying away is surely an indication of our lack of faith; our desperate unwillingness to believe so fully and deeply that our salvation really is so wonderfully assured. That eternal life dwells in us insofar as the eternal spirit of Christ is in us. And so as we face up to the sureness of these promises, we earnestly want to know what we must <em>do</em>&nbsp;to inherit this eternal life, to have this great treasure of assured salvation laid up for us now in Heaven. Of course we are saved by our faith, not our works (<em><a href='B:630 3:5-7'>Tit 3:5-7</a></em>); yet our faith, if it is real, will inevitably be shown in practical ways.</h4>


text:
<p><em>But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus: And who is my neighbour?</em>- The Lord's open attitude towards Gentiles had provoked anger amongst the lawyers; hence this scribe had incorporated <em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em> into his standard quotation as to Jewish duty. He suspected the Lord considered the Gentile world as His neighbours. The man's pan for self-justification was going to be demolished by the Lord turning it all around to show that justification is by grace, not works- the very ideas which Paul states more specifically and theologically in Romans.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jesus answered and said: A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he encountered robbers who both stripped him and beat him, and departed leaving him half dead</em>- The wounded man is all of us- "a certain man" (<em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>) is a phrase more usually translated 'any man', 'whomsoever' etc. The idea of journeying downwards from Jerusalem to Jericho has some definite OT connections, not least with wicked King Zedekiah, who ignored repeated prophetic please to repent and fled from Jerusalem to Jericho, only to be overtaken on the way by the Babylonians and sent to Babylon to condemnation (<em><a href='B:120 25:4'>2Ki 25:4</a></em>). ‘You’re every one a Zedekiah’, is the implication- but we’ve been saved from out of that condemnation by the Samaritan’s grace. Another allusion is to the incident in <em><a href='B:140 28:15'>2Ch 28:15</a></em>,where the captured enemies of Israel are marched from Jerusalem to Jericho, and yet by grace they are given clothes, food and water. In all these allusions, Jesus is radically reversing all the roles. The true people of God are the repentant enemies of the people of God, the “thieves” who spoil the people of God are the Jewish elders (<em><a href='B:350 6:1'>Hos 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 6:9'>Hos 6:9</a></em>), the Divine Saviour is not a Jew but a Samaritan etc. </p><p>One of the many Old Testament quarries for this good Samaritan parable is found in <em><a href='B:140 28:15'>2Ch 28:15</a></em> (Another will be found in <em><a href='B:350 6:1-2'>Hos 6:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 6:9'>Hos 6:9</a></em>, which seems to equate the Jewish priesthood with the thieves which attacked the man. This was also Christ's estimation of them (<em><a href='B:470 21:13'>Mat 21:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:1'>Joh 10:1</a></em>). This allusion would have been especially relevant in the first century context. Another connection will be found in <em><a href='B:120 25:4'>2Ki 25:4</a></em>). Here we read how Israel attacked Judah whilst Judah were apostate, and took them captives. But then they realized their own shortcomings, and the fact that Judah really were their brethren; then they "clothed all that were naked among (he captives taken from Judah), and arrayed them, and shod them, and gave them to eat and to drink, and anointed them, and carried all the feeble of them upon asses, and brought them to Jericho:::to their brethren". Now there is allusion after allusion to this scene in the Samaritan parable. Surely our Lord had his eye on this incident as he devised that parable. The point he was making as surely this: 'In trying to follow my example of total love for your brethren, your spiritual neighbours, remember your own shortcomings, and what the Lord has done for you by His grace; and then go and reflect this to your brethren'. </p><p>The helplessness of the injured man is a fine picture of our weakness. We can only accept salvation; there is nothing we can <em>do</em> to earn it. Hence the Lord warned those who <em>seek</em> to <em>save</em> their own lives (<em><a href='B:490 17:33'>Luk 17:33</a></em>)- He uses the same two words to explain how <em>He</em> is the one who seeks and saves (<em><a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a></em>). Acceptance of salvation is perhaps what faith is all about in its barest essence. </p><p>As the man was stripped and wounded, so identical language is used about the sufferings of the Lord on the cross (<em><a href='B:470 27:28-29'>Mat 27:28-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:12'>Luk 20:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 13:6'>Zec 13:6</a></em>). As his would-be neighbours passed him by on the other side, so the neighbours of the Lord stood aloof from his stricken body on the cross (<em><a href='B:230 38:11'>Psa 38:11</a></em> AVmg:). Through this he can fully enter into our broken hearts, into our intense spiritual loneliness without him (if only we would realize it) and therefore he will come alongside us with a heart of true compassion. So because of his sufferings which we now behold, he can so truly, so truly and exactly, empathize with our spiritual state.</p><p>The description of the stricken man being "stripped" of his clothing uses the very same word, rarely used in the NT, to describe the 'stripping' of the Lord Jesus at the time of His death (<em><a href='B:470 27:28'>Mat 27:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:21'>Mat 27:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:20'>Mar 15:20</a></em>). Likewise the robbers 'left him' (<em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>), in the same as the Lord was 'left' alone by the disciples to face the end alone (<em><a href='B:480 14:50'>Mar 14:50</a></em> s:w:). The robbers "wounded him" (<em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>), a phrase which translates two Greek words, 'to lay upon' and 'stripes'. The cross was 'laid upon' Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 23:26'>Luk 23:26</a></em> s:w:); and we are familiar with the idea of the Lord being 'wounded' and receiving 'stripes' in His final sufferings (<em><a href='B:290 53:5'>Isa 53:5</a></em>). The connection is surely that in the process of&nbsp;His death, the Lord came to know the feelings of the stripped and stricken people whom He came to save. No wonder He can powerfully "have compassion" upon us. And it’s been pointed out elsewhere that the ‘two pennies’ paid by the Samaritan are the equivalent of the half shekel atonement money under the Mosaic Law, whereby a man could be redeemed:&nbsp; </p><p>It's easy to think that the focus of the parable is upon being like the good Samaritan; but the focus equally is upon seeing ourselves in the wounded man. The Lord's answers to questions nearly always seem to provide a simple answer to them, and yet more subtly turn them upon their head, and redefine the terms. The parable was told in response to the question "What shall I <em>do</em> to inherit eternal life?". One answer appears to be: 'Recognize you're the injured man. Accept the Good Samaritan's salvation; for the Law which you so love can't save you'. Indeed if read the other way around, the Lord's answer would appear to be 'If you want eternal life, you must <em>do</em> lots of good works, after the pattern of the good Samaritan'. But this would contradict the whole message of salvation by pure grace which was central to the Lord's teaching. It seems to me that the parable is often interpreted that way- and it’s actually the very opposite of how the Lord wished us to read it. No matter how much good we <em>do</em> to people along the way, this cannot give us the life eternal.</p>


text:
<p><em>And by chance a certain priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side</em>- The radical nature of the Lord Jesus is reflected in His teaching style. His parables work around what I have elsewhere called "elements of unreality". They involve a clash of the familiar, the comfortable, the normal, with the strange and unreal and radical. The parables are now so well known that their radical nature has been almost buried under the avalanche of familiarity. The parables begin by getting the hearers sympathetic and onboard with the story line- and then, in a flick of the tail, the whole punch line is turned round against their expectations, with radical demands. The story of a man travelling the Jerusalem-Jericho road alone would've elicited sympathy and identity with the hearers- yes, that road <em>is</em> awfully dangerous. And then the priest and Levite pass by and don't help. That wasrealistic-"priests and Levites were known to have quarters in the Jordan valley near Jericho where they retreated from the beehive of activity surrounding the temple". The common people were anticlerical, and yes, they could just imagine the priest and Levite passing by. "Typical!" would've been their comment. They're all set up to expect the Messianic Jewish working class hero to stride in to the rescue. But::. it's a despised Samaritan who stops and gives saving help. They had expected a Jewish Saviour- and Jesus, the teller of the parable, claimed to be just that. But::. in the story, He's represented by a Samaritan. Remember that Samaritans and Jews had no dealings, and people were amazed that Jesus would even speak with the Samaritan woman at the well. Even in desperation, a Jew wouldn't have wanted to be helped by a Samaritan. You had to be utterly desperate to accept such help. Moments earlier, the audience had been identifying with the injured Jewish man. But::. were they really <em>that</em> desperate, did they appreciate their desperation to that extent, to keep "in" the story, and accept that that desperate man was really them? They wanted to be able to identify with the hero. But no, they had to first of all identify with the wounded, dying, desperate Jew. And only then were they bidden "Go and do likewise"- 'be like the Samaritan'. The Lord's initial audience would have been left with knitted eyebrows and deep introspection at the end of it. The whole thing was too challenging for many. They quit the parable, quit identifying with the story::. just as we can when it gets too demanding. It's a tragedy that this amazing story, crafted in such a radically demanding way, has been reduced to merely 'Be a good neighbour to the guy next door, so long as it doesn't demand too much of you'- which is what the story has come to mean for the majority of professed Christians today. That of itself indicates a discomfort with the radical nature of the demands. </p><p>It's the same with Nathan's parable to David. It elicited David's sympathy- and then it was turned back on David: "You are the man!". But he didn't quit the parable. He acted on it, as we have to. The parable of the self-righteous older son is just the same. The parable's story line leads us to expect that the wayward son repents and is accepted back by his father. But then right at the end, the whole thing takes a biting twist. We suddenly realize that the prodigal son and the need to forgive your wayward son isn't the point of the story- for that's something which comes naturally to any father and family. The whole point is that the son who played safe, who stayed home and behaved himself::. <em>he</em> is the one who ends up outside of the family's joy because of his self-righteousness. <em>He</em> ends up the villain, the lost son. Again, there'd have been knotted brows and an exit from identity with the story line. And the way generations of Christians have described the story as "the parable of the lost / prodigal son" shows how they [we] too have so often missed the essentially radical point of the story. </p>


text:
<p><em>And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side</em></p><p>- See on :31. When we analyse this good Samaritan parable, it becomes clear that we are not simply intended to do good deeds to people we meet, copying the Samaritan. We are also aptly represented by the wounded man; it is the Lord Jesus who is the good Samaritan. The Law of Moses, symbolized by the priest and Levite, came near to man's stricken condition, and had a close look at it. <em><a href='B:490 10:32'>Luk 10:32</a></em> (Young's Literal) brings this out: "Having been about the place, having come and seen::.", the Levite passed on by. The Jews regarded Christ as a Samaritan, so they would have immediately understood the Samaritan of the parable to represent Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 8:48'>Joh 8:48</a></em>). The good Samaritan having compassion on the man and being moved to do something about him has echoes of the Lord's compassion on the multitudes (:33). His promise to come again after two days (he gave two pence, and a penny a day was a fair rate, <em><a href='B:470 20:2'>Mat 20:2</a></em>) is a clear connection with the Lord's promise to come again (after 2000 years from his departure?). </p>


text:
<p><em>But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion</em>- The Samaritan "was moved with compassion" by the man's (spiritual) state. This is the same phrase as used concerning how Christ "was moved with compassion" by the multitudes. The connection with the good Samaritan parable would invite us to read the Lord's compassion as fundamentally <em>spiritual</em>. The reason for the miracles was to confirm the spoken word (<em><a href='B:480 16:20'>Mar 16:20</a></em>), to lead men to see the wisdom of the message they were validating (<em><a href='B:480 6:2'>Mar 6:2</a></em>). Are there any examples of Christ doing miracles for reasons unconnected with preaching? They often (always?) had symbolic meaning; and were designed to inculcate faith (<em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em>) and repentance (<em><a href='B:470 11:21'>Mat 11:21</a></em>). And in any case, His miracles were largely to benefit the Covenant people, or those closely associated with them. The apostles didn't do mass benefit miracles (e:g. feeding thousands of people) to back up their preaching in the Gentile world; even though they had the power to do "greater works" than did the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 14:12'>Joh 14:12</a></em>). 'Charitable' giving ought to be <em>associated</em> with preaching, surely, if we are to follow the example of Christ's compassion with the multitudes:&nbsp; In practice, the work of providing welfare and conducting fresh preaching is done by the same brethren in the mission field.</p><p>The Lord Jesus "knew what was in man", not only by direct revelation from the Father and the Old Testament word, but also from His own observation of our own nature, both in Himself and the surrounding world. The sensitivity of Jesus is reflected in this realization which He reflects. As the Samaritan came near to the wounded man (the ecclesia), realized the extent of his problem (the ravages of sin) and was thereby moved with compassion, so Christ was motivated by His consideration of our position (<em><a href='B:490 10:33-34'>Luk 10:33-34</a></em>); the Lord realized His humanity more and more, and progressively humbled Himself, achieving a progressively fuller identity with us by so doing, until He crowned it all by His death (<em><a href='B:570 2:6-8'>Phi 2:6-8</a></em>). The main lying helpless on the Jerusalem - Jericho road was surely modelled on Zedekiah being overtaken there by his enemies (<em><a href='B:300 39:5'>Jer 39:5</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And came to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine, and he put him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him</em>- He "bound up his wounds", alluding to the manner in which Christ was to bind up the broken hearted (<em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em>). He cured those mental wounds by pouring in oil and wine, symbols of his word and his blood respectively. So the brutal beating up of that man, leaving him half dead, refers to the broken-heartedness which the sin of this world and our own natures inflicts upon us. Picture the scene on that Jericho road, the body covered in blood and dust, massive bruises swelling up, flies buzzing around on the congealed blood, face in the dust, frightened donkey neighing among the scrub somewhere. That is the very picture of our broken heartedness, the broken heartedness which hrist came to heal. The physical grossness of those wounds is a picture of our mental state. Yet the flesh deceives us that there is nothing really that wrong with our minds, with our natures. Yet there <em>is</em>, and we need to come to terms with it more and more completely, to realize our deep mental need for Christ's healing. Once we do this, we will be able to see the need, the urgent need, for his healing of our <em>minds</em>&nbsp;through his spirit, his&nbsp;perfect, clean mind, being in us. And how were those wounds healed? How are our mental wounds healed? By the Son of God tearing up his own garments to bandage up the wounds (how else did he do it?), and healing us with his blood and his word. </p><p>"He brought him to the inn" can also be translated "He led it [the donkey] to the inn". In this case, the Samaritan is acting as a servant, for it is the master who rides on the donkey and the servant who walks on foot, leading it there. Remember how Haman has to lead the horse on which Mordecai rides (<em><a href='B:190 6:7-11'>Est 6:7-11</a></em>). All this speaks of how the Lord took upon Himself the form of a servant in order to lead us to salvation- when at the time we could do nothing, and had no awareness of the huge grace being shown to us. The Samaritan was of course making himself vulnerable to attack by robbers by doing this. But think through it some more. There was an eye-for-eye vengeance syndrome alive and well at that time. If a Samaritan turned up with a wounded Jew, it would look for all the world like <em>he</em> was responsible for the damage. It would be the first time a Samaritan was known to have done such an act of kindness. And he risks himself all the more, by staying at the inn, leaving, and then returning there, thus willing to face the inevitable suspicion that <em>he</em> had attacked the man, or was somehow involved in the incident. This risking of His own salvation was what the cross was all about. The parable gives a rare window into the Lord's self-perception on this point. And so for us- we may stay up all night serving someone's need, only to make ourselves irritable and impatient and more prone to sin ourselves the next day. And in any case, it's my experience that no good deed goes unpunished; we have to pay various prices for it in this life. In all these things we are living out the spirit of the Samaritan saviour.</p><p>Until the good Samaritan's return, the man was kept in the inn, with everything that was needed lavishly provided. Surely the inn is symbolic of the ecclesia; in the ecclesia there should be a common sense of spiritual improvement, of growing in health, of remembering our extraordinary deliverance, realizing our weakness, looking forward to seeing the Samaritan again to praise him for the wonder of it all. This ought to characterize our gatherings as the church. Who is the innkeeper? He may just be part of the furniture of the parable, as I have yet to find a convincing interpretation.</p><p>The parables, especially those which Luke records, appear to end leaving us with unanswered questions. Does the wounded traveller survive and get better? When does the Samaritan return? How much does it cost him? Was the beaten man happy to see the Samaritan when he returned? Who inherits the property of the rich fool? Does the barren fig tree produce a crop in the end? Does the elder brother finally join in the party? Does the unjust steward succeed in getting himself out of his problems after his dismissal? What happens to the rich man’s five brothers, seeing Lazarus isn’t allowed to go and warn them? Do they hear Moses and the prophets? Do the riff raff come in from the lanes to the Great Supper? Does the unjust judge actually resolve the widow’s complaints? How does the rich merchant survive, after having sold all he has for the one pearl, thus discarding his entire past, his life’s work…? And what does he do with the pearl? He, presumably, sits and treasures it, but can do nothing with it in order to prosper materially… And yet we are left to reflect upon this. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:32'>Luk 14:32</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the host, and said: Take care of him, and if you spend more, I, when I come back again, will repay you</em>- His promise to come again after two days (he gave two pence, and a penny a day was a fair rate, <em><a href='B:470 20:2'>Mat 20:2</a></em>) is a clear connection with the Lord's promise to come again (after 2000 years from his departure?). </p><h4>The ‘two pennies’ paid by the Samaritan are the equivalent of the half shekel atonement money under the Mosaic Law, whereby a man could be redeemed. Our redeemer is of course the Lord Jesus. The redemption was ‘paid’ in His blood- which implies His putting us on <em>His</em> beast of burden and carrying us to the inn, where He paid the money, is a picture of His final sufferings which lead up to the actual shedding of His blood.</h4><p>The parable of the good Samaritan explains how Christ took compassion on the stricken spiritual state of us His people, picked us up, made Himself vulnerable to attack by placing the man on His donkey, and caused us to be fully healed. The Samaritan was less vulnerable than the robbed man, on account of having a donkey. But he made himself even more vulnerable than the robbed man had been, in order to take him to the inn. The picture of the wounded man straddled over the donkey and the Samaritan walking patiently alongside shows what easy prey they would have been. The whole process of the man's redemption by this Samaritan is an account of the cross of Christ (not least the pouring in of wine and oil). The implication is that through seeking to save us, Christ made Himself more vulnerable than He would have been if He sought only His own salvation. And the Samaritan's speed of progress was more than halved; he had to walk rather than ride, keeping the wounded man balanced on the donkey. This parable seems to reveal that Christ realized at least in some abstract sense that His concern for us in some ways made it more difficult for Him; although the reality was that the motivation for His victory was largely due to His sense of responsibility for us. The idea of him taking care for the man is expressed in the language of <em><a href='B:20 21:19'>Exo 21:19</a></em>, which says that if a man wounds another, "he shall pay::. and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed". This somewhat odd allusion (at first sight) surely indicates that the Lord took upon Himself the full blame for our stricken condition, presumably in the sense that as the second Adam He took upon Himself the guilt of Adam. This is why there are so many connections between His death and the effects of Adam's sin (e:g. the crown of <em>thorns</em>, the Garden etc:). The way Christ compared Himself to a Samaritan, half Jew and half Gentile, shows that especially on the cross, this is how He felt. He was mindful of both Jewish and Gentile aspects of His future body as He died. The Jews (and His own brothers, <em><a href='B:230 69:8'>Psa 69:8</a></em>) treated Him as half Gentile (from a Roman soldier, the Midrash claims). </p><p>So we are as it were in the inn, thinking back to our salvation by that suffering Samaritan, the strangeness and yet the glorious <em>wonder</em>&nbsp;of it all. I'm sure we are meant us to fill in the unspoken details in his parable. Of course the saved man would have re-lived time and again his wondrous salvation, how he had come to with the eyes of that man peering earnestly into his, the laying on the ass, and the slow journey to the inn. As Israel remembered their Passover deliverance through the Passover feast, so we lie on our sickbed in the inn, as it were, and remember our great salvation. </p>


text:
<p><em>Which of these three, do you think, proved a neighbour to him that encountered the robbers?</em>- The Samaritan parable appears to be an example of the way the Lord left His parables open to multiple interpretations and reflections, all of which express aspects of the many truths He was expressing to us. We need to reflect who the ‘neighbour’ actually Is. The parable is told in extension of the Lord’s approval of the statement that to love God is to love our neighbour, and vice versa (:27). The Lord was explaining that what we have to ‘do’ to get eternal life is to perceive that <em>God</em> is our neighbour. This is and was a challenging idea. As challenging and provocative as when a black sister in southern USA said to me once ‘Ya know, God’s ma nigger’. She meant, ‘God’s my buddy, my close one’. The turning point of the parable is in its end stress [as so often in these stories of the Lord]: “Which of these three… was neighbour unto him that fell among thieves?” (<em><a href='B:490 10:36'>Luk 10:36</a></em>). Obviously, the neighbour was the Samaritan, whom we have shown to be symbolic of God and His Son. <em>This</em> is the answer to the question of the lawyer: ‘And who is my neighbour?’. Answer: God / Jesus. The lawyer was wondering to whom he should do his good deeds. So he asks ‘Who is my neighbour?’. He misunderstood the whole thing, as people do today. The Lord was turning the question around. Who is your neighbour? God / Jesus is your neighbour. You are lying there stricken. Your fellow lawyers and legalists / Priests / Levites can’t help you. To receive eternal life, you must let God be your neighbour. <em>This</em> is the work of God, to believe on the one whom He sent (<em><a href='B:500 6:29'>Joh 6:29</a></em>). This was the Lord’s response to a similar question about what good works ought to be done. And the Samaritans were despised and rejected… yet the Lord chose them as a symbol of Himself. It's easy to under-estimate just how much the Jews despised Samaritans- "The Samaritans were publicly cursed in the synagogues; and a petition was daily offered up praying God that the Samaritans might not be partakers of eternal life" (W:O:E. Oesterley, <em>The Gospel Parables In The Light Of Their Jewish Background</em> (London: SPCK, 1936) p. 102). We see the sheer bravery of the Lord in framing the parable as He did. He doesn't chose to speak of a good Jew helping a stricken Samaritan; it's the other way around. The watchful student will find up to 12 allusions in the Good Samaritan parable back to <em><a href='B:350 6:1-10'>Hos 6:1-10</a></em> - which portray the Jews as the robbers, and God as the Samaritan saviour. It is none less than Yahweh Himself who "will bind us up::. revive us::. raise us up::. come to us"- all the very things which the Samaritan did. In all this was a huge challenge to the Lord's audience- as to whether they would accept His grace. "Oil and wine are forbidden objects if they emanate from a Samaritan" (J:D:M. Derrett, <em>Law In The New Testament</em> (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970) p. 220)- hence the challenge to the Jews in accepting the Lord's teaching. We in our turn struggle with the extent and purity of His grace.</p><p>But of course, we are intended to be the Good Samaritan too- in that we are to manifest and replicate the saving work of Jesus in our lives and in our interactions with people. There are details in the parables that need to be thought about, the story reconstructed. The Samaritan ‘happened’ to have “oil and wine” with him, i:e. medicaments for a wounded man (the wine would have been an antiseptic). And he was travelling alone, when people usually travelled in convoys. And the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans, they wouldn’t even talk with them on the street (<em><a href='B:500 4:9'>Joh 4:9</a></em>). So perhaps the Lord intended us to figure that the Samaritan was actually going to help one of his fellow Samaritans who needed attention, but on the way, he met one of another race in even greater need, and changed his plans in order to save him. In all this we have an exquisite example of the self-revelation of Jesus in His own parables- for He saw Himself as the Samaritan. And for us too, the call to save often comes when we are on our way to do something else, at the most inconvenient moment, to people we would never have considered would need nor accept our help towards salvation.</p><p>The parable of the good Samaritan needs careful reflection before we see in it a command to concentrate on giving to the world:&nbsp; It is used as Biblical evidence for a social gospel. The Samaritan was "neighbour unto him that fell among thieves" (<em><a href='B:490 10:36'>Luk 10:36</a></em>)- i:e. the story shows how he fulfilled the command to love our neighbour. We have shown above that this command refers to love for those related to the Covenant. The Samaritan represented Christ. The mugged man was those He came to save; not the world generally, for they have not all accepted His healing. We must go and do likewise; in showing the love of Christ to the world. But we have earlier defined that love as being paramountly <em>spiritual</em>, and relating to the work of the cross. The parable was teaching the inability of the Law to save man <em>spiritually</em>, not materially:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: The one who showed him mercy. And Jesus said to him: Go and do likewise</em>- There's ample evidence that the despised Samaritan of this parable refers to the Lord Jesus. He was 'neighbour' to stricken humanity, he came near to us, binding up our broken hearts, and carried us to the haven of the ecclesia. "Go and do likewise" is therefore a real challenge to us: to have the same dedication for others' salvation as Christ had. His zeal to achieve God's plan of redemption should be ours. Remember how the good Samaritan parable is an exposition of how to love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind (:27). Every fibre of the Lord's mind and body was bent <em>for us,</em> for bringing about God's plan of redemption. He loved us, his neighbour, as himself. Because of this it is impossible to separate Christ from the work He came to do, i:e. our redemption. The point of the good Samaritan parable is to teach us that his same devotion to the work of conquering sin should be seen in us; our concern for the salvation of others should be as great as that for our own. We need to be totally filled with the idea of bringing about God's glory, of seeing the conquest of sin achieved through Christ. So all our strength, our mind, will be given over to the conquest of sin in ourselves, to the spreading of the Gospel to others, and to the binding up of the broken hearts of our brethren.</p><p>The preface to the good Samaritan parable is there in :27,28, about loving God with all our strength and our neighbour as ourself; and "this do, and you shall live" (eternally). To define this statement more closely, the Lord told the good Samaritan parable. "Go and do likewise" is referring back to :28, where the Lord commands the man "<em>this do</em>", i:e. loving God with all the heart, soul etc. So the example of the good Samaritan is a practical epitome of loving God with all the heart, soul etc. To love our neighbour as ourself is to love God with all the heart and soul and strength and mind. Therefore the good Samaritan needs to represent us, although we are also the wounded man.</p><p>"Be going on, and do likewise", the Lord concluded (:37 YLT). Verse 38 appropriately continues: "Now it came to pass, <em>as they went</em>”, in the same way as the Samaritan Saviour "as he journeyed" (:33) showed such energetic compassion, with all his heart and strength, to the stricken man. We must be able to use our own realization of our own desperate need for Christ's grace to motivate us to zealously devote ourselves to ministering to others. Our lack of zeal in this is largely due to our own failure to appreciate our own need, and the degree to which this has been satisfied by the Lord. He knew (and knows) the feelings of the stricken man. </p><p>Like most Jews, the Lord would have prayed the <em>shema </em>("The Lord our God is one") upon rising and going to bed- just as He had a garment like that of the Pharisees, with the traditional tassels hanging from its edge (<em><a href='B:470 9:20'>Mat 9:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:5'>Mat 23:5</a></em>). Yet He thought about what He prayed. When asked which was the greatest of the commandments, He replied that it was the fact that God is one. He saw the unity of God as a commandment that elicited action; and He says [note His grammar] that this plus the command to love our neighbour is the [singular] great commandment (<em><a href='B:480 12:31'>Mar 12:31</a></em>). And He again combines these two commandments in <em><a href='B:490 10:27'>Luk 10:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:37'>Luk 10:37</a></em>, saying that to love God with all our heart is parallel with loving our neighbour and showing mercy to him. He quoted two commandments as one, so deeply had He perceived that we can't claim to love God without loving our brother. How had He worked that out? Perhaps by daily reflecting upon what to many was merely a ritual saying of words. And we too read and have pass our lips, ideas which can work radical transformation in us <em>if only we will put meaning into the words</em> and reflect upon them. He speaks of giving His <em>shalom</em> [peace] to us, not as the [Jewish] world gives it; each time He called out <em>shalom </em>across the street or to the guys at work each morning, He meant it. And He perceived that it would take His death on the cross to really achieve what He was giving to them in His words. &nbsp; </p><p>A feature we need to bear in mind with all the parables is the almost constant stress on the end of the story as the part which makes the main point which the Lord is seeking to get over. Likewise the emphasis is often upon the last person mentioned in the story, the last action, the last words. Think of the parable of the prodigal; or how the Samaritan, the last man on the scene, is the example for us. “Go and do likewise” (<em><a href='B:490 10:37'>Luk 10:37</a></em>) invites us to go forth and be like the Lord Jesus in bringing salvation to others. Or the man who buried his talent and did nothing with it; the crux of the story is that indifference to our potential is <em>so</em> awful. The parable of the sower focuses in the end on the good seed which brings a great harvest. The fact so much of the seed is lost is in itself an element of unreality- but the focus is on the fact that some seed brings forth wonderfully. And isn’t this just the encouragement every preacher needs? That despite all the hard hearts, the initial responses that come to nothing, all is worth it because <em>someone</em> responds truly.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now as they went on their way, he entered into a certain village, and a certain woman named Martha welcomed him into her house</em>- This incident is recorded perhaps to demonstrate the outworking of 'going and doing likewise' in the preceding parable (:37). But the 'doing' was not doing works, but rather listening to the Lord's teaching of salvation by grace and believing it.</p><p>The parable of the good Samaritan features Jesus as the Samaritan helping the stricken man, representative of us all. However, the parable is followed immediately by the account of the Lord visiting the Bethany home of Martha and Mary. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho went via Bethany. The home where the sick man was taken was surely intended to be understood as that of Martha and Mary. The attacked man is called “a certain man”, and then we read straight on that the Lord was entertained by “a certain woman”, Martha (<em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:38'>Luk 10:38</a></em>). The Samaritan “as he journeyed” came to the stricken man; and yet “as they went on their way, he entered into a certain village…” (<em><a href='B:490 10:33'>Luk 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:38'>Luk 10:38</a></em>). The Samaritan Jesus ‘cared for him’; and yet Martha unkindly challenges the Lord ‘Don’t you care…?’ (<em><a href='B:490 10:35'>Luk 10:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:40'>Luk 10:40</a></em>). The similarities aren’t just co-incidence. Surely the Lord is teaching that whether or not Martha perceives it, she and Mary are actually the wounded man of the parable, and He is taking care of them, not vice versa as Martha thought, in the teaching He was giving them in their home. He was spiritually pouring in oil and wine. And yet Martha and Mary, especially in Martha’s incomprehension of the Lord’s spiritual and saving care for her, are set up as types of all of us who are saved and cared for in Christ.</p><p>The disciples literally did give up most of what they had and follow the Lord. And yet there were evidently others who responded to His teaching without doing this- Peter’s family (<em><a href='B:480 1:29'>Mar 1:29</a></em>); Mary and Martha (<em><a href='B:490 10:38'>Luk 10:38</a></em>); Simon the leper <em><a href='B:480 14:3'>Mar 14:3</a></em>). They made use of the Lord's concessions to human weakness:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at the Lord's feet and heard his word</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 8:27'>Luk 8:27</a></em>. "Also sat" is a positive comment on Martha; despite her obsession with hospitality, she also loved the Lord's words and was His disciple- 'sitting at the feet' is an idiom for being a disciple of a rabbi. What is challenging is that many Jewish teachers considered it better for the Law to be burnt than to be taught to a woman. But the Lord taught women, as He did the Samaritan woman; and Martha and Mary were also amongst those 'at His feet'. This again is typical of how Luke emphasizes the Lord's radical acceptance of women and the marginalized.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said: Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me</em>- We can so easily be like Martha, "distracted" even by the secular dimension to our supposed service of the Lord. 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 samewords used about Martha being "distracted" with her domestic duties so that she didn't hear the Lord's word at that time. 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><p>"Do you not care?" is the language of the distracted disciples in the boat at <em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>. His whole life and death were because He <em>did</em> 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. We note in <em><a href='B:480 12:14'>Mar 12:14</a></em> that the Lord was again accused there of 'not caring'. The most ultimately caring person was at times perceived as not caring; and when our care is ignored or misread, we can take comfort from this.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the Lord answered and said to her: Martha, Martha, you are anxious and disturbed about many things</em>- Nearly every one of the 19 occurrences of the Greek word for "anxious" is in the Lord's teachings <em>not </em>to take anxious thought but instead to focus upon the things of the Kingdom. The focus upon only "one thing" in life empowers us to handle the stress of "the many" secular things. Without that focus, life appears full of "many things" and the fact we cannot sufficiently multi-task leaves us stressed and distracted from that one thing which is needful. </p>


text:
<h4><em>But one thing is needful. For Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her</em>- Martha was “anxious and disturbed about many things” (:41), but the Lord perceived that Mary was anxious and troubled about the “one thing” that was “needful”- and the context demands we understand this “one thing” as hearing the Lord’s words. For her, as she sat there at His feet, it was an anxious and troubling experience. To hear the Lord’s words is in this sense a troubling experience. Whilst we are saved by grace, the extent of the imperative within the Lord’s teaching is without doubt ‘troubling’ to the sensitive believer in Him. For we cannot hear Him without perceiving the enormous imperative which there is within those words for the transformation of our human lives in practice. &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:570 4:6'>Phi 4:6</a></em>. The one thing that was needful is surely to be connected by the incident, also recorded by Luke, where the Lord tells the rich young man that he lacks “the one thing” (<em><a href='B:490 18:22'>Luk 18:22</a></em>)- which in his case, was to give his wealth away. Yet Mary did this, when she poured out her life savings on the Lord’s feet. Sitting at His feet, hearing His words, led her to anoint those feet. She chose “the one thing”, of anxiously hearing His words, the lines in her forehead showing in intense concentration. And yet that learning of Him issued in something practical- she gave her life to Him in practice, by giving all she had to those feet. The rich young man lacked the one thing- for he was not then ready to give his life’s wealth to the Lord. Moving the spotlight onto ourselves, we can hear, and yet do nothing. We can read our Bibles without the intensity of devotion which Mary had, and without there being any direct translation of what we hear and read into practice. We can be as the rich young man, intellectually impressed, and yet totally failing to accept the tremendous practical demands behind the most simple, basic teachings of the Lord. &nbsp;</h4><p>Local Jewish culture stressed that the place of the woman was about domestic matters rather than spiritual ones. Yet in the incident of Martha and Mary, the Lord commended Mary for neglecting her domestic duties in order to concern herself with spiritual development. She sat at his feet, as if a student at the feet of a rabbi. As noted on :39, it’s easy to forget that to sit at the feet of a Rabbi [and the Lord was called ‘Rabbi’] meant to be a disciple of that Rabbi. And women… couldn’t be disciples of a Rabbi. It was all radical stuff.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as he was praying in a certain place- </em>Perhaps Bethany, following on from the context of chapter 10. But we have the impression as in <em><a href='B:480 1:36'>Mar 1:36</a></em> of the disciples finding Him praying, in some secluded spot; and wishing to have that same intimacy with the Father which exuded from Him. The Comforter promises us that same relationship with God as Father which the Lord experienced; and so He teaches them in practice how to move towards it.</p><p><em>That when he ceased, one of his disciples said to him: Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples</em>- This means that this teaching of prayer is different to that recorded in Matthew 6. It would seem therefore that He replies to their request to share His intimacy with the Father by repeating an earlier teaching which [like us] they had not given due attention to. They knew John had taught his disciples forms of prayer, and they wanted one. The Lord is reminding them that He actually had given them one , but they had not paid attention to it. Or it could be that because John's disciples were well known for their prayers (<em><a href='B:490 5:33'>Luk 5:33</a></em>), the disciples of the Lord wanted a different prayer to that which the Lord had given them, one more in line with common Jewish prayer forms. And the Lord replies by repeating the prayer He had originally taught them, which they apparently weren't satisfied with. Again we see their immaturity, chronicled by they themselves in these gospel records, as an encouragement to their hearers and readers to mature more quickly than they had.</p><p>The model prayer given by the Lord can of course be used just as it Is. But it’s worth noting that the Lord’s own subsequent prayers, and some of Paul, repeated the essence of some of the phrases in it, but in different words. This may be a useful pattern for us in learning how to formulate prayers. There was therefore no need for Him to give another prayer. The prayer of Jesus in John 17 is in some ways an expanded restatement of the model prayer. In it, the Lord asks for the Father’s Name to be hallowed or glorified (<em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:11-12'>Joh 17:11-12</a></em>); for His work or will to be done or finished (<em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>); for deliverance from the evil one (<em><a href='B:500 17:15'>Joh 17:15</a></em>). The prayer of John 17 can be divided into three unitsof about the same length (<em><a href='B:500 17:1-8'>Joh 17:1-8</a></em>; John 9-19; Joh. 20-26). Each has the theme of glory, of directly addressing the Father, and of the needs of God’s people- all clearly taken from the model prayer.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: When you pray, say, Father- </em>The model prayer begins with the words "Our Father" (AV, textus receptus). Straight away we are bidden remember that no man is an island; the Lord intended us to be aware of the entire community of believers in our private prayers.</p><p>His teaching about our having a <em>Heavenly </em>Father (AV) may appear quite painless to accept; but it was radical, demanding stuff in the first century. The family then was “the centrally located institution maintaining societal existence… it [was] the primary focus of personal loyalty and it [held] supreme sway over individual life”. “Our father, <em>who is in Heaven</em>” was a prayer hard to pray if one really accepted the full import of the words; every bit as much as it is today. The idea of belonging to another family, of which the invisible Lord Jesus in Heaven was the head, belonging to a new society of world-wide brothers and sisters, where the Lord from Heaven held “supreme sway over individual life”, was radical indeed. It took huge commitment and a deep faith in this invisible head of the new family to step out from ones existing family. And the call of Christ is no less radical today. The social circle at uni, the guys at work, our unbelieving&nbsp;family members… now all take a radical second place to our precious family in Christ. And yet we so easily abuse or disregard the importance of our spiritual family; we too easily exclude them, won’t meet with them, can’t be bothered about them. &nbsp; </p><p><em>Hallowed be your name- </em>Hallowed / sanctified be Your name" uses an aorist tense which implies that it will be accomplished as a one-time act; at the coming of the Lord. Indeed, the aorist tenses in the Lord's model prayer are arresting; each phrase of the prayer asks for something to be done in a one-time sense. This alone suggests an intended 'answer' in terms of the final establishment of the Kingdom. “Hallowed be Your Name” was actually one of the Eighteen Benedictions used by most Jews at the time. This common phrase was consciously seen as a reference to the YHWH Name (Hal Taussig,&nbsp;<em>Jesus Before God: The Prayer Life of the Historical Jesus</em>&nbsp;(Santa Rosa, CA: The Polebridge Press, 1999) p. 76). But the Lord purposefully juxtaposes&nbsp;<em>Abba</em>, “Father”, with that phrase. This Aramaic, non-Hebrew, familiar word, an equivalent of “Daddy!”, is placed by the Lord next to Judaism’s most well known and frequently used blessing of the YHWH Name. By doing so, He was making the Name even more hallowed and glorious- by showing that the essence of that Name speaks of familiar family relationship with us, and is no longer the carefully guarded preserve of Hebrew people, thought, culture and language. The Lord prayed this in Gethsemane; and it took Him so long to say these words that the disciples fell asleep.</p><p><em>Your kingdom come</em>- It has been pointed out that "Your Kingdom come!" was violently in conflict with the Roman view that the lives of a subject people like Israel belonged to Caesar's kingdom. "'Your kingdom come!' is therefore a word of defiance; to pray it is a subversive activity. This is also how the authorities understand the ministry of Jesus: it is subversive and not to be tolerated". And so with us, the seeking of the future Kingdom is a radical denial of the spirit of our age, which seeks its Kingdom now; it demands a separation from the world around us. The well known description of the Kingdom in <em><a href='B:290 2:1-4'>Isa 2:1-4</a></em> is in the context of appealing to Israel to change their ways. Because they would <em>then</em> walk in the ways of the Lord, therefore "O house of Israel [therefore] Come ye [now] and walk in the ways of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:290 2:5'>Isa 2:5</a></em>). The hope of Israel ought to motivate Israel to live the Kingdom life here and now.</p><p>Greek scholars have pointed out that some phrases in the Lord's prayer show a remarkable lack of etiquette and the usual language of petition to a superior; literally, the text reads: "Come Your Kingdom, done Your will”. Is this part of the "boldness" in approaching God which the NT speaks of? That God should encourage us in this (although He also encourages us in reverential fear of Him) reflects something of His humility. The Kingdom of God refers to that over which God reigns. We are “a colony of Heaven” in our response to His principles (<em><a href='B:570 3:20'>Phi 3:20</a></em> Moffat). We are to pray for His Kingdom to come, so that His will may be done on earth (<em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em>). The Kingdom and the doing of His will are therefore paralleled. His Kingdom reigns over all in Heaven, for there, all the Angels are obedient to Him (<em><a href='B:230 103:19-21'>Psa 103:19-21</a></em>). By praying for the Kingdom to come on earth we are not only praying for the Lord’s second coming, but for the progress of the Gospel world-wide right now. Not only that more men and women will hear it and respond, but that those who have accepted it might work God’s will rather than their own to an ever-greater extent. Whether or not we can physically spread the Gospel is in this sense irrelevant; our prayer should be, first and foremost if the pattern of the Lord’s prayer is to be taken exactly, for the triumph of the Gospel world-wide. It has been pointed out by Philip Yancey that "Thy Kingdom come!" was violently in conflict with the Roman view that the lives of a subject people like Israel belonged to Caesar's kingdom.</p><p>"'Your kingdom come!' is therefore a word of defiance; to pray it is a subversive activity. This is also how the authorities understand the ministry of Jesus: it is subversive and not to be tolerated" (Philip Yancey,&nbsp;<em>The Jesus I Never Knew</em>&nbsp;(Harper Collins, 1998). The word&nbsp;<em>basileia&nbsp;</em>translated “Kingdom” definitely brought to mind the imperial reign or empire of Rome. Thus Hal Taussig comments: “Whenever anyone in Jesus’ time used the term “basileia”, the first thing people thought of was the Roman “kingdom” or “empire”. That is, “basileia” really meant “Roman empire” to most people who heard it… It was to many ears a direct insult to the Roman empire. Uttered in the presence of Roman soldiers, such a prayer could have gotten [a person] in immediate trouble” (Hal Taussig,&nbsp;<em>op cit</em>&nbsp;pp. 21,96). And so with us, the seeking of he future Kingdom is a radical denial of the spirit of our age, which seeks its Kingdom now; it demands a separation from the world around us. The well-known description of the Kingdom in <em><a href='B:290 2:1-4'>Isa 2:1-4</a></em> is in the context of appealing to Israel to change their ways. Because they would&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;walk in the ways of the Lord, therefore "O house of Israel [therefore] Come ye [now] and walk in the ways of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:490 2:5'>Luk 2:5</a></em>). The hope of Israel ought to motivate Israel to live the Kingdom life here and now.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And forgive us our sins. For we ourselves also forgive everyone that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation</em>- There is a parallel between "sins" and being "indebted"; probably an allusion to the jubilee. We release / forgive men their debt to us, as God does to us. If we chose not to participate in this Jubilee by not releasing others, then we cannot expect to receive it ourselves (note the Jubilee allusions in <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). Around 90% of Old Testament references to sin use the metaphor of a weight or burden, which can be lifted by forgiveness. The Lord Jesus prefers to speak of sin as a debt, which can be forgiven by not being demanded and the debt erased. The metaphor of debt is somewhat richer than that or burdens. It opens the possibility that God lent to us, that He allowed us to get into that debt- because He didn't strike us dead for the sin. 'Debt' also carries with it the idea that we would like to repay, but cannot. This is the flavour of the Lord's opening to the Sermon- that He is the solution for those who would like to be spiritual but feel unable to be as they would wish to be (see on <em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>). The release of debt carries with it a greater sense of gratitude, knowing that we should not have got into the debt in the first place. All this was foreseen by the Lord in His change of metaphor from sin as weight to sin as debt. It has been noted that sin was not spoken as debt until Jesus introduced the idea. We are in debt to God. And yet so many have the idea that God owes them, and big time. The prayer of Apollonius of Tyana was that “O ye gods, give me the things which are owing to me”. And that ancient attitude is alive today, leading to some who think it is their right not to work and to be supported, or expect some kind of material blessing from God. When actually, we are in deep debt to God, and forgiven it only by pure grace.</p><p>Those “indebted” to us are those who have a debt to us. But Biblically, who are those who are ‘indebted’? The same Greek word occurs often in the New Testament. <em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em> explains that there is a debt to us if we have been sinned against andit’s not been reconciled. The debt our brethren have to us, and we to them, is to love one another, to lay our lives down for each other, to entertain and receive each other at home (s:w. <em><a href='B:710 1:8'>3Jn 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:11'>1Jn 4:11</a></em>). A wife has her husband in her debt if he doesn’t love her with the love of Christ (<em><a href='B:560 5:28'>Eph 5:28</a></em>); our brethren are in debt to us if they don’t give us material help when we truly need it (<em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em>); or if they don’t wash our feet (<em><a href='B:500 13:14'>Joh 13:14</a></em>). A debt implies that it’s not been paid; and so I come to the conclusion that the&nbsp;<em>forgiveness&nbsp;</em>of our debtors is forgiving our brethren when they don’t love us as they should, don’t care for us… and never apologize or rectify it. The debt is outstanding; they’ve not cleared it. But we are to forgive it; we are to forgive unconditionally, without demanding restoration or grovelling repentance before us. This is the challenge of that phrase in the Lord’s prayer. For we ask for “our sins” in general to be likewise forgiven; and they surely include many ‘secret sins’ which we don’t even perceive or haven’t repented of. And further. “As we also forgive every one that is indebted to us” (<em><a href='B:490 11:4'>Luk 11:4</a></em>) can actually be read as a word of command, a statement that is actually a request. The request is that the sins of those who’ve sinned against us be forgiven- in this sense, “whosesoever sins ye remit [s:w. forgive] they are remitted unto them” (<em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em>). That’s another challenging thought. If they’re impenitent, how can they be forgiven? But if&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;forgive them, perhaps we are to understand that God is happy to forgive them. If we feel, as I do, that we’ve been sinned against so much… then we have a wonderful opportunity to gain our own forgiveness and even that of those people… by forgiving them. The more I hurt at how others have treated me, the more I realize my own desperate need for forgiveness. The two things, as the Lord foresaw in His model prayer, dovetail seamlessly together.</p><h4>Further evidence that Jesus prayed in Aramaic is found by comparing the two records of the Lord's prayer; Matthew has "forgive us our debts", whilst Luke has "forgive us our sins". The Aramaic word&nbsp;<em>hobha</em>&nbsp;means both 'sin' and 'debt'. The conclusion is therefore that Jesus taught the disciples to pray in their native Aramaic dialect rather than in Hebrew or Greek. Further, the Lord's prayer has many links to the&nbsp;<em>Kaddish</em>, an ancient Aramaic prayer which included phrases like "Exalted and hallowed be his great name::. may he let his kingdom rule::. speedily and soon".</h4><p>"As we<em>::." </em>is a challenge:&nbsp;The crucial little Greek word&nbsp;<em>hos</em>&nbsp;is elsewhere translated: according as, as soon as, even as, like as, as greatly as, since, whenever, while. Clearly enough, our forgiveness by God is dependent upon and of the same nature as our forgiveness of others.</p><p>"Forgive us our / debts sins as we have forgiven those who sin against us" uses the aorist which implies 'Forgive us this once'. Could this not be an anticipation of the state of the believer before the judgment seat of Christ- 'forgive me please this once for all my sins, as I have forgiven those who sinned against me'. If so, we have a powerful exhortation to forgive&nbsp;<em>now</em>; for in that awesome moment, it will be so apparent that the Lord's gracious acceptance of us will be directly proportional to how deeply we accepted and forgave our brethren in this life. Notice how strongly Jesus links future judgment with our present forgiveness (<em><a href='B:490 6:37'>Luk 6:37</a></em>). He teaches us to pray now for forgiveness on the basis of how we have forgiven others, knowing that in prayer, we have a foretaste of the judgment. Now we can come boldly before the throne of grace in prayer, just as we will come before that same throne in the last day.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go to him at midnight and say to him: Friend, lend me three loaves</em>- A man finds a friend comes to him at midnight, wanting food. So he goes to <em>his</em> friend, notwithstanding the inconvenient hour, and asks for some loaves, but actually he's given whatever he wants. His want, his will, was to find sustenance for his friend / brother. And therefore his friend gives abundantly above all he asks or thinks, indeed, whatever he wants is provided. The promise of boundless response to prayer is therefore true, but in the context of seeking to help others. This parable comes straight after 'the Lord's prayer'. In Matthew's record, the prayer is followed by a reminder that we must forgive our brother, if we are to be forgiven (<em><a href='B:470 6:14-15'>Mat 6:14-15</a></em>). So perhaps the friend coming to the man at midnight starving hungry, represents a brother sinning against us. Our response must be to go to the Father in prayer and seek forgiveness / spiritual food for our brother. And in that context, we will be given whatever we desire. Note that banging on the shut door is elsewhere a symbol of asking for forgiveness (<em><a href='B:490 13:24-25'>Luk 13:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>).</p><p>The parable of the man coming to his friend at midnight and asking for loaves (<em><a href='B:490 11:5-13'>Luk 11:5-13</a></em>) occurred in the context of the Lord's teaching about forgiveness (see the parallel Gospels). Yet the terms of the parable are replete with reference to the Lord's return and judgment:</p><p>At midnight- the Lord comes "at midnight" in other parables (cp. <em><a href='B:480 13:35'>Mar 13:35</a></em>)</p><p>Door now shut- the door is shut on those rejected, never to be opened (<em><a href='B:470 5:10'>Mat 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>)</p>


text:
<p><em>For a friend of mine has arrived from a journey and I have nothing to set before him</em>- Perhaps those not from an Eastern background can never understand the pressing urgency of the hospitality culture; you <em>must</em> feed the visitor. It just has to be done. But he is poor, and he doesn’t have any bread. So, he goes to his richer friend, friend number three, and wakes him up, disturbing the whole household, to ask him to give him some bread with which to entertain the first friend.</p><p>The friend who came on his journey with "nothing" is intended by the Lord to be understood primarily as referring to the disciples whom He had sent out on their journey with nothing ("take nothing for your journey", <em><a href='B:490 9:3'>Luk 9:3</a></em>). When He told them to "eat such things as are set before you" (<em><a href='B:490 10:8'>Luk 10:8</a></em>), He didn’t just mean ‘Don’t be picky about your food’. He used the same word in <em><a href='B:490 11:6'>Luk 11:6</a></em> to describe how the faithful friend "set [food] before" his visitor. As they travelled around, the disciples were to be received in the way He was describing. Those in that early brotherhood of believers who received and supported them were to do so knowing that these brethren were in their turn responding to human need, and they could be fellow-helpers in the Gospel’s work by showing hospitality. John says just the same: "Because that for his name's sake they went forth [alluding to the great commission to go into all the world], taking nothing <em>of the Gentiles</em> [i:e. the unbelievers]. <em>We</em> therefore ought to help receive such, that we might be fellow-helpers to the truth" (<em><a href='B:710 1:7-8'>3Jn 1:7-8</a></em>). </p><p>Does the 'traveller' needing sustenance of <em><a href='B:490 11:6'>Luk 11:6</a></em> refer to our sinful tendencies, in the light of <em><a href='B:100 12:4'>2Sa 12:4</a></em>? <em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em> describes those in sin whom the Lord saved as “out of the way”. The same idea is found in <em><a href='B:490 11:6'>Luk 11:6</a></em> AVmg:, where the man “out of his way” comes knocking on the Lord’s door. The image of the shut door is that of rejection; but here the door is opened, and the man given “as much as he needs” of forgiveness and acceptance:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he from within shall answer and say- </em>"From within" is always used in the Bible about the inner man, rather than meaning indoors. The Greek word occurs twice in the same context: "your <em>inward part… </em>that which is <em>within</em>" (<em><a href='B:490 11:39-40'>Luk 11:39-40</a></em>). Inside himself, he spoke to his friend: "Trouble me not". Yet that satan within him, that desire to be selfish, was overcome by his realization of his friends need, and <em>why</em> it had arisen. And if we have this same emboldened conscience to overcome our innate selfishness and ask of our Father <em>for the sake of others</em>, then we will s the work of the ministry will be provided by Him- that is His sober promise. <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em> is one of John’s versions of the great preaching commission: " I chose you and appointed you, that ye should <em>go</em> and bear fruit…whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you”. The promise of support and help and answered prayer is again held out- in the context of preaching and ministering to the Gospel.</p><p><em>Do not trouble me! The door is now shut and my children are with me in bed, I cannot rise and give anything to you?</em>- This gives further insight into how prayer is heard- the householder, God, is in His house (Heaven) with the door shut and his children with him in bed, and in order to get up- corresponding to God answering our prayer in the parable- the <em>whole </em>household, the children of God (a description of the Angels- <em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em> etc:), have to be roused. Thus all the Angels are conscious of one specific action on our behalf. See on <em><a href='B:490 15:6'>Luk 15:6</a></em>.</p><p>The man who knocks is answered, the Lord taught. He may have meant that all true prayer is answered in its essence, rather than its particularities. But forour purposes we note that the first knocks weren’t heard. Only by continual knocking was the request responded to. And so “knock, and it shall be opened” doesn’t just mean ‘ask for something and you’ll get it’. The first knocks produced nothing. It surely means ‘Keep on and on knocking, driven to your utmost desperation and entreaty; <em>this</em> is what I call knocking’:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord will one day come to <em>us</em> at midnight, and the unworthy will not open to Him (Song of Solomon 5). And He right now stands at the door and knocks (<em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em>). The rejected will know what it is like to stand knocking at the Lords shut door and be unanswered (<em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>). He surely intended us to make such links within His teachings. The message is quite clear- those who can’t be bothered to respond to the knocking of others, who refuse to feel for others in their desperation… these are the ones who will then come to know just how that feels, as in ultimate spiritual desperation <em>they</em> hammer at the Lords door. From this it surely follows that in our response to the desperation of others, we are working out our own eternal destiny. We are deciding whether or not the Lord will respond <em>to us</em>, as we lay there prostrate before Him at judgment, knowing our desperation whilst at the same time believing and hoping in His love and response. When we see others in their needs, the sister who can’t get to meeting because nobody will baby-sit for her once in a while, the brother who just needs someone to talk to, someone to listen, an evening of someone’s time, the man over there who is so lost in his Catholicism, that guy so addicted to his dreams of personal wealth, the woman back there hooked on dope, the single father with two spastic children, the grandmother left to bring up three children on a tiny pension in one room with broken windows and severe winters, the refugees streaming over that border day after day… we are confronted with these pictures daily. </p><p>They are knocking at our door, at midnight. And we would rather not be disturbed. We would rather acknowledge their status as our friends, our brothers and sisters, but make excuses as to why here and now we can’t respond. To tell the friend that, well, give him bread tomorrow…this was quite inappropriate. It could have been argued that they didn’t <em>need</em> bread right then. They could wait till morning. But the friend appreciated the <em>shame</em> and the <em>awkwardness</em> of his friend…his heart felt for him, and he responded. It isn’t just dire material need we should feel for, therefore; but feel for others in the sheer humanity of their life situations, and have a heart willing to try to give them all they need in them. </p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you, though he will not want to rise and give anything to him, yet because he is his friend, and because of the man's persistence, he will get up and give him as much as he needs</em>- The knocking on the door is specifically a symbol of prayer. If we see our brothers need, even if we can do nothing physically to help (and so often, we can’t); we will <em>pray</em> earnestly for them. If we truly feel for them, we will pray for them. The friend troubles his friend for help (<em><a href='B:490 18:7'>Luk 18:7</a></em>), just as in another parable about prayer the desperate widow "troubles" the judge for a response (<em><a href='B:490 18:5'>Luk 18:5</a></em>). </p><p>The poor neighbour asks with "importunity" (AV)- with shamelessness. He is confident of being heard and has no shame or hesitation to his request because he knows he really does have nothing to give the visitor. This is of course the prerequisite for prayer which will be heard. The Lord drives the point home that whoever asks in this way, receives. And yet the Lord addresses this comment to those who although "evil", knew how to give gifts to their kids. Surely the Lord was speaking to the Pharisees present, who prayed regularly. Perhaps He is saying that they had never really prayed the prayer of earnest desire, motivated by others' needs. </p>&nbsp;<p>Because of his "importunity", the rich friend gave to him. The Greek translated "importunity" means lack of shamefacedness, lack of reverence. The Greek word is <em>an-aideia</em>: without <em>aidos</em>. What does <em>aidos</em> mean? It is used twice in the New Testament: in <em><a href='B:610 2:9'>1Ti 2:9</a></em> "shamefacedness", and in <em><a href='B:650 12:28'>Heb 12:28</a></em> "serve God acceptably with <em>reverence</em>". The man (who the Lord invites us to see as representing us) comes to the rich friend (cp. God) <em>wit out</em> this reverence. Now of course we should serve our God with appropriate reverence. But there ought to be times when we as it were rush to God, because He is our father and our friend, without that formality which our worship of Him might more usually include. Contrary to the ideas of popular religion, God is not merely something to be worshipped; He is Father and friend, the one to run to in time of urgent need <em>when that need arises from the requirements of His people and His work. &nbsp;</em></p><p>Paul’s writings are packed with allusions back to the Lord's parables. In his reference to the tale of the three friends, Paul seems to have understood just as we have done. <em><a href='B:520 16:1-2'>Rom 16:1-2</a></em> comments that the ecclesia should welcome "Phoebe our sister receive her in the Lord, as becomes saints, and that you assist her in whatever business she <em>has need</em> of you: for she has been a succourer of many". "Has need" is the same Greek word as in <em><a href='B:490 11:8'>Luk 11:8</a></em> - the friend gave whatever <em>was needed</em> to the friend who arrived from his journey. And Paul says this should be done for Phoebe because she lived a life of giving out to others needs. <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p>Knocking on the door in prayer, and the door is opened- the rejected knock on the door but it isn't opened.</p><p>Now, in this life, we knock on the door, knowing we are condemned, needing forgiveness, living out the situation of the rejected at the last day. But <em>now</em>, the door is opened. We are granted as much forgiveness as we need, which we accept shamefacedly and awkwardly, as the man receiving loaves at midnight for the visitor [note how Nathan describes David's lust for Bathsheba as a visitor arriving needing feeding]. </p><p>The parable of the friend at midnight uses an element of unreality, but in a reverse way. The Lord paints the picture of a guest coming to a person who has no bread, and so they go and disturb their neighbour at midnight, asking for bread. The Middle Eastern peasant who appreciated the huge burden of responsibility to give food to a visitor would say that no, he couldn't possibly imagine that the person who was asked for food would say 'No'. He would not only give bread, but whatever was needed. And so it is with God. It's unthinkable, as unthinkable as it is in a Palestinian village to not be hospitable, that our Father will not answer a prayer for resources with which to help others. This has been my own experience time and again. And further, the villager would respond not just because it is his neighbour asking him, but because he realizes that the responsibility to entertain the needy person actually falls upon the whole community. And God too sees our requests for others as partly His personal and communal responsibility. However let it be noted that the poor neighbour asks only for bread- for the very bare minimum with which to provide for the need of another. And the richer neighbour responds with far more. Again, a pattern for our own prayers for resources with which to help others. </p><p><em>knock and it shall be opened to you</em>- Jesus likens requesting things from God to a man asking a favour of his friend at midnight (<em><a href='B:490 11:5'>Luk 11:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:9'>Luk 11:9</a></em>). We are to see God as <em>our friend</em> to whom like Abraham, we respectfully and rather awkwardly present ourselves. And He sees us as <em>His</em> friends. There's a wonderful mutuality between a man and his God. As noted above, the guaranteed answer of prayers refers to the requests we make for others when we truly do not have the resources to provide for them. And this is true in spiritual terms; for so often we feel utterly lacking in ability to provide for the spiritual needs of those who come to us at midnight.</p><p>The connections with the Sermon on the Mount surely send us back to <em><a href='B:470 5:42'>Mat 5:42</a></em> "Give to him that asks". The same Greek words are used. Our responsiveness to others will be reflected in God's responsiveness to us. And yet the Lord's style throughout the sermon is to elevate the natural onto a higher, spiritual plane. This is not a blank cheque promise, as is clear from both personal experience and Bible teaching. What we can be utterly assured of being given is God's grace and salvation. The Lord surely foresaw that the initial mental objection to His words would be 'But that's not true! I don't get everything I ask for, and neither did many Bible characters!'. But He wanted us to therefore think further as to what He might be really saying- and what He is saying is that forgiveness and salvation will surely be given to whoever asks. These things are summarized in <em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em> as God for sure giving "good things to them that ask Him". The parallel here in <em><a href='B:490 11:13'>Luk 11:13</a></em> summarizes those "good things" as "the Holy Spirit". </p>


text:
<p><em>For everyone that asks receives- </em>Passages like this can be read to teach that every one who seeks in prayer, receives. This just isn't true in terms of the words of our actual requests being answered. But once we understand that God sees the spirit behind our words and answers this rather than the specific request, then these promises become more realistically believable; and the entire context is about asking for loaves for our needy visitor which we truly do not have to give him. </p><p><em>And he that seeks finds- </em>As David "found" God through experiencing His forgiveness, so can "every one that is Godly" today (<em><a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a></em>). It is quite possible that "seek and you shall find”&nbsp;was uttered by the Lord with his mind on <em><a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a></em> and David's experience. After all, we cannot expect this to be a blank cheque offer, that whatever we seek for we must receive. But if these words are an allusion to David's seeking and finding forgiveness in <em><a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a></em>, then the promise is more realistic. If we seek for forgiveness and a living relationship with God, then we have this unconditional promise that we&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;find this. Yet in a sense, the time when we will ultimately find God will be at the judgment: we will "find mercy of the Lord in that day" (<em><a href='B:620 1:18'>2Ti 1:18</a></em>), so that "ye may be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless" (<em><a href='B:680 3:14'>2Pe 3:14</a></em>). We will find God, as He will find us, in that great moment of consummation; "for then shall (we) know (God), even as also (we) are known" by Him (<em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>;). Then we will "be&nbsp;<em>found</em>&nbsp;in him::. that I may (then)&nbsp;<em>know</em> him" (<em><a href='B:570 3:9-10'>Phi 3:9-10</a></em>). Yet David says that after forgiveness, we can find and know God. It is as if whenever we sin, we in a sense face our judgment seat. And the knowledge and 'finding' of God which we will then enjoy should be prefigured in our present experience of forgiveness. Should we not therefore pray for forgiveness with the intensity with which we would at the judgment, if we were then offered the chance to do so? &nbsp;</p><p>The 'seeking' which is in view is clearly of spiritual things. In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord had used the same word in encouraging us to above all "seek the Kingdom of God" (<em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>). And now He is encouraging us that if we seek it, we will 'find' it- the word for "find" is elsewhere translated "obtain". If we really want the things of the Kingdom and to eternally be in that environment- we will be. The Lord Jesus Himself went out seeking for goodly pearls- and found them (<em><a href='B:470 13:45-46'>Mat 13:45-46</a></em>). He goes seeking His sheep- and finds it (<em><a href='B:470 18:12-13'>Mat 18:12-13</a></em>). He "found" faith in a Gentile (<em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em>), He was as the woman who sought and found her precious coin (<em><a href='B:490 15:8-9'>Luk 15:8-9</a></em>). Our seeking the things of the Kingdom is therefore not merely our personal seeking a place in its future establishment upon earth. We can seek the progress of the Kingdom principles which comprise the reign and kingship of God on earth right now. Part of that is in seeking men and women to submit to that Kingship / Kingdom. And that too shall ultimately succeed, as the Lord Jesus demonstrated in His own life despite so many setbacks and failures in response to Him. 'But nobody's interested!' is really the cry of unbelief in this promise. If we are seeking for men and women to submit to the things of God's Kingdom, then we shall find them- even if they may not join our denomination or agree totally with all of our theology.</p><h4><em>And to him that knocks it shall be opened</em>- This is the language of preaching. For Paul appears to allude to it three times in speaking of how doors of opportunity have been opened for him in the work of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:530 16:9'>1Co 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:12'>2Co 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:3'>Col 4:3</a></em>). The implication is surely that he had knocked in prayer, and the doors had been opened. If we pray for opportunities to preach, to save people (rather than spending our mental energy on condemning our brethren), then God will respond. According to our principle of letting the Sermon interpret itself, it may be that the idea of the door being opened looks back to <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em> - in prayer, we are to shut our door and pray. And our knocking means that the door is opened. The particular metaphor of knocking upon a door and it being opened is used in <em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em> about the Lord knocking on our doorat the second coming, and us opening; yet He stands today and knocks at the door, and we are to open to Him (<em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em>). The point is surely that our relationship with Him is mutual, we knock and He opens, He knocks and we open. And at the last day, tragically too late, the rejected knock and the door will not be opened to them (<em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>). Their knocking is a desperate plea for salvation. But if we ask for it in this life- we shall receive it. So the metaphor speaks of seeking salvation and a relationship with the Lord in this life, but in context of the rest of the verse it also refers to our desire for others to have the door opened to them. John's equivalent to all this is perhaps His description of the Lord Jesus as the door, through whom any man may enter in to salvation. It's the same idea- the door is easily opened in this life, indeed the implication is that Jesus is effectively an open door for all who believe in Him:&nbsp;</h4><p>The language of knocking and opening is used in other parables about spiritual acceptance with the Lord; it is this which He is also willing to provide us with, for others' sake.</p>


text:
<p><em>What father among you- </em>We can imagine Him looking around at them.</p><p><em>If his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a snake?</em>- The Lord sensed that His promise of Divine response to prayer for salvation would be so hard for them to accept. He is here persuading them by all manner of methods to simply accept that reality. We are God's children, and He will not be cruel to us. It would be unnatural and counter-instinctive for Him to not save us. For His is the Kingdom- therefore He desires to give it to us, He designed it for us:&nbsp;</p><p>There were some fish (similar to eels) caught in the sea of Galilee which looked like snakes. The Lord is penetrating deep into the psychology of His people. We fear that the promised salvation may only be an appearance. And we are being shown here that that is to effectively accuse God of a cruel trick. At what stage the fish became a symbol of Christianity is not clear (there is a distinct similarity in sound between the Aramaic for 'Jesus' and for 'fish', something like 'Iisus' and 'Ikfus'), but the combination of fish and serpent tempt us to interpret this as also having the sense: Do you think that Christianity, the whole offer of the Kingdom I am making, is really such a cruel trick that it's really the serpent, the symbol of evil incarnate? Because that really is how it would have to be. It's either that, or gloriously true. And if we accept God as our loving Father, then with childlike faith we must also believe that His offer of salvation is simply true for us- if we ask. Again we see a connection with earlier teaching in the Sermon; for the Lord had taught His people to pray to "Our Father". Like all of the Lord's prayer, that is harder to pray than might first appear. Because if He really is our loving Heavenly Father, then we are to believe that if we ask Him for salvation and the things of His Kingdom, we shall surely receive:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Or if he shall ask for an egg, will he give him a scorpion?</em></p><p>- See on :11. Eggs and small scorpions could look similar. But in the life of a mature believer, there is no possible doubt that every gift from the Father is good- ultimately. Our environments are all given us by Him to develop our spirituality, and not because He hates us or wishes us to suffer. The song of the vineyard in Isaiah 5 makes the amazing point that the Father does all things possible so that we might bear fruit.</p>


text:
<p><em>If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em>. Quite simply, we have to believe that prayer changes things. God can change the course of a nation's destiny, or even in a sense the whole course of the universe, because some finite, ignorant, sinful human being has the neck to fervently ask Him to. We are encouraged by the Lord to persist in prayer (<em><a href='B:490 11:5-13'>Luk 11:5-13</a></em>). Elijah had to pray for rain seven times before the cloud came. Daniel prayed 21 days before an answer came. Why doesn't God answer immediately? Is it not simply because He sees it is for our good to develop this habit of knocking on Heaven's door with the same request?</p><p>The power of spiritual victory, the real way to holiness in practice, a spiritual mind, unity through forgiveness with God's mind / spirit, is assured to those who simply ask for it in faith. Seeking and finding, knocking on the door and it being opened, are likewise metaphors elsewhere used for God's assured positive response to our spiritual requests. John's equivalent to this part of the Sermon is perhaps the Lord's assurance that He will definitely<em> give</em>&nbsp;"living water" to whoever&nbsp;<em>asks</em>&nbsp;Him (<em><a href='B:500 4:10'>Joh 4:10</a></em>); and the frequent references to us being given "the Holy Spirit" or whatever we ask in His Name if it results in the Father being glorified (<em><a href='B:500 14:13-14'>Joh 14:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:23-24'>Joh 16:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:26'>Joh 16:26</a></em>). The letter of James is full of reference to the Sermon, and his allusion to 'ask and you will be given' is that if any man ask for&nbsp;<em>wisdom</em>, he will be given it (<em><a href='B:660 1:5-6'>Jas 1:5-6</a></em>), but a man will&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;be given things if he asks for material things to fulfil his own natural desires (<em><a href='B:660 4:2-3'>Jas 4:2-3</a></em>). It's as if James is answering the primitive objection: 'Jesus said if you ask, you will be given- but I asked for stuff and never got it'. And his answer is that the blank cheque promise is obviously about asking for spiritual things, not material things. <em><a href='B:690 3:22'>1Jn 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:14-15'>1Jn 5:14-15</a></em> likewise speak of receiving whatever we ask- in the context of saying that we can look forward to the day of judgment and be confident of acceptance there. God is willing and eager to save us, as the whole wonder of the crucifixion makes clear. If we ask for forgiveness, salvation and the strength to be spiritual, then He has promised to give those things to us. The wonder of that means that any attempt to try to as it were extort material blessing from God is sadly inappropriate and will not enter the mind of those who are rejoicing in His salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he was casting out a demon that was dumb. And it came to pass, when the demon had gone out, the dumb man spoke- </em>This is the language used at the time for explaining medical situations which today we would diagnose differently. Blindness (Mt:) and deafness are explicable in medical terms. The verse states that the Lord 'healed' the man and therefore, because of that healing, the blindness (Mt:) and deafness left him. The language of healing of persons is not what we would expect if the Lord instead ngaged in battle with demonic entities in Heaven or at least, outside of the man.</p><p><em>And the crowds marvelled</em>- This is a strong word, meaning utterly astonished, and even used about madness (<em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:13'>2Co 5:13</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>But some of them said- </em>The Pharisees (Mt:). Their comment appears to have been made in very hot blood, for it was logically contradictory to claim that someone who cast out demons must therefore be in league with the prince of the demons; because their own sons (either literally or in the sense of their disciples) claimed to cast out demons. And if Jesus was actually on the side of the prince of demons, why then was he as it were fighting for the other side by casting out demons. Such gaping error in logic was exactly what the Pharisees were constantly careful to avoid; but their intense jealousy of the Lord led them to make this logical error. Again we note that the Lord's style was not so much to directly state the errors of his opponents, but to work on the assumption that their beliefs were correct- and to then follow those beliefs to their logical conclusions, thus showing how those positions contradicted themselves to the point they could not be true. This is one explanation for the use of the language of demons in the Gospels, even though demons don't in fact exist.</p><p><em>By Beelzebub the prince of the demons he casts out demons</em>- By the instrumentality of Beelzebub. They were driven to assume that the Lord was in league with some higher power in order to perform His miracles. If it wasn't the Holy Spirit of God- it had to be by some other power, and the only option in their theology was some form of the Satan myth. Their logical desperation is a reflection of the undeniable nature of the Lord's miracles (as in <em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>). Any who claim to be able to do miracles through the Holy Spirit should likewise be producing healings which even their most sceptical opponents cannot deny are miracles; but that feature is not seen in many claims of healings today. When accused of being in league with ‘satan’, the Lord didn’t read them a charge of blasphemy. He reasoned instead that a thief cannot bind a strong man; and likewise He couldn’t bind ‘satan’ unless He were stronger than Satan (cp. <em><a href='B:480 3:23-27'>Mar 3:23-27</a></em>). He doesn’t take the tack that ‘Satan / Beelzebub / demons’ don’t exist; He showed instead that He was evidently stronger than any such being or force, to the point that belief in such a concept was meaningless. Faith must rather be in Him alone.</p><p>The Jews accused the Lord of being in league with the prince of the demons, Beelzebub. His comment was that if the family / house of Satan was so divided, then Satan “has an end” (<em><a href='B:480 3:26'>Mar 3:26</a></em>). His approach was ‘OK you believe in demons, Beelzebub etc. Well if that’s the case, then according to the extension of your logic, Satan will soon come to an end, will cease existence. That’s the bottom line. As it happens, I am indeed ‘binding the strong man’, rendering Satan powerless, making him ‘have an end’, and so whichever way you look at it, believing in demons or not, the bottom line is that My miracles demonstrate that effectively Satan is powerless and not an item now’. The way the New Testament is written reflects the same approach. When the Lord was alone with His disciples, He explained further: “If they have called the Master of the House [i:e. Jesus] ‘Beelzebub’, how much more shall they call them of his household?” [i:e. the disciples] (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>). By saying this, the Lord was clarifying that of course He didn’t&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>mean that He was part of the Satan family, working against Satan to destroy the entire family. Rather was He and His family quite separate from the Satan family. But He didn’t make that clarification to the Jewish crowds – He simply used their idea and reasoned with them on their own terms. Note in passing how the Jews actually thought Jesus was Beelzebub, or Satan. This would be one explanation for their mad passion to kill Him; for those labelled ‘Satan’ were hunted to their death in such societies, as seen later in the witch hunts of the middle ages. The Jews say Jesus as a false miracle worker, a false Messiah, a bogus Son of God – all characteristics of their view of ‘Satan’. Some centuries later, the Jewish sage Maimonides described Jesus in terms of the antichrist: “Daniel had already alluded to him when he presaged the downfall of a wicked one and a heretic among the Jews who would endeavour to destroy the Law, claim prophecy for himself, make pretences to miracles, and allege that he is the Messiah” (<em>Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen</em>). It’s been suggested that the way the Jewish rabbinical writings call Him&nbsp;<em>Yeshu</em>&nbsp;is an acronym for the Hebrew expression&nbsp;<em>yemach shemo vezichro</em>– “May his name and memory be obliterated”). This was the very Jewish definition of Satan. They saw Jesus as Satan himself; hence they were so insistent on slaying Him. Yet by the deft twist of Divine providence, it was through the death of Jesus that the&nbsp;<em>real&nbsp;</em>Devil (i:e. the power of sin) was in fact slain (<em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em>). To those with perceptive enough minds to see it, yet once again the Jewish ideas had been turned back upon them to reveal the real nature of the Devil to them, within their own frames of reference and terminology. Likewise Beelzebub means literally ‘the lord of the house’; and the Lord Jesus alludes to this in describing Himself as the Master of the House of God:&nbsp;</p><p>Judaism had taken over the surrounding pagan notion of a personal ‘Satan’. And the Lord Jesus and the Gospel writers use this term, but in the way they use it, they redefine it. The parable of the Lord Jesus binding the “strong man” – the Devil – was really to show that the “Devil” as they understood it was now no more, and his supposed Kingdom now taken over by that of Christ. The last Gospel, John, doesn’t use the term in the way the earlier Gospels do. He defines what the earlier writers called “the Devil” as actual people, such as the Jews or the brothers of Jesus, in their articulation of anadversarial [‘satanic’] position to Jesus.</p><p><em>Archon</em>, "the first" ["prince"], would imply that Beelzebub was also a demon, the "first" or leading one. Thus the fallacy of their argument is the more apparent- if Beelzebub really existed, why would he cast out his own fellow demons?</p>


text:
<p><em>And others, testing him, sought from him a sign from heaven</em>- They considered this to be a sign connected with the 'devil'. The Lord could have just walked away from such obvious blasphemers. But He works with them from whatever position they stated, and thereby sets us a huge challenge in dealing with difficult folks.</p>


text:
<p><em>But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them- </em>But they had "said" these things (:15). Perhaps they said these things within their own minds. Or maybe the contrast is to highlight the upcoming teaching that thoughts are as good as words (<em><a href='B:470 12:34-37'>Mat 12:34-37</a></em>). To hear their words was to know their thoughts.</p><p><em>Every kingdom- </em>Again the Lord accepts their position for one moment as true, and yet takes it forward to its logical implication. If Beelzebub was fighting against his own side, then all the same, Satan's Kingdom was divided against itself and would soon crumble into self-destruction. Therefore what Jesus had done ought to be seen as a presage of Satan's Kingdom ending and, by implication, the soon triumph of God's Kingdom.</p><p><em>Divided against itself- </em>The Lord Jesus framed His parable about Satan's kingdom rising up and being divided against itself in the very language of the Kingdom of Israel being "divided" against itself by Jeroboam's 'rising up' (<em><a href='B:110 12:21'>1Ki 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 13:6'>2Ch 13:6</a></em>)- as if Israel's Kingdom was Satan's kingdom.</p><p><em>Is brought to desolation- </em>The Lord only uses the Greek word elsewhere with regard to latter day Babylon's destruction as a result of her followers rising up against her (<em><a href='B:730 17:16'>Rev 17:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:19'>Rev 18:19</a></em>). This typically been how God destroyed Israel's enemies in the Old Testament- by them turning upon themselves. It follows another great Biblical theme- that those who ultimately will be condemned are in practice self-condemned and bring about their own condemnation:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And a family divided against a family falls apart</em>- A divided house is the characteristic of Satan’s house or kingdom, and it will fall- just as the house built on sand fell at the day of judgment. This is the strongest condemnation of any divided Christian community. The Lord is teaching that the breakup of a Kingdom, even Satan's, must start on the household level and progress higher. Perhaps this is a hint at the growth of&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;kingdom beginning with the household conversions and house churches with which Christianity started.</p>


text:
<p><em>And if Satan- </em>Mark adds that the Lord spoke all this "in parables" (<em><a href='B:480 3:23'>Mar 3:23</a></em>). 'Satan' was a parable and is being used here in a non-literal sense. The Lord reasons with them on their own ground, assuming for a moment that their wrong ideas were true- hence "<em>if</em>&nbsp;Satan::.". The one who cast out Satan / demons was of course Jesus personally. Their false logic and theology had led them to label a good man as Satan just because He did a good work of healing. So quickly, false logic and theology drives jealous people along a path of demonization, negative labelling of others and religious hatred:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Also is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? Because you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub</em>- <em><a href='B:330 17:14'>Eze 17:14</a></em> uses this language about how Old Testament kingdom of Judah no longer 'stood' because of their disobedience. The true Kingdom of God would 'stand' for ever (<em><a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a></em>). The Lord may be hinting that Israel was no longer God's Kingdom and was in fact therefore Satan's kingdom- for the true Kingdom of God would always stand. It is Satan's Kingdom which falls, not God's.</p>&nbsp;<p>Bible readers are familiar with the personification of sin as a man called 'Satan', the enemy. This symbolic man is in fact the antithesis of the Lord Jesus Christ. As we follow this theme through Scripture, it becomes apparent that we are just at the tip of an iceberg. This symbolic man has a kingdom&nbsp;and almost every attribute of the Lord Jesus and <em>His</em> Divine Kingdom of righteousness. Consider the similarities: </p><p>Satan has a Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 11:18'>Luk 11:18</a></em>) </p><p>The power and glory of which have been <em>delivered</em> to him by God, and which he can give to&nbsp;whomsoever he will (<em><a href='B:490 4:6'>Luk 4:6</a></em>) </p><p>Angels (<em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em> Gk:) </p><p>The power of death (<em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:350 13:14'>Hos 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 1:18'>Rev 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:6'>Rev 20:6</a></em>) </p><p>Power to condemn men (<em><a href='B:610 3:6'>1Ti 3:6</a></em>) </p><p>A judgment seat and system of rewards based on that of Christ (<em><a href='B:470 6:1'>Mat 6:1</a></em> cp. 2,16) </p><p>Condemned sinners are invited to the 'feast' of God's judgments and given suitable wedding clothes (<em><a href='B:430 1:7-8'>Zep 1:7-8</a></em>) in parody of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 22:2-3'>Mat 22:2-3</a></em>) </p><p>Is a father (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>) </p><p>Has children (<em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:10'>1Jn 3:10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:650 2:13'>Heb 2:13</a></em>) </p><p>And a wisdom that is opposed to God's wisdom (<em><a href='B:660 3:15-17'>Jas 3:15-17</a></em>) </p><p>Armour (<em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em>) </p><p>Power (<em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>) </p><p>Spiritual "depths" (<em><a href='B:730 2:24'>Rev 2:24</a></em>, s:w. <em><a href='B:520 11:33'>Rom 11:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:18'>Eph 3:18</a></em>) </p><p>Seed which he sows (<em><a href='B:470 13:39'>Mat 13:39</a></em>) </p><p>A throne (<em><a href='B:730 2:13'>Rev 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:4'>2Th 2:4</a></em>) </p><p>A mystery (<em><a href='B:600 2:7'>2Th 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:24'>Rev 2:24</a></em>) </p><p>"Power::. signs and::. wonders" (<em><a href='B:600 2:9'>2Th 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 13:13'>Rev 13:13</a></em>) </p><p>Stands at the right hand of men (<em><a href='B:230 109:6'>Psa 109:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:8'>Luk 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 110:1'>Psa 110:1</a></em>) </p><p>Is likened to lightening (<em><a href='B:490 10:18'>Luk 10:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 17:24'>Luk 17:24</a></em>) </p><p>Puts things in men's' hearts (<em><a href='B:500 13:2'>Joh 13:2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:540 8:16'>2Co 8:16</a></em>) </p><p>He is a son who will be "revealed" (<em><a href='B:600 2:4'>2Th 2:4</a></em>), as Christ will be (<em><a href='B:490 17:30'>Luk 17:30</a></em>, same Gk:) </p><p>He is "he that comes" (<em><a href='B:540 11:4'>2Co 11:4</a></em>), a phrase so often used about the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 7:19-20'>Luk 7:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:27'>Joh 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:31'>Joh 7:31</a></em>) </p><p>He will be "revealed <em>in his time</em>" (<em><a href='B:600 2:6'>2Th 2:6</a></em>), as Christ will be (<em><a href='B:490 17:24'>Luk 17:24</a></em>) </p><p>"The god of this world" who emits a bright light into the hearts of men (<em><a href='B:540 4:4'>2Co 4:4</a></em> cp. 6) </p><p>Enthroned in God's temple (<em><a href='B:600 2:4'>2Th 2:4</a></em>) </p><p>He has "works" (<em><a href='B:690 3:8'>1Jn 3:8</a></em>) </p><p>Figuratively comes down from heaven to earth in the last days (<em><a href='B:730 12:12'>Rev 12:12</a></em>) </p><p>Has bread and wine of wickedness (<em><a href='B:240 4:17'>Pro 4:17</a></em>) </p><p>His followers "hold" Christ, as the true disciples do (same words in <em><a href='B:580 2:9'>Col 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:48'>Mat 26:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>) </p><p>Will be 'apocalypsed' as Christ will be (<em><a href='B:600 2:8'>2Th 2:8</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And even if I- </em>Three times in succession the Lord uses the "if::. " clause. Logic and consequence of position is therefore significant to Him. If it were not, it would totally not matter what we believed about anything.</p><h4><em>By Beelzebub- </em><em><a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a></em> clearly tells us that Beelzebub was a false god of the Philistines. Jesus did not say, ‘Now look, <em><a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a></em> says Beelzebub was a false god, so your accusation cannot be true’. No, He spoke as if Beelzebub existed, because He was interested in getting His message through to His audience. So in the same way Jesus talked about casting out demons – He did not keep saying, ‘actually, they do not exist’, He just preached the Gospel in the language of the day.</h4><p><em>Cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?- </em>The miracles claimed by the Jews would've compared poorly with the Lord's, rather like the attempts by the Egyptian magicians to imitate the miracles of Moses. he Lord never makes that point directly. He accepts that these people claimed to 'cast out demons' and reasons as if that is true- in order to clinch the greater point, that their whole belief system was deeply flawed. It seems to me that this is one reason why the NT writers go along with the idea of demons- to demonstrate by colossal implication that either they do not exist, or they are utterly powerless. “By whom do your sons cast them [demons] out?” (<em><a href='B:490 11:19'>Luk 11:19</a></em>) shows the Lord assuming for a moment that there were demons, and that the Jews could cast them out. He doesn’t directly challenge them on their false miracles, their exaggerated reports of healings, nor on the non-existence of demons. He takes them from where they are and seeks to lead them to truth.</p><p><em>Therefore shall they be your judges</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>. </p><p>Their own sons who had claimed to do miracles would be presented at the day of judgment when their lives were examined. The point would be made that they had condemned Jesus for something which their own sons did, and yet they had not condemned&nbsp;<em>them</em>, and therefore they would be condemned / judged at the hands of their own sons. Likewise the Lord reasoned that the presence of the Queen of Sheba at judgment day would be a condemnation for some in first century Israel (<em><a href='B:490 12:42'>Luk 12:42</a></em>). Judgment day will not be a mere yes / no encounter. Our lives will be laid bare, specific incidents raised and the implications of them discussed, with the persons involved or implicated standing there giving testimony; or at least, this is how it shall be for the rejected. There is a colossal importance to life and living, to justice, to the implications of actions. It’s no good just shrugging and hoping for the best, allowing the passage of time to work a kind of pseudo-atonement, whereby we forget the implications of our actions.</p><p>The fact the Pharisees' children cast out demons condemned the Pharisees. Noah's very example was a condemnation of his world (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>); the very existence of believing Gentiles judges the Jews as condemned (<em><a href='B:520 2:27'>Rom 2:27</a></em>); and the very existence of the repentant Ninevites condemned first century Israel (<em><a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a></em>). The faithful preaching of the Corinthians would judge an unbeliever (<em><a href='B:530 14:24'>1Co 14:24</a></em>). Noah's very act of righteousness in building the ark condemned / judged those who saw it and didn't respond (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). This is why the rejected will be shamed before the accepted; they will bow in shame at their feet (<em><a href='B:730 3:9'>Rev 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). Perhaps it is in this sense that "we shall judge angels" (<em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>)- rejected ecclesial elders, cp. the angels of the churches in Revelation 2, 3? The point is, men's behaviour and conduct judges others because of the contrast it throws upon them. And this was supremely true of the Lord. No wonder in the naked shame and glory of the cross lay the supreme "judgment of this world".</p>


text:
<p><em>But if I by the finger of God- </em>A comparison of <em><a href='B:470 12:28'>Mat 12:28</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 11:20'>Luk 11:20</a></em> shows that “the finger of God” and “the spirit of God” are parallel - God in action is His spirit. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth” (<em><a href='B:230 33:6'>Psa 33:6</a></em>). One reason the Lord did miracles was to try to drive people towards a final decision about Him- see <em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>. Either He did them by the Spirit, and was therefore attested at God's Messiah and providing a true foretaste of the Messianic Kingdom- or, as the Pharisees claimed, the source of power He was clearly tapping into must be from 'the other side', from evil. The population were therefore faced with a deep choice- either He was who He claimed, or He was an agent of Satan. There was no middle position. It was clear that Jesus, a manual worker from Nazareth, had access to some cosmic power on a scale previously unknown in the earth. The Bible clearly teaches that there is no power but of God. And there is only one God. Those teachings alone make redundant any concept of a personal cosmic Satan and demons. If I had faced off against first century Palestinians deeply persuaded of demonic forces, I think I would've gone down the road of arguing that the God of Israel is omnipotent, quoting <em><a href='B:290 45:7'>Isa 45:7</a></em> etc. But the Son of God did it differently. He demonstrated beyond doubt, even by his fiercest enemies, that He had access to superhuman power. He was happy to bear with their idea that there were two 'powers' in the cosmos- of good (from Yahweh) and evil (from Satan). But He then argued that seeing He was doing good, He must therefore have access to that good power. He must, therefore, have unique relationship with Yahweh. Those who clung on to their beliefs in Satan and the power of evil were left with no option but to accept that either He was of Satan, or of God. And seeing His works were&nbsp;<em>good</em>&nbsp;(as they grudgingly admit in <em><a href='B:500 10:33'>Joh 10:33</a></em>), they really had to accept He was of God. And clearly His power was such that effectively, the supposedly 'evil force' was of no account. The next verse goes on to develop the point- that these miracles were a plundering of the palace of 'Satan', so therefore the power of Jesus was such that He had effectively subdued this being and left 'him' powerless. This was a far more effective path to take than a point blank denial of the existence of any evil power or Satan figure. </p><p><em>Cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>phthano</em>&nbsp;can carry the idea of to anticipate or precede; it is translated "go before" in <em><a href='B:590 4:15'>1Th 4:15</a></em>. The Lord's miracles were a foretaste of how the Kingdom of God on earth will be, with no sickness and total healing, spiritually and physically. In the ministry and person of Jesus we see a foretaste of how the Kingdom of God will actually be; and 'the Kingdom' was a title of Christ, so closely was He personally the epitome of that time (<em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>). If we want to know what the future Kingdom of God on earth will be like- look at the person and actions of Jesus. He was in Himself the proclamation and essence of that Kingdom. The descriptions of a renewed earth in Isaiah focus very much on the physicalities of that time, and at best describe the situation during the initial part of God's Kingdom. But the ultimate spiritual essence of life in eternity is to be found in Jesus as a person.</p>


text:
<p><em>When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe</em>- The strength of sin, and thereby the extent of the Lord’s victory, is brought out by another unreal element in the Lord’s picture of “a strong man fully armed [guarding] his own court” (<em><a href='B:490 11:21'>Luk 11:21</a></em> RV). This householder is fanatic; he wanders around fully armed to protect his own courtyard and his goods, rather than getting servants or guards to do it. The Lord being “stronger than he” through the cross was therefore indeed strong. See on <em><a href='B:490 13:9'>Luk 13:9</a></em>. 'Beelzebub' can mean 'Lord of the house'. The 'strong man' is clearly 'Satan' in the parable the Lord is creating here (<em><a href='B:480 3:23'>Mar 3:23</a></em>). Note the allusions to Samson (<em><a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But when one stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him his whole armour in which he had trusted, and divides his spoils</em>- The idea of the Lord binding satan (the "strong man"), stealing his goods and sharing them with His followers is a picture of His victory on the cross. It is full of allusion to <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>, which says that on account of the fact that Christ would pour out His soul unto death and bear our sins, "he shall divide the spoil with the strong (Heb: 'those that are bound')”. With the same thought in mind, Paul spoke of how through the cross, Christ "<em>spoiled</em> principalities and powers" (<em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em>). It may be that this is one of many examples of the New Testament writers thinking in a Hebrew way, despite writing in Greek. "Principalities and powers" is perhaps an intensive plural, referring to the <em>great </em>principality and power, i:e. Satan. The way He 'triumphed over them in himself' (Gk. + AVmg:) would certainly make more sense if they referred to the Biblical devil / satan which was overcome within Christ (cp. the language of <em><a href='B:650 2:14-18'>Heb 2:14-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>). <em><a href='B:560 2:15-16'>Eph 2:15-16</a></em> appears to be parallel to <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em>. It speaks of how Christ "abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments::. for to make <em>in himself</em> of twain one new man, so making peace; and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby". <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em> speaks of the Lord on the cross as the victorious champion, killing "principalities and powers" and then triumphing over them by sharing their spoils with his soldiers. <em><a href='B:560 2:15'>Eph 2:15</a></em> speaks of the Lord on the cross "slaying the enmity" (the Biblical Devil) and achieving peace and reconciliation for all those within His body. Yet in the immediate context, the Lord is offering an explanation of why His miracles proved He was the Messiah. He hadn't yet died on the cross; but He was doing the works which were possible as a result of the binding of Satan which He would then achieve. This is yet another example of the Lord's confidence that He would overcome, and God going along with Him in this. The Lord's miracles were a physical foretaste of the great spiritual blessings which would be made available as a result of the binding of Satan by the Lord's death and resurrection. </p><p>The "spoils" of Satan are those things which he has taken away; surely the spoils taken from Satan by Christ refer to the righteousness which our nature takes away from us. <em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em> adds another detail to the story. The "armour" of Satan which he depends upon is taken away by Christ on the cross, and then Satan is bound, and his spoils shared out. The armour of Satan is the antithesis of the armour of righteousness (<em><a href='B:560 6:11'>Eph 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:13'>Eph 6:13</a></em>). As the Kingdom of God has a God who dwells in darkness, a Prince, an armour, a Christ, a dominion, a will and spirit, fruits, rewards etc:, so does the kingdom of (the personified) Satan. The armour of righteousness is the fruit of the Spirit, the righteous characteristics of the Spirit. The armour of Satan is the fruits of the flesh nature. These have been taken away by Christ, He has bound Satan, and therefore what Satan has robbed us of, the fruits of righteousness, his spoils, can be taken at will by the Lord Jesus. We have shown that Christ was alluding to <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>, which says that through the cross, Christ divides the spoil with the bound ones, i:e. us. In this lies a paradox. Binding is associated with sin (<em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 1:14'>Lam 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:16'>Luk 13:16</a></em>). We are bound, in many ways, intrinsically limited by our own natures. Only at the second coming will Satan be bound, i:e. the Lord's personal achievement will be physically shared with the world (<em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>). Yet we, the bound ones, are given the goods which the Lord personally took away from the bound Satan. Those goods are the righteous attributes which our natures stop us possessing as we should. The dividing of the spoils to us by the victorious Lord (<em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>) recalls how the Lord divided <em>all</em> His goods between His servants (<em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>), the dividing of <em>all</em> the Father's goods between the sons (representing the good and bad believers, <em><a href='B:490 15:12'>Luk 15:12</a></em>). We have elsewhere shown that these goods refer to the various aspects of the supreme righteousness of Christ which are divided between the body of Christ. The spoils divided to us by the Lord are the various aspects of righteousness which He took for Himself from Satan. The picture of a bound strong man having his house ransacked before his eyes carries with it the idea of suspense, of daring, of doing something absolutely impossible. And so the idea of Christ really taking the righteousness which the Satan of our very natures denies us, and giving these things to us, is almost too much to believe. </p><p>It is normally the fellow-soldiers who share the spoils (cp. <em><a href='B:650 7:4'>Heb 7:4</a></em>). But we didn't even fight; the spoils are divided amongst the bound ones (<em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em> Heb:). Satan in general is still unbound (cp. <em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>). Christ bound the Satan within Himself personally, and took the spoils of victory for Himself. <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em> says that Christ "spoiled" as a result of His victory on the cross; and the Greek specifically means 'to completely divest <em>for oneself</em>'. He is being painted as the lone hero who took it all for Himself; of the people there was none with Him in His great battle on the cross (<em><a href='B:290 63:3'>Isa 63:3</a></em>). And indeed, He was the lone hero. But the point is that He has shared with us the spoils of righteousness which He took for Himself as a result, even though we are not worthy to receive them. Seeing the teaching of the Lord is just outline principle, it is evident that through His death He gained possession of absolute righteousness, and then shared this with us. In the first century, the outward demonstration of this was in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. "He led captivity captive (more language of the heroic victor), and gave gifts unto men", the miraculous gifts, in the first century context (<em><a href='B:560 4:8'>Eph 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:11'>Eph 4:11</a></em>). But what was taken away from Satan was not only power over illness. If this was the main meaning of Satan being bound and his spoils shared with us, then it would follow that the effect of Christ's binding of Satan was only in the first century; for those miraculous gifts of the Spirit are no longer available; illness still triumphs over God's people. The spoils of Satan refer to the righteousness which Satan limits and denies. It is this which has been taken from him, and divided to us all as a result of the cross. The miracles of the first century were a physical reflection of this, just as the rending of the temple veil and resurrection of some dead saints was a physical foretaste of the spiritual possibilities opened up by the Lord's death. </p><p>There are many references to the spiritual blessings which are even now mediated to us (as the whole body of Christ) on account of the Lord's death; we (as a community) are given peace and "eternal life" (<em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:2'>Joh 17:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:11'>1Jn 5:11</a></em>), knowledge (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>), wisdom (<em><a href='B:560 1:17'>Eph 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:15'>Jas 1:15</a></em>), peace (<em><a href='B:600 3:16'>2Th 3:16</a></em>), understanding (<em><a href='B:530 2:12'>1Co 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:7'>2Ti 2:7</a></em>), love in our hearts (<em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>), grace (<em><a href='B:560 4:7'>Eph 4:7</a></em>), comfort (<em><a href='B:600 2:16'>2Th 2:16</a></em>), righteousness (<em><a href='B:520 5:16-17'>Rom 5:16-17</a></em>), confidence (<em><a href='B:620 1:7'>2Ti 1:7</a></em>), sexual self-restraint (<em><a href='B:530 7:7'>1Co 7:7</a></em>). All the different aspects of the 100% righteousness of our Lord, <em>all</em> His goods, the spoils He personally took from Satan, are divided up amongst ourselves, some having spiritual possibilities in one area, others in another. As a community we are counted as if we have overcome the world, overcome Satan, as Christ did, although on a human level we are still bound (<em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:690 2:13-14'>1Jn 2:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:4'>1Jn 5:4</a></em>). Only at the day of judgment will we have overcome all (<em><a href='B:730 21:7'>Rev 21:7</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em> s:w:), but we are treated as if we have already done so. </p><p>Grasping this extensive theme helps explain the deep sense of paradox which is central to all serious self-examination. We are counted righteous, we are given spiritual gifts of righteousness now, and our self-examination reveals this to us; but we are expected to develop them (according to the parable of the pounds). Yet we also see that we are pathetically bound by our Satan, somehow held back from that life of righteousness which we would fain achieve. All these things were deeply foreseen and appreciated by the Lord when He constructed this parable of binding Satan. Christ in His own life has overcome Satan, and has graciously shared the various aspects of righteousness with the whole of His body. This is the very idea of the body of Christ; between us, over time, we will approximate to the perfect reflection of our Lord. We have each been given different aspects to develop, different parts of His personality. This explains the difference in emphasis which can be observed within the different parts of the present body, and also in the history of the body over time. </p>


text:
<p><em>He that is not with me is against me- </em>The original is memorable- either&nbsp;<em>meta</em>&nbsp;Me, or&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;Me. The Lord is speaking here from&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;perspective. For He Himself observed that Judas 'ate&nbsp;<em>with Me</em>', but lifted up his heel '<em>against</em>&nbsp;Me' (<em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em>). It's simply not so that all those who claim to be with the Lord are therefore with Him and on the same side as we who know we are in truth 'with' Him. He is simply observing an ultimate truth- that finally, there will be (and therefore is not now) any middle position in relation to Him. It's not therefore for us to insist that anyone who claims to be 'with Him' is so merely because they say so. Let His words sink in to you personally: “He who is not with me is against me… he that is not against us is for us”(<em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:40'>Mar 9:40</a></em>). We may think we are not against the Lord’s cause, even if we’re not as committed to it as we might be; many an unbaptized young person has told me this. But to be ‘not against’ Jesus means we must be&nbsp;<em>with Him</em>. Nobody can be passively ‘not against’ Jesus. If we’re not whole heartedly with Him, we’re against Him. That’s how His demanding logic goes. A relationship with Him demands the whole person;&nbsp;<em>you</em>, your very heart and essence.</p><p><em>And he that does not gather with me scatters</em>- In connection with the gathering of spoil from the strong man's house. There is a tendency to use this verse as a general statement of principle, but the surrounding context is specifically about the Lord's healing miracles being part of the spoil He has plundered from the 'Lord of the house', Beelzebub / Satan. People were faced with the choice of accepting the Lord's miracles were performed using either God's power, or Satan's. The whole issue pushed the audience to a crucial choice- of accepting of Jesus as God's special Son, or as Satan. The miracles were proof that the Lord Jesus had bound the power of Satan- the power which people believed was behind illness. If you didn't want to go and gather the spoil, then you were actively scattering it abroad. This hyperbole was used to force all the cautious people who remained undecided to realize that ultimately, there is no such thing as agnosticism. If you are not eagerly gathering the spoil the Lord has now released, then you are actively working against Him:&nbsp;</p><p>The moment of conversion is the beginning of the gathering to judgment (<em><a href='B:490 11:23'>Luk 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>). The one talent man didn't appreciate this; he objected to the Lord reaping and gathering him (<em><a href='B:470 25:24'>Mat 25:24</a></em>). But whatever human objections, the responsible from all nations <em>will be gathered </em>to judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>). The servants are called to receive their talents, and then called again to account (Luke 19; Luke 13, 15); there is something in common between the calling to know the Gospel, and the calling to judgment. </p>


text:
<h4><em>When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and finding none it says-</em> The ministry of the Lord Jesus was a follow up to that of John the Baptist, and that theme is never far from us in Luke's Gospel. Those not against who are for in :23 may well refer to John's disciples. The unclean spirit was cast out of Israel due to their surface level response to John's preaching- this was the sweeping of the house. But it returned and that generation became more evil than before. This 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. Demons supposedly didn’t like water (as in <em><a href='B:470 8:28-34'>Mat 8:28-34</a></em>). Again we find the Lord using the language of the day without correcting it. The reference is also to the Jews going into the wilderness to hear John’s preaching.</h4><p><em>I will return to my house from which I came</em>- The Greek word is elsewhere translated to convert (<em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em>). Israel's rejection of Jesus was effectively a re-conversion away from John's message. The same word is used of how John was to convert Israel to their God (<em><a href='B:490 1:16-17'>Luk 1:16-17</a></em>). "Came [out]" is the same word used thrice about that generation going out into the wilderness to hear John (<em><a href='B:470 11:7-9'>Mat 11:7-9</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he comes, he finds it swept and put in order</em>- The only other usage of the word "swept" is in the Lord’s self-description of His ‘sweeping’ the house of Israel in order to find the lost (<em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>). The house of Israel had been swept- but the nation had not been ‘found’ because they would not come to Jesus in repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first</em>-&nbsp;“State” is an addition from the translators. “The last” was the state of condemnation which that generation ended up in. The Lord’s comments that the first would be “last” (<em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>) could therefore be taken as a reference to the final condemnation of the Jewish religious leadership, “the first”. However, “the last”, the&nbsp;<em>eschatos</em>, could refer to their status at the judgment of the last day. But the essence of judgment is now, and the Lord saw them as already in that state. It “<em>is</em>&nbsp;worse” and yet thus ‘it&nbsp;<em>shall&nbsp;</em>be’ for that generation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as he said these things, that a certain woman out of the crowd lifted up her voice and said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts which you did suck</em>- The woman was not merely making a passing comment, but alluding somehow to the repeated blessedness attached to Mary (<em><a href='B:490 1:28'>Luk 1:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:42'>Luk 1:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em>). Perhaps the Angel's words to Mary were already known and publicized; or perhaps this was a close relative whom Mary had told this to; or maybe Luke is just demonstrating the truth of the Angelic promise that all generations would call Mary "blessed".</p>


text:
<p><em>But he said: Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it</em>- The Lord shifts all focus away from considering Mary to be blessed just because she happened to be the physical channel used for His conception. Rather her blessedness was to be understood in terms of how she heard God's word and kept it, meditating upon it in her heart (<em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:51'>Luk 2:51</a></em>). Likewise we can take the warning that even if the Father clearly uses us as a channel, this doesn't of itself mean we are acceptable with Him. It is personal spirituality, of the kind Mary had, which is all significant. </p><p>Paul Wyns has spotted the following connections:&nbsp; </p><table><tr><td></p><h4><em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</em> Revelation 1</td><td>Luke 11</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things that are written therein. (v:3)</td><td>Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it. (v:28)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Seven spirits (angels) before the throne. (v:4)</td><td>Contrast – seven unclean spirits invited into the house. (v:24-26)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The resurrected Christ – I was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore. (v:12-19)</td><td>The sign of Jonah the prophet. (v:29-32)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The seven golden candlesticks. (v:12,13,20)</td><td>The parable of the lighted candlestick. (v:33-36)</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The lesson for us is that the Lord even in His Heavenly glory alluded to His dear mother’s attitude, and held her up as the pattern for all His people. She had an eternal influence upon Him. Even in His Heavenly glory, the incidents of that day in Luke 11, and the example of His mother, remained with Him. This is surely a tremendous incentive to parents- their influence on their children may be a factor in how their children will eternally be. The Lord was alluding to how His mother had “kept” God’s word in her heart in devout meditation (<em><a href='B:490 2:51'>Luk 2:51</a></em>). He didn’t say ‘Blessed is <em>she</em> because <em>she</em> heard the word and kept it’. Rather, “blessed are <em>they</em>”. He was surely saying: ‘Don’t just dumbly admire my mother, with some kind of distant, spectator admiration; she is the pattern for <em>all</em> of you. Follow her, make her the pattern of <em>your</em> life with respect to God’s word, rather than just gasp at her example’.</h4>


text:
<p><em>And when the crowds were gathering together to him, he began to say: This generation is an evil generation. It seeks after a sign- </em>Ahaz was likewise rebuked for seeking a sign instead of believing in faith the Messianic prophecies. The Lord had been clearly doing signs / miracles. They were maybe claiming that they personally had not been present when the signs were done, and now they wanted to see one:&nbsp; But <em><a href='B:490 11:16'>Luk 11:16</a></em> adds the detail that they sought a "sign&nbsp;<em>from Heaven</em>". This continues the issue under debate; the Pharisees accepted that Jesus was doing signs / miracles, but they considered them to be from 'Satan'; the Lord has responded by saying that His good works show He is a good man working on God's behalf, and that they would be called to account at the last day for their blasphemy. But it seems this other group of Pharisees continue in the blasphemous position- their response is to assume that the earlier miracles were signs from 'Satan', but now they give the Lord a chance to do a sign / miracle from God ("Heaven"). They repeated this request later (<em><a href='B:470 16:1'>Mat 16:1</a></em>), and again the Lord answered them with "the sign of the prophet Jonah". It's not necessarily wrong to require a sign- Gideon's example comes to mind. The disciples themselves asked for a sign (<em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>), and the Lord answered them to the effect that there would be "the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven" (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>). "In" Heaven can mean 'by the instrumentality of [Heaven]'. The similarity of words and concepts is so close that there must be some continuity in meaning. It could be that the sign of the Son of Man given by Heaven in the last days is the sign of Jonah- the successful preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles and the resurrection from the dead.</p><p><em>But there shall no sign be given to it</em>- The idea could be 'no&nbsp;<em>further</em>&nbsp;sign', as if the Lord was saying that He would do no further dramatic miracles to seek to persuade the Pharisees. In this case, the allusion would be to the Egyptians not believing the signs given them (<em><a href='B:20 4:9'>Exo 4:9</a></em>), resulting in their final destruction. Unbelieving Israel are no better than Egypt / the world, and will "be condemned with the world". Note that here as often we have to read in an ellipsis: 'No&nbsp;<em>more</em>&nbsp;sign'. For He had been doing signs / miracles in abundance. Or perhaps, seeing that He did continue doing miracles: 'No sign&nbsp;<em>greater than</em>&nbsp;[that of Jonah]'.</p><p><em>Except the sign of Jonah-&nbsp;</em>The ‘resurrected’ Jonah was a type of the Lord- and he was a ‘sign’ to the Ninevites presumably in that he still bore in his body the marks of a man who had been three days within a fish. It could be that the fish beached itself, and vomited Jonah out of its stomach in its death throes (this is how beached whales meet their end). In this case, the fish would have drawn the attention of the local population, as would have the man with bleached hair and strange skin who walked away from it. We too as witnesses of Christ will have something about us that is unintentionally striking in the eyes of those with whom we mix. There was no human chance that Jonah would be listened to when he came to preach judgment against Nineveh. Some guy standing on the edge of town, saying ‘You’re all gonna be destroyed’. People would have laughed, ignored him, or told him to shut up. But there was something about him that was gripping and arresting. He was living proof that the judgment of God is real, and that His mercy is just as real. Presumably Jonah must have said far more than “Nineveh is going to be destroyed”.</p><p>It is a worthwhile speculation that for Jonah to be a sign to the Ninevites by reason of being three days in the whale (<em><a href='B:470 12:38-40'>Mat 12:38-40</a></em>), he must have borne in his body the marks of his experience for all to see, as our Lord did. Being inside the fish for that period may have made his flesh change colour or bear some other physical mark so that he could be a sign to them of what had happened. Doubtless he recounted his story to them- so that they were encouraged by the fact of God's love to the resurrected Jonah to repent and likewise throw themselves on God's mercy. In all this we see Jonah as a type of Christ. They would have looked upon that man as we look upon Jesus, to see the love of God manifested in him; they responded by repenting in sackcloth, casting off their materialism, and living in a way that showed their complete belief that "the judge stands before the door". What is our response to Jonah/Jesus?&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For even as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of Man be to this generation</em>- As Jonah was three days in the whale and then came up out of it to preach to the Gentiles, so the Lord would be three days in the grave and then would rise- as a sign to the Jews. But how was His resurrection a sign to them, seeing they never saw His risen body? Yet the Lord’s reasoning demands that His resurrection be a sign to them, just as tangible as the re-appearance of the drowned Jonah. But, the Jews never saw Him after the resurrection:::? The resolution must be that in the preaching of the risen Jesus by those in Him, it was as if the Jews saw Him, risen and standing as a sign before them, every bit as real as the Jonah who emerged from the whale after three days.</p>


text:
<p><em>The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and shall condemn them. For she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here</em>- “Rise up” translates&nbsp;<em>egeiro</em>&nbsp;whereas “stand up” in :32 translates&nbsp;<em>anistemi</em>. The Ninevites will “rise in judgment”, as a judge arises to pronounce a verdict; whereas the Queen of the South arises “in&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;judgment”, with the article. The difference may be because the Queen of the South is being portrayed as being resurrected along with the people of the Lord’s generation. The reference is perhaps more to resurrection than to arising in judgment.</p><p>If Sheba is at the very end of 'the earth', we have another confirmation that the 'earth' or land in Scripture often refers to the land promised to Abraham, and not the entire planet. The point is that she made a huge effort to come to hear Divine truth, whereas Christ as "the wisdom of God" stood before their eyes and they refused to believe and repent. The parallel is between the Queen of Sheba and the Ninevites, who repented. We may be able to infer that she likewise repented upon hearing Solomon's wisdom. The whole theme in this section is of the need to make an abiding repentance upon hearing God's Truth as spoken by His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it- </em>We must read in an ellipsis, ‘[the people of] this generation’. For individuals and not entire generations will be judged. 'Standing up' is possibly an allusion to the resurrection of the responsible at the last day, but more likely the figure is of a judge arising in judgment to state the verdict; which in this case, is condemnation. The Lord in :19 has spoken of how the children of the Jews would judge those Jews in the last day. The Lord clearly seems to envisage the judgment process as having a public dimension to it. The fact one person was spiritually responsive, given a similar or harder set of circumstances than what another has had who did not respond, will therefore as it were be the judgment of the person who didn’t respond. It clearly won’t be merely an awards ceremony nor a yes / no decision, but rather will context and precedent from others be taken into account. ‘If&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;responded and&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;did not, given similar circumstances, then&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;will condemn&nbsp;<em>you</em>’- that seems to be the Lord’s reasoning.</p><p>The truly righteous among the remnant "shall tread down the wicked::. (as) ashes under the soles of your feet" (<em><a href='B:460 4:3'>Mal 4:3</a></em>). "The wicked" are those of <em><a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 4:1'>Mal 4:1</a></em> - the unspiritual element amongst the latter-day Jewish 'remnant' in Jerusalem. This implies that in some way the spiritual Jews acceptable to Jesus will mete out judgment on the rejected ones:&nbsp;Perhaps in similar fashion the men of Nineveh will condemn the first century Jews at the judgment (Luk 1132), and we will judge Angels (<em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>). In this way the righteous remnant shall "discern (judge) between the righteous and the wicked" (<em><a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a></em>). The men of&nbsp;Nineveh will condemn first century Israel, just as the folly of the rejected will be made manifest unto all men (<em><a href='B:620 3:9'>2Ti 3:9</a></em>). This is not so as to simply humiliate the rejected. It is so that the faithful&nbsp;<em>learn&nbsp;</em>something too. This was all foreshadowed in the way that Israel experienced their judgments in the sight of the nations, so that God's principles would be taught even to the Gentile world (<em><a href='B:330 5:8'>Eze 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 5:15'>Eze 5:15</a></em>). Indeed, the idea of God executing judgment on His people&nbsp;<em>in the sight</em>&nbsp;of others is quite common (e:g. <em><a href='B:330 5:8'>Eze 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:41'>Eze 16:41</a></em>). But we can learn the principles of God's judgments right now, from His word.</p><p><em>For they repented- </em>The Lord has explained that initially the people had responded to John’s message- the demon had been as it were cast out and the house of Israel left swept and cleaned. But both John and Jesus appealed for repentance, in the very same words: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (<em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:17'>Mat 4:17</a></em>). But they had not really repented; they had responded to a religious message but not really repented. And the challenge comes down to us- as to whether our repentance, along with any spiritual act, is indeed the real thing or a mere appearance.</p><p><em>At the preaching of Jonah, and behold, a greater than Jonah is here</em>- This effectively is a noun, referring to "the preaching" as in the message of Jonah. What he preached was judgment to come, and the Ninevites repented on hearing it. The Lord was teaching not only judgment to come, but was making specific the call to repentance implicit within that message, and urging people to accept God's grace. Hence those who heard Him were even more guilty before the Ninevites. Jonah's preaching occurred&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;he had been three days within the whale; after the Lord had been three days in the earth, He too would preach mightily, through the ministry of those 'in Him' who were effectively His representatives and appealed on His behalf. But He reasons as if that appeal was already being made- as if in essence He had already passed through the cross and resurrection. This is not the only time He reasons in this way; in proclaiming Himself Lord, the serpent lifted up on the pole, the One who had already "overcome the world", He reasoned as if the successful outcome of His death had already occurred. Such was His faith that He would come forth triumphant.</p>


text:
<p><em>No one when he has lit a lamp puts it in a cellar, neither under a bucket, but on the lightstand, so that they who enter in may see the light</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>. We may wonder why the Lord at this point appears to be repeating so many elements from the sermon on the mount recorded in Matthew 5-7. That sermon was given in Galilee; now He is near Bethany in the Jerusalem area (at the end of chapter 10). He is repeating His Galilean teachings for the southerners. </p><p>The Lord speaks of how we are the light of the world, giving light to the world in the same way as "they" light a lamp. Who are the "they"? The point has been made that to first century Palestinian ears, the answer was obvious: Women. Because lighting the lamps was a typical female duty, which men were not usually involved in. Could it not be that the Lord Jesus even&nbsp;<em>especially</em>&nbsp;envisaged women as His witnesses? Did He here have in mind how a great company of women would be the first to share the news that the light of the world had risen?</p><p>The Greek article in "the lamp / candlestick" refers to the specific candlestick, and to Jewish minds this would surely have referred to the candlestick in the Holy Place (s:w. <em><a href='B:650 9:2'>Heb 9:2</a></em>). This continues the theme of the Lord teaching a new form of Judaism, for His sermon on the mount is full of allusions to previous Mosaic practice, but redefining it. The implication is that ordinary men are present in the Holy Place too, who will see our light. Or it could be that Jesus has in mind how it was the priests who alone entered the Holy Place- and He is saying that the light from those who followed Him would illuminate the Jewish priesthood. The light of the candlestick is both the believer (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em>) and the Gospel itself (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>). We are to be the Gospel. We must burn as a candle now, in shedding forth the light, or we will be burnt at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> use the same words). This is but one of many examples of the logic of endurance; we must burn anyway, so why not do it for the Lord's sake and reap the reward.</p><p>The story of the candle that was put under a bucket brings out an issue related to that of the desire to root up the tares: the candle was put there (presumably) on account of an almost paranoiac fear that the wind would blow it out; but this over-protection of the lamp in itself caused the light to go out (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em>). Time and again, preaching the light, holding up the beacon of the word of Christ's cross, has been impeded or stifled in the name of preserving the truth, strengthening&nbsp;what remains (words taken out of context). And because of this lack of witness, this lack of holding out the light to others, the fire of Christ has waxed dim amongst us. This ties in to the theme that preaching is not just commanded as a publicity exercise for Almighty God; He doesn't need us to do that for Him. It is commanded for the benefit of the preacher more than those preached to. To put a candle under a bucket or bed seems senseless; yet this is how senseless and inappropriate it is to hold back preaching for the sake of defending the Faith. Indeed to put it under a bed (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>) and then go to sleep (candles are normally only lit at night) is likely to destroy the person who does it, to burn them while they are asleep. All who have the light but don't preach it (in whatever form) are likely to suffer the same; notice how the Lord (by implication) links night time and sleepiness with an apathy in preaching. Evidently the Lord foresaw the attitude that has surfaced amongst His people: 'We must concentrate on keeping the Truth, new converts are often problematic, too much energy goes to preaching rather than building up ourselves in the faith'. Probably the resistance to preaching to the Gentiles in the first century used similar reasoning. The Lord may have had in mind a Talmud entry (<em>Shabbat</em>&nbsp;107a) which permitted the covering of a lamp with a bowl on the Sabbath if it was done in order to stop the entire house catching fire. He is arguing that such a fear based attitude, fearful of possible consequence if we share the light, will result in the light going out. And that lesson needs to be learnt time and again.</p>


text:
<p><em>The lamp of your body is your eye. When your eye is single, your whole body also is full of light- </em>This observation about single-mindedness ["healthy" = 'single'] follows on from the Lord’s teaching about the overall direction of the human mind, observing that we cannot have two overall directions for our heart. Our eye must be single, the entrance of light must be only from one source. God gives to all men with a single eye (<em><a href='B:660 1:5'>Jas 1:5</a></em> Gk:); and in response, we too must be single eyed in our giving (s:w:). If our eye / world-view / outlook on life is&nbsp;<em>single</em>&nbsp;[s:w. ‘simple’ in the passages quoted], then our whole body / life will be full of light. In daily work, in private reflection and planning for our immediate futures and present needs, there must be a direct and undiluted belief of the teachings of the Gospel, connecting those teachings to our daily life of faith. In this simplicity of the life of faith, in a world that makes life so complicated [especially for the poor], we will find humility. With that simplicity and humility will come peace, and the ability to pray with a concentrated and uncluttered mind, without our thoughts wandering off into the petty troubles of life as we frame our words before Almighty God each morning and night.</p><p>I’ve always sensed that the more complex a person, the harder it is for them to be generous. But we are all commanded to be generous to the Lord’s cause, knowing that nothing we have is our own. And I am not only talking to wealthy brethren:&nbsp;<em>All</em>&nbsp;of us have something, and all of us can give something to our brethren. Consider how the poor believers of the first century such as Corinth [amongst whom there were not many rich or mighty, Paul reminds them] collected funds for the poor brethren in Judea. There is a Greek word translated “simplicity” which is related to the word translated "single" here. It occurs eight times in the NT. Five of these are in 2 Corinthians, written as it was in the context of Corinth giving funds for the Jerusalem poor.</p>&nbsp;<p>Consider how the word is translated:</p><p>- Paul had “<em>simplicity</em>&nbsp;and Godly sincerity” (<em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>)</p><p>- They had “<em>liberality</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>)</p><p>- “<em>Bountifulness</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em>)</p><p>- Their “<em>liberal distribution</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em>)</p><p>- He feared lest they be corrupted from “the&nbsp;<em>simplicity</em>&nbsp;that is in Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>).</p><p>Evidently Paul saw a link between generosity and the simplicity of the faith in Christ. It doesn’t need a lexicon to tell you that this word means both ‘simplicity’ and also ‘generous’. The connection is because the basis for generosity is a simple faith. Not a dumb, blind faith, glossing over the details of God’s word. But a realistic, simple, direct conviction. This is why Paul exhorts that all giving to the Lord’s cause should be done with “simplicity” (<em><a href='B:520 12:8'>Rom 12:8</a></em> - the AVmg. translates ‘liberally’). Give, in whatever way, and don’t complicate it with all the ifs and buts which our fleshly mind proposes. Paul warns them against false teachers who would corrupt them from their “simplicity”- and yet he usually speaks of ‘simplicity’ in the sense of generosity. Pure doctrine, wholeheartedly accepted, will lead us to be generous. False doctrine and human philosophy leads to all manner of self-complication. Paul was clever, he was smart; but he rejoiced that he lived his life “in simplicity:::by the grace of God” (<em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>):&nbsp; If our eye is single (translating a Greek word related to that translated ‘simple’), then the whole body is full of light- and the Lord spoke again in the context of generosity. An evil eye, a world view that is not ‘simple’ or single, is used as a figure for mean spiritedness:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><h4><em>But when it is evil, your body also is full of darkness</em>- A bad or evil eye was an idiom for mean spiritedness. It continues the theme of materialism from the previous verses. To follow materialism is to be mean spirited- towards God. Speaking in the context of serving<em> either</em>&nbsp;God&nbsp;<em>or</em>&nbsp;mammon, the Lord uttered these difficult words: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth::. the light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness::. how great is that darkness!" (<em><a href='B:470 6:19-22'>Mat 6:19-22</a></em> AV). All this is in the context of not being materialistic. The Lord is drawing on the OT usage of "an evil eye" - and consistently, this idiom means someone who is selfishly materialistic (<em><a href='B:240 22:9'>Pro 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 23:7'>Pro 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 28:22'>Pro 28:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a></em>). The NIV renders some of these idioms as "stingy" or “mean".</h4>


