# commentaries

text:
<p><em>Look therefore whether the light that is in you is not darkness</em></p><p>- See on 1Co 44:&nbsp;A single eye refers to a generous spirit (<em><a href='B:130 29:17'>1Ch 29:17</a></em> LXX), and a related Greek word occurs in <em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em> with the sense of “generous". So surely the Lord is saying that our attitude to wealth controls our whole spirituality. Whether we have a mean or generous spirit will affect our whole life- an evil [stingy] eye means our whole body is full of darkness. Just let this sink in. If we are materialistic, our whole life will be filled with darkness, whatever our external pretensions may be, and there is a definite link to be made here with the "darkness" of rejection. The riches of Jericho are described with a Hebrew word which means both a curse, and something devoted (to God; <em><a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a></em>). This teaches a powerful lesson: such riches of this world as come into our possession will curse us, unless they are devoted to the Father.</p>


text:
<p><em>If therefore your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it shall be wholly full of light, as when the lamp with its bright shining gives you light</em>- The Lord Jesus likens Himself to a candle that has been lit and displayed publicly, giving light to us. He then continues that imagery in some rather difficult words. He says that in our lives, the eye is "the light of the body"- a good eye lets light and vision in, thus totally and fundamentally affecting how we are inside us, as persons. But if the eye is faulty, then there is darkness within. But when the eye is good and functioning, the whole person is "full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle gives you light" (<em><a href='B:490 11:33-36'>Luk 11:33-36</a></em>). But earlier, He's defined Himself as the candle which gives light. He seems to be saying that our "eye", our perception of Him, is vital. And this is exactly the context of this passage- He's been lamenting how Israel haven't perceived Him for who He Is. If we perceive Him rightly, if our "eye" is good, then our whole body will be filled with the light which comes from Him. But it all depends upon our image / perception of / eye for Jesus. Hence the vital and ultimate importance of understanding and perceiving Him correctly. The subject we're now studying actually couldn't be more important; for the correct perception of Him will fill our whole lives with light, totally affect our internal world-views, granting us an ability to understand and make sense of all around us and within us in the light of the person of Jesus. And if we don't perceive Him aright, our inner lives will be dark and formless, whatever external trappings of culture and knowledge we may have. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now as he spoke, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, and he went in and sat down to eat</em>- Eating together had a religious dimension in the first century. But the Jews were more open in their view of fellowship than many are today. Clearly the Pharisee wanted to find fault, but he had no problem at this stage in eating with the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner</em>- Rabbi Joses claimed that “to eat with unwashen hands is as great a sin as adultery”. And Rabbi Akiba in captivity used his water ration to wash his hands rather than to drink, resulting in him almost dying of dehydration:&nbsp;The Lord seems to have purposefully ignored this tradition in order to provoke the inevitable conversation about it. The Lord Jesus had asked the disciples to be obedient to every jot and tittle of the teaching of the Scribes, because they “sit in Moses’ seat”. But He was no literalist nor legalist. He broke that principle in order to establish higher ones in this context.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the Lord said to him: Now you the Pharisees cleanse- </em>The Lord Jesus is described [using the same word for "cleanse"] as making others clean (<em><a href='B:470 8:2-3'>Mat 8:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:5'>Mat 11:5</a></em>). The Pharisees were concerned with making&nbsp;<em>themselves&nbsp;</em>look clean externally. They are a parody of the Lord. He was concerned with making&nbsp;<em>others</em>&nbsp;clean, and really clean. This tension, between making ourselves look clean and making others clean, is highly relevant to us all. For there is such a thing as being spiritually selfish.</p><p><em>The outside- </em>The tension between outside and inside, along with the idea of cleanliness, is to be found in the Lord’s earlier teaching in <em><a href='B:480 7:15'>Mar 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 7:18'>Mar 7:18</a></em>. Nothing on the&nbsp;<em>outside</em>&nbsp;can defile a man, it is the&nbsp;<em>inside</em>, the thoughts, which must be cleansed. If we ask&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;there is a desire for good appearances externally, the answer may not simply be ‘so as to look good to others’. It can also partly be a recognition of our own inner defilement and our sense that we ought to be doing something about it. Peter explores the same tension in <em><a href='B:670 3:3'>1Pe 3:3</a></em>, teaching that a woman should not focus on&nbsp;<em>outside</em>&nbsp;[s:w:] adorning, but not on&nbsp;<em>internal</em> attitudes. He’s not saying that ‘outward adornment’ is wrong of itself, but rather that her focus should be on&nbsp;<em>inner</em>&nbsp;spirituality rather than focusing on the&nbsp;<em>external</em>&nbsp;to the exclusion of the&nbsp;<em>internal</em>. Thus obsession with external cosmetic issues, and literal cosmetics, can likely be a running away from internal issues which need serious addressing. So often pedantic attitudes to externalities conceal insecurity, and in spiritual terms, that insecurity is a reflection of disbelief that the inner conscience has been cleansed of sin in Christ.</p><p><em>Of the cup and plate, but your inward partis full of extortion- </em>The plate and cup refer to the Pharisees personally. The picture is of silverware being cleansed and shining outwardly, whilst it contains unclean things within. “Even so&nbsp;<em>you also</em>&nbsp;outwardly appear righteous” (<em><a href='B:470 23:28'>Mat 23:28</a></em>). Here <em><a href='B:490 11:39'>Luk 11:39</a></em> speaks of 'them' as their inward part: “<em>Your&nbsp;</em>inward part is full of ravening [Gk. ‘extortion’] and wickedness [Gk. ‘plots’]”. They were ever scheming how to get money out of people. But why choose these two items as examples? The presence of the article both times,&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;cup and&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>plate, suggest they have specific relevance. The Gospels were written as the handbook for the early Christian converts and ecclesias. They would largely have been recited or read at the breaking of bread meetings. It’s hard therefore to avoid the reference to the memorial cup and plate of the communion meetings. And again, the warning comes so close to home. The memorial meeting is the time to look within, at the likely wickedness within us, rather than appearing in our Sunday best and making ourselves shine externally.</p><p><em>And wickedness</em>- The Greek suggests complete lack of restraint. And here is the paradox. The most rule-governed people were actually without any sense of restraint. Obedience to rules, and elevating rules, does not of itself mean we are restrained. It can mean the very opposite.</p>


text:
<p><em>You foolish ones, did not He that made the outside make the inside also?</em>- Cleaning the inside of a cup doesn’t make the outside clean. But that is the jump of faith required. The inside is the outside- in God’s eyes. He created the aspect of external appearance, as well as the mind and "inward part" (:39). He perceives the precise interplay between appearances and internal reality- because He is creator and designer, not merely of our bodies, but of human psychology. To think we can hide our thoughts from Him is indeed "foolish".</p>


text:
<p><em>But give for alms those things which are within, and behold, all things are clean to you</em>- This textual reading [not supported by AV] would be saying that giving of alms is one of the external things which is not the essence. What is essential is to give our "inward part", our inner thoughts, to God. To be filled with <em>His </em>Spirit in <em>our</em> spirit. "To be spiritually minded" is the very and essential core of Christianity. No amount of giving money and external things can compensate for a deficit in this.</p><p>The AV reads as if giving alms makes all things clean. In <em><a href='B:490 16:9'>Luk 16:9</a></em>, the Lord is saying that the use of our material possessions is <em>so</em> important that it's <em>almost as if</em> (in the hyperbole) we can buy our way into the Kingdom. He made the point in so many words in <em><a href='B:490 11:41'>Luk 11:41</a></em> AV: "Give alms of such things as ye have (i:e. regardless of how small); and, behold, all things are clean unto you". Paul seems to have these words in mind when says that to the pure, all things are pure (<em><a href='B:630 1:15'>Tit 1:15</a></em>)- as if he saw the epitome of purity as being in giving what we have. “The ransom of a man’s life are his riches” (<em><a href='B:240 13:8'>Pro 13:8</a></em>) likewise suggests that our attitude to riches is one of the things that decides our eternal destiny. </p>


text:
<p><em>But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe- </em>The Greek can equally mean to both take or receive tithes. They demanded and perhaps paid themselves tithes on absolutely everything:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Mint, rue and every herb- </em>These plants grew on windowsills, and a tenth of their 'crop' would've been very light in weight. The lightness of the 'crop' is contrasted with the 'heavier' things which were required of believers. Again, the Lord could've deployed convincing Biblical arguments that the tithe was to be paid from harvested crops, and given to the Levites / priests- not the Pharisees. For they were not the same as the priests. There is no hint in the Mosaic legislation that a tenth of such things was to be given to support the livelihood of the priests. But the Lord goes along with their position- and doesn't say they should not do this. Rather He lifts the issue to a higher and 'heavier' level. In engagement with those who wilfully misunderstand Scripture, it's easy to present a strictly Biblical case which demolishes their position. And the Lord could so easily have done this in the matter of tithing kitchen herbs. But He doesn't. He simply raises weightier issues and principles:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And neglect justice and the love of God; but these you should have done-</em> In line with the teaching in :41, it seems they thought that by such alms giving and tithing, they were excused from being spiritually minded within. "The inward part" of :40,41 is therefore a mind focused upon "justice and the love of God". To think justly of and for others is far more than making a material donation. </p><p><em>And not to leave the other undone</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>aphiemi</em>&nbsp;occurs again in <em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:2'>Mat 24:2</a></em>: "Your house is left [<em>aphiemi</em>] unto you desolate", and there would therefore not be left [<em>aphiemi</em>] one stone upon another in that temple / house; not one part of the masonry would be omitted or overlooked, every stone would be thrown down. They had omitted the weightier matters of justice etc:, thinking they were justified in this because they did not omit to tithe kitchen herbs. But the Lord is saying that effectively they&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;omitted "the other", the tithing of kitchen herbs. So although they did tithe them, effectively they had not done so. Because they had omitted the weightier matters of justice, mercy and faith. So theytithed, but they did not tithe. Just as we can pray, but not pray; think we believe, when we do not; forgive, when we do not really; read God's word, when we do not really do so [as the Lord often pointed out to them in saying "Have you never read:::?", when clearly on one level they had read]. Omitting justice, mercy and faith meant that their tithing of the small stuff was also omitted, in God's final view of them. The spiritual life is intended to be all encompassing, it's not a case of a series of specific obediences to a long list of specific commandments, whereby our omission of the heavier issues is compensated for by our commission of the lighter issues. And this again is a challenge to us all; for surveying God's expectations of us, we can so easily cut ourselves slack in some areas because we feel we are being obedient in others. Thus the failure of the Pharisees in this becomes not something to merely shake our heads at, but a challenge to our deepest internal reasonings in our own walk before God:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the synagogues- </em>They wanted to be publicly seen as spiritually superior. The whole structure of church life, whereby some must have public roles, is such that people can fall so easily into a love of publicity. The Lord realizes this, and often removes His beloved from such temptations. This explains the otherwise inexplicable way in which the Lord allows some of His most talented and capable servants to be removed from the public eye to serve Him in human obscurity:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the greetings in the marketplaces</em>- The Lord’s reason for going to the market was to invite men to work in the vineyard and receive the penny of salvation (<em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>); and His people sitting in the markets sought to persuade others of the need to respond to the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 11:16'>Mat 11:16</a></em>). The Pharisees went to the markets to simply flaunt their external spirituality. Again, note how their behaviour was the very inversion of true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without knowing it</em>- A month before Passover, the graves were painted white so that the pilgrims coming to keep the feast would not be defiled. This was therefore something fresh in everyone’s minds, for the Lord was speaking at Passover time. It was as if they had not whitened / cleansed themselves before Passover as was required, and thereby led men into defilement rather than the purity which they so emphasized and demanded.</p>


text:
<p><em>And one of the lawyers answering said to him: Teacher, in saying this you reproach us also</em>- This particular lawyer perhaps said this in recognition of their sin. For the context is of the Lord accusing the Pharisees of hypocrisy; and the lawyer speaks up and says that actually, this was true of lawyers too. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens- </em>John appears to allude to this in saying that the true commandments are “not grievous” (<em><a href='B:690 5:3'>1Jn 5:3</a></em>, s:w. “heavy”). The fences created by men around God’s law are in fact higher than the actual Divine law. God’s laws have a creative intention, whereas human fences around them are totally negative in their intention. The Lord uses the same word later in the discourse, in stating that the ‘heavier’ matters of the law are justice, mercy and faith. Yet even those things are not “heavy” (<em><a href='B:690 5:3'>1Jn 5:3</a></em>) in the sense that the regulations of the Pharisees were. The Lord’s burden is light compared with the weight of carrying unforgiven sin (<em><a href='B:470 11:30'>Mat 11:30</a></em>). The parallel between sin and heavy burdens is also found in David’s comment about carrying the weight of his unforgiven sin with Bathsheba (<em><a href='B:230 38:4'>Psa 38:4</a></em>). The burden of sin was thus tied upon people by giving them religious rules which they were unable to keep due to human weakness, and because sin is partly a matter of conscience, it was still counted to the people as sin if they broke it. Therefore to enforce such rules upon people was effectively lading them with sin. This principle needs to be considered by those who ‘bind’ isolation from other brethren upon believers, or who ‘bind’ them to a single life after divorce.</p><p><em>Hard to bear- </em>The Lord sensitively commented that He had many things to command His disciples, “but you cannot bear / carry [s:w:] them at this time” (<em><a href='B:500 16:12'>Joh 16:12</a></em>). In teaching others God’s requirements, we must be sensitive to human weakness, rather than present them with a whole set of Divine standards as a package and demand their immediate acceptance of it. The Lord still accepted the disciples, even though He had not asked them to do all the things He would like to have asked them to do. And there are likewise levels of discipleship for us too. The same word is also used about carrying the cross of Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:17'>Joh 19:17</a></em>). This is the ultimately hard to be carried burden. If people have signed up to carry this, who are we to seek to add to it by our demands upon them. James surely had the Lord’s teaching here in mind when he reasoned that neither the disciples nor the Jewish fathers had been able to carry the yoke of the Mosaic law (<em><a href='B:510 15:10'>Act 15:10</a></em>). Any teaching that the Mosaic law must be obeyed [and there are plenty of Christians teaching this, sadly] is therefore seeking to bind a heavy burden upon men which will lead to their spiritual collapse and thereby to our own condemnation.</p><p><em>And you yourselves do not touch the burdens- </em><em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em> they will not move or 'remove' them. The Lord by contrast used touch frequently in order to connect with sinful people and their conditions, and to thereby heal them. The Pharisees would not touch them for fear of contamination; they would not associate or engage with sinful people and the results of their sins. The Lord used His fingers to enter the ears of the deaf and touch the eyes of the blind, secreting unclean body fluid. This is the way to remove burdens- to engage with them. And yet closed table policies effectively do the same, by refusing association with those judged by latter day Pharisees to be too serious sinners. The fear of guilt by association is utterly selfish, and results in the burdens never being removed or made lighter for the person struggling to carry them.</p><p><em>With one of your fingers</em>- The contrast is between the weight of the burdens on the shoulders of men, so great it crushed them; and the ease with which the law-makers could remove them with their fingers, perhaps referring to their ability to write things with a few strokes of the fingers which would removethose burdens. This is ever more true today- a few taps with a finger on a keyboard to change traditional demands on fellow believers, and burdens can be removed.</p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed</em>- <em>Oikodomeo</em>&nbsp;means not only to build but carries the sense of ‘to confirm’, and is also translated in the NT in this sense. On one hand, building the tombs of the prophets was a sign of respect, but the Lord read it negatively, as if by doing so they were confirming the decision to murder them made by their forefathers. We have here an example of where the same action can be judged positively or negatively by the Lord; and this of itself disproves the mentality of salvation by works. Because it depends with what motive or background attitude the works are done, and this decides whether the work was an act of righteousness or a sin. And this is a further warning against the impossibility of judging another’s works. For we fail to see those background, internal attitudes behind the work. See on <em><a href='B:470 23:30'>Mat 23:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Our fathers</em>.</p>


text:
<h4><em>So you are witnesses and consent to the works of your fathers; for they killed them and you build their tombs</em>- "Witnesses against yourselves<em>":&nbsp;</em>The rejected are witnesses against themselves (<em><a href='B:290 44:9'>Isa 44:9</a></em>). Herein lies the crass folly and illogicality of sin. Jeremiah pleaded with Israel: "Wherefore commit ye this great evil against your souls [i:e. yourselves], to cut off from you man and woman::. that ye might cut yourselves off" (<em><a href='B:300 44:7-8'>Jer 44:7-8</a></em>, cp. how Jerusalem cut her own hair off in <em><a href='B:300 7:29'>Jer 7:29</a></em>). In the same passage, Yahweh is the one who does the cutting off (<em><a href='B:300 44:11'>Jer 44:11</a></em>); but they had cut themselves off. Likewise as they had kindled fire on their roofs in offering sacrifices to Baal, so Yahweh through the Babylonians would set fire to those same houses (<em><a href='B:300 32:29'>Jer 32:29</a></em>). And note the present tense of the Lord’s words here. In that the judgment process is now ongoing, we&nbsp;<em>are right now&nbsp;</em>witnesses against ourselves when we sin. And we are not only witnesses, but also the judge who pronounces the verdict of condemnation: for the sinner is condemned&nbsp;<em>of himself&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:630 3:11'>Tit 3:11</a></em>). In this lies the illogicality of sin and the utter blindness of man to the implications of his actions before God. They right now fulfil or live out the judgment of the wicked (<em><a href='B:220 36:17'>Job 36:17</a></em>).</h4><p><em><a href='B:470 23:31'>Mat 23:31</a></em> "You are the sons of them that slew the prophets":&nbsp;The idea of being a ‘son of’ someone or something meant to be in agreement with them, or to be a disciple of them. Again, this seems an example of imputing iniquity. Their usage of the term “our fathers” was taken by the Lord to mean that they ‘allowed’ or [Gk:] ‘had pleasure in’ the murder of the prophets (<em><a href='B:490 11:48'>Luk 11:48</a></em>). But the same words “our fathers” are used by Paul to describe his faithless Israelite forbears- and he is not condemned for it (<em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:25'>Act 28:25</a></em>). Clearly, the same words can be used by men with different background meanings, and this is seen by God and His Son. But all we hear are the words- we cannot therefore judge them. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore also the Wisdom of God said- </em>This certainly sounds like a quotation from extant literature, possibly from an apocryphal book no longer known. The Lord Jesus was indeed “the wisdom of God” (<em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>), and so it could be that the Gospel writers were pointing out that these words of Jesus were a proof text amongst their persecuted converts; perhaps by quoting Matthew's words here, Luke is treating them as "the wisdom of God". Certainly the Lord’s words here would’ve been a good mission statement for the early church. Or it could be that the Lord is quoting some now unknown text with approval. There can be no doubt that every part of the verse has direct relevance to the first century witness to the Jews. The source of the quotation is therefore of secondary importance; the Lord places it in His own mouth, at any rate, in predicting the outcome of the great commission. And yet clearly enough, at the time He spoke these words, that bunch of mixed up, largely secular men, who misunderstood so much, who knew so little, and whose ideals were so misplaced, were far from being the preaching machine which the Lord’s words imply here. We can take one simple lesson from this- He had a profound hopefulness in people, a hopefulness which against all odds so often paid off. We, by contrast, tend to be highly cynical of people because we fail to see what they might turn into in spiritual terms.</p><p><em>I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute</em>- <em>"</em>Send them" is a reference to the sending of the great commission. The Lord’s desire was that the worldwide witness began at Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>), and Paul’s interpretation of the commission was clearly that it involved being sent&nbsp;<em>firstly</em>&nbsp;to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles. The secular disciples were the equivalent of the prophets in the old Israel. There may be particular reference to the New Testament prophets, those who had the Spirit gift of prophecy. Clearly the witness of the early Christians is in view.</p>


text:
<p><em>So that the blood of all the prophets- </em>This stands for ‘<em>judgment for</em>&nbsp;all the righteous blood shed’. Note how language is being used here. The sin is put by metonymy for&nbsp;<em>the judgment for</em>&nbsp;the sin. Sin is its own judgment. To sin is to ask for judgment / condemnation. In this lies the utter lack of logic in any sin. And iniquity was added to their iniquity (<em><a href='B:230 69:27'>Psa 69:27</a></em> - a specific prophecy of the Jews who killed Jesus), just as righteousness can be imputed:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation</em>- "Upon you", <em><a href='B:470 23:35'>Mat 23:35</a></em>. One would’ve expected God to be so hurt by the death of His Son that judgment came immediately upon those responsible. But instead, the Lord predicted that the judgment would come only after the Jews had further persecuted the apostles as they went out to fulfil the great preaching commission to the Jews. This apparent delay was not because God was not hurt or not angry. He was. But His patient love and desire for human repentance, to give them yet more chances, was simply greater. The delay was so that the Lord could send out the apostles to appeal to Israel for repentance. But they had been given final appeal after final appeal. And still God waited for their repentance. With what eagerness must He have watched for response to the preaching to them, and with what generous provision He would’ve provided for all those who wished to make that appeal to the Jews. And nothing has changed to this day. The idea of blood coming upon,&nbsp;<em>epi</em>, a person clearly meant ‘guilt for their death’. Soon the Jews were to be using this very term in asking for the blood of Jesus to be ‘upon’ them (<em><a href='B:470 27:25'>Mat 27:25</a></em>). Because Jesus was the personification of God’s prophetic word and thereby the summary of all the prophets, their desire for&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;blood to be upon them was effectively taking upon themselves the blood of the prophets.</p><p>Even in this prediction of terrible judgment there is grace. Because the AD70 judgments didn’t come until nearly 40 years afterwards. Male lifespans in first century Palestine were estimated at an average of 29 years by J:D. Crossan, basing his research on tomb inscriptions and analysis of bones from graves. So the actual ‘elders’ who were responsible for the Lord’s death likely died in their beds rather than in the Jewish-Roman war or the final holocaust in Jerusalem. I can only explain this on the basis of God’s grace prolonging that final coming of judgment, in the earnest hope that Israel would yet repent. In the context of AD70, this would appear to be the teaching of 2 Peter 3. We would expect those men to have fairly soon received their judgment in this life. They will be judged- at the last day. But it would seem that God’s desire to judge them was in tension with His desire to give Israel the maximum opportunity for repentance. We can only draw a sharp breath at God’s grace. Another approach would be to understand that the threatened judgment upon that generation simply didn’t happen- in their lifetimes. The entire Divine program was delayed until the last days, when that generation shall be resurrected and receive their judgment. The events of AD70 were simply a foretaste and prefigurement of the final judgment at the Lord’s second coming.</p><p>"This generation" is a phrase often used by the Lord concerning those who heard and dealt with Him. It is surely the same generation in view in <em><a href='B:470 24:34'>Mat 24:34</a></em>: “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled”:&nbsp;<em>This</em>&nbsp;generation is used elsewhere by the Lord concerning those right in front of Him. It is the same “this generation” as in <em><a href='B:470 24:34'>Mat 24:34</a></em>. The Lord doesn’t, therefore, mean ‘The future generation which shall exist and see these things will not pass until all is fulfilled’. He is saying that the generation,&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;generation, would not pass until all was fulfilled. The fact all wasn’t fulfilled simply in that generation shows that there was a major delay or change in the Divine program. And the reason for the delay was not simply that Israel hadn’t repented, but because God’s loving patience was still awaiting their repentance- and He so wished them to repent.</p>


text:
<p><em>From the blood of Abel- </em>If that generation were guilty of Abel’s murder, this associates them with Cain. The Jewish false teachers are likened to Cain (<em><a href='B:690 3:12'>1Jn 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>); and the Lord says that the Jews seeking to kill Him are the sons of the one who was a “murderer from the beginning” (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>). Cain was the first murderer:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>To the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation</em>- The prophet Zechariah would fit this description, but there’s no record of him being murdered. Josephus in&nbsp;<em>The Jewish War</em>&nbsp;4:5:4 speaks of a Zacharias ben Baruch (as in <em><a href='B:470 23:35'>Mat 23:35</a></em>) who was assassinated by the Zealots in the Sanhedrin. But he was not a prophet, and this event was still future. And he wasn’t killed in the temple. However, there was a prophet Zechariah who was stoned to death in the temple (<em><a href='B:140 24:19-22'>2Ch 24:19-22</a></em>). He was the son or grandson of Jehoiada, so it’s feasible he was the son of a Baruk. The Hebrew Bible ended with 2 Chronicles, and so the mention of this murder would form an appropriate inclusio with the first murder, of Abel. All the murders of the faithful, from the first to the last as recorded in the Hebrew Bible, were going to have their judgment exacted from the generation who crucified God’s Son:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to you lawyers! For you took away the key of knowledge-</em></p><p>The Kingdom therefore remained 'locked' to people. We see here that "knowledge" does play a role in coming to the Kingdom. The same figure of the door of the Kingdom beingshut [but by the Lord, not men] is found in <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>. The similarity is such that we may be intended to understand the foolish virgins are those who were locked out of the Kingdom because of the Pharisees. Their lack of oil, of personal spirituality, was because their religious leaders had not inculcated this in them, nor any sense of their own fallibility and frailty- in that the reason they ended up locked out of the Kingdom was because they had not considered that their oil would likely fail. They had "the key of knowledge" in a spiritually ignorant and illiterate society which depended upon them for knowledge of God's word. Likewise if the elders / judges of Israel had been wise, the entire people would have entered the land (<em><a href='B:50 16:20'>Deu 16:20</a></em>). The whole of Israel would’ve stayed in the wilderness and not entered the Kingdom / land if Gad and Reuben hadn’t initially gone over Jordan (<em><a href='B:40 32:15'>Num 32:15</a></em>). Wrath would come upon all Israel if the Levites weren’t encamped around the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:40 1:53'>Num 1:53</a></em>). We really can cause others to not enter God’s Kingdom by limiting their access to God’s word [a sin of omission], or by making demands on them in the name of His Kingdom which are too heavy for them to bear [a sin of commission]. This imparts an urgency and eternal importance to all our interactions with others. No longer can we see the community of believers as a mere social club, nor the world around us as simply the dead furniture of our lives. We have their salvation or stumbling away from it within our power. This fact also denies us from assuming that whether we fail or not in our interactions with others, God will somehow make good our failures and save others anyway. He has delegated His work into our hands, and to some extent the degree to which it prospers or fails is our responsibility. Otherwise the whole language of delegation of His wealth into our hands is somehow meaningless:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You did not enter in yourselves, and those that were entering in, you hindered</em>- As if they kept locked the door in the face of ones eager to enter the Kingdom:&nbsp;If we believe that we ourselves will be there, we will spark off an upward spiral of positive thinking in the community of believers with whom we are associated. Think carefully on the Lord’s words to the Pharisees: “For you neither go in yourselves, neither suffer you them that are entering to go in” (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>). If we don’t believe we will be there, we end up discouraging others. There is a sense in which we will enter the Kingdom at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>; “Not every one that says Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom”, <em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em> s:w:), and yet in another sense we are entering now through the gates (“enter in at the narrow gate”, <em><a href='B:470 7:13'>Mat 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:17'>Mat 19:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:24'>Mat 19:24</a></em>). Our lives now are on a path, a journey, which is entering the Kingdom. The significance of life and living could not be more intense.</p><p>The same word for ‘hindering’ is used about how the disciples ‘forbad’ children to come to Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 19:14'>Mat 19:14</a></em>) and about ‘forbidding’ baptism (<em><a href='B:510 8:36'>Act 8:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>). This is exactly how people can be hindered or not ‘allowed’ to enter the Kingdom today- by refusing them baptism because of some inadequacy of knowledge or behaviour, or because they are simply felt to be in a category [like “children” were by the disciples] who are inappropriate for the Kingdom. These reflections make us realize that the Pharisees were not a mere phenomenon in history, but have their direct equivalents today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he got out from there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to press upon him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things</em>- They were experts in winding up a person; they rightly perceived that the Lord had passion and emotion, and they sought to play upon that by a series of provocatively worded questions and statements. </p>


text:
<p><em>Lying in wait for him, to catch him in something he might say</em>- The same word used of how&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to be entangled or caught up in condemnation (<em><a href='B:490 21:35'>Luk 21:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:9'>Rom 11:9</a></em>). As they treated the Lord, so they were treated. Our attitude to Him is in a way our attitude to ourselves and our eternal destiny. They are presented as the robbers on the way to Jericho, lying in wait like bandits. </p>


text:
<p><em>In the mean time, when the many thousands of the crowd were gathered together, so much so that they trod one upon another, he began to say to his disciples first of all- </em></p><p>As in the account of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, we get the idea of the Lord purposefully focusing upon the disciples, despite the presence of crowds of well over 10,000. His interest was in developing that small core, rather than getting superficial acceptance from thousands.</p><p><em>Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy</em>- The disciples were overly influenced by the Pharisees. They were worried that the Pharisees were not happy with the Lord’s teaching (<em><a href='B:470 15:12'>Mat 15:12</a></em>). He had to warn them <em>above all</em> of the danger of the influence [yeast] of the Pharisees (Luk 121 Gk:). And yet they still misunderstood Him- they thought He was talking about literal bread (<em><a href='B:480 8:15-16'>Mar 8:15-16</a></em>). He encouraged His followers 'be themselves'. He spoke much of not being a <em>hupokrites</em>, an actor. Those who follow Him are not to act a part before others, as if all the world's a stage, being what others want in the audience of the world of eyes that surround us, acting as an actor does, merely to please others. He continued the image when He warned of not doing things "to&nbsp;be seen [Gk. <em>theathenai</em>] of men". Don't let them be a mere theatre audience to you- be yourself, living life in the constant presence of God's eyes, not man's. This was a major theme with the Lord. Paul likewise teaches us that every man should “be as he is” (<em><a href='B:530 7:26'>1Co 7:26</a></em> RV). This is why the Lord Jesus taught His men "first of all", i:e. most importantly, to beware of hypocrisy. This was a cardinal point in Christ's manifesto. We must ask whether it has this place in our discipleship. It can be that the ecclesial audience is a kind of theatre, showing gratitude for the pleasing entertainment of the speakers. Yet the opposite should be true- God is the audience, we are living bared lives before His gaze.</p><p>The Lord taught that hypocrisy was like leaven- once it begins in a community of believers, it so easily spreads and engulfs all (<em><a href='B:490 12:1-3'>Luk 12:1-3</a></em>). In this context He went on to say that “there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed::. whatever you have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light”. It is so easy, and we have all done this, to say something about somebody, and ask our hearer not to repeat it. But even in this life, as well as at judgment day, what is spoken in the ear comes out on the housetops. In discussion about fellowship matters, divorce etc. we can so easily say one thing to one group of brethren and something quite different to another. But this, the Lord taught, is hypocrisy. Let us decide our principles and live and speak by them, in humility and sensitivity and simplicity. Because all will be revealed, both in this life and in the coming day of judgment, we ought to be without such hypocrisy.</p><p>The Lord taught His followers “first”, or ‘most of all’, to beware of hypocrisy. For us, all the world is <em>not </em>to be a stage, and we are <em>not </em>to be merely actors upon that stage. Hypocrisy is that living out of a persona, acting, rather than being the person God created us to be. In the Lord Jesus men saw the word made flesh (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). There was perfect congruence between the person He presented Himself as, and the person He essentially was. This was why He could so easily touch the true person in others. And I think this is the meaning of the otherwise enigmatic insistence that the Cherubim’s faces, their appearances, and ‘themselves’ were all one (<em><a href='B:330 10:22'>Eze 10:22</a></em>). The Russian [Synodal] version translates this: ‘Their view, was who they themselves were’. So often in our encounters with others there is no real dialogue, rather a conflict of monologues. This is why so many a debate between a Christian and a Mormon, e:g:, has come to nothing; for perhaps both of them are merely showing one of their personas.</p>


text:
<p><em>But there is nothing covered up that shall not be revealed, and hid that shall not be known</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 10:27'>Mat 10:27</a></em>. </p><p>Whatever we have spoken in darkness will be revealed for all to hear and know (<em><a href='B:490 12:2-3'>Luk 12:2-3</a></em>)- our words will as it were be cited back to us before others in that day. The Lord says this in the context of warning us not to have the leaven of hypocrisy in the matter of our words- there's no point in saying one thing to one person and something different to someone else, because our words will be gone through at the judgment and will be open for everyone to hear. We should live, He implies, as if we are now before the judgment; speaking things we wouldn't be ashamed for anyone to hear. Note in passing how he says that hypocrisy in our words is like leaven, that corrupts and spreads within an individual and a community. Once somebody starts being hypocritical with their words, someone else does. Even every word of murmuring against each other will be judged; and hence, James points out, it is bizarre that we should be doing this with the judge standing before the door (<em><a href='B:660 5:9'>Jas 5:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore whatever you have said in the darkness shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors shall be proclaimed upon the housetops</em>- The reference to “closets” (AV) takes us back to <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>, where He uses the same word to speak of how we should pray in closets and then we will be openly rewarded by the Father. The ‘open reward’ is clearly in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 6:4'>Mat 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:18'>Mat 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:17'>Luk 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). Could this not be saying, then, that in the Kingdom, the answers to the prayers we are <em>now </em>making will be openly proclaimed to all from the housetops? Hence there is an awesome connection between our feeble words of prayer now, and the nature of our eternal existence in the Kingdom.</p><h4>"God shall judge the righteous and the wicked (at the second coming): for there is a time there for <em>every</em> purpose and for <em>every</em> work::. for God shall bring <em>every</em> work into judgment, with <em>every</em> secret thing, whether it be good or bad" (<em><a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 12:14'>Ecc 12:14</a></em>). Note the emphasis on "<em>every</em>". Even what we have spoken in the ear will be shouted out (<em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em>) -implying others will somehow observe our judgment, cp. <em><a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a></em>. If the judgment is merely a yes/no statement which has been worked out taking our whole life into consideration, then this emphasis on every work having a time for consideration and judgment "there" is pointless. However, these verses must be considered in conjunction with those which speak of God's 'forgetting' of bad deeds on account of how people later chose to live. However, this need not mean that they are erased from God's infinite knowledge; all too often we perceive God's memory as a vast memory bank which can have our sins erased from it. But His knowledge knows no such bounds of human perception; yet He is willing not to hold those things against us, and to therefore count us as having never committed them.</h4><p>Ultimately, nothing remains secret; at the day of judgment, what we spoke in darkness (i:e. In our own minds) will be heard in the light of God’s Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em>). Note how Paul read the Lord’s words here in this way – for he surely alludes here when he speaks of how “the hidden things of darkness” are “the counsels of the hearts” which will be revealed at His return (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). The implications of this are awesome. The thoughts and intents of our hearts in this life will be eternally open and manifest in the eternal light of God’s Kingdom. In that day, our brethren will see every one of our hidden thoughts. To live now according to the principle ‘I can think what I like, but I won’t act like it, for the sake of appearances to others’ is therefore foolish. Who we are now in our hearts is whom we shall ultimately be revealed to be. So we may as well get on and act according to how we really think; for throughout eternity, what we think now will be manifest to everyone, seeing that a man <em>is</em> as he thinks in his heart.</p>


text:
<p><em>And I say to you my friends- </em>Assuring them that they had nothing ultimately to fear at the last day; for we are His friends. If we are His friends, the friends of the Son of God, the prince of the kings of the earth- why fear audience response when we witness? The laboured assurances of the next verses about being of more value than sparrows etc. are all in the context, therefore, of assuring us that we need not ultimately fear negative response to our witness.</p><p><em>Do not be afraid- </em>The Lord was quite clear that His followers should expect death and serious suffering for preaching Him. He perceived that fear of audience response would be a strong factor in the temptation not to preach Him. But He gave the reason for not fearing in :3- all shall be revealed at the day of judgment. Belief in the doctrine of final judgment therefore has huge impact upon life in practice- in this case, giving us strength not to fear the consequences of our witness. For many believers today, persecution unto death is not a likely consequence of witness; fear of slight embarrassment, being thought ‘odd’ for turning a conversation around, is a very small price. The Lord is asking us here to accept that witness for Him may well cost us death. If we accept that, accept it as part and parcel of the Lord’s basic message, then our approach to witness will be quite different. Fear of audience response will no longer be a major factor, if we have solemnly accepted that we are prepared to die for the sake of preaching the Gospel. </p><p><em>Of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do</em>- <em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em> adds: "But are not able to kill the soul"<em>. </em>"They" cannot touch our essential self. It is our ‘real self’ which will eternally endure. In this sense, for the faithful, their body may be killed but their soul cannot be. I take this to mean that who they essentially are is for ever recorded by the Lord, and they will be given that same personality at the resurrection. Significantly, the Bible speaks not of the ‘resurrection of the body’ [it’s the creeds which speak of this], but rather “the resurrection of the just”, “the resurrection of the dead”. The resurrection is more about resurrected characters than resurrected bodies, although the process will involve a new body being given.</p>


text:
<p><em>But I will warn you about whom you shall fear. Fear Him, who after He has killed has power to cast you into Gehenna. Yes, I say to you, fear Him!</em>- The fear of the eternity we might miss, condemnation, is to be infinitely greater than our fear of death in this life:&nbsp; The Jews believed that ‘hell’ had three sections: Gehenna, a place of eternal fire for those Jews who broke the covenant and blasphemed God; ‘the shades’, an intermediate place similar to the Catholic idea of purgatory; and a place of rest where the faithful Jew awaited the resurrection at the last day. This distinction has no basis in the Bible. However, it’s significant that the Lord Jesus uses ‘Gehenna’ and the figure of eternal fire to describe the punishment of people for what the Jews of His day would’ve considered incidental sins, matters which were far from blasphemy and breaking the covenant – glancing at a woman with a lustful eye (<em><a href='B:480 9:47'>Mar 9:47</a></em>), hypocrisy (<em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:5'>Luk 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:27-33'>Mat 23:27-33</a></em>), not giving a cup of water to a “little one”, forbidding a disciple of John the Baptist to follow Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 9:39-43'>Mar 9:39-43</a></em>); not preaching the Gospel fearlessly and boldly (<em><a href='B:470 10:25-28'>Mat 10:25-28</a></em>). These matters were and are shrugged off as of no eternal consequence. But just like the prophets of Israel did, the Lord Jesus seizes upon such issues and purposefully associates them with the most dire possible punishment which His Jewish hearers could conceive – Gehenna. Time and again, the Bible alludes to incorrect ideas and reasons with people from the temporary assumption those ideas might be true. The language of demons, as we will show later, is a classic example. And it’s quite possible the Lord is doing the same here with the concept of Gehenna – the punishment for the Jew who breaks the covenant and blasphemes. The Lord was primarily teaching about behaviour, not giving a lecture about the state of the dead. And so He takes the maximum category of eternal punishment known to His audience, and says that this awaits those who sin in matters which on His agenda are so major, even if in the eyes of the Jewish world and humanity generally they were insignificant.</p>


text:
<p><em>Are not five sparrows soldfor two very small coins? And not one of them is forgotten in the sight of God</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 10:29'>Mat 10:29</a></em>. Two sparrows were sold for one coin; and five were given for two coins. The sparrows were so little worth that one was thrown in for free. Yet the sparrows are represented in the presence of God (Gk:); even animals have their representative Angels there. This is ‘how’ in one sense a personal God sees and knows all things; because His Spirit / Angels are in His presence reporting all things to Him. At least this is how we are invited to perceive it. The sparrows aren’t forgotten in the presence of God, and we are of more value than many sparrows (<em><a href='B:490 12:6-7'>Luk 12:6-7</a></em>); Matthew has: ‘Your Father feeds the sparrows; are you not of more value [same Greek as in Luke] than many sparrows?’; ‘no sparrow falls to the ground&nbsp;without your Father knowing::. you are of more value than many sparrows” (<em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:29'>Mat 10:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:31'>Mat 10:31</a></em>). The sparrows being in God’s presence is paralleled with His feeding them [Gk. ‘to bring them up’] and being aware of what is happening to them on earth. God feeds / raises the sparrows through His Angelic messengers.</p><p>“An inscription of the Emperor Diocletian setting out the maximum prices that might be paid for various articles of commerce shows that sparrows were the cheapest of birds used for food::." (Leon Morris,&nbsp;<em>The Gospel According to Matthew</em>&nbsp;(Leicester: I:V:P:, 1992)). This is another example of the Lord’s radical collision course with the Rabbis; He taught that God’s care even embraces sparrow. For the Rabbis explicitly forbad prayers that mentioned God’s care for birds, because they argued that it was dishonouring to God to associate Him with something so small as a bird (<em>Berith</em>&nbsp;5:3). And the Lord purposefully stood that idea upon its head. The Rabbis had a whole list of unforgivable sins, like murder, apostasy, contempt for the Law, etc. But the Lord went further. His many words of judgment weren’t directed to the murderers and whores and Sabbath breakers; they were instead directed against those who condemned those people, considering themselves righteous. He calls those who appeared so righteous a ‘generation of vipers’. The publican, not the Pharisee, finds God’s acceptance, according to Jesus. And again, the Lord is making a telling point- because Rabbis held that repentance for publicans was almost impossible, because it was impossible for them to know exactly all the people they’d cheated. Very clearly, the Lord’s message was radical. He was out to form a holy people from whores and gamblers, no-good boys and conmen. And moreover, He was out to show that what God especially judges and hates are the things that humanity doesn’t think twice about: hypocrisy, self-righteousness, judgmentalism, exclusion of others…&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But the very hairs of your head are all numbered- </em>The redeemed are a community whom man cannot number (<em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>), as many as the stars in the sky which neither Abraham nor any man could number. The Lord may be making an allusion to this in order to highlight the scale of knowledge which God has- He numbers the community of believers exactly, over space and over time, and He also numbers the hairs on every one of His people. This vast knowledge of God is often referred to in the Psalms as a guarantee that therefore God will ultimately protect His people. <em><a href='B:490 21:18'>Luk 21:18</a></em>, which we have shown to have similarities with the preaching commission of Matthew 10, comments that “there shall not an hair of your head perish”. The question is whether the Lord is assuring His preachers that they will not ultimately die; it might sound like it, from such assurance. And yet earlier verses in the preaching commission sound as if the preachers will indeed suffer, quite possibly unto death. And we know that some of them did suffer death. So what are we to make of these assurances of protection, so strong that the preacher should be fearless and not fear death as a consequence for preaching? I suggest that the Lord, as often in His teaching, is speaking on an elevated, spiritual level. The possibility of death for witness is a clear theme of His, especially in Revelation. These strong assurances of protection and salvation from death would therefore be His way of saying that His ultimate salvation of His preachers at the resurrection will involve the preservation of them as unique personalities, down to the hairs of their head. And therefore they should not fear death in this life. For He knows them. The fear of death revolves around the sense that I as the sum of all my experiences, my uniqueness, shall be no more- and the Lord is urging us to believe that God not only knows our unique attributes better than we do, but shall ultimately preserve them in the resurrection of the body and in the nature of the life eternal.</p><p><em>Fear not!- </em>The Lord is asking a lot here; He’s asking for us to preach without fear of consequence and audience reaction. That is a step beyond preaching knowing the likely price, and being willing to pay that price. To know that price and yet preach without fear is a step beyond being willing to accept consequence.</p><p><em>You are of more value than many sparrows</em>- The same word is used in the same context in <em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>. Having spoken of how God provides for the birds of the air, the Lord drives home the comparison: “Are you not much better [s:w. “of more value”] than them?”. The term is again used in <em><a href='B:470 12:12'>Mat 12:12</a></em>: “How much then is a man better than a sheep”. We must give full weight to this triple emphasis on how much more valuable we are than the mortal animals whom God is so careful for. The request that we do not fear is repeated and laboured throughout the section. It is fear of what others think and may do which so often holds us back from witness, be it to family members or literally approaching people on the street. With such laboured assurances, we are to overcome fear and therefore confess Him openly (:8).</p>


text:
<p><em>And I say to you, every one who shall confess me before men- </em>Confessing Christ before men can also be an allusion to baptism, not just bucking up the courage to give someone a tract at work (<em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em>). This allusion is confirmed when we realize that “confess” translates two Greek words, ‘to confess in’. We confess in Christ by baptism into Him. In another sense, our witness is because we are in Christ, we are Him to the world, and therefore His fearlessness unto death in witness should be ours. The Lord spoke of how if we confess Him before men, He will confess knowledge of us before the Father; and if we deny Him, He will deny us. This language is applied by John to John the Baptist- for he comments that John the Baptist "confessedand denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ" (<em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>). In this sense, John Baptist is being set up as our example in preaching- and again, John comments that we too are to confess the Son and not deny Him (<em><a href='B:690 2:23'>1Jn 2:23</a></em>), after the pattern of John the Baptist. And yet note what John's 'confession' was- it was a profession of his unworthiness, that although he was the herald of the Christ, he was not Jesus. Again, we see here a pattern for our witness to the Lord. <em><a href='B:560 6:15'>Eph 6:15</a></em> speaks of our each being 'sandaled' with the preparation of the Gospel. Who prepared the way of the Lord by preaching, wearing sandals? John the Baptist. It seems Paul is alluding to John here, setting him up as the preacher's example. The reference to "loins girt" (<em><a href='B:560 6:14'>Eph 6:14</a></em>) would also be a John allusion- the record twice (in <em><a href='B:470 3:4'>Mat 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:6'>Mar 1:6</a></em>) stresses how John had his 'loins girded'.</p><p><em>Him shall the Son of Man also confess before the angels of God</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 10:32'>Mat 10:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:8'>Luk 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 5:21'>1Ti 5:21</a></em>. So close are the Lord and the Angels and such His respect and love for them, that it seems that Jesus will even feel ashamed or embarrassed before them when He comes to consider one of the unworthy at the day of judgement- <em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em> implies that the same feeling of embarrassment and shame which the unworthy have now when backing out of preaching will be felt by Jesus when He looks on them at the judgement. And it is quite possible that one of the things which motivated our Lord to continue hanging on the cross was the thought of praising God in the midst of the Angels at His ascension: "My praise shall be of Thee in the great congregation (of Angels?): I will pay my vows before them that fear Him".</p><p>But in the same way as the Angels minister condemnation, they&nbsp;also joyfully&nbsp;give&nbsp;eternal&nbsp;life to their faithful charges, on Christ's command at the judgement- "him shall the Son of man also confess before the Angels of God" (<em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>). This is perhaps the fact alluded to in <em><a href='B:540 10:18'>2Co 10:18</a></em>: "not he that commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends (at the judgement)". To be commended implies&nbsp;to be commended <em>to</em> somebody- the Angels?</p><p>When He says He will confess&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;before the Father, He means He will confess&nbsp;<em>our name</em>&nbsp;before God (<em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>); He knows us according to our names / characters. He speaks of ecclesial members as "names" in <em><a href='B:730 3:4'>Rev 3:4</a></em>; He calls His own sheep by name, and they each know His voice, responding to His word&nbsp;<em>individually</em>. The call to one sheep will only be recognized by that sheep; the others won't respond (<em><a href='B:500 10:3'>Joh 10:3</a></em>). He will take individual note of each sheep, treating them accordingly, as the shepherd leads more gently those that are with young (<em><a href='B:290 40:11'>Isa 40:11</a></em>). It seems that even now, we each have our own individual name with the Father and Son, encompassing their understanding of our essential character. It may even be that in the record of Scripture, God inspired the writers to record the names of individuals according to His judgment of them (or at least, how the faithful viewed them at the time), rather than by the names they actually went under. What mother would have named her child Nabal (fool), or Ahira (brother of evil, <em><a href='B:40 1:15'>Num 1:15</a></em>), or 'sickness' or 'wasting' (Mahlon and Chilion)? These names were either given to them by others and the use adopted by God, or simply God in the record assigned them such names:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The same two words for "confess [in]" are found in <em><a href='B:520 10:9'>Rom 10:9</a></em> “If you shall&nbsp;<em>confess with</em>&nbsp;your mouth the Lord Jesus… you shall be saved”. The idea of&nbsp;<em>homolegeo</em>&nbsp;seems to be of public confession; literally to&nbsp;<em>homo-logos</em>. The Lord uses the word&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;with reference to the “words” of our preaching before men (<em><a href='B:470 10:14'>Mat 10:14</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Homo</em>&nbsp;has the sense of being together with others. It can carry the sense of ‘assent’, in that our<em> logos</em>&nbsp;comes together with the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of another; but the majority of NT usage is clearly with the sense of professing, making our&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;before others. At the day of judgment, the Lord will “profess” His verdict to men (<em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em>) and here we learn that He will “profess” it to His Father too. The weight of evidence on the basis of usage is that this word refers to public profession of a&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, of our innermost thought- which is exactly in line with the themes of the Lord's teaching here: that our internal thought and position, our&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, is crucially important; but if it is a Christ-like&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;then it will be impossible to conceal it, it must naturally become public, for a city set on a hill cannot be hid. Consider the evidence:</p><p>-Herod&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;[AV“promised”] with an oath” in front of witnesses to give Herodias’ daughter whatever she wished (<em><a href='B:470 14:7'>Mat 14:7</a></em>)</p><p>- John the Baptist&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;in his preaching (<em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>)</p><p>- If anyone&nbsp;<em>confessed&nbsp;</em>openly that Jesus was Messiah, then they would be cast out of the synagogue (<em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>)</p><p>- The Pharisees&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;their doctrinal positions, i:e. they openly taught them (<em><a href='B:510 23:8'>Act 23:8</a></em>)</p><p>- Paul&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;his beliefs publicly when on trial (<em><a href='B:510 24:14'>Act 24:14</a></em>)</p><p>- Timothy&nbsp;<em>confessed&nbsp;</em>his confession before many witnesses (<em><a href='B:610 6:12'>1Ti 6:12</a></em>)</p><p>- Some openly&nbsp;<em>confess</em>&nbsp;their knowledge of God when their private lives don’t match that public confession (<em><a href='B:630 1:16'>Tit 1:16</a></em>)</p><p>- The faithful&nbsp;<em>confessed</em>&nbsp;their faith in God’s promises before all (<em><a href='B:650 11:13'>Heb 11:13</a></em>)</p><p>- Teachers&nbsp;<em>confess</em>&nbsp;a doctrinal position about Jesus in their teaching and must be assessed by their audience accordingly (<em><a href='B:690 2:23'>1Jn 2:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:2-3'>1Jn 4:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:15'>1Jn 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:700 1:7'>2Jn 1:7</a></em>).</p><h4>According to the Lord's teaching here, he who refuses to make this public profession will not be accepted in the day of judgment; the Lord Jesus will not confess such a person before “My Father”. <em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em> likewise predicate salvation upon this public confession. And the contrast in <em><a href='B:470 10:32-33'>Mat 10:32-33</a></em> is between&nbsp;<em>confessing</em>&nbsp;Christ and&nbsp;<em>denying&nbsp;</em>Him before men, leading to being&nbsp;<em>denied</em>&nbsp;by Jesus before “My&nbsp;<em>Father</em>”. Without doubt, <em><a href='B:690 2:23'>1Jn 2:23</a></em> has all this in mind when teaching that “Whosoever&nbsp;<em>denies</em>&nbsp;the Son, the same has not&nbsp;<em>the Father</em>, but he that&nbsp;<em>confesses</em>&nbsp;[s:w:; AV “acknowledges”] the Son has the Father also”. Taken together, these usages of&nbsp;<em>confession</em>&nbsp;present a solid case- that salvation is related to public confession. That is not to say that salvation is by works, nor is it to say that evangelism is the be all and end all of the Christian life- after all, we all have different gifts, some are more pastoral than evangelical. Salvation is by grace&nbsp;<em>through faith</em>; and if we believe, then we cannot be passive, we become a city set on a hill which cannot be hid. Otherwise, as the Lord teaches several times in the Sermon on the Mount, we have not really believed in God’s grace. The Sermon teaches that there is no such thing as a secret Christian, a candle lit which nobody else sees or gets a hint of. In this area particularly, we are faced with the temptation of sins of omission- to consider that we are believers because we have mentally assented to certain theological propositions about Christ, but not making any public commitment or confession about them. No wonder the Lord raised this theme in encouraging His preachers to go forth fearlessly.</h4>


text:
<p><em>And everyone who shall speak a word against the Son of Man- </em>The sin of stating that Jesus was Satan's agent rather than God's could not be forgiven whilst it continued to be the position of a person- although repentance was always possible. For those who had accepted Jesus as God's unique agent, they can be forgiven all manner of failure, including speaking "a word" against Him. Maybe the Lord foresaw the situations in which persecution could be avoided for an apparently few words calling Him accursed. And He, along with Matthew, wanted to assure those who would do this in the weakness of a moment that in fact they had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;blasphemed the Spirit and were not beyond forgiveness. The 'speaking against' is clearly parallel to 'blaspheming'. Blaspheming the name of Jesus was and is required by various anti-Christian regimes such from Judaism through the Roman empire to fundamentalist Islamic states today. Surely the Lord had this in mind. And the encouragement is that this is forgivable. But to decide He is not the Son of God but the embodiment of evil is a situation for which there is no forgiveness because it is wilfully continued in. The Lord has just stated that whoever is not with Him is against Him (:30), but here He foresees a situation when one of those who is ultimately 'with Him' will speak 'against Him'- and yet be forgiven. Because that moment of failure was not the overall position of a man's life. The denials by Peter, replete with curses / blasphemy, would surely be the parade example.</p><p>The “son of man” here could refer to the Lord Jesus, but it could just as comfortably mean ‘human beings’. One angle on this passage is to remember that the Gospels were written as a means of preaching to Jewish people at some point after the Lord’s resurrection. The message may be: ‘Whatever sin you committed against Jesus, even to the point of crucifixion, is forgivable. But now the Holy Spirit is witnessing to you through the apostles to repent and accept His forgiveness. If you refuse&nbsp;<em>that</em>, then there will [obviously] be no forgiveness for you’. The Lord foresaw the situation as it would be in the lives of his audience, and that explains His language here.</p><p><em>It shall be forgiven him, but to him that blasphemes against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven</em>- Whenever we sin, we are judged by the court of Heaven as deserving condemnation. Yet now is our day of opportunity; the verdict really is given, but we canmercifully change it. Consider the implications of the parallel <em><a href='B:480 3:29'>Mar 3:29</a></em>: "he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness but is in danger of&nbsp;<em>eternal</em>&nbsp;damnation". Not being&nbsp;<em>ever</em>&nbsp;forgiven is paralleled with having&nbsp;<em>eternal </em>damnation. The implication is that when we sin and are unforgiven, we are condemned. But in this life we can be forgiven, and therefore become uncondensed. Abimelech was "but a dead man" for taking Sarah (<em><a href='B:10 20:3'>Gen 20:3</a></em>), as if although he was alive, for that sin he was in God's eyes condemned and dead. But that verdict for that case was changed by his change of the situation:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious how or what you shall answer, or what you shall say</em>- The Lord wanted His truth to be witnessed by His people to the authorities in "heavenly places" (<em><a href='B:560 3:10'>Eph 3:10</a></em>). The Lord wanted to give even kings and rulers the chance of repentance. We too should not consider anyone anywhere beyond The legal language suggests that a court case was going on- in the court of Heaven, situations on earth are tried, and the witness of the apostles at their earthly court cases against&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;was used in the court case&nbsp;<em>against the rulers</em>&nbsp;which was going on in Heaven.</p>


text:
<p><em>For the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very hour what you should say</em>- Luke's later volume records how indeed this happened to the persecuted apostles (<em><a href='B:510 4:8'>Act 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 6:10'>Act 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:2'>Act 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:53'>Act 7:53</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:55'>Act 7:55</a></em> and throughout the trials of Paul). But there is a very clear application to the events of the very last days, which the run up to AD70 prefigured. The allusion is to <em><a href='B:20 4:12'>Exo 4:12</a></em>, where God tells Moses at the time of the Egyptian persecution of God's people, "I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say". This persecution lead to intensified prayer to God, resulting in&nbsp;the deliverance of the suffering saints at Passover time, after a period of especial distress and 'time of trouble' for the surrounding world due to the plagues. After this deliverance, God's people went into the wilderness and were declared God's Kingdom. All these events form a remarkable latter day prophecy. The gifts of the Spirit may be given to some in the Elijah ministry in order to enable them to make a more powerful witness (as in <em><a href='B:730 11:6'>Rev 11:6</a></em>). Similarly Joel 2 prophesies the pouring out of the gifts "before the great and terrible day of the Lord" (:31). Malachi surely refers to this passage when prophesying the Elijah ministry "before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:460 4:5'>Mal 4:5</a></em>). This suggests that the three and a half year Elijah ministry of the last days (<em><a href='B:660 5:17'>Jas 5:17</a></em>) will be accompanied by Spirit gifts, and will coincide with the time of persecution. </p>


text:
<p><em>And one out of the crowd said to him: Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me</em>- The Lord replies by asking the man to think again about <em>who</em> had given Jesus authority- for if indeed God really had given Jesus authority, then the man ought <em>himself</em> to fear the judgment of Jesus- for as the Lord goes on to show in the parable of the rich fool, He has the power to reject those who are materialistic, exactly because He has such authority from God. The Lord is pushing the man to look at himself and think of himself at the end of his life and before the final day of judgment; and to cease paying a mere lip service respect to the authority of Jesus, but to take this for real, realizing what it means for his own personal responsibility.</p><p>The Lord’s response was to tell the parable of the rich fool- a parable which ought to be seriously worrying for every one of us, rich or poor. He put the immediate argument between the brothers in the perspective of eternity; the eternity we may miss because we got too distracted with the immediate argument of the moment. And the Lord’s basic message in this case was: “Be rich toward God. Give Him whatever you have”. This cut right across the issues of life’s unfairness, missing out on wealth, not getting our share of respect::. to the essential question which should have made both brothers feel uncomfortable. Had they, have we, given all they had to the Lord’s cause? We may lack the quick thinking or penetrating analysis required to make this kind of fast response when confronted by others’ conflicts. But we can surely analyse our own conflicts, at our own pace, in the light of eternity; and regain perspective, even if our opponent fails to do this. We need to cut to the essence of why we are feeling as we are; pray for God to help you in this, for accurate self-examination is so hard. If we don’t connect and engage with the core issues, then even if the immediate problem [e:g. the argument about the inheritance] is resolved, then other issues will still then arise:&nbsp; It will only be a matter of time. The more we focus on resolving just one conflict, the more we will realize that in fact we are dealing with a tangled web of multiple conflicts. We cannot change others, but we can come to understand ourselves, and to define and engage with the essential issues which we personally face in the whole conflict. </p>


text:
<p><em>But he said to him: Man! Who made me a judge or a divider over you?</em>- As noted on :13, this is not to be read as meaning 'I am not your judge, why ever would you think that?'. The answer to this rhetorical question is 'God'. The man was to quit worrying about material issues and conflicts with his brother, and focus instead on his relationship with God. The Father and Son will indeed judge and divide between men at the last day- but on the basis of spiritual and not secular things. The ultimate judgment and division between men will be made on the basis of how they have handled such issues of judgment and division in their secular lives; and seeing we need His absolute grace in the time of the final judgment and division, we need to show it now. All such conflicts with our brethren are therefore a dry run of judgment day; we make the answer now. Note too the allusion to <em><a href='B:20 2:14'>Exo 2:14</a></em>, whereby the Lord presents Himself as a new Moses.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Take heed and keep yourselves from all covetousness. For a man's life consists not in the abundance of the things which he possesses</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 17:32'>Luk 17:32</a></em>. As noted on :13 and :14, the true life is that to come, and that will be predicated upon how far in this life we have judged and divided rightly with secular issues now. The Lord seeks to prize apart the connection between a person and their possessions; a connection which has become the dogma of our materialistic age. The life, the personality, is to be seen as of paramount importance; 'Who "am" I?' is to be the question we return to time and again in our self-examination. The way of naming houses and lands in the name of the owner indicates the chronic degree of identification between possessions and personhood which there is in so many minds. But we are to make a great divorce in our minds between who we really are, and what we possess.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke a parable to them, saying: The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully</em>- The aorist could imply that the ground was about to bring forth plentifully. The way the man talks about building bigger barns in order to store his "goods" suggests he is fantasizing about wealth, about actually getting a large harvest and turning it into goods; to spend time and labour demolishing existing barns and building greater when the intensity of harvest is upon him is foolish, and suggests an unreal fantasy about wealth rather than reality. Likewise his assumption that his harvest would be so huge that he could live from it for the rest of his life::. is perhaps somewhat unrealistic.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he reasoned within himself, saying: What shall I do, because I do not have anywhere to store my crops?</em>- Jesus pinpointed the crucial importance of self-talk in this parable of the rich fool, who said to himself that he had many goods, and discussed with his own “soul” or self the need for greater barns etc. If we at least realize that our self-talk is potentially our greatest adversary [‘Satan’], then we will find the strength to move towards genuine spiritual mindedness, bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. </p><p>"What shall I / we do?" is a question which keeps occurring in the Gospels and Acts. It is one of those phrases which flies out of the text, forcing us to engage with it and to ask ourselves the same question (<em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:40'>Mat 21:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:22'>Mat 27:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:17'>Mar 10:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:28'>Joh 6:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:47'>Joh 11:47</a></em>). And especially in <em><a href='B:490 3:10'>Luk 3:10</a></em>, <em><a href='B:490 3:12'>Luk 3:12</a></em>, <em><a href='B:490 3:14'>Luk 3:14</a></em> [the whole account of the gospel begins with people being forced to ask this question]; <em><a href='B:490 10:25'>Luk 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:17'>Luk 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:3-4'>Luk 16:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:18'>Luk 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:41'>Luk 18:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:15'>Luk 20:15</a></em>. And Luke brings the question to a head when the crowds ask Peter: "What shall we do?", and the same question is on the lips of the repentant Saul (<em><a href='B:510 2:37'>Act 2:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:6'>Act 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:6'>Act 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:10'>Act 22:10</a></em>). The answer of course is to repent and be baptized. But the rich fool ignored that and identified himself with his possessions (:15), and answered accordingly. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: This will I do. I will pull down my barns and build greater ones, and there will I store all my grain and my goods</em>- The Greek phrase for bestowing / gathering / storing into barns is to be found in <em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:17'>Luk 3:17</a></em> - every time in the context of gathering God's people into God's Kingdom. This is what he should have been doing with his time and wealth. The barn represents the Kingdom. The man should've sought the things of God's Kingdom or barn, rather than his own, trying to build his own fake Kingdom here on earth (: 31). As noted on :17, the answer to the question "What shall I do?" ought to have been to devote himself to the Lord.</p><p>Solomon's obsession with building the temple and his own houses shows a massive attraction towards material things. Ecc. 2 chronicles how he crazily tried to accumulate every branch of material possession. Solomon figuratively chastised the people with whips in the form of the excessive tax he raised in order to build store cities (<em><a href='B:110 9:15'>1Ki 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a></em>), in which to store all his accumulation. Surely this is behind the Lord's parable of the rich fool, devoid of wisdom in practice, who built ever bigger barns because of his lack of understanding about the future Kingdom. The Hebrew for "<em>store</em> cities" (<em><a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a></em>) is also translated "to heap up", strengthening the connection with the rich fool (<em><a href='B:490 12:15-28'>Luk 12:15-28</a></em>). That parable stresses the self-centredness of the fool- just circle all the occurrences of the word "I". A similar over-use of personal pronouns in Ecc 24-8 makes the same point. <em><a href='B:250 2:26'>Ecc 2:26</a></em> records how Solomon reflected that the sinner "heaped up" treasures- using the same word as for his "<em>store</em> cities". He saw his error, but wasn't bothered to do anything about it:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And I will say to my soul: Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years</em></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:32'>1Co 15:32</a></em>. The rich fool reasoned that because he had had a big harvest, he would build bigger barns and relax, because he had enough to last him “many years” (<em><a href='B:490 12:18-19'>Luk 12:18-19</a></em>). The unreal element here is that a harvest doesn’t last many years, especially in a Middle Eastern climate with no way of effectively preserving it. And the lesson, on reflection, is obvious. Riches don’t last for ever, he who earns big wages puts them into a bag with holes in… and yet there is the genuine conviction that they will last much longer than they do. Another unreal element here is that the rich man is described as speaking <em>with himself</em>. It's hard for some cultures to appreciate how Middle Eastern culture is a collective affair. Decisions are taken through much discussion with other people. Likewise, the rich man plans out how to enjoy his wealth <em>alone</em>. There is no speech to his family; he invites <em>himself</em> to rejoice with <em>himself</em>. But all these unreal elements about this man signpost to us the loneliness, insulation and selfishness which is brought about by excess wealth and the increase of investments. It's so relevant to the 21st century. By the way, there's a word play going on here. The man whose land brings forth many things (<em>eu-phoreo</em>) and therefore wants to be merry (<em>eu-phraino</em>) is actually a fool- <em>aphron</em>- an <em>a-phron</em> person, a person without those things. All those things were "required" of him, as a loan is required. They weren't really his. And as so often, the parable is left hanging, with no actual response from the man. We have to imagine where the man's mind turned, what he thought::. and take the lesson. </p><p><em>Take your ease, eat, drink, be merry</em>- A direct quotation from Epicurean philosophers. The Lord is directly engaging with secular ideas current at the time. But no quotation marks or used, nor acknowledgment of sources given. Many of the Bible's 'difficult passages' are because of these kinds of allusions to contemporary phrases, ideas and literature, many of which are not preserved today.</p><p>For each aspect of true spirituality, there is a fake counterpart; an appearance of peace when a man has no peace with God; a semblance of prayer and Bible study when actually these are performed as exercises devoid of meaning. The pseudo-believer takes “ease” (<em><a href='B:490 12:19'>Luk 12:19</a></em>) in his materialism; and yet this is the same word used about the true “rest” which the Lord gives in His ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>). If we allow ourselves to be caught up in this, then we are effectively having our part in the spirit of antiChrist. There will not only be a fake Jesus, but there is already within our natures a shadow spirituality, which apes the real thing, and thereby seeks to persuade us that we can take the crown without the cross. In this lies the colossal practical relevance of this theme to the serious believer. </p>


text:
<p><em>But God said to him: You foolish one, this night is your soul required from you, and the things which you have prepared, whose shall they be?</em>- Gk. / RVmg. "They shall require of thee"- i:e. the Angels, to whom we shall give account at the day of judgment (:9). A similar, related Greek word is in :48- as God has given much to us, so "they"- the Angels- will require of us during the judgment process. But the exact same Greek word translated "required" occurs only in <em><a href='B:490 6:30'>Luk 6:30</a></em> - we should give to others and not 'ask again' of them. The connection teaches that insofar as we 'require' of others, so it will be 'required' of us. If we forgive freely without demanding repentance, so God will treat us; if we 'require again' of others in this life, so God will of us. In a sense our lives are required of us when we die in that our next conscious moment will be the judgment. </p><p>This is an allusion to various passages from the Apocrypha, especially Ecclesiasticus- as noted on :19, the Lord is again&nbsp;engaging with contemporary ideas.</p><h4>"Prepared" is the same word as "prepared" in v. 47. We must prepare ourselves, our character and personality; we provide or prepare by being generous to others, v. 33. Because we do not have an immortal soul that is somehow recycled into us through reincarnation, our soul / life is given to us by God. In the parable of the rich fool, the Lord says that in the day of his death, his soul was “required” of him. The Greek word for ‘required’ means ‘to ask back, to request to be given again’. The fact we have life [a ‘soul’] makes us responsible to God; and at the judgment we will be asked to give that life back to Him with an account. And, as the parable shows, this utterly precludes a focus upon material acquisition. The Lord goes on to say that therefore we should take no anxious thought about what our soul will eat or wear- because our soul / life is in fact God’s soul / life, and He will care for it until He takes it back to Himself (<em><a href='B:490 12:22'>Luk 12:22</a></em>). The soul is greater than food and clothes (<em><a href='B:490 12:23'>Luk 12:23</a></em> Gk:). The wonder that we are alive, with God’s life in us, should be far greater to us than what we feed or clothe it with. Because we can’t take that life out of ourselves until God does, nor can we give it to another person, nor can we make our body / soul grow taller, <em>therefore </em>we should not take anxious thought for the material things related to it, which are all peripheral compared to the wonder of the fact that we have life from God: “why take ye thought for the rest [Gk. ‘the things that are left over / extraneous’]?” (<em><a href='B:490 12:26'>Luk 12:26</a></em>). And to drive the point home, we are bidden “consider” (s:w. ‘discover’) the birds and plants, who are simply content with the life God has given them. This was the Lord’s way of doing what Solomon did in <em><a href='B:250 3:17-20'>Ecc 3:17-20</a></em> - showing that man and plants and animals are all possessed of the same God-given spirit / life. As <em><a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a></em> make clear, the spirit / life is given by God to our bodies; it doesn’t come from anywhere else. There is no reincarnation. And this is no painless Bible fact; it demands that we live lives that are <em>His</em>, and not lived out as if our spirit / life / soul is <em>ours</em>. The fact that God “holdeth our soul in life”, a reference to <em><a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a></em>, means that David wanted to “make the voice of his praise to be heard” (<em><a href='B:230 66:8-9'>Psa 66:8-9</a></em>). This was the meaning of the basic facts of creation for David!</h4><p>The man who built greater barns realized on the night of his death that all his laid up treasures could not be his after his death. And yet this is couched in the very language of Ecclesiastes. We can come to that attitude and understanding right now; and if we don’t, we will come to it on our deathbeds or at judgment day. The parable of the pounds may be intended to describe our dealing with wealth. This is how it would have appeared to the Lord’s first hearers. </p>


text:
<p><em>So is he that lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God</em>- Without in any way seeking to teach justification by works, it is also true that there are Bible passages which imply that there will be a reckoning up of a man’s good works at the last day. The rich fool should have been “rich toward God” (<em><a href='B:490 12:21'>Luk 12:21</a></em>); he should have hoarded up spiritual wealth and fruit against his last day rather than material things. Yet this of course will not have been consciously done; yet the judgment process will reveal the good works of the righteous to them and others. </p><p>"Rich towards" is a phrase only used elsewhere in <em><a href='B:520 10:12'>Rom 10:12</a></em>, where Paul observes that the Lord is "rich towards" all believers. The fool had failed to perceive God's richness, or generosity, towards him; and so he was rich towards, or generous to, himself rather than God. </p>


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


text:
<p><em>For the life is more than the food, and the body more than the clothing</em>- I noted on :15 that the Lord is teaching us to make a radical divorce between our life and our possessions. The presence of the articles focuses attention upon&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;life and&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>body- and surely the Lord has in view the life to come, which will involve having a glorious&nbsp;<em>body</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:570 3:21'>Phi 3:21</a></em>), not existence in any disembodied sense. The contrast is therefore between this present life, and&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;life to come; this present body, and&nbsp;<em>the</em> body which is to be given us. It's a question of identification; whether we focus upon this present life and body, or perceive that this life is but a miniscule percentage of our eternal existence, when we will not be living this life with this body. The life and the body to come are "more" than the present life and body; and the Greek for "more" is elsewhere translated 'the greater part', the idea being 'the major portion'. The vastly greater part of our existence will be with&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;life and&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>body which is yet to come. If we are secure in Christ and confident of our eternal destiny by His grace, then issues pertaining to this life and this body become insignificant.</p><p>When the Lord taught that “the life is more than the food” which we worry about today (<em><a href='B:490 12:23'>Luk 12:23</a></em> RV), and “the body [which we shall receive] is more than the raiment”, He surely means that our hope of eternal life, <em>the</em> life, the only real and ultimate life worth having, should eclipse our worries about today’s problems of survival. Not worrying about food, drink and clothing, which God will provide, is likely an allusion to His provision for Israel during their wilderness journey to the promised land. And in this context the Lord encourage us: “Seek ye the Kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you… fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:490 12:31-32'>Luk 12:31-32</a></em>). If it is God’s pleasure to give us the Kingdom, then surely He will give us all basic necessities until that time comes. Our certainty of being there thus greatly relieves us from earthly cares, compared to the person who has no such hope.</p>


text:
<p><em>Consider the ravens, how they do not sow nor reap. They have no store nor barn, but God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds!</em>- Gk. 'gaze into'. Surely He drew attention to some birds flying around. And the Greek words behind "Behold" mean more than a casual glance. He asks us to look for some time with deep penetration at the birds of the natural creation, and learn a lesson.</p><p>As always, the Lord applied His words to Himself. For we sense in <em><a href='B:470 8:20'>Mat 8:20</a></em> that He had really thought about His words. Yes, the Father feeds the birds- but they have nests, and the Son of Man at least that night had nowhere to lay His head. Note too that the birds of the air are generally unclean (<em><a href='B:510 10:12'>Act 10:12</a></em>). The fact God feeds even the unclean animals ties in with the Lord's opening comfort when He began the Sermon that His message is for those who worry about their uncleanness and spiritual inadequacy before God.</p><p>Sow::. reap::. gather into barns&nbsp;are words repeatedly used by the Lord Jesus, especially in Matthew, for the work of the Gospel. The seed of the word is&nbsp;<em>sown&nbsp;</em>(Matthew records three sowing parables- <em><a href='B:470 13:3'>Mat 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:31'>Mat 13:31</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>); then&nbsp;<em>reaped</em>&nbsp;at Christ's return (<em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em> - as in <em><a href='B:540 9:6'>2Co 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:7-9'>Gal 6:7-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:15'>Rev 14:15</a></em>), and finally&nbsp;<em>gathered</em>&nbsp;(by the preachers and Angels, <em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>), "into my barn" (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>)- the Kingdom. We cannot simply ignore all this use of identical language in Matthew's Gospel. I noted at <em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em> and elsewhere that the Lord is often saying 'Do not worry about the activities which are part of this life, but focus instead on doing those activities in a spiritual sense'. I gave the example of how the command not to worry about what we shall physically eat and drink implies that we should instead be concerned about our spiritual eating and drinking. Remembering the focus of the Sermon upon the need for outgoing, proactive sharing of the Gospel, it would be fair to conclude that the Lord wishes us to not worry about sowing, reaping and gathering into barns in the literal sense, but instead to concern ourselves with doing those things&nbsp;<em>in the work of the Gospel</em>. 'Focus on sharing the Gospel, and all the material things will fall into place if you just trust that they will work out OK'.</p><p>God consciously feeds the birds with their every mouthful. In the same way, God individually and consciously cares for each blade of grass. Fundamentally, they do not grow so much as a result of chemical combination or photosynthesis, but due to the conscious care of God using such processes. The idea of every little thing in life and the world being controlled by Angels contradicts the notion that God has set this world in motion according to certain natural laws, and that things continue without His direct intervention- as if the whole system is run by clockwork which God initially wound up. Intervention in this system by God has been called 'the hand of providence'. However, these ideas surely contradict the clear Biblical teaching that every movement in the natural creation is consciously controlled by God through His Angels, thus needing an energetic input from Him through His Spirit for every action to occur:&nbsp;"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither&nbsp;do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your Heavenly Father feeds them" suggests that God consciously feeds the birds with their every mouthful. See too <em><a href='B:470 5:45'>Mat 5:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:29-31'>Mat 10:29-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 38:12'>Job 38:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 38:32'>Job 38:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 39:27'>Job 39:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:6'>Amo 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:7'>Isa 40:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 90:3'>Psa 90:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 104:13'>Psa 104:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 11:1'>Pro 11:1</a></em>.</p><p>Things being "better than" or "of more value than" is quite a theme in the thinking of the Lord Jesus. The Greek word is used by Him at least three times in this way. Better than the birds, than many sparrows (<em><a href='B:470 10:31'>Mat 10:31</a></em>), than a sheep (<em><a href='B:470 12:12'>Mat 12:12</a></em>). Doubtless this thought was developed in the Lord by His observation of birds, flocks of sparrows and sheep- developing the implications of the simple thought that we are of more value than them to God. For we are made in His image in a way in which they are not.</p>


text:
<p><em>And which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to the measure of his life?</em>- As always, the emphasis is upon the state of the heart. No amount of mental worry can add anything to us. And so our hearts and minds should instead be devoted to the God who can transform our body into an eternal state of existence. The same word for "add" occurs in <em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>. We cannot ultimately 'add' anything to ourselves in secular life; if we seek first the things of God's Kingdom [i:e. 'take thought' for them rather than our material life], then what is necessary for the material, human life will be added to us. The concept of 'addition' suggests we are to see ourselves as ourselves&nbsp;<em>without</em>&nbsp;the issues of food, clothing and survival. We are then to decide how we are to take care of those 'additional' issues. And the Lord is teaching that we are to focus upon spiritual things and the service of God's Kingdom, believing that He will 'add' these things to us. To perceive ourselves independent from our human, secular needs and position is hard. But Paul got the idea right when he spoke of how we bring nothing into this world and can take nothing out (<em><a href='B:610 6:7'>1Ti 6:7</a></em>). 'We' come into this world; we exist, but have nothing added to us initially. And 'we' exit this world, likewise without anything 'added'.</p><p>No amount of secular thought can add age to our lives. Because life, the eternal life, comes only from God. So it is to Him that our hearts belong. Again, the Lord Jesus was the word of the Sermon made flesh in His own example. For we read that He grew in stature before God (<em><a href='B:490 12:52'>Luk 12:52</a></em> s:w:)- not by anxious worldly thought. Perhaps Zacchaeus thought upon the implications of the Lord's words, because Luke uses the same word to note that he was of inadequate stature (<em><a href='B:490 19:3'>Luk 19:3</a></em>). The 'stature' that we seek to attain is not any physique or longevity in this life- but the "stature of the fullness of Christ" (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em> s:w:). The amount of thought and effort that goes into trying to live longer, adding a cubit to our lifespan, is immense. And understandably so, for those who have only this life. Surely the Lord is saying that we should give no anxious thought to this, but rather, give our mental energy to growing into the age / stature of Himself.</p>


text:
<p><em>If then you are not able to do even that which is least, why are you anxious concerning the rest?</em>- The least is to add age to our lives, even just a little bit. The Lord is arguing from the viewpoint that "life" is the most important thing we have. To add a fraction to its length is "the least"; and therefore concerns about what we do with that life is "the rest" which should not be worried about exactly because we cannot add length to our lives. This is an unusual but powerful argument against anxious worry. We cannot extend our lives; and therefore, given our inability, we shouldn't worry about "the rest" because we simply have no power to change it anyway. All we can do is to surrender our lives and existence into the hands of a loving Father and His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>Consider the lilies- </em>Gk. 'to study deeply', used only here in the NT. Whilst no doubt the Lord with a wave of the hand did draw attention to the mountain lilies growing where He was teaching, He was most definitely not inviting us to take a cursory glance at them. But rather to study them; and the unusual Greek word used for "consider" drove home that point. Perhaps He picked one and invited the disciples to gaze at it in silence for some time.</p><p><em>How they grow- </em>The Greek can mean 'in what way' and also 'how much', 'to what great extent'.</p><p><em>They do not toil, nor do they spin- </em>As so often in the Lord's teaching and parables, He was careful to balance what He said with relevance to both men ['toiling' in Greek has the idea of heavy labour], and women [spinning]. The appeal for those who are 'toiling' in heavy labour to come to Christ (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>) is an invitation to know in this life a lifting of the curse of labour which came upon Adam. This is not to say that we shall not have to labour, but the desperate toiling for survival is mitigated by the knowledge that God will ultimately provide for His people.</p><p><em>Yet I say to you, even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these</em>- </p><p>It is hard to avoid the connection with the description of the righteous as being clothed in glory at the last day. The clothing metaphor is repeated throughout the NT in this connection (e:g. <em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:18'>Rev 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:13'>Rev 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>). Of course we are dealing with metaphor here- plants are not literally clothed, although perhaps the Lord was alluding to them flowering as their 'glory'. The lily is glorious for what it is, not because it has laboured to make itself something other than it Is. We will be made glorious by God in Christ. The city set on a hill cannot be hid. We are who and as we are before God. There is nothing to cover with clothing. This consideration alone puts the whole issue of present clothing into perspective.</p><h4>The Lord Jesus hinted indirectly at Solomon's pride when he said that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one wild flower, symbolic of how God would clothe, with imputed righteousness, even the weakest believer:&nbsp; This reference to Solomon is only one of several hints that our Lord read Solomon in a negative light:&nbsp;&nbsp;In this context He warns against excessive attention to food, drink and clothes- all things which the court of Solomon revelled in to a quite extraordinary extent. "Take therefore no (anxious) thought for the morrow::. sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" (<em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>) sounds like a rebuke of the way Solomon did just this in Ecclesiastes, as he intellectually battled with the sadness of knowing that all his achievements would mean nothing in the future. "But", says Jesus, "seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you" (<em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>)- clearly a reference to Solomon seeking Divine wisdom and subsequently being blessed; surely the Lord is telling us to follow Solomon's example in this, but to avoid his pride and materialism. Solomon didn’t seek the future Kingdom of God, but rather his own. The Lord taught that we should love our enemies, and not fall into the trap of only loving those who love us (<em><a href='B:470 5:44-46'>Mat 5:44-46</a></em>). He seems to be alluding here to Solomon’s claim that wisdom says: “I love them that love me” (<em><a href='B:240 8:17'>Pro 8:17</a></em>). Maybe I’m wrong, and the Lord didn’t have His mind there on that passage; but in the context of Him re-interpreting and re-presenting Solomon to us, it seems likely that He was consciously showing that God’s grace is in fact the very opposite of what Solomon thought. God loves His enemies, and doesn’t only love those who love Him; and this is to be our credo likewise:&nbsp;The record of how Solomon spoke of his building of the temple can now be seen as blatant pride in his external appearance of spirituality;&nbsp; without the foregoing analysis of the&nbsp;<em>hints&nbsp;</em>of Solomon's pride, this wouldn't necessarily be a correct conclusion to reach;&nbsp; but with all these inspired links, surely we can read the following as pure pride: "Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven (hardly praying in his closet!&nbsp; Was the Lord alluding to Solomon in <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>?)::. the house that I have built for thy name" (<em><a href='B:110 8:22'>1Ki 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:44'>1Ki 8:44</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;Solomon's frequent emphasis on the fact that&nbsp;<em>he&nbsp;</em>built the house makes a telling connection with the principle that God does not live in houses&nbsp;<em>built</em>&nbsp;by men (<em><a href='B:510 17:24'>Act 17:24</a></em>?)&nbsp;&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p><em>But if God does so clothe the grass in the field, which today is- </em>The blessings God gives us do not come by clockwork- we thankfully recognize they are individual acts of mercy towards us. Perhaps&nbsp;our sometimes 'clockwork' prayers are an indication that we think God's blessings of food etc. are clockwork too? In the same way, God individually and consciously cares for each blade of grass. Fundamentally, they do not grow merely as a result of chemical combination or photosynthesis, but due to the conscious care of God using such processes. The worry-free life is a characteristic of the true believer. If God gave us His Son, how much more will He not give us “all things”?&nbsp; “Clothe” translates the Greek&nbsp;<em>amphi-hennumi</em>- to enrobe around. The Lord seems to have been referring to a type of wild flower that appears to be draped around by its natural skin, rather like an irIs. God gives the wild flowers robes… although they do not spin them or work for them. Solomon’s robes weren’t as beautiful as them. And how&nbsp;<em>much more</em>&nbsp;will God clothe us, both literally and with salvation (for this is how the Bible usually uses the idea of God clothing us). God does so much for the lilies, who are to be ‘thrown into the fire’… a phrase which inevitably connects with the Lord’s other uses of that idea to describe the final condemnation of the wicked (as in <em><a href='B:660 1:11'>Jas 1:11</a></em>). God cares for flowers, and He even cares and provides for those whom He will one day condemn. For God to keep such people alive is a conscious outflowing of His lavish energy, His gracious gift of life and health. If He does that for things and persons which will ultimately be ‘thrown nto the fire’, how&nbsp;<em>much more</em>&nbsp;will He clothe us. Let’s remember that creation isn’t run on clockwork; God makes His rain come, and His sun to rise, on the just and unjust; He’s aware when a bird falls from the air; counts the hairs on our heads, as a mother dotes over a new-born baby’s features. Just by keeping alive humanity (indeed, all of creation), God is lavishing His grace and consciously outgiving of Himself.</p><p><em>And tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more shall he clothe you- </em>The idea of 'casting' is used by the Lord with reference to condemnation at the last day; and 'the oven' is reminiscent of the imagery of Gehenna fire to destroy the rejected. If God shows so much care and gives so much passing glory to that which shall be rejected and be ultimately unused by Him in eternity- how much more will he clothe us whom He loves and has accepted with His nature. All worry about what garment we shall physically put on, let alone whether it has a brand name on it or not, becomes subsumed beneath the wonder of the metaphor of our final clothing.</p><p><em>O you of little faith?</em>- The Lord tells the disciples that they are “of little faith” if they don’t perceive and live by what He is teaching about God’s care for the flowers. The ‘faith’ is surely faith in the simple fact that God lavishes His loving care upon us, just because, like a flower, we are here as His creation, in His eternal purpose. All flesh is as grass, and yet the Lord speaks as if God treats us as better than the grass “which is today in the field and tomorrow is cast into the oven” (<em><a href='B:490 12:28'>Luk 12:28</a></em>).</p><p>The "little faith" is not so much in God's promised provision of physical clothing, but in the promise of final clothing in salvation. But God's care even for those whom He shall condemn, keeping them in life, and the glory He gives to the plant and animal creation which last but for days, is sure encouragement that He shall so much more super abundantly clothe us with salvation- and also, will ensure we don't go physically naked in this world. The Gospel records, as transcripts of the disciples' early preaching, show the disciples appealing to others to have faith, to believe and be baptized. And yet the same accounts record so often how weak and small was the disciples' faith. Matthew is a classic example: <em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:8'>Mat 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>. It was on the basis of this acknowledged weakness of their own, that the disciples could appeal so powerfully to others. The more real they showed themselves to be, the more credible was their appeal.</p>


text:
<p><em>And do not seek what you shall eat and what you shall drink, neither be of doubtful mind</em>- Clothes have been mentioned in :28. These are the three things God provided for Israel in their wilderness journey. The same old clothes, food (manna) and water, of course. But He provided for them. God will provide, but the question is, how does He provide? The same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 25:36'>Mat 25:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:38'>Mat 25:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:43'>Mat 25:43</a></em> about the believer in Christ who is not clothed, and needs to be clothed by other believers- some of whom refuse to, whilst others do. If God really does provide food and clothing for His people- why are some apparently without them? One window onto that question might be that potentially all such needs have been met, in that the food and clothing is within the brotherhood. But there can be a dysfunction, in that it is not shared out as it should be- meaning that some go without the provision which God has potentially provided. But another window is that David could say that he had never seen the seed of the righteous begging bread at any time in his long and varied life (<em><a href='B:230 37:25'>Psa 37:25</a></em>). And despite a lifetime in the poorer world I also have yet to encounter this. The promise holds true, in my observation.</p><p>We are to firmly believe in His provision, without being in any sense "doubtful" about it. This lack of doubt will remove all materialism and concern about providing for our futures.</p>


text:
<p><em>For all these things the nations of the world seek after, but your Father knows you have need of these things</em>- God's people who worry and spend their thoughts on eating, drinking and clothing are no better than the Gentile world. This was a radical thing to say to first century Jews. It is a common Biblical theme that the unspiritual amongst God's people shall share the judgments of the world whom in spirit they are like. The idea of the Gentiles seeking is of course from <em><a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a></em>, where we read that finally the Gentiles will seek unto Christ (as in <em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em>). Perhaps the idea is that we should right now have that changed direction of 'seeking' which the Gentile world will have in the future. Our practical life in Christ is really all about our response to the abounding nature of God’s grace. If we really believe it, then we will trust in Him and not worry. The difference between the Gentile world and the believer in Christ is quite simply that we believe that our Father has this level of care and concern for us; and therefore we will not worry, whereas the unbelieving world worry constantly about material things. This is how much of a ‘first principle’ this really Is.</p><p>God knows our human situation. Our faithlessness and lack of spiritual mindedness is because of an unspoken sense that actually He is unaware of our needs and the nature of being human. But the God who knows all things is not unaware of humanity and the needs which accompany being human. Frequently the prophecies directed to the Jews returning from Babylon spoke at length of God's amazing knowledge- because the sense was that whilst God existed, He did not know close-up about the human situation. He does, of course, know perfectly.</p>


text:
<p><em>Seek His kingdom- </em>Seeking is paralleled with taking thought in :29,30. The overall direction of our lives must be towards the Kingdom of God above all. If that is put "first", then actually there is no room for thought about much else. The idea is not 'Seek the Kingdom first, and other things secondly'. Rather must the 'seeking' of our thinking be towards the Kingdom. 'Seeking' was a common Hebraism for 'worship'. But the Lord has defined 'seeking' as thinking, as the overall direction of our mental state, our heart. It was not merely a question of going through the worship rituals of Judaism in a holy space such as the temple. True worship is redefined as the state of our heart. </p><p>The Lord's prayer asked us to pray firstly for the things of His Kingdom; this reflects our priorities. I noted under <em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em> that the coming of the Kingdom in our lives is through the doing of God's will. The Lord's message is not simply that we should long for the coming of the Kingdom at His second coming; it is that starting right now, we should seek above all things to extend the principles of the Kingdom (as taught in the Lord'sparables of the Kingdom) in our lives and in the world around us.</p><p><em>And these things- </em>Semitic languages such as Aramaic and Hebrew can often have various levels of meaning in a phrase. The phrase may mean or say one thing, but also suggest something else. We are of course reading the expression of those phrases in Greek:&nbsp;<em>Pas tauta</em>&nbsp;(usually translated "all these things") need not necessarily be translated as a plural. The idea could equally be 'The whole, complete thing'- we might say 'The real deal'. And that would make sense of the connection between 'added' and <em><a href='B:470 6:27'>Mat 6:27</a></em>, which speaks of how we cannot 'add' a cubit to our lifespan. The implication could be that 'the real deal', the&nbsp;<em>real</em> thing- eternal life, salvation in God's Kingdom- shall be added if we seek that Kingdom first and foremost. Alternatively, we can interpret more in line with the common translations and understand that 'all these things' is the same 'all these things' of the preceding verses- the material things which God knows we need. These things&nbsp;<em>will be added</em>&nbsp;to us if we do not seek them first, but rather seek God's Kingdom first. But there is the suggestion that the real 'all things' for us is eternity in God's Kingdom. For a discussion of what may have happened if these basic things are apparently&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;added to a believer, see on <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>.</p><p><em>Shall be added to you</em>- The same word is used just a few verses earlier, where the Lord has pointed out that we are unable to 'add' a cubit to our length of human life nor to our body height. </p>


text:
<p><em>Fear not little flock. For it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em>. The pleasure or will of our loving Father is that we should share His Kingdom, and that pleasure / will prospered through the cross of Jesus (<em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>). God isn’t indifferent. He wants us to be there. That’s why He gave His Son to die. It’s as simple as that. The deepest longings we feel in our earthly lives, as parents, as lovers, are mere flickers of the hungering desire God feels for us. It is a desire that cost Him His very own crucified son. The Lord Himself knew our basic tendency to disbelieve the certainty of our salvation when He comforted us here not to fear- and the implication is not to fear condemnation, not to fear exclusion from the Kingdom.</p><p>He spoke of us all as a little flock, fearing it is <em>not</em> the Father's pleasure / will to give us the Kingdom. In doing so, He was as ever drawing on the language of the OT. Joshua-Jesus encouraged Israel that Yahweh delighted / willed that they should enter the land (<em><a href='B:40 14:8'>Num 14:8</a></em>); but instead, they were too caught up with doubts::. doubt about salvation, about what they could eat and drink day by day, and the giants in the land. This is the very context in which the Lord was speaking- fearing “the nations of the world”, doubting where food and clothes would come from, just as Israel did (<em><a href='B:490 12:22-29'>Luk 12:22-29</a></em>). Yet the pleasure / will of Yahweh is that we should share His Kingdom, and that pleasure / will prospered through the cross (<em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>):&nbsp;Therefore we should not fear or worry about our lack of material things, because God is eager to give us His Kingdom. The certainty of salvation which we may have ought to mean that worry about all human things of this life becomes irrelevant.</p>


text:
<p><em>Sell that which you have and give alms. Make for yourselves purses which do not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail- </em>The disciples were told to sell what they had (<em><a href='B:490 12:22'>Luk 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:32-33'>Luk 12:32-33</a></em>); but it seems they kept their fishing business. After having asked them this, the Lord again had to speak to them about forsaking all that they had (<em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). Their claim to have left literally all and followed Him (<em><a href='B:490 18:28'>Luk 18:28</a></em>) appears somewhat exaggerated. To follow Him meant taking up a cross (<em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>).</p><p>He warns the crowd not to everlastingly worry about where the next meal was coming from; and then in that very context, tells <em>them</em> to sell what they have (<em><a href='B:490 12:29-33'>Luk 12:29-33</a></em>). He wasn't just talking to the rich. He was telling the desperately poor to forsake what little they had, so as to seek His Kingdom. He probably didn't mean them to take His words dead literally (cp. cutting off the offending hand or foot); what He surely meant was: 'Resign, in your mind, the possession of everything you have, concern yourselves rather with the needs of others and entering my Kingdom'. No wonder those crowds turned round and soon bayed for His blood. See on <em><a href='B:470 6:19'>Mat 6:19</a></em>.</p><p>The idea is of incremental growth. It’s as if spirituality, both in personality and deed, is carefully noted in Heaven as it occurs:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Where no thief draws near nor moth destroys</em>- Or, "corrupt". <em><a href='B:660 5:2'>Jas 5:2</a></em> alludes here and states that wealth is already rusted and moth-eaten. So this perhaps was the Lord’s idea here, although the grammar is unclear. The idea of gold is that it doesn’t rust. What appears to be permanent material wealth is not, and is already rusted in God’s eyes.</p><p>The Lord’s return is going to break up the house of those not looking for His return (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em> s:w:). It may be that ‘thieves’ is an intensive plural referring to the great thief, whom Jesus likens to Himself in <em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>. In this case He would be saying that He will take human wealth anyway at the last day- so we should give it to Him now and not seek it.</p><p>Because we know people (and brethren) who are richer and more wealth-seeking than we are, it's fatally easy to conclude that therefore we aren't rich, therefore we aren't materialistic. This is part of the subtle snare of aterialism; that we all think that this is an area where we're not doing too badly; that really, we don't care&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;much where we live, or what the furniture's like, or whether we have money to take a holiday::. But remember, our attitude to materialism is the litmus test of all our spirituality. None of us should be so quick to say that we're OK in this area. These words were spoken to a huge crowd of Jewish peasants. The Lord wasn't only referring to the few rich men who might be hanging around on the edge of the group. He was talking to all of them. He knew their mud walled homes which thieves could so easily dig through. That little cheap bangle, that ring, thinly buried under the bed mat after the pattern of Achan, that prized tunic::. the petty riches of the poor which they so strove for, which&nbsp;<em>to them</em>&nbsp;were priceless treasures. This is what the Lord was getting at; and His point was that&nbsp;<em>every one of us</em>, from beggar to prince, has this 'laying up' mentality. He is almost ruthless in His demands.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning</em>- </p><p><em><a href='B:490 12:35-39'>Luk 12:35-39</a></em> speaks of the Master coming at night and then sharing the Passover meal with those who are "watching":&nbsp; Israel were told to 'watch' throughout that first Passover night (<em><a href='B:20 12:42'>Exo 12:42</a></em> RV mg:), eating the meal with loins girded:&nbsp;Our Lord matches this with "let your loins be girded, and your lamps burning", referring to the virgins parable:&nbsp;Israel eating that meal together, huddled around the slain lamb, the oil burning lamps revealing their tense faces, is therefore a picture of what the new Israel should be like just prior to their deliverance.</p>


text:
<p><em>And be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks</em></p><h4>- See on <em><a href='B:490 17:31'>Luk 17:31</a></em>. How we respond to the Lord now is how we will respond at His return. Those who open to Him immediately will be saved. The wise virgins go immediately and are thereby accepted, whereas the foolish delay their response. The implication is surely that those who are ready to drop all and go when He knocks, will be saved. Our reaction in that split second of knowing ‘He’s back!’ will determine our eternal destiny; it will effectively be our self-judgment. And yet in this life too, the figure of the Lord knocking at our door is used to describe our response to Jesus in this life (<em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em>). If there is no immediacy of response now, there will not be then.</h4><p>The faithful watching for the Lord's return are here described as men waiting for their master to <em>return</em> from a wedding. But Christ's coming is also described as His coming <em>to</em> the wedding to marry the faithful. This difference may simply indicate that metaphor cannot be pressed too strictly or literally in the process of Biblical interpretation.</p>


text:
<p><em>Blessed are those servants, whom the master when he comes shall find awake- </em>Passover night was to be "a night of watching" (<em><a href='B:20 12:42'>Exo 12:42</a></em> RV mg:), strongly suggesting&nbsp;"watching in prayer" (<em><a href='B:560 6:18'>Eph 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:7'>1Pe 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:27'>2Co 11:27</a></em>). Similarly those who are found "watching" at the Lord's midnight coming (cp. that of the Passover angel) will be found acceptable. The picture of Israel in their family units huddled together around the Lamb, desperately focusing their attention on that saving blood, watching and praying, examining themselves- this is us, right now. For there can be no serious doubt that the second coming is almost upon our generation.</p><p>Our attitude to the second coming decides whether we will be in the Kingdom. In this sense we are judging ourselves, right now; we are formulating the outcome of the judgment seat by our attitude now towards the second coming:&nbsp; The proof for this lies in a group of passages which suggest that everyone who truly loves the return of his Lord will be in the Kingdom. Of course, a true love of His coming is only possible if we hold correct doctrine, and if our faith and behaviour is mature enough to be able to look with quiet joy and confidence towards that day. Thus our Lord said that all those whom He finds <em>watching</em> will be welcomed into the marriage feast. And <em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em> is plain enough: "All them also that love his appearing" will be rewarded along with Paul. Paul's own confidence in salvation was because he knew the earnestness of his desire to be "present with the Lord" Jesus (<em><a href='B:540 5:8'>2Co 5:8</a></em>), such was the closeness of his relationship with Him. Is this really our attitude too? Can we feel like Simeon, that we are quite happy to die after we have just seen our Lord with our own eyes (<em><a href='B:490 2:29'>Luk 2:29</a></em>)? Is there really much <em>love</em> between us and our Lord? </p><p>The foolish virgins knock on the door, i:e. ask for acceptance. At the second coming, the Lord knocked on their door, and they didn't answer immediately. They had decided their own fate by their dilatory response. </p><p><em>Truly I say to you, that he shall dress himself for service and make them sit down to eat, and shall come and serve them</em>- The Lord’s self-crucifixion spirit was seen not only in His life and then finally in His death and subsequent life; but who He was in His mortal life, He will <em>eternally</em> be. He is the same yesterday as today and as for ever. He will dress Himself to serve us, as a servant, in His future Kingdom, reminiscent of how at the last supper and on the cross He in principle did the same (<em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>). Thus the spirit of the cross must be a way of life, and this feature of our characters will be seen in the Kingdom too. </p><p>The Lord’s exalted view of the disciples is reflected in how He washed their feet. To wash the feet of guests was more menial than we might imagine. It was normal to provide water for the guest to wash his own feet. The Midrash <em>Mekhilta</em> on <em><a href='B:20 21:2'>Exo 21:2</a></em> taught that a Jewish slave should never be required to wash his Master’s feet. But as a sign of extreme devotion and respect, some disciples of the most respected rabbis would wash their feet. Yet the Lord Jesus, having reminded them that He was indeed their Lord and Master, does this to them. And according to <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>, He will do this again to us in His Kingdom, in that He will then tie a cloth around Him and come forth and serve us. It would seem the Lord was referring back to this prophecy when He tied a cloth around Him and washed the disciples’ feet. This was how highly He thought of them; and that incident was an enacted prophecy of the attitude He will have to <em>us</em>, whom the 12 symbolize, even in the glory of His Kingdom. He surely totally redefined the nature of Lordship and respect. &nbsp;</p><p>The Master is so delighted that his servants are watching for Him that He immediately sits down and gets a meal ready for them, doing the serving Himself. There is an arresting element of unreality here. Would a Master really do this, at such an unlikely time at night, would he really serve himself, and would he really be so glad that the servants were waiting up for him? But these elements of unreality serve to teach the lessons: that the Lord will have unspeakable joy at His return because of our expectancy of the second coming, and He will surprise us by His glee and enthusiasm for us. See on <em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>.</p><p>The master makes the servants "recline at table"; they are made to feel like the Master, by the Master Himself! This is what it means to be "in Christ". There's a kind of out of scale inappropriacy about the idea that if the Master comes and finds the servants awake, then He will gird Himself and serve them. Of course they ought to be awake! But it's as if He is so especially impressed by this fact. And we who live awaiting His return need to take note. And the idea of the master serving is of course the idea behind the description of the cross in <em><a href='B:570 2:6-7'>Phi 2:6-7</a></em>. We should have the same awkward sense of wonder at the cross as we have when we recline at the breaking of bread. This implies that those who serve the emblems are in fact manifesting the Lord Jesus, and are actually of far greater significance than the president or the speaker. See on <em><a href='B:490 13:7'>Luk 13:7</a></em>. </p><p><em><a href='B:230 36:8'>Psa 36:8</a></em> says that God will "make us" partake of the blessings of the Kingdom of God. It reminds us of how the Lord Jesus said that in his Kingdom, he will "make us" sit down at a table, and he will come and serve us, knowing full well that he who sits at meat is greater than he who serves (<em><a href='B:490 22:27'>Luk 22:27</a></em>). It isn't so difficult to imagine this scene: the Lord of glory wanting us to sit down to a meal, and then <em>He</em> comes and serves us. He <em>will</em> have to "make us" sit down and let ourselves be served. Perhaps "<em>Come</em>, you blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>) likewise suggests a hesitancy of the faithful to enter the Kingdom. And perhaps the way the Lord had to 'make' the healed blind man look up and use his new sight was some kind of foretaste of this. There is even the suggestion in <em><a href='B:730 7:15'>Rev 7:15</a></em> that after the judgment process, the Lord will come down off His throne and mix with us, after the pattern of Joseph. See on <em><a href='B:490 18:17'>Luk 18:17</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. It is wrong to think that the Lord was only humble in His ministry, but will return with almost bitter indignation. This is not so. He girded Himself and served His men in the days of His flesh (<em><a href='B:500 13:4'>Joh 13:4</a></em>); and He will do <em>exactly</em> the same again, in the glory of His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>). That same essential humility of God and Jesus will be with Him; He won't have changed. It is His fundamental, eternal characteristic. The fear of God lest Israel would not attain the promised land ("lest peradventure::.", <em><a href='B:20 13:17'>Exo 13:17</a></em>) shows His humility, in being so concerned for the salvation of petty man; and that characteristic likewise will be His, right up to and through and beyond the day of judgment:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord who will judge us knows us each individually. The question arises, ‘Why would <em>all</em> the servants stay awake in order to open the door (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>)? Why not just the night watchman? The answer is that there is a totally unique and special personal relationship between this Master and <em>all</em> His servants. </p>


text:
<p><em>And if he shall come in the second watch and if in the third and find them waiting, so blessed are they</em>- We must speak the word as others are able to hear it, expressing the Truths of Christ in language and terms which will reach them. There are some differences within the Gospels in the records of the parables. It could be that the different writers, under inspiration, were rendering the Lord's Aramaic words into Greek in different styles of translation. Also, we must bear in mind the different audiences. Mark speaks of the four watches of the night which would have been familiar to Romans (<em><a href='B:480 13:35'>Mar 13:35</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 6:48'>Luk 6:48</a></em>), whereas <em><a href='B:490 12:38'>Luk 12:38</a></em> speaks of the Jewish division of the night into three watches (cp. <em><a href='B:70 7:19'>Jdg 7:19</a></em>). Yet Luke seems to translate the Palestinian style of things into terms which were understandable by a Roman audience.</p>


text:
<p><em>But know this- </em>Our focus should be on‘knowing’ that we don’t ‘know’ the time of His coming; and therefore watching at all times, living&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;His return is imminent. This would be one explanation of why Paul and Peter write in their letters as if the Lord’s return is imminent when in fact He did not return in the first century.</p><p><em>That if the master of the house had known in what hour the thief was coming- </em>The Lord is drawing a parallel between the householder watching, and the disciples / believers watching, being aware of the possibility of the Lord's return at any moment. He will only come unexpectedly, as a thief, to those who are not watching and are caught unprepared. But almost every usage of&nbsp;<em>oikodespotes</em>&nbsp;in the parables is concerning the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:27'>Mat 13:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:1'>Mat 20:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:33'>Mat 21:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>). As so often, the Lord was speaking to the disciples but not forgetting to speak also to Himself. He was soon to ask them in Gethsemane to watch and pray&nbsp;<em>with Him</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 26:38'>Mat 26:38</a></em>); as if His watchfulness was to be theirs. In <em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em> He does also use this term about every scribe instructed in the things of the Kingdom. We are all the master of the house in the sense that we are to all be watching out for the household as a whole; the work of the Lord Jesus is to be our work. 'Watching' is thereby defined as not only watching ourselves, but watching out for the rest of the household. This is being presented here as the supreme way of not becoming unwatchful. By watching out for others we are watching for the Lord's return, living with the imminence of His coming over before us.</p><p><em>He would have stayed awake- </em>The point is surely that if we were to know when the Lord is coming, then we would watch for Him&nbsp;<em>at the time of His coming</em>; just as a householder would watch out for a thief if he knew ahead of time when the thief was coming. Because we do not know when the Lord is coming, we must watch for His coming all the time, living&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;He is coming imminently even though we do not&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;for sure whether He is or not. Therefore our living as if He is about to come is to be done independently of any hunches we may have that He is about to return, based as they usually are upon prophetic interpretations. </p><p><em>And not have left his house to be broken into</em>- This is the key; recognizing that the household of God is in fact our household, and we are to watch out for it as we would for our very own family. Indeed, it&nbsp;is<em>&nbsp;</em>our family. The connection is to <em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em> “<em>Your house</em>&nbsp;is left unto you desolate”. Here, “<em>his house</em>” is “broken up”. The Lord is saying that they were in the status of condemnation already. The physical breaking up of the temple would be the result of the elders of Israel not ‘watching’ as intended.</p>


text:
<p><em>You also- be ready- </em>The Lord was initially speaking to the disciples, the future elders of the church. The elders, represented by "the goodman of the house", have a special responsibility in this watching, so that the Lord's return is not thief-like to the 'house' of their ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>):&nbsp; They "watch for your souls" (<em><a href='B:650 13:17'>Heb 13:17</a></em>). But in a sense, the duty of watching falls to each of us: we're all elders (<em><a href='B:490 12:41-46'>Luk 12:41-46</a></em>). All believers are called to watch, and that watching involves watching for others. The connection with <em><a href='B:590 5:2'>1Th 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:6'>1Th 5:6</a></em> therefore suggests that one of the reasons for the unworthy experiencing the second coming "as a thief" will be the lack of awareness by their elders concerning the spiritual trials of the last days. The reverse is also true:&nbsp;A good latter-day elder will have to give his very soul to the work of watching over the flock, fully aware of the many dangers they face in the last days:&nbsp;&nbsp; It is difficult to see how this vital role can be filled by those who have sold their souls to demanding employers. This work can’t be simply left to others. This passage teaches that the servant who must feed the household with appropriate food represents each of us; he must watch for the Lord's return and be diligent in feeding the household; yet (it must be stressed), this parable is intended for each of us (cp. <em><a href='B:480 13:37'>Mar 13:37</a></em>). If he doesn't do this, he is rejected. We are set a high standard here. Christ is "the goodman of the house" (<em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>), but here "the goodman of the house" represents each of us (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:39-40'>Luk 12:39-40</a></em>). We are in Him, and therefore we must try to share his level of concern for his household. He carried his cross for us, for our salvation. And he asks us to share His cross, i:e. His devotion to the body of believers, even unto death. If we are in Him, we too must devote ourselves to the saving of the body.</p><p>The very same word and idea for "ready" is repeated in <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>. Those who were "ready" and responded immediately to the news of the Lord's return were accepted. The 'readiness' is in being constantly ready to leave all and go to&nbsp;be with the Lord. We shouldn't be so surprised, therefore, that life in this world is so unbearable for the believers; for we are being led to a point where we will be ready and eager to leave all for the sake of being with the Lord.</p><p><em>For in the hour you do not expect- the Son ofMan comes</em>- The fact we do not know the date of the Lord's return is what makes us live in a spirit of constant readiness for His coming. The point is that we should be “ready” even when we “think not” that the Lord’s coming is near. The contrast is being drawn between on one hand our ‘readiness’, and on the other, our ‘thinking’, our computing, our calculations, the seeming to us, that the return of Christ is near. "The Son of Man comes" uses the present tense, whereas “Be… ready” would properly require the future tense. There may be here a hint that the future coming of the Son of Man in essence is ongoing in the life of the believer.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Peter said: Lord, are you telling this parable aimed at us, or to everyone?</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:1'>Luk 13:1</a></em>. Peter perceived that the parable was aimed at those who had responsibility for the Lord's house / family. He wondered whether it could really be so that he and those immature disciples were really being spoken to as the elders of the new Israel; and he wondered whether actually the Lord meant that we are all elders. The Lord rarely answers questions directly, but lifts them to a higher level. And He does so here. He urges us each to take responsibility, and to grasp the urgency of living as if He will return any moment- knowing that this will mean giving an account for our responsibilities toward others.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the Lord said: Who then is the faithful and wise steward</em></p><p>- See on :41 and <em><a href='B:610 3:15'>1Ti 3:15</a></em>. One aspect of spirituality leads to another. Thus the Lord commends the one who is watching for His coming, and then speaks of how those who are to be accepted at His coming are those busy preparing spiritual food for their brethren (<em><a href='B:490 12:39'>Luk 12:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:42'>Luk 12:42</a></em>). The implication is that he who is watching, truly watching, for the return will be busy about the brotherhood’s needs; and in caring for them is our own personal preparedness:&nbsp; “Let patience have her perfect work::. let brotherly love continue" sounds as if we must allow the process of righteousness inspired by spiritual acts of love and patience. We can obstruct that process (<em><a href='B:660 1:4'>Jas 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:1'>Heb 13:1</a></em>). </p><p>The Lord is replying to Peter's question as to whether we the hearers and readers are to assume that it is our responsibility to feed others in the household. The answer seems to be that yes it is, because this is what is naturally elicited by watching and being alert for the Lord's return.</p><p>Our ‘watching’ is to be expressed in terms of ensuring that all the household have their food at the appropriate time. In <em><a href='B:480 13:34-35'>Mar 13:34-35</a></em> the Lord expands on this parable in saying that each of the servants are given a different work, but He wants us to be like the doorkeeper [AV “porter”], whose job it was to simply watch- and “You, watch, therefore!”. Putting together the various images, we see that we are likened to the very master of the house; then to the chief steward who was to provide food for the household; and then to the lowest doorkeeper. We are thoroughly representative of the Lord Himself, the steward of the household, and the lowest servant, the doorkeeper. But throughout the analogies, we are to above all mirror the way in which they watched / looked out for the wellbeing of the household. Being occupied with this is what makes a person ready and watching for their Lord’s return.</p><p>This is the “good and faithful [s:w:] servant” of <em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em> who is commended for trading his Lord’s goods and making increase of them. Here, the duty of the faithful servant is to care for the household. These are different metaphors for the same reality- spiritual care for others is a way of increasing the overall wealth of the Lord and the progress of His household. We have been delegated a huge amount, and the Lord is ‘absent’, not in the sense that He is not spiritually with us, but in that He will not intervene in how we carry on His work. The salvation and spiritual prosperity of others is therefore in our hands. By laziness and unwise behaviour we can seriously damage them and limit the progress of the Lord’s business; and He being ‘absent’ will not forcibly intervene to stop us, in this life. The “wise servant” is likewise to be connected with the “wise [s:w:] virgins” (<em><a href='B:470 25:2'>Mat 25:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:4'>Mat 25:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:8-9'>Mat 25:8-9</a></em>). The connection is, however, slightly odd. The wise servant is to provide food for the others in the household. The wise virgins were unable to provide oil for the weaker members of the household, because they were themselves weak and had fallen asleep when clearly they were intended to remain awake. If the connection with the next parable is indeed purposeful, then we are left with the picture of the wise virgins being wise only in that they&nbsp;<em>intended</em>&nbsp;to provide for others, although in reality they were too weak themselves to follow through with that intention in practice. But their intention to do so was counted to them as wisdom.</p><h4><em>Whom his master shall set over his household to give them their portion of food in due season?</em>- The idea is surely that if we are doing that now, we shall do it eternally. If we are found ‘doing’ care and provision for the household, then we shall be empowered to eternally do this in essence. The important thing is that when the Lord comes, He finds us engaged [at least mentally] with what we shall eternally be doing, living the essence of the Kingdom life now. We have been made ruler over the household now; we shall be set over it eternally if when the Lord comes He finds us doing what He has appointed us to do. When the Lord comes, He finds the servant either smiting the servants (<em><a href='B:470 24:49'>Mat 24:49</a></em>), or feeding and caring for them (<em><a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a></em>). Our attitude to our brethren in the moment of our Lord’s coming will decide our eternal future. The structure of the parable allows of no half way position. Thepurpose of any authority given to any of us within the household is in order to feed others. If that, in the end, is not being done, then we are abusing the trust and authority given us by the Lord. The “food” is called their&nbsp;<em>sitometron&nbsp;</em>in <em><a href='B:490 12:42'>Luk 12:42</a></em>, their “portion of food”, or ration. The impression is given of a steward providing the right food [‘nourishment’] for the right persons at the right time. This is the essence of all care for others:&nbsp;<em>Kairos</em>, “due season”, means literally ‘time’, and is often used about ‘the time’ of the Lord’s return (<em><a href='B:470 8:29'>Mat 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:3'>Mat 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:34'>Mat 21:34</a></em>). Indeed it is used in the Olivet prophecy for this moment: “You know not when the time is” (<em><a href='B:480 13:33'>Mar 13:33</a></em>). The idea seems to be that instead of worrying about calculating “the time” of the Lord’s coming, we are instead to be concerned with feeding others in the household at that&nbsp;<em>kairos</em>&nbsp;or time. This is the sign of our preparedness and watchfulness, and not our [apparent] skill in matching world events to Bible prophecies.</h4>


text:
<p><em>Blessed is that servant, whom his master, when he comes, shall find so doing</em>- ‘Watching’ is a major theme here in the context; but the blessing in view here is for “doing”, actually providing nourishment for the household. Again we see the parallel between watching and doing. Watching can never be an academic interest in Bible prophecies. It has to be active, or else it isn’t ‘watching’ in the sense intended.</p><p>In "Shall find" we find emphasized the eternal importance of our attitude of mind at the moment of the Lord’s coming. Those who want to go to the Lord are confirmed in their desire by being snatched away to meet Him, whereas those who don’t have that immediacy of desire will be left behind, to be forcibly gathered to Him later.</p>


text:
<p><em>Of a truth I say to you, that he will set him over all that he has</em>- We each individually have this promise of being made ruler over <em>all</em> that Jesus has. The "all things" refers to the believers; a concordance study of these two words gives fair testimony to this. The ecclesia <em>is</em> the body of Christ, "the fullness of him that filleth all in all" (<em><a href='B:560 1:22-23'>Eph 1:22-23</a></em>). Let us pause to exult in this fact; that Jesus <em>exists</em> for no one else except the believers. Each of us is promised by Him that He will make us ruler over "all that he hath", i:e. all the saints. We will each rule over each other because we will each be so closely identified with the Lord Jesus; yet in another sense there will be a hierarchy of spiritual glory in the Kingdom.</p><p>If we are doing what we have been empowered to do for the household now, then we shall be appointed to eternally do this. The state of perfection in the Kingdom is described as us (the complete church of all ages) having reached, "a perfect man::. the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", having grown up into Christ, who is the head of the body (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:15'>Eph 4:15</a></em>). When the Lord comes, we will each individually be made ruler over&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;that He has, we will each individually be fully righteous, fully manifesting the Lord Jesus. There seems to be marked connection with the fact (brought out in the parable of the talents) that we will each have&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the Master's goods, and the description in the next parable of those goods being distributed between us in this life (<em><a href='B:470 24:47'>Mat 24:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:15'>Mat 25:15</a></em>). In the Kingdom we will no longer know partially, as a result of seeing parts of the whole picture; we will see face to face (<em><a href='B:530 13:9'>1Co 13:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em> Gk:).</p><p>In this life, the servant was ‘made ruler over’ [s:w:] the household, his job was to feed his fellow servants. If he is found so doing at the Lord’s return, he will be made ruler over literally all that his master owns, “all his goods” (AV) is literally ‘all that He has’. This is a profound insight into the nature of eternity. All that God has will be put under us. God has not subjected the world to come to the Angels but to us (<em><a href='B:650 2:5'>Heb 2:5</a></em>). This is because “all things” are to be put in subjection under the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 2:8'>Heb 2:8</a></em>), and all that is true of Him is true of us. But that being part of Him is dependent upon our serving of our brethren within the household. He is the householder, but we also are, because we are in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if that servant- </em>The parable of <em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>; Mat 2530 likewise features two types of servant; the “faithful” servant [s:w:], and the equivalent of this "servant” is the “wicked and lazy servant… the unprofitable servant” (<em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>, <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). That servant who did nothing is paralleled with the servant who proactively got drunk, thought his Lord delayed, and beat his brethren. Despite all that bad behaviour, the real issue was that he did nothing positive for his Lord. So often, the fellow servants are effectively beaten because of the sins of omission, inaction, refusal to stand up for the abused:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Shall say in his heart-</em> The Bible knows nothing of a personal, cosmic Satan. Rather the real adversary is presented as the human heart, and therefore a huge amount of attention is given to the state of the human heart and the significance of our self-talk. Nobody consciously says ‘The Lord is delaying, great, now I can drink and abuse my brethren’. But the Lord puts His finger on the self-talk that goes on in our deep subconscious, and He does so in the context of warning against having a specific date in mind for the second coming.</p><p><em>My lord delays his coming- </em>There is no turning to atheism or rebellion against the Lord, but rather the root cause of the misbehaviour is placed by the parable upon the man’s mentality that because he knows the date of his Lord’s coming, he can just ensure he’s behaving properly when He comes. And this is the purpose of the parable- to challenge that idea and explain why the date must be left unknown by us. This is the same idea as the foolish virgins not taking oil with them in the next parable. The idea is simply that the foolish take no oil because they are certain they know the day and hour of the bridegroom’s coming; whereas the wise recognize that they do not know the exact day and hour, and therefore act accordingly by taking more oil in case there is a delay. This is exactly the point being made in the Lord’s teaching at the end of Matthew 24. Those who are convinced they know the day and hour, for whom the idea of flexibility or delay in the Lord’s purpose is anathema, are in fact those who fall asleep and are caught unprepared.</p>&nbsp;<p>The Lord Jesus / bridegroom “tarries” (<em><a href='B:470 25:5'>Mat 25:5</a></em>), the same Greek word translated ‘delay’ in “my Lord delays His coming”. The Lord&nbsp;<em>does&nbsp;</em>delay His coming- the man’s mistake was in acting inappropriately because of this. God’s judgments likewise “waited”, or delayed, in Noah’s time (<em><a href='B:670 3:20'>1Pe 3:20</a></em>)- presumably for the 120 year period of <em><a href='B:10 6:3'>Gen 6:3</a></em>. In a similar way, the judgment on Nineveh preached by Jonah also delayed- it came in the end, but their repentance meant that it delayed at that time:&nbsp;In the first century, all things were ready for the Supper- supper time had come. But the start of the supper has been delayed 2000 years by Israel’s rejection of the invitation to participate (<em><a href='B:490 14:17'>Luk 14:17</a></em>). The evil servant misbehaved because he thought the Lord had delayed and therefore he could misbehave, so long as he got his act together at the time of the Lord’s coming. This parable is therefore an explanation of why we must recognize that we don’t know the date of the Lord’s return; if we do think we know it, then this will lead us into misbehaviour. Those with a determinate, black and white view of God and His prophetic style have often shown us the truth of this parable. They thought the Lord would return at a certain date, or once certain conditions had been fulfilled. These things happened, and the Lord didn’t come- and their behaviour went seriously downhill:&nbsp;</p><p>Moses' sprinkling of Israel with blood and then going away for forty days (the period of probation), returning after a perceived delay to a people lost in revelry with only a faithful minority, must point forward to our Lord's ascension to the Father's presence after the blood sprinkling of the cross, and His subsequent return. The Lord's words here suggest he read this incident along these lines: "That evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delays his coming (cp. "Where is the promise of his coming?" and the people feeling Moses had delayed to return); and shall begin to::. eat and drink with the drunken (cp. "the people sat down to eat and drink", <em><a href='B:530 10:7'>1Co 10:7</a></em>); the Lord of that servant shall come::. in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder"- recalling the Levite's sudden massacre of the people on Moses' return. If the return of Moses from the mount is indeed typical of the second coming, then it would follow that the majority of the new Israel will be unprepared at the Lord's return also.</p><p>"The Lord (Jesus) is not slack concerning his promise (to return- of <em><a href='B:500 14:3'>Joh 14:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:18'>Joh 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:28'>Joh 14:28</a></em>), as some men (in the ecclesia) count slackness", but is longsuffering (<em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>). The Greek for "slack" here means 'delay'; this is assurance that God is not 'delaying' as men dilly-dally in the execution of their plans, but is rather postponing this for a good reason. There’s an allusion here to <em><a href='B:290 30:17-19'>Isa 30:17-19</a></em>, which records how Israel would suffer for their sins, but then God would wait for a certain time until they cried to Him in repentance, before bringing about a time of blessing on the earth based around the Lord's presence in Jerusalem: "One thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one (Deuteronomy 28 language)::. until you are left as a tree bereft of branches (how Paul describes what happened to Israel in the first century, Romans 11)::. and therefore (i:e. because you are such sinners) will the Lord wait, that He may be gracious unto you, and therefore will He be exalted (through your repentance), that He may have mercy upon you: for the Lord is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for Him. For the people shall dwell in Zion at Jerusalem: you shall weep no more (the language of <em><a href='B:290 65:17-25'>Isa 65:17-25</a></em>, quoted in <em><a href='B:680 3:13'>2Pe 3:13</a></em>): He will be very gracious unto you at the voice of your cry (of repentance):&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;He shall hear it, He will answer you". Not only is God delaying the Kingdom until there is repentance in Israel, but such is His&nbsp;<em>mercy&nbsp;</em>that He will not bring it about until such repentance. His purpose should not be seen, therefore, just in terms of the cold equation 'Repentance in Israel= second coming', but the supreme&nbsp;<em>mercy</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>love&nbsp;</em>which this arrangement shows should be appreciated. "And&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;will He be exalted" Isaiah comments- by those who understand these things. <em><a href='B:520 11:32-36'>Rom 11:32-36</a></em> is a marvellous example of this.</p><p><em>And shall begin- </em>The idea is that only soon after he has begun his misbehaviour, the Lord comes. This highlights the point that because the man was sure that he knew the exact time of the Lord’s coming, and that time was not right now,&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;he did these bad things. The whole point of the parable is to explain&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;we do not and should not ever think we know the date of His coming. For it is this which is portrayed in the parable as the root reason why he begins beating the fellow servants and being self-indulgent, mixing with the unbelievers rather than the believers.</p><p><em>To beat the menservants and the maidservants- </em>Smiting the fellow servants is related to keeping other company- with the drunken. It could be that this parable is intended to have a specific latter day fulfilment, in that it speaks of the last few days or little while before the Lord’s return. For the evil servant has only just begun to beat, eat and drink, when his Lord comes. The ‘smiting’ might suggest that the evil servant joins in the persecution of the Lord’s servants which will be ongoing in that final period of tribulation:&nbsp;</p><p>The idea of the steward of the house smiting the fellow servant is referred to by Paul (in the Greek text) in <em><a href='B:530 8:12'>1Co 8:12</a></em>, concerning&nbsp;<em>wounding</em>&nbsp;the conscience of weak brethren. Paul's vision of the latter-day ecclesia was therefore that materialistic elders would act with no thought as to their effect on the consciences of the flock, and thereby many would stumble. The Lord’s only other reference to fellow servants is in <em><a href='B:470 18:28-33'>Mat 18:28-33</a></em>, where the deeply indebted servant ‘beat’ a fellow servant who owed him a relatively small amount. The beating of the fellow servants may therefore be intended to be understood in terms of refusing to forgive, and demanding what is due.</p><p><em>And to eat and drink and to be drunk</em>- His duty was to feed his fellow servants, but instead he became obsessed with feeding himself. The Lord spoke of ‘eating and drinking’ as characterizing Noah’s world- and also Lot’s world (<em><a href='B:490 17:28'>Luk 17:28</a></em>). There’s nothing wrong with any of the things Noah’s world were doing in themselves, but they were indulged in to the point of obsession. The man called to go in to the ark and care for those within it had instead gone outside into the world and engaged with them in their way of life. </p><p>The man himself becomes drunk; he is influenced by the company he now keeps. He is alluded to in <em><a href='B:590 5:3-7'>1Th 5:3-7</a></em>, where the picture is graphically created of a man who has been hard drinking for a whole evening, now at home stupefied, late at night. It is then that the thief comes; whilst dimly aware of his coming, the man is quite unprepared to meet him and keep his (spiritual) house intact. This will be the tragic position of those who through belief and practice are unready for their Lord. It seems that a materialistic eldership, uncommitted to the real needs of the household, indifferent to guarding the house, will contribute to our latter-day apostasy as a community. And note the correspondence between those who are harsh on their brethren being those who are also caught up in the things of the world. The drunken servant starts to beat the fellow servants, using a Greek word which means to punish. This creates the picture of a worldly ecclesial elder over-disciplining others, whilst himself being guilty of the same things. He is transferring his guilt onto others, and punishing them with the punishment he subconsciously knows he deserves. No wonder there will be so much friction and disunity amongst spiritual Israel of the last days.</p>


text:
<p><em>The master of that servant shall come in a day when he does not expect, and at an hour he does not know- </em>The implication is that the unfaithful servant should have ‘known’ and ‘been aware of’ his Lord’s coming. He should have lived every moment as if&nbsp;<em>this&nbsp;</em>were the day and hour of the Lord’s coming; even whilst recognizing that he does not finally know it. There is another possibility, discussed in a separate digression- and that is simply that the faithful in [literally] the very last few days&nbsp;<em>will&nbsp;</em>in fact know that the day and hour. The language of the Olivet prophecy brims with certainty as to the faithful&nbsp;<em>knowing</em>&nbsp;the time: "When you shall see these things come to pass,&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;that it is near::. you&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;that Summer is near:::&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;you shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;that the desolation thereof is near::. when you therefore shall&nbsp;<em>see</em>&nbsp;(same Greek translated "know") the abomination of desolation::. when you&nbsp;<em>see</em>&nbsp;(Gk. know, understand, perceive) all these things come to pass,&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp; that the Kingdom of God is near". The idea is that we will understand clearly certain signs, and know&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;that the Lord is imminent. This all seems in marked contrast to the Lord's conclusion to the prophecy: "of that day and that hour&nbsp;<em>knoweth</em>&nbsp;no man". There is a marked connection here with the fact that he has just been saying that it will be possible to know once the signs are seen and understood. Surely he must be talking specifically to the twelve;&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;didn't&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;know the time, neither could they; but those who saw the signs by implication&nbsp;<em>would</em>&nbsp;know. In the context of these words about them not&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;knowing the day and hour, the Lord said that the believer&nbsp;<em>at the time of his return</em>&nbsp;who didn't know the day and hour of his coming would be found unprepared (Mat 2450). This is surely proof enough that the last generation&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;in some way know the day and hour, i:e. the appointed time (cp. <em><a href='B:730 9:15'>Rev 9:15</a></em>), of the Lord's return. This point is a very powerful one.</p><p>This word&nbsp;<em>ginosko </em>is used of how the world of Noah’s day did not “know” until all too late (<em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>). We are to “know” the time (<em><a href='B:470 24:33'>Mat 24:33</a></em> “know that it is near”, “know this” <em><a href='B:490 21:31'>Luk 21:31</a></em>). And yet we cannot know the time in terms of a calendar date. Therefore we are to “know” the time in living according to the principle that the Lord&nbsp;<em>could&nbsp;</em>come imminently, at this very moment:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And shall cut him into pieces- </em>Gk. ‘to cut him in two’, literally ‘to dichotomize’. This unreal and severe punishment- to cut a slave in half as punishment- emphasizes the extreme nature of the wrongdoing. This may also allude to the idea of cutting a covenant. The parties to the covenant passed between the pieces of the covenant sacrifice and thereby proclaimed that they should be cut in two if they broke the covenant. These condemned persons, in this particular teaching, would therefore refer to those who had already entered covenant with God and are being judged for it. And the hint is that they broke that covenant because they preferred to be hypocrites, to look good in the eyes of men when their heart was somewhere else. The evil servant will be "cut asunder", i:e. his hypocrisy will be openly revealed for the first time (remember, he was an ecclesial elder in mortal life, according to the parable). There will be a public dimension to the judgment process, for the whole purpose of it is for the learning of those present at it, rather than for God’s benefit. What we have spoken in the Lord's ear will be revealed by him openly ("from the housetops") at the judgment (<em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em>). When the righteous receive their inheritance (i:e. at the judgment), then the fool will be held up to shame (<em><a href='B:240 3:35'>Pro 3:35</a></em> NIV).</p><p><em>And put him with the unbelievers</em>- The Lord will appoint (the wicked servant) his portion with the unbelievers, his portion with the hypocrites (<em><a href='B:470 24:51'>Mat 24:51</a></em>), reminiscent of a "goat" in the later parable&nbsp;being told to go to the group of goats at the left-hand side. They represent "the unbelievers", i:e. those responsible but lacking in real faith (the word is used concerning this group in <em><a href='B:500 20:27'>Joh 20:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:20'>Rom 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:12'>Heb 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:15'>Tit 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:8'>Rev 21:8</a></em>). The Lord’s self-indulgent servant will be cut asunder at judgment day- revealed for who he really is- and then be appointed his portion with the [other] hypocrites (<em><a href='B:470 24:41'>Mat 24:41</a></em>). The rejected servants, who appeared to believe but who only play-acted, are in fact unbelievers. They have as little faith as the unbelieving world, although they think they believe and serve the Lord. </p>


text:
<h4><em>And that servant, who knew his master's will and did not prepare or did not do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes</em>- Beating with stripes was a synagogue punishment. The Lord is developing the idea that He a new Israel is coming into being. "Prepare" is the same word used of John seeking to prepare the way for Messiah's coming in terms of getting people morally prepared (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>). Those who had heard John's message, been baptized and potentially prepared for the Lord's coming::. would be beaten much if they refused to respond further and instead rejected the Lord, as many of John's apparent converts did. "Prepared" is the same word just used in :20 of the rich fool 'preparing' for his wealth. The rich fool is therefore the servant who knew his master's will, but prepared for himself rather than for his Lord. Our efforts to 'prepare' for eternity are in step with the Lord's work through the Spirit to 'prepare' our places in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em> s:w:). We pray "Your will be done" (<em><a href='B:490 11:2'>Luk 11:2</a></em> s:w:) as a way of saying that we want the will of God, which is that we shall inherit our prepared place in eternity, to become our will; His preparation works therefore in tandem with our own. It is therefore a desire to 'do' the master's will which is a lead characteristic of those who shall be finally saved (<em><a href='B:500 7:17'>Joh 7:17</a></em>).</h4>


text:
<p><em>But he that did not know and did things worthy of stripes, he shall be beaten with few stripes- </em>We have here a clear statement of the principle that knowledge makes us responsible to judgment, being 'asked the more' at that day if we have been 'given much'. </p><p>"A fool's mouth is [will be] his destruction, and his mouth calleth for strokes [i:e. condemnation at the judgment, <em><a href='B:490 12:47-48'>Luk 12:47-48</a></em>]" (<em><a href='B:240 18:6'>Pro 18:6</a></em>). By our words we may be <em>shouting out for condemnation</em>. </p><p>We all commit sin worthy of "stripes". The word is only found elsewhere in the gospels in <em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>, of the wounding of the mansaved by the Samaritan. And that man is each of us. </p><p><em>And to whom much is given, of him shall much be required-</em> The judgment will 'require' of us a life lived in accordance with the knowledge of the Lord's will which we have been given. This is helpful to bear in mind when considering whether those who know less than we do are in fellowship with the Lord. Many of them are- it's just that we have been given more knowledge, and more shall be required of us:&nbsp; The same word is used of how the Father seeks or requires fruit from His trees (<em><a href='B:490 13:6'>Luk 13:6</a></em>); the more effort He has made with them, the more fruit is required. And that seeking of response from us is ongoing now in the Lord's relationship with us; He in this sense searches for us until He finds us (<em><a href='B:490 15:6'>Luk 15:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:23'>Joh 4:23</a></em> s:w:). </p><p><em>And to whom people commit much, of him will they ask the more</em>- Speaking of the principle of responsibility upon which our judgment will be conducted, the Lord hints at Angelic involvement in the judgment: "to whom men (our guardian angels?) have committed much, of him they will ask the more" (<em><a href='B:490 12:48'>Luk 12:48</a></em> AV). See on <em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em>. We who are literate, living in an age of mass ease and technology, we who have the benefit of hindsight in looking back upon the development of God's purpose with this earth::. have had much committed to us. And much is therefore required. </p>


text:
<p><em>I came to cast fire upon the earth, yet it is already kindled!</em>- The Lord wished that the fire He came to kindle had already been kindled. This may be an allusion to a common Latin saying at the time: <em>Nemo accendit nisi ipse ardet</em>, 'No one can kindle another unless he himself burns'. In this case Jesus is likening Himself to a fire which ignites others; and yet He so wished that someone else had earlier come and been Messiah. Some of the Messianic passages describe Him being amazed that there had been no man, and He Himself therefore dressed for action and did the Messianic duty. It is an essay in His humility that He should have held such a view. It also reflects how there had been previous opportunities for Messiah to come.</p><p>The Gehenna fire of condemnation of the wicked is "already kindled" by men's attitude now. The tree that will not bring forth good fruit "<em>is</em> hewn down, and cast into the fire" (<em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>)- alluding to the figure of Gehenna, into which the rejected will be 'thrown'. The ungodly <em>are</em> already like the chaff that will be blown away after the Lord's return (<em><a href='B:230 1:4-5'>Psa 1:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 35:5'>Psa 35:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 21:18-20'>Job 21:18-20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 5:24'>Isa 5:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 17:13'>Isa 17:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 29:5'>Isa 29:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 2:35'>Dan 2:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:17'>Luk 3:17</a></em>). Those who lose their first love are <em>now </em>condemned (<em><a href='B:610 3:6'>1Ti 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 5:12'>1Ti 5:12</a></em>). The Lord Jesus stands with the sword of judgment <em>now </em>going out of His mouth (<em><a href='B:730 1:16'>Rev 1:16</a></em>), as it will do at the final judgment (<em><a href='B:290 11:4'>Isa 11:4</a></em>).</p><p>The disciples had wanted to bring fire down as Elijah had done, to consume their opponents. The Lord replied that His spirit is different; they didn’t know His Spirit, without which, Paul says, “we are none of his”. And yet still He patiently bore with them. However, He also says that He has come to send fire on the earth at the last day- an evident reference to Elijah. We could read the Lord’s treatment of the disciples’ request as saying ‘The time to act like Elijah will come- but it’s not now’. Likewise His comment that He came to bring division rather than peace. Elijah was renowned as the prophet who would turn the fathers to the children and bring peace in the land (<em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>; <em>Sir_48:10</em>). The Lord may be saying: ‘You think, like some of the Jews, that I am a re-incarnation of John the Baptist, the Elijah prophet. I’m not. I’m the Messiah Himself. My spirit is different’. In that very context, the Lord stressed that He had a baptism to undergo, rather than to dispense to others as had John (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em>). Perhaps the immaturity of the disciples was so great that they, former disciples of John, somehow believed that Jesus had turned into a re-incarnation of John. In this case, they would have been caught up in the surrounding world’s view of Jesus- for there was much speculation that Jesus was John the Baptist <em>redivivus</em>. The way John in his gospel labours the point that John the Baptist “was not that light”, i:e. Messiah (<em><a href='B:500 1:8'>Joh 1:8</a></em>), perhaps is John’s recognition that finally, they got it right. You can imagine him preaching in those early days: ‘After John’s death we thought at times that Jesus was some sort of reincarnation of John. But Peter got it right, and now, I’m just making it clear also what the truth was. He wasn’t John the Baptist <em>redivivus</em> as so many thought. We were caught up a bit in that thinking; but we were wrong’.</p><p>The Lord Jesus spoke of how “I am come to send fire on earth [after the pattern of Elisha against apostate Israel]::. I am come to give:::division”. He parallels the fire of condemnation with division. And yet He says that this figurative fire is “already kindled”. If we are divided willingly, of our creation, then we stand self-condemned. This is how serious this matter is. I fear, really fear, that in the day of final account it may be that a brother or sister has lived separately from the world, believed all the right things, and yet his or her divisiveness means that they are condemned together with the immoral and the worldly. </p><p>The idea of fire from Heaven in <em><a href='B:490 12:49-54'>Luk 12:49-54</a></em> is associated by the Lord with division in the brotherhood. And the Lord went on to say that the Pharisees could interpret a cloud arising in the West as a sign that rain was coming, but they could not forgive their brethren, which was what was essential (<em><a href='B:490 12:54'>Luk 12:54</a></em>). This just has to be a reference to Elijah, who saw a cloud arising from the West as a sign of rain. The Lord is, it seems, sadly associating Elijah with the Pharisees. And yet::. despite all this,&nbsp;the Lord Jesus likens Himself to Elijah. He sent fire on earth as Elijah did (<em><a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a></em>). And the context of the <em><a href='B:490 9:54'>Luk 9:54</a></em> reference to Elijah is that the Lord’s time had come that he should be received up, and he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 9:51'>Luk 9:51</a></em>). This is all very much the language of Elijah (<em><a href='B:120 2:1'>2Ki 2:1</a></em>). And elsewhere Jesus quotes Elijah’s words “Your son lives” (<em><a href='B:110 17:23'>1Ki 17:23</a></em> = <em><a href='B:500 4:50-53'>Joh 4:50-53</a></em>). What this shows is that the Lord saw what was good in Elijah, and He didn’t separate Himself from someone who didn’t have His Spirit. He simply wanted His followers to learn better from him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and great is my distress until it be accomplished!</em>- These words almost seem to be the Lord speaking to Himself. The immediate context is of judgment to come, and the divisive effect the Lord's work will have upon relationships. But <em>His</em> focus was upon His upcoming death for the salvation of His people. This was what He sought above all to 'accomplish'. </p><p>The cross was to the Lord a baptism He was being baptized with, it was not only accomplished in His physical death; the process was ongoing. He saw His death as the baptism with which He must be baptized (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 6:3-4'>Rom 6:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:10-12'>Col 2:10-12</a></em>, His 'baptism-unto-death' Gk:); and yet He spoke of the baptism with which He was being baptized in an ongoing sense (<em><a href='B:470 20:22'>Mat 20:22</a></em>). The Lord's fear of death was, it seems to me, to a far greater extent than what even we experience- doubtless because He knew all that was tied up with <em>His</em> death and how much depended upon it. Hence His "distress" He spoke of how "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Do you think that I came to give peace in the earth? I tell you no, but rather division</em>- Peace on earth was a feature of the messianic Kingdom. The Lord is emphasizing that His Kingdom had not yet come. Until then, there would be division between the kingdom people and the others. To be unwillingly caught up in a divided house / family is not, therefore, a sin or a sign of our personal condemnation. There must be schisms amongst us, that they might make manifest who the faithful are, by their attitude to them. </p><p>The Lord surely has in mind what He had commanded in <em><a href='B:470 10:13'>Mat 10:13</a></em>, where He uses the same words to describe how the apostles were to let their&nbsp;<em>peace</em>&nbsp;<em>come</em>&nbsp;upon the households they entered- the peace of&nbsp;<em>shalom</em>&nbsp;with God, the salvation of Jesus. But that peace could return to them unclaimed, and the Lord's words here seem to imply that He is warning them that generally, their message of peace will not be accepted. </p><p>"Peace on the earth<em>" </em>is an allusion to the prophecies of peace in the Messianic Kingdom, and to the Angelic proclamation that there would be peace on earth through Christ (<em><a href='B:490 2:14'>Luk 2:14</a></em>). The disciples were prone to be influenced by Jewish expectations and hopes for an imminent Messianic Kingdom to be established. The Lord's point is therefore surely that they were not to preach a gospel of immediate peace on earth, but rather one to come in the future; He made the point later that He had come to <em>take</em> peace from the earth (<em><a href='B:730 6:4'>Rev 6:4</a></em>), but of course He offered&nbsp;<em>peace with God</em>&nbsp;through forgiveness and reconciliation which He would achieve through His life and death (<em><a href='B:580 1:20'>Col 1:20</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three</em>- Salvation, as Robert Roberts so frequently said, is an individual matter. It is not a collective affair. Compare two passages within the Lord’s teaching, which each use the same Greek words: “I am come to give… division. From henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three [i:e. sometimes they would be <em><a href='B:490 2:3'>Luk 2:3</a></em> and other times <em><a href='B:490 3:2'>Luk 3:2</a></em> - there would be a series of disagreements over various issues]::. a house divided against a house falls” (<em><a href='B:490 12:52'>Luk 12:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:52'>Luk 12:52</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 11:17'>Luk 11:17</a></em>). What are we to make of this? Every divided house or Kingdom will “fall”, i:e. be condemned at judgment day (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:12'>1Co 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em>). And yet Jesus inevitably divides ‘houses’. Surely the Lord is teaching that every Kingdom and family will fall, because it will be divided, and therefore the only hope of salvation is purely individual. This was radical thinking in first century Palestine, where the destiny of the extended family was held to be uniform; i:e:, you would end up in the last day wherever your extended family did. But the Lord is cutting through all this, and teaching that salvation is a personal matter. No single extended family will, as a unit, avoid being divided by the result of the judgment. The Lord’s teaching surely has some relevance to some Christian cultures which can likewise give the impression that large, well established Christian families will almost automatically all be saved.</p>


text:
<p><em>They shall be divided, father against son and son against father- </em>Division within families, especially between sons and fathers, was seen as far more awful than it is today. But the offer of Christ to be Lord, to be our head, is so compelling and colossal in implication that there can simply be no other option than division, at least emotionally and psychologically, between those members of a household who accept Him as Lord and head, and those who will not. The implications of what the Lord is teaching here outlaws any thought of marriage out of the faith; to consciously create a divided family from the start can only reflect a very low level of commitment to Him as Lord, Master and household head.</p><p><em>Mother against daughter and daughter against her mother. Mother in law against her daughter in law and daughter in law against her mother in law</em>- Why these specific examples? Perhaps the Lord envisaged the younger generation being more responsive than their elders. But maybe His point was that the younger members of an extended family were expected to obey the head of the household- and the good news of His Kingdom, His dominion over men and women, was that loyalty was no longer to be to the head of the family, but to Him. For He was offering men and women entrance into a new King-dom, where He was King and His dominion was accepted in the lives of those who accepted the Gospel of that Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to the crowds: Also, When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, Here comes a shower- and so it comes to pass</em>- Showers are figures for the Messianic blessings. They were to perceive that His coming was imminent. This is all in the context, before and after, of forgiving our brother and living at peace. A joint focus on living as if the Lord's coming is imminent, reading life's signs to mean that we are living on the brink of His coming::. this will enhance our relationship with our brother. For who, on their way to judgment day, is going to get into argument with his brother (:58):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And when you see a south wind blowing, you say, There will be a scorching heat- and it comes to pass</em>- As noted on :54, they were to interpret life as meaning that the Lord's return was imminent- and live with their brother accordingly (:58). The "scorching heat" is the language of condemnation. As they could discern that such heat was coming in the weather, so they ought to be able to have a sense of the reality of the two destinies before them: condemnation, or the showers of Messianic blessing (:54). And awareness of these things would affect how they lived with their brother and remove all divisions- which is the context.</p>


text:
<p><em>You hypocrites- </em>Hypocrisy may seem a strange charge to level at men who could read the weather but did not want to perceive the fact that there were definite outcomes to their lives, either showers of eternal blessing, or the scorching heat of condemnation. The charge of hypocrisy would seem to me to imply that they realized indeed who Jesus was, but were acting as if they didn’t. The Lord said as much in designing a later parable to have the Jews saying “This is the heir; come, let us kill Him” (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>). Another option is that their ability to read basic signs in the weather made them responsible to discerning who Christ was and their need to repent; and to not use our potential abilities is perhaps seen by the Lord as hypocrisy.</p><p><em>You know how to interpret the signs of the earth and the sky, but how is it you do not know how to interpret this time?</em>- The "time" can be seen as the whole work of Jesus, rather than specifically the signs of His coming again. The “sign[s]” which they sought for were in front of them at the time of their asking for them. They therefore cannot really refer to fulfilled latter day prophecies. The lesson is that as farmers and shepherds act accordingly as they interpret the weather, so we ought to respond to the reality of Christ, knowing that we stand before either eternal life or eternal death, very soon. </p>


text:
<p><em>And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?</em>- We are to have an abiding sense of the imminent coming of the Lord, and the two possible outcomes it brings for us (showers of eternal blessing, or scorching heat of condemnation). If we have this perception, then we will judge rightly "for" or "among" ourselves. There will be no division amongst us (:51), only urgent forgiveness (:58)- which is the only 'right judgment' we can make.</p><p>The Lord warned the Jews that they were not discerning the signs of their times as they ought to- i:e. they were not paying heed to the imminence of the day of the Lord which was to come in AD70, and neither were they perceiving that Israel's king was in fact amongst them. He went straight on to tell them a parable about the need to agree with our brother, because they were on their way to judgment. He links these two themes, of their not discerning the signs of the times and their disagreement with their brother, with the question as to why they cannot judge rightly. He seems to be saying that their discernment of the reality of His coming in judgment was to be connected with their discernment of the need for love and forgiveness of their brother. The same basic link is found in <em><a href='B:650 10:25'>Heb 10:25</a></em>, where we are exhorted to meet together and encourage one another "and so much the more, as you see the day approaching". See on <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Foras you are going with your adversary before the magistrate, on the way give diligence to be rid of him. Lest he drag you to the judge and the judge shall deliver you to the officer, and the officer shall throw you into prison</em></p><p>- See on :57 and <em><a href='B:490 6:47'>Luk 6:47</a></em>. There is an urgency here- related to the fact that very soon, relatively speaking, we shall stand before judgment day and face either eternal showers of blessing, or the eternal death symbolized by the "scorching heat". </p><p>The Christian life is likened to a man on his way to his judge along with his adversary; and evidently, he ought to settle his differences with his brother before he arrives, for this judge will be extremely hard upon those who cannot be reconciled to their brethren. This would suggest that the Lord foresaw that getting along with our brethren would be a major part in the development process of His people; and as they draw closer to the day of meeting with Him, the more urgent is the need to settle their disputes, as He will be unsympathetic towards them. The Lord prefaces this parable by appealing for His people to ‘judge righteously’ because His judgment is about to come (<em><a href='B:490 12:57'>Luk 12:57</a></em> Gk:). By forgiving our brother and reconciling with him, we are judging righteously; we are in essence deciding our own judgment which is to be revealed at the Lord’s return</p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>.</p><h4>The Lord taught that our focus upon Him and His return should affect how we feel about others, even our enemies. <em><a href='B:490 12:54-59'>Luk 12:54-59</a></em> continues a theme of living appropriately to a belief that we shall all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. The Lord pictures us as walking to meet our judge, along with our adversary. And His parable assumes that we will automatically be found in the wrong, the case will go against us; and so therefore we better make peace with our adversary and drop the case. We are walking towards the day of judgment, our meeting with our Judge. The bottom line is that we should not be walking to judgment day carrying with us a case against our brother. Drop it, whatever it is. At least, in our hearts. It's simply impossible to live at peace with all- Paul spoke from much personal experience of living at peace with others insomuch as it depends upon<em> us</em>: "If it be possible, as much as depends upon you, live peaceably with all men" (<em><a href='B:520 12:18'>Rom 12:18</a></em>). Again, this doesn't mean that abuse shouldn't be challenged and exposed. It should be. But we as sinners shouldn't be walking to judgment day carrying with us the weight of a case against our brother. </h4>


text:
<p><em>I say to you, you shall never get out, until you have paid the very last coin</em>- This could mean that the only reconciliation is in death, the last coin we have being our own life itself. This is the price for refusing to forgive and be reconciled. Whilst the Catholic idea of purgatory is incorrect, it could also be that judgment will be for our education; for it is for our benefit, not the Lord's, who already knows all things. And we can imagine those who have been unforgiving in this life learning the error of their ways, experiencing the dread prospect of condemnation before them, and then 'getting out' by grace. To live eternity in humbled awareness of grace, and how they ought to have been more forgiving in this brief life. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now there were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices</em>- We see here Pilate's apparently total lack of conscience, which fits with the picture we get of him from other historical sources. Yet the Gospels present him as a man of finely tuned conscience who wriggled terribly and felt awful about allowing the Lord's death. There is no contradiction. He was as history states; but encounter with the Lord in His time of dying is enough to soften the conscience of even a Pilate. We should never think that anyone is too far gone, or is utterly insensitive to our message of a crucified Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he answered and said to them: Do you think that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they have suffered these things?</em>- The Lord assumes here that all Galileans are sinners, but those Galileans might be supposed to be worse sinners. And yet the Lord was perceived and self-identified as a "Galilean". We have here an example of how the Lord identified with sinners and was within the 'sinner' category, without being a personal sinner.</p>


text:
<p><em>I tell you no, but unless you repent, you shall all in like manner perish</em>- He answers that <em>all</em> humanity are under danger of eternal judgment and they needed to start worrying about themselves rather than worrying about God's justice [or otherwise] with those Galileans. And the Lord follows this up with the parable of the unfruitful tree which by rights should be cut down, but He was urgently pleading for more time in order that it might bring forth fruit. In other words, the Lord's audience were to realize the intense urgency of <em>their</em> position rather than worrying about the justice of others' judgment. Their personal situation was <em>so</em> urgent, they really were to worry about bringing forth fruit, rather than being side-tracked by the issues connected with the suffering and possible judgment of <em>others</em>. It's not that these matters don't have importance; it was simply that those asking those questions of Jesus were in such a personally urgent position that they just had to get that right. And this seems to me most relevant to those who will not get personally themselves right with God because of their complaint about His justice with others. And Luke's record develops the theme yet further. In <em><a href='B:490 13:23'>Luk 13:23</a></em> we read of Him being asked the perennial question- why will only few be saved? His answer is simply to speak of the utter horror of personal rejection by the Lord Jesus at the day of judgment- knocking on the door, thinking this is your old friend's house, to be told "I never knew you". The idea is clearly to worry about the future which <em>we</em> may personally miss rather than debating the unsearchable issues of why, apparently, few will be saved. Same again with Peter's question as to whether the Lord's predictions of condemnation refer to the disciples or to the unbelieving world (<em><a href='B:490 12:41'>Luk 12:41</a></em>)- the Lord's response was simply to speak about the need to personally be always prepared for the Lord's coming. And so it is with us- don't worry about who may be condemned, worry about your own personal readiness and how you will respond in that split-second moment when we know for sure 'He's back!'. </p><p>"In like manner" may have had a literal element to it; for Josephus records how in AD70 the blood of the slain rain together with the blood of the sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p><em>Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them. Do you think that they were offenders above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem?</em>- Urgent response in view of coming judgment is a repeated theme in the teaching of Jesus. His servants are to wait in hourlyanticipation of His return (<em><a href='B:480 13:34-36'>Mar 13:34-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:36-38'>Luk 12:36-38</a></em>); the day of reckoning is even now at hand, all our guilt will be uncovered, and we should act now before it is too late (<em><a href='B:490 16:1-8'>Luk 16:1-8</a></em>). We are as a guilty man about to be hauled to court, whose only way out is to make peace with his offended brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:25-26'>Mat 5:25-26</a></em>). Unless we repent, a great tower is about to fall upon us. Jesus saw Divine judgment as something imminent, something which is essentially happening now, and therefore day by day we need to live accordingly. He insisted that any supposition that life will simply carry on as it is… was a fatal delusion. He piercingly dismantles our natural human assumption that life can be broadly maintained as it is or simply adapted a little. There is an urgent need to <em>change </em>and to keep on being <em>transformed </em>in the new life in Him. So the urgency of response is because the Lord is coming back soon, but also because He is right now our constant and insistent judge. Our generation particularly ought to have a sense of urgency. For I will go on record as saying that I do truly believe the Lord may very well come in our time. He is near, even at the doors. Written in our lives, as a neon sign in the black of our human lives, should be the simple reality: <em>Jesus Is Coming</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>I tell you no, but unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish</em>- In AD70, many were killed by falling masonry. But this is likely not the Lord's idea, for given the short lifespans of the time, those He was then speaking too largely died in their beds rather than in the calamities of AD70, some 37 years later. His point was that the common death of all men is no more nor less significant than the dramatic deaths of people in tragedies.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke this parable: A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit thereon and found none</em>- The element of unreality is that there was a fig tree amongst vines. It has been observed that this was never done, because the fig would take up too much of the ground water, the shade of the fig tree would stop anything else growing, and the fig would attract birds which would eat the grapes from the vines. But Israel were God's special enthusiasm and He did this. The idea is perhaps that this tree was the special project of the man. In Matthew 21, the Lord uses the unfruitful <em>fig</em> tree as a springboard for telling the parable of the vineyard. Israel were God's special concern and focus. His passion for them led to Him breaking His own principle, of not planting different seeds together (<em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:9'>Deu 21:9</a></em> "do not sow&nbsp;a field of yours with two different kinds of seeds"). Likewise, the Father likens Himself in the prophets to a man who has divorced His wife (Israel) and yet still wants her to come back to Him, even though that was an abomination to Him. Or the Lord telling the one talent man that he ought to have lent out the money for interest, when this was forbidden by the Law.</p><p>Or it could be that the Lord is using the fig tree as it was used in Judaism- a metaphor for the religious leaders, in whose shadow their students sat. We would have soon ran out of patience with them; but the Lord's strong desire was that even they should be saved. And some of them did repent and accept baptism after the Lord's resurrection. He set us an example of hoping against hope for response even from the most unlikely; and it paid off. </p>&nbsp;<p><em><a href='B:490 13:7'>Luk 13:7</a></em><em> And he said to the vinedresser- </em>Again the unreality is emphasized; a <em>vine</em>dresser is asked to pay special attention to a solitary<em> fig</em> tree. See on :6. </p><p><em>Behold, these three years I came seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?</em>- The allusion is to the Mosaic principle that such fruit was only clean after three years. After the three years of His ministry, during the Lord's final six months, God suggested to Him that the nation of Israel be cut down (this is but one example of the private intercourses between Father and Son). The Lord knew when He must die soon; He had already steadfastly set His face to go to die at Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 9:51'>Luk 9:51</a></em>). It seems to me that He knew He would be killed by the Jews in a few months’ time. But He asks the Father to spare Israel for at least another year- as if to show that He knew they wouldn't accept Him even after His death, but He's saying to God: 'Give them a chance even after they kill me'. Those who think further along the lines suggested by the parable will see that in reality, Israel were not cut down by God for another 37 years. The implication is that this was due to Christ's pleading with God during those&nbsp;years for patience to be shown to the nation who rejected and&nbsp;crucified Him. The element of unreality in the story reflects the grace of Jesus- for it was unthinkable for a servant to argue back with his master, asking not to do what he had been ordered to do. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he answering said to him: Master, leave it alone this year also, I shall dig about it and fertilize it</em>- We have here another element of unreality, in that fig trees needed little attention compared to vines. But there was a huge effort made to get fruit from this fig tree, as if it were an almost idiosyncratic obsession of the owner. This speaks of the deep, passionate level of concern that there should be fruit.</p><p>The relationship between servants and master in the parables is also at times somewhat unreal. It’s hard for us to imagine how slaves belonged to their masters and had to do their will and not their own. Yet in the parable of <em><a href='B:490 13:7-8'>Luk 13:7-8</a></em>, the servant is commanded by his master to cut down the fig tree. Not only does the servant take a lot of initiative in saying that no, he will dig around it and try desperately to get it to give fruit; but, he says, if even that fails, then <em>you</em>, the Master, will have to cut it down… when he, the servant, had been ordered to do it by his master! This servant [the Lord Jesus] obviously has a most unusual relationship with the Master. He suggests things on his own initiative, and even passes the job of cutting off Israel back to God, as if He would rather not do it. And it’s in a way the same with us. See on <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:22'>Luk 14:22</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord of His own volition asked the Father not to destroy Israel at the time He planned, but to give them longer to repent. This was exactly the spirit of Moses' pleas for Israel. But this is not the same as 'relaying' the words of human prayers to God. This is undoubtedly how many of us conceive of Christ's intercessory role for us; but is this actually what Scripture teaches? Many of the relevant Scriptures which speak of Christ's activity for us before the Lord God are not in this context; they suggest that He of Hisown will prays to the Father on our behalf concerning things which are on His agenda for us, not ours. If we confess Christ before men, i:e. reveal Him to them, He will confess us, reveal us favourably, in the court of Heaven, before the Father and the Angels (<em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>).</p><p>This parable could suggest that the Lord's attitude to Israel was even more patient than that of God Himself; yet because their feelings to Israel are identical, the implication is perhaps that the Son enables and thereby persuades the Father to be even more patient with us than He would naturally be!</p><p>So often, the parables [as well as the Lord's teaching generally] appear to be Him almost talking to Himself. The Lord spoke of how it was His Father's plan to cut down the Jewish fig tree; but He asked His Father if it could remain for another year, until He had dug around it and spread dung by it (<em><a href='B:490 13:8'>Luk 13:8</a></em>)- and <em>then</em> it could be destroyed, if there was still no fruit. The Lord Jesus was thinking here of His crucifixion- for this was the reason for the final cutting down of the Jewish fig tree. To dig was the work of a slave- recall how the disgraced steward felt ashamed to dig (<em><a href='B:490 16:3'>Luk 16:3</a></em>). And to spread dung was the work of the very lowest slave. And yet this was how the Lord foresaw His death- becoming as the lowest slave. Yet His hope in doing this was that Israel would bear spiritual fruit. This, then, is to be the motivational effect upon us of meditating upon the Lord's ultimate servanthood in His death- spiritual fruit in <em>our</em> lives just <em>has</em> to be elicited by it, lest we too will be cut down.</p><p>He sent His servants the prophets to find the fruit- but they were beaten and murdered. He finally sent His Son, reasoning that "<em>surely </em>they will reverence my son" (<em><a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a></em>). But they murdered Him. I have suggested elsewhere that this language can only suggest that God in some sense limited His omniscience and omnipotence in order to fully enter into our dimensions; and hence His experience of dashed hope and deep disappointment. Amazing as the Father's hopefulness was, His Son's was even greater. This Father who had had all this experience of simply not getting any fruit, asked His vinedresser (the Lord Jesus) to cut down the tree of Israel, as for the three years of Christ's ministry He had sought fruit from them and not found any; and further, this tree was 'cumbering the ground', taking away nutrients which He could have given to another (Gentile) tree. But His servant argues back with Him; the servant asks to be allowed to dig and dung around the tree; and then, he says, '<em>You </em>can cut it down, although you asked <em>me</em> to do this job'. This was quite unusual for a servant to talk like this; but it's an insight into the way the Lord Jesus was even more hopeful than His longsuffering Father. The Lord was prepared to dig around the tree- and digging was the lowest, most shameful occupation (<em><a href='B:490 16:3'>Luk 16:3</a></em>). Further, He would shovel dung, making Him unclean and despised of men. He <em>so</em> wanted fruit on Israel. This describes the intense effort of the Lord Jesus during the last six months of His ministry. His attitude was summarized when shortly before He died, He came hungry to a fig tree, expecting to find just the immature beginnings of fruit there, which He would gladly have eaten. But that particular tree had nothing on it. His deep hunger and willingness to eat anything reflected His willingness to find some spirituality from Israel. But He "found none", just as there was "not found" any of those Jews He healed who would glorify God (<em><a href='B:490 17:18'>Luk 17:18</a></em> s:w. <em><a href='B:490 13:6'>Luk 13:6</a></em>). This longsuffering, patient, passionate desire for spiritual fruit in the Lord Jesus is presented as being even stronger than it was in His Father. No wonder John the Baptist misunderstood the extent of Christ's grace- he proclaimed that Jesus already had the axe aimed at the bottom of the trees (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:9'>Luk 3:9</a></em>), and was about to fell them. The situation truly demanded this- but actually the Lord Jesus waited three years for fruit, and when it didn't come, even then He pleaded with the Father not to fell the tree but let Him dig and dung it::. We must factor all this into our understanding of <em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>, where the Lord apparently in a bland, matter-of-fact manner teaches that the tree that doesn't bear good fruit will be hewn down and burnt. This burning is ultimately at the judgment day; but all our lives He is earnestly seeking to develop spiritual fruit upon us; as in the parable of the sower, only those who produce totally nothing will be rejected. Of course our fruit must be the fruit that abides- the changes in personality which are permanent, the converts who remain, the forgiveness which is maintained on a felt level, the generosity never later regretted::. But if there's even something of this, then it seems this is what the Lord is so eagerly seeking. Earlier, Israel were the vine and the Lord Jesus the vinedresser (<em><a href='B:490 13:7'>Luk 13:7</a></em>). But now <em>we</em> are the vine, and God Himself the vinedresser (<em><a href='B:500 15:1'>Joh 15:1</a></em>). We are in good hands; and the Father and Son who through Biblical history showed themselves so sensitive to spiritual fruit are the very same ones who will meet us in the last day. </p>


text:
<p>In the parable of <em><a href='B:490 13:8-9'>Luk 13:8-9</a></em>, the Lord portrays Himself as even reasoning with God, who had decreed the Jewish tree be cut down in the third year of His ministry. He as it were persuades God to allow His efforts to continue for another six months, in desperate hope against hope that there would be some fruit of repentance. We, to a man and to a woman, would have given up on Israel, and would have somehow been gratified that the Father wanted to treat them like this. I would have turned to the Gentiles a long time before the Lord and Paul did.</p><p><em>Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you shall cut it down</em>- Here we have another insight into the open-ended nature of God's purpose. His intention was to bring an end to the fig tree, either Israel or the Jewish leadership represented by the fig tree; but His Son argued for more time, and He agreed. The amazing extent and power of the Lord Jesus is further brought out in the story of the worker in the vineyard who can almost direct His boss- the Father- not to cut down the barren fig tree of Israel until it has more chance to bear spiritual fruit- “if not,<em> you</em> shall cut it down”. Speaking to crowds of day labourers and farm workers, this would have struck them as strange- that this worker had such power over his boss. See on <em><a href='B:490 11:21'>Luk 11:21</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath day</em>- This "teaching" would have been in the period when comments were invited; He was not a synagogue rabbi with His own local congregation. His continued teaching effort is an exemplification of His continuing work with the fig tree (:8).</p>


text:
<h4><em>And a woman was there who had had a disabling spirit for eighteen years; she was bent over and could in no way straighten herself</em>- Bullinger has some interesting comments upon the woman with an unclean “spirit of infirmity” (<em><a href='B:490 13:11'>Luk 13:11</a></em>) that resulted in her being unable to lift herself up straight. “The negative is <em>me</em>, not <em>ou</em>; and is therefore subjective. She <em>felt as if </em>she could not do so… it appears, therefore, to have been a <em>nervous disorder</em>; and had to do with her <em>pneuma</em>” or mind. And yet she is described as having been ‘bound by Satan’. The ‘Satan’ or adversary to her standing upright was her own mindset. And it was this spirit or mindset “of infirmity” from which the Lord released her. Here we clearly see the connection between ‘spirits’ and mental disorder or dysfunction; for ‘spirit’ in Scripture so often refers to the psychological mindset of a person. </h4><p>The description of the woman has several links with the time of the Judges; there were two periods of 18 year domination (<em><a href='B:70 3:14'>Jdg 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 10:18'>Jdg 10:18</a></em>), and they were likewise stooping in affliction and unable to stand up in their own strength because of the power of their oppressors. She was a "daughter of Abraham" (:16), representative of Israel. All the judges / saviours of Israel pointed forward to the Lord as Israel's 'Jesus', Yah's salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Jesus saw her, he called her and said to her: Woman, you are free from your infirmity</em>- "Free" is literally 'let loose', and is also used of forgiveness. So often, the Lord's healings were acted parables of freedom from sin. She was 'freed' before the Lord laid His hands upon her. The two stages in the healing were perhaps to give her a chance to respond to His calling of her and then to believe in His promise of freedom / release. When she responded positively, then the potential was unleashed by His touch (:13). The same process is seen in His work with people today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he laid his hands upon her, and immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God</em>- Again we note the Lord's usage of physical touch. This touch was technically unnecessary; in that He had just stated that she was freed from her weakness by His word alone (:12). But He wished to demonstrate His total identity with human weakness, which is one reason why He was baptized. This healing happened as the Lord was teaching in the synagogue (:10), so presumably He called the woman out of the audience to be cured. He presented the healing as an acted parable of the power of His word in human life.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the ruler of the synagogue, being moved with indignation because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, answered and said to the crowd- </em>This anger was at the same time as the woman glorified God, presumably in words of genuine praise (:13). The Lord had healed the woman during the synagogue service as He was teaching, in order to demonstrate and exemplify the real power of His word. The synagogue ruler had never been able to do anything like it. The anger was therefore rooted in jealousy. The words and teaching of that man were nothing like those of the Lord. And so jealousy led him to latch on to the Lord's technical infringement of rabbinic law. </p><p><em>There are six days in which men ought to work. In them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day</em>- The Sabbath was a day of "rest". The Hebrew word for "rest" means not only a cessation of labour, but literally a sending away, a departing; and it is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word used in :12 for how the woman had been set free, sent away, released from her burdens (:15). The Lord had in fact fulfilled the spirit of the Sabbath by this healing. The synagogue ruler either capitulated to the glorious Spirit being revealed in all this; or turned away into the anger and bitterness of legalism. And religious people today face the same choice when they encounter the gracious action of the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the Lord answered them and said: You hypocrites! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath release his ox or his ass from the stall and lead him away for watering?</em>- The Lord described His healing of her as losing her from a bond in order to lead her away to the water of life- this is the very cameo of all the redeemed in <em><a href='B:730 7:17'>Rev 7:17</a></em>. "Release" is similar in meaning to the Hebrew word for "rest". The Lord had not only released or 'sabbathed' this woman, but was leading her away to the water of the Spirit filled life. </p>


text:
<p> that many of the diseases the Lord cured had a psychological basis to them; His healing of minds was reflected in the healing of bodies from conditions which had been brought about psychologically. Just as He "loosed" the woman from her illness, so He "loosed" sinners from the burden of their sin [the same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em> in this connection, and is twice translated "to forgive" in <em><a href='B:490 6:37'>Luk 6:37</a></em>]. It may've been that it was her sense of unforgiven sin which was the actual psychosomatic cause of her strange physical condition. The woman's physical condition- being chronically bowed down- may well have been her body reflecting how her mind felt, bowed down by the heavy burdens the Jewish leaders placed upon her. And of course the Lord uses that very figure in describing the weight placed upon Jewish people by the teachers of Judaism (<em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em> - "They bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders; but they will not move them with their finger"). The context of the miracle is that the Jews loosed their tied up animals on the Sabbath, and Jesus reasoned that He likewise could loose His sheep who had been bound or tied up by Satan. But who tied up the animals whom the Jewish leadership loosed? They themselves bound / tied them and loosed them. Jesus says that He looses / unties those whom Satan has tied up. He thus draws a parallel between the Jewish leadership and Satan, the adversary to His work. The unloosing was performed on the Sabbath- the very day whose Mosaic regulations the Jews had abused to burden people. Significantly, <em><a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a></em> uses the same word translated "loose" to describe how Jesus was accused of 'breaking' or 'unloosing' the Sabbath. He did not come to destroy the Law of Moses itself during His lifetime, but to teach Israel that the Jewish additional laws were to be unloosed. The same Greek word is used in other contexts of how Jesus through His death unloosed ['took down'] the wall of partition which excluded Gentiles (<em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>). </p><p>Without doubt there is a word play going on: "And ought [<em>dei </em>- must] not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham whom Satan had bound [<em>deo </em>- a form of <em>dei</em>, literally, 'must-ed'] for eighteen years, to have been freed from this bond [<em>deis-mon</em>, another form of <em>dei</em>, this 'must-ing'] on the Sabbath day?". Who was it who had taught the woman 'You must this, that and the other; you must not this or that'? Was it Satan in the sense of a personal, cosmic being? Was it surely not the Jewish system who were 'must-ing' people? They, therefore, were the adversary in this context.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he said these things, all his adversaries were put to shame, and all the crowd rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him</em>- "Adversaries" suggests the Jewish opposition were His 'satan' or 'adversary'; see on :16. The synagogue ruler was not alone in being jealous. Shame was a huge issue in first century Palestinian society. We can assume that those who were shamed went away to scheme how they could destroy the Lord. The tension is clearly brought out between "the crowd" and the religious leaders. This was only six months before the Lord's death (:7). Yet this fickle "crowd" were to be so easily manipulated by the religious leaders to scream for the Lord's crucifixion. We see here how limited is the power of miracle to achieve abiding conviction in human hearts, and this explains why the Lord used miracles so sparingly compared to what He was capable of. </p>


text:
<p><em>He replied: To what is the kingdom of God like? And unto what shall I liken it?</em>- Perhaps we are to sense here the struggle to compress the wonder of God's Kingdom into any parable or simile. The small seed of the Gospel of the Kingdom can produce a mighty tree in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 13:18-19'>Luk 13:18-19</a></em>). It is easy to under-estimate the power of that seed- the Lord's parable seems to be making that point. I would seriously suggest that <em>all</em> of us ought to regularly study the basic doctrines of our One Faith for ourselves, personally. The writer told the Hebrews that he would have to lay<em> again</em> the foundation teachings of the Gospel, in order to renew them <em>again</em> unto repentance (<em><a href='B:650 6:1-4'>Heb 6:1-4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:490 6:47'>Luk 6:47</a></em>.</p><p><em>It is like a grain- </em></p><p>Gk. 'a kernel'. The element of unreality is that a man would not consciously sow one tiny seed in a garden. But the Lord does this, knowing the potential power within that one tiny seed. He 'takes' this&nbsp;one tiny seed [in his palm, we are to imagine] out into the garden and sows it. And the mustard bush was perceived as a weed, a wild bush, not a crop. But it grows into a tree, it grows far greater and more majestically than could ever be expected. Here again is the Lord's encouragement to His disillusioned preachers- the growth of the Gospel, rather like the unreal increase on the good ground, is out of all proportion to what it initially is. Preaching appears 'foolish' (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:21'>1Co 1:21</a></em>); that by sharing the Gospel with others, the vast majority of whom ultimately reject it, something so wonderful and eternal can really come. This parable thereby highlights the faith of the Father and Son, the sowers, that the word of the Kingdom really would survive and grow out of all proportion to its beginnings. This was exactly the encouragement which the disciples needed to hear, disillusioned as they were by the pathetic response to John’s ministry and the Lord’s real spiritual demands upon people.</p><p><em>Of mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden- </em>But mustard trees aren't&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;big. Surely the point is that the small seed of the Gospel produces a quite out of proportion result- by reading literature, spotting a press advertisement, getting baptized::. we will by grace become part of the Kingdom of God, and provide shelter to the nations of this world. This is the extraordinary power of the Gospel. This is how far it will take us and the extent to which we can, through the Gospel, become saviours of men. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:33'>Mat 13:33</a></em>. Each of the records of the great preaching commission in the Gospels ties in with earlier passages within the same Gospel record. Mark’s “preach the gospel to every creature” is to be understood in the context of the Lord’s prophecy that the seed of His Gospel would be sown by preaching, and would result in creatures&nbsp;of all kinds coming under its’ shadow (<em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 4:32'>Luk 4:32</a></em>). The extent of witness we make is our choice; and according to how well we do it, so the extent of the shadow of the Kingdom gives shelter to many kinds:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And it grew and became a tree- </em>The tiniest seed was only supposed to grow into a bush, but this unusual seed ‘became’ a tree,&nbsp;<em>ginomai</em>&nbsp;carrying the sense of being ‘caused to become’. This was another element of the unreal- a shrub became a tree. The emphasis is on the word “it”- when&nbsp;<em>this&nbsp;</em>particular tiny seed grows… The point is that this particular tiny seed had extraordinary growth. This on one hand speaks of the amazing growth experienced by the believer from the apparently tiny beginnings of the Gospel. The entire parable may refer to the Lord Jesus, the ultimate seed, tiny and despised, yet who grew to become the Kingdom of God under whose branches the Gentile world would find blessing. For 'the Kingdom' was a legitimate title for Jesus, the King of the Kingdom who embodied it in His very person (<em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>). If here the Lord (as elsewhere) is speaking parables to and about Himself, it would in this context be in encouraging others as to the huge extent of growth possible. For Jesus is the parade example of how something which began so small- an egg within the womb of a barefoot unmarried teenager- could become so great.</p><p><em>And the birds of the sky lodged in the branches of it</em>- A mustard bush doesn't have 'great' branches, but in this unreal story, it does have them. According to the Lord's parable of <em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>, the branches represented the disciples: "I am the vine, you are the branches". The total greatness of the Lord Jesus depends to some extent upon the degree to which we grow into great branches. The disciples were depressed at the lack of response to their message, and the failure of John's ministry in first century Palestine. The Lord is encouraging them personally that from their&nbsp;<em>mikro</em>, tiny beginnings, they would become great branches, and be able to provide shelter for the birds of the Gentiles; although the "birds" in the earlier parable of the sower were representative of the Jewish religious leaders. When the disciples later baptized priests and Pharisees, the Lord's ambitious vision began to come true.</p><p>There are a number of insights throughout the parables into how the Lord perceived His future Kingdom. Significantly, His emphasis in the parables of the Kingdom is upon our spiritual status then, rather than on the physical wonders which His reign will bring on the earth. He&nbsp;foresaw how although our faith is so puny now, as a mustard seed, we will be those who will be as a solid tree, a real place of refuge, to the nations of the Millennium (<em><a href='B:470 13:31-32'>Mat 13:31-32</a></em> = <em><a href='B:330 17:23-24'>Eze 17:23-24</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>The parables reveal how the Lord was so sensitive to us. He realized that his audience thought in pictures; and so He turned concepts and ideas into imaginable pictures in a truly masterful way. He wanted to radically change people; and He realized that the way to do this was not by a catechism, not by pages or hours of intellectual, abstract droning, but by helping them to relate real, imaginable life to the things of His Kingdom. Truly did W:H. Auden reflect: "You cannot tell people what to do, you can only tell them parables; and that is what art really is, particular stories of particular people and experiences". The way the Lord Jesus constructed and taught His parables was indeed an art form, of exquisite beauty. He took ordinary, homely stories and introduced into them the elements of unreality which we will explore in this study. By being so normal, He created the possibility of participation in the minds of His hearers; because they could relate to the very normalcy of the stories. And so when the unreal elements are perceived- e:g. the mustard seed becomes not just a bush but a huge tree- there is an element of surprise and joy. Out of, and indeed right within, the most ordinary things of life, there await for the believer the surprise and joy of&nbsp;’the Gospel of the Kingdom' intersecting with their ordinary lives:&nbsp; </p><p>The Lord Jesus was highly sensitive to the gender division. He did not just ignore it. The parable of the mustard seed which a man planted is followed by that of the leaven which a woman hid in the meal (<em><a href='B:490 13:18-21'>Luk 13:18-21</a></em>). Likewise in <em><a href='B:490 15:3-10'>Luk 15:3-10</a></em> Jesus speaks firstly of the joy of a man finding a lost sheep, and then of the joy of a woman on finding a lost dowry coin. He spoke of the lilies of the field which do not physically exert themselves in labour, as men must do, but also who do not spin (women’s work). Christ spoke of the second coming as finding two men in the field and two women grinding at the mill. This parallelism of attention between men and women can be profitably followed through the Gospel records: <em><a href='B:490 8:14-15'>Luk 8:14-15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 8:16-17'>Luk 8:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:5-8'>Luk 11:5-8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 18:1-8'>Luk 18:1-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:24-27'>Luk 4:24-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:43-51'>Mat 24:43-51</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 25:1-13'>Mat 25:1-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:40-41'>Mat 24:40-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:31-33'>Mat 13:31-33</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 13:18-21'>Luk 13:18-21</a></em>. This approach contrasts sharply with the male-centred teaching approach of the contemporary rabbis and other religious leaders. Thus His parables were consciously designed to appeal to both men and women. Luke particularly seems to rejoice in observing how the Lord treated men and women in parallel. Both Martha and the male ruler lack one thing (<em><a href='B:490 10:41-42'>Luk 10:41-42</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 18:22'>Luk 18:22</a></em>); there are two parables on answered prayer for men and women (<em><a href='B:490 11:5-8'>Luk 11:5-8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 18:1-8'>Luk 18:1-8</a></em>); the men of Nineveh and the queen of the South are paired (<em><a href='B:490 11:29-32'>Luk 11:29-32</a></em>); justice is for both male and female servants (<em><a href='B:490 12:45-46'>Luk 12:45-46</a></em>); both men and women would be divided (<em><a href='B:490 12:51-53'>Luk 12:51-53</a></em>); a woman and a man are both healed on the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:490 13:10-16'>Luk 13:10-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:1-6'>Luk 14:1-6</a></em>); a ‘daughter of Abraham’ and a ‘son of Abraham’ are healed (<em><a href='B:490 13:16'>Luk 13:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:9'>Luk 19:9</a></em>); the woman loses a coin, a man loses a sheep (<em><a href='B:490 15:4-10'>Luk 15:4-10</a></em>). Indeed, a profitable study could be made of how the Old Testament prophets liken God to both male and female figures in tandem- e:g. “The Lord goes forth as a mighty man… I will cry out like a woman in travail” (<em><a href='B:290 42:13-14'>Isa 42:13-14</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And again he said: Unto what shall I liken the kingdom of God?</em>- As noted on :18, perhaps we are to sense here the struggle to compress the wonder of God's Kingdom into any parable or simile. </p>


text:
<p><em>It is like the yeast which a woman took- </em>The good news of God's Kingdom, in both present and future aspects, is like yeast which works away <em>from the inside</em> of a man and <em>inevitably, by its very nature</em> makes a fundamental change. Because whoever really believes the doctrines of the One Faith and lives the life which they naturally bring forth, really will be saved. Therefore we will have a sense of true unity with our brethren who believe as we do, whatever human barriers there may be between us. Therefore "the Faith" is linked with unity between believers (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:27'>Phi 1:27</a></em>). </p><h4>This continues the theme of the preceding parable; which was about a&nbsp;<em>man</em>, and now He tells a similar story balanced out with a&nbsp;<em>woman</em>&nbsp;as the central figure. Again the point is that from tiny beginnings, great influence comes. And as a note in how to perform Biblical exegesis, we&nbsp;should learn here that because yeast is used negatively in some Bible passages, it doesn't&nbsp;<em>always</em>&nbsp;have to require that meaning. The Gospel which we preach is likened to yeast- in itself a startling comparison- because it is through our humanity that we will influence others, by being our real, human selves. Yet the woman mixing yeast is preparing a huge amount of bread, according to the specifications in <em><a href='B:470 13:33'>Mat 13:33</a></em>. This is perhaps to show us that whilst our influence may be quiet and unseen, the quietest witness can have a huge influence. W:D. Davies quotes Pliny and the Mishnah, giving examples of the use of yeast as a&nbsp;<em>positive</em>&nbsp;symbol (W:D:Davies,&nbsp;<em>Matthew</em> p. 422).</h4><p><em>And hid- </em>The teaching of Jesus works quietly from within- that could be the sense. Just as the tiny seed of the Gospel produces huge results finally, so the yeast of the Gospel has disproportionate influence. But we must give full weight to the Lord's other teachings about hiddenness. We are to become a city set on a hill which&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;be hid (<em><a href='B:470 5:14'>Mat 5:14</a></em>; our good works "cannot be hid", <em><a href='B:610 5:25'>1Ti 5:25</a></em>); it is the rejected who hide the talent of the Gospel so that nobody sees it (<em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>). Ultimately, the yeast hidden within us at the time of sowing the seed, at the time the yeast is first inserted into the dough, will become public. In the wider context of this section, the Lord is explaining to the disciples the tragedy of how the seed or yeast first sown by John the Baptist has not achieved its intended result- because people were still hiding it, as Joseph and Nicodemus did (<em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em> s:w:- Joseph was a 'secret' or 'hidden' disciple). And we find the same word just two verses later in <em><a href='B:470 13:35'>Mat 13:35</a></em> - the Lord was now speaking forth publicly things which had been 'hidden' (AV "kept secret") in the Old Testament period. The treasure was "hid" in the field of the world, but the Lord Jesus gave all that He had so that He could redeem / buy the world, the field, and bring the hidden treasure to light (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>). Perhaps we could say that the yeast was only hidden to those who did not have eyes to see; for that has been the context of the Lord's teaching here (see on <em><a href='B:490 13:10'>Luk 13:10</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>In three measures of flour, until it was all raised</em>- Until the flour was completely influenced. The hint could be that when the Gospel, the yeast, has done its complete work and the flour is finally completely leavened into a loaf- then the Lord will come. His work then will be complete. The calendar date of the Lord's return is therefore 'open' to some extent, just as the harvest is reaped only when the fruit (of the Spirit) has been brought forth.</p><p>It's tempting to see some connection with Paul's warning that false teachers must be removed from the church, because a little yeast leavens the whole lump (<em><a href='B:530 5:6'>1Co 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:9'>Gal 5:9</a></em>). It could be that he is simply using the figure of yeast in a different sense. But his frequent allusions to the Gospels make us wonder whether he is consciously alluding to the Lord's teaching here. It could be that he is saying 'Get rid of the&nbsp;<em>old</em>&nbsp;yeast, the yeast of false teaching and associated unspirituality- and instead, be influenced by the&nbsp;<em>true</em>&nbsp;yeast, of Christ's teachings rather than the yeast of&nbsp;<em>false</em>&nbsp;teaching'.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he went on his way through cities and villages, teaching and journeying on to Jerusalem</em>- This was His final appeal to them. For at this point He was in the last six months of His ministry (:7). </p>


text:
<p><em>And one said to him: Lord, are they few that are saved? And he said to them</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 13:1'>Luk 13:1</a></em>. This question about the ultimate justice of God in saving only some has reverberated throughout the centuries. The Lord gives no direct answer, but instead urges us to strive to enter in to salvation ourselves (:24); as if these kind of philosophical questions are likely to derail us from ourselves entering salvation. The existence of such unanswered questions is purposeful in how God has set up our entire spiritual and mental existence. They are to humble us, and to lead us deeper in clinging on to faith and love of God by our faith rather than by our intellectual understanding. Clarity of understanding such questions would not lead to faith- or else the Lord would have given the answers. But He did not. The next verse goes on to note that there will be many who wish to enter the Kingdom, but all too late- for in this life they didn't want to. This provides helpful perspective to the question of why few shall be saved. One angle on it is that actually the majority don't want to be saved, and would not want to be saved even if they were given the opportunity or knowledge. And instead of accusing God of injustice, we should ensure we are not amongst them.</p>


text:
<p><em>Strive to enter in-</em> The idea of <em>striving</em> to enter the Kingdom, the need for such agonizing effort, meant an awful lot to Paul (<em><a href='B:530 9:25'>1Co 9:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:29'>Col 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 6:12'>1Ti 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:7'>2Ti 4:7</a></em>). It's fashionable these days to focus upon the certainty of our redemption in Christ and to ignore the warnings about apostasy. In Paul we see a brother who brought these two strands together; because his mind was so Christ and Gospels-centred. He personalized those Gospels, he must have kept thinking to himself&nbsp;’Now this applies to <em>me</em>::. it really does:::'. What a brother. What an active mind, a mind which he knew had Christ living in it. The Lord answers the question “Are there few that be saved?” by insisting that we personally strive to enter by the narrow door (<em><a href='B:490 13:23-24'>Luk 13:23-24</a></em>).</p><p>Those who "are first" in their own eyes, those who think for sure they will be in the Kingdom, will seek to enter the Kingdom at the day of judgment, but be unable. Those who strive to enter the Kingdom <em>now</em> are “last" in their own spiritual assessment; and the first will be made last in the sense that they won't be in the Kingdom:&nbsp; Thus when those who will enter the Kingdom are described as thinking of themselves as "last", this must mean that they think of themselves now as being unworthy of the Kingdom, but as "striving" to be there now, in their minds (<em><a href='B:490 13:23-24'>Luk 13:23-24</a></em>). The likes of Samson died with a confession of unworthiness on their lips- in his case, that he deserved to die the death of a Philistine (<em><a href='B:70 16:30'>Jdg 16:30</a></em>)- but he will actually be in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a></em>). </p><p><em>By the narrow door. For I say to you, many shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able</em>- "Door" here means specifically an entry to a house, not a gate. Entry to the Kingdom is entry to a household, a family, a home. Salvation is not to be enjoyed only by us on an individual level; rather is it about membership of the saved community. And we begin that experience now. The picture of many people striving unsuccessfully to enter in through a door recalls the picture of the Sodomites seeking to find the door of Lot's house and being smitten down in condemnation (<em><a href='B:10 19:11'>Gen 19:11</a></em>). Those men represent those who outside a shut door shall be condemned at the Lord's return. So it's not at all that some want to find the way in this life, but can't. Those who wish to find it can find it. The picture here is rather of condemnation at the last day. </p><p><em>“Many</em>" of those who call Christ their Lord and who regularly break bread in his presence, where two or three others are gathered believing they are in his name, will find they are rejected, <em>and they just won't be able to understand why on earth they were rejected</em> (<em><a href='B:490 13:24-27'>Luk 13:24-27</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a></em>). Anyone who thinks the majority of believers must surely make it through to salvation needs to think again. Please God, we will- but "many" (the Greek can mean, but not always, 'the majority') will be in for this inexplicable (to them) rejection, when they were sure they'd lived a good Christian life. Those with spiritual problems are prone to reason that when judgment day comes, they will be able to just shrug their shoulders and walk away from their Lord to eventual death. However, there is every reason to think that the rejected will come to their spiritual senses then, and plead to be allowed to enter the Kingdom. Many will seek to enter into the Kingdom at the judgment but will not be able; and so we should strive now to enter into it. The implication is that if we strive to enter in now, we will enter in then. Everyone will so earnestly seek to enter the Kingdom in the last day, and the urgency of that coming day should be ours today. Ezekiel's prophecies so often make the point that experiencing God's judgments leads men to <em>know</em> Him; thus at the day of judgment, the rejected will knock at the door of the Kingdom, knowing that they know Christ- to be told that although they may now know him, he doesn't know them. Thus the pain of rejection will be acutely mental rather than physical. Ezekiel is told to judge Israel, i:e. "cause them to know the abominations of their fathers" (<em><a href='B:330 20:4'>Eze 20:4</a></em>). This is what condemnation will result in- a recognition of sin for what it is. "According to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they [the ways and doings] judge thee" (<em><a href='B:330 24:14'>Eze 24:14</a></em>). It will be self-condemnation, but they will then <em>realize</em> this in terrible detail.</p><p>The Greek for "many" often means 'the majority'. Here perhaps we have the clearest implication that only a minority of those who come to Christ shall ultimately be saved. Hebrews, Romans and 1 Corinthians 10 suggest that if we think that natural Israel were far worse than spiritual Israel in terms of percentage coming to salvation- then we must take heed lest we fall.</p>


text:
<p><em>When the master of the house- </em>The “master of the house” is representative of Jesus; and yet we are to be the “master of the house” in spiritually feeding our brethren (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a></em> RV). It is through us that He ministers to His household. </p><p><em>Is risen and has shut the door, and you begin to stand without and to knock at the door, saying- </em>This continues the allusion to the men of Sodom outside the locked door; see on :24. We are Christ to our brethren. Knocking is sometimes used as a figure for prayer (<em><a href='B:470 7:7'>Mat 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:7'>Luk 11:7</a></em>). The basis for these foolish virgins is surely in <em><a href='B:240 1:28-29'>Pro 1:28-29</a></em>: "Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer::. they shall not find me: for that hated knowledge". The foolish virgins realize the need for prayer all too late; they knocked on the door with great zeal, asking for it to be opened; seeking but not finding. They were so convinced they knew the day and hour that prayer for the Lord’s return, and prayer to Him generally, somehow was overlooked or felt to be unnecessary.</p><p><em>Lord-</em> The Lord had warned that saying “Lord, Lord” would not guarantee “entry” into the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>). And here He is speaking about exactly such “entry”- the same word is used here. The category in view are those who considered themselves believers, who thought that externally correct forms of address would impress the Lord Jesus. The “Lord, Lord” contingent indeed had “done many wonderful works” (<em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em>), but they had never known and loved&nbsp;<em>Him</em>. Whilst organized church life is a necessary part of our present experience and the Lord’s intention, the danger is that it can exalt such “works” and public appearances to the point that personal relationship with the Lord is totally eclipsed.</p><p><em><a href='B:520 2:13'>Rom 2:13</a></em> alludes here. Paul saw the "Lord, Lord" people of the parable as the Jews of the first century who initially responded enthusiastically to the Gospel. The contrast is between saying "Lord, Lord" in this life, and then in the future not entering into the Kingdom. The contrast is between merely&nbsp;<em>saying</em>&nbsp;and actually&nbsp;<em>doing</em>. The Lord repeats the idea in His mini parable of the two sons; the one who 'said' he would be obedient, and the other who 'did' the will of his father (<em><a href='B:470 21:30-31'>Mat 21:30-31</a></em>). The acceptance of Christ as Lord means that we are as His servants and slaves; it is for us to 'do' His will and work. This fits with the context of the preceding verses- that if He is really our Lord, we will inevitably&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;His will, and that doing will be actual, practical and visible. It is the false prophets who merely say but don't&nbsp;<em>do</em>, just as they claim to be good trees but don't have good fruit.</p><p><em><a href='B:530 13:2'>1Co 13:2</a></em> also alludes here. To say "Lord, Lord" without really&nbsp;<em>knowing</em>&nbsp;Christ is living without love. Thus Paul saw an association between a lack of true love and an external show of appreciation of Christ's Lordship. Not doing what Christ says is a lack of love, in Paul's mind. If we appreciate this, we will see that those who are ignorant of Christ's words cannot show true love. Biblically ignorant Christians need to think through the implications of this. Those who insincerely say "Lord, Lord" now, will say the same then, at the judgment, with the same lack of reality (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>). The repetition of "Lord, Lord" shows that our attitude to Him in this life will be that we have when we meet in the last day. The sensation of working for the Lord can be so self-deceptive. He draws the difference between doing many wonderful works in His name, saying “Lord, Lord”; and&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;doing the will of the Father (<em><a href='B:470 7:21-22'>Mat 7:21-22</a></em>). The parallel <em><a href='B:490 6:46'>Luk 6:46</a></em> has that men will say “Lord, Lord” but not really hear His words. To hear them is to do the will of the Father. Putting all this together, it is perfectly possible to bear His Name, call Him Lord, work hard for Him- and yet never really hear His words, and thereby never really know the will of our Father. From this parallel we can conclude that our attitude to Christ in this life (e:g. "Lord, Lord!") will be our attitude to Him at the judgment seat. If we think He is a hard, unreasonable Lord: that is how He will be. To the froward (in this life), He will show Himself froward. Straight away we are met head on with a major challenge: Our attitude to Christ in this life will be our attitude to Him at the judgment seat. John's letters reason down the same line: “If (in this life) our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence (now) toward God::. this is the confidence that we have in him::. abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence::. before him (at the judgment) at His coming" (<em><a href='B:690 3:21'>1Jn 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>). The confidence we have towards Christ now will be the confidence we have at judgment day. This fact should pull us up out of the spiritual indifference which characterizes so much of our lives. If we see Christ as an abstract theological necessity, a black box in our brain called 'Christ'; if we don't have a dynamic, two- way relationship with Him now- then this too is how we will regard Him then:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Open to us!- he shall answer and say to you: I do not know who you are</em>-&nbsp; There is clear linkage with the parable of the foolish virgins in Matthew 25, who likewise end up outside the door, and their knocking is to no avail. "Lord, Lord, open to us" is met with the response "I know you not"; and this connects with an earlier picture of the rejected at judgment day:&nbsp;"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not::. in thy name done many wonderful works?&nbsp;And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you" (<em><a href='B:470 7:22-23'>Mat 7:22-23</a></em>):&nbsp;Thus there is the implication that when the foolish virgins delay their going to meet Christ, they amass a list of "many wonderful works" which they hope will impress their Lord:&nbsp;This would explain the indignation of the rejected at Christ's rebuke of their lack of suitable works (<em><a href='B:470 25:41-45'>Mat 25:41-45</a></em>). These people would probably not have appeared reprobates in this life; works are so impressive to ones' fellow believers. Jesus did not tell this parable about five hookers and five virgins;&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;of them were 'virgins' in the parable, having an appearance of purity from being in Christ. By contrast, "the wise", whose love for Christ makes them respond immediately to the call, are unconscious of their works of faith (<em><a href='B:470 25:35-40'>Mat 25:35-40</a></em>):&nbsp; "Lord, open to us" is therefore to be read as a confident demand by the unworthy for entry into the Kingdom, based upon trust in their "wonderful works":&nbsp;"I know you not" is paralleled with a lack of oil:&nbsp;The Lord knows His people through their attitude to the oil; whether they have enough or not, or whether they think they do or think they do not, is all so irrelevant. The essence is in wanting the Lord’s return:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Then shall you begin to say: We did eat and drink in your presence, and you did teach in our streets</em>- Their experience of Him teaching in their streets could suggest that it was first century Israel who are in view here; for the Lord has just been recorded as teaching in their streets (:22). This is confirmed by verse 28, where the particular rejected ones will find they have been replaced by the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he shall say: I tell you, I do not know from where you are- </em>From what nation or ethnicity. They were complete strangers, speaking another language. The intended paradox is in that those who were so confident they knew the day and hour actually did not know it (<em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em>), and did not know Christ. They thought knowing the day and hour was the same as knowing Christ; or at least, they put the two together in their minds as one and the same. But they are not. And that is the point of this parable, which is sandwiched in between warnings that we do not and cannot know the day and hour- but we are invited to know Christ personally.</p><p><em>Depart from me</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 25:36'>Mat 25:36</a></em>. The rejected will be told: "Depart from me"; and yet in their lives, they will have already departed themselves. In time of temptation some <em>fall away </em>(s:w. "depart from"; <em><a href='B:490 8:13'>Luk 8:13</a></em>). Some <em>depart </em>(s:w:) from the faith (<em><a href='B:610 4:1'>1Ti 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:12'>Heb 3:12</a></em>). Demas departed (<em><a href='B:620 4:10'>2Ti 4:10</a></em>), as the rejected will depart (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>). The same word is used about how the seed sown among thorns <em>goes forth</em>, it departs (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>) to condemnation. The foolish virgins go, or depart, to buy oil- using the same word with which they are told by their Lord to depart from Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:9'>Mat 25:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>). They departed, and so He tells them to depart. Now they willingly absent themselves from the Lord, but then they will not want to depart from Him. God will gather up the nations to thresh them, but they gather themselves to Him (<em><a href='B:400 4:11-12'>Mic 4:11-12</a></em>). </p><p>This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:620 2:19'>2Ti 2:19</a></em>: ‘Depart from sin now, or you'll depart from Christ at the judgment’. This is Paul's classic way of making plays on words; again an indication of how his writings are partly a product of his own meditation upon and familiarity with the Gospels:&nbsp;</p><p><em>All you workers of iniquity</em>- And yet they have just protested their association with the Lord, and in Matthew 7, all the good they did for others, healing, teaching etc. On one level, good can be done- but the good is a work of iniquity if it is done with an unspiritual heart, and especially in order to gain personal wealth or advantage. In Old Testament times, God used the nations to do His will, but they were still condemned for their hearts being far from Him. Those who "do iniquity" [s:w:] are gathered out of the Kingdom at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>)- confirming that these people are within the visible Christian community. And there will be "many" of them- suggesting the Lord doesn't just have in view a handful of charlatans at the leadership level who claim to do miracles and teach in His Name just for money. This problem of thinking that we are justified before Him just because we are His channel of work is clearly foreseen by the Lord as a major and widespread problem. <em><a href='B:470 24:12'>Mat 24:12</a></em> could imply that this will be a specific latter day problem- for within the believing community, "because iniquity [s:w:] shall abound, the love of many [Gk. 'the majority'] shall become cold".</p>


text:
<h4><em>There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth-</em> Either we will mourn now in repentance (<em><a href='B:490 6:25'>Luk 6:25</a></em>; the Greek for "mourn" is often in a repentance context), or we will mourn at the judgment. Having foretold the inevitable coming of judgment day, Yahweh Himself pleads with Israel: "Therefore also&nbsp;<em>now</em>::. turn ye even to me::. with weeping, and with mourning" (<em><a href='B:360 2:12'>Joe 2:12</a></em>). Gnashing of teeth suggests anger, triggered by seeing Gentiles in God’s Kingdom and Jewish people from the time of Jesus rejected. So it is partly anger with self, but also the raging anger which comes fromjealousy. We need to meditate upon the way in which actual human beings who met Jesus in the flesh are for sure going to reappear at the day of judgment. On their deathbeds or later in life they may’ve idly reflected ‘Ah yes, there was that Jesus guy I met once, the one they killed, and then a cult started based around Him afterwards’. Such people will reappear at judgment day, and their same basic personality will continue. As they were furious at the Lord’s claim that Gentiles would be in God’s Kingdom, so they will be in a blind rage about it still at judgment day. The only other time the Greek for ‘gnashing’ is used in the New Testament is in <em><a href='B:510 7:54'>Act 7:54</a></em>, where again the Jewish conscience was pricked, leading them to gnash upon Stephen. How they were then in the first century is how they will be at the last day. The gnashing of teeth is clearly connected with the anger which comes from jealousy at others’ acceptance. One cannot help think of the very many professing believers who have huge anger at the thought of an open table, or of someone they consider to be ‘outside’ of their small circle breaking bread at the Lord’s table. Those same basic structures and constructs of thinking, that same essential personality, will reappear at judgment day. The awesomeness of having been resurrected and actually meeting Jesus in person will not change our basic personalities. Our spirit, in that sense, is preserved. The time for change of attitudes and transformation of character is now:&nbsp; In the OT, gnashing of teeth always means to hate somebody, often the righteous (<em><a href='B:220 16:9'>Job 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 35:16'>Psa 35:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 37:12'>Psa 37:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 112:10'>Psa 112:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:16'>Lam 2:16</a></em>). Could it not be that the rejected hate their Lord and His people, who will be watching the judgment in some form, and therefore go and join the ranks of the embittered armies that come against Him? Or is their extreme hatred against themselves? <em><a href='B:230 112:10'>Psa 112:10</a></em> speaks of the wicked gnashing with their teeth and melting away, suggesting that the slinking away process goes on even in the outer darkness; they wander, but in their aimless wandering they slowly slink yet further away from their Lord- the one who once fain would have carried them on His shoulders, gathered them under His wings. It's a terrible picture. Cain, in typifying all the rejected, felt that his condemnation was something greater than he could bear (<em><a href='B:10 4:13'>Gen 4:13</a></em>).</h4><p><em>When you shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast out</em>- The rejected will see themselves thrust out of the Kingdom; as if somehow they see themselves from outside of themselves. What spirituality they thought they had they will see as it were taken away from them (<em><a href='B:490 8:18'>Luk 8:18</a></em> AV mg:). This will be the result of the judgment process. They will be convinced by the judgment process of all the ungodly deeds which they had not previously been convicted of, e:g. their hard words against their brethren (<em><a href='B:720 1:15'>Jud 1:15</a></em>). <em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em> may also be a reference to the educative effect of judgment: "When we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world". The world's condemnation will be at the second coming; the judgment and chastening to which Paul refers must therefore be that of the last day. However, in the context he is making the point that our self-examination at the memorial meeting and our response to the chastening hand of God in our present life is in fact a foretaste of that final judgment experience. </p><p>Note that the Pharisees will be thrust out of the Kingdom at judgment, implying that in a sense they were part of it before its establishment. This is the huge tragedy of rejection.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they shall come from the east and the west, and from the north and the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God</em>- The mention of the four compass points alludes to the promises to Abraham in Genesis 28; Genesis 14. The true seed of Abraham were going to take the places of those the Lord is addressing here. And I suggest that this category are those symbolized by the fruitless fig tree of the parable which prefaced this teaching; and the fig tree within the vineyard of Israel perhaps referred specifically to the Jewish religious leadership. They are hereby declared not to be the true seed of Abraham. This paves the way for Paul's declaration that whoever is baptized into the Lord Jesus, Jew or Gentile, is the true seed of Abraham (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). </p><p>"Sit down" is Gk. ‘to recline’. The reference is to the Messianic banquet, where Gentile Christians will sit with Abraham and the Jewish fathers (:28)- because they have become the children of Abraham by faith and baptism into Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em> comments that the Lord will have to&nbsp;<em>make</em>&nbsp;the faithful sit down at that banquet- so strong will be our abiding sense that ‘I am not worthy of this’:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last</em>- In this amazing comment at the conclusion of the section, we learn that in fact some who are first in this life&nbsp;<em>and choose to remain first</em>&nbsp;shall still be saved, although they will be “last” in the Kingdom. The same word for “last” is used in the parable which speaks of believers having to take the “last” or ‘lowest’ place around the Lord’s table (<em><a href='B:490 14:9-10'>Luk 14:9-10</a></em>). There are and will be gradations between the Lord’s people, both now and eternally. Those who are “first” in this brief life, retaining their wealth when they should not, shall be saved by grace but will be the least in the Kingdom. Whereas those who are the least in this life, or make themselves the least, will become the first in God’s Kingdom. Alternatively, we can read "last" here as referring to condemnation, which is what the Lord implies is the destiny of the religious leaders of first century Israel whom He is addressing. </p>


text:
<p><em>In that very hour certain Pharisees came warning him: Get out and leave here. For Herod wants to kill you</em>- The Lord's response that Herod was a fox (:32) suggests that He saw this as part of a plot. Herod was trying to force Him towards Jerusalem, where there was a better chance the Lord could be arrested and killed rather than in Herod's jurisdiction (<em><a href='B:490 23:6-7'>Luk 23:6-7</a></em>). The Pharisees were part of this plot, and they therefore brought this message to the Lord. But the Lord died exactly when and in what manner He chose; He was not overtaken by events. He was going to Jerusalem to give His life, it would not be taken away from Him. </p><p>We note that when Herod finally met the Lord, he found no fault in Him and no reason for the death penalty for Him (<em><a href='B:490 23:15'>Luk 23:15</a></em>). And yet Herod wanted to kill the Lord at this stage. There was something in the personal presence of the Lord Jesus which touched even the hardest conscience; Pilate and Herod are parade examples.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Go and say to that fox- </em>Herod was openly hateful towards the Lord Jesus amongst others. "Fox" seems a strange adjective to use for him, as it implies craft, deceit and hypocrisy. Perhaps the Lord is therefore referring to the way Herod was deceitful and fox-like within his own mind, denying the clear prods of conscience which he had felt from his first encounter with John the Baptist's message. Or as suggested on :31, the Lord was not going to be scared out of Herod's jurisdiction and therefore run off to Jerusalem to die there as a result of the plot laid by Herod. </p><p><em>Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow; and on the third day I shall reach my goal</em>- The Lord is saying that He is not going to go away immediately. He had work to do, and on the third day He would leave Herod's jurisdiction, once he had perfected His work / reached His goal- which may be a reference to the resurrection of Lazarus. The language of course is appropriate also to His resurrection on the third day. He saw this situation as pointing forward to how His death would also be calmly met by Him, He would not have His life taken away by the likes of Herod but rather He would give it; and then in the resurrection of the third day, He would "reach my goal". </p>


text:
<p><em>Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following. For it cannot be possible that a prophet can die anywhere except Jerusalem</em>- The Lord did not take seriously Herod's threat to kill Him; because Herod only had jurisdiction in Galilee, and the Lord knew that He must die in Jerusalem. But "Jerusalem" may refer more specifically to the Jewish religious leadership, the condemned fig tree with which this section began. The Lord would then be saying that Herod's plan to scare Him into leaving Galilee and going into the jurisdiction of Jerusalem, so that He would be killed, was actually exactly the Lord's plan. There is no Old Testament prophetic requirement that Messiah or any prophet die in Jerusalem or at the hands of the Jerusalem leadership. But the Lord, as a prophet, had created that requirement, knowing it to be the Father's will. And He was going up to "Jerusalem" exactly to do that; He was doing so of His own freewill and not because He had been driven there from fear of Herod. A Herod had after all sought to kill Him in babyhood, and it had come to nothing.</p>


text:
<p><em>O Jerusalem!- </em>It was “this generation” which killed the prophets (:35), so why does the Lord specifically talk here about the children of Jerusalem? “Daughter of Zion” was an Old Testament term used for the faithful remnant in Jerusalem. But the way the Lord talks of gathering Jerusalem’s residents under His wings is surely because He had a clear vision before Him of how the city would be burnt. For a hen typically gathers her brood under her wings to protect them from a barnyard fire; or perhaps with the intention of being burnt first to preserve the life of her brood as long as possible. And these were the Lord’s feelings to the “Jerusalem” which rejected Him and sought His life; He wanted to save them, to buy them some more time at least (as reflected in the parable of the worker who doesn’t want to cut the tree down immediately). But they didn’t want to know. It was and is all so tragic.</p><p><em>Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones them that are sent to her! How often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her own brood under her wings, and you were not willing!</em>- I suggested on :33 that "Jerusalem" refers not so much to the physical city as to the Jerusalem based religious leadership of Israel. He so wished to have gathered their "children", their converts and those they influenced; but He had had very limited success. The allusion is to the parable of the husbandmen, who killed and stoned the servants / prophets sent to them (<em><a href='B:470 21:35'>Mat 21:35</a></em>):&nbsp;Stoning was the punishment for apostasy (<em><a href='B:50 13:10'>Deu 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:59'>Act 7:59</a></em>). It was their wilful religious misunderstandings which led them to such violence in practice:&nbsp;</p><p>“The Lord builds up Jerusalem: he gathers together the outcasts of Israel” (<em><a href='B:230 147:2'>Psa 147:2</a></em>) is alluded to by the Lord here, where He reflects how He would fain have gathered together the children of Jerusalem, “but you were not willing”. The words of the Psalm speak as if this is what the Lord God is going to do. But Jesus understood it as being impossible of fulfilment if the outcast children would not allow themselves to be gathered. Likewise the statement that the Lord will build up Jerusalem was made in a restoration context; but again, it was dependent upon the Jews’ obedience for its fulfilment. God was and is potentially ready to work with us. &nbsp;</p><p>The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ is perhaps most clearly seen in His attitude to Israel. So many of the parables refer in some way to the love of God and Christ for Israel; and their love for rebellious, indifferent Israel is the supreme example of pure grace. He felt towards them as a hen for her chicks. Here again is an element of unreality; a hen whose very own chicks won't be gathered under her wings. This seems to go right against nature; the pain of the rejected parent was there in the experience of the Lord. He wasn't just passively enduring the polemics of the Pharisees; they were His chicks, He really wanted them under His wings (cp. Israel dwelling under the wings of the cherubim). We must ever remember this when we read the records of Him arguing with them and exposing their hypocrisy. He wasn't just throwing back their questions, playing the game and winning, just surviving from day to day with them. He was trying to gather them, and their rejection of His words really hurt Him. Their reproach broke His heart; He didn't just brazenly endure it as we might the ravings of a drunken man (<em><a href='B:230 69:20'>Psa 69:20</a></em>). &nbsp; </p><p>He lamented over a Zion that sought only to hurt and murder Him. Yet not so many verses later in our Bibles we hear the Lord using the same word in saying that at His coming, the elect would be "<em>gathered together</em>" unto Him (<em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>). He so often had earnestly desired the coming of His Kingdom there and then; to gather His people unto Him. But they would not. It must have been unbearable to be such a sensitive person in such a hard and insensitive, dehumanizing world. “How often…” suggests that there were specific times in His ministry when it would have been potentially possible to gather together Zion’s children in one and begin the Kingdom. But they refused. </p><p>We see the Lord’s humility here in comparing Himself to a female, humble, farmyard animal- and not a proud lion. Many of thedescriptions of the Lord in the parables are taken from Old Testament passages describing the feelings of&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;towards Israel, showing the truth of this in the first century context when Israel were still God's people. Thus the Lord's description of Himself as a hen wishing to gather the chicks of Jerusalem is based on <em><a href='B:290 31:5'>Isa 31:5</a></em>: "As mother-birds flying, so will the Lord defend Jerusalem" (Heb:):&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 13:8'>Luk 13:8</a></em> could suggest that Christ's attitude to Israel was even more patient than that of God Himself; yet because their feelings to Israel are identical, the implication is perhaps that the Son enables and thereby persuades the Father to be even more patient with us than He would naturally be! The gracious desire of the Lord to save even those who crucified Him is the essence of God’s saving care in the Old Testament.</p>


text:
<p><em>Look, your house- </em>The temple had always been called "The house of Yahweh". But now it is was theirs, as the "feasts of the Lord" become the "feast of the Jews". The Lord's table became&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;table (<em><a href='B:230 69:25'>Psa 69:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:22'>Psa 69:22</a></em>). They had hijacked God's institutions, just as men today have hijacked the Lord's table and imposed their own guest list and rejection policy upon it. Likewise the Lord called the law of God through Moses as now being “<em>their</em>&nbsp;law" (<em><a href='B:500 15:25'>Joh 15:25</a></em>). The breaking of bread ritual practiced by the Corinthians was eating their&nbsp;<em>own&nbsp;</em>supper and therefore their gatherings were “<em>not</em>&nbsp;to eat the&nbsp;<em>Lord's</em>&nbsp;supper" (<em><a href='B:530 11:20'>1Co 11:20</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Is left to you desolate- </em>The Greek word is used many times and always in the sense of a wilderness. This is the fulfilment of <em><a href='B:350 2:3'>Hos 2:3</a></em>, where God through Hosea had threatened to make His beloved "a wilderness". This is the link with the Olivet Prophecy in chapter 23, which develops this theme of the desolation of the temple and a desolating abomination which was to be placed there. Clearly, therefore, the primary intention of the Olivet prophecy was to the Jewish generation and temple in which immediate context the Lord was speaking. The fact the prophecy clearly has latter day applications and did not completely fulfil in AD70 shows that there was a change of plan, as has often happened in the Divine program, with prophecies being delayed and reapplied in their fulfilment.</p><p><em>And I say to you, you shall not see me- </em>The same words are used in <em><a href='B:470 13:14'>Mat 13:14</a></em>, "You shall not perceive / see" Christ. Previously, they had 'seen' Christ as Messiah, realizing that this was the heir, and desiring therefore to kill Him. But now the Lord was giving them over to the blindness of their hatred. They would not knowingly crucify God's Son. But He was saying that He now was going to stop them 'seeing' / perceiving Him for who He was, so that they would crucify Him. And they would only again perceive Him as God's Son all too late, when at the day of judgment they uttered the words of Messianic welcome "Blessed is He that comes::.". And yet even in this terrible judgment there was interwoven a possibility of hope. They would only perceive Him again as God's Son&nbsp;<em>when</em>, or,&nbsp;<em>until the time that</em>, they recognized Him as Messiah in the Messianic words "Blessed is He that comes::.". Once they made that repentance, they would again perceive / see Him. However, it could be argued that that is axiomatic. The thrust of the Lord's words is surely that in the day of judgment, all too late, they would perceive Him again as He is in truth. But all too late.</p><p><em>Until you shall say- </em>When they are appointed their portion with the hypocrites and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth,&nbsp;<em>then&nbsp;</em>shall the Kingdom be likened unto the five wise and five foolish virgins:&nbsp;<em>Then</em>&nbsp;the rejected will understand the principles of that parable, crystal clearly. Members of the ecclesia of Israel will say "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord"- but be rejected. Likewise the Egyptians, fleeing in the mud from Yahweh as they vainly hoped against hope that the returning waters wouldn't somehow reach them::. they came to know Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:18'>Exo 14:18</a></em>). It could well be that this knowing of Yahweh involves a desperate recounting of their sins, seeing that one of the purposes of condemnation is to make men aware of their sinfulness and the depth of God's grace.</p><p><em>Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord</em>- When Jerusalem sees Jesus again, they will be saying: “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”. This would suggest they are waiting for Him. And these words being taken from the Passover hallel, it could be that the Lord returns to them at Passover time, when they traditionally expect Him. Indeed, Jerusalem will not see the Lord&nbsp;<em>until</em>&nbsp;they say “Blessed is he…”- as if the time of His return depends upon their ‘seeing’ / perceiving Him beforehand.</p><p>At the day of judgment, nobody will be passive and indifferent. Everyone will want to be accepted. All of us who come there will see there is only one way we want. Self-examination will be the order of the day. The virgins will knock on the door and plead for it to be opened. The first century Jews will say "Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord". They will want to be on Messiah's side then. None of us will be vacillating between total commitment and the lazy drifting of our human nature. And our judgment seat is going on now, today. “This splitting of the decision between only two alternatives may seem an over-simplification: we fondly think of ourselves as faced with a continuous range of possibility over which to decide, but in the ultimate that range may be broken down into a number of discrete two-way choices, each one a decision between good and evil” (Ralph Lovelock). </p>


text:
<h4><em>And it came to pass, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a Sabbath to eat bread, that they were watching him</em>- The Pharisees liked to feast on the Sabbath, with the work done by Gentile servants or by non-observant Jews who were beneath their respect. This was clearly a set up situation. Allthe labour which went into preparing the meal had been done somehow within their legal parameters, but to heal would be outside them. They assumed that Jesus was soft hearted enough to want to heal the person immediately, hence the temptation for Him to 'work' on the Sabbath. This gives a window into the essential person the Lord was, and still is- compassionate, and wishing to immediately engage with our human needs.</h4>


text:
<p><em>And before him was a certain man that had the dropsy</em>- This is another example, along with the language of 'demons', of how illness is described from its appearance to the first century beholders- even if their understanding and perception was wrong. For 'dropsy' was the language describing the man's appearance with drooping, saggy limbs and with the soft tissues sagging down because of excess body water gathered in them. The appearance, as they understood it, became the name for the disease. And they considered mental illness to be the work of demons, and so that language is used- without proving that demons actually exist.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answering spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?</em>- The Lord realized the sick man was a plant, placed carefully "before him" (:2) (and see on :4), and so He took the initiative. The Greek for "heal" means literally to wait upon, to serve. At the meal, there would have been servants waiting upon them- on the Sabbath. The Lord was doing the same, by healing. But that was held to be 'work'; thus the Lord exposed their double standards.</p>


text:
<p><em>But they held their peace. And he took him and healed him, and let him go</em>- Letting him go implies the man had been planted there, perhaps against his will; see on :3. 'Taking him' before healing him suggests again the Lord used physical touch. He could heal from a distance, but His preferred style was to emphasize His personal connection with those He healed. We sense His desire, to this day, to personally connect with people.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately draw him up on a Sabbath day?</em>- God Himself has an urgency for human salvation; the Lord drew a parallel between the man who rushed out to save his animal on the Sabbath, and His waiving of the Sabbath in order to save others. Indeed, the way He did His miracles on the Sabbath rather than waiting shows His sense of urgency; not a day could be wasted for the sake of human scruples. “Which of you shall have a son fallen into a well, and will not straightway draw him up?" (<em><a href='B:490 14:5'>Luk 14:5</a></em> RV). Wells weren’t that wide. Only a small child would fall down one. We can imagine the tragic situation in the home. "Benny’s fallen down the well!". And everyone would go running. They wouldn’t wait until the Saturday evening. Nor would they worry the slightest about infringing the letter of the law. And so, the Lord explained, that little boy was like the sick men and women, sick both physically and spiritually, whom He saw around Him. There was an <em>urgency</em> which He felt about them. And so there should be with us too. We can realize that this world is evil and vain; and yet we can still fail to perceive the tragedy of it all, and the urgency of our task to save at least some. The Father of the prodigal told the servants: "Bring forth <em>quickly</em> the best robe" (<em><a href='B:490 15:22'>Luk 15:22</a></em> RV). The indebted man was told to sit down <em>quickly</em> and have his debt reduced (<em><a href='B:490 16:6'>Luk 16:6</a></em>). There is an urgency in the mediation of mercy towards others.</p><p>The Lord's enthusiasm for the salvation of first century Israel (and us too) comes out in <em><a href='B:490 14:5'>Luk 14:5</a></em> RSV, where He likens the <em>urgency</em> of His mission to that of a man whose son has fallen down a well. He simply <em>must</em> get there, regardless of the Sabbath rules. And this, says the Lord, is His all-out urgency to save men. We have all fallen down the pit from whence we must be rescued (<em><a href='B:450 9:11'>Zec 9:11</a></em>). As we distribute leaflets, place our adverts, talk to our contacts, strive in our own character development towards salvation; this is the verve of the Lord Jesus to save us. It is only the hardness of the human heart that can stand in the way of the mighty enthusiasm of the Son of God for our redemption. Hence the sense of hurt, sadness and frustration to the Master when men refuse His efforts, as typified in the story of the wonderful banquet that was inexplicably spurned by the intended guests (<em><a href='B:490 14:16'>Luk 14:16</a></em>). In passing, note the connection of pulling a man out of a pit with Joseph and Jeremiah, types of the Lord's resurrection (cp. <em><a href='B:230 40:2'>Psa 40:2</a></em>). When a man is pulled out of the pit at baptism, he is sharing the experience of the resurrected Lord. And the Lord is naturally so urgent that men should share that experience which He suffered so much for. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they could not answer these things</em>- <em><a href='B:520 8:31'>Rom 8:31</a></em> may allude here; what shall <em>we </em>say to these things? Psychologically, being intellectually silenced is a shameful experience- unless one surrenders completely to the new argument. The response of the Jews for the most part was to get angry and to hate the Lord yet more. But the Lord wasn't out to just win an argument; He wanted to convert them. And He knew that by silencing them, He was leading them to a point where they would either convert totally, or hate Him unto death. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he noted how they chose out the chief seats, he told a parable to those that were invited, saying to them</em>- The Lord was a guest, but He took the stage. Having silenced His hosts, He goes further, attacking the mindset of His fellow guests as well as His hosts. This was not because He was an aggressive, victory-oriented person. He wanted their repentance, and in this case, He saw this might be achieved by going on the offensive, forcing them to a point where they must capitulate to Him, or go away in bitterness, self-condemned, having themselves made the answer. And this is His style to this day.</p>


text:
<p><em>When you are invited by anyone to a marriage feast, do not sit in the chief seat; lest a more honourable man than you be invited by him</em>- Elsewhere, the Lord had presented the invitation to His Kingdom as an invitation to the Messianic banquet. It ought to be obvious that we take the lowest seat in the light of such a gracious invitation. We sit there awed by the grace of being there in the ecclesia; all judgmentalism, superiority and criticism of others is so deeply inappropriate. We are to assume that the others are "more honourable". This is not a call to naivety, but rather to such a deep impression of our own experience of grace that we see others as better than ourselves. The Lord may mean us to assume that our response to His grace in calling us should instil in us an appropriate humility in secular life; as we take the lowest seat in the community of believers, so we take the lowest place in social life. The experience of grace is such that we are affected by it in every department of our secular and social lives. The chiefest in the Kingdom is the Lord Jesus; He is the "honourable" one, the same word translated "precious" about Him in <em><a href='B:670 2:4'>1Pe 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:6'>1Pe 2:6</a></em>. The implication is that if we don't take the lowest seat, then we are taking the place which is the Lord's place. Any other choice apart from the deepest humility is an awful, Christ-surpassing pride, a taking of His place.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he that invited you shall come and say to you: Give this man your place. Then you shall be shamed into taking the lowest place</em>- The Lord teaches that if we're invited to a feast, we should take the lowest place, genuinely assuming the others present are more honourable than us; and we take our place at that table awaiting the coming of the host. Our attitudes to the seating and behaviour on entry to the feast will affect our eternal destiny- for when the Lord comes, He will make the arrogant man suffer "shame", which is a commonly used descriptor of the rejected at judgment day. The Lord goes on in that same discourse to explain what our attitude should be- He tells the parable of the great supper, to which those who were invited didn't pitch, and there was a desperate, last minute compelling of smelly street people to come in and eat the grand meal. </p><p>The shamed person who took the highest place is not thrown out of the feast; instead, he takes the lowest place. This could suggest that the judgment process is for our education. Those who were conceited and superior shall be eternally educated then. There may be a similar teaching in the way that the labourers who worked longest and hardest 'learn' when the payment is given at the end of the day; but they retain their penny, their salvation. See on <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>. There is therefore the possible implication that some who will be accepted by the Lord who even at the judgment have wrong attitudes towards their brethren. Before the Lord of the harvest, those who thought they had worked hardest complained that those they thought had done less, were still getting a penny. They were rebuked, but they still had their penny (cp. salvation; <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>). The subsequent comment that the first shall be last might imply that they will be in the Kingdom, but in the least place. Likewise the brother who takes the highest place in the ecclesia will be made with shame to take the lower place- yet still within the family of God. </p><p>The public nature of the judgment experience is hinted at throughout the Lord's parables. The other guests at the Lord's table will see the man who took the highest place in the ecclesia taking now the lowest place- he has "shame" before their eyes, and likewise the believer who took the lowest place in this life will have praise for that humility from the other guests, as the Lord exalts him or her higher (<em><a href='B:490 14:9-10'>Luk 14:9-10</a></em>). In this context the Lord proceeded to warn His followers not to be like the man who sets out to build a tower, but can't complete it- and therefore he has shame from those who behold it (<em><a href='B:490 14:29'>Luk 14:29</a></em>). This is just another way of saying the same thing. There will be believers who grandly showed themselves to their brethren to be building something which actually they couldn't complete; and they will have shame before their brethren when the day of judgment reveals who they really are. All this, of course, has massive practical implications. If all will be ultimately revealed before our brethren in the last day, why try to act before them as someone we're not?</p><p>Yet on the other hand, the idea of the Lord Jesus returning and one of His guests having “shame" must surely refer, in line with other Biblical passages, to the shame of condemnation. ‘And so therefore’, the Lord continues, ‘take that lowest place at the feast right now’. When the Lord spoke of how we must come down from our good seats at the feast and take the lowest seat, He's actually referring to condemned King Zedekiah, who likewise had to come down from his throne and take a lowly seat (<em><a href='B:300 13:18'>Jer 13:18</a></em>). If the “lowest room" is seen as the place of the shame filled condemned… then surely He’s saying that we should consider ourselves as “condemned" now as we sit at the feast. And what feast does the Lord have in mind? Is He perhaps referring on some level to the breaking of bread, which is the Lord’s supper / feast where we now each take our place? Should we not, therefore, be sitting there feeling [although this is only part of the story] condemned, and the lowest of all? Is that not <em>one</em> [and only one, be it noted] of the emotions elicited in us by the cross? The “feast" of the breaking of bread is clearly meant to be understood by us as a foretaste of the Messianic “feast" of the future Kingdom. And if we genuinely feel we should have the least place there, we will reflect that in our taking the lowest place at the memorial meeting. In our hearts, we will sit there knowing we ought to be condemned.</p><p>The man 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>). When the Lord spoke of how we must come down from our good seats at the feast and take the lowest seat, He's actually again referring to Zedekiah, who likewise had to come down from his throne and take a lowly seat (<em><a href='B:300 13:18'>Jer 13:18</a></em>). That weak, vacillating man basically loved God's word, he wanted to be obedient, but just couldn't bring himself to do it. And so he was, quite justly, condemned. It's as if the Lord saw in that wretched, pathetic man a type of all those He came to save. And even in this wretched position, the Lord will pick us up and carry us home. This gives a fine, fine insight into His sensitivity to us. Indeed, several times the Spirit in the NT uses OT pictures of unworthy believers as the basis of a description of the faithful. See on <em><a href='B:490 10:33-34'>Luk 10:33-34</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when you are invited, go and sit down in the lowest place; that when he that has invited you comes, he may say to you: Friend, go up higher. Then shall you have glory in the presence of all that sit to eat with you</em>- The Lord clearly taught the continuity between the breaking of bread and the future marriage supper by observing that He would not again drink the cup until He drinks it anew with us at the marriage supper (<em><a href='B:470 26:29'>Mat 26:29</a></em>). The parables of how the Gospel invites people as it were to a meal are suggesting that we should see the Kingdom as a meal, a supper, of which our memorial service is but a foretaste. We are commanded to enter the supper and take the lowest seat, strongly aware that others are present more honourable than ourselves. Those with this spirit are simply never going to dream of telling another guest 'Leave! Don't partake of the meal!'. But this is the spirit of those who are exclusive and who use the Lord's table as a weapon in their hands to wage their petty church wars. The very early church didn't behave like this, but instead sought to incarnate and continue the pattern of the meals of the Lord Jesus during His ministry. And this is one major reason why their unity drew such attention, and they grew. To exclude someone from the Lord’s table is to judge them as excluded from the Kingdom banquet. And those who make such judgment will themselves be rejected from it.</p><p>We are come to "God the judge of all"- even now (<em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em>). He is right now enthronedas judge of our lives (<em><a href='B:470 5:34'>Mat 5:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 93:2'>Psa 93:2</a></em>). We are <em>now </em>in God's presence, and can't escape from it (<em><a href='B:230 139:2'>Psa 139:2</a></em>); and the presence of God is judgment language (<em><a href='B:510 3:19'>Act 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 1:9'>2Th 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:1'>2Th 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>). "God is the judge: he puts down one, and sets up another" in His mind (<em><a href='B:230 75:7'>Psa 75:7</a></em>)- although the final putting down and setting up will be at the judgment seat (the basis for the parable of the man being asked to go up higher). This same parable is also rooted in <em><a href='B:240 25:7'>Pro 25:7</a></em>: "Put not forth yourself in <em>the presence </em>of the king, for better it is that it be said unto you, Come up hither: than that you should be put lower in <em>the presence</em> of the prince". We are in the King's presence both in this life- when we chose where to sit- just as much as when He returns and re-arranges the seating. The day of the Lord is coming, but it is even now (<em><a href='B:400 7:4'>Mic 7:4</a></em> Heb:). Before His presence, we shall feel "the lowest" of all. And that is how we are to feel in this life. This outlaws any sense of superiority towards our fellow guests, our brethren, in this life.</p><p>The parable about taking the lowest seat sounds obvious to us. If a poor nobody is invited to the King’s feast, he would naturally take the lowest place, with feelings of wonderment, awe, embarrassment, joy, quiet honour, excitement that he’d been invited, that he was somewhere too good for him, by grace. The element of unreality in the story is that the man arrogantly takes a high place, and has to be demoted at the coming of the King. There’s something unreal about this. But there’s the rub. This is exactly how we are behaving when we jockey for status and ‘power’ in the ecclesia [in whatever form], when we fail to consider each man better than ourselves to be. This is how absurd we’re being. The way the Lord applies this to His church implies that we should consider each of the other invited guests as “great men” of nobility. This is the level of respect which He intends there to be amongst us for our fellow brethren. The parables of judgment truly touch the very core of our spiritual being. </p>


text:
<p><em>For everyone that exalts himself shall be humbled, and he that humbles himself shall be exalted</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>. So how, then, can we ‘humble ourselves’? As noted on :9 and :10, we are to live now as if we are in the Lord's judgment presence, and all we seek is the lowest place in His Kingdom. When Israel was a child::. she was humble, as we should be after our spiritual rebirth at baptism. It is evidently not something natural; for it is a fruit of the spirit we must develop. It isn’t a natural timidity or nervousness or shyness. By realising our own sinfulness, we will realise our condemnation, and thereby be ‘brought down’. For we are condemned for our behaviour, but saved out of that condemnation. The exact, vast debt is reckoned up- before we are forgiven (Matthew 18). We have been invited through the Gospel to sit down in the Kingdom. Humbling ourselves is therefore sitting down in the <em>lowest</em> place- not just a low place. Strictly, the Greek means ‘the farthest’ away from the Lord Jesus, who sits at the head of the table. Like Paul we must somehow get that deep and genuine apprehension that we are “chief of sinners”- and sit in the <em>lowest, farthest</em> place. This would mean that we ‘each esteemed our brother better than ourselves to be’, not in any naïve, meaningless way; not seeing strengths where they simply don’t exist; but seeing him [or her] that way simply in comparison to our own lowness. Seeing others as higher than ourselves is a sure remedy for every case of ecclesial friction and division. So often pride develops from a worry about what others will think of us, a desire to be seen as acceptable and not unusual. It leads to a hyper-sensitivity regarding what others may be implying about us. The humbled mind will not see things in these terms. <em>If only we would each, personally, learn this lesson, or at least grasp the truth and beauty and power of it</em>. The publican was so worried about his own position before God that he paid no attention, so we sense, to the hypocritical brother next to him: “The publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner… this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for … he that humbles himself shall be exalted” (<em><a href='B:490 18:13-14'>Luk 18:13-14</a></em>). That sin-conscious man is an essay in self-humbling. This is why David sometimes parallels “the meek” and the repentant sinner (e:g. <em><a href='B:230 25:8-9'>Psa 25:8-9</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a></em>.</p>


text:
<h4><em>And he also said to him that had invited him: When you make a dinner or a supper, call not your friends, nor your brothers and sisters, nor your kinsmen, nor rich neighbours, unless they also invite you and repay you</em>- The Lord gave His parable about how <em>He</em> has invited us, through the call of the Gospel, to a great supper. Quite simply, the very experience and wonder of having been invited to the Kingdom should lead us to likewise invite others. But further. If we have truly understood the implications of the Lord’s gracious calling, if we have truly perceived our desperation, we will take <em>the</em> lowest place, considering ourselves the <em>lowest</em> and least worthy. And we will therefore go out and invite others of the same class to which we perceive ourselves to belong- the poor, the maimed and blind.</h4><p>Our attitude to others will be reflective of our perception of God's grace in calling us- as we were invited by such grace, so we will invite others to <em>our</em> table who likewise cannot recompense us. If we are the blind and maimed invited to the Lord's table, we will invite the blind and maimed to our table. The extent of God's grace to us really needs to sink in. When was the last time <em>you</em> did an act of pure grace to others like this:::? </p><p>The Lord Jesus described those who responded to the Kingdom Gospel as entering into a marriage supper (<em><a href='B:480 2:18-19'>Mar 2:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:12-24'>Luk 14:12-24</a></em>), which was a well-known figure for the future Messianic Kingdom (<em><a href='B:290 25:6-9'>Isa 25:6-9</a></em>). By eating / fellowshipping with Him in faith, His followers were in prospect enjoying the Kingdom life. To exclude people from His table is to seek to exclude people from His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when you make a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind</em>- There is a connection between <em><a href='B:490 14:13'>Luk 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:21'>Luk 14:21</a></em>. This is exactly what the parable of :21 teaches that God does: “Bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind”. The basis of God’s calling of us must be the basis upon which we relate to others. We cannot recompense Him, yet He shows us His gracious invitation. So we too must share ourselves with those who cannot give us anything. In this sense, we like our Father, serve for nothing in the sense of no personal, concrete gain. We must <em>be</em> gracious by nature, and just <em>be</em> as He <em>is.</em></p><p>The lame, blind etc. were not allowed to serve God under the law (<em><a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a></em>), nor be offered as sacrifices (<em><a href='B:50 15:21'>Deu 15:21</a></em>), nor come within the holy city (<em><a href='B:100 5:6-8'>2Sa 5:6-8</a></em>). The Lord purposefully healed multitudes of lame and blind (<em><a href='B:470 15:30'>Mat 15:30</a></em>), and allowed them to come to Him in the temple (<em><a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a></em>). His acted out message was clearly that those who were despised as unfit for God’s service were now being welcomed by Him into that service. The lame and blind were despised because they couldn’t work. They had to rely on the grace of others. Here again is a crucial teaching: those called are those who can’t do the works, but depend upon grace. We need to appreciate too that in Palestine, to refuse an invitation to a feast was a major insult to the person who gave it. That the majority of people refused it would’ve been so hurtful to the host. And in this we see a picture of the pain of God, that the majority refuse His invitation. Therefore He is so happy when anyone <em>does</em> respond, even if they’re down and out. And we should hold in our heart the tragedy of God, the pain of God, that so many have refused Him; and therefore never judge anyone as unsuitable who may respond to the invitation. We’re making the invitations for <em>His</em> sake, not our own. And on this basis we ‘bring in’ those desperate types to the Lord’s feast (:21). The same word is used about Barnabas ‘bringing’ the unlikely convert Paul to the apostles (<em><a href='B:510 9:27'>Act 9:27</a></em>), and later ‘bringing’ or introducing him to the Antioch ecclesia (<em><a href='B:510 11:26'>Act 11:26</a></em>), the “other sheep” being ‘brought’ into the fold (<em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em>), the blind man whom people thought was no good for Jesus being ‘brought’ unto Him (<em><a href='B:490 18:40'>Luk 18:40</a></em>), the Samaritan ‘bringing’ the good-as-dead wounded man to the inn / the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:490 10:34'>Luk 10:34</a></em>), all reflecting how the goodness of God leads / brings [s:w:] desperate sinners to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). In our ‘bringing in’ of desperate people to the Lord’s feast, we are vehicles for that grace of God which ‘brings in’ men and women to Him. Notice in passing that we invite people to the Kingdom feast without seeking a recompense from them- i:e. we should not expect anything from them, be it personal loyalty, money, respect etc. And if we don’t get it from them, only then will we be rewarded / recompensed for our preaching at the last day. So it should&nbsp;be no surprise to us if as with Paul our converts turn against us and in no form ‘recompense’ us for calling them. Actually we should take comfort from this, as it is an encouragement that we will have our recompense at the last day.</p>


text:
<p><em>And you shall be blessed; because they do not have anything to repay you with. For you shall be recompensed in the resurrection of the just</em>- The 'blessing' is defined as recompense at the resurrection, and not necessarily in this life. This inevitably is to be connected with how the Lord went on to say that <em>we</em> are the poor, blind, lame etc. who have been invited to the feast (:21). The point being, that if we perceive our own desperation and inappropriacy to be called to the Kingdom feast, then we will likewise invite others who are perceived<em>by us</em> as the lowest of the low, and otherwise unsuitable for a king’s banquet table. So we are to reflect God’s calling of us, the desperate, the down and outs, in our calling of others. A person who feels they are somehow a nice guy and worthy of invitation will be the one who tends to consider others as unworthy of invitation to the Kingdom. He or she who perceives their own desperation will eagerly invite even those they consider to be in the very pits of human society. </p><p>The recompense will be in the form of the nature of our eternity. How we shall eternally be is a reflection of what we have done for others, especially in terms of how far we have accepted them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when one of his dinner guests heard these things, he said to him: Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!</em>- We mustn't just like <em>the idea</em> of being in the Kingdom. We must seek it above all. The Lord told a parable about people invited to the Kingdom who all came up with different excuses as to why they couldn't come. This was in response to somebody remarking: "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!" - 'how great it would be to be in the Kingdom!'. And the Lord is replying 'Many of those given the real opportunity to be there actually don't want it that much at all. Don't just like the idea of being in my Kingdom, but make it the driving passion in your daily life, for which you'll sacrifice all'.</p><p>The Lord continues to turn the questions / comments back on themselves. A man comments how blessed will be the person to eat bread in the Kingdom of God; and Jesus responds by telling the parable about how in fact the majority of those who receive invitations to eat break in the Kingdom actually turn it down because of worldly distractions. Again the message is clear. 'Take your focus off the blessedness of <em>others</em> in the future Messianic Kingdom; but concern yourself with the very real possibility that you <em>yes you yourself</em> may actually turn down the invitation to be there because you're too caught up with the things of this world'. See on <em><a href='B:490 14:25'>Luk 14:25</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>But he said to him: A certain man made a great supper and he invited many</em>- "When you are invited by anyone to a marriage feast" (:13) is clearly meant to connect with "A certain man made a great supper, and he invited (s:w:) many". Evidently the idea of eating with the Lord at His table connects with the breaking of bread. Our attitude at that memorial supper is in essence our attitude at the greater supper of the last day. We sit there with our Lord and with our brethren. We will sit there at the last day with the deep feeling, like the handicapped beggars had in the parable: "I should not be here. Who am <em>I</em>, me, me with all my weakness, doing <em>here</em>?". If we sit likewise at the breaking of bread with that spirit, we will not even consider grabbing the best seat for ourselves; nor would it cross our mind to say to someone else sitting there "Hey you, what are <em>you</em> doing here? If <em>you're</em> here, I'm gone! Don't you dare take that bread and wine, you're not in fellowship!". Yet this is precisely the attitude of those who exclude their brethren from participation at the Lord's table; for the breaking of bread is a foretaste of the feast to come, and the Lord is teaching that our attitude to our brethren at it is in fact going to be reflected in how He deals with us at the latter day marriage supper. It seems so many of our exclusivist brethren are voting themselves out of their place at the Kingdom; although I believe God's grace is such that He has a place even for them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were invited: Come. For everything is now ready</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 24:48'>Mat 24:48</a></em>. In the parable of the great supper, which is similar but not necessarily the same as that of the marriage feast, the servants going forth "at supper time" fits more naturally into the context of a preaching appeal just prior to the second coming than to the first century. The "supper", i:e. the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 14:15'>Luk 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:2'>Mat 22:2</a></em>), is prepared, and at "supper time" - 'Kingdom time' - the appeal is made:&nbsp;"All things are now ready" (<em><a href='B:490 14:17'>Luk 14:17</a></em>) explains the unmistakable sense of urgency in the commissions given to the servants to preach:&nbsp;&nbsp; This again indicates reference to an eleventh hour preaching campaign just prior to the second coming:&nbsp;&nbsp; The 'decorum of the symbol' suggests that the animals being killed for the meal would necessitate a brief period of invitation immediately prior to the feast, rather than them being on the table for 2,000 years. See on <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they all began to make similar excuses. The first said to him: I have bought a field and I need to go out and see it; I pray you excuse me</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>.</p><p>There was a harder side to Christ. He was a demanding Lord. He told His disciples to forsake what they had and follow Him. They did. And apparently with no prefatory praise or introduction, He called them "you of little faith::. fools::. slow of heart to believe". Of course, He may have prefaced these criticisms with something softer (cp. His letters to the churches); but the Spirit has preferred not to record it. Often His parables warn that those who think He will understand their weakness, those who are too familiar with His softer side. </p><p>The parable of the great supper records men explaining to Christ why they can't <em>immediately</em> respond to Him, although they want to when it's more convenient: "I have bought a piece of ground, <em>and must needs</em> go and see it::. I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them::. I have married a wife, therefore <em>I</em> cannot come" (<em><a href='B:490 14:18-20'>Luk 14:18-20</a></em>). The implication is that they assumed that the servant calling them to the wedding (i:e. Christ) would understand that their excuses were quite reasonable; the man who pleaded marriage as his excuse would have been alluding to the Law's provision to have time off from the Lord's duties on account of marriage (<em><a href='B:50 24:5'>Deu 24:5</a></em>). All these reasons were assumed to be quite reasonable, and the men sound as if they were confident that <em>of course</em> Christ would understand. The parable of the King's son records excuses which are more evidently unreasonable; some said they were going to work on their farm, when actually the banquet was going to be held in the evening (<em><a href='B:470 22:5'>Mat 22:5</a></em>). There is a&nbsp;connection with the parable of Luke 14, where the excuses seem more reasonable. But the similarity shows that as far as the Lord is concerned, <em>any</em> excuse, evidently irrelevant or apparently reasonable, is just not acceptable to Him:&nbsp;But the point of the parables is that as far as Christ is concerned, these were all just empty excuses, even the excuse that appeared to be based on a past concession to weakness. He's saying that the invitation to His Kingdom, to His very own wedding, must take priority over all the everyday things of human experience which we assume are so justified, and which we assume He will quite understand if we put in front of Him and His call. <em>Every reader</em> ought to feel uncomfortable on considering this. It's this category of Christian who will be so surprised when they are rejected: "Lord, Lord, open to us::. When did we see you hungry:::?" (<em><a href='B:470 25:11'>Mat 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>). They thought they knew Him, but He has never known them (<em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em>). This idea of surprise at rejection is to be connected with that of brethren thinking (mistakenly) that of course the Lord understands their putting His call into second place. He is a Lord they hardly know in this life, despite what they think, and He will be the same at judgment day. There's a point to be made from the way they are so confident they know Christ, but He says He has never known them. They didn't live up to the demanding Lord they served. The idea of a two-way relationship with Him was evidently foreign to them. They thought their theoretical knowledge and outward works meant that Christ knew them. The worrying thing is, how many of us feel we have a two-way relationship with the Lord?&nbsp; </p><p>That <em>all</em> the girls should fall asleep whilst awaiting the bridegroom (<em><a href='B:470 25:5'>Mat 25:5</a></em>) is unusual- they must have been a pretty lazy, switched off bunch. And yet immediately we are led by the Lord to pass judgment upon ourselves- which is quite a feature of the parables, e:g. <em><a href='B:470 21:31'>Mat 21:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:43'>Luk 7:43</a></em> [as it is elsewhere- consider <em><a href='B:100 12:5'>2Sa 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 14:8'>2Sa 14:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 20:40'>1Ki 20:40</a></em>). Note how there is surely an element of unreality in the Lord’s description of <em>all</em> those invited to the dinner refusing the invitation (<em><a href='B:490 14:18'>Luk 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:24'>Luk 14:24</a></em>). Would really <em>nobody</em> respond to such a gracious invitation? This was the obvious question that He begged in the minds of His hearers. The intention being that each hearer would reflect: “Is it I…?”… maybe at least <em>I</em> could respond to the call of the Gospel… The parable of the wedding feast has an inappropriacy in that for 'merely' rejecting the invitation to the feast and beating the messengers, the King dispatches an army to attack them- whilst the meal is as it were hot on the table ready to be eaten (<em><a href='B:470 22:3-7'>Mat 22:3-7</a></em>). The point is that every rejection of the invitation, every mockery of the preacher, elicits an amazing anger in God.</p><p>Christ's low expectations of us are clearly demonstrated when He told the parables of the wedding feasts. When you put them together, you get this picture: God made the wedding between Christ and us. The invited guests didn't bother coming, for very trivial, mundane reasons that they put in front of the honour of being invited to His wedding. Only tramps and beggars come to it, motivated selfishly by the thought of a free meal (cp. a penny for the day). But we, the bride, aren't ready (although Christ graciously doesn't mention that in the parable), and so He delays to come to the wedding. Back home, His most trusted household servants realize that He's delaying His return, and start to get drunk and beat each other. The excited young bridesmaids lose their enthusiasm and go to sleep. Eventually, the wedding happens, but some of the guests don't bother to turn up in a wedding garment, just in their filthy rags. The impression is clearly this: <em>the whole thing's a mess!</em> Yet this is the marriage of the Son of God to His dearly purchased bride, for whom He died, and lived a life of total self-control. Yet He <em>knew</em> the whole thing would be such a mess. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:25'>Mat 13:25</a></em>.</p><p>"They all with one consent (s:w. 'agreement') began to make excuse" (s:w. 'reject') sounds like a conscious, national rejection of the message. The Jews will be judged by the word at the second coming (<em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>); but they were 'accused' (judgment seat language) by their rejection of God's word in the Old Testament during their lifetime (<em><a href='B:500 5:45'>Joh 5:45</a></em>). The Jews in the parable "began to make excuse (saying)::. I pray thee have me excused" (<em><a href='B:490 14:18'>Luk 14:18</a></em>). The Greek word for "excuse" here is also translated "reject"- by excusing themselves from the requirements of God's word in this life, they were effectively rejecting themselves, as they will be at judgment. So as we read the word, we show our judgment. It could be that the reluctance of some to get down to reading the word is not simply because they lack time, but more subtly because they realize they are faced with God's judgments in it. </p><p>Israel had consented to be “bidden” to the feast; and according to Oriental practice, to accept an initial invitation to a feast was to commit oneself to respond to the final notice of it. But “they would not come”, and yet despite this insult, their divine host had sent forth yet more servants to beg them to come. The Lord puts behind Him the insult of our rejections, and graciously pleads with us- even God pleading with men. The whole history of Israel is eloquent proof of this grace of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And another said: I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to test them. I pray you, have me excused</em>- The invitation had been given ahead of time, and they had agreed to attend. Feasts were held in the evening, and oxen weren't tested in the evening; and they were tested <em>before</em> being bought and not afterwards. The excuses are presented as pathetic and not sincere. </p>


text:
<p><em>And another said: I have married a wife, and therefore, I cannot come</em>- Marriage gave freedom from conscription to the army, but not to turning down a call to attend a wedding feast which they had already agreed to attend. As noted on :19, all excuses for not responding to the Lord's call are here presented as pathetic and quite obviously fabricated.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the servant came and told his master these things. Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant: Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city and bring in here the poor and maimed and blind and lame</em>-&nbsp; The tragedy of the fact that the Jews by and large rejected the invitation of God meant that the servants are asked to “Go out quickly into the streets and lanes… and bring in [any who will respond]”. The ‘quickness’ of the preachers is matched by the ‘quickness’ of the response of those who heard them in the first century. Now what this means is that if we as preachers have an urgency about our approach and our presentation of the message, then people will respond quickly. If we present the urgent good news as a set of academic propositions to be studied at length in the comfort of an untroubled conscience, then those who respond [if they do at all] will do so with the same laid back, cool, calculating attitude. Peter preached on Pentecost with a fire and passion which came from realizing the urgency of human need and Christ’s salvation. And this is why, it seems to me, the people responded so quickly. They were baptized in a matter of hours after hearing the Gospel preached from his lips.</p><h4>We in these last days are "the poor and the maimed and the halt and the blind" who lay in the city streets (<em><a href='B:490 14:21'>Luk 14:21</a></em>). Yet we are invited and led (the blind) or dragged / carried (the lame) into the great supper. For those who deeply meditated, the lame at the great man's table would have taken them back to lame Mephibosheth at David's table. His response to the invitation was to <em>bow</em>; think of a lame man bowing. How awkward it must have been, and how awkward he must have felt. "I'm a dead dog, from a family who cruelly hated you; why, why me?" was his response. And this ought to be ours. The awkward bow of that lame man, however embarrassing it was to watch for David in his glory, is a superb type of our attempts to respond to the inexplicable grace we have received from the Lord. He knows our weakness. Even though He taught plainly that 'the majority' (Gk; AV "many") of those He called would not be chosen, His parables often use percentages which imply that two thirds (parable of the pounds) or half (parable of the virgins) <em>will</em> respond. This shows the love that hopes, in the face of the finest knowledge and foreknowledge of human nature which any man has ever had:&nbsp;</h4><p>The usual excuse for not reading Scripture daily, or remembering the Lord Jesus in the breaking of bread as He asked, or meeting with brethren and sisters etc. normally goes along these lines: 'I've nothing against these things. But after all, we're only human beings, Christ understands that, He knows we have to get on with the things of this life'. To which so many passages in the Gospels reply: 'Yes, the Lord does know exactly what everyday human life is all about; and He expects you, in these daily things, to make decisions which <em>consciously</em> sacrifice what you could get for yourselves in life'. And to which Paul replies: "The love of Christ constrains us". The servant goes out and invites people to the supper. They each make excuses which on a human level seem perfectly reasonable. One man was on his way to inspect some land he had just bought; another man was on his way (Gk:) to prove his new oxen; if they were no good, he had the right to get his money back. It seems, humanly, a bit unreasonable to go up to a person right in the middle of doing something important in daily life, and say&nbsp;’Now stop that, come to a supper'. The third man assumed the Lord would understand why <em>he</em> couldn't respond: "I have married a wife, and therefore (of course, as you'll appreciate) I cannot come". After all, even the Law said that a man was free from military obligations after his marriage. But "the master" was "angry" with those men. What Moses' law conceded to men, the Lord Jesus wasn't necessarily ready to concede (and His attitude to divorce was similar).</p><p>In the invitation to the Kingdom, "the poor, and the maimed, and the halt and the blind" are invited; with the implication that Christ will be "recompensed at the resurrection of the just". We don't recompense Him now by our works; we are lost sheep causing Him needless work and worry, wasting His goods and needing to get ourselves out of the problem (<em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em>), needing His frank forgiveness for our huge debts (<em><a href='B:470 18:24'>Mat 18:24</a></em>). As Job recognized, if we are righteous, we give nothing to God (<em><a href='B:220 35:7'>Job 35:7</a></em>). Our <em>un</em>righteousness commends God's righteousness (<em><a href='B:520 3:5'>Rom 3:5</a></em>). All things come <em>out of</em> God: "Who hath first given to him?::. for of him, and through him, and to him, are all things" (<em><a href='B:520 11:35-36'>Rom 11:35-36</a></em>); it's give, give, give with God. We are the poor beggars sitting down at the great supper, unable to recompense. Of course, it depends&nbsp;where we put the emphasis. The parable which relates how Christ desires fruit from us is followed by that of the marriage supper, where it seems we are just asked to accept an invitation with humility (<em><a href='B:470 21:34'>Mat 21:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:3'>Mat 22:3</a></em>). The point surely is that we are invited, for no reason, to the Kingdom, and we must accept with the humility that will accompany a recognition of such grace (<em><a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a></em>). But our experience of this grace will inevitably bring forth some spiritual fruit:&nbsp;Again, it seems we are intended to follow the story through, and visualize the inappropriate, uncultured conduct of these beggars at the table, causing so much unspoken embarrassment and pain to the generous rich man. The link with <em><a href='B:290 55:1-3'>Isa 55:1-3</a></em> would suggest that we can interpret the call to the supper as the call of the Gospel, and the hungry people sitting down to a fine meal as our ecclesial experience now (although this isn't to say that we can't read it as concerning the future Kingdom too). The preceding <em><a href='B:490 14:8-11'>Luk 14:8-11</a></em> describe us as sitting down at the feast in this life, until the host walks in and starts re-arranging the seating order (cp. the coming of Christ in judgment on His household). We are left to imagine the grabbing for food, the greedy, selfish eyeing up of the plates, the grasping, the lack of social skills, the lack of good conversation between each other, the occasional cursing under the breath, perhaps even throwing of food, the eager desire for wine, the lack of restraint. All in the company of the Master (God) and His servants (Christ and the Angels). And this, it seems to me, was the Lord's imagination of His immature ecclesia, feasting on the good things He has prepared for us. Can we not begin to enter just a little into the pain and acute embarrassment and sadness we cause to our gracious Host by the self-centredness of our natures, manifest as it is in spiritual terms so often? It's quite possible to become so spiritually selfish, so bent on our own salvation, that the whole spirit of the supper is lost. After all, the idea of a large supper is to inculcate a social spirit rather than just to provide individual feeding to each of the guests. How many times has it been reasoned in these last days: 'Sorry, I have to work out my own salvation, I just can't spare time and can't risk association with my weaker brethren:::'. And the Lord Jesus, in His perfect way, saw this coming as in sunny Galilee He formulated His parables of grace. &nbsp; </p><p>Time and again His parables sought to justify His association with outcasts (<em><a href='B:490 14:15-24'>Luk 14:15-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:1-32'>Luk 15:1-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:23-25'>Mat 18:23-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:1-15'>Mat 20:1-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:28-32'>Mat 21:28-32</a></em>). When the nobleman came to ask Jesus to cure his son, Jesus agreed; and the man went home. But it was only on the way home that he really believed. He came to faith spontaneously, and not because Jesus insisted on it. Or remember the woman who had had five men in her life, and presumably a number of children to go with each of them. Her face and body would have reflected the story of her life. She was living with someone not her husband. Jesus didn't tell her to break up with the guy. He knew full well that if a woman left her man, she had nowhere to go. Here was a woman who had been 'married' five times. Who would want her? There were children involved. Probably even her family had rejected her. Jesus accepted the real life situation, and human failure to rise up to higher standards. One wonders whether the very lack of specific demand from Jesus maybe motivated her to somehow normalize her life. The gentle way Jesus treated these cases shows not so much approval, but an understanding of the frailty of human nature. And this is what enabled Jesus to be so unwaveringly committed to His own perfect standards, and yet be so natural and at ease with the lowest of the low.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the servant said: Master, what you did command is done, and still there is room</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 14:12'>Luk 14:12</a></em>. The servant seems surprised that after the crippled and blind beggars have been drafted in to the opulence of the feast, "still there is room". Quite simply, there are more places in the feast of the Kingdom than there are people willing to fill them! How encouraging is that thought! The same Greek word for "place" recurs in <em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em>, where the Lord Jesus taught that He was going to die on the cross in order to prepare a place for us in His Father's palatial mansion. The effort made in preparing the feast therefore speaks of Christ's life, death and resurrection for us. And it's <em>so</em> tragic that most people don't want to know. So in a sense, "all you gotta do is say yes". Just accept the invitation; take the messengers for real. Although perhaps we are left to read in the detail to the story, that many a desperate beggar just couldn't grasp that the messenger was for real, and preferred to stay put. Maybe only the <em>truly</em> desperate thought 'Maybe there's some truth in it::. I've nothing to lose". The many places in God's Kingdom::. are only for those who desperately want them. Those who make meaningless excuses about how busy they are, those who can't believe that really God could be true to His word and really give us beggars a place in His wonderful Kingdom::. will by their own decision not be there. </p><p>Let's not under-estimate the struggle which there is to believe the simple fact that there are more places in the Kingdom than people willing to fill them; that really God is begging us to come in to the place prepared for us through the death of His Son. When we read of the Master telling the servant to "<em>compel</em>" the beggars to come in to the feast, it's the same Greek word as we find used in one of the excuses given for not going in to the feast: "I <em>must needs go</em> and see" (the field the man had supposedly bought that evening without ever seeing it) (<em><a href='B:490 14:18'>Luk 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em>). Just as our loving God, with all the power of His most earnest desire, can seek to <em>compel</em> us to accept His offer, so the power of our own flesh <em>compels</em> us the other way. The petty human issues had become so large in the minds of the people concerned that they ended up telling obvious untruths or giving very poor excuses to get out of attending; life had gotten on top of them and that was it. The story seems so bizarre; the refusal of such a wonderful invitation would've been the element of unreality which struck the first hearers. The point is that petty human issues, coupled with our lack of appreciation that we are down and out beggars, really will lead people to lose out on eternity. The other such element of unreality would've been the persistence of the host to fill the places with anyone, literally <em>anyone</em>, willing to come on in. It's not so much a question of 'Will we be there?' but rather 'Do we really want to be there?'. Because if we do, we shall be. </p><p>The servant reports to the master that the invited guests wouldn’t come to the supper [cp. God’s Kingdom]. The master tells the slave to go out into the streets and invite the poor. And then we’re hit with an incredible unreality, especially to first century ears: The servant has already done what the Lord had commanded him. No slave would take it upon himself to draw up the invitation list, or take the initiative to invite poor beggars into his master’s supper. But <em>this</em> servant <em>did</em>! He not only had the unusual relationship with his master that allowed this huge exercise of his own initiative- but he somehow knew his master <em>so</em> well that he guessed in advance what the master would say, and he went and did it without being asked. In all this we have a wonderful insight into the relationship possible between us and our Lord, especially in the area of preaching / inviting people to His supper. The initiative is in our hands, and as we come to know Him better, we come to know His mind, and to sense how He would react. We have His aims and desires as ours, and we are in harmony with Him without having to be told things in so many words. And of course for a master to serve his servants was unheard of (<em><a href='B:490 12:35-38'>Luk 12:35-38</a></em>). But this of course was the wonder of what the Lord did for us, "as one who serves" (<em><a href='B:490 22:27'>Luk 22:27</a></em>), defining for us our attitude to each other at the memorial table and in all aspects of our lives and relationships. See on <em><a href='B:490 13:7'>Luk 13:7</a></em>.</p><p>We can also understand the servant as the Lord Jesus, reporting to the master [= God] that the invited guests wouldn’t come to the supper [cp. God’s Kingdom]. This servant not only had the unusual relationship with His master that allowed this huge exercise of his own initiative- but He somehow knew His master so well that He guessed in advance what the master would say, and he went and did it without being asked. In all this we have a wonderful insight into the relationship between the Father and Son, especially in the area of inviting people to His supper [cp. salvation]. The point of all this is to demonstrate how the Lord Jesus has His influence upon the Father, and can at times change His stated purpose [e:g. with regard to the rejection of Israel- just as Moses did]. And this is the same Father and Son with whom we have to do, and whose matchless relationship is the basis and reason of our salvation. </p>


text:
<p><em>Andthe master said to the servant: Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come, that my house may be filled</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:530 9:13'>1Co 9:13</a></em>. This shows the blessing which will go behind the efforts to spread the Gospel to all the world in the last days. There is a fervent, <em>urgent</em> desire of the Lord for this, and so His blessing will surely be with all who catch the same spirit of urgency. According to the parable, the quality of converts is sacrificed (by the Lord, not us) for the sake of numbers- which connects with the idea that the coming of Christ is to some degree dependent upon the full number of the Gentiles being converted (<em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>). Likewise the drag net was brought to land once it was full of fish (<em><a href='B:470 13:48'>Mat 13:48</a></em>). The Lord speaks of how “few" (the Greek implies physically weak, cp. the unwanted labourers in the market place) the labourers are (<em><a href='B:470 9:37'>Mat 9:37</a></em>), and therefore more (numerically) are needed. Any lamentation about the weakness of the latter-day ecclesia must be seen in this context; the Lord is desperate for the places at the supper to be filled, although woe to those who come in without a wedding garment (<em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>). &nbsp; </p><p>The parable of the great supper chronicles the preaching of the Gospel over time. There were three stages of appeal: "To them that were bidden" (the Jews in Israel), to those in the streets and lanes of the city (the Jewish Diaspora), and finally, in a spirit of urgency, the preachers are commanded: "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" (<em><a href='B:490 14:16-23'>Luk 14:16-23</a></em>; the same spirit of urgency in witness is to be found in the Lord’s command to His preachers to cut the courtesy of prolonged greetings). Once the required number are in God's spiritual house, the feast will begin- and that feast represents eating bread in the Kingdom, at the second coming. </p><p>The language of 'going out' should be connected to the command to '<em>go </em>and teach all nations'. The parable concerns the master of the house (God) commanding His servant (Christ); yet the connection with the preaching commission indicates that the commission given to Christ He fulfils through us, as demonstrated earlier in this study. The ever-increasing sense of urgency in the appeal to 'come in' ought to be reflected in our preaching in these last days.</p><p>Noah's ark is a well-known type of the salvation which humanity can find in Christ; and yet close analysis of the Genesis record reveals that there were some animals whom Noah had to bring into the ark and take them with him (<em><a href='B:10 6:19'>Gen 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:2'>Gen 7:2</a></em>); and others who came to Noah and entered into the ark of their own volition (<em><a href='B:10 6:20'>Gen 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:9'>Gen 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:15-16'>Gen 7:15-16</a></em>). The same Hebrew is found in <em><a href='B:10 8:9'>Gen 8:9</a></em>, about how the dove came to Noah of its own volition, and Noah welcomed her and took her into the ark. Putting all this together, we are to compel men to come in; and yet we are also to be there to welcome in the seekers who seek of their own volition. It's easier to do the latter; to put up a website, waiting there for some eager seeker to come and find. But we are also to compel people in, and to also bear in mind that there are some who will be attracted to the Gospel from selfish reasons, as the man who buys the field thinking that he can exploit it for his own benefit. These too we are to take on board and not turn away. Whilst people, with all their wonderful uniqueness, should never be pigeon-holed nor over-categorized::. all the same, we need to consider the type of person we're dealing with as we plan out our approach. For if we seek them, we will consider who they are, and how appropriately we can engage them.</p><p>"Compel" is the same word used in :18, where the man excuses his lack of response to the Gospel by saying that he "must" or is compelled to go and check out his new land. We are to help people see that the 'necessity' of secular things is to be replaced by the ultimate 'necessity' of responding to the call of the Kingdom.</p><p>The eagerness of the Lord to accept us, to find in us spiritual fruit, is perhaps reflected in the way that He begins inviting people of 'His' level to the feast of the Kingdom, but ends up lowering the bar as time goes on, to try by all means to get at least somebody in there. This theme of lowering the bar is perhaps continued in this same passage by the way the Lord says that His disciples must forsake / 'bid goodbye to' all that they had (<em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). This is the same word found earlier in <em><a href='B:490 9:61'>Luk 9:61</a></em>, where some time before, a potential disciple who first wished to go and "bid goodbye to" his family was judged as not suitably committed to the urgency of the task. But now, the Lord says that this is acceptable in His definition of discipleship. This Lord is our Lord.</p><p>“How shall they hear without a preacher?”&nbsp; It’s impossible to hear without a preacher. Of course, God could beam the message into men some other way. But normally He chooses to work through human preachers. The preachers in the parable of the great supper are bidden "Compel them to come in, that my house may be filled". The house of God's Kingdom is filled with people as a result of enthusiastic preaching.</p>


text:
<p><em>For I say to you, that none of those men that were invited shall taste my supper</em>- There may be the implication that the three people said "I cannot come" with the implication 'I can't come <em>right now</em>, but later'; and the Greek could bear such an interpretation. The master's comment at the end suggests that he knew these people would later turn up at the supper, but he would refuse them entry. There are often connections within the Lord's parables; in this case, the men who were so busy with daily life that they turned up at the wedding later would connect with the story of the other wedding guests who didn't have enough oil, and who <em>later</em> turned up at the wedding feast- again, only to be barred entry. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now there went with him great crowds; and he turned and said to them</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>. The people eagerly following Jesus, and then He turns and tells them that actually God is coming after them with 20,000 men and they have only 10,000, and they on a personal level <em>urgently</em> therefore need to make peace with Him- because every minute now counts. Time and again, the Lord is urging people to look at themselves and their own position, not follow Him because they're part of a crowd who does, not hesitate from personal commitment because of never-never questions about cosmic ethics and Divine justice which are well beyond us::. He forces the spotlight back on us, me myself and I, time and again. And His audience squirmed, just as they do today. </p>


text:
<h4><em>If anyone comes to me, and hates not his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple</em>- The Lord himself spoke of how He expected this of us; and He put it in language which He surely <em>knew</em> would arrest attention. He's a demanding Lord- and reflection on His life and death for us shows that He has every right to be so. Notice how the Lord Jesus uses the figure of polysyndeton- i:e. repeating the word "and" when there's no grammatical need to, in order to build up the impression of how many different people we must be prepared to break with. His message is plain: the Lord Jesus must come in front of every human relationship, or else we are not His disciples. And it isn't just human relationships that must be sacrificed; it's "houses::. lands" (careers, cars, we might say) as well (<em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em>). It has to be seriously asked whether our community, especially the younger generation, are prepared to be the Lord's disciples; whether they have given up these kind of things for His sake. He must be the <em>Lord</em> of our lives, the master passion and controller. Christ's love <em>constrains </em>us.<em> These</em> sorts of demanding words are so common in the Gospels that they almost slip our notice. There can be no serious doubt what He's saying: He has no room for passengers or part-timers. As far as He is concerned, it can't be a hobby.</h4>


text:
<p><em>Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple</em>- The Lord taught that unless a man was willing to carry his cross and forsake all that he had, he couldn’t be His disciple. And He called them His disciples, even though they clearly didn’t perceive the real nature of the cross, nor did they actually leave all that they had but retained some things. The disciples were told to sell what they had (<em><a href='B:490 12:22'>Luk 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:32-33'>Luk 12:32-33</a></em>); but it seems they kept their fishing business. After having asked them this, the Lord again had to speak to them about forsaking all that they had (:33). Their claim to have left literally all (<em><a href='B:490 18:28'>Luk 18:28</a></em>) appears somewhat exaggerated. Indeed, the parable of the unjust steward being specifically directed at the disciples (<em><a href='B:490 15:1'>Luk 15:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:9'>Luk 16:9</a></em>), it could appear that they had a special problem with lower-middle-class petty materialism (<em><a href='B:490 16:9'>Luk 16:9</a></em>). Likewise Luke 6 is spoken specially to the disciples, and it has much to say about materialism:&nbsp;The Lord was and is very generous to our weak efforts to rise up to His high standards.</p><p>Reflect on a Gospel parallel to see the huge importance of being a disciple of Jesus. In <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em> the Lord says that whoever doesn’t take up his cross and follow after Him, “is not worthy of me”. In <em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em> we have the same words, but concluded with “… the same cannot be my disciple”. To be a disciple of the Lord is to be worthy of Him. To seek to walk as He walked, to follow behind Him, is to be worthy of Him. The important thing is to follow, for all our stumblings, but at least to be in the way behind Him.</p><p>Of course we cannot literally take up the Lord's cross. Taking up the cross must therefore refer to an attitude of mind; it is paralleled with forsaking all that we have (<em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>), which is surely a command to be obeyed in our attitudes.</p>


text:
<p><em>For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he have enough to complete it?</em>- Virtually nobody in the audience had ever planned to build a tower (Gk. 'castle'). So the Lord means 'If you were mega wealthy and had money to build a tower, wouldn't you even then be careful to understand the total cost in advance, lest even your wealth is all taken away by it?'. They were asked to imagine they were wealthy. The Lord was seeking to elevate their minds upwards to consider the great potential which they had. But all the same, they must count the cost; and realize that to build a castle / tower was beyond them. This is the implication of :31 and :33. Capitulation is required. Or it could be that the Lord is asking them as poor people to seriously calculate how much it would cost to build a tower / castle, and realize it was beyond them. Recognizing our spiritual bankruptcy, our inability to pay, and throwing ourselves upon the Lord- this is the same as forsaking all we have (:33).</p>


text:
<p><em>Unless, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish it, all that watch begin to mock him, saying</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>. The only true foundation laid is the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 3:11'>1Co 3:11</a></em>). The potential builder must resign all plans for self-salvation, all efforts to lay his own foundation; and accept that of the Lord Jesus. Luke likes to use the Greek word for "finish" in relation to how all things were finished in the work of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:31'>Luk 18:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:37'>Luk 22:37</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>This man began to build, and was not able to finish</em>- Earlier, the Lord had spoken of the shame of rejection at judgment day (:9). It would be witnessed publicly; the shame of the unworthy will be before the eyes of all their brethren (<em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). If the tower / castle had to be built, then the man would have to urgently and desperately find a mega wealthy person who couldenable him to do the job. And that person was the Father offering the wealth of grace in His Son. </p>


text:
<p><em>Or what king, as he goes to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel, whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him that comes against him with twenty thousand?</em>- All the parables contain elements of unreality in order to make a point. This one speaks of a King coming in judgment upon another King who only has half the army which he has. The more powerful King is of course God. But we are likened to a “king” also, on His level in that sense, who has only half His strength. This is altogether such an under estimate of the Father’s physical and moral superiority to us!&nbsp;The smaller army can of course defeat the bigger army- but only with God's help, as various Old Testament examples make clear. The king must resign all attempts to win the battle in his own strength. "By good advice make war (Heb. 'a battle')" (<em><a href='B:240 20:18'>Pro 20:18</a></em>); and the advice is to not even attempt it. The weaker king has it seems already embarked on journeying to the encounter; he has to display great humility in avoiding it by recognizing that he really hasn't got the strength to succeed. </p>


text:
<p><em>Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an ambassador and asks conditions of peace</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:520 14:19'>Rom 14:19</a></em>. Does the man with 10,000 men faced with the oncoming army of God with 20,000 men just recklessly go ahead, or does he seek reconciliation? There was surely an intended connection within the Lord's teaching concerning how the loving Father saw the prodigal son "afar off" in his sin and separation; and how the King [God] coming against man with 20,000 men in battle needs to be reconciled with whilst He is still "afar off" (<em><a href='B:490 14:32'>Luk 14:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). God is both coming towards us in judgment; and yet also sees us 'from afar' in untold grace and desire to save. It is this wondrous paradox which makes the ultimate meeting of God and man so intense and wonderful. The 'harder side of God', the King coming in overpowering judgment against sinful man, is what gives power and poignancy to His final meeting with man as the Father meets the prodigal. See on <em><a href='B:490 10:34'>Luk 10:34</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>So therefore whoever of you does not renounce all that he has, cannot be my disciple</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 12:22'>Luk 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:3'>Luk 21:3</a></em>. The weak king who sends ambassadors asking for conditions of peace is understood by the Lord as the man who forsakes all he has in order for peace with God. This is the importance of forsaking wealth&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>), as the merchant did (<em><a href='B:470 13:44-46'>Mat 13:44-46</a></em>), as the blind man left his garment (<em><a href='B:480 10:50'>Mar 10:50</a></em>), as the widow threw in her two mites, rejecting the temptation to be 'prudent' and keep one for herself to use as capital for the future&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 21:2'>Luk 21:2</a></em>), as Matthew "left all, rose up and followed" (<em><a href='B:490 5:28'>Luk 5:28</a></em>), and as the disciples in that beauteous childlike innocence could say " Lo, we have left all:::?" (<em><a href='B:480 10:28'>Mar 10:28</a></em>). What this surely means is that in our <em>attitudes</em> we must be as if we possessed nothing, as if we have in our heart of hearts resigned everything, even the very concept of personal 'possession'. See on <em><a href='B:540 6:10'>2Co 6:10</a></em>.</p><p>When the Lord speaks of leaving all and following after Him, He surely had in mind the well-known story of Mattathias, who began the Maccabean revolt by saying: “Let every one who is zealous for the Law and supports the covenant <em>follow after me</em>… and they <em>left their possessions behind</em> in the town” (<em>1Ma_2:27</em>). And again the Lord seems to have had this in mind when He says that when He comes, His true people are to flee Jerusalem and not worry that their ‘stuff is in the house’ (<em><a href='B:490 17:31'>Luk 17:31</a></em>). For an itinerant teacher like Jesus of Nazareth to offer his ideas and his interpretation of the Old Testament, and then have men following Him, was not out of place in first century Palestine. But the Lord twists the whole figure of ‘follow me’. Unlike the other teachers, his teaching didn’t lead to taking arms and fighting Rome. His men are to follow Him in wilfully taking up and carrying a cross, imitating His supreme human bravery in both His life and above all in His death, a bravery which He showed in facing sin in the eye and conquering every temptation, whatever the cost, whatever the human implication. &nbsp;</p><p>The Lord followed right on from the supper parable with the demand to hate one's own life, pick up their cross and follow Him, without which we cannot be His disciple. He also told the parable of God coming with a huge army to meet us who are far weaker- and our need to make peace with Him and forsake all that we have in order to follow Christ (<em><a href='B:490 14:25-33'>Luk 14:25-33</a></em>). These radical demands of Jesus are in fact a development of His parable about the supper. For amongst some Middle Eastern peoples to this day, refusing the invitation to enter the banquet for such a meal- especially after having signalled your earlier acceptance of the invitation- was "equivalent to a declaration of war". And so the parable of <em>us</em> as the man going out to war against a far superior army suddenly falls into place in this context. "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that doesn't renounce all that he has, he cannot be my disciple" (<em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). The renouncing or forsaking of all we have refers to the man with 10,000 soldiers renouncing what human strength he had in the face of realizing he was advancing against a force of 20,000. The picking up of the cross, the 'hating' of our own lives, the renouncing all we have::. obviously refers to doing something very hard for us. But the context is the parable of the supper, where the 'hard' thing to understand is why people refused the invitation, why they just couldn't believe it was real and for them; or why they just let petty human issues become so large in their minds that they just ouldn't be bothered with it. Simply believing that we will be there, that in all sober reality we have been invited to a place in the Kingdom, that God is compelling / persuading / pressurizing us to be there::. this is the hard thing. This is the hating of our lives, picking up our cross, forsaking our human strength and surrendering to God.</p><p>“Whoever of you does not <em>renounce</em> all that he has cannot be my disciple”. Renouncing is something we do in our hearts and deepest feelings and attitudes. Have we truly <em>renounced </em>it all? Even if there are still bank balances and pension plans and property deeds and cars and treasured possessions… made out in our name. Have we in our hearts <em>renounced</em> them? That they aren’t <em>really</em> mine. I have no personal long term security from them, because they’re <em>not mine</em>. I’m just holding in stewardship what God gave me. And the Lord Himself drives the point home- if we have any <em>other</em> attitude to these wretched things, these <em>almost</em>-nooses around our necks, then we are <em>not</em> His disciples. It’s one of the scariest thoughts for Christianity. The fearless, gripped-by-Jesus approach to life which we see in the early church is the very opposite of the passivity of our post-modern world. We are called to a passionate, emotional life; a life where we each have someone to save, someone to die for, to live for, to sacrifice our self for. And this approach to life will naturally take care of how we use ‘our’ money. It is the passion-less life which results in a mean, careful approach to the spending of ‘our’ resources for others. See on <em><a href='B:510 4:32'>Act 4:32</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord appears to make discipleship dependent upon giving up our possessions and forsaking all we have. But it’s quite apparent that His disciples didn’t literally do that. Zacchaeus only gave away half of his possessions (<em><a href='B:490 19:8'>Luk 19:8</a></em>); and other disciples of Jesus clearly retained their homes and some possessions. The Lord must therefore mean that He expects us to <em>in our minds</em> resign all personal ownership of absolutely everything which we have- even if those things remain, to human appearance, ‘ours’. This is really a challenging thing, in this world of savings and acquisition.</p>


text:
<p><em>Salt therefore is good, but if the salt has lost its taste, with what shall it be seasoned?</em>- The Greek for "lost its taste" is literally 'to become foolish', and is so translated in <em><a href='B:520 1:22'>Rom 1:22</a></em>. Salt is good unless it is not salty, when it is then useless; this means that salt has a very specific usage, and beyond that it cannot be used for anything. It can only be cast away as are the condemned (:35). The idea is that unless we achieve our Divinely intended role as the salt of the earth, then we are useless and will be condemned; we have no other possible usage in this world apart from that intended by God. The "therefore" connects with :33 about being a disciple, which involves leaving all as the disciples did and following the Lord (:33,27). The disciples followed the Lord in the sense of supporting and performing His missionary work. They were the "salt of the earth / land". Without them, "it", the land, would not be salted, as so much depended upon them; or the idea may be that if the disciples lost their saltiness, they could not be re-salted. If they turned away from their ministry, this would be a serious sin and they could not then be re-appointed to it (<em><a href='B:650 6:5-6'>Heb 6:5-6</a></em>). If we are no influence upon the earth around us, then we have failed in our calling to be the salt of the earth, and will be condemned. We cannot be secret believers.</p><p>"Good" has the idea is of being able, to have possibility. If we will not use our potential for good, then we will be rejected, because we have no possibilities for use. It's only when we wilfully lose our potential for good that we really are of no use. If salt loses savour, what then can be used for seasoning ["wherewith shall it be salted"]? The idea is surely that if salt cannot be used for making salty- then it can be used for nothing, it has no practical use. This is a major statement about the ultimate vanity of all secular achievement and careers, compared to being the salt of the earth. </p>


text:
<p><em>It is useful neither for the soil nor for the manure heap, it is thrown away. He that has ears to hear, let him hear</em>- The fact there is no middle road is the most powerful imperative to total devotion. The Lord foresaw that it would be possible for His men to be as salt which had lost it’s savour; to appear as His, but for this to have no practical effect at all; and such salt is to be “cast out” in the end. We <em>must</em> have influence upon others, or we aren’t salt. Salt could be used for nothing apart from savouring things. We must fulfil our ministry, for otherwise we are of no practical use and will be "thrown away" in condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:30'>Mat 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:48'>Mat 13:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> etc:).</p>


text:
<p><em>Now all the tax collectors and sinners were drawing near to him to hear him teach</em>- Unlike many preachers of high spiritual standards, the Lord was attractive to sinners. They flocked to hear Him, He ate with them and appeared to actually quite like their company. 'Drawing near' is a Hebraism for coming to a holy place for worship. The Lord in His very person was the holy place, and not the Jerusalem temple cult. The double mention of "him" indicating the spiritual charisma which the Lord holds over those desperately seeking righteousness</p>


text:
<p><em>And both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying: This man receives sinners and eats with them</em>- The Lord was criticized for “receiving sinners” and eating with them. Instead of the usual and expected Greek word <em>dechomai</em>, we find here the Greek <em>prosdechomai</em>- He welcomed them <em>into fellowship</em>, symbolizing this by eating with them. This was an act which had religious overtones in first century Palestine. Notice that <em>prosdechomai</em>&nbsp;is used by Paul to describe welcoming a brother / sister in spiritual fellowship (<em><a href='B:520 16:2'>Rom 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:29'>Phi 2:29</a></em>). The Lord fellowshipped people in the belief that this would lead them to repentance, following His Father’s pattern of using grace in order to lead people to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). He didn’t wait for people to get everything right and repented of and <em>only then</em> fellowship them, as a sign that they were up to His standards. &nbsp; </p><p>The theme of eating continues after Luke 14 - for Luke 15 contains parables told by the Lord in answer to the criticism that He ate with sinners (<em><a href='B:490 15:2'>Luk 15:2</a></em>). He explained that He had come to seek and save the lost, and that was why He ate with them (<em><a href='B:490 15:4'>Luk 15:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a></em>, where He justifies eating with Zacchaeus for the same reason). Note how in the case of Zacchaeus, the man only stated his repentance after he had 'received' Jesus into his house and eaten with Him. This exemplifies how the Lord turned upside down the table practice of the Jews- He didn't eat with people <em>once they had</em> repented, but <em>so that</em> His gracious fellowship of them might <em>lead them to</em> repentance. The parables of Luke 15 speak about eating in order to express joy that a person had repented and been saved- the eating was to celebrate finding the lost sheep, coin and son. But the Lord was saying that this justified His eating with not yet repentant sinners. Thinking this through, we find an insight into the hopefulness of Jesus for human repentance- He fellowshipped with them and treated them <em>as if</em> He were celebrating their repentance; for He saw eating with them in this life as a foretaste of His eating with them in His future Kingdom. He invited them to a foretaste of the future banquet. His fellowship policy was therefore to encourage repentance; and seeing He wished all to be saved, He didn't exclude any from His table.</p><p>The Lord was criticized for “receiving sinners” and eating with them (<em><a href='B:490 15:2'>Luk 15:2</a></em>). Instead of the usual and expected Greek word <em>dechomai</em>, we find here the Greek <em>prosdechoma</em>i – He welcomed them into fellowship, symbolizing this by eating with them. This was an act which had religious overtones in 1st century Palestine. Notice that <em>prosdechomai</em> is used by Paul to describe welcoming a brother / sister in spiritual fellowship (<em><a href='B:520 16:2'>Rom 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:29'>Phi 2:29</a></em>). The Lord fellowshipped people in the belief that this would lead them to repentance, following His Father’s pattern of using grace in order to lead people to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). He didn’t wait for people to get everything right and repented of and only then fellowship them, as a sign that they were up to His standards.</p><h4>The parables of the lost coin and lost sheep invite the hearer to identify with the heart of the God who seeks His lost. But the final climax of this triad of parables is that of the lost sons. Here the audience has to place themselves in one of two camps- the self-righteous son who ends up not eating with the Father, or the prodigal who sins so awfully and then eats with the Father in the hushed humility which experience of His grace along can bring. The Jews were worried about whom they might eat / fellowship with, just as many in the body of Christ are today. But the Lord turned it all around- <em>you</em> are a serious sinner, you need to make that long walk home to the Father in your day by day repentance, and eat with Him by His grace. He is seeking <em>you</em> to eat with Him; the question of whom <em>you</em> eat with is utterly secondary to that.</h4>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke to them this parable, saying</em>- This rubric is not used to introduce the parables of the lost coin and lost son which follow. It could be that the Lord intended us to consider the three parables as one. </p>


text:
<p><em>What man of you- </em>Although the parables have the appearance of simple stories, their essential meaning is only granted to the reflective and spiritually minded reader. Close analysis of the parables reveal that they often contain something in them that is arrestingly unreal; and in this is very often the crux of the message. Surface level reading and listening give the impression that they are simple, homely stories, obvious in their meaning. But they are not; otherwise all men would have understood them, and the Lord would not have spoken them <em>so that</em> Israel would hear but not perceive. The true meaning depends upon perceiving that there is an element of startling unreality within the story line, that flags attention to the real message. The parables therefore challenge our stereotypes and force us to re-examine cherished suppositions. Perhaps the most obvious signpost to this feature of elements of unreality in the parables is in that of the lost sheep: “What man of you…” would leave ninety and nine sheep in the wilderness and go searching for the one lost one? Answer: none of you would do that. And perhaps likewise, “What woman…” having lost just one piece of silver would be so obsessive about finding it, and so ecstatic with joy upon finding it (<em><a href='B:490 15:4'>Luk 15:4</a></em>; Luk 158)? Perhaps the answer is also meant to be: “Not one of you”. Yet this is the Father’s passion for saving the lost, and rejoicing over them</p><p><em>Having a hundred sheep and having lost one of them, does not leave the other ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after that which is lost, until he finds it?</em>- The Lord's parable of the good shepherd (<em><a href='B:490 15:1-7'>Luk 15:1-7</a></em>) brings together Psalms 23 and also the restoration passages of <em><a href='B:300 23:1-8'>Jer 23:1-8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:330 34:1-31'>Eze 34:1-31</a></em>, which speak of the flock of Israel going astray due to bad shepherds, being saved by the good shepherd, being delivered / gathered, and then returning to the land. The sheep is found, and accepts being found- there is no actual mention of repentance. Thus the 'return' of Judah to their land was intended as a work of God- He would make them return, He would give them repentance [note how <em><a href='B:510 11:18'>Act 11:18</a></em> speaks of God granting men repentance]. This is all such wonderful grace. The even more incredible thing, though, is that Judah refused to accept this grace; they didn't 'return' to the land because they saw no need to 'return' to God. They willingly forgot that they were only in Babylon because of their sins; to 'return' to the land was a 'return' to God, which He had enabled. But they were like the lost sheep refusing to sit on the shepherd's shoulders, preferring to sit in a hole and die::. and this is the warning to us. For truly, absolutely all things have been prepared for us to enter the Kingdom. It's only those who don't want to be there who won't be.</p><p>The good shepherd searches for the sheep until He finds it. John 10 is full of reference to Ezekiel 34, which describes God’s people as perishing on the mountains, eaten by wolves. But the Lord Jesus set Himself to do that which was impossible- to search <em>until He found</em>, even though He knew that some were already lost. Our attitude to those lost from the ecclesia and to those yet out in the world must be similar. The Lord knew there would not be repentance by Israel. But He went to the fig tree seeking fruit, even though it wasn’t the time for fruit (<em><a href='B:480 11:13'>Mar 11:13</a></em>). He saw the crowds who wanted only loaves and fishes as a great harvest (<em><a href='B:470 9:37'>Mat 9:37</a></em>).</p><p>More than anything, preaching has taught me the immense value of the human person as an individual. The Lord’s parable of the strange shepherd who leaves the 99 and gives his all for the one- the foolish one, the lost one, the antisocial one- is programmatic for me. The need is the call. If one person needs fellowship, forgiveness, love, the teaching of the Gospel, baptism, encouragement, re-fellowship, support, money, whatever… the value of them as an individual must be paramount. No matter what it costs us, how far we have to travel [in whatever sense], how much ‘trouble’ we get into, how foolish we look, how out on a limb we put ourselves. The value and meaning of the individual person was paramount in the Lord’s teaching and example, and it must be in our worldviews too.</p><p>David leaving the sheep and going to fight Goliath recalls the parable of the Lord as the good shepherd leaving the flock and going to save the lost sheep. The shepherd goes alone at night up into the hills (cp. Isaac going to be sacrificed in the hills), and carries the lamb on his shoulder- as the Lord carried the cross of our sins on his shoulder to redeem the lost sheep of mankind (<em><a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a></em>). This lost sheep parable is also picked up in <em><a href='B:670 2:25'>1Pe 2:25</a></em>: "For you were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the shepherd and bishop of your souls" (i:e. Christ the shepherd). But this in turn is quoting <em><a href='B:290 53:5-6'>Isa 53:5-6</a></em>: "All we like sheep have gone astray::. but he was wounded (on the cross) for our transgressions", which is thus the parallel to the saving of the lost sheep. This interpretation of the lost sheep parable- i:e. that the shepherd going to save the sheep represents the Lord going to die on the cross- was first prompted by David leaving the sheep with the keeper to go and fight Goliath, representing Christ's saving us from sin on the cross. The leaving of the sheep with the keeper perhaps looks forward to the Lord's entrusting the disciples to the Father's care in those agonizing days while death parted him from them, as David's encounter with Goliath did. David's subsequent leaving of them altogether to go and live in the King's court clearly looks forward to our Lord's ascension to Heaven after His victory over the real Goliath:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing</em>- At the time of Jesus, it was taught (<em>Mishnah Qidd</em> 4:14) that “A man should not teach his son to be a herdsman…for their craft is the craft of robbers”. Shepherds weren’t seen as kindly old men. They were seen as crafty and thieves. But the Lord chose that figure to represent Himself and the Father- even though the Old Testament likens God to the shepherd of Israel. The startling, unsettling figure [for the first century Jewish mind] was to demonstrate how it is the Lord’s humanity that makes Him our saviour. Likewise, the likening of the Gospel to yeast would have been shocking; or to a mustard bush, which is a member of the cabbage family [rather, e:g:, than to a fruitful vine or upright palm tree]. It is signalled to us that there is to be a strangeness to this new Kingdom about which Jesus spoke, a humanity and yet unusualness about it. It was hard for the Lord to explain to us the level of love for us which He would reach in the cross. So He told a story of a shepherd who so madly loves his sheep, whose life is so taken up by his job, that he would die to save one of them, and comes back triumphantly rejoicing when he has found the lost sheep. The average shepherd would have surely accepted that some sheep are lost, it's the luck of the game. But this shepherd who dropped all and ran off after one lost sheep was no usual shepherd. And the element of unreality in the story brings out the Lord's grace towards us. Note in passing how the man : sheep relationship portrays that between us and the Lord. As the sheep understood pathetically little about the shepherd's sacrifice to save it, so we too fail to appreciate the height of the fact that Christ died for us, as the shepherd for the sheep. We can be sure that the frightened sheep didn’t bob along on the shepherd’s shoulders, grinning all the way home. With his underside covered in faeces and mud, it would have struggled with the Saviour shepherd, fanatic almost in his passion to save the sheep. As he stumbled along the rocky paths, shoulders bowed down, hands against his chest clutching the animal’s paws, the shepherd would be the living imitation of the posture of the Lord as He carried the cross of our sins to Calvary. All this is a pattern of the almost fanatic effort we should expend to win back the lost. </p><p>The man who owned 100 sheep was rich. Shepherds were the lowest of the low. If you owned 100 sheep, you employed a shepherd to look after them and take responsibility for chasing the lost. But there’s something unreal- the owner of the sheep is the one who is the shepherd. This actually is the point of the Ezekiel 34 passage upon which the Lord built the parable- having fired the unworthy shepherds of Israel, “Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, <em>I myself, even I</em>, will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered abroad, so will I seek out my sheep; and I will deliver them … I will bring them … I will feed them … I myself will be the shepherd of mysheep” (<em><a href='B:330 34:11-15'>Eze 34:11-15</a></em>). The remarkable thing is that the owner of the sheep decides to become the personal shepherd, feeding, seeking, delivering, bringing the sheep <em>himself personally</em>. A Palestinian wealthy enough to own a whole flock of sheep simply wouldn’t do this. He <em>always</em> hired someone else to do this- because being a shepherd was so despised. Behold the humility of God. But see too His personal passion for us. Hence the Lord’s question: Which one of <em>you</em> would act like this? The Father and His Son take such passionate personal responsibility for us, that God was willing in Christ to shame and humiliate Himself in order to get us back into the fold. &nbsp;</p><p>Personal Responsibility </p><p>There’s also something odd about the way the Lord speaks of the shepherd: “<em>He</em> has lost one of them”. Translations of the Bible into Semitic languages, especially Arabic, tend to read: “If one of them is lost” (passive). In the language and concepts of the Middle East, a speaker never blames himself. As in Spanish, they would not say “I lost my book”- rather, “the book went from me”. Likewise “I missed the train” is expressed as “the train left me”. And I would even speculate that preaching Christ in Arabic and even Hispanic cultures comes up against the problem of people strongly disliking taking ultimate responsibility, or to own up to the personal guilt of sin; the shifting of blame away from oneself is reflected even in their languages. And so when the Lord puts words in the shepherd’s mouth whereby he takes direct responsibility for the loss of the sheep, this would’ve sounded strange even grammatically. Apparently to this day, it’s hard to translate that actual phrase into Arabic. Likewise with the idea of the woman saying that she had found the coin which she had lost. The Lord is labouring how God, and God in Christ, feel an extraordinary personal responsibility for the lost. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>&nbsp;</em></p><p><em>And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbours, saying to them: Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!</em>- The shepherd-owner calls his “friends” together. This surely refers to the clubs the Pharisees formed in villages, called the <em>Khaburim</em> [‘friends’]. They ought to have rejoiced to be eating with sinners, as the Lord was- but they wouldn’t. The whole context of the three parables is the Lord justifying why he ate at home with sinners, thereby showing that He considered them as somehow ‘in fellowship’ with Him. The Pharisees wouldn’t do this unless those people repented and learnt Torah in great depth. But the Lord is surely saying that He sees those men who ate with Him as the sheep which has already been brought home. He reflected the gracious outlook with which He saw people; and His hopefulness that by treating a person as if they had ‘come home’, then they would indeed do so. Probing this line further, the Lord Jesus speaks of the found sheep as being symbolic of the repentant. But the sheep did nothing- it was simply acceptant of having been found. To accept being found is, therefore, seen by the Lord as what He calls ‘repentance’. Now surely that’s grace- salvation without works. &nbsp;</p><p>The element of unreality is seen in the way the shepherd takes the sheep <em>home</em> and not back to the fold, inviting neighbours around to rejoice that his sheep had been found. The quite unusual joy and humanly inappropriate love of the shepherd for that sheep is of course there to signpost to us the "love beyond all reason" of the true shepherd for us. The way the lost sheep is brought home rather than returned to the fold was also perhaps some sort of allusion to the teaching of <em><a href='B:50 22:1'>Deu 22:1</a></em> that the lost sheep of your brother's must be returned to <em>him</em>. This would mean that our pastoral care should not simply be for our 'own' sheep, those for whom we have responsibility; but for the lost sheep of other 'pastors' who've not done their job. See on <em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>.</p><p>There is an element of unreality in the story of the lost sheep. And that unreality reflects the sensitivity of Jesus. The shepherd doesn’t return the sheep to the fold, but takes it home and calls his friends around to see the dumb animal and rejoice (<em><a href='B:490 15:4-6'>Luk 15:4-6</a></em>). The Lord knew we would frown a bit at this. He foresaw how hard it would be for us to rejoice in the return of a difficult sheep to fellowship. </p><p>This parable was told by the Lord to justify His eating with sinners. He justifies it by saying that He is holding a party over the finding of one lost person; and those sinners are His friends and neighbours. Truly He is the sinner's friend.</p><p>To carry a sheep on your shoulders, fighting and struggling with you, as you climb down a mountainside in the dark… isn’t something which is usually done <em>rejoicing</em>. But this is the unusual, humanly inexplicable, <em>joy</em> which there is in the Father and Son when day by day they 'find’ us and bring us back. And where would a shepherd usually take such a lost animal? Back to the flock, whom he’s left in the wilderness. But then comes another unreal element. The shepherd takes the sheep <em>home to his very own house</em>. This sheep had such extraordinary value to this wealthy man. He came back dirty and exhausted- he humiliated himself and made himself a fool in the eyes of the world, all because of this humanly senseless love and joy which he had over this lost sheep. And we have to fill in the details, answering the unasked but implied questions- what about the 99 left out in the wilderness? The story ends with them out of the house- paving the way for how the elder son is left standing outside of the house. Note how <em><a href='B:490 15:3'>Luk 15:3</a></em> speaks of the three parables as one, in the singular, “parable".</p><p>In respect of God's relationship with the Angels, it is interesting to note that there seems to be a theme in Scripture of all of the Angels being involved in each action one of them performs, due to the perfect unity that exists between them and God (see on <em><a href='B:490 11:7-8'>Luk 11:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 22:19-23'>1Ki 22:19-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:41'>Exo 12:41</a></em>). Thus when one of the Angels acts in our lives, all the others are conscious of it too. Consider how Luke 15 describes the joy in Heaven when one sinner repents; the man who found the lost sheep "calls together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me::. when she (the woman) has found it (the lost coin) she calls her friends and neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me::. likewise I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the Angels of God over one sinner that repents". The man and the woman must therefore represent God manifested through our guardian Angel. The Angel physically leaves the presence of God in Heaven and then goes off to arrange circumstances to encourage the sinner to return. He then calls all the others together to rejoice "when He comes home" (into Heaven, into the multitude around the throne of God from which Angels go and return in obeying God's Word). The whole Heavenly household then rejoice together. Thus we read in <em><a href='B:650 1:14'>Heb 1:14</a></em> that <em>all </em>the Angels are "ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of&nbsp;salvation". <em>All </em>the Angels are involved together in this work. All things in Heaven (the Angels) and on earth (the things they arrange on earth) are for our sakes!</p>


text:
<h4><em>I say to you, that even so there shall be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents, than over ninety nine righteous persons, who need no repentance</em>- There can be no doubt that the Lord Jesus spoke the words of God, and therefore His sayings can be interpreted at the deepest possible level; and yet at the same time, they were so easy to understand by simple, sincere hearts. The sayings of Jesus have been translated back into Aramaic, the language of His day, by C:F. Burney. He was struck by the degree to which they had a rhythmic shape, like many of the prophetic sayings of the Old Testament. Thus a passage like <em><a href='B:490 7:22'>Luk 7:22</a></em> has six two-beat lines followed at the end by a three-beat line; the commission to the disciples in <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em> rhymes, both in Aramaic and in Greek. The Lord’s prayer is expressed in two-beat lines. The crunch point of the Lord’s forgiveness parable in <em><a href='B:490 15:7'>Luk 15:7</a></em>, that there is joy in Heaven over one sinner that repents, uses the device of alliteration, i:e. similarly sounding words. He uses three words which feature the guttural ‘h’: joy = <em>hedwa</em>; one = <em>hada</em>; sinner = <em>hateya</em>. In passing, I find this kind of thing evidence that we do have in the Gospel records the actual words of Jesus, and not a rough summary of them interpreted by many others, as modern theologians wrongly suppose. Our view of inspiration enables us to return as it were to the actual, living voice of Jesus in confidence. If the record of His words is sure and true, then we can go on to guess in what tone of voice He would have spoken, and seek to define in our own minds ever more features of the Son of Man. This thought alone I find so immensely inspiring- for we hear the real Christ speaking to us down the centuries. The Lord’s teaching style thus reflected His recognition that He was speaking to the illiterate, and that many of those who followed Him would need to commit His words to memory; and so He spoke His words in a form which was memorable by them, as well as profitably dissectible by computer-aided intellectuals of our age. In this alone is a marvellous insight into both His genius and also His sensitivity to His audiences, from which we can take a lesson. But&nbsp;on a practical level, it is apparent that He had carefully prepared His sayings in advance, perhaps during His years up to age 30. I don’t see His sayings as off the cuff bursts of wisdom, neither words merely flashed into His mouth by the Father. They were God’s words, but carefully prepared by Him. He sets a matchless example to any would-be teacher in His church. Jesus spoke to the hearts of the people. He didn’t use words like ‘sin’ very often. He uses <em>hamartia</em> [‘sin’] in the Synoptics only 8 times, compared to 64 times in Paul’s writings. Jesus wasn’t talking theology, He didn’t speak in abstract terms. Rather did He speak of evil fruit, lost sheep, lost coins, no good sons… because He was framing His message for the illiterate, who thought in images rather than abstractions.</h4>


text:
<p><em>Or what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she loses one piece, does not light a lamp and sweeps the house and seeks diligently until she finds it?</em>- Luke 15 contains two parables concerning repentance, where the restored sinner is in fact not repentant: the lost sheep and the lost coin. The Lord searches for them <em>until</em> He finds them; neither of them actually repent and seek to come back. Indeed, the coin is inanimate, it can't repent. It was actually the woman's fault that it got lost in the first place. Now all these are surely examples of hyperbole- a gross exaggeration to make a point. It isn't the Lord's fault that we stray. But He speaks <em>as if it is</em> in this parable, in order to make the point that He <em>so</em> strenuously seeks our return to Him. Likewise Yahweh likens Himself to a worthless husband who forsook His sweet wife of Israel in her youth (<em><a href='B:290 54:6'>Isa 54:6</a></em>).</p><p>God's need for man- as it were- is brought out in this parable. We are compared to a candle that is lit (cp. our baptism) <em>so that</em> it may give light to others (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em>); the woman (the Lord Jesus) lights a candle (He uses believers) to find his lost coin (through our efforts) (<em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>; this must be seen in the context of the other two references in Luke to lighting a candle). If we don't give light (God's word, <em><a href='B:230 119:105'>Psa 119:105</a></em>) to others, we are a candle under a bucket, and therefore we will lose our faith, the flame will go out. So it's hard not to conclude that if we don't naturally give the light to others, we don't believe. The very nature of a lit candle is that it gives light; <em>all</em> candles do this, not just some. The Lord wants to use us as His candle, and He will arrange situations in life to enable this.</p><p>It's been suggested that the lost coin was one of the woman's dowry coins, and thus the story speaks of how every lost person is a personal and deeply felt loss to God. However, this view has been criticized in that a drachma, which had the same value as a silver denarius, was the wage paid to a worker for one day's field work (<em><a href='B:470 20:1-16'>Mat 20:1-16</a></em>). It was far less than the dowry coins. It could be that instead we have herea reference to a desperately poor housewife- who certainly had no dowry money left. The poor were so poor in Palestine at the time of Christ that they were selling their land, and many had become landless labourers. They worked for money, with which they bought food. The husband went far and wide searching for work; the Lord's parable pictures labourers waiting around for work. It's been calculated that on the basis of one denarius / day as wage, even if the worker worked 300 days / year, and had four children and a wife plus himself to support, this income would only enable them to buy enough bread to provide 1400 calories / family member / day. This isn't enough to sustain a person's ability to do manual work. Therefore mothers and children faced malnutrition, and the women tried to grow crops on waste land and did anything for money in order to buy bread. The smiling, full cheeked, charming Mediterranean woman with dowry coins around her forehead (beloved of those Sunday School books about Bible background) just wasn't the scene that the Lord had grown up in. The woman who'd lost her coin was searching desperately for it, because that was what she'd buy the kids food with. No coin, no food, whiny, hungry, sick kids. She needed, desperately needed, that coin; so that she could feed the hungry kids whom she loved and be the <em>de facto </em>domestic head which she was. And this is all a picture of God's <em>need</em> for the lost, His <em>need</em> for us, because He knows the feeding which that lost one can uniquely provide to His beloved family. And one wonders of course whether the Lord's parable wasn't drawn from real life incidents in His own childhood with Mary.</p><p>The lighting of the candle is a symbol of our conversion (<em><a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:32'>Heb 10:32</a></em>). Our lamps were lit by the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:32'>Heb 10:32</a></em>) for the purpose of giving light to the house. The Lord lights a lamp in order to search for his lost coin, that weak brother or sister that means as much to him on a deep, indescribably personal level as a woman's dowry money in the Middle East (cp. a wedding ring; <em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>). But the lamp he lights is us. This is yet another example of his parables being intended to fit together. 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). </p>


text:
<p><em>And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbours, saying: Rejoice with me, for I have found the piece which I had lost</em>- We note the Lord carefully balances the gender issue in these parables; the male shepherd is matched by the woman in the lost coin story. Such was His sensitivity to the value of all persons. As noted on :6, her joyful party reflects how all the Angels are aware of one lost soul being found. And the Lord is justifying His eating with sinners on the basis that they were His friends and neighbours. He was and is the sinner's friend. We recall how when the tax collector Matthew was converted, the Lord had a party to celebrate it along with other tax collectors (<em><a href='B:470 9:9-10'>Mat 9:9-10</a></em>). When Cornelius called together His friends and neighbours to hear the Gospel, he was effectively presenting himself as the lost coin which had been found (<em><a href='B:510 10:24'>Act 10:24</a></em> s:w:).</p><p>If we imagine the woman who lost the coin, we sense something of her remorse and desperation as she searches the cracks in the floor for it. It could’ve been part of her dowry- all that she owned for herself, all that was her very own. Not even her body was hers- it was her husband’s, to do what he wished with. But the dowry coins were hers- her very own. If the allusion were to one of these coins, it would speak of how much we mean to the Lord… that I, one of 6 billion, actually mean everything to Him, for whom I am His very own. But the allusion may also be to coins which the peasant women would keep bound up in a rag, close to their body. With this money, the woman would’ve had to feed the family for the next week or so. But… she’d let the rag come loose, and a coin had slipped out. In either case, we are to imagine the woman searching for it with a sense of remorse, taking responsibility that she was accountable for the loss. And this, we are invited to understand, is how the Lord feels for those who are lost. Notice how the woman searches <em>in the house</em>- presumably, she’d not been out of the house since she last had the coin. By filling out this little detail, we perhaps have a picture of how the Lord took responsibility, or felt responsible, for the loss of those ‘within the house’ of Israel. </p>


text:
<p><em>Even so, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repents</em>- The Lord Jesus purposefully inverted the common assumption that the duty of a righteous man was to condemn the sinners. When He said that there is much joy in Heaven over one sinner that repents, the Lord was purposefully inverting the common contemporary Jewish saying that there was much joy in Heaven whenever one sinner is destroyed in judgment. His desire is to seek to save rather than to destroy. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: A certain man had two sons</em>- The man is not that wealthy; for he has only two sons and no other children are mentioned. This heightens the generosity of the father to the younger son, and the tragedy of the waste. The two sons may represent Israel and Judah. </p><p>As with most of the parables, the prodigal has a primary reference to the nation of Israel. The many Old Testament allusions bring this home without doubt. In practice, this means that the intensity of repentance which Israel will eventually manifest should be seen in our contrition at sin. In this lies a real challenge. The following allusions demonstrate that our Lord clearly intended us to make a connection between the prodigal and apostate Israel- and therefore with ourselves:</p><p>- The father falling on the prodigal's neck and kissing him sends the mind back to Joseph weeping on Benjamin's neck (another younger brother), typical of Christ's receiving home of a repentant Israel in the last days. As Joseph commanded his servants "Bring these men home, and slay, and make ready" (<em><a href='B:10 43:16'>Gen 43:16</a></em>), so the father did likewise (:23). Both repentances were celebrated with a meal of fellowship (cp. the breaking of bread). Both the prodigal and the sons humbled themselves to the position of servants. Like the prodigal, Israel were often brought back to their spiritual senses by famine (<em><a href='B:80 1:1'>Rth 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:37'>1Ki 8:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:25'>Luk 4:25</a></em> etc:). His realization that "I perish with hunger" (:17) matches the description of Jacob in Canaan as"A Syrian ready to perish" (<em><a href='B:50 26:5'>Deu 26:5</a></em>), dwelling in a land that was 'perishing through the famine' (<em><a href='B:10 41:36'>Gen 41:36</a></em>). This affliction came upon natural Israel because of their 'murder' of Joseph / Jesus. The prodigal's profligacy is therefore to be seen as the crucifying of Christ afresh by the believer. </p><p>- The prodigal Israel went "into a far country" (<em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>) - a phrase normally used in the Old Testament concerning the Gentile lands of Israel's dispersion (<em><a href='B:50 29:22'>Deu 29:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:41'>1Ki 8:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:46'>1Ki 8:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 20:14'>2Ki 20:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 6:32'>2Ch 6:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 6:36'>2Ch 6:36</a></em>). In passing, the "far country" of <em><a href='B:490 19:12'>Luk 19:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:9'>Luk 20:9</a></em> should also refer to the lands of the Gentiles; <em>this</em> is where Christ has gone (as well as Heaven), and will return to Israel when they desire him to. As with so many of the parables, this one is packed with allusions to the Proverbs. The "far country" recalls <em><a href='B:240 25:25'>Pro 25:25</a></em>: "As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country". Like many Proverbs, this is alluding to the Law- concerning how Israel would return from the "far country" of their dispersion upon their repentance. The sense of refreshment and exhilaration which this gives God should surely motivate us to repent, and also to encourage others to do so. Yet we need to ask whether we feel this same exaltation of spirit as God does "over one sinner that repents". It requires selflessness, and a real desire to see glory given to our Father.</p><p>- Our association of the prodigal with Israel in dispersion is strengthened by the mention that the prodigal "wasted" the Father's riches, the Greek meaning 'to scatter abroad'- suggesting that as Israel had wastefully scattered God's riches in the Gospel, so they too were scattered. Note how the prodigal is pictured as ending up with the pigs- well known symbol of the Gentiles. As the Son's return to the Father was matched by His going out to meet the son, when Israel "return unto the Lord::. then the Lord your God will::. return and gather you from all the nations" (<em><a href='B:50 30:2-3'>Deu 30:2-3</a></em>).</p><p>- The book of Hosea frequently presents prodigal Israel as the one who went astray from God, her loving Father and husband, committing adultery with the surrounding countries, with the result that God cast her off, leaving her to suffer in those very lands whose idols she had worshipped. Her sense of shame and knowledge of God's constant love then brought her to her senses (Hosea 2; <em><a href='B:350 5:11-15'>Hos 5:11-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 6:1'>Hos 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 7:8-10'>Hos 7:8-10</a></em>). There can be little doubt that our Lord had his eye on this symbology when framing the prodigal parable. <em><a href='B:350 2:7-8'>Hos 2:7-8</a></em> is the clearest example: "She shall follow after her lovers::. he shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now. For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold (cp. the father giving the son his substance), which they prepared for Baal". These blessings of corn, wine and oil are referring to the blessings for obedience promised in Deuteronomy 28. The point is being made that these blessings were not immediately and totally removed once Israel started to go astray. This demonstrates how material 'blessings' are not necessarily an indication that we have favour with God. Consuming the Father's substance "with harlots" (:30) is therefore parallel to giving it to idols. The spiritual riches of being in covenant with God, as well as our every material blessing from Him, were frittered away by Israel. God's "hand" worked upon Israel to make them realize the seriousness of their ways (<em><a href='B:350 2:10'>Hos 2:10</a></em>). This fact starts to plumb the depth of God's love- that even with those who have broken His covenant, God's hand is still working to lead them to repentance.</p><p>- <em><a href='B:300 31:18-20'>Jer 31:18-20</a></em> describes how Ephraim moans: "You have chastised me::. turn me, and I shall be turned::. after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed::. I was ashamed::. because I did bear the reproach of my youth. Is Ephraim my dear son?::. since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still::. I will surely have mercy upon him, says the Lord". We must not think from this that God just chose to turn Israel (the prodigal) back to him at a certain moment. It was because God "spake against him", through which the prodigal was "instructed", that he turned back. </p><p>- There is reason to see the family portrayed in the parable as being a priestly family- thus representing prodigal Israel, "a Kingdom of priests". The son did not ask for his share of the inheritance, but&nbsp;of "the portion of goods"- remember that Levites did not own any land. There is surely an echo of the curse on Eli's priestly family in the prodigal parable: "Every one that is left in your house shall come and crouch::. for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray you, into one of the priests offices, that I may eat a piece of bread" (<em><a href='B:90 2:36'>1Sa 2:36</a></em>). The Father had "hired servants", which takes us back to the reference in <em><a href='B:30 22:10'>Lev 22:10</a></em> to the priests having "hired servants" in their household, who would have performed the mundane work for them (cp. the Gibeonites). The prodigal was therefore asking to be admitted back into God's service, resigning all the spiritual superiorities he could have enjoyed through being of the priestly line. Similarly latter day Israel will be willing to be accepted by God as Gentiles, having resigned their trust in their natural lineage. Our attitude on repentance ought to be similar- just wanting to quietly, humbly participate in God's family for the joy of being close to Him. Further indication that the hired servants represent the Gentiles is found in the fact that they had "bread enough" (Gk. 'an abundance of loaves'), connecting with the Gentiles of <em><a href='B:470 14:20'>Mat 14:20</a></em> being "filled" (same word in <em><a href='B:490 15:16'>Luk 15:16</a></em>) with the abundance of loaves created by Christ.</p><p>- The parable of the lost son complements that of the lost sheep earlier in the same chapter. "My people have been lost sheep", "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (<em><a href='B:300 50:6'>Jer 50:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:6'>Mat 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:24'>Mat 15:24</a></em>). A comparison of the parable with <em><a href='B:350 7:9-10'>Hos 7:9-10</a></em> indicates that most of Israel remain as the prodigal in the pig country: "Strangers have devoured his strength (cp. "devoured your substance"), and he knows it not::. they do not return to the Lord their God, nor seek him for all this". The illogicality of Israel remaining in their pathetic spiritual position is so apparent to us from this; yet we of the new Israel can also be crazy enough to go on living out of real fellowship with God.</p><p>The reason for presenting such a catalogue of evidence is to show that prodigal Israel's latter day repentance will be of a similar intensity of repentance to ours in this life. They will mourn and weep with a rare intensity of self-hate and self-knowledge- even as a father for his only son. Do we shed tears on repentance? Do we realize, as they will, how our sins brought about the crucifixion? Do we appreciate that our spiritualindifference and lack of perception means that we, like Israel, "did esteem him stricken", seeing no beauty in him (<em><a href='B:290 53:2-5'>Isa 53:2-5</a></em>) as we march through our lives, unthinking as to the power and beauty of the cross?</p><h4>The younger son is presented as lacking wisdom and being disobedient to the law, as Judah in dispersion. "Whoso loves wisdom rejoices his father: but he that keeps company with harlots spends his substance" (<em><a href='B:240 29:3'>Pro 29:3</a></em>) was clearly in the Lord's mind when constructing this parable. He evidently saw this proverb as applying to the same person in time of sin and repentance. Repenting and loving wisdom are therefore paralleled, showing again that repentance is not just a twinge of conscience, but involves coming to really know God. The prodigal wished to return home so that he could share in the loaves which the servants had "to spare", or (better), "had in abundance". This same word occurs in <em><a href='B:500 6:12'>Joh 6:12</a></em> concerning the bread which "remained", i:e. was in abundance, after the feeding of the five thousand. In that acted parable, the bread represented the abundance of spiritual food which is in the spirit-words of Christ. It was this which the truly repentant sinner earnestly seeks, rather than a mere salving of conscience. "Whoso keeps the law is a wise son: but he that is a companion of riotous men shames his father" (<em><a href='B:240 28:7'>Pro 28:7</a></em>) shows that such genuine repentance and knowing of God's wisdom is effectively reckoned as keeping the letter of the Law. "A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causes shame, and shall have part of the inheritance" (<em><a href='B:240 17:2'>Pro 17:2</a></em>) seems to also connect with our parable; implying that the wise son who was willing to be a servant was ultimately greater than the son who appeared to be technically obedient to the letter of the law. Likewise, the son desiring to be fed with the husks of the pig food may connect with Lazarus desiring to be fed with the crumbs from the rich man's table (<em><a href='B:490 16:21'>Luk 16:21</a></em>). Yet Lazarus is representative of the repentant sinner who is ultimately justified. The degree to which God will so totally impute righteousness to us is indeed hard to come to terms with. But it is faith in this which will be our ultimate salvation. </h4>&nbsp;


